House Bill 345 legalizes hunting wildlife over bait, particularly deer. The legalization of hunting deer over bait is a major threat to the future of hunting in Georgia. There are other bills being considered in the Senate that will also legalize hunting deer over bait. The Georgia Wildlife Federation’s Camo Coalition’s position is opposed to hunting deer over bait. If you would like more detail on the Camo Coalition’s position, read on. 

 

TAKE ACTION - Be sure to contact your state Senator and state Representative ASAP to voice your opinion against hunting deer over bait. The message is simple. Call, email, fax or write to them to say that you are opposed to hunting deer over bait because it is not fair chase and would be poor public policy. Go to our website at Camouflage Coalition Homepage to locate your General Assembly members or call the House Public Information Office at 404-656-5082 or 1-800-282-5800 and Senate Public Information Office at 404-656-0028 or 1-800-282-5803. Just tell the secretary that answers for your House and Senate members that you are opposed to hunting deer over bait and it would be poor public policy to legalize it. We need for you to make these contacts as soon as possible. Please let us know if you do make contact so we can keep a tally of the legislative members that were contacted. This is important and this is how you can make a difference in protecting the tradition of hunting for our children and grandchildren. We must get involved in the political process – opportunities are lost through our apathy and inactivity.  The two calls or contacts will only take five minutes. Isn’t preserving the tradition of  hunting worth five minutes of your time? 

 

 Hunting over bait is a controversial issue among hunters and some of you may disagree with it. Nevertheless there is both a science-based reason and an ethical reason for opposing it. Hunting over bait violates the fair chase standard that all hunters should support. When the non-hunting public determines that hunters are not using fair chase standards, we invariably increase our chances of losing our right to hunt. Issues like hunting over bait, hunting in enclosures and others could ultimately lead to the demise of hunting as we know it because the non-hunting public will make that final decision. For instance, the non-hunting public just made the decision this year to make fox hunting with hounds illegal in England. The tradition of hunting with hounds in England is a centuries-old sport and hunters never thought they would lose their opportunity to hunt with hounds. Yet they did. We have to look at the big picture on this hunting-over-bait issue and the image it projects for all hunting. Remember that licensed hunters only make up four percent of the population of Georgia. The other ninety-six percent are non-hunters.

 

The decision to oppose the legalization of hunting deer over bait is based on scientific studies and surveys that provide the facts needed to make the decision. Please don't be one of those saying “don't confuse the issue with facts”. The anti-hunting groups have a strategy of dividing and conquering. They would like very much for hunters to become divided on this issue. There are many, many misperceptions on the benefits of hunting deer over bait. As you read further you will see that scientific evidence proves that many of these perceptions are totally wrong.  

 

In Georgia it is currently legal to feed wildlife. This is called supplemental feeding. It has benefits as well as some causes for concern. Some of the following scientific studies will discuss those. It is important that we all understand the difference between supplemental feeding and hunting over bait.

 

The law in Georgia allows a hunter to hunt within the vicinity of supplemental feed if the hunter is at least 200 yards away from and not within sight of the feed. This provides guidance that allows feeding while prohibiting hunting over bait. While baiting is practiced to varying degrees among states, in part due to past customs and for specific management purposes, some aspects of baiting are cause for concern.  The practice of baiting deer includes a complex set of implications, which may be detrimental to habitats, deer herds, other species, and recreational hunting.  Important issues include transmission of diseases, shifting of deer movement patterns, impacts on surrounding habitats, impact on hunter success, social issues including ethics and perception, legal and enforcement issues, and economics.

 

The following brief facts were gleaned from a diverse list of research publications, which are listed in the Literature Review.  Some of this literature is available at http://www.gwf.org/camo.htm in downloadable PDF documents for those who care to go more in depth.

 

FACTS ON BAITING

 

Disease

 

1        In Michigan, where bovine TB exists in wild deer, scientists believe that the maintenance of bovine TB in white-tailed deer is directly related to supplemental   feeding/baiting and the increased focal densities these practices create.  Inhalation of bovine TB bacteria or consumption of feed contaminated with the bacteria from deer coughing and exhalation is much more likely to occur.

 

2        Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been observed in free-ranging deer and elk in Colorado and Wyoming.  Evidence suggests infected deer and elk probably transmit the disease through animal-to-animal contact and/or contamination of food or water sources with saliva, urine and/or feces. This disease has not been reported in the Southeast, however, due to its spread in the western U.S., it remains a potential problem.

 

3        A study in Texas revealed that 44% of the deer corn sold for baiting purposes tested positive for excessive levels of aflatoxin, a harmful biological toxin from a fungus which can pose a deadly threat to wildlife, especially avian species (e.g. wild turkeys, quail, and songbirds).

 

4        In 1993, a Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) survey of bait piles in North and South Carolina revealed that over 50% of the bait piles tested contained excessive levels of aflatoxin.

 

5        In Georgia in 1997, samples were taken from corn sold as wildlife feed and analyzed for aflatoxins.  Ten (10%) of the samples tested positive for aflatoxins.

 

6        Other diseases of concern in North America are anthrax, blackleg, brucellosis, hemorrhagic disease, vesicular stomatitis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, demodectic mange, tularemia, anaplasmosis and brainworm.

 

7        Although it is difficult to attribute the spread of disease to deer density alone, it is true that some disease problems occur more commonly in areas of high density such as would occur around baited areas.

 

8        Animals are attracted to artificial feed in higher densities than would otherwise naturally occur. This attraction to such feed results in more frequent contact among individuals, thereby facilitating the opportunity for disease transmission among individuals.

 

9        Ruminants, such as deer, that are exposed to concentrated grain diet (e.g. corn) can suffer from grain overload or lactic acidosis.  Lactic acidosis can kill them.  In Saskatchewan from 1995-2001, 50% of deer submitted each year to the Canadian Wildlife Health Centre were diagnosed as dying from grain overload.  Given the small likelihood of finding wild deer that are either dying or recently died from grain overload, it is likely that a number of wild deer that succumb to this disease go undetected.

 

10    In Maine, white-tailed deer at feeding stations have suffered from outbreaks of demodectic mange caused by the spread of mites while at feeding stations.

 

Deer Movement Patterns

 

Another behavioral change in deer frequently attributed to deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity.

 

1        A Mississippi study noted that 90% of bucks’ use of bait stations was during non-legal shooting hours.  Over 84% of total use occurred during the hours of darkness.

2        Normal diurnal: nocturnal movement ratios averaged 2.22 for bucks and 2.03 for does in a Georgia study.

3        A Texas study of baited and non-baited stands showed that deer use of baited stands became more nocturnal as the hunting season progressed.

4        A Michigan study documented that most feeding at bait stations occurred at night and daytime feeding was non-existent.

 

Habitat and Ecological Impacts

 

Deer baiting affects surrounding habitats and can cause ecological damage that affects a wide variety of wildlife dependent on those habitats.

 

1        In Michigan, changes in tree species composition, retarded forest regeneration, and delayed development of stands have resulted from the increased density of deer near bait stations because the deer continue to feed on natural browse.

 

2        In Wyoming, moose suffered a reduction in the carrying capacity of their habitat because elk maintained on artificial feed had reduced the amount of willow trees in the area.

 

3        A study investigated the effects on the structure of an eastern deciduous forest from 27 years of artificial feeding of ungulates, including deer.  Populations of deer, elk and sheep were maintained at higher densities in feeding areas than in areas where feeding did not occur.  In the areas where feeding occurred, understory vegetation was decreased, little ground cover existed and forest regeneration was hampered.  Ground nesting birds, including wild turkeys were less abundant in the feeding areas.

 

4         Providing supplemental feed or bait may negatively impact populations of wild turkeys and other ground nesting birds by concentrating potential nest predators, such as raccoons and opossums, near feeders.  Consequently the population of predators near the feeding sites increases.

 

5        Concentrating deer near bait sites causes overbrowsing of beneficial, high-quality native plant species and increases the presence of less desirable, low-quality plant species within the vicinity (< 1 mile radius) of bait sites.

 

Baiting and Hunter Success

 

1        A 1999 Michigan phone survey revealed 44% of deer hunters were successful using bait while 52% were successful without bait.

 

2        A 1984 Michigan survey found hunters using bait were no more effective in harvesting deer (2.4 deer per 100 hunter days) than those who did not use bait (2.2 deer per 100 hunter days).

 

3        A 1993 Wisconsin survey showed that hunting with bait does not increase a hunter’s success rate.  In the survey, 50% of hunters who used bait during the 1992 gun hunts bagged a deer while 54% not using bait bagged a deer.

 

4        In a Texas study, 77% of bucks harvested from baited stands were yearlings. Most deer harvested at bait sites are yearlings; older, mature bucks are less likely to be seen near bait sites during the daylight hours.

 

5        In South Carolina, hunters in the low country, where baiting occurs, are less successful than hunters in the upstate, where baiting is illegal.  Hunters in the upstate harvested 15.4 deer per square mile whereas hunters in the low country harvested 11.0 deer per square mile, though hunters in the low country average 30% more time afield.

 

Social, Ethics, Perception Issues

 

1        A 2004 survey of Georgia residents, landowners and hunters showed opposition to legalizing the hunting of deer over bait among all groups.  Among the general population 59% opposed baiting and 29% supported.  Among landowners, 54% opposed baiting and 34% supported baiting.  Among hunters, 49% opposed baiting and 45% supported.

 

2        A 2003 survey of Georgia hunters revealed that 53% opposed baiting and 40% supported it.

 

3        The 2001 Georgia Poll revealed that 72% of Georgians opposed baiting and 19% supported baiting.

 

4        A basis for opposition to baiting seems to be one of ethical judgment.  Survey respondents opposed to baiting believed that baiting was unethical or that baiting threatened to decrease the quality of deer hunting in Michigan.

 

5        Fair chase is an ethical concern.  Fair chase is a set of hunting conditions in which the individual judges the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter.  Fair chase issues draw non-hunters attention to the baiting controversy.  Non-hunters’ perceptions of “unsporting” behaviors can also create a poor image of those who participate in or allow such practices, and thus erode the credibility of the agency and its hunting constituents.

 

6        In a 1994 telephone survey of random households, if respondents opposed to all hunting (12%) were dropped from analysis, 58% of non-hunters found deer hunting with bait to be unacceptable.  Baiting could cause a backlash on hunting.

 

7        In areas dominated by small land ownerships, baiting impacts surrounding landowners and hunting clubs by changing deer movements.  Baiting would become an issue of “self-defense” across much of the deer range with adjoining clubs attempting to “hold deer on our property”. Baiting on public lands is definitely detrimental since it creates real hunter conflict problems.

 

Legal and Enforcement Issues

 

1        Nationally, hunting deer over bait is currently illegal in 30 states.

 

2        In the southeast, baiting is legal in Florida, North Carolina, and the low country of South Carolina (actually not even addressed in the low country).  Whereas, it is illegal in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

 

3        Use of bait may facilitate illegal activities such as shooting deer at night over bait or shooting turkeys out of season.  The nocturnal movements associated with baiting enhance the likelihood of late shooting or even the establishment of lighted bait sites.

 

Public Safety

 

1        Deer baiting sites located near well-traveled roadways may increase deer-vehicle collisions.

 

2        In South Carolina, deer vehicle collisions are 9% greater in the low country, where baiting occurs, than in the upstate where baiting is illegal, despite the fact that human population densities in the low country are 31% less than human population densities in the upstate.

 

3        Deer conditioned to human food sources can lose their wariness of people.

 

 

In summary, the overriding issue may be the opinions of non-hunters, not hunters or biologists.  The consistent opinion of Georgians toward hunting deer over bait is opposition to this activity.  The practice of baiting lends ammunition to anti-hunting groups.  Animal rights activists claim that hunters are only interested in the kill and baiting provides credibility to that statement.  Despite the overwhelming perception, there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.  Baiting provides a concentrated source of food, thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest, which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather.  High carbohydrate foods used as bait are known to have harmful effects on deer health under certain circumstances due to lactic acidosis, which also contributes to reduced deer activity.  As browser, white-tailed deer cannot readily digest grain and hay as well as parts of forbs, shrubs, and trees.  The cumulative effects of baiting (and feeding) deer can change natural deer productivity and survival rates to unmanageable levels. Deer baiting is not as innocuous as some claim. Deer baiting affects the hunting experiences of all hunters, and is increasingly disruptive to hunters who choose not to bait.  Based on other states experiences, legalizing hunting deer over bait in Georgia would result in less deer sightings and a reduction in the deer harvest. It would also increase conflicts among hunters, increase the spread of diseases and have a negative impact on the public perception of hunting.  

 

 

 

PARTIAL LITERATURE REVIEW

 

Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre.  2003.  A Comprehensive Review of the Ecological and Human Social Effects of Artificial Feeding and Baiting of Wildlife.

 

Eve, J.H.  198l.  Management implications of disease.  Pages 413-423 in W.R. Davidson, ed. Diseases and parasites of white-tailed deer.  Tall Timbers Res. Sta.  Tallahassee, FL.

 458pp.

 

Hurley, S.S. 1995.  Disease transmission.  Pages 110-111 in W.J. Vander Zouwen and D.K. Warnke, eds.  Wisconsin deer population goals and harvest management environmental assessment.   Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources.  327pp.

 

Jacobson, H.A. and D.A. Darrow.  1992.  Effects of baiting on deer movements and activity.  p. 23-24.  In: The 15^th Annual Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting.  Annapolis, MD.  59pp.

 

Kammermeyer, K.E. and R.L. Marchinton: 1977.  Seasonal Change in Cricadian activity of radio monitored deer.  J. Wildl. Manage. 4l(2): 315-317.

 

Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources.  1993.   Deer and bear baiting: biological issues.  DNR unpublished report.  17pp.

 

Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources.  1999.  Deer baiting issues in Michigan.  MI DNR Wildlife Division Issue Review.  Paper 5.  P-R Proj. 2-127-R.  10pp.

 

Miller, M.W., M.A. Wild, and E.S. Williams.  1998.  Epidemiology of chronic wasting disease in captive rocky mountain elk.  J. Wildl. Diseases.  34(3):532-538.

 

Minnis, D.L., and R.B. Peyton.  1994.  1993 Michigan deer hunter survey: Deer Baiting, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report W-127R.  Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.  60pp.

 

Peyton, R.B. 1998a.  Defining management issues: dogs, hunting and society.  Trans. N.Am.  Wild.  and Natur. Resour. Conf.  63:544-555.

 

Peyton, R.B. and L.D. Grise.  1995.  A 1994 survey of Michigan public attitudes regarding bear management issues.  Report to Wildlife Division, Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.  84pp.+append.

 

Schweitzer, Sarah H, et al.  2001.  Aflatoxin levels in Corn available as Wild Turkey Feed in Georgia.  J. Wildl. Diseases.  37(3):637-639.

 

Schmitt, S.M., S.D. Fitzgerald, T.M. Cooley, C.S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D.Berry, T. Carlson, R.B. Minnus, J.B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie.  1997.  Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan J. Wildl. Diseases.  33(4):749-758.

 

Synatzske,D.R.  1981.  Effects of baiting on white-tailed deer hunting success.  Job 37 W-109 R4.  Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Austin, TX.  18pp.

 

Wegner, R.  1993.  To bait or not to bait: the debate roars on.  Deer and Deer Hunting.   Vol. 16, Issue 6: pp. 24-31.

 

Williams, E.S., and S. Young.  1980.  Chronic wasting disease of captive mule deer:  spongiform encephalopathy.  J. Wildl. Diseases.  16:89-98.

 

Wisconsin Bureau of Wildlife Management.  1993.  Deer Baiting in Wisconsin: a survey of Wisconsin deerhunters.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wildlife Management.  22pp.