I'm not speaking for Joe or the club, but I just thought I'd give my thoughts Tim. In regard to the Federal Funds, I don't think those can be used by another agency but I may stand corrected by Joe or others. I think the issue is that the Governors office can control the Fish and Wildlife budget approval process, which then ties up those dollars. Then, if those dollars are sitting in a fund, even though they can't be "taken" by the governor or other state agencies, they can be a credit towards a government surplus, which of course makes whomever the sitting governor look good. Taking this one step further though, outside the federal matching funds, I would never put it past the legislature or the possibly any sitting governor making an effort to get to those funds and use them for other purposes. Maybe they can't now, but as we all know, times can change.

My thought on the farming issue is that it is more of a privatization of wildlife issue. Of course, the argument is that these animals are no longer wild if they are farmed and bought commercially. Then the issue comes, and I've had an issue with this for many years, if farm animals must be destroyed due to disease, often the citizen have to pay a replacement fee for those animals. The risk of the prions in dense populations is certainly well stated and it seems that any attempt to policing these operations have been terribly inadequate. When the risk then creates an issue for wildlife, real wildlife, it becomes an even more difficult situation. So for me, it's a privatization issue and many would then say, "well you must be against put and take birds", which I will admit does present a difficult argument unless I say yes I'm against that.

Now, your comment about deer attractants is also a fair comment. For those who say yes (And I am one of those from time to time), then is seems like if one is against the farming issue then they are almost creating a double standard. So, if the country is to allow this type of activity, it seems to suggest that the activity might need to be highly regulated, at a minimum, to protect the wildlife. New Zealand is a good example where I believe they don't allow any import of deer because of the risk of disease. The current environment seems to both the enforcement aspect and the penalty aspect for violations that risk disease spread and the wild resource.

I think your question is fair and not out of line. If we say privatization is ok, then where is the line drawn on other wild species. This is the problem that the DNR and the legislature then faces. To me, it's not just about deer, but about a much bigger picture.