Michigan edges closer to restoring deer baiting, and the outcome could reshape hunting rules across the state

Jack Nissen opened the FOX 2 Detroit segment with a simple headline that hints at a much bigger fight: the Michigan House has advanced a bill that would allow deer baiting again in the Lower Peninsula, and now the question moves to the state Senate.

Nissen framed it as “pretty interesting” news out of Lansing, but the way the conversation unfolded made it clear this isn’t just a technical tweak to hunting regulations.

It’s a clash over disease risk, deer numbers, rural life, and how much power Michigan’s natural resource decision-makers should have when lawmakers decide they’re tired of waiting.

The guest at the center of the debate was State Representative Jennifer Wortz, the bill sponsor, who told Nissen her proposal is “pretty simple” and “pretty straightforward.”

In her telling, the bill is less about changing the culture of hunting and more about restoring a tool she says the Lower Peninsula lost in 2019.

And if the Senate signs on, it could set up a new chapter where deer management is driven more by legislative pressure than slow-moving agency caution.

What The Bill Actually Does

When Nissen asked Wortz to walk viewers through the bill, she didn’t overcomplicate it.

Wortz said her bill would “open it back up” for the Lower Peninsula to legally bait deer again, pointing out that baiting is currently legal in the Upper Peninsula.

She explained the 2019 ban applies to the Lower Peninsula, and her bill essentially reverses that – making baiting legal again during the hunting season window.

Wortz laid out that timeframe in plain terms: those special weekends in September, then bow season starting October 1, and then continuing until deer season wraps up in January.

She described it as a clean, easy-to-understand change, not a maze of exceptions that hunters would need a law degree to interpret.

But even while calling it simple, she also hinted at why it matters: where she lives, she says deer are overabundant, and baiting would be “another… tool in the toolbox.”

Her focus wasn’t just on harvesting deer in general, either. Wortz said she hopes it helps hunters take “particularly more does,” which is a telling phrase because it points directly at herd growth and pressure on communities.

Nissen responded in a way that showed he’s heard the bigger hunting conversation too, noting the DNR has “wrestled quite a bit” with boosting hunter numbers and traffic in the state.

He floated the idea that baiting might be a “helpful step” toward that goal.

Wortz didn’t hesitate to agree, but she also took a subtle jab at the agency pace, telling Nissen the DNR has wrestled with “a lot of different ideas” yet seems “very slow to take action.”

That line matters because it reveals the heart of the political push. This bill isn’t just about baiting. It’s also a critique of the department’s cautious style, and a statement that lawmakers can force movement when they think the system is stuck.

Why Wortz Says Michigan Needs More Hunters

Wortz told Nissen her aim is to “get some movement” and “get some more success for hunters,” and she zeroed in quickly on one group: young hunters.

She said Michigan’s population of hunters is continuing to drop, and so is the age curve – meaning the hunting base is getting older, and the pipeline behind it is thinning.

Her logic was blunt and practical. If you get a young person out for a weekend, she argued, and baiting helps put them in a situation where they can actually harvest a deer, it can “energize” them about hunting.

And if they feel that spark early, she told Nissen, hopefully “we keep them for the long haul.” That’s a very human argument, and it’s hard to ignore because it isn’t really about corn piles or tradition.

It’s about motivation, patience, and whether new hunters get an experience that feels worth repeating.

Nissen added a small dose of humor and honesty when he asked if she hunts herself.

Wortz answered like someone not trying to pretend she’s a woods legend. She told him she has hunted, but it’s not her favorite thing because she doesn’t like being cold and doesn’t like sitting still, calling herself “not a very good hunter.”

She said she has gone out when her sons were younger so they’d have an adult with them in the woods, but described her husband and one of their boys as the more serious hunters.

Nissen jumped in with his own experience, saying he went hunting for the first time the past fall and confirmed it involves lots of sitting or standing and lots of being cold.

Wortz laughed and added the other hard part: being quiet.

That little exchange did something important for the segment. It made the topic less abstract and reminded viewers that hunting policy doesn’t only live in committees – it shows up in real weekends, real weather, and real families trying to pass down a tradition.

The Backstory: Disease, A 2019 Ban, And A “Nuisance Law” Claim

Nissen asked a key question: was this driven by constituents, and where did the idea come from?

Wortz said yes – specifically crediting a former sheriff in one of the counties she represents.

She told Nissen that after she won the election, she asked for recommendations, and the sheriff’s advice was direct: “make deer baiting legal again.”

Then Wortz explained how she sees the 2019 ban, calling it a “nuisance law,” and she tied it back to the reasoning at the time: chronic wasting disease.

According to Wortz, the thought was that if Michigan banned baiting, it might help curtail the spread of CWD.

But she told Nissen she believes the “reality” was more complicated, describing “unique circumstances” that allowed for chronic wasting disease in the first place.

She also said “we know now” CWD is far more common in older bucks, and argued the likelihood of younger deer – especially does – having the disease is “far less likely.”

Her point wasn’t that disease isn’t real. Her point was that the policy response may be too blunt, especially if Michigan’s current problems are being driven by a doe herd that keeps growing.

Wortz painted the consequences in terms that will sound familiar to rural residents.

If they don’t “start doing something” with the doe herd, she warned, communities will continue to be “decimated,” particularly in rural America where she lives.

She also told Nissen she’s heard even cities have an overabundance of deer, suggesting this isn’t just a farm-country complaint.

Then she broadened the argument beyond hunting success and into everyday costs. Wortz said Michigan has “so many car deer accidents” that it increases insurance rates. That’s a smart political framing because it ties the deer issue to people who don’t hunt at all, but still pay for the consequences.

She also said crop damage is a major concern in rural communities, warning that if the state doesn’t act, deer will continue to “decimate crops.”

At that point, she said the mission isn’t about making money.

“This isn’t about revenue,” Wortz told Nissen, saying it’s about saving taxpayer dollars and preventing the state from getting taken for a ride by problems that spill into roads and fields.

The DNR Pushback And The “Guidelines” Compromise

Nissen noted the bill has multiple co-sponsors and asked if the DNR was receptive.

Wortz’s answer was clear: no. She told him the department opposed the bill, and she summarized their argument as concern about disease spread – CWD and other illnesses.

She also mentioned tuberculosis as another concern, and said there are four counties in the northern Lower Peninsula that currently have positive TB cases.

But Wortz didn’t present her bill as a free-for-all. She told Nissen that the bill still allows the Natural Resources Commission to set guidelines, and even leaves room for baiting bans “in places at times” if it’s needed.

She pointed out that to comply with USDA requirements, those four counties with TB could still be excluded from baiting.

So the structure she described is not “bait everywhere, always.”

It’s “baiting restored broadly, with the commission retaining authority to tighten restrictions where disease requires it.”

Wortz argued that Michigan already has “tools in place” to control the risks, and emphasized that decisions would still happen under the commission’s guidance.

But then she returned to the critique that kept bubbling up throughout the interview.

Wortz told Nissen she thinks the department is often opposed to things if there’s “not a way that they’re going to generate revenue out of something.”

She called that “unfortunate,” and her tone suggested she sees this as a moment where public interest should outweigh agency incentives.

That’s the kind of line that can turn a hunting bill into a broader argument about government priorities. And it’s also the kind of line that will irritate people who believe the DNR’s caution is about biology and long-term consequences, not money.

Why This Could Reshape The Rules Beyond Baiting

On paper, Wortz says the bill is straightforward.

In reality, if the Senate takes it up and passes it, it could signal something bigger: that lawmakers are willing to step into wildlife management when they believe the agency is too hesitant.

Nissen hinted at that larger complexity when he talked about how hunting interest is often generational – fathers introducing kids, mothers introducing grandkids, and then the tradition spreads.

He also said it’s “more complicated” than just one change.

That’s an honest statement because even if baiting helps hunters have more success, it doesn’t automatically fix every issue that affects hunting participation, deer numbers, and disease.

Still, Wortz’s argument has a certain blunt appeal. If hunter numbers are dropping, and if overabundant deer are causing crop damage and vehicle collisions, then a policy that increases success – especially doe harvest – sounds like an easy lever to pull.

And it’s hard not to notice her emphasis on youth, because that’s where policy often lives or dies.

If new hunters have frustrating, empty seasons, they don’t build the patience that older hunters sometimes treat as normal.

On the flip side, critics will likely see baiting as changing the hunt itself, and they’ll worry about concentration of deer and the disease risks that were originally used to justify the ban.

Wortz tried to thread that needle by leaning on the Natural Resources Commission’s ability to set limits and carve out counties where disease demands tighter control.

But the politics won’t end with a bill, because once a state opens the door again, every future spike in disease or controversy will be blamed on whichever side “won.”

And Michigan’s split between the Upper and Lower Peninsula rules already shows how regional differences can shape what feels “normal” to hunters.

Wortz is essentially saying: if it can be legal up north, it can be managed down south too – especially with guardrails.

A Bill With A Simple Goal And A Messy Impact

Nissen wrapped the interview by thanking Wortz for her time, and she ended with a line that fit the segment’s vibe: “Let’s go hunt some deer.”

It was light, but it also underscored what she’s pushing—more success, more participation, more harvest, and a different posture from the state when it comes to controlling deer numbers.

My own read, based only on what Wortz and Nissen laid out, is that this bill isn’t just about baiting.

It’s about frustration with slow action, and a belief that ordinary people are paying for deer overpopulation in ways that have nothing to do with a hunting license.

But it’s also a bet. It bets that restoring baiting won’t worsen the disease situation beyond what Michigan can manage, and that the state can keep exceptions and guidelines strong enough to avoid the worst-case outcomes.

If the Senate takes this up, it won’t just be judging a hunting tactic.

It’ll be deciding whether the state wants legislative momentum to lead the way, or whether the agencies that “wrestle” with these issues get the final word – even when lawmakers think the wrestling has gone on too long.