Jump to navigation
HuntfishND you just posted exactly what I was going to the deer all yarded up guess we better ban baiting and then allow snowmobiles to chase deer away from each other to stop the spread of diease. In my opionion hunt the way you want to over bait or not! If it ain't broke don't fix it.
solocam, good wording except I don't want the word mineral and salt in there. Mineral sights are great for the fawns and antler devolopment. They will use these mostly in the spring time and not much in the summer and fall or winter. What are they gonna say about the natural mineral sights out there or ones that have been started years before. I know I have a couple and from trailcams and such they get hit hard early in spring during fawn growth and once again antler devolpement. Will this be legal even though I started it in years where no baiting discussion was talked about?
Hey, did you guys know that Wisconsin (the so called disease state of the nation) actually allows both baiting and feeding. Take a look if you don't believe me: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/Deer08regs35-43.pdf
Wisconsin also has bait limits. Again, take a look at the pdf I pasted above. Pretty striking isn't it.
Here's Minnesota's regulations:
Hunting Method Restrictions
Bait or Feed • “Bait or feed” is grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer and that has been placed by a person.
• Hunters are not allowed to use or hunt over bait or feed or hunt in the vicinity of bait or feed if the hunter knows about or has reason to know about the placement of the bait or feed.
• A person otherwise in compliance with this section who is hunting on private or public property that is adjacent to the property where bait or feed is present is not in violation if the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to baiting or feeding wildlife on the adjacent property.
• An area is considered baited for 10 days after complete removal of the bait or feed.
• Liquid scents, salt, minerals, and bird feeders containing grains or nuts that are at least 6 feet above the ground are not considered bait or feed.
• This restriction does not apply to foods resulting from normal or accepted farming, forest management, wildlife food plantings, orchard management, or similar land management activities.
This is my bill:
Section 1For the purposes of this bill we are defining “baiting” as: the placement and or use of bait(s) for attracting big game and other wildlife to a specific location for the purpose of hunting. “Feeding” is the placement of food for deer, other big game animals and other wildlife in a specific location for any purpose (e.g., emergency or supplemental food sources, photographing or viewing, taming, providing nutritional supplements). Baits and feeds include but are not limited to grains, minerals, salts, fruits, vegetables, hay or any other natural or manufactured foods. This designation does not apply to the use of scents and lures, water, standing crops, or livestock feeds being used in standard farming practices.
Section 2It is unlawful for an individual to engage in the artificial feeding of big game or other wildlife for the sole purpose of hunting. Artificial includes grain, seed, mineral, salt, fruit, vegetable, nut, hay, or any other natural or manufactured food placed in a given random area. As used in this section, baiting does not include agricultural practices; gardens; wildlife food plots; agricultural crops; livestock feeds; fruit or vegetables in their natural location, such as apples on or under an apple tree; or unharvested food or vegetables in a garden. An individual who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a class A misdemeanor for a subsequent offense.
Section 3It is unlawful for an individual to engage in the artificial feeding of big game or other wildlife for the sole purpose of attracting, viewing or congregating wildlife for reasons similar but not limited to section 1. Artificial includes grain, seed, mineral, salt, fruit, vegetable, nut, hay, or any other natural or manufactured food placed in a given random area. As used in this section, feeding does not include agricultural practices; wildlife food plots; agricultural crops; livestock feeds; fruit or vegetables in their natural location, such as apples on or under an apple tree; or unharvested food or vegetables in a garden. Liquid scents, salt, minerals, and bird feeders containing grains or nuts that are at least 6 feet above the ground are not considered bait or feed. Wildlife management activities must be held according to this section and done so only under the direction of the department. An individual who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a class A misdemeanor for a subsequent offense.
What did I miss?
If we ban baiting and or feeding, aren't we in essence forcing deer to congregate near livestock therefore increasing the risk of disease transmission?
That's actually exactly what I was thinking. I don't really have a strong opinion on baiting except that it does seem a little hypocritical. Just last weekend I was driving on the interstate and saw two dozen deer all huddled up in a little field together. I often see deer mixed in with cattle, munching on haybales or whatever feed is thrown out there for them. When it gets cold and food is scarce like this winter, they'll congregate even more around these cattle troughs, won't they? At least if it's near their bedding area or normal feeding area? So, if this bill is meant to prevent disease, don't these situations just go against any of those efforts?
Just a few thoughts I had.
I agree with most of what you have said. I say "most" because you dispute the ethical aspect of the issue. The simple fact is that hunting is one of our traditions that is always under attack at some level. More importantly, the non-hunting public has just as much right to their opinions and input as we do. If you haven't done any research lately, there are a lot more of them than there are of us.
Put simply, the picture of a hunter shooting a deer, bear or other animal that has its nose stuck in a bucket or pile of food that has been placed there for the express purpose of luring the animal is repulsive to virtually 100% of the non-hunting public and a significant portion of the hunters. There is no way to deter that reaction with explanations.
Add the fact that nobody can say for sure what the disease aspects are and you have a difficult defense at best.
I've hunted bear over bait. Actually it is the only way to hunt them where I hunted. I didn't find it "unsporting". I doubt that I would be able to convince a baiting opponent of that though.
Me being the sentimental girl I am, how is feeding wildlife any different/better than "baiting" them. I mean, if it's about disease, why would it be okay for me to go throw a pile of corn out in a field because I feel bad for Bambi and Feline because there is so much snow and I'm afraid they can't eat? It's bringing them into close contact just like a bait pile. The only difference is I'm not standing over them with a bow aimed at them.
I've seen my hanging bird feeders whip around in the wind. When this happens guess what they deposit on the ground and what subsequently cleans up the deposits?
Interesting concept HUNT and Tetta. So we need Tim to write a Section 4 that requires ranchers to designated high fence feed lot areas so we fully reduce the interaction between cattle and deer. Those ranchers ain't gonna like that section and I don't blame them. But they have to remember, it is in the name of reducing disease spread.
Tim, I think you covered it, but wouldn't it be easier to say (in legalese) that it is illegal to place an edible material(break it down if needed) out in the field from 10 days before deer hunting season to 10 days after deer hunting season. This would eliminate baiting and cover most of the game species vulnerable to baiting, but allow food plots and supplemental feeding. Just a thought.
BAW, yeah, see, it'll just get more complicated so all of a sudden we're putting up high fences or, like another person brought up, riding snowmobiles around to go around and break up herds of wildlife.
And I was wrong. as the bill is written it would be illegal for me to feed Bambi and Feline because I feel bad for them, but I guess I could still feed Thumper and his forest critter friends because I feel bad for them, too. The only thing is they eat the same thing as deer, so here we are again, full circle with deer swapping spit in a pile of food.
What's the difference if the deer has it's face in a corn pile or a waterhole? or a mock scrape? or a scent lure? or a standing food plot?
It's still being attracted to an area for hunting purposes right? Unless your willing to give up ALL attractants, which would pretty much stop hunting entirely, I don't think we want to go down this road.
I watched the Ultimate Outdoor Adventure show a couple Sunday mornings ago where they were on an antelope hunt in Montana.
They sat in blinds overlooking water holes. An antelope waded out into the water, stuck his nose into the water and Kurt stuck him right in the spine (it was a perfect shot until the antelope ducked the string). The antelope dropped into the water and proceeded to kick wildly before quickly dying. Now am I to believe the public is going to perceive that as ethical when comparing it to a deer eating on a corn cob? Furthermore, how many TV shows do we see deer being taken while they are munching on a clover plot? There is no difference, at least I can't talk myself into thinking there is.
No that won't work. The bill is drafted with intent to stop disease spread. We cannot allow feeding of any wildlife...period.
As long as food/bait plots are just fine and dandy than I guess I'll be fine with it. All you real hunters take your big expensive tractors and seeders out there and put in all those bait plots to hunt over. I use a simpler way to seed my corn, no bait piles for us! I can't stand those darn baiters either!
Tim and HUNT,
The differences in practicality are rather small. The differences in perception are much bigger. Animals have been hunted at water holes since the beginning of time. I'd probably even say that man has baited as a means to success for centuries. None of that will sway the opponents. I'm actually not one of those opponents but I see the end in sight for baiting.
Tim's comment about the outdoor show hits home. I watch a bunch of these on the weekends. Some of them are getting pretty close to the edge. I think we can be thankful that most of the public does not watch them or we might find ourselves hunting with a camera and not a bow or gun.
It's all about drawing lines and where we draw them. There were a lot of people (hunters included) that were upset when that guy from Montgomery Gentry shot the bear in the cage. Why? If you don't oppose high fence hunting, why is that different? Maybe it is the size of the enclosure.
Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that you can't tell the difference between a bait pile and a food plot. Olafson is a sponsor of the bill because he comes from an area where some of the bait piles are truckloads of beets. There's a huge difference between shooting a deer feeding on a beet pile and one browsing in a corn field. Except for the PETA types, most people accept one and most think the other is just sick.
In the end though, the people will decide. They know what is objectionable to them when they see it or have it described. Just as this discussion came up last year, it will keep coming up. That's why I don't think there is a future for baiting big game in North Dakota.
Like we stated above, if the sole reason for this bill is controlling the threat of disease, you must eliminate the artificial feeding of wildlife period. Anything that brings deer into close proximity with the possibility of saliva sharing must be eliminated. Hence hay bales or any other artificial food listed above. This needs to be a cut and dry case.
"When we step into the outdoors, we have the privilege of standing in the presence of God through the power and majesty of His creation. That makes hunting more than a sport or a hobby. It's a calling to something greater. And that transforms the places that we stand into something more than a cropfield or a pasture or a mountain. It makes that place Hallowed Ground."
If that's the case, then there won't be a future for hunting in ND at all.
First it will be baiting with food, what's next? Anti's don't like deer shot over mock scrapes or scent lures, we'll have to ban them.
Face it, anti's don't like hunting period. They will not stop trying to ban all hunting just because we give up baiting.
Like you said, hunters have been luring in game with food for eons. Why should we stop the practice now?
I'm sorry, meant to say big game. Don't want those bird feederers getting upset.
Why must you always take the extreme? I'm not talking about PETA types.
The anti's will always be opposed. As with most issues, it is the people "in the middle" that will ultimately decide. I'm not trying to convince you that baiting is bad. I personally don't have a problem with baiting. I am, however, a realist.
Therefore, what I am telling you is that the average person who does not have a hunting background is repulsed by pictures or descriptions of animals being shot with their nose in a bait bucket. Those same people will absolutely not be as upset by you luring an animal with scent or shooting it at a water hole. They see baiting as being unfair and the others as the hunter being resourceful. Ultimately it is those people who will decide the issue.
I think you invented a very important term with "bait plot." That is exactly what food plots are if they are used in the purpose of hunting. Totally changes the ethics debate in my opinion.
There isn't a difference in the harvest of that animal. Whether he was lured into a water hole, a bait plot or a bait pile doesn't matter. The deer was purposely attracted to that area to allow the hunter to harvest it.
Now if we want to start talking about the size of bait piles I am all for it. I think it's ridiculous people throw out truck loads. That is a definite example of someone being able to "hoard" wildlife. Olafson has all the right to say that but he doesn't have the right to ignore that a food plot is superior to any bait pile. Deer don't like being anywhere they don't feel comfortable. A food plot supplies them that comfort zone all the while providing a food source. I seriously have a hard time with how folks don't accept food plots as being superior. Habitat is king. Bait piles are not habitat and never can or will be. I'm sorry if that insults your intelligence and I surely don't mean to do so. I just can't let you spin the subject. I see it no different in how the animal is attracted to its fate. I will agree that there is a difference in a food plot versus a bait pile. I have listed why I believe there is a difference just above the last couple sentences: food plots are superior to bait piles.
I see I allowed myself to get cornered with the water hole comment (although, I disagree that old timers didn't use bait or other tools to attract game closer to them). Anyway, let me change water hole to bait plot. When I was a kid and my brother and I were back home all the time Dad would either leave a run of standing crop or plant a corn plot on the upper end of a common bedding finger. That thing was a deer magnet especially when other crops began to be harvested. In my opinion, the animals we killed off that bait plot were no different than the buck I shot over bait. I used both those food sources to try and gain an advantage. That Farnorth is why I feel there is no difference. Call a bucket of durum a bait pile but if we are going to be fair we must call a food plot a bait plot.
Now in moving to your conversation on TV shows. Again, it appears I was cornered because that was all that was left to do. I put forth what I feel is a very good example especially when I added the addition of shooting a deer consuming a corn cob that had been thrown out the back of a combine or a deer grazing on a bait plot purposely planted to attract them. If someone outside the hunting world takes that as an unethical form of hunting and we cater to his or her feelings we are opening a very dangerous door. Like you said, someone who take offense to me shooting a deer out of a corn plot I would consider them the PETA type. They must not be ignored but like terrorists, they must not be negotiated with either. The next thing we know is we'll be forced to hunt no closer than 300 yards from a water hole or food plot because it is deemed unethical. We have to take a stand.
Getting back to Olafson, I have all his emails to me saved. Believe me, his belief on the bait ban is about disease, hoarding of a public resource and the safety for ranchers. I think his bill does not even come close to addressing a single issue. Perhaps they will do what is necessary. If something is drafted more similar to my quick bill write I will be able to support it.
The method in which an animal is attracted to its fate is exactly where the issue is going to be decided. Once again, remember that it won't be only hunters making this decision. Perception is going to be the key and baiting is not perceived to be fair.
Hunters, since the beginning of time have used waterholes and bait to gain an advantage. Heck, there was a time that they herded them over cliffs. You will find that is illegal today. The grain bucket might be tomorrow.
As for the hunting shows, I'm not saying we should cater to anybody. Just understand that some of the stuff these clowns show on TV also opens some dangerous doors. I'm not talking about some of the vanilla stuff. There are some shows on Pursuit Channel especially on weekends that are very very graphic and in poor taste.
Don't make me defend Olafson. I just used him as an example because he was a sponsor and I sensed I was talking to a bunch of West River hunters who have no idea what is going on in this part of the state.
I can't think of a single instance when a rancher in my area spent money digging a water hole for the express purpose of attracting wildlife-if he did then he is desperate. I can, however, think of many occasions where hunters purposely hunt in geographic areas where wildlife congregate, such as timber, crp, sloughs and around water holes. There is no shame in capitalizing on the natural landscape. What other choices do you have? That is the difference in harvesting the game one way versus the other.
Same old BS from the master baiter crowd. First and foremost Tim, hunting over bait or baiting of deer is prohibited in the CWD zones in WI. Other parts of the state bait pile size is restricted. I hunt each fall with guys from the WI DNR and enforcement is much simpler and easier in the No Bait areas which is exactly what I said.
To the others who make such childish statements concerning deer yarding, take the time and look at the studies done in WI and MN in the north woods area where deer yards are the same each and every year. During heavy snow cover periods the deer use the same trails every day seeking food. Saliva and body waste liter the area. During tough times where food is limited to the trails the deer come in contact with wet moist areas that harbor the disease at a rate 10 times more often than in a year where snow is light and deer can spread around.
Now apply that information to what happens at bait piles vs food plots or for that matter harvested or unharvested crops like corn. The contact with affected areas where disease can spread is greatly reduced. Not eliminated but reduced.
I have an ethics issue with this, just like Tim does with driving a section line that is tilled up.I have made no bones about this. Nor do I back away from that position. But the fact remains this issue is not going to hinge on ethics in the Leg, it is going to hinge on disease and things that can be done to reduce the risks and all of you who make outlandish statements that many seem to continue to make are just going to enhance and validate the science vs emotion.
Three of the Sen and five of the Reps I have received email back on do not hunt and really are to say the least very uninterested in spending much time on outdoor issues. Yet each one of them represent cattlemen from small operations with just a few cows to large operations that actually finish out cattle for market.
They all have been contacted by people from their districts that have a vested economic interest in keeping ND cattle herd TB free and are urging support for a total ban on bait piles for deer hunting purposes.
If the message has gotten out to the constituents in this regard and the risk that allowing baiting to continue poses my guess is that this is a done deal just what will the wording look like!!!!!
In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!
I could make the argument that banning
"I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegetarian."
If you want to ban the so called "hunting shows" I'm all for it! I haven't seen one in quite few years. I think most of them are garbage.
Have you ever hunted over a mock scrape? How about put out fake scent to attract deer to a specific location? How is that different from baiting with a food source?
Do you really want to talk about Federal Sharpshooters?
Fact. In NE North Dakota there is a very large concentration of deer.
Fact. Baiting is perceived as a disease risk by increasing the concentration of these deer.
Fact. Just across the river in NW Minnesota there is a documented problem with TB. Cattle herds have been destroyed. Plans are in place to ERADICATE the deer population.
That is a huge part of what is driving this.