Jump to navigation
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.
"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."
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.
No mock scrapes for me. Natural buck with stinky urine scrapes, yes. No artificial scent besides occasionally what I might spray on my boots to mask some scent. None of this relates to a deers most basic need of food. I prefer to hunt deer rather than fool them.
kjs, you can make the argument,but unlike those who argue that disease spreads quicker through baiting you would be making it without any scientific evidence to back your claim!!!!!
When cattlemen see an increase in cost of production of $25.00 or more per head plus their labor and a reduction in market value for their cattle who is going to win this argument?
The guy that wants to continue shooting deer over bait or the rancher who is going to be hit financially? That is the facts being given to the Leg on this issue. Farnorth listed the only testimony that really will matter.
Politicians are survivalist by nature and this is going to be a no brainier, unlike last time this issue came up, the supporters of the ban did not have the cattlemen on their side, they do this time.
Hey I could be wrong, but I do not think I am!
I think this proposed ban has more to do with an ethics fight and little to do with disease fears. Who cares, I just hope it goes away after this session one way or the other.
Obviously I don't want it to come to sharpshooters.
I was just making the point that I think the biggest threat to deer and the spreading of disease comes from overpopulation and banning baiting won't help with this problem and IMHO will increase the deer population and may lead to increased disease, rather than decrease.
But what do I know - I think I've been wrong a time or two before. Guess I'll manage to get by somehow regardless of how this turns out.
Our hunting heritage is important. We are protected in ND by a constitutional amendment. That offers some protection but some things can be restricted.
As for the hunting shows, I'm not suggesting banning them. You really should take a look at what is going on out there because there is some stuff that would really not be something that we want the general public to view regularly. Fortunately, for us,they don't.
As for your question to shed, I already posted why I think it is different. It comes down to general perception. The animal is just as dead but baiting is seen as unfair but mock scrapes, and scents are perceived as hunters using their wits and cunning. It may seem like a small difference but it's not.
I can take you out to a 20 acre food/bait plot of sunflowers and show you around 250-300 deer right now. They've been in it for weeks peeing, crapping, bedding, licking each other.
I've never seen anything even remotely like it, surely if there ever was going to be disease to be spread this would be the place! This is a place that the new out of state hunting land leeches have locked up tight not allowing anyone access to hunt, you know practicing QDM that they learned on tv I guess.
So what do we do about this situation?? These animals never leave it, that can't be healthy for the herd.
MN has a ban on baiting, how has this helped the situation over there? From what I have heard it hasn't. I am all for restrictions, but an all out ban is not the answer IMO. GNF is blowing smoke when they say that bait pile size would be harder to enforce.
I agree with you that alot of those shows are getting out of hand. That's the main reason I stopped watching them. I think if more people would stop watching them, they would change their format.
Has the baiting ban in WI helped them any? I don't think so. Tell me one thing, how is hunting near an apple tree any different from hunting near another tree where I dumped a bucket of apples? Do you really think the deer know the difference between an apple tree and a cottonwood?
Hardwaterman--I as stated above do not care if they ban baiting or not but they must do so on the lines of preventing disease IMO. Unfortunately, in seeing some of Olafson comments, this is not completely the case. He uses the disease issue but also the fact that people that bait are "hoarding" wildlife which are some of the comments he has heard. The issue here is the wording of the bill as it states. We as a hunting community can help make sure if passed, that it is fair to all those involved.
I didn't know deer respected the CWD "no travel zone." So it's safe to say those deer do not walk across the county line?
Anyway, I told you above that lets cut to the chase and build the bill for the reason of disease. What I am angered about is how ethics was used. Heck, it is the point that Olafson wanted to allow the feeding of wildlife. Even you have to admit that leaving something so key like that is very hypocritical and not stepping up to the issue at hand.
I will support the bill if they take all the "reasonable" steps. I am not going to support the idea of "Section 4" but I will say in a very suggestive manner that it does make a great point.
Oh and HW, I some how wrongly insulted Farnorth and I apologized or at least explained I did not mean it that way. I ask the same from you in lumping me into a master baiter crowd. You have no idea how I hunt. Apparently, you don't realize I am supporting a ban on bait either (again, only if feeding of wildlife is included). My only agenda here was to let it be known that those believing a bait ban is going to make them feel ethically cleansed and the ban will alleviate the so called bait wars and wildlife hoarding are grossly mistaken.
After reading the rest of your post maybe the folks who drafted and support this bill should consider a "Section 4." It's plain silly to think that removing bait piles from the state landscape is going to save their cattle from getting TB. Heck, it already happened down in the southwest portion of the state. Like I said, there is much more concern over an infected cow getting in contact with a deer and vice versa. The "meeting" place won't be a bait pile if my gut feeling on this bills passing comes true. Perhaps then I can say, "I told you so."
There is hidden agendas in this bill's birth and you know it. But I chose to let that slide but ONLY if they start doing the right things.
My thoughts on the
I think one thing is a reality. There are locations in the state where deer cannot be patterned. The locations in the central part of the state with a slough over every hill, 1,000s of acres of CRP and - most importantly - lower that average deer numbers.
I think those are the real losers if baiting is not allowed. I am not advocating baiting just stating a fact.
Whitesmoke, Im all for people hunting how you describe, kudos to you. But, should people be forced to do it? What does it hurt if someone has a family, full time job (or two these days) and wants to get some deer meat without putting in a ton of time sitting in a stand? Baiting wont, in almost all cases, land an inexperienced hunter a trophy buck, but it may make it easier for them to stick an extra doe or two. Is that so bad?
The disease card the G&F is playing is completely theoretical and from what I have found, has no 'science' to back it up. It is OPINION without facts or research.
Here is a GREAT idea! Lets pass a law to ban something which MIGHT help prevent something which DOESN'T EXIST (in our deer population) to begin with.
I totally agree. It's like what Farnorth said, there is only one way to really hunt bears in some places. Same is true with bow hunting whitetails in ND. The reality will be hunters probably quiting hunting because the land they hunt is less than feasible or will require even more time to pattern deer. Another reality is the places that are prime for bow hunting will be hit harder as an influx of hunters go looking for more feasible land.
Opps, meant that first line to go to Jacksonz, sorry whitesmoke...
What type of land do you hunt? Private, public? Is it prime for bow hunting? Well, I can go as far as saying try hunting harder land once.
But I won't be like that. I was going to argue with you on the food plot versus bait pile concept but it's obvious some folks refuse to admit it. There is nothing more efficient for wildlife especially when incorporated with existing habitat. Just ask the NDGF.
It kind of reminds me of my first muzzleloader tag. I knew a food plot was standing along the lake shore. I had never been there specifically to hunt and surely wasn't there to do any scouting. I decided to go down there and sit on the food plot. I had 26 deer come and go that evening and I took a shot at a decent buck but some how missed. Buck fever combined with a muzzleloader I guess. But by definition, I guess I was lazy because I didn't put in thousands of hours of scout time. Nevermind the fact I simply used my head and simply went to a food source to hunt. When I get my next muzzleloader tag I will check to see if it has a food plot.
Okay, I will quit with the food plot thing. If it isn't clear that's fine. That means I can assume those who disagree with me won't be hunting over a food plot and creating competition for me. That I will enjoy.
You really didn't insult my intelligence. Actually some of the early discussion did and I forgot that my post started out directed at you. No apology was really necessary.
This is such an emotional subject for a lot of people. I don't have strong opinions on the overall topic but I do think we need to focus the discussion at times without getting too extreme.
HUNTNFISH had a good question. Minnesota bans baiting for deer. It didn't stop them from having the TB problem. Unfortunately, in MN, deer have been proven to help spread the TB. I don't know how to stop this but I really am concerned about what COULD happen here.
A great deal of what I have posted was designed to play devil's advocate and focus the discussion. If there is one unshakeable belief I have, it is that non-hunters will ultimately decide where baiting goes and they are almost universally repulsed by Bambi getting shot while he has his head in a bait pile.
Maybe banning baiting isn't the only answer but we have to get this under control sooner rather than later.
I talked to my brother about this and he said he would quit hunting. He has one weekend and usually only one day to hunt. I don't bait and it wouldn't bother me to see it banned, but this may cause some problems down the road. Lots of posts in the recent past have been about contacting congressman and getting involved. Well there is strength in numbers. If we alienate a segment of sportsmen who bait and then don't have the votes/political pressure to stop a bill when we really need to, we really can't blame the anti's or anyone else but ourselves. I really do not think my brothers attitude is unique. We already have problems with numbers of sportsmen and voting shortfalls. Do we want to make it worse???? This is a tough one for me to call. I'll have to think on it some more.
Good point but there are really three categories of hunters viewing this issue. Those opposed to baiting, those who support it, and those who could go either way.
And it stinks being in the either way category!
I just sent off my comments regarding the four shore line bill and will send off my comments on the bait bill shortly. Suppose I will insult Olafson or other supporting members to the bill if I send them my version as my comments to everyone? Ha!
there is also a difference between throwing out a truckload of grain to bring the deer in and keep them there and throwing out a gallon bucket of grain to stop the deer that are already there.
I agree Tim, the either way stinks, but I guess now I have to go up one level and look at what is good for sportsmen as a whole. What are the ramifications 10 years from now of each option? The Jury is still out. I need some thinking fluid. I'm always much more intelligent then. LOL!
kdm your point is well taken. I'm sure the anti-hunting crowd will love that we're fighting amongst ourselves. I also doubt we'll ever reach consensus over this issue.
I have baited on a small scale (10-20 customers) and my success was no different than sitting by a trail without bait. Sometimes they came in and sometimes not (mostly not). Perhaps I'm a poor master...
Let's say bait piles are banned and the previous larger scale baiters do quit baiting and decide to focus their efforts on bait plots. We still end up with large amounts of deer being "hoarded".
I think both practices should be banned together or not at all.
No food plots do not equate to a pile of corn. They are superior.
In regard to spot and stalk hunts (which I assume is what you are getting at with Montana and Wyoming) that's a whole different ball game. For the record, that's the style of hunting I love the most. Haven't harvested an animal though. I seem to keep handicapping myself with passing up animals hoping the next one is bigger. Oh well, that's the fun of the hunt.
There'd be lot less of a problem with animals spreading disease around baits, food plots, or yarding up in the winter or chewing up farmer's bales if sportsmen out there would do their part for the resource and KILL MORE DOES! Maybe after this winter it won't be necessary or even available anymore.
The people who are ruining this are the morons who dump truckloads of corn on their land to attract deer from their neighbors. People who use a 5 gallon pail full of corn to bow hunt over for a weekend are trying to bring a deer in closer to make the most ethical harvest they can. How many people go out fishing without bait? Are we going to have to use a bare hook to fish with? If the bill passes, I'll be putting in food plots anyways. I don't understand these local politcians...what are thinking? If the people that are dumping truckloads of corn by the neighbors property are a problem. Limit the size of the bait pile or something, don't just ban it altogether!
Tim first off, I do not put you in the classification of master baiter's. So if I offended you with that, I apologize.
Let's look at a couple of examples listed so far.One poster pointed to a sunflower field and the congregation of deer in that field. This is a prime example of what happens when conditions get tough as I eluded to in the MN and WI studies. Not much anyone can do in regards to this. It is what happens in nature. Granted farming practices have some influence on this but deer yard in the winter, always have and always will.
Yes disease risks increase in a herd when deer yard, but these deer are spread out over an area of 20 acres not 200 square feet.
Can we guarantee a TB free herd in ND with a baiting ban? To that I will say the answer is No. Can we minimize the risk by banning baiting, to that the answer is Yes!
Is there science to support baiting, well even in states down south where baiting was recommended are now pulling back from it. The impact to habitat when baiting stops is taking its toll.
Cody brings up a point about thinning the herd. G&F have turned the corner in a number of units but are struggling with others and cannot even sell all the tags not because of lack of interest but lack of access. Funny the area that prompted this bill is one of those regions. Landowners who allow hunting see few deer during season, but sure see them when season ends and the feeding stops.
Thus the comments about hoarding of animals. Artificial concentration of deer during a period of time when they should by normal habits be spread out if not for the easy meal of cracked corn dumped on the ground.
So go ahead and tell the committee that you or someone you know will quit hunting if bait is banned. Tell them that the G&F need to put out more tags and you will have the neighbors of the big baiter's tell you that deer do not leave the grounds with bait and only horned animals are shot on that ground and then the G&F will wave the unsold tags in the air to underscore the fact.
If you haven't already sent your version of the bill to Sen Olafson, you should do so. In fact, I know him really well and was going to point out the thread to him to read. Disease is a hot topic in cattle business and with disease in mn, and deer numbers in 2C, I see the concern for this bill. Pass or not pass - I will still find a way to fill my buck tag and four doe tags.
Be sure to have Olafson put something in the bill for the boys in the Cattle Business to have high fences around the feed lots so the deer don't give the cattle TB or any other disease.
I think it would be interesting to have the Wisconsin Game & Fish come aboard this thread. In my opinion, they have a lot of explaining to do in regard to baiting and the feeding of wildlife. They have the biggest concern or one of the biggest concerns when it comes to TB. Yet, they some how find it okay to allow baiting and feeding in one county but the adjacent county s banned. I don't see the logic.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what time of the year a crop is standing. Deer will use it heavily. You being from the eastern portion of the state should fully understand that. Heck, even the NDGF understands it and it is obvious because they extended deer season a couple years back because standing crops kept deer harvest at a low. Crops come down but food/bait plots do not. And when they don't, deer will remain. It's really a simple concept. Another simple tool to get the point of food/bait plots is to simply ask the landowner why he would take the time to plant them. The answer will be nothing more or less than I have supplied all throughout my posts. I suppose some will add that they like the feeling they are supplying wildlife food, some will say it is for viewing. We raised food plots for the same reasons but the benefit of hunting cannot be ignored.
Anyway, goosefisher, I will most definitely send comments to Olafson and all of the Natural Resource committee. In fact, my intention is to do that today when I get a moment. I first need to build an email contact list. Whether I send my so called "bill" I don't know. I'm not a bill writer but I do think it covers many more concerns that Olafson communicated to me by email. Oh and I'd love for nothing MORE than he and other legislators to read the comments here. I believe there has been a very good discussion from both sides. Talk about a wealth of information from folks that live, breathe and sleep the outdoors. We should be the audience that has the most influence. Of course, it still comes down to us participating in this discussion (reading or posting) to contact our respected representatives and senators.
If things are not adopted similar to what I have communicated above then I'm sorry, we are only left to believe this bill is not about disease but about false presumptions (or at the minimum very questionable beliefs) on ethics or the "hoarding" of a public resource. With that being the case, in no way shape or form can I support this bill.
Hoarding of birds and animals wouln't be a problem if we all got our bush hogs going and eliminated all of our wildlife habitat projects. Elinimate the winter cover and get rid of the high dense grass nesting cover some idiots have planted ovr the years!
First off, there would be no collection of wildlife there anymore, and more importantly there would be no wildlife left for anyone to hoard! With no wildlife left at all, there would be no problems with hoarding, ever. A permanent solution!
So maybe I'll contact my representatives and demand a law making planting new or manitaining old winter habitat projects, summer habitat or winter food plots, absolutely illegal! Heavy penalties, too! Then all of us hunters will be on the same page, with no one having ANY advantage over anyone else! Makes sense! This wildlife "HOARDING" (a new concept) HAS to stop!
Danged 'green environmentalist Liberals' with their selfish wildlife projects!! The nerve........
Thanks for extending my point. This is how crazy a guy can take it and that's why I say it's foolish to draft a bill with anything other than the intent to reduce disease.
Since I know you enjoy increasing habitat and planting food plots and I also know you are honest. Tell us how much more wildlife frequents your property. I already know the answer because my dad has done it himself but some seem to want to ignore it and wish to only blame baiting.
I was opposed to baiting initially, but with some consideration I would not support a baiting ban. The outfitters are accused of luring deer from public land for their clients with bait piles. And a semi load of beet tops or corn does attract wildlife. Now if that same outfitter (whom obviously has access to land) plants 10 different 5 acre food plots around his lease not only with the deer feed there they will bed there too. I think by stopping baiting and allowing food plots more deer will end up hoarded onto certain land.
It would also affect the guys that hunt their own small acreages. My dad is in his 60's. He owns 11 acres around his farmstead and bow hunts it exclusively. He will put out apples or corn to attract deer. What is wrong with that he is staying off public land and though neighbors offer to allow him to hunt their land he declines so others can have access to it.
Tim if given the option, the WI DNR would have stayed with the complete state wide ban that was first implemented. What happened is that the issue of baiting got buggered up in the Leg and now you have the goofy rules that allow baiting in one area of no more than a small amount of food and across the county line or Highway it is completely banned.
Had the G&F in ND, taken the approach and banned baiting as a method of take which they have the power to do, the baiting issue would have ended up just like WI.
MI with the TB issue had the DNR issue a state wide ban on baiting along with the Ag Dept supporting it. Word from MI is that the Leg is sticking its nose into the issue again to placate outfitters and high rollers.
So like it or not, the way this is being introduced, and who is supporting it, bodes well for a decent piece of legislation to pass that will remove one risk factor of disease like TB spreading statewide. I do not disagree that the Leg focus should be on disease but we all know that it is more than that. For some it is about ethics, others it is about opportunity etc....
The point I have been making is that there is enough evidence of disease risk that all the other nonsense arguments wane in importance. Like it or not that is a reality and it is obvious from some of the child like posts that many do not want to admit it.
For some removal of baiting is going to cause a drop in revenue if they are a commercial operation. There loss is peanuts compared to the losses that the state as a whole will take if TB becomes wide spread. I have no doubt that within a few years the north east corner of the state or the south west corner will have verified TB cases. Movement of antelope and deer will be a factor, but may not be the cause.
You want better wording, then send in your suggestions, I have, and hope that those placed in charge of crafting this law if it passes take the advice and apply the good information that can be gleamed from these types of conversations.
Tim - you are going have a heart attack - I can only imagine how red your face is and see the veins sticking out of your neck. Easy now!
The baiting ban will not end the world.
It is just plain obvious that baiting congregates wildlife. It is a fact that saliva/contact spreads disease. It is a fact that there are folks out there that put out tons of feed as a means of attacting wildlife.
Should it not be our main focus as hunters and conservationists to diminish the chances of spreading of disease? People mention the lack of disease but I would content it is not if rather than when. Look to our fishing waters for example.
Should it not be our responsibility to protect wildlife to the extent we can? I do not know of one single individual that continues to bait beyond the time they get their deer. The result can be devistating as, believe it or not, deer will migrate to a location that has good winter cover if they do so early enough.
I guess I don't care if someone baits or not but the comparisons and arguments for it are sometimes just plain retarded.
This is stupid! Doesn't everyone know that disease is only spread during hunting season!!!! Duh!
BAW's high fence around cattle operations is a fine idea. Where do you think these deer are feeding during the winter, especially a winter like this, unless there is still standing crop available for them. These operations have piles of sileage/corn & hay, of course these deer are going to feed on this along with the cattle. Can't stop it without a high fence. How many ranchers gut shoot these deer and let them runoff and die???
The little guy is the one who is going to get the shaft here. The guy who doesn't own land. The guy who hunts marginal land.
Start taking things away and just wait and see what else follows, its a slippery slope all you ethical non-baiting purist hunters need to keep in mind.
Ha ha whitesmoke, you are missing a lot of what I am saying.
If you have read my posts I said ban baiting but ban it, feeding and emergency feeding in the accordance of a theory disease is spread by hunters. But don't ban it because of the other cheap shots on baiting over a bucket.
So not sure where you are saying I am not considering disease as a reason for a ban. I have said it above and I even wrote my own bait ban bill.
passiton, You bring up a intersting point. How many of the little guy's are able to have food plots? First they do not own land or have the equipment to do it.
Here is my issue with banning baiting and not artificial feeding of wildlife (except pretty birds). We all know whitetails to be creatures of habit. They also follow travel corridors and funnels to get from bed to feed. Anyone disagree so far? How many people continue to dump big piles of food and simply hunt along the trail or funnel hundreds of yards away. Now what has been solved? Just a thought.