Jump to navigation
You know full well what my argument is and has been.
Deer are opportunistic feeders. As written, this bill allows for the feeding of all other wildlife. Therefore, the people feeding pheasants or other game right now (or any other time frame) have/or will have congregated deer around that feed. Disease transfer, as defined or theorized, is happening--or can happen as we speak.
Disease almost always comes from a domesticated animal. With the TB scare and especially attributed to Minnesota and Wisconsin, it was the actual origin. Currently, there is an extended study being done on a cattle herd in the SW corner of ND after a cow was found to have TB. There is no TB or CWD in North Dakota deer herds. Since the SW corner of the state is hundreds of miles away from the infected areas east of the Red River I believe we can safely assume that cow became infected by local domesticated influence. Therefore, as written, this bill does not alleviate the problem of disease. Instead it is theorized that it will only "slow disease.” A slowed disease will still require slaughter of all wild and domesticated animals within a determined zone. Are we doing the right thing slaughtering animals while we still allow the origin of disease to continue transfer? I guess you can argue slowing down the disease is something positive but does it really make sense the bill does not address or even mention the real threat to our wildlife and domesticated animals?
I stated my beliefs loud and clear often times repeating them because people chose to take things out of context and try a hand at the spin game. Perhaps you could say I expanded and/or strengthened my beliefs but such affirmation came after being ridiculed for pointing out hypocrisy in this bill. Obviously, I am speaking of first, the mention of ethics and secondly, my growing defense that ethics should not be so easily legislated when we’ve hardly had a discussion with the State or at least with the NDGF.
I summarized the whole ka-zillion posts above for you so you do not lose track of who said what. I supported a ban that would much more effectively address the idea of disease. Did I think my requests would be difficult to draw into the bill? Of course I did but that doesn’t negate the fact that I should mention them especially when so much assumption is being built into the original bill in the first place.
The point of all of this is I get the idea you are saying I have always used ethics as a means of fault in this bill? Ethics discussion came after it was evident ethics was an underlying agenda and arguably an influence more powerful than disease. So I started to wonder, which is it? If a person is dead set on a bill in the name of disease why weren’t we drafting a bill to accomplish the goal? It came obvious we had a bill being written and especially supported by those peddling ethics. So this is when I decided to support the idea of baiting regulation because it would work just the same in slowing down disease AND accommodating compromise toward the discussion of ethics. I still support this type of action because it is not fair for a single entity (mostly bow hunters) to take all the unjust blame and certainly not fair that same entity is punished the most.
Just wanted to clarify that for you and also let it be reassuring to you that I will include comments on both sides of the issue as my testimony. When I say both sides, I sat down and wrote out a list of “what will happen” and a list of regulations. So I ask you whitesmoke, how have I not been constructive in this discussion? I have talked about ALL sides of this bill while proponents only stick to their talking points.
So you don't see a problem with bowhunters who would quit the sport with a baiting ban?
Like you said there are already very few bowhunters in the state. What happens if somebody tries to ban bowhunting altogether? Don't laugh either, it's already happened in other states!
I could send you some pictures of the deer herds right now that are not feeding at bait stations and you woulding believe it. Herds of 100+ all the way up to 500+ and yes thats not wrong 500. These deer are in hailed out barley and pea fields and it looks like the plains of africa they are so thick. I never in my life have had over 25 deer at a bait pile no less a 100. So I'm guessing you are 100% right that this is an ethics issue not a disiese issue. Also yesterday while looking for sheds my buddy said to me that in the cattle feed lot there were cows and deer intermixed and were in direct physical contact with each other. Here is the real problem as I see it. As I have hunted with and without bait I feel this bill will in no way solve the problem.
Walleye SWAT Team
I can't past your first paragraph before I have to respond.
Tell me this, if I put out feed (for a song bird) and deer eat it am I feeding deer? When you hunt grouse in September do you think it is right to shoot a pheasant just because one gets up in front of you?
Now the second paragraph - Disease again - Tell me why the gays have been 'advised' to utilize a provalactic - it certainly isn't for birth control. Certainly not a guarantee but what does it hurt. I cannot fathom that someone would suggest eliminating one source of contamination would 'do NOTHING'.
I commended you on your list of 30 plus items and my post was not directed at you as you seem to think everything I post is directed your way. I suppose when I put your name on the top it does sort of look that way though!
HUNT - which state does not allow bowhunting?
First of all, in the past I have discussed this topic on this site until I'm blue in the face. Nothing good usually becomes of it. I have discussed this topic OFF of the site and had some very good discussions and I readily admit my stance on the issue has evolved. So, I will reply to your post with my thoughts on what you said, but I'm not even up for getting sucked into a discussion about in on FBO because every onlooker that doesn't agree exactly with my input will undoubtedly spaz out and reply in a hissy-fit type of manner. My post above was a reply ONLY to solocam's conclusion that the number of bow hunters will decrease, as will success rates, as will archery license sales if baiting is banned. I agree with him on all of the above but I feel the decreases will be because of the discontinued participation and success of a small sect of the bow hunting population.
Now, to reply to your post HUNTFISHND, if some bow hunters decide they don't want to bow hunt anymore solely because they can no longer bait, no I don't see a problem. I feel this will be a small group of individuals and I doubt they will quit hunting altogether, but rather they will quit bow hunting only. Most bow hunters also bird hunt, hunt big game with rifles, etc. I believe. Since baiting deer in ND is relatively a new concept, actually more like the new craze (past 10 years or so it has really gotten popular), I think that those who completely depend on baiting to harvest deer with a bow and have had no success otherwise with archery equipment probably just recently got into the sport. Either that or they realize that the success rates go way up now that they started baiting where before they never did. If decreasing thier chances of success via a bait ban makes them not want to do it anymore, then I don't think they were in it for the right reasons. If people only choose to bow hunt because of certain stipulations and actually have the mindset to just quit doing it if those stipulations are no longer standard, then I do not think the hunting community, in particular the bow hunting community is missing any of its valuable members if they leave.
I now bow hunting has come under fire before in some states. Part of me feels that baiting actually draws more negative appeal to bow hunting because bow hunters are then ones that practice it most often. To me, a ban on baiting would draw less negative attention to bow hunting, but I can't prove or guarantee that the way things are now. It is purely speculation by me. In most midwestern states I feel that bow hunting is generally well received and perceived by the public. There are actually a lot of bow hunters in the state, but proportionally, they it is a small number compared to rifle hunters. If some folks alienate bow hunting because of a baiting ban, I doubt they were the ones that were going to stand tall to defend the sport in the first place. Those who hunt because of all of the positive aspects it adds to their life and the lives of their family members and those who really do need to do it to feel fulfilled will be the ones with enough passion and fortitude to stand up for it, bait or no bait.
What? You said in your opening sentence to me: Your approach can be summed up one way - FIND FAULT WITH THE BILL. You (and many others) have stated many times, there is a loop hole, ethics - yah right, this bill does NOTHING in regards to disease, why not the bird feeder, what about the sea kitten, er bait plot, not to mention the negative remarks toward ag and G&F. You fail to realize that your 'critical thinking' is a tactic that may not pull weight in a hearing at the Capitol. I am only suggesting a good honest approach, at least on the Hill, is going to have much more weight than attacks on the weaknesses of the bill.1) You tell me? I asked in my list above whether a NDGF Warden going to be the judge, jury and prosecutor on what is considered baiting or feeding? There are several loop holes. Obviously, we have to use some common sense in that a bird feeder sitting just outside the bay window of a house is not "intended" for deer. And quite honestly, it isn't going to happen in great frequency (oh boy here comes that word frequency again). But I can tell you now that is does happen. I personally watched it one night after I moved a gun safe into a buddy's basement. When I left his house two houses down there was a doe and two fawns eating out of a song bird feeder. I swear my life on that! Should we be concerned from a disease stand point? Furthermore, should we be concerned how a loop hole comes from that? A clever mind will find a way.
2) Getting a little more realistic, what about pheasant feed? Lots and lots of people place feed out for pheasants especially during this type of winter. They also place bales and other things out as a means of cover/food. Are we going to see those type of situations increase as the loop holes become known? My answer would have to be yes. I can tell you this, if I knew a person was feeding pheasants atop a coulee I'd probably be the first one to try and set up a ground blind intercepting deer moving from cover to that pheasant feeder. In that situation, let's say I set up 100 yards from the feeder. Am I going to get a class B or A misdemeanor? Is that fair? Furthermore, is a pheasant feeder stopping disease transfer from deer to deer?
3) What does a pheasant jumping up in September have to do with anything? Just to be a sport I'll give you an answer. First, no I would not shoot it because it is illegal to shoot a pheasant before opening of pheasant season. Second, let's say it does get up in front of me and it happens to be after opener of pheasant season. Yes I will shoot it. So what are you implying? Are you saying my view on ethics between a bait pile, bait plot, water hole, etc is as far fetched as your upland bird example? If so, the conversation is over. I can no longer continue to have this type of discussion. I do have better things to do.
4) Yes, putting my name at the top of your post is usually a good bet you directed your post at me. In case you are going to say you didn't mean to put my name at the top you also used the "You (and many others..)" throughout your post. So I think I was pretty safe assuming you directed your post at me .
Look, like I said, it appears the goal of this bill is to "slow disease." Another goal is to address the so-called ethics that rests with baiting. I don't agree with the ethics issue but since I believe there should be regulation on baiting I guess you can say I am "reaching across the isle." Quite frankly, this bill should be defeated again on the premise the NDGF already has the power to do what they wish. With a defeated bill we can then stop worrying about technicalities, amendments and politics that pollute progress. After that happens, we can begin constructive compromise on the regulation of baiting. As stated, there obvious is two things that proponent of this bill want to accomplish: slowing disease and answering to ethics.
There are very constructive regulations that can be put into place to accomplish both of those items and yet allow both to function. I have highlighted some of them above and have thought of a few more. They will be included in my testimony.
Lets face it. This bill cannot even begin to stop disease spread. There's no way even if we do put forth severe regulations on hunters, wildlife watchers, ranchers, farmers and other entities. So why try to pretend. Lets draw up a compromise and make a collective attempt at doing what seems only possible...which is to slow disease.
Tim (oh boy - here I go again)
You do realize, at certain times, I do things to rile you up, don't you?
My point on the 'other wildlife' is that if you feed deer, regardless whether you intend to or not, it is illegal under the bill. No different than an 'incidental' pheasant during grouse season. What is the loop hole? Will it happen, sure but poaching happens and it is also illegal. Not an example on your ethics in any way.
I hate to be a G&F groupie but I do see why they want Leg to handle this. They have a thankless job.
I may just try to get to the Hill to see your testimony. If I do I will be carrying a big sign with "TIM" on it.
I disagree. It is impossible to enforce whether a person is intentionally hunting over bait or not. Not to mention, "hunting over bait" isn't defined in the first place.
If you like I can send you my testimony be email. I am going to be emailing it tomorrow or Monday and asking it to be submitted as written testimony. Some I trust involved with the session say senators and representatives actually prefer written testimony. To each their own I guess.
Anyway, I can save you the trip if you drop me an email at email@example.com. I know I had you email but who knows if I deleted it or what. Lots happening ya know!
Besides, does the feeding of pheasants, etc some how help the so-called disease problem? No it does not.
...there are very few bowhunters in the state..."
Ehh, what? The number of bowhunters has skyrocketed like no other hunting group from my anecdotal observation.
Anyone have the number of bow tags sold in 1980 compared to 2008?
I am guessing it's 3X higher!
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
I cannot believe us masterbaiters are sitting here arguing with litteraly 2 or 3 people that will never understand it because they don't want to.
There are as many reasons to bait as there are people who do it.
I am personally working on the world's largest bird feeder. It says in bright Orange letters "Bird Feeder, Not for Deer, Birds Only!!!"
It is a little frustrating but one must understand the NDGF is a driving force behind this. Obviously, they have a great amount of power and influence.
What I'd like to happen is a time table placed where input can be used to create regulation regarding the baiting and feeding of wildlife. As I stated, not even the most proficient biologist in the world can tell you or me that banning baiting is going to stop the spread of disease. The answer to that is it will "slow" the spread. That's fine but is it really necessary to ban all baiting, all feeding, etc? And is it especially constructive to say that while under the next breath they allow the feeding of wildlife?
I don't think so and is why I believe a very well thought out set of regulations collected from hunters, ranchers, farmers, wildlife enthusiasts, etc can be compiled to create the end results which is the slowing of disease transfer.
That's the theme I am supporting in my testimony. My mind is made up and I think HW and whitesmoke will even admit I have evolved my opinion.
Tim I have said before your concern over wording is a concern, but I think Whitesmoke has a good grasp of how it can and will be dealt with if this passes as written.
Now back to the real issue and that is disease, pick up the phone and ask how the area of containment was drafted and the critera and rating of risk was factored in in setting the boundary area.
I know the answer but I think an number of you need to hear it from the G&F.
One of those risk factors is the amount of animal movement that baiting has caused. So the area affected was increased as a result. So those who bait are having a direct affect on other Joe Hunters or whatever the term was Tim used. It will affect those seeking a mule deer tag,elk tag, and sheep tag as well as those in the additional area of containment that baiting caused to be included.
So while some bow hunters are complaining about their potential loss, they conveniently ignore the ramification and impact that the activity of baiting can cause to others!
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!
and this makes 10,563
So what exactly IS the record for views?
Attached is the APHIS website dealing with TB. Take a minute and read it (it's short).
I've asked Hardwater several times and he's always avoided it but what were the results of the TB case from Morton County in 1999 (yes 10 years ago). How many deer were taked and how many tested positive?
Heck - you probably have a better chance of contracting human TB from the guy hacking beside you - maybe we need to test hunters to keep the infected hunters from the deer???
That is a good study to look at, and also compare the amount of baiting activity in the area as well as the population.
It still does not change the fact that as of today the course of action for containment is what it is going to be!
Nor what they will be using in looking at the containment area.
You mean TB doesn't grow in bait piles?
This thread takes longer load than the web sites with the good pics.
48suks - no can you believe it - we've been misled??
Hardwater - it is called a factsheet from APHIS - you know the Feder Vets, thanks for avoiding the 1999 question again.
You also noticed they mentioned water as a source, and air transmission, and human transmission. Sorry I forgot - we're only dealing with facts. What was I THINKING?
I am not avoiding it, the information is in report, and you have posted the link a number of times. One report with no results in the wild herd means what when you compare it to other reports and outbreaks.
So continue to delude yourselves, some of you should be watching the Leg a bit more. Bills that do not favor ND hunters have passed more than they have failed especially if there is a monetary value to a community used as a tactic of influence. The simple economics of this subject coupled with the ME only mentality that many of the supporters use as arguments is not going to play well. Instead of trying to get a gotcha on the Internet, you guys should be looking at how you can show that the small % of bow hunters who would quit is somehow a bigger economic impact than a disease issue in our cattle herd.
Oh and you have not been lied to, because nobody is claiming that disease will be stopped or that baiting is the only factor in disease manifestation, but it is one we can eliminate!!!!!!!! Not sure how you stop the air from moving!!!!!!!!!
I wish a guy had more details about this cow from the SW corner of the State that has TB. It just seems convenient that the cow showed up with TB in Minnesota just before the Big Bait Ban Bill.
I believe one of the articles in the Trib on the TB quoted either Kreil or Steinwand saying that when the Morton county cattle herd popped positive, the NDGF flew the area looking for deer. No deer were seen within XX miles of the place so the decision was made that the wildlife were far enough away to not be considered at risk.
That's why their were no deer shot from the Morton County episode.
Sounds to me like you already knew this though and are being somewhat disingenuous about how you are using this tidbit of info. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
From the Minot Daily, the same paper that ran the article last week or so about the ban on baiting. WTF?
When this bill or something similar passes I wonder how it will effect the deer harvest, in particular archery harvest? The knee-jerk reaction will be that fewer deer will be killed, in particular fewer large bucks. How many will remember how tough this winter's been and how much stress it placed on the deer?
If anyone doubts that habitat is more important than food to draw wildlife to any one area, take a drive out in the country this winter. There are whole fields of standing corn with no deer in them because there is no good habitat near by. Conversely there are harvested fields of beans and corn that are near good habitat that have been trampled down so far that there is little snow left on large sections of them.
If a bill banning baiting helps out livestock producers and allows them to continue to sell at market rates then I'm all for it. We're talking about their livelihood vs. hunters recreation time. As for hunting over bait, I don't do it (I have and may again for bears) but if that's your chosen method, have at it while it's legal.
This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.
If the outfitter near Dickinson hadn't advertised baiting with 20 tons of corn (or whatever the number was), we'd likely not be having this discussion. Those who like to bait and are feeling as though they'll be disadvantaged if this bill passes ought to have policed their own more thoroughly.
For the most part, every poll and every meeting and every discussion by hunters gives the impression that they are spilt pretty much down the middle 50/50 on this bait ban issue.
I would be interested to know what farmers and ranches who DO NOT HUNT think about it. Are they for it or against it and what are their reasons for it either way. Maybe most don't care either way, but what about those that do? Does anyone know any of this? This thread is so damn long it may have been covered ten times already above, but I don't have three weeks to reread this whole discussion (argument).
If you're particularly gifted at placing just the right bait in just the right spot are you a master-......?
For those who miss the humor, this is rhetorical and I'd rather no one answers the question.
Crust, Almost every producer I know around my area (Hunters and non-hunters) take steps to care for the wildlife every winter. In fact some even rotate their crops with wildlife in mind. Most of these folks do it correctly IMO. They leave a bale or five next to the tree claim or drop a corn stover bale or two next to the heavy cover. The grain screenings just happen to be dumped next to the closest cover in many cases as well. Some even leave the crops in the headlands of the field if they are close to good cover. Based on that knowledge I would say that the outcome of this bill will have absolutely no impact on their thought process or wildlife practices. IMO this is an anti-hunting bill pure and simple. The justification is nothing more than smoke and mirrors resulting in hard feelings and frustrations. The anti's have got to be drooling over this one. Look what it's already done to the people on this site. Enough said.
According to information from their website, the Board of the North Dakota Stockmens Association voted to support the Bill.
They met with Sen. Olafson as part of their Legislative Preview. He explained the bill to them and told them his interest was prompted by the TB outbreak in NW Minnesota. His district borders that area.
The NDSA board statement included the comment that they support this "if the North Dakota Game and Fish Department initiated comprehensive strategies to address overpopulation and deer depredation and if recreational feeding was also prohibited." They also suggested depredation tags for ranchers and special late season hunts when needed.
I read through the North Dakota Farmers Union paper yesterday that has all of their resolutions in it. I could not find a position on this subject. I also struck out on their website.
I wonder if the North American Wildlife Federation can get together and build a lawsuit against organizations like the North Dakota Stockmens Association because it is their domesticated animal operations that have infected our wildlife and will continue to infect our wildlife. It only makes sense that if organizations like the Stockmens blame the bow hunter and support legislation handicapping hunters that wildlife organizations can take actions themselves. It is obvious disease starts with the domesticated animal.
Can you give me a link for the Stockmen's vote. I was on their site but couldn't find it. I have a head cold so maybe I can't focus or something. Dang colds...
You never did comment on my list of "what will happen." I would like it if you did so I know if you think my list covers all areas or not. I want to include it in my testimony and want all sides to have contributed.
Try this. I had a heck of a time finding it again. I don't know exactly how NDSA does things so it might not be an official position of the Association but it references a board vote.
I have been trying to avoid comment on this for a while but the constant bashing of ranchers that they are causeing your deer to get disease is getting a little out of hand. Now you want to sue NDSA for spread of disease?
Apparently you just don't know about all the health laws both national and state that are in place and the amount of money and time that ranchers spend to keep herds healthy.
Comments like: "Rancher's are the main problem in disease issues". "The real problem in disease spread in ranching practices." McDonald's fence is only 4 ft high" and now this to bring a lawsuit.
I spent over $4000 just last year to keep disease out of my cattle plus the work to do it. What did any of you spend to keep the deer herd free of disease besides nothing or money for bait? The money I and other ranchers are spending is what keeps the deer clean of disease too. Sure an animal slips through the system once in a while and causes a problem. But you can see how fast and hard ranchers and health officials go after it.
Tim, I guess I really have no comment one way or the other on your list. You present it and I will speak for myself in regards to this issue, because I would toss 30 of your points as being relevant to the issue of economic impact and disease which is my main concern and what I really think this debate will center around. No offense intended with that comment, just telling you how I view it.
I had not planned on adding anything else to this, but heard on the radio today that the Bow Hunters of ND Assn are now supporting this as well. Just thought that would be worth sharing!
Allen - Not trying to be deceptive in asking the question, I'm not sure exactly how many deer were killed in the 1999 outbreak either but I am able to find that the deer tested were not infected.
My point being the idea that someone is not going to come with black helicopters and level everything within the magical 20 mile radius as is being discussed. If you took the 20 mile radius you would probably take in the deer herds all the way to Mandan which would include the city deer herds? I am sure if they would have found it in the wild herds they would have expanded their sampling but logical people would be running the effort.
Bingo - I hope that you don't feel that everyone is against you. I for one appreciate what the producers have to put up with. This issue for me continues to go back to who controls the game, disease is a thread which can be used to tie the landowners/producers into it. The landowner will always win that debate.
That is interesting since I just spoke with an individual a few moments ago that had just been on the phone with the Stockmen folks. Apparently, it was a 50/50 split or so. Obviously, they do feel the same way many do and the problem with disease is over population. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds especially when HW is claiming the ND Bow Hunters Association is saying they support the bill. So did it go from 50/50 to 51/49?
Anyway, bingo I don't know if there is anyone really bashing ranchers and farmers I think people are just wanting it to be pointed out that this issue doesn't just rest with the bow hunter. I agree that placing a burden is silly not to mention basically impossible. But the discussion should still be made. We will see what happens I guess.
HW, all I am doing is creating information from both sides of the spectrum. Thought maybe you'd want to participate but you obviously have your own agenda. That's fine.
It's amazing how some people don't even know this bill has been introduced. I was explaining it to one of my co-workers who along with her husband have horses. We got talking about it because she said her husband has been putting out old straw bales in order to keep the deer out of their good square bales for the horses. They have little to no cattle. We forget the people that just have horses with no cattle. When I informed her about the way the bill is written he would be illegal, she was a little upset. Her question was, "What will we have to do to keep the deer out? We pay a lot of money for some of this feed for the horses." So, my question to you guys is, who will be responsible to help out the horse/cattle rancher to put up barriers to protect their investments and will most of it be at their own expense, or is it a deal with that when the time comes? Could get pretty spendy I would think. I'm sure this has already been addressed but many out there have no idea!
"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."
Yeah that is very true.
Very well put, yeah, who is going to help pay for it!! Here is another thing no one has said or mentioned. Lets say there is an outbreak of bovine TB in cattle someplace in the state. One, the cattle herd will have to be destroyed, but will the state reimburse the farmer/rancher for their loss at market price? Two, is the Game and Fish willing to have a special deer season to help alleviate the spread of the disease? Thirdly, are state leaders willing to spend millions of taxpayer money to bring in "Experts Sharpshooters"? Now, what happens to the deer that have been shot? Remember that big stink about lead fragments being in venison awhile back? How all the food pantries in the state had to get rid the the meat, because in "might" contain lead fragments? Don't "Expert Sharpshooters" use lead ammunition? Now, most food pantries only accept deer that have been taken with a bow!! So, what are officials going to do with the deer, bury them a in pit? Another thing, why are the sponsors so concerned about our proximity to Minnesota, when we have Canada to the north, Montana to the west, and South Dakota on our southern border? Deer don't recognize state or international borders!!
No pun intended but do you have hard evidence that the ND Bow Hunter's Association has changed their stance on the bait ban? I just read this PDF from their website: http://www.ndbowhunters.org/January%20February%202009.pdf
In case folks won't click and read the PDF here's an exurb:
The legislature held its pre-legislative meetings in November and December and is in session beginning January, 2009, so we will need input and strength through numbers to have the necessary impact to continue to promote and expand our hunting opportunities. One of the known issues will be baiting for deer. Based upon the past division of the membership, I expect the NDBA will take no official position on the issue. Hence it will be up to all of you to express your thoughts on the baiting issue to the legislature. I know there will be members who will want NDBA to support baiting and those strongly against.
With such a division, I hope the membership understands the impact taking a position may have upon our overall membership on such a single emotional issue. That would be a detriment to NDBA’s overall ability to have a positive impact upon other issues affecting bow hunting opportunities.
There will be challenges so we all need to join together in order to come up with creative solutions. That is the purpose of NDBA and your board is committed to protect and promote bow hunting opportunities. But we need your help. That help can be as simple as printing off a membership application from the website and having one of your hunting buddies join to simply giving a board member your input on the issues we will be facing and how we can make NDBA a more vibrant organization.
If you know your legislators and would be able to have one on one conversations with them, please let your area rep know or shoot an e-mail to NDBA. We are also going to try and organize an e-mail tree to get information out and get help when it is needed. We need to stay very proactive.I see the opposite of what you said above. Please enlighten me.
Quote from HW
"I had not planned on adding anything else to this, but heard on the radio today that the Bow Hunters of ND Assn are now supporting this as well."
I wouldn't doubt that one bit, coming from a group that had a one page article in thier news letter a while back on why trail cameras should be banned also!
Thats when I quit that club, bunch of traditional shooting leaders in it that I didn't share many things in common with.
Keep up the good fight Tim!
Oh and by the way, remember my post up above with the broadcast seeding photo? That was no joke, how are they going to stop me from planting my corn/sunflower bait plot like that? ...Seriously