Jump to navigation
Thanks to a food/bait plot beside the highway that doesn't allow hunting and is loaded with a couple hundred deer I was able to drill a doe with my work car tonight, YEA!
Good post stizo and many others. I was with a gathering of a couple hundred hunters this past weekend and I can honstly say that I couldn't find a single person there in favor of the ban. But most agreed that baiting should be limited. And I'd bet that less than 1/2 of 1% of folks who bait put out the anount of grain you see in photos of bait piles that the G&F are showing in the papers. They went and found the worst example and are try to shove that image down everyones throats.
As far as I'm concerned they can ban bait piles because thats something we don't do and couldn't afford to do.
But we do spread a couple gallons across a a wide area, not a pile in site.
Here's my opinion. Its all about ethics if they only want to ban bait piles and not food plots. I am against the ban. I have app. 15 stands set in a 10 mile radius and some need to be baited and some don't. The baited ones bring in 5 to10 deer. On the edge of my hunting area a neighbor has app. 10 food plots set up. During the winter about 90% of the deer in my hunting area winter there. Drawn to the food plots and cover. From these food plots is a triangle of cattle farms each about 1 mile. Every day can watch about 200+ deer walk to these farms and eat together. At one farm a temp fence was set up by the gf but didn't stop the deer. At one other they chase the deer out daily but I still find sheds there every couple days on the piles, in the cattle feeders, and even in open bins. So I don't think my little bait piles are going to spread disease because my 5 to 10 deer all eat together all winter anyway. No matter what the deer herd up in the winter every winter and eat togther. I don't think it is unethical to hunt over bait. I still put in hundreds of hours preseason. I personally only use a bucket or to, but should be up to the hunter, weather they hunt over bait or food plot or nothing. Everyone I know and talk to it about has no problem with hunting over bait. sorry so long T.K.
Banning baiting is not going to cut back on disease transfer in the least, I see deer smelling other deer, rubbing noses and licking there fawns. Right now deer dig a hole in the foot of snow and another deer comes by and checks out that hole 5mins later. Funny how people blame baiting for deer grouping up because every winter deer go to where there is shelter and easy food. They have been doing that since the begining of time, wouldn't you if it was life or death. If this bill passes and the hunter puts a mineral block for the deer he will get fined, but if a rancher puts out a mineral block for his cows and he leaves it in the pasture after he pulls his cows out and the deer use it, he is going to be in the clear. It is funny how ranchers would be worried about the spread of disease and what to ban baiting, when baiting would help the root problem of just to many deer. With out baiting you could just as well close bow season on the opening day of gun season.
Onesr and 7mmshooter
These observations you have made are not scientific so therefore they must be common sense or logical. So in a nut shell we can not use these observations to create regualtions or bait bans.
Get a hold of the lawmakers and let them know how you feel. Let common sense be the rule of the day.
Start making to many rules and ridiculous bans then you open the door for PETA to come in with more stupid ideas. I remember about 15 years ago I think it was in New York where a Bill came about to start birth control for wild free roaming deer, If I remember it right they wanted to adminster it by blow guns with darts like tranquilizers HA!
You bowhunters are the biggest bunch of whinners around. It's time for you to put your personal self interest aside and do what is good for the resource. Do deer concentrate near livestock food sources in though conditions, yep. Is baiting the only way that disease can be transmitted, of course not. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate those vectors for disease transmission that we can control. And you call yourselves sportsmen, you should be ashamed.
I think PETA has more of a points against you if you don't ban baiting. Just opposite of your thinking.
I wonder if this data has been considered?
The point is that the disease risks can be controlled by a few simple regulations on baiting. Such as bait site size, distance between bait sites, types of baits used. These things can be enforced just as easily as a total ban.
Why is a total ban necessary?
If you feel that adamant about bow hunters then I surely hope you also are adamant about the 128,000 individuals that said they participate in wildlife viewing (see the link I provided above). I'm sure you are a thinking man so you must admit that many of those people use feed to attract that wildlife to their cameras, their eyeballs and their binoculars. Furthermore, you know full well that more people out there feed wildlife than what is reported in a survey. On an extended example, let's draw a circle with a 20 mile diameter. Put it's center over the city of Bismarck. Now tell me how many people are currently feeding wildlife from their back yards. You'll get a big number. Extend that circle further...heck, include the whole state and tell me how many people are feeding wildlife RIGHT NOW. Take that same Bismarck circle and put it over other metropolitan area. I'm sure you'll be astonished and I'm sure you'll agree that it isn't that difficult to do some research on the subject. Yet, our own NDGF doesn't know. They don't even consider it even though they have a strategic plan that says they are suppose to. For instance, how about Greg Link's comment in the Minot Daily News?
Greg Link, an assistant wildlife chief for the state Game and Fish Department, said his agency has not monitored feeding by animal lovers as closely as baiting.
''That's kind of on the fringe of our responsibility,'' Link said. ''We don't have a good handle on the number of people who do it and for what species. Obviously, there are people out there throwing out feed.''
Here's a couple paragraphs from their Strategic Plan / Mission Statement:
The first three emphasis areas dealt with fishing, hunting and habitat. All three produce outputs in terms of game, fish or access; this emphasis area assists in those areas, but primarily does the nuts and bolts of the business of wildlife management. It also addresses those species of wildlife which are normally not hunted or fished.
The Nongame Wildlife Program actively manages those species not commonly hunted, trapped or fished. Over 80% of our state’s wildlife and fish fall into this category.Point being, why is it the bow hunter that is being targeted when there is many bow hunters who do not bait? Furthermore, there are far more non-hunting individuals that are feeding wildlife (whether they are considered game or non-game) when compared to any hunting group. Just answer that question. While you are doing it, tell me why it's okay for the "feel good" people to feed other wildlife and not be included in this ban? Surely you'll agree that deer are opportunistic animals and will seek out food. You know this is especially true during winters like this.
This bill is hypocritical in many areas. One thing that has bugged me about the whole process is the NDGF involvement. They have had the ability to inflict any type of regulation they wanted in regard to the hunting of big game. Heck, in 2007 one of the main reasons the bill was beat was because the NDGF already have the ability to put any regulation they wanted into the books. Even when confronted about their suspicious involvement in promoting ethics raises questions. I mean, is the NDGF actually our ethic agency? If they are, I think they could definitely take a look at their belief it is okay to drive down a barren pastured section line (for an example). When asked at an advisory meeting, the NDGF said they would remain "neutral" on the ethic discussion. But all that happened is we received pamphlets in our envelops and have a video sitting on their home page which talks more about ethics and hoarding of wildlife than it does about disease.
The smoke screen is there on the ethics. So it is up to everyone to contact the Senate Natural Resource Committee and make your opinion be heard. I don't care which way any of you are leaning on this but make your voice be heard.
Really! You are probably the same type of person that complains when the government puts their nose into other peoples business. So with that said do we want the Government setting a poorly written bait ban, that if, or when it is put in place, will give them a false sense of security? And all along in the background it will fall apart like Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae.
As sportsmen, it is our obligation to make sure that we put our wildlife's best interest first, Yes. Does that mean by eliminating a pile of food, we take care of the disease THREAT! I think if you read the majority of the posts, we as sportsmen would like to see a level field for all if you are going to do anything. You can take away the snacking but if you don't regulate the buffet, you haven't solved anything!
"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."
Solocam so in defense of baiting, your position as I read it is that farming practices must be changed and be mandated in a baiting ban bill.
So if I understand your points, no crops could be planted that would attract deer. So farmer could not plant soybeans,corn,alfalfa etc...
That over and over is the argument I keep hearing, I did not count how many times supporters of baiting have asked how the G&F is going to stop deer from yarding up well you are not and you are not going to get anyone to take you seriously if your stance is that all other mitigating factors have to be eliminated as well. We are an Ag state and that is not only impossible but impractical as well.
I offered a suggestion of bait being limited to 2 gal of total bait being available at any one time. Two gal is similar to from my farm experience accidental spills caused by harvest and like an accidental spill once it is gone it does not program an animal to stay in that area for periods of time well beyond normal activity.
But it seems to me that the baiter's want the ablity to dump 5 gal a day even if bait is still present from the day before.
Now someone with a little effort could in essence create a very large pile of bait by putting up barriers restricting access but still allowing enough food to be an attractant then open it up once they have achieved the desired pile they want and then they could easily be dumping more than allowed because it would be almost impossible to tell when it was dumped.
That is why a total ban on baiting needs to take place. I need to apologize to Tim and point out he is correct in that all feeding and baiting needs to be banned including pheasants, unless the feeding is done behind an area that deer cannot access. I had been told that the ban as written would allow the G&F under current law to set standards and requirements regarding that. Seems that this law change would in effect take that power away unless put into the current bill.
A level playing field is where nobody can bait!
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!
Where did anyone say to keep dumping 5 gallons every day? You keep making stuff up to further your agenda.
I say limit the bait site to 5 gallons or less. Is that so hard to understand? Is it that hard to distinguish a truckload of corn compared to 5 gallons? Come on man, if the GNF can't do that we need new people in there who can!
A level playing field? What about all those bait plots?
Heres some questions, and I know how you all love them!
What is the percentage that hunters are responsible for nose to nose wildgame contact?
What is the percentage that farmers/ranchers are responsible for nose-to-nose wildgame contact?
Lets take it one step further if we are soooo concerned with disease transfer between livestock and wildgame:
What is the percentage that hunters are responsible for nose-to-nose contact between wildgame and livestock?
Ah, last question, and here's the kicker!!
What is the percentage that ranchers/farmers are responsible for nose-to-nose contact between wildlife and livestock?
I don't know the actual percentages but someone said that this state is 90% ag practice so i'm guessing the percentages are going to be a bit lopsided. Seems to me that maybe the ban needs to include stringent policies on locking up feed because I can 100% guarantee you that ranchers have more to do with disease transmission between animals than hunters do.
I'm not trying to point fingers or get on the bad side of ranchers but those are simply the facts and if you choose to ignore them than you simply awknowledge that for you, it boils down to your personal beliefs thus making it an ethics argument on your behalf.
If disease is your issue than you need to look at it across a whole spectrum and not limit what one group can do while saying it's okay to the other because "it's common ag practice". That just doesn't cut it in my book!
Like someone said don't take away the snacking especially if your not going to regulate the buffet.
This is my BOOMSTICK!!!
The attitude I'm seeing here is the resource comes first as long as it doesn't affect me and I can do as I want.
Bowhunters were singled out because baiting is done almost exclusively by bowhunters. Very few gun hunters bait.
Outfitters bait, but they do it primarily for thier bowhunting clients. I've been around this hunting game for well over 40 years and the bowhunters have always been a me first group. Rivers of bowhunter tears flowed when the G&F extended the gun season a few years ago because bowhunters had to share the field, thier tears cascaded again this year when they had to share the field for an early September season, they cried when the youth seasons were started because they had to share the field with other hunters, and they still whine about early goose seasons because there is someone else in the field with them.
Get over yourselves, you make all sportsmen look bad.
No one has claimed that banning baiting would eliminate the disease threat, but it will reduce it, and on that basis alone it should be banned. I agree that feeding needs to be eliminated also, but one thing at a time. Hunters need to make sure thier own barn is clean before they start telling someone else how to clean thiers
You didn't answer my question above, why a total ban?
By the way,
I live right in urban Minot, by Burdick Job Corp and saw six deer the other night in my cul-de-sac eating out of my neighbors bird feeder.
I can really see how eliminating baiting for hunters is going to solve this "disease" issue.
You all would stand more of a chance if you argued the ethics of it because then at least it's your personal beliefs and not some smoke screen to hide your personal feelings.
Like some of you on here i live close to mn. I think it is funny that you mention mn. has a baiting ban which they do but go east of lancaster during beet season and tell me why there are semi loads of beets out there. I personaly have seen more baiting in mn. along the red than in n.d. I dont bait but i hunt alot over harvested fields which is basicly the same thing. I would much rather shoot a calm big game animal while it is standing over a field or bait pile. There are alot of people concerned over this and i have seen a couple of petitions.
First off, I'll say it again, I don't care if you ban baiting but do it in a way that takes care of the entire problem. A "master" baiter as you call us is not the only threat. Second, if you read my initial bill you'll see I believe if you ban baiting, in order to aleviate any problems, you should ban the "Artificial feeding of Wildlife". If you think agricultural crops are that, you have really lost the issue. Now you are just making stabs at me for trying to get a point across. My point is, if you want to ban baiting due to the "threat" of disease, you can. However, don't think that will solve the entire chance of disease showing it's ugly face. But at least then, we as hunters won't be to blame so you may be doing us a favor. In the end, I will continue to bowhunt whether or not there is a baiting ban.
Sporting Chance is a nonprofit organization providing outdoor opportunities for physically and mentally challenged adults and children. We help make experiences in the great outdoors a reality. Through its members and volunteers we have been able to bring a
HUNTNFISHND, you are correct in that nobody said limit the amount to 5 gal daily, but bdog said limit the amount you can put out daily. Somewhat different but not much really if we are being honest.
Once again, for all of you who feel so strongly that your need to bait outweighs the disease risk issues, make sure you come to the hearing and in an open forum speak out. It will be very interesting to see how your attitude is taken by the Leg body.
Back when there was a push to get limits imposed on NR waterfowlers, a single comment intended to show the pitfalls of no restrictions sank that legislation because of the perceived notion of greed. Much of why ban baiting has that same tone. Graydawg like it or not summed it up pretty well and I see nothing but benefit coming from these ME! ME! ME! comments cementing the passage of this bill!
So send the comments, come to the hearing and put it all out for everyone to see!!!!!
easydecoy, I would support an exclusion specifically for organizations like yours to be included in the final passage of the bill, but would want it limited to these organizations and also with practices you speak of.
ND already allows those who have disabilities otherwise numerous advantages from off road travel, cross bows etc... so the need for individuals would not be there.
I cannot speak for the sponsors of this bill, but they I doubt would intend to limit or shut down a worthy operation. I can say with confidence that the Leg given notice of your need would make sure that your organization and others like it would not suffer any undue hardship in continuing to provide the services and opportunities you do.
deer are going to congregate around food whether it was put there as a bait pile or just because it is there. doesn't matter if the pile takes the form of a small food plot, a cattle feed area, some spilled grain or a small harvested pea field. i am kind of of the position that a bunch of small bait piles spread out around an area is better than all of the deer bunching up at some feed lot or other food source that doesn't qualify as a bait pile but, in essence, does the same thing. the biggest problems with deer congregating occur this time of year and no "bait ban" is going to prevent that problem.
in fact, i'd bet if u could break down the risk of disease spreading into percentages that you would find hunter bait piles probably accounts for a very, very, very small percentage of that risk. large scale cattle operations or typical accidental spills in farm yards are probably at the top of the list and recreational feeding by the general public (not for baiting purposes) probably falls right in the middle. this ban would do nothing to cull the real threats of disease spreading. jut my 2 cents after sorting thru what is quickly becoming a record number of posts and views (other than waiting for tims pics and novel about his buck).
Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!
I am glad we have this site to express our opinions on and get feedback from others that have different views. I was at first hesitant to write a letter to the legis. about this bill because I didn't know how to do it constructively. I tend to emotion write you could say. But after having this forum to spit things out and hear feedback has enabled me to write a pretty good professional letter IMO. The legis may look at it and not agree, but I'm OK with that.
I think we can put the disease issue to bed. Thats just the card being played to accomplish the real agenda. Stop some from hoarding deer and or shooting deeo over bait. Thats the real reason for the bill.
Just a curiousity question of the supporters of baiting (and remember I am not against baiting so no need to attack me):
Why are you so supportive of baiting?
I have read numerous arguments indicating baiting is not harmful but I just wonder if someone could give me an indication of what you consider the benefits. Now a couple posters have indicated it aids the handicapped although I would have to guess that is less than 1% of the number of hunters. None-the-less, I see your point and understand. A couple have indicated it is easier than scouting and putting time in - another point I can relate to. Anyone else have a good reason for keeping it?
I guess the challenge is, IMO, in order to defeat the bill I do not see the 'farmers are the guilty party' or 'there are other ways to get disease' or the 'ethics' arguments having much of an impact to a legislator. Good sound reasons may win the day though.
Grey didn't sum anything up at all. In fact, he dodged a pretty easy question from me and to be honest, you didn't seem to want to take up the challenge either. The NDGF has a duty here and if it is the spread of disease they so wish to target they can't treat a wildlife photographer, a mom and pop household feeding their urban or rural deer, a pheasant raiser feeding his pheasants, a bow hunter or even an organization like Sporting Chance any differently. It's only common sense Hardwaterman. Take a moment and read up on the USFWS Survey I supplied above. It raises some very interesting data.
And if you get a second, why don't you respond to your feelings on the NDGF publicly ignoring the feeding of wildlife. It is quoted in my post above by Greg Link. Man, I hate the idea that I just had to thwart Sporting Chance and even ridicule our NDGF because I think both organizations do a stand up job but if this bill is for the greater good then we need to be consistent and fair to all.
I'd say the reason for not allowing a 5 gal limit baiting is because it would not be enforcable and a nightmare to prosecute.
I have had a grain spill and tried to clean it up out of sod. It looks like you have it all, but if you take a rake you can usually get another 3 or 4 pails full. That grain is usually half grass and leaves so you would then have to clean that sample and then check the amount of grain. Wardens are not going to do that and then try to go to court with it. What if you are a half of pail over? Do you then want a 50% leeway on the limit?
It either has to be a total ban or none at all, with exceptions for the handicapped which would be very easy to put in.
1. An aid to harvest deer. No different than the use of a bait plot, water hole, unharvested crop, bales, or other food sources to deer.
2. To view animals. I don't know how many of you have young children but using an attractant to bring those animals to a young hunter's eyes makes them more involved. They will grow up with their father or mentor in a hunting heritage. As they age, they will continue to evolve in the outdoors. Using an attractive in an early impatient time of their lives will keep them from drinking, drugs and worse yet...sitting in front of the couch glued to the TV and Playstation.
3. They are a tool for the non-landowner to help aid in increasing their opportunity at a public resource. You all have examples of people who post land solid and allow no hunting. They have habitat, food/bait plots, etc. As the property is managed more and more the game becomes very difficult to access because they have no reason to leave the land.
4. Much of North Dakota is NOT kind to bow hunters. The land is open country, barren and again, often posted up. Those without daddy's land or the money to buy their own land can hunt less than desired land. Without an attractant the success rate would be very low and in most cases result in the drop in hunters. Which is a bad thing for the future and protection of our heritage we cherish so much.
5. Baiting offers alternatives to the elderly, young and handicapped hunters. They are still allowed to enjoy the outdoors in nearly the same way as another more "able" person can.
6. Baiting is a cheap (well kinda, last year it cost a pretty penny for those baiting) alternative to the landowners and rich who have the equipment to plant bait plots, etc. Although not as efficient or effective a bait plot still gives an option to try and increase their odds.
7. Bait, like other attractants, allows for clean ethical kills. The animals are either stopped or contained for a timely shot.
Those are some I quickly thought up.
I can answer yout Q simpley. Baiting works, just like putting bait on the a fishhook.
Tim, I do not know why the G&F are ignoring this, and FYI sent them an email asking the same question. In that response which really was pretty much what you posted that it was not really their area of purvue. So I pushed a bit more and came to find out as I posted some controls they currently do have would be removed and that is why I said you where correct in that we do need some enhancement of the wording to include the feeding of other animals as well.
I do not want loop holes in this bill if passed that can be exploited. I was assured prior that these would be and could be addressed by the current authority the G&F have. Since birding does not fall under it, then we need as you correctly pointed out for it to be addressed.
Man my wife would be amazed that I learned something!!!!! LOL!
Hope that helps Tim, I do not see much more being explored with this thread. I will check in on it, but the reality of all of this is what happens in the hearing and on the floor during the votes. I know I will be in Bismarck if all possible.
Hardwaterman- your real adgenda is dripping off of you.
Tim, very good points. I have allowed unrelated new hunters access to my land. We had a 15 year old girl come with her father and harvest a doe on bait. She was really excited and looked like she had gotten the hunting bug.
My land is open to new hunters, just send me an email and I will be happy to accomadate them and their folks Brian@powderriversportingdogs.com
We are limited to alot of things in life, most are hard to enforce, but one's own ethics then come into play. Your limited to two poles while open water fishing, if no ones looking do you use three?
I don't think it's too hard to distinguish between 5 gallons of corn and say 10, but why not crack down on the people who are really abusing the system? It's pretty easy to spot a truckload of bait from the air.
If grain is too hard to regulate, limit it to fruit, vegetables, cobbed corn only, ect.
You could make the same arugement about speed limits. Why have them because its hard to regulate everyone who drives.
The reason you do it is because most people will follow the law and sooner or later the others get caught.
You make my point, why pass a law that you can't enforce? Either it has to be all or nothing. You can't tell 5 gallons of corn from 10 if it's spread out over a 20 foot area. You are saying that ethics will keep you from putting out more bait but you are hunting over bait. You can't pass a law and then leave it up to ethics to enforce it, because everybody has different ethics.
You pass a law, most people will follow it. The others will get caught in time. If the law makers used your logic in passing laws they would never pass one because it might be hard to regulate.
Then I vote to remove all fishing laws regarding Lake Sakakawea because the lake is much too big to be properly enforced.
How are you going to enforce a ban? How are you going to know wether somebody placed a bucket of corn on the edge of a field or if it was spilled during "normal ag practices"? How about hunting near a farmers grain bins?
Ask MN how easy their ban has been to enforce!
If you don't want a law that can't be enforced then you better urge a "no vote" on this ban.
Tim - you and onw other replied. I believe his answer was more honest - 'it works'.
To play devil's advocate:
1. Aid in harvest - 2009 will not present a problem as we will have less deer
2. My 3 year old went with during deer season this year. He learned a lesson - not everything in life results in instant gratification. He saw deer but it was not like watching TV. Valuable life lesson!
3. Non-landowner - the problem with your comments is that many of the landowners have the bait and that is why it is harder for others to hunt the 'public resource'.
4. Poor land - I agree with you. I do believe some will quit without bait. Although the daddy's land comments really need to stop. Not sure you would make headway in Bismarck with remarks like that.
5. Handicapped - that was pointed out earlier - certainly the exception rather than the rule.
6. Cheap - I would argue absence of bait is cheaper. I would also argue a bait war would be one I would lose as I don't have the money to compete.
7. Ethics - shouldn't every shot be ethical? You make it appear as the baiters are the only ethical ones and that is completely wrong.
Tim I believe the real answer and why so many are petrified to lose baiting is that it is easier, requires less time, and the chances of getting a big buck are exponentially higher.
I know dozens of guys who bait. All of which are big buck fanatics. All of which deny they bait to get a buck. All of which are venomous over this bill. Yet not one will admit the real reason. I do understand you feel the birder is somehow getting a break and the landowner could 'accidentally' spill grain and 'life isn't fair' but I believe everyone knows the real answer.
All I was trying to ask is how and when you enforce a bait pile being to large, if you want to get rid of all fishing laws on Sak. because of that, go ahead. So much for discussion on this topic.
given the small part baiting plays in the overall risk of spreading disease, i tend to agree that the real basis for this bill is grounded in ethics and the disease issue is being used as a cover. i wish the debate was centered around that issue so we could all stop beating around the bush about it. but, we know where that would get us. probably, 6000 views and a couple hundred posts... oh, wait... to late.
I made a ridiculous comment for a reason. HUNT actually makes a better point.
1. You actually make my point more. Any food source will increase the chances of harvesting an animal. Whether it is a bait pile, bait plot, water hole, standing crop or whatever...less deer doesn't matter. Deer will still be attracted to their natural desire to eat and survive.
2. As you can see in my post, I said it offers the youth a chance to see what the outdoors CAN BE. I have hunted over bait and also hunt without it. I really REALLY enjoy watching animals and using a food attractant enhances that. What I was implying is the attention span of a young person is very short. The outdoors requires patience. But they need to know what that patience can bring them. People have warped views that animals magically appear over food plots, bait plots, bait piles or whatever. You still need to know how to hunt, where to hunt, etc. A food source allows that hunter to get a taste of what they are trying to accomplish. As they evolve (you can see that word and phrase above) they can be taught the finer things of hunting. If a parent is going to put their kid in front of bait and say, "this is what hunting is son" than all I can say is that parent is a deadbeat. He'd more likely be the same parent that would take his kid down a rolling barren section line and tell him, "it's okay son, the law says this is legit."
All I am saying is having wildlife in front of a new hunter is a powerful thing. I don't care if you are Dr. Phil you are not going to be able to convince a young kid to remain patient. Sure, that works in some regards but the hunter or father has never had so many distractions or temptations that the youth has today. Many times a kid will choose the Playstation. Get them involved and interested then teach them how the "real" world works.
3. Dude, the landowners also have the land. They also have food/bait plots. You take baiting away, many bow hunters will only be able to watch deer was they roam that landowner enjoy the bait ban. There are more non-land owning hunters than land owning hunters. With the increased practice of managing land for hunting it will get worse.
4. The daddy comment was simply a cheap shot. I will say this though, I know some people on this site commenting on this and oppose bait are those that have prime land to bow hunt on. Give me a chunk of property butting up against a refuge, land down on the Missouri River bottom or in the prime coulee systems coming out to farmland and I'll cool down my talk on defending those that bait.
5. Exception or not, how can anyone concerned about disease really think that a deer eating over one pile isn't going to transmit disease on another pile because it happens to be used for a disadvantaged hunter. That doesn't make sense. If that's what I am suppose to believe then why even enact a ban when all it will take is one infected animal at that disadvantaged hunter's area to infect another somewhere else? Mission failed.
6. No non-landing owning hunter can compete against a landowning hunter. I shouldn't say no one but in most cases, a landowning hunter has equipment, access to seed, spray, etc. He'll plant a food plot and enjoy the bounty. A non-land owning hunter can purchase a couple ton of very clean pea screenings and still enjoy the opportunity of attracting wildlife. We are talking about a 100 bucks versus thousands to plant food plots. I think there is a gleaming difference in cost. Although, really in the big scheme of things it is actually cheaper to raise a food plot because a 50 lb bag will plant a pretty good food plot. Not to mention round up ready seed allowing for almost zero maintenance. With a couple hundred bucks of seed I could have one heck of a bait/food plot.
7. I didn't say hunters not hunting over bait are slob hunters. No where is that stated. What I did say is bait piles increase the opportunities for standing, broadside and close quarter shots.
The Senate Natural Resource Committee will be discussing this bill February 12th at 9:00 am. This time is tentative. It could change but should give you all ample time to get comments in.
Get involved folks!
You know I find it ironic that so many seem to think that open areas are bad for bow hunting!!! When I was able to draw and hold a bow before I tore up my shoulder, all of my hunting was done on the ground. I scouted and set up on trails using the wind and natural ground cover. I did pretty well.
Then I started hunting from a tree stand after I moved, and to be honest I rather hunt the ground.Now with the pop up blinds available the excuse that the open country in the central part of the state is not kind to bow hunters is a crock!!!!!!!!!!
The fact is the disease issue is not going to get dismissed, if you think it will, then tell me why the Farmers Union has come out in support of a bait ban. I had heard they where but did get a confirmation that the announcement will be made. FB, and others will follow suit because like it or not it is in the best interest of the majority of their members.
For those that think no ban should be put in place unless farmers are required to put up high fences etc... get FU,FB and the like to support you on that!!!!!!!!!
Like I said before this issue is going to get decided on the risks that baiting creates in increasing the speed and or transmission of disease. It is not going to be decided on the issue of ethics as so many seem to want the debate to go.
With the issue and costs of TB being front and center in MN with the most recent headlines that millions have been spent to contain it just to protect the rest of the states status a move to reduce the exposure in ND is sound and practical and as a result the Leg in my opinion will pass a ban. How the final bill looks I do not know, but I think a total ban on baiting and feeding much more likely than not.
Like I said before, go and present the ME!!ME!! justification, I look forward to it at the hearings!!!!!!!!
Tim you have a good point about getting invloved I have sent emails to the Goverment officials involved and voiced my opinion. I also asked others in my address book to do the same.
How many times are we going to go over this. Hardwaterman a baiting ban did ZERO with the TB problem in Minn. It came from cows to deer. Minnesoata still spent millions with a baiting ban atready in place.
How can you use that arugement? It doesn't hold water.
News Flash the banning baiting did zero to stop TB in Minnesota
bdog,you miss the issue of disease spread and as such the DNR and even the cattlemen of that area admit that without a baiting ban in place the outbreak would have been a lot bigger and a lot more costly.
Those are things you cannot dispute or try and explain away as being all about ethics.
Once again bdog, nobody is claiming that a ban will make guarantee that disease will not happen. Nor has anyone claimed it will stop all nose to nose contact or saliva,urine and feces contact. What it means is that we will take away one factor that would if disease occurs increase the spread of which it spreads and help in containing it as well.
It is obvious you do not like it, but it is what this bill will revolve around when the Leg makes its vote. As I said before the last time, the focus became all about ethics and since CWD was not a threat to the cattle industry the disease issue was overshadowed along with the lobby efforts of the commercial hunting operations.
This time it will not be overshadowed no matter how hard you and others try and do so.