Jump to navigation
I am not for or against baiting. I like and expect government and people to deal in facts period. All you presented were opinions about TB spreading less without bait. But who knows. I do know that not once did you mention the real problem . Rancher practices.
What you propose is fixing the engine when the problem is the tranny.
Last post from me on this one.
I recently talked to the Game and Fish and wrote an e-mail on behalf of Sporting Chance to address the point about the physically disabled. It sounds like this will not be a problem and they will work with the organizations to allow baiting. You can check out what Chris Grondahl has to say on Dakota Prairie Outdoors at the link below.http://dakotaprairieoutdoors.com/ 1-28 and 1-29 shows
This one has been a tough call for me so I did some checking or web surfing as it is more commonly called to see what other states are doing. First of all this bill is being pitched as a way to prevent or reduce the chances that diseases will be spread. I wonder if there is just one disease they have in mind or all of them. Some of the more common diseases associated with deer are EHD (Blue tongue) and CWD, but let
Did the G&F hire you to be thier spokesman on this site 24-7 with your non stop ban baiting campaign?
Its funny all these post and there are only like 3 or 4 that are for an all out ban. And by the looks of it about 50-75% of the pro ban posts are yours.
Let some of the others speak for themselves, that is if there are others like you.
kdm, glad you came off the fence. But you like bdog and others are spinning this as if banning of bait is an absolute guarantee that we will not have disease outbreaks. You own data can be used to show the effectiveness of bait bans or limits just as easily by showing that the rate of occurrence is lessened and when disease does appear remains very localized.
Like I said before, claiming harm to hunting is not going offset the dollar figures that will be presented that will be lost if we lose our TB free status because deer from the MN side are baited into ND.
So contact your Leg and express your concerns, include your Internet search data as well. Then at least you and others will not say your side of this issue did not get heard!
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!
KDM - Thanks for posting your findings, seems like some like to continue to say bring me the studies. Logic and common sense needs to com into play which some seem to overlook. I think you can draw the conclusion from reading the posts that there are underlying reasons for and against baiting.
The outbreaks in the livestock herds are examples that laws don't prevent disease outbreaks, not at all blaming the livestock producers, I'm sure they didn't choose to have the problem either. TB can be spread as an airborne disease - no touch needed, haven't heard that being promoted by the anti's either. If you really want to look at disease resistance from an animal husbandry standpoint a healthy, well fed and cared for animal is less succeptable to disease than a starving animal. Maybe we should have a law requiring all wildlife to be fed and kept healthy?? Common sense and logic would take care of that idea also!
I would encourage everyone to get out to the country and see who is feeding the wildlife, especially on a winter like this. I think we can thank landowners and habitat promoters for the wildlife that everyone else wants to manage.
I am asking you this, in what way will this bill stop deer from coming in contact with cattle? I know you are a very smart person so answer that. I agree on the fact that the hoarding of wildlife and dumping trucks full of bait to hoard wildlife is not right and that should be regulated. If disease was truely the issue and the deer populations were in jepordy our ND Game & Fish should have put an end to it already. The bow hunter that puts out a 5 gal. pail of bait is not the problem.
Spelled (jeopardy) wrong sorry.
Baw I am sure no matter how clear this is you will revert to your idea that this is intended to prevent and stop any and all disease and make every deer never come in contact with a cow or another deer.
So here goes. It is about removing a practice that increases(note the word "increases") behavioral activity of the deer that are known causes for disease transmission. A pile of bait 5 gal or less can create an environment that is as bad or worse than a big pile depending on how many deer frequent the site.
bingo gave a description of feeding pail calves and how slobbered up a bucket can get. The same thing happens with baiting as well.
This bill is not going to as I said guarantee that no diseases will ever occur,nor will it guarantee that disease will not spread. However as I have said before, it will remove a practice that increases the likelihood of disease manifestation,increases behavior in deer that is known to cause disease spread and removes a risk that is known to increase the speed of which disease if it becomes present moves through the wild herd, both those that affect deer and also those that deer are a host and transmit it to other animals.
It will also in large baiting situations remove an artificial concentration of deer in an area which can if livestock are present reduce the deer/cow contact.
BAW all of this has been explained before, but you refuse to look at the facts. I am sure you will come up with another question or comment that has been addressed before but your glued to the over the top concept that this bill is intended to be the cure all of disease!
This bill is not going to stop EHD for example from occurring, or anthrax which is present in the ground all across the state and appears in cattle and deer when weather conditions are right. It may keep CWD out of the herd, it can and does reduce the chance that TB or other disease that can be passed from cattle to deer and back to cattle from spreading faster than it otherwise would.
It will not prevent deer from yarding up, but it can affect how many yard in an area which is one factor that all who understand the disease transmission issue agree elevates the risk.
We are not going to change Ag practices in regards to types of crops planted,fall tillage and such that create opportunities for yarding. To attempt to do that most likely will result in the Leg ordering the elimination of deer as the economic impact of hunting is a good number pales in comparison to raising of grains and such.
We already have education programs that provide information to cattlemen on how to reduce the risks of deer/cow contact. I have never disagreed that more emphasis needs to be put on this side of the aisle.
I am a realist in understanding that we will not get the Leg to act in setting standards in this area. One only needs to look at the issue regarding semi trailer rear collision protection. The Feds mandated states change or lose Fed Highway funds. ND sought an exemption instead and now we lose $100,000.00 a month in Fed money as a penalty.
So as a hunter, I do not want to see parts of the state be targeted for removal of all deer because of a disease outbreak, but as a hunter I understand it may happen, and so I am taking the approach that if we do have to kill deer in an area I want that area to be as small as possible.
Most people I know who hunt or raise cattle or do both get the gravity of this issue. Many do not want any changes or want limits on size. All but a few understand that baiting does increase risks, what they are split on is a willingness to give up a practice they like to do.
In that group there are people who oppose baiting strickly from an ethics point of view. Myself I have issues with some baiting practices and ethics and have never said otherwise. There are others who bait and feed deer that do not hunt and do not like hunting. We have a landowner back in my area who is like this. Purposely starts feeding deer in late Oct to get them programed to his land and does not allow any hunting.
So there is a wide variety of opinions and reasons etc... out there. All those opinions and ideas though really get trumped if one looks at the fact that bait and feeding create increased risks to the health and welfare of both livestock and the deer themselves.Both which if you think about it just a bit will have negative impacts economically. The key is how big that impact will be and by changing some activities we remove one factor that can have a very,very large impact.
If our cost to export cattle from the state takes a sharp jump. That affects the retailer in small town ND as well as the large cities. That affects tax revenue to the state and the impact rolls on and on.
When I read some of the comments that it will take people out of bow hunting, I look at the number of bow hunters, the dollars they spend and compare that to the losses that would occur in the Ag sector and it becomes a no brainier as they say.
Roads a danger to pheasants
By LAUREN DONOVAN
REGENT - The countryside around Regent is a ringneck refugee camp.
Thousands of the brilliant cocks and dun-colored hens are crowding highways, farmyards and moving into town for food and shelter.
The highway shoulders where the game birds emerge to peck for seed and gravel - lining both sides of Highway 21 as far as the eye could see one afternoon this week - have become carnage zones.
Hundreds of road-killed birds litter the road surface and highway ditches. Other pheasants are cannibalizing them, whether for meat or for what's in their crop, no one knows.
Regent's Enchanted Highway, with its world-famous metal sculptures, is not so enchanting just now.
The still and mutilated birds with other pheasants feeding on them are a morbid contrast to the beauty of the snowy landscape in the high butte country in this part of the state. It's that snow pheasants are trying to escape by moving onto open roads and road shoulders.
August Kirschemann of rural Regent estimates he's got 5,000 birds living around some empty bins just on the south side of Highway 21.
"It's really been a zoo. I don't know what to do," he said. He figures the pheasants are attracted to last summer's stunted and still-standing wheat that was "zeroed out" for crop insurance purposes.
If they're still there come planting time, he says, "they'll eat the seed right out of the ground. They're a pretty bird, but too much is too much."
The pheasants have many human friends around Regent, partly because they're such a vital part of the dollar stream into town.
Birds that don't fly into the grill of a fast-moving semi or zig-zag under a rolling tire have a good chance of being fed by someone like Alan Honeyman, who lives just outside Regent.
Honeyman estimates he has 4,000 birds living in his shelter-belted farmyard, where he rolls out feed every other day.
So far, he's rolled out some 50 wheat bales and shoveled out truckloads of expensive corn and millet for the birds.
His place is just off Highway 21, and he's scraped snow down to the bare ground in his yard in hopes the birds will remain there to peck for gravel rather than move out to the road.
Still, roadkill is a daily fact of life.
"The highway casualties, I've never seen anything like it, not even in the '97," Honeyman said. "All those dead birds, I don't care for it, but there's nothing I can do."
He'll spend $7,000 to feed pheasants this winter. He's in the fee hunting business, and even though it's a fair dent in any profit, he says it's part of the cost of that kind of economy.
"I'm not complaining. I'm willing to do my part. They're not 'my' birds. They're here, and I'll feed them, and in the spring they'll scatter to the four winds," he said.
Down at the Cannonball Co. office in Regent, manager Nicole Haase said the fate of the birds and the dead birds along highways in and out of town concerns everyone.
Cannonball Co. is a landowner cooperative. It draws hundreds of in- and out-of-state pheasant hunters every fall to hunt the tree rows, river breaks and idled crop land where pheasants flourish. This year, Cannonball hunters harvested 5,700 birds.
Haase said the company board recently sent a letter to cooperative members detailing where to purchase seed screenings and other feed supplies.
"Everyone's concerned and providing whatever feed they can," she said.
Company guide Curt Honeyman said most landowners around Regent are putting out feed for the pheasants, in the form of wheat and safflower screenings, or the unharvested stunted wheat that was rolled into bales at the end of a dry hot summer.
"Every farmstead within 10 miles of Regent's probably got at least 500 to 1,000 birds and if they're feeding cattle, the pheasants are following the cattle (for "recycled" feed)," he said.
Curt Honeyman said he'd guess more pheasants are road-killed than dying of starvation around Regent. It's a weird good news-bad news kind of thing, because the reason the high number of road-killed birds is so evident is because there are so many birds to begin with.
The living birds, especially those strutting out from a farmstead that's supplying feed, are reportedly nice and plump through the breast, he said.
He figures that with so many birds to start with, a good number will survive the winter unless there's another devastating snow storm.
That's Honeyman's worry, too.
"If we don't feed 'em, they'll die off if we get a bad storm. If they've got food and shelter, they'll make it," he said.
For now, anyone traveling in Hettinger County, particularly through the Regent area, would be well advised to drive at a moderate speed.
The pheasants would appreciate time to scoot out of the way. It also could save having to replace a broken headlight, or dented grill, the kind of work that's keeping local garages busy this winter with so many birds out on the road.
(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 888-303-5511 or lauren@;westriv.com.)
Yeah, I guess we need to ban baiting and feeding of big game. So they can head over to the pheasant buffet! LOL!
Ron, what are you going to do about this?
We have talked to Game & Fish and tried to get an exemption for our Sporting Chance hunts before the bill was introduced. They were not interested in any exemptions to the baiting ban even if it was for disabled hunters. Thanks to all of the support of everyone that has been calling your representatives and voicing your opinions it appears they are taking a second look at this issue. Game & Fish called this week and said they are now thinking about trying to work with the disabled hunters for an exemption. I know Senator Olafson does not want to allow any exemptions. We appreciate the effort but we still need to voice our concerns and we must make sure the senator and our legislators understand our position to ensure an exemption is made. Game & Fish has worked with Sporting Chance to make many of our hunts possible in the past and I am sure it will be the same way in the future. Chris Grondahl has made a special effort to hear our concerns and try to work with Sporting Chance.
Dang you are a well spoken person that likes to talk. I have one more question with all that you have said. Now people don't take this the wrong way because the idea of Sportsman Clubs helping the disabled people get out to shoot or view deer is awsome. But here it goes and don't shoot me, how can you make exceptions to your rules and ideas for groups of people feeding wildlife?
You don't have to worry about anything. The deer know what is meant for the pheasants and they will stay out of that pheasant feed.
You don't have to worry about the groups either. Diseased deer know that they must stay out of those types of bait piles or bait plots. So no worry there either.
BAW, if you read my post to easydecoy, you will understand that for me the exception rule would have to be only for approved groups. Something you may not know is that I have in the past worked with and helped a wheel chair bound hunter in harvesting his deer. None of the times did we hunt over any bait.
So to qualify organizations would need to meet critera in regards to the type of person they intend to take out etc.. There are not that many groups doing this that they would pose a problem especially if the baiting was done for a short duration and once the hunt was complete they removed the residual bait from the area.
I can understand the reason you ask this,because you want to say gotcha!! Well it is not that simple. We all know that these groups are of a very small number, could be easily monitored unlike the general hunting community. Type of bait could be controlled, amount, and even time the bait can be placed. Not realistic restrictions that could be enforce in the hunting community again.
There are more people feeding wildlife from their back porches than there are bow hunters baiting deer. Does your logic apply to that then?
I'm not going to say Gotcha, that would be childish. But please read some of your own post from the beginning and tell me how making exceptions wouldn't be going against everything you have been preaching to us. No matter how you spin it for the small number of groups.
I have to kind of agree. There does seem to be a lot of back tracking.
Can you send me the photo you submitted to the site? For whatever reason it didn't come into the database properly.
Obviously you are referring to my response and I'm afraid you are taking things out of context. But, whatever, I'll keep plugging away.
By the way, I can't believe you wouldn't be on my side more than Hardwaterman. He feels its okay to feed wildlife. He also feels it's okay to allow some groups to continue to bait when others cannot. In addition, if you read the 2007 talk forum than you will see I have actually switched my belief in that if we are to ban bait we must do so in the name of disease. I have supported my thoughts on this in the talk forum. Not quite sure why Hardwaterman is crowned the King when his bait ban is much weaker than mine.
Although, I have also stated if we work on a compromise I feel it would be the best case scenario. The opposition doesn't want to do a compromise so in that case, I have no choice than to support a bill that places the burden on everyone equally.
So for those that assume I am back sliding, fine! I look at the situation with groups that decoy represents as being in a class deserving of consideration all on their own because of the service they provide.
In just about every law we have there are exceptions made for valid reasons or use. One only needs to look and you will find this to be the case. I know the fear of allowing any exceptions is that where do you draw the line, and frankly I cannot fault the bill carrier or the G&F for taking that position. The exceptions need to be based on providing for those who without the use of bait would not have any other option otherwise like the handicap parking stickers we will see it abused.
This is why I stated that the exceptions have to be granted by permit and to organizations. Not to anyone who might claim to have a need for various reasons.
I didn't have time to read all the above so sorry if this is redundant. Why don't they just say what it really is. It's ok to bait if your a farmer but not if your not a farmer. Pretty simple really.
There is an issue that has never been discussed unless I missed it. It is apparent there are a lot of deer taken over bait in North Dakota in a year. Many of these deer taken are concurrent doe tags. These extra doe tags are issued to reduce the size of our deer herd. There is definately a factor of the number of deer shot over bait that reduces the spread or prevention of disease. It appears that ND is doing something right since we do not have the disease problems that our neighbors do. It appears this must be baiting since it is the only thing we are doing different then our neighbors that have ban baiting.
Do a little searching on WHENn those neighboring states that you speak of FIRST documented cases of diseases such as TB, CWD, etc. Did those diseases first show up while baiting was allowed in those states or after it was banned in those states?
I'm pretty sure you will find that AT THAT TIME, those neighboring states did allow baiting so your theory that ND allowing baiting is the factor that keeps us from having diseases is bogus. Sorry man.
One more hole in that theory...look how many baiting violations occur in those neighboring states...especially MN. It may be illegal, but it is still occuring in the neighboring states just like it is legally occuring in ND. That makes it pretty much impossible to say that because ND allows baiting, that is the thing we are doing right that is preventing disease. Sorry again.
I am curious to why Wisconsin only has a partial feeding and baiting ban. Would this not work in ND should they decide to vote this bill through? I only ask because when I think CWD, the fist state that comes to mind is Wisconsin. You'd think they would have put an all out ban on also.
"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."
ND currently has a partial feeding and baiting ban. It is not allowed everywhere, just like in WI.
There are states that allow baiting that have documented CWD in captive and/or wild cervid populations. There are also states that don't allow baiting that documented CWD in captive and/or wild cervid populations either before or after baiting was banned. There are also states that allow baiting that have never documented CWD in captive and/or wild cervid populations (ND is one of these). There are also states that do not allow baiting and have never documented CWD in captive and/or wild cervid populations.
Some states have only had documented cases in captive animals and some states have only documented cases in wild animals.
What all of this tells me is that CWD obviously doesn't start from hunters baiting deer. However once the disease is found in a state (or occurs in a state even though it has not yet been found), it is impossible to know if or how much baiting might affect the spread of the disease. Maybe a lot, maybe not at all, maybe somewhere in between.
However, the only theory I can debunk based on everything I have learned about where this disease occurs in respect to the baiting bans or lack there of in those areas is: allowing baiting in no way can possibly prevent diseases such as CWD and TB. Several states such as Montana are proof of this.
solo this has been covered, it was regulated not from a science or enforcement position, but from the Leg who ignored all the recommendations from experts in regards to this issue.
If a baiting was harmful to the wildlife the NDGF has the power to get rid of it. There are some that just won't stop with the subject. NDGF are making the elected officials decide what is right for the wildlife instead of doing their frickin job if it is that dangerous to the deer.
Ethics - I hear is alot in the big baiting debate. What is ethics?
Can you enter a P&Y or B&C animal that was taken over bait? You can't with archery equipment that is deemed unethical, how about a truckload of bait?
Bowhunters are the selfish ones.... that's what I have read. Are you kidding me? A bowhunter can't shoot a deer standing 400 yards away Einstein! People don't usually hunt with bait during gun season because the don't have to get the deer into 30 yards.
There could be statistic after statistic thrown at those of you against baiting and it wouldn't matter. You are not worried about the da*n deer, you just don't like it. Nothing is gonna change that fact.
Bottom line: If baiting was/could/will kill wildlife or cattle, the G&F would have already done it. You don't wait til you have the disease to immunize.
Check out the Photo Gallery.
Curt Wells had an article in the Dakota Country mag.
Of course, his position has not changed. The article was interesting and pointed out one thing that really hasn't gotten much attention on this site.
PERCEPTION - As we all know, sportsman are a minority. That said, when we do hunt, people perceive what we are doing and many have no idea what hunting is about (nor do they care). Baiting may give the wrong 'perception' about hunting.
I don't disagree.
Say what? Go up to the top and look at my posts where I mentioned this almost immediately.
When the bait bill passes I'll make sure to video tape myself sticking a deer munching on a corn cob from a bait plot (same thing as a food plot). I'll question the non-hunting people if they see a difference. Or maybe I'll point them to You-Tube to watch an antelope getting smacked while enjoying a nice drink of water on a hot fall day. Think they'd perceive that any different? Nope.
How is hunting over a bucket of apples spread on the ground and hunting near an apple tree different?
So shooting a deer that is eating from a spill due to "normal ag practices" is OK?
That is the most rediculous argument yet for this ban!
Tim - I stated 'hasn't gotten much attention'. I didn't say it hadn't been brought up.
I would say perception is much more important than anyone would realize. As an example, the CC bill was debated today. Some students say they will be less safe. My thought is - How would a gun in my pocket make you less safe? Actually it is just perception as the reality is if I wanted to kill someone I would bring a gun regardless of the law.
Tim - I would also mention that Curt and I agree on the 'bait plot' argument. To paraphrase: It doesn't deserve a response it is just too stupid!
HUNT - Shooting a deer over a spill from 'normal ag practice', if done so knowingly, is baiting. End of that subject, and that is in the same class as Tim's 'bait plot' question.
48suks, You have it exactly right. Game & Fish has the authority to ban this at any time. They have the experts and if they do not feel it is important enough to exercise their power why do all of the non-experts feel this should be done. Wisconsin has diseases and still allow baiting in non-disease areas. With their problems you think they would ban baiting on the whole state. We should implement our regulations similar to Wisconsin. If there is disease detected in a unit ban baiting in that unit until it is declared disease free. Limit the amount of bait.
NO. He does not have it right. Game and Fish is opposed to baiting. You can read it in their Strategic Plan. They do have the authority to put the regulations in place. They have chosen to have our legislators make the ultimate decision so that ALL interested parties can have input. That means hunters, non-hunters, cattlemen and everybody else gets to provide input.
If Game and Fish did otherwise, you would complain that they did it without your input. You can never please some people.
The are opposed to baiting so they excercise half their right and ban it on public land. Now it gets sticky when they tell landowners that they can't do it on their land. Now they will let the elected officials make the call. That's like the doctor saying you are going to die and then he calls the congressmen to see what they think, it just doesn't make sense. They are the wildlife experts, make the dang call already.
Is Curt Wells the mayor or something? Who is he?
10% are for hunting, 10% are opposed to it and 80% don't care either way. Why take this case to government?
48 - Curt Wells is an outdoor writer from ND. I writes for a couple mags, one of which is the Dakota Country.
Think what you want about G&F but they sure have a thankless job. I have looked at the site over the last several years and people complain about no fish, no slot limit, too many small fish, flawed lottery system, poor stocking of lakes, poor roads, poor boat landings, baiting or lack of baiting, too many deer, not enough deer, etc.
I can't blame them for having the leg take the stink off their back.
What my stance is on the baiting issue and what everyone's stance is is pretty much a moot point if you ask me.
I have to agree with 48suks and anyone else who thinks the same way. If the ND G&F thinks baiting should be banned, they should just ban it. If not, they need to quit voicing their opinion on it. It should be thiers. It shouldn't be left up to hunters, farmers, the government or anyone else. The Game and Fish are supposed to be the experts and if they have so many reasons they think it should be banned and they have the authority to do it they should just do it and quit worrying about hurting people's feelings. I'm sure there are people whose feelings got hurt when the sage grouse season was closed or any given year when the number of deer tags available in their unit went down or when they got turned down for elk, moose, or sheep for the umpteenth year in a row or when the paddlefish season closed earlier or...you get the idea. I personally think baiting should have banned a long time ago but I don't think it should be my call and the same web has been spun so damn many times as this topic comes up over and over and over and over that I'm getting damn sick of it and I'm pretty much starting to not give two shts about it anymore. This issue has been pussyfooted around for way too long. Someone needs to step up and make a decision about this even if the decision is to just FORGET ABOUT IT ALREADY.
Wrong again. If they ban baiting for big game, it applies everywhere. Just like any hunting regulations apply on private land and public land alike. The Legislature has already delegated authority to GNF to regulate hunting and fishing.
The reason they are pursuing a legislative approach is to allow widespread public input. A second reason for this approach is because simply adding a ban on their part would surely result in someone asking the Legislature to reverse them. This is more efficient in the long run.
So we are not suppose to shoot anything that is eating because it is unethical?
What if I wait for the deer to finish his apple before I shoot him, is that OK then?
What's stupid? The fact that NDGF agrees that bait/food plots are the more powerful weapon to sustain the wildlife population? Hence, increase ones odds at harvesting an animal? I don't dispute bait piles attract deer. People do things for a reason but that is the same answer to those who plant bait plots and food plots...they attract game and lots of game. Why is that disputed?
Folks, the meeting is Feb 12th and tentatively scheuled for 9:00 am. I suggest you have your comments submitted by Feb 10th so the committee members may have enough time to digest everything. Don't disappoint me folks, I take pride in getting folks informed and creating an environment friendly and easy for everyone to be involved. Below is the contact information for each senator. Whether you are letter writer or a person that likes to talk...all the contact info you need is right below or can be found in this link (this goes for all the bills going through committee and the floors): 2009 Outdoor Legislation Master ListHere's their personal webpages with other information:
I know it has been covered. Just wanted to throw that out there to make a point. A state that is disease ridden with CWD doesn't feel it necessary for a statewide ban yet we all of a sudden do?? I know your stance HW, just giving everyone else something to think about.
As I looked at easydecoy's picture of the deer all over the hay and bunched up I had a light bulb minute.
As I read some on the posts here and watch the news on TV it doned on me. There is very little common sense in the world today. Almost none. Its not popular in today's world.
50 years ago the earth was full of people with common sense. Maybe this was because those without it died off due to their dumbness. Maybe they died off because there weren't some many acencies to protect and take care of them. If you didn't have common sense you had a short life span.
Anybody with a lick of common sense would know deer feed with cattle, mingle with cattle, live in the same space as cattle, drink from the same sources as cattle, crap in the same spots, etc.
If anyone was worried about disease that would be the first place you would address-cattle with deer. Thats if you operated with common sense.
But to say oh we must ban baiting because a cow MIGHT get a disease from the deer eating at a bait. But we are not worried enough about the deer that eat,drink and hang with our cows to do anything about it.
Let's all go to bed tonight and pray for God to give us back common sense.
Wrong again...what do you mean. They have already banned baiting on PUBLIC land. Refuges, State School land, WMA, Forestry land. Public Land.....no baiting.
If it was because of disease as they say, it would have already been AAALLL land.
What part of that was wrong?
Try to follow along. You said that GNF is afraid to tell landowners what they can do on their own land. That is incorrect. Any restrictions on baiting on public land have been as a result of concerns over people fighting over choice spots and also over people taking stuff onto public land and leaving it. Kind of a littering issue if you will.
GNF could have banned baiting all along. They didn't do that but it has nothing to do with a lack of faith in their position. They clearly felt that this is big enough that people should have input. Hence, the Legislative approach. I don't know if you have ever attended advisory meeting but I have. As sportsmen, our efforts in that area are putrid. Very low attendance and then we complain about what GNF does.
Hopefully, everybody who cares about this issue lets them know what their thoughts are.
As for the question of bait/food plots compared to bait piles, I totally disagree with Tim and HUNT that they are the same in the eyes of the non-hunting public. Everybody has a right to their opinion but I have seen how people react to descriptions of how animals are shot over bait piles. They don't have the same reaction to an animal shot at a water hole or eating in a corn field.
Finally, rest assured that I won't be discussin this issue with our legislators because I really don't have strong feelings about baiting. I just don't like people saying stupid things and expecting me to agree just because they repeat it over and over.
If you don't think perceptions matter, talk to the people who voted for Obama and ask them why. Why are all Republicans perceived as dumb and sneaky? Why do people think all Democrats really care about them? Perceptions become reality in people's minds. End of story.
Oh crap. I just read what I posted.
Tim and HUNT,
The stupid comments thing was not aimed your way. It wasn't even aimed at 48. If anybody else thinks it was directed at them, it probably was.
The people of North Dakota have spoke on this issue and that is why we are all getting sick of it. The ban on baiting ws attempted in 2005 as HB1367 again in 2005 as HB1039 and now again SB2351 in 2009. I don't know why anyone is saying let people decide they already have twice. How many times can this come up? Can it be introduced every session until it actually goes through? I am not being sarcastic I don't know. If it fails for the third time I hope it is finally the end of the issue.
Try not to confuse teh "people" with the legislature.
I believe the polls on baiting were clearly against baiting and the legislature refused to ban baiting.
When something the people want continues to come up, that just means to me our legislature is a little slow. I wouldn't be surprised if the NDGF doesn't ban baiting as a means of taking wildlife if this version of a legislature doesn't. The evidence is overwhelming on why it should be done. Only those who have forgotten how to hunt the way our fathers hunted are left trying to figure out how to keep it around.
“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 have been following the legislature for quite a few years (sessions). There are bills that come up session after session. Many have to do with hunting issues. There is no limit to the number of times a bill (issue) can be introduced. No three strikes your out with the ND legislature.
Allen is correct in his statements on the issue.