Jump to navigation
The thread got bumped because it fell out of the top topics.
I think most have kind of exhausted themselves with this topic. Good news Tim, we only have about a week to go.
What I don't "get" is how anybody could fail to understand how powerful perceptions are. We just had tens of millions of people vote for their elected officials based heavily on perceptions. Republicans are mean and evil and most of them are not very bright. Democrats are generally quite brilliant and care more about their fellow man than Republicans ever could. Know anybody that thinks that way? Wonder why?
Forget anti's. They aren't more likely to decide this issue than hunters will. It's the people in the middle that decide everything. Those are the people that don't agree with PETA but probably won't ever hunt either.
These people have watched Discovery Channel and National Geographic. They have seen gazelles get ambushed by crocs at the waterhole. They understand nature. They also understand deer or other animals getting killed when they are in a corn field, etc.
What tends to bother them is when the mighty hunter with his high powered rifle that can hit a target a half mile away gets out his laser range finder and his scent free clothing and carries pails of apples to the end of the shelterbelt to lure a deer into point blank range.
Describe that hunt over a bait pile and take pictures of you with the deer on one side and the bait pile on the other to somebody that doesn't hunt. I doubt if you will get a real positive reaction. Hardwater makes a good point about the pictures. I can't remember seeing one with the deer posed on the bait pile. Wonder why?
I was not going to address ethics if I speak at the hearing, but now I think I will and ask if any supporters of baiting have brought their pictures displaying their take with the bait pile in them!!!!!!!!
It just struck me this morning that I have never seen one!!!
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!
Have you seen the gallery? Or.......?
Lots and lots of trail cam photos with bait piles. You expect them to drag their deer back to the bait pile to take a photo??? Regardless, I don't know where you are going with this? It matters now if we take photos of deer taken over bait piles, a water hole, over an unharvested corn field or over a bait plot? I have a buddy that has a picture of a mule deer shot by bales, would you like that photo? Point being, what's the difference?
If the NDGF is doing the right thing what took them so long? They've had the power for years upon years.
I think ethics were going to be brought up anyways in regards to this bill no matter what anyone says. As for pics by a bait pile, I have a pic of a buck bedded down by one and he is still alive 2 yrs later free of disease. The five gallon pail guy is not the problem but unfortunately he is probably going to suffer due to the 30 ton guy! I think with this bill we are making a mountain out of a mole hill! Or "threat" of a mole hill that is!
"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."
Like Tim and others have said, what's the difference if a deer is shot over a pile of corn or in a cornfield? What's the difference if a deer is shot over a pile of apples under an apple tree or under a cottonwood?
Do you take a photo of your ducks next to the decoys you used to lure them in with?
Go ahead and bring ethics up at the hearing, I'm pretty sure that will be a good way to kill this bill!
Maybe PETA has donated some money to the G&F!?!
Why hasnt the NDGF gone ahead and ban it already? They have the power to do it without any legislative process..
If the 'disease' factor is so threatening and 'imminent'.. then why not just cut thru all the politics and get er done??? but no.. they drag it thru the process again.. spending tax payers dollars on trying to persuade everyboody that it should be done.. 'because' disease is 'imminent'...
this has thrown up red flags for me from the beginning... if 'baiting' is so bad ... then BAN IT.. put your Education in Wildlife and degrees in MOTION.. trumping the legislastive process because you 'legally' have the power to do it... thats 'if' baitng spreading disease 'really ' is the 'thrust' behind this bill...
it just doesnt make sense..
If you want to become a 'good' archer become the BOW, if you want to become a 'great' archer become the ARROW.... BYRON FERGUSON
It's no secret that the reason the NDGF stayed out of it up to now was because of ethics and also because of private landowner rights. If they don't get the Stockmen's Association or other landowner groups on board (especially cattle groups) they will have a very tough time trying to force the disease issue. Their next option will be the whole ethics argument. Which, I believe the NDGF should not be a spokesman of. Especially when we could argue about ethics until we are blue in the face (I've already been blue a few times!).
I don't know who said it but someone said I didn't want this topic to fade. OF COURSE NOT! I honestly do not want any topic to fade because I want people to be a part of the solution instead of the problem because that's the way it works. Man, I get grief for trying to provide medium for people to be involved. Who would have thunk it?
Like Farnorth said, we have just over a week left. I hope they made arrangements for a bigger committee room because by the sounds of it there will be a big turnout. Those that can't make the meeting (me included) please at least call or write the necessary folks. A good starting point is the Senate Committee members. All the information you need is directly below:
2009 Outdoor Legislation Master ListHere's their personal web pages with other information:
I wish I could be there in person, but work and a doctors appointment will not allow it. I have sent my opinions to each of the committee members as well as the GNF. I urge all of you to do the same. And if you can be there to testify please do so!
I tried to refrain, but I can't.
Do you hang a tarsal gland on your neck when you snap the photos of your buck? Do you drag him down to the waterhole and pose knee deep? Do you roll around in a mock scrape with him as the pictures are taking? Do you hang some alfalfa out of its mouth in your photos? Why not HW, aren't you proud?
You ask some stupid frickin questions and you are not getting your point across.
Some good stuff here!How about if you want to use a bait pile you have to buy a bait stamp from the G&F-the money from these stamps would go towards testing of deer,etc,etc!And any guides that use bait piles would have to buy a diff bait stamp and of course at a higher price.Then the G&F would have some kind of idea who,where and how many are using bait piles.
Seems like I ruffled the feathers of the baiting crowd. Yes those deer on trail cams are prime examples of what baiting does. But the point of the matter is why if all are so proud of baiting do you not include the biggest tool you use in your pictures.
I take pictures of my animals where they are taken. This year all of the deer my family took came out of CRP.We had some come out of standing corn in our party. The pictures also indicate that!
But hey are none of the deer shot over bait dropping in their tracks? My deer all did! My daughters deer did as well and so did my buddies!
I cannot imagine that none of you who use bait did not have a deer drop on the bait pile and if it did why do we not see any pictures showing it?
So far in this thread we have had people make reference to more ethical shots being taken with bait, that no deer or significantly lower numbers of deer will be taken. So told to find tougher land to hunt! That baiting actually reduces contact and the list goes on and on! All trying to justify the practice, but none have had any willingness to post up a picture of an animal laying dead on a bait pile!!!!!!!!
We all know why! But I bet none have the guts to admit it!!!
You a bowhunter?
Where are your pics you are so proud of? I'd like to see what an ethical, hardworking hunter looks like.
How many bow shot deer fall in their tracks?
You wouldn't know the difference between a real apple tree and my bait site anyway. What do you think there is a bucket of apples sitting there?
You are losing it man! LOL!
Never mind the master baiter label, we now have a master spiner (as in "spine"). I try to shoot my deer in the vitals with my bow. Going for the spine on every shot is not recommended. If you are talking about rifle I'd like to know how many people actually use a bait pile while rifle hunting. I know I wouldn't with a rifle but I would hunt in the vicinity of food sources and good habitat. Isn't this bill targeted almost directly at bow hunters?
Getting back to ethical shots I have to ask you HW, are you disputing that bait piles, plots or water holes do not offer more ethical shots when compared to frequency of other styles of hunting? I'd love to hear that explanation.
When I use a rifle I hunt the Badlands and am sitting on a hill in the dark waiting for light to come. In the past three years I have used four shells on three animals. Yeah I goofed on my antelope. So sue me .
Tim ethical shots are determined by the skill of a shooter be it with a bow or a rifle or ML etc.. I prefer a standing shot that is broadside with no obstruction. I will take a running shot with a rifle on a deer given the right set of conditions. When I use to bow hunt I would take broad side shots at 35 yards or less as my shooting percentage went down beyond that and my equipment also limited me.
The point in all of this is that for most a standing shot is an easier target most of the time, one I agree with and prefer to take. However a standing shot is not always more ethical. Me taking a running shot at 30 yards broadside with a rifle for example is much more ethical than me taking a standing shot at 400 yards!
I understand your point with a bow. I never have taken a moving shot on a deer with mine. I have seen people do so and cleanly harvest animals with accuracy. So ethical shot selection has as much to do with ablity as anything.
I hunted with a friend of mine before he moved to Alaska that used a long bow and instinct shot. He would put 5 of 5 arrows in the bottom of a aluminum pie plate at 45 yards. He often times would use his bow duck hunting taking ducks on the wing. My skill level never reached his. His skill made shots that I passed on very ethical to take.
So yes I do agree that a standing shot can create a more ethical situation, but the option of a standing shot is not limited to it being over a pile of bait.
Tim I hunted way to many years in WI to buy into these lame excuses both with a bow and firearm. I stopped almost every animal I wanted to shoot without the aid of bait. I am by no means an expert or have any special skills. I am an average guy who does not fooled into thinking bait is the only way that a deer can be taken with a bow.
Like I have already said this issue is about disease to me first and foremost. To those who bait, it is all about big racked bucks for the most part. We cloud the issue with to use your words "spin" but that is what it boils down to!
The resource is bigger than my or your or anyones need to shoot a big buck. This morning on the Ed Schultz show the guest host made the comment that sportsmen go after big bucks! He was quickly corrected that sportsmen are those who look first at the health and well being of the resource and not their own personal glory wants!!!!!
I am willing to bet that 95% of those supporting baiting do so to get a trophy deer and no other reason. Not ethical shot selection, not to reduce the doe population etc.. Just one underlying reason. If that is what it is, then say so! But the rest of the stuff is nothing but BS designed to cover the real reason they bait and are unwilling to admit it!
"I am willing to bet that 95% of those supporting baiting do so to get a trophy deer and no other reason. Not ethical shot selection, not to reduce the doe population etc.. Just one underlying reason. If that is what it is, then say so! But the rest of the stuff is nothing but BS designed to cover the real reason they bait and are unwilling to admit it!"
And I am willing to bet that your ENTIRE fight about banning it is because people kill big deer over bait.
48suks for some I know that is part of the backing of banning bait, for me it is not, and never has. I enjoy deer hunting because it is something I do with my wife,daughter and friends. I went 6 years without a buck tag in my unit for whitetail. Never once complained about the lottery etc...
But the dance is getting close to coming to an end and I for one fully understand what can happen and will happen. The impact on the area that will be deemed necessary for eradication of deer if a TB outbreak or similar disease is found will directly be related to the amount of baiting that takes place within the affected area.
If I am selfish at all, it is in hoping that proper preventive measures will reduce that area because the outbreak could occur in the unit I like to hunt. That is my selfish motivation for this. I guess that comes from watching it occur when I was in WI and after I left but still hunted with friends down there.
The number of deer that die from starvation will be small to those that die from the air killed by sharpshooters!!!!
Just food for thought. So now you know my motivation! Preservation of the resource first and foremost!
I'm curious. New to this argument but wondering if there has been an "accepted" mathematical probability determined as to the likelihood of disease in general being spread over or near bait versus say......water or reproductive activity?
The arrogance of the present is to forget the wisdom of the past.
Did you travel around big buck contest this year? The biggest animals taken are always with rifles (well almost...a very big whitetail was taken with a bow sleeping in some hay bales). Heck of a deer and heck of a story. A big congrats to that hunter on a fine animal!
Anyway, now I see we are going to label trophy hunters as unethical pigs? Wow. I trophy hunt, guilty as charged. I don't trophy hunt for necessarily the antlers. A trophy as defined by ME is an animal that is mature. I can't help it that God decided that the older and more mature a buck is, the more bigger his antlers will be. Outside my desire to hunt for a mature animal, and one of a particular set of criteria, I enjoy extending my hunts. If I go shoot the first buck that walk my way or falls within my spotting scope my hunt can often be over within the first few minutes of a given season. That's not why I hunt. I hunt to spend time in the outdoors with family and friends so setting critera for myself enables me to do that. Do I use tools to help me with harvesting animals? Yes I do, I have hunted over bait, I have hunted over bait plots, I have hunted over unharvested crops, I have hunted harvested crops, I have hunted over water holes, I have hunted over alfalfa fields and I have hunted refuge and other public lands that hold high concentrations of deer. In using them I hope for an opportunity at shooting a mature animal but I also use the same tools to shoot does! If that is unethical and that makes bow or rifle hunters unethical than I simply am lost for words.
And where in the world did I say that a bait pile or bait plot is the only way to get an ethical shot on an animal? HW, it get's very exhausting to always have to explain things in detail so I don't leave any thing for you or others to take out of context. Sometimes you need to think about things in a more critical manner before posting. I never said it is the only way but I did say say they increase standing and yardage friendly shots in more FREQUENCY.
I hunt to eat, I hunt to enjoy the outdoors, I hunt to enjoy the photos and I hunt for the enjoyment of shooting a mature animal. I don't like shooting a fawn and I don't like shooting a young buck. I have my reasons for that and I'll never apologize for it. I sure as heck won't apologize for not filling an extra doe tag I may have had or for not filling seven out of eight bow tags I have had. I simply don't go out into the outdoors to kill animals to help with management. I hunt in a responsible way. I can only handle one to two deer in my freezer or else they end up going to waste. How is that unethical? I say this because it seems you are implying that if I kill a mature buck I am not helping out with the management of our wildlife. That couldn't be further from the truth.
It is now glaring obvious (more obvious from when I said this comment the first time) that baiting is supported by an agenda I cannot support. It will be a shame if legislation shoves ethics down our throats when so much should be discussed. Unfortunately, the smoke screen is up and it is yet to be seen where the motives will come from. I will enjoy the testimony.
HW and others on his side of the fence.
I HUNT OVER BAIT. Sorry I don't have pictures. But I am not ashamed to tell you or anyone that I use bait. I use the 5 gallon varity. I use corn, apples and sometimes plums. I gather whatever is available in my garden or what I can get from farmers fields or bin sites. I get the plums from wild trees and the apples from farmsteads. Is that public enough.
HW you are getting a little ridiculus. Your making pot shots and calling people out. And unless you hunt and/or fish without the use of any bait, lure, decoy, scent, or enticement of any kind. You are being a hypocrite on your stand against baiting. If you have ever taken and animal of any species with the use of any enticement it would be considered baiting. And taking deer in or by standing corn is enticement. Whether you put the corn there or not the deer were still enticed/lured there by hunger and/or possibly shelter.
In my opinion this bill has got to fail. If it passes it may open the door for more similar bills to pass. Banning of lures and scents. Banning of live bait for fishing. Banning of decoys. Etc. Etc. The end result would be the banning of hunting and fishing. Maybe I'm exaggerating. Or am I. Look at whats happening in other states and areas. The wolf issue, the mountain lion, morning dove. These may not be our problems, yet. The anti's are winning. The hunter/fisherman, and possibly the farmer and rancher will lose in the end. Maybe this is a radical way of thinking but I believe it to be true.
If the disease issue was stood on by the G&F and no other reason like public perception, pulling deer off others property, or any other reason in the video they released, I would stand along side you and say that baiting should be banned.
Again I say that if the wildlife safety or health was the reason to ban baiting, the G&F would have done it already. If the studies showed that deer could/will die as a direct result from me throwing down 100#s of corn, I honestly and truely would stop.
This topic has had 8942 views to date and I think it is a very hot topic. My personal opinion is that if they ban baiting today, the people that bait would find a way to add this tool back into their arsenal. It is a tool just like any other option you have to use. There will be more food plots, apple trees, waterholes, standing crops, etc. used than ever before. This is not an excuse to keep baiting, but it will be a result of getting rid of it.
What other topic will take the place with almost 9000 views, probably nothing again until Obama enforces the gun control. Hunters and people in general do not like getting things taken away from them and will fight with any excuse neccesary to defen their position. Just like you and I both have on this issue.
I personally like Murdock's suggestion of a baiting stamp that the proceeds go to the G&F for testing. Not sure if they test now, but it may strengthenne side's case on this issue.
I definitely would like to know myself how many deer spread disease during the rut. That would be a very interesting number. Do you now why? Because the number one problem with disease is over population. When you have over population you obviously have more animals in any given area for any given reason. The rut is the beginning of congregated animals and held only second to winter months when animals become very congregated.
It is fine to have your thoughts about shooting deer over bait. If you don't want to do it that is your business. But its ugly to have you bashing everyone who doesn't agree with you. The disease arugement is weak given the lack of attention you place on ranchers. We know for a fact they can cause a outbreak. Bait piles, we don't know if they can.
Ethics are for one to behave in a matter that is acceptable to one's self. Your ethics are not my ethics and my ethics are not your ethics. I don't like you trying to cram your ethics down everone's throat and bash people who feel differently than you.
Is it ethical for the GF to inflate deer numbers so they can make more money selling licenses? Why don't they give doe tags away for free after the thrid draw to reduce doe numbers?
My point is that ethics are for each of us to figure out for ourselves. How we want to hunt, kill, etc. Of course within the law. You could make the arugement that bowhunting is unethical because rifles kill so muhk more effectively generally speaking that everyone should hunt with a rifle.
Relax HW and figure out for you want works and leave the rest of us to do the same.
"Master spiner" lol.
With Bdog on this one. HW's childish trash talking is getting old. What makes you so special that you can decide how everyone else hunts? You don't like baiting, don't do it then and don't bash people that do. You keep spouting that it is a disease issue with you, after reading all the posts from you the past couple weeks seems to be more of an ethics issue with you.
Ice fishermen are simple creatures, they just need a hole and their pole
Hardwater is not the only opponent of baiting.
Game and Fish is officially opposed to baiting. Read it in their Strategic Plan if you don't believe me. They are comitted to a legislatively imposed ban.
A recent Grand Forks Herald article included comments from leaders of sportsmen's groups. They indicated that their membership was evenly divided on the issue.
Lots of reasons are given. For some it is disease and for others it is ethics. Some are driven by other reasons that are best left to themselves.
One thing that strikes me in some of the posts is the idea that ethics shouldn't be part of the reason for any of these laws. That is a truly ignorant position. Please don't take offense but, there are plenty of regulations that are driven almost solely by ethics. Look through the proclamations and ask yourself what the basis is for many of our regulations.
I just wish our economy was as resilient as this topic. It is quite amazing that this is about the 50th thread about baiting and it still remains in the top 10 and once again racks up close to 10,000 hits even though it uses the exact same recycled posts as the other threads. It is as constant as the north star! The fact that this topic can withstand everything from gun bans to crooked government and liberal bashing to conservative bashing, and racism to green peace and STILL come out on top day after day offers a tiny ray of hope that maybe our economy can do the same. Thank God some people refuse to let this discussion die!
I don't dispute that one bit but we aren't even having the discussion on ethics. The bill is written behind disease. We need to have much more discussion on what is ethically wrong with shooting a deer over a bait pile, corn cob from a bait plot or over a water hole. We must be proficient at drafting a reasonable set of rules. Right now, I don't see a lick of difference when it comes to ethics other than I feel there should be a regulation on the size of bait piles and I think mechanical feeders should absolutely be banned.
But nope, we aren't having that discussion. This bill is being presented as disease first and quietly as ethics. We need to have a discussion especially when the legislature is going to be the engine.
I should say we aren't having a one on one discussion where it matters (which is directly with the NDGF, the hunter and other entities). We are having plenty of discussion on here about ethics but it is mostly being discussed because people can read between the lines.
"Getting back to ethical shots I have to ask you HW, are you disputing that bait piles, plots or water holes do not offer more ethical shots when compared to frequency of other styles of hunting? I'd love to hear that explanation."
These are your words Tim, you are the one stating that bait piles and such offer more ethical shots! I answered you very clearly that the skill of the shooter regardless of weapon defines an ethical shot much more than anything else and I gave you examples.
In regards to your leap regarding trophy hunting! I have no issue with what a person chooses to shoot. Be it a rag horn or a 170 class buck. If you chose to make tag soup because nothing met your standards, I do not care.
But today I asked for those who support baiting to step out in the open and tell us the truth as to why they bait and I made a point of stating what I think it is!
Just like you have done regarding what you think is the G&F reasoning! Why the double standard?
So it is out there! I want baiting and feeding banned because I realize that the more of this activity that goes on the bigger area that will need to have deer killed off if we get a positive test for TB and some other diseases. Plus the cost of eradication efforts as well as the losses to the farmers and ranchers as well.
With the knowledge you have of what the G&F plan on having to do if the current testing for TB comes back positive how can you still ask about transfer rates and such in regards to disease.
Here was my first post (and probably the last):
This subject has been completely beat to death over the last several years. Anyone who says they do bait and 'it doesn't account for big deer', it is a lot of work, it is the same as a food plot, it is no different than a corn field, etc. is just a plain liar. Baiting works or no one would do it.
In my opinion, if you want to bait I do not care. Just don't sit around and lie to my face. I have hunted over bait and also without bait. Baiting flat out works. Those that bait know so and that is why they are so dead set against getting rid of it. End of discussion.
Jan 21, 2009 11:14AM
Hardwater is completely spot on in this discussion. There are a couple people who have the grapes to tell the truth. Others hide behind lies and insults, but they are the same guys that get a red face when their girl friend mentions they shot 'the big buck' while munching the corn pile. Also, bowhunters are now playing the discrimination card while the muzzleloader hunter is just content to sit back and let the bowhunter fight it out. The rifle hunter claims to know nothing about bait but, just like the gay community, if push came to shove, the $hitty zipper would give them away as well.
Hardwater - dont get your hopes up for an honest answer.
Why have I used bait in the past to bowhunt? The number one reason is sub-par at best hunting area. The area I hunt is ridden with open country bar some cattail sloughs and single row tree rows. When you see a sunflower field or corn field, you set up as close as you can on the nearest unposted land because you can't get access to the posted stuff, I've asked. The deer do not follow normal travel routes because there are none. I have sat many a nights in the stand over a bait pile and not seen a deer and may have 1 or 2 visit during the night on trail cam. This is why many of us have used bait in the past to try and take a deer with a bow.
Is it more ethical to shoot a deer when he is drinking or eating?
Why do all bowhunters get bunched together and get all the flack? I am a die hard bowhunter, love doing it, always will prefer archery hunting over rifle hunting. I have been stationed up here in ND for 5 years now, never once applied for a rifle tag. I exclusively archery hunt. I shot 4 deer this year with my bow, all were does, non over bait. Why are we the ones singled out? You really think we are the root problem for the spread of diseases?
You missed the keyword "frequency" again. Maybe you aren't understanding the meaning of frequency? As written, I am asking if you agree that the sources I listed offer you more opportunities at standing close distant shots when compared to the common sit and wait style of hunting (without a food attractant), deer drives, road hunting and other hunting practices.
I simply thought you'd agree because an attractant has one purpose and one purpose only...to bring animals to you. It can easily be argued that with an attractant the animal will offer a complete standing, close distant shot. In contrast (since you want to spin), a common sit and wait style of hunting without an attractant can offer you a standing shot at close distance but you quite honestly cannot tell me that you will always have such a shot. That is what I am implying Hardwaterman.
Does that help you out?
Tell me where I said a bait pile doesn't work. Point out the date and time like you did with Hardwaterman's post. Then tell me where I said this matter should rest solely on the bow hunter? I made that reference because Hardwaterman and his Annie Oakley family kills all their animals right in their tracts. Since I did bring that up I'll tell you right now that 17,000 bow hunters do not ALL bait. I will also tell you that for sure, many less rile hunters bait. Are their rifle hunters sitting on a hill over looking access areas to bait, to bait plots, to other food sources, etc? Well duh, that's only what a smart hunter would do. Comparing a high power rifle to a bow is just plain silly. That's why I brought it up because this bait bill wasn't written due to the rifle hunter it is due to the bow hunter. How can you spin this so ridiculously?
Fine, call me a liar but I can tell you this whitesmoke there is no difference what attractant you use. An attractant brings you an animal within the distance you need it to. Does one work better than the other? That requires many attributes. I will always believe that a bait plot is superior because my goal isn't for animals to just be "stopping by" my goal is to hunt animals that are resident and remain in a given area. I don't care if you have a bait pile or a bait plot you need time to get a particular animal to make a mistake. Having more deer in a given area is the goal and why I prefer a bait plot because it can sustain more wildlife. More wildlife (especially does) means I will eventually get a crack at a mature buck that laughs at bait piles and even bait plots. But his demise will eventually come. Yeah, bait piles produce nice deer but so do bait plots, water holes, unharvested crops and unharvested crops. I have honestly yet shot a deer even close to pope and young. My biggest deer hunted occurred over a trail leading to a corn plot on NDGF land, then a refuge trail leading to a sunflower field and most recently a fence line leading to a harvested corn field. Perhaps I have had just crazy luck with bait piles but from my experiences the bait plot trumps bait piles for pure number of game. I hunt a large concentration of deer and then find the buck I want. Something should be noted (should be obvious though) that I have hunted for eight years and taken one animal. I set my criteria and I will hold out unti the last day of season looking for a large buck. I've had several opportunities but I guess I am not a killer...I am a hunter and I hold out long and hard for the right animal. It finally paid off this year with the rifle so now I just need to keep patient with the bow and it will ultimately happen.
I'm going to say this again whitesmoke. A BAIT PILE WORKS! No one is disputing that for crying out loud but when it comes down to the discussion of ethics and which retains more animals I'll never succumb to the idea that a bait pile is less ethical and I'll never succumb to the idea that a bait plot is weaker. The only advantage of a bait pile over a bait plot is the guarantee of a certain distant shot. That's the ONLY difference. Although, in other terms a "normal Joe" and use a bait pile where only a landowner or tenant can utilize both a bait pile and a bait plot.
And HW, what knowledge do I have over any body else that can read or write? The TB case in Southwestern ND was in the news. There are three or so talk forums on this site talking about it. Here's one of them: http://www.fishingbuddy.com/forums/topic.php?fid=168&tid=32885&rid=
Everyone knows that disease starts with cattle and then spreads to the wildlife. They also know that animals will die (both domesticated and wild) if cases require such action. Everyone knows by reading the news paper that the NDGF will have to begin killing animals if more from the herd in SW ND is found to have disease. In my email I didn't mean I have secret information, I was just telling you it is common knowledge. Or did I miss something? I mean, a TB case in Minnesota is no different. Animals die within a radius of the infected animal. No secrets that I know of anyway...
With that stated, at the very top of this talk forum I said that if disease is the architect behind this bill that I'd support a ban on baiting and feeding. But what do you know, the bill only bans feeding and baiting of big game. Give me stinking break! So when I became insulted with this bill I began to critically think. Obviously, the number one problem in disease in wildlife is the transfer of it from a domesticated animal to a wild animal. Therefore, it only makes sense to attack the source of disease. So the minute I mention that, I am attacked as being an architect to water down this bill. It couldn't be more laughable.
My belief on this is out of fairness. I don't think it is right for the bow hunter to be the scape goat and why I said the burden must be equally be placed on ranchers, farmers, bird watchers, wildlife "feel good feeders", rifle hunters, muzzleload hunters, etc. Why? Because if there REALLY is a threat doing something half way isn't going to solve a darn thing.
But as this conversation moved on it became obvious that this bill wasn't written about disease. It also had the little evil ethic gremlin hiding in the background. When that became obvious I decided we should try some regulations. I listed very reasonable regulations. Of course, that was shot down for whatever reasons.
So here we are. I have no idea why people are really against baiting. It is disease...then it is ethics but kinda disease then it is mostly disease and some what on ethics.
Go ahead and ban it but don't sit here and tell me it is about the hoarding of wildlife or the taking of a resource or because a few of the public think it is wrong to shoot a deer over a pile of corn, a corn cob, a water hole or whatever. Tell me it is about disease and then when we pass a law that does NOTHING to effectively attempt a stop on disease I will be the first to tell you I told you so. An I told you so that is directed at the root of the problem which is domesticated animals.
If you are reading this tune into the Joel Heitkamp show. Randy Kreil is on. And by the way, I didn't proofread this post one bit. I imagine I got a plot where a pile is supposed to go and a pile where a plot is supposed to go. Use some critical thought when reading and you'll be aight...
one way or another, u have got to love the passion folks are displaying on this topic. other than the long load time, i sure enjoy the reading.
Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!
Randy Kreil said the test will be back to the State Vet by mid February. They will do "extensive" steps to do testing on wildlife if the test comes back affirming disease.
All the more reason Hardwaterman to admit something and that something is it is NOT FAIR to the wildlife to get hit the hardest because of an infected domesticated animal and if we are to be serious we must take a drastic step. I don't care if we have baiting banned, if a domesticated animals are found to have TB in the same general area wild animals will die regardless. Of course, I have already said this many times. You even believe it is okay to feed pheasants and what not. I will never understand that view point.
Tim - I sure do like when you get riled. Too funny.
Do you really believe this, "Tell me it is about disease and then when we pass a law that does NOTHING to..."
And I suppose a condom does nothing for the protection of disease either. I was always told it doesn't eliminate the risk of disease but it will decrease. All these years and thousands of dollars wasted. Bummer!
You spent THOUSANDS of dollars on condoms!?!?!?! You lucky SOB!
Hardwater - There was a TB outbreak in a cattle herd in rural Morton county in 1999. Do you know how many deer were eradicated?? Where was the disease transmission traced to??
So are we protecting the deer from the cattle or the cattle from the deer??
I have believed all along that the G&F has been for the banning of baiting. They have already banned it on the lands they control. They just don't want to be the bad guy so they are leaving it up to the legislature. And I believe that the disease factor is just propaganda they are spreading to sway the vote. I've read a few articles about this and have never seen any numbers or ratios on the spread of disease. I'm guessing that baiting increases the risk of spreading diseases but is so small that it shouldn't be a factor. .01% increase in risk or 1 in 1,000,001 without bait to 1 in 1,000,000 with bait. These are just numbers I threw out there because nobody has shown me different. Livestock will more than likely be the start of the spread of a disease in ND. And then deer will be the likley ones to spread it to other livestock and other species. It's just the way it works. That bait pile in between will making very little difference. Eliminating bait piles put out be hunters would not slow the spread of disease in a measureable amount. Deer interact with each other for many different reasons and throughout the year. Deer are not a solitary animal.
I believe that the lack of hunting land is one of the major issues that brought about this bill. Or should I say the lack of public hunting land with quality numbers of animals on it. And I believe it has to with outfitters, guides and the like. And how they are baiting, chasing, scareing deer off of other lands onto their own. Like what Jon Mitzel wrote about in the December issue of Dakota Country Magazine. I have also heard alot of this happening through word of mouth. Also the loss of private land because it is being bought up by these same people. And the banning of baiting would put a big dent in the futures of outfitters and the like. Maybe my thinking of this is way off.
It is just hard to believe that the G&F would want to mess with the deer hunting laws as they are know. They say they want to bring the deer numbers down to more managable numbers. I don't see how the banning of baiting will help unless what I said about outfitters, etc. above is true.
And if the bill has anything to do with ethics I sure don't want some government official telling me whats ethical and whats not. Enough said there.
I think bdog hit the nail on the head fairly square with what he said about ethics.
Anybody know when the hearing on this bill will be held? Should be a good show! Maybe I can set up a stand and sell popcorn! Or would that be baiting legislators?
You might be consider a Master Baiter if you get money out of the legislators! ! ! Would it be ethical to hunt over a popcorn stand? LOL
Tim I am the one that asked Randy the question. While he did not expound into the planned area or as Terry said kill as many as they possibly can, you heard who will be involved with this.
And to your point on the ethical shot,Tim the "frequency" is more about ones personal ethics in what you are willing to do to get" a "shot or "that" shot! I missed nothing!!!!!!!!!
Solo you are a prime example of what I was asking! Nothing personal in this, but once again you use the excuse of baiting by saying you are not hunting the best of land. Well not every acre of land is equal,nor are we entitled to everything being equal. But I guess you need a "frequency fix" in order to be hunting.
So once again why do you really bait?
I could go either way on your example! I could look at you as being resourceful in locating a place next to good deer habitat with a good population. By baiting you are increasing your odds of seeing a deer and harvesting one maybe even a big buck etc....
I could go the other way and point out that in essence you are a free loader who is attempting to milk the cow of the neighbor who has put years of work into his habitat. Invested time,sweat and cash in an attempt to foster habitat that provides opportunity for him and whomever he allows to hunt it. Because you are not one of the chosen, you instead are attempting to leach off the efforts of others by luring deer out of normal habitat to an artificial feeding station.
Do you get the point?
Just to be clear, I can argue the ethical side of this issue if need be. I can present both the pro's and con's! There is nothing new.
I got an email today that said, after reading this thread he felt that" people who bait are road hunters who wait for others to walk a piece of ground in hopes something runs their way."
It was a perspective on the ethics side I had not considered!
Give it a rest we know your position.
If we are not careful here it won't be long until someone makes the arugement that hunting is unethical and we should just have the GF reduce the number of
deer to unhuntable levels.
It would reduce the risk of disease somewhat. Ranchers would do better without them. We really don't need them and its unethical to hunt them.
Should we subjected to this person's ethics because that's they way they feel.
How far are you going to go with this HW. You don't really understand ethics are an individual choice.
bdog,I do, but the issue of disease is not an ethics issue at all.
It is people like yourself that have made this an ethics issue, not me! I support this because of disease issues. You dismiss disease and claim it is about ethics!
Once again, Texas comes into play when you say disease issues. How many places is baiting going on in high fenced areas with many different types of exotics and other non native species and disease issues are not brought up much there.
Texas most hunting is down over bait and these areas the deer are contained by high fenced areas.
Hope i can get my two cents across before my ribeye is done.Can't afford deer meat!I have used bait piles,they work!Especially before every body was doing it.what i like about a bait pile is if you do your homework right you can channel the way the deer have to come into the pile.Also the older deer and bucks get to be pigs about thefeed and chase the younger deer away from the pile and there's nothing better than drawing deer from posted land over to your bait pile.Also i have had several pass thu-arrows shots -thu deer were the arrow sticks in the ground after going thu the deer.To me it was not about big deer,just alot of deer!!But for the last 4 years i/ve been hunting public land-were baiting is not allowed but all the land around it had baiting going on-Pay hunters-