# baiting ban gone for now. . .



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

TC record eagle

2:55 pm: State baiting ban overturned

BY SHERI McWHIRTER
[email protected]

GAYLORD  An Otsego County judge overturned Michigan's ban on baiting or feeding deer and elk in the Lower Peninsula.

The decision came after state wildlife officials charged a rural Gaylord man with illegally feeding deer from his multiple bird feeders. Ken Borton fought the charge and this week 87th District Court Judge Patricia Morse threw out the case against him and struck down the ban.

Borton said he didn't expect the law to be voided altogether.

"That's not what I was going after. All I wanted was to feed my birds. I'm shocked," Borton said.

The case began when some viewers of Borton's Web site, www.snowmancam.com, reported to the state Department of Natural Resources and Environment that deer ate around the bird feeders where he trained his digital video camera. State officials twice cited Borton for violating the feeding and baiting ban, enacted two years ago after a penned deer in Kent County tested positive for chronic wasting disease.

Officials told Borton to scoop up empty seed casings daily from around his bird feeders to be in compliance with the law.

Morse instead voided the law as "unconstitutionally vague."

"The statute as drafted gives no guidance as to where and how to exclude wild animals from foraging near bird feeders. It leaves too much room for selective enforcement. It allows fact finders to rely on subjective criteria to determine criminal liability," Morse wrote in her ruling.

Dean Molnar, DNRE law enforcement assistant chief, declined to comment on Morse's ruling, as did spokeswoman Mary Dettloff.

"We have no comment at this time. We're reviewing the opinion," said Dettloff.

She did discuss reasons for the ban.

"The ban was put in place in the Lower Peninsula because of the discovery of chronic wasting disease in Kent County in 2008. We followed the state emergency response plan for chronic wasting disease, which was approved by the Natural Resources Commission and the state Commission of Agriculture," Dettloff said.

Ryan Ratajczak, president of the Northwest Michigan chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association, said his group supported the baiting and feeding ban. He's curious about the impact of Morse's ruling.

"I'm wondering how that works now. I think it was justified at the time. They had the plan in place," Ratajczak said. "I think the biggest issue is making sure we've contained CWD."

Ratajczak said he didn't object to allowing hunters to bait, but he'd prefer the decision be made by state wildlife biologists and not lawyers and judges.

Others hailed the court's decision.

"How can we justify spending time investigating a man feeding birds and prosecuting him?" said Zack Cox, owner of the Natural Farm Products store on M-66, south of Kalkaska.

Cox has long sold carrots, corn and sugar beets used by farmers for their livestock or by hunters to bait deer. He always questioned the state's baiting ban and said he's "very pleased" Morse threw it out.

"There's no logic to it. What's the difference between a deer eating at an apple tree or at a small pile of corn feed?" Cox said.


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out


----------



## HUBBHUNTER (Aug 8, 2007)

Will have to keep an eye on this, even though Im going to scout out food plot areas this weekend. I don't bait but it would be nice to put out mineral licks again, not to hunt over of course.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Here we go


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Neal said:


> Here we go


I figured it would get everyone all riled up. . at least this one is coming from a source that isnt someones cousins girlfriends dad. .


----------



## USMarine2001 (Feb 23, 2010)

Yes it should be interesting.

I have to agree with the judge on this one, not only because I am a hunter but it is unconstitutional, in one's pursuit of happyness. 

CWD was contained, one deer in a fenced area seems pretty contained to me. Yet I am still surprised there wasn't an angry mob with pitchforks and torches at the front gate of the "ranch"


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)




----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

USMarine2001 said:


> CWD was contained, one deer in a fenced area seems pretty contained to me. Yet I am still surprised there wasn't an angry mob with pitchforks and torches at the front gate of the "ranch"


Otsego county has had a baiting ban for over 10 years now and its not due to CWD, its do to TB, which is spread by nose-to-nose contact among deer.. Otsego County also has already had confirmed cases of TB in deer.. I live in Otsego County and disagree with the ruling because I dont want to see our herd around here "eradicated" even more than it already has been..

CB


----------



## foxriver6 (Oct 23, 2007)

Just a word of caution, as of right now this ruling is only applicable to that district which the judge presides in. It would take an appeals court and then the state supreme court to extend this ruling outside of Otsego County.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

unfortunatly he new damn well that people went to his page to watch the deer not the birds. well ya know what the saying is now adays " if ya dont like it justs take it to court!':lol: your right though some mineral licks would be nice again. how come i never hear all the complaining about baiting from folks in all the other states that dont allow it??? alot of them can use minerals though.


----------



## rick (Dec 3, 2000)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> I figured it would get everyone all riled up. . at least this one is coming from a source that isnt someones cousins girlfriends dad. .


That's cousins girlfriends father in-law


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

foxriver6 said:


> Just a word of caution, as of right now this ruling is only applicable to that district which the judge presides in. It would take an appeals court and then the state supreme court to extend this ruling outside of Otsego County.


show me where in the article it says this? or any transcripts? What I gather from this article is what the title says. . 

*An Otsego County judge overturned Michigan's ban on baiting or feeding deer and elk in the Lower Peninsula./B]*


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I predict carrot and beet bird feeders being sold in the near future.


----------



## Elk5012 (Mar 27, 2008)

It would be GREAT to bait again.


----------



## foxriver6 (Oct 23, 2007)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> show me where in the article it says this? or any transcripts? What I gather from this article is what the title says. .
> 
> *An Otsego County judge overturned Michigan's ban on baiting or feeding deer and elk in the Lower Peninsula./B]*


*


Standard judicial procedure. A judge has a scope of authority over a specific jurisdiction. A district court judge cannot unilaterally overturn a state law, only within their district. It would take the state supreme court for a ruling to effect the entire state. I am not an attorney so if an attorney wouldn't mind to chime in....*


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> I predict carrot and beet bird feeders being sold in the near future.


Imagine, how many new "bird" feeders are going to be sold this w/e :yikes::yikes:


----------



## Enigma (Jan 30, 2006)

Get the dump trucks ready.


----------



## flinch (Aug 10, 2003)

I predict that the baiting and feeding of deer is never coming back to the lower pennisula of Michigan and will be outlawed in the upper pennisula.


----------



## Mr. Clean (Apr 9, 2010)

flinch said:


> I predict that the baiting and feeding of deer is never coming back to the lower pennisula of Michigan and will be outlawed in the upper pennisula.


Totally agree.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

I just went and dumped 5 gallons of corn out, for the squirrels of course


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> I figured it would get everyone all riled up. . at least this one is coming from a source that isnt someones cousins girlfriends dad. .


 
You've got that right Mike. Thanks for putting in the article and it's source.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

ENCORE said:


> Tell me please..... how are you going to learn to hunt off a piece of ground the size of a lot or just 10 acres?


Exactly my thoughts. The biggest group of anti-baiters are the guys who benefit from the ban. Either they have 200 private acres or a $50k food plot machine... You get the point.


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

I just bought a new sweatshirt today... 













:evilsmile

But to be honest, I've never baited the past 3 years.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Linda G. said:


> I just picked up a part of the actual manuscript of her opinion. This is what it says:
> 
> "The Judge made the following statement in her Opinion "this Court finds that MCL 324.40101(9)(a) is ...unconstitutionally vague and declines to enforce it."
> 
> ...


your word is as good as the record eagles at this point without actual records. .


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Whit1 said:


> You've got that right Mike. Thanks for putting in the article and it's source.


your welcome. . . i figured what would happend. . I just hoped for better. . i guess. . .


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

TheCrawdad said:


> Exactly my thoughts. The biggest group of anti-baiters are the guys who benefit from the ban. Either they have 200 private acres or a $50k food plot machine... You get the point.


not exactly. . it is easy to hunt 10-40 acres with no bait. . easier than 200 actually. . .


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Care to explain this theory?


----------



## foxriver6 (Oct 23, 2007)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> that could be. . who knows what will happen. . Im sure it will not get lifted statewide. . if anywhere(for an extended period). . but who knows. . .


 
http://www.9and10news.com/Category/Story/?id=219255&cID=1

In the video the reporter states that the ruling only applies to Otsego County and the defense attorney told the reporter it only applies to recreational feeding.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> not exactly. . it is easy to hunt 10-40 acres with no bait. . easier than 200 actually. . .


You call that "hunting" on 10 to 40 acres? I think you missed the whole point on this one.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E. (Nov 1, 2008)

Reading what is available of the judges opinion, it appeared to me it pertained to bird feeders only, I dont see where she overturned the baiting and feeding ban on deer.

But the question I do have is why the DNR and NRC are ruling on CWD when it's a departmend of agriculture problem in a domestic operation.

CWD was only found in a captive cervid operation which is overseen and controlled by Dept. of Agriculture.

So is the DNR and NRC making a sound scientific based decision on Wildlife with the baiting and feeding ban? Are they within their jurisdiction to make a ruling based on a Department of Agriculture issue pertaining to CWD, if it's not detected in the wild herd? 

The DNR failed to have the foresight that one day the landscape would change and the lands clearcut in the 40's and 50's that provided the habitat for the deer would some day disappear, and in my opinion, is how they got caught with their pants down diverting the DRIP funding and decided they had to come clean. They relied on the commercial properties and failed to establish deer habitat on state land as the drip funding was supposed to do.

Supplemental feeding is the only answer for UP Deer to survive until the thermal cover can be re established, and with that a natural food source. In the interest of CWD it would make sense to keep the deer as dispersed as possible, and likewise, keep the wolves dispersed with them, vs. concentrating the two. If Rabies infects the Wolf population, and based upon my reading over the last few years, it's not about if, but when, perhaps it's best to keep them dispersed? 

Were about to embark on litigation to get the Wolves delisted, but in the meantime, we should start thinking outside of the box perhaps?

CWD in the wild has 1000 documented cases nationwide from the last stats quoted to me, and even double that is minute compared to a winter kill of 200,000 plus animals in the UP alone. Why weaken the herd because it MIGHT get sick? And lets not forget, it was in a domestic captive deer, not in the wild, and as far as we know, there are no additional CWD cases, domestic or wild, in Michigan today.

The moral aspects of baiting and QDM are ambiguous. It's tough to be a true "Hunter" in Michigan with all the private land restrictions due to fences. Deer move right into private property and stay there unless something like a doe in heat brings them out, or they get chased out. Bait is the other draw. So unless one is in the field during the rut, forget it. Yes there are exceptions but in the interest of space let's save the semantics. If we were talking Wyoming or something like that with millions of contiguous acres, then yes baiting would not be integral to "Hunting". But here in Michigan, we dont really hunt, we ambush.

Wouldnt it make more sense to insure we had a successful hunt ESPECIALLY in Lower Michigan to cull the herd effectively and thin out the chances of CWD spread, vs. not filling the tags because we arent great hunters and lazy and only score if we bait? Seems counterproductive to Me. 

With Humane Society of the United States setting up camp in Lansing one thing is very clear. WE BEST GET OUR ACT TOGETHER.

We dropped the ball dividing ourselves on the dove hunting issue and left an open invitation for them to come in and play their moves. Take this seriously, we are in trouble.

It's time the infighting and personal selfishness gets put aside. Do YOUR thing and dont tread on the others. This goes for QDM, Bow vs. Crossbow, Hounds vs Baiting for Bear, Baiting vs. no Baiting and all the other selfish bitching that goes on amongst hunters. Were the biggest whining excuse making cry babies in the sporting world. I.E. some sob took my blind I built on state land, they baited, we called this field last night, the weather sucks, blah blah blah. Time to grow up. Buy your own land or accept the fact public land is public land and you take your chances relying on a secret hunting location remaining a secret. 

Currently there is legislation on the house floor for a Moose Season. Personally, I dont intend to hunt moose in Michigan or anywhere else, but I will be in full support of the legislation passing, and that is mainly because the HSUS is opposed to it, lobbying feverishly to get it defeated. This is where we get off the couch and go the the sub committee meetings in support, write our reps and senators and urge them to support the legislation. Ignore it and HSUS wins. Make excuses for not engaging and HSUS wins. 

We need to take the NRA approach on hunting issues, which is to give up NOTHING. Otherwise, we as hunters in Michigan are sunk. And it means we all, DNR included, get our act together and and take it to HSUS, and broom them the hell out of Michigan.

Ignore this, scoff it, let apathy control your actions and you can kiss hunting goodbye.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

S.E.M.O.R.E. said:


> Reading what is available of the judges opinion, it appeared to me it pertained to bird feeders only, I dont see where she overturned the baiting and feeding ban on deer.
> 
> But the question I do have is why the DNR and NRC are ruling on CWD when it's a departmend of agriculture problem in a domestic operation.
> .


*This has nothing to do with CWD or the recent baiting laws put in place concerning CWD..*


The definition the Judge is referring to as "unconstitutionally vague" was created in 1995.. Otsego County has had a baiting ban in place for about 15 years now due to TB, not CWD..
Here is the definitions she was referring too as "unconstitutionally vague":

_(9) "Deer or elk feeding" means the depositing, distributing, or tending of feed in an area frequented by wild, free-ranging white-tailed deer or elk. Deer or elk feeding does not include any of the following:

(a) Feeding wild birds or other wildlife if done in such a manner as to exclude wild, free-ranging white-tailed deer and elk from gaining access to the feed._

CB


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)




----------



## FSUfishin (Jan 25, 2008)

Tell me please..... how are you going to learn to hunt off a piece of ground the size of a lot or just 10 acres? [/QUOTE]


Well, here's an idea if your 10 acres doesn't hunt well go to public land where there are thousands of acres... you pay taxes(maybe) it's yours too.... I learned to hunt on public ground with out bait and so did my cousins and our friends. Just because you own ten acres doesn't mean you have to hunt it. 
Personally I've hunted majority public lands with out bait and always get my deer (buck-doe-trophy) it just depends on how much TIME you want to put in. Baiting in my eyes, makes it less of a hunt and puts deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres). Who ever even thought of bating I wish would have never because it causes a heck of a lot of arguments. Right or wrong it's still illegal, I'm not going to court becaust I wanted to throw a few pieces of corn out for a deer that was already walking down a trail. Get out and HUNT, the time it takes to drag your bait to the woods you could have found a new spot to HUNT.

My $0.02


----------



## FSUfishin (Jan 25, 2008)

Well put S.E.M.O.R. Band together take the NRA approach. One of these days those that don't will look at each other and say "what happened?????" 
Though, we are all michigan sportsmen just like hockey players are all hockey players just from different teams, in their locker rooms opinions of the other teams can be discussed. I feel this is our "locker room" we have the right to object or agree with each other, but in the end we are all on the same team with the same core values, in this case, hunting. When called upon to voice our conserns regarding our issues such as new hunting laws it is the sportsman that will band together in public but in the locker room I feel we should be able to disagree, with in reason.

Keep up the fight and spread the word.


----------



## fishnpbr (Dec 2, 2007)

flinch said:


> I predict that the baiting and feeding of deer is never coming back to the lower pennisula of Michigan and will be outlawed in the upper pennisula.


It never really left, and probably never will.


----------



## FSUfishin (Jan 25, 2008)

TheCrawdad said:


> Exactly my thoughts. The biggest group of anti-baiters are the guys who benefit from the ban. Either they have 200 private acres or a $50k food plot machine... You get the point.


 
Wow. I don't have 200 acres a 50K food plot machine, I have 20 acres that is family owned and 20+ people can hunt it, I have a rake, and a hand to spread seed, total cost around $40. My cousins and I spend a lot of time getting permission and putting in food plots with our $0.04K food plot machines on ground that we have permission to do so on. Sometimes, I even get crazy and rig/make implements to pull behind my lawn tractor on that piece! But mostly I'm on public grounds some of which in your area I get deer and never use bait, I know the point you are trying to make, but I think you do not know who the majority is. The majority of your anti-baiting push is people who hunt, meaning they scout, put the time in, and are very successful, even on public grounds or small parcels. Your comment has no backing or proof that this is true and I think you are just mad because now you actually have to hunt for deer.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

FSUfishin said:


> Baiting in my eyes, makes it less of a hunt and puts deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres).





FSUfishin said:


> My cousins and I spend a lot of time getting permission and putting in food plots with our $0.04K food plot machines on ground that we have permission to do so on. Sometimes, I even get crazy and rig/make implements to pull behind my lawn tractor on that piece! But mostly I'm on public grounds some of which in your area I get deer and never use bait, I know the point you are trying to make, but I think you do not know who the majority is. The majority of your anti-baiting push is people who hunt, meaning they scout, put the time in, and are very successful, even on public grounds or small parcels. Your comment has no backing or proof that this is true and I think you are just mad because now you actually have to hunt for deer.


I'm wondering if you see the irony in your statements. In one post you say baiting makes it less of a hunt because it 'puts deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres)' and in the next response you advocate putting in a food plot so that you can "put deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres)"

So please tell me if you would, what makes one more of a 'hunt' than the other?:16suspect


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Well I see the *optimists* are praying to the baiting gods again as did the snaggers of salmon in the past. Look what happened to the snaggers they have retreated and true fisherman took over. They learned how to catch salmon without snagging and I predict that the baiters will eventually do the same by scouting and putting in their time learning the deers pattern without bait to hunt deer. This might take some time but it will happen! The state will not let this one judge overturn the baiting ban if that was even her intentions in this case.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E. (Nov 1, 2008)

codybear said:


> *This has nothing to do with CWD or the recent baiting laws put in place concerning CWD..*
> 
> 
> The definition the Judge is referring to as "unconstitutionally vague" was created in 1995.. Otsego County has had a baiting ban in place for about 15 years now due to TB, not CWD..
> ...





codybear said:


>


THANKS!!

The headline went out on the radio in the UP....the Outspoken Sportsman is cheerin and jeerin that the bait ban has been lifted in the lower peninsula....Traverse City Paper put a poor headline out and a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening.


----------



## kwcharne (Jan 8, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> I'm wondering if you see the irony in your statements. In one post you say baiting makes it less of a hunt because it 'puts deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres)' and in the next response you advocate putting in a food plot so that you can "put deer where they normally weren't before(your ten acres)"
> 
> So please tell me if you would, what makes one more of a 'hunt' than the other?:16suspect


Great point. I always wonder the same thing when I hear people bash on baiting then in the next sentence talk about their food plot

I got a call from a buddy this morning and he told me the news about the baiting lift. I knew that the thread would be started and fired up already. And with no surprise, I knew the bashing of people would have begun by all the great hunters we have on this site that look down their nose at the "non-hunters" that use bait. I can only imagine the anger the great Michigan hunters felt when they read about the baiting lift.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

flinch said:


> I think many of you have taken the ruling way out of context. The judge ruled that the law concerning feeding deer was to vague with respect to the bird feeding case she was ruling on. That's it. Nothing about baiting at all. It appears that the media and many others are to blame for blowing this up into some all out ban on baiting and feeding in the entire lower peninsula. The laws are still on the books and baiting and feeding are still banned. I'll bet if you are deliberately feeding deer in your backyard with a pile of corn in the lower peninsula that a CO can still ticket you and it will stick.


It has been interesting to say the least. Some pretty substantial papers and news organizations have dropped the ball on this one for sure. The AP had a story about the "baiting" law too. I think a grade school newspaper editor would do a more thorough fact check.


----------



## pilsbury38 (Jan 2, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> And that is what's in contention.You are generalizing something based on a perception. Can a baitpile in the UP where deer are concentrated at 10 dpsm be riskier than a foodplot in the SLP where deer are concentrated at 60dpsm? How are 10 beets in a 100 square foot baitpile more risky than 30 tons of beets in 30 acres? How is a spin cast corn feeder riskier than cobs of corn in a 1 acre foodplot?
> 
> In the end, banning baiting will do nothing to reduce the spread of disease if it's present when so many other factors remain in play. It does however reduce an effective means of reducing deer populations which is the number one way of reducing disease transmission.


I agree.


----------



## RavBowHunter (Nov 6, 2007)

In response to the above post:

If a law is adjudged unconstitutionally vague, then the law is invalid on its face. Thus, it wouldn't matter how you baited, because the baiting law is invalid in general, not just as applied to the individual. That being said, as previous posters have observed, this is just a trial-court judge whose opinion carries zero precedence in any court in Michigan--even if the same issue were tried again with different litigants in her court. The only thing that this decision does is get the individual defendant off the hook for now. 

What this decision does provide is a chance to challenge the law's constitutionality. However, a case usually takes at least two years after the trial court's opinion to reach the MI supreme court and have a final opinion issued--unless the MI sup. ct. grants immediate leave to appeal directly to the sup ct--which is very rare. Thus, I wouldn't be baiting any time soon.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> Newsflash...those small clusters of deer are Doe family groups, and anyone who has spent much time observing deer behavior would know that, and know that there is very little interaction between the individual groups.
> 
> A food plot allows those groups to maintain their distance a bait pile does not. One "small group" will only feed when the other "small group" leaves the site, or is driven from it by a more aggressive female or male.
> 
> ...


Boy, these sure are some funny looking does and some big family groups. :lol:























































In all seriousness, you are correct that many of the groups feeding are family groups. Family groups don't diminish the risk factor much due to buck fawn dispersal. Deer within the same family group tend to show a higher prevalence rate for TB and when dispersal occurs the spread of the disease to another area can occur.

Btw, I have yet to see a picture of bait used within legal limits drawing large numbers of deer from different family groups into one small location. Maybe you can provide us with some to support your contention. It does not happen because the bait simply gets consumed too quickly. Dominant does tend to keep strangers from accessing the bait before her particular family group can consume it. Now if you are talking about pickup truck loads of carrots, that's another story but those are illegal. Keep in mind that almost all of the conclusions drawn by the DNR are based on two "studies" that were based on the impact of massive post season supplemental winter feeding that took place in club country during the 1980's and early 90's. I'm not aware of any studies other than Tim Van Deelans Wisconsin study that utilized bait in small quantities and even that study used 5 gallon portions as the minimum. 

And nobody is suggesting that food plots be banned, just for the record.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Is $3,400 per 40 acres, per year, an astronomical figure as claimed by the poster above? Does not seem like it to me but that's just an opinion. Unless the farm is making almost no profit what-so-ever it's hard to imagine that such an expense would put the farmer out of business. It actually seems like pretty cheap insurance to prevent the type of economic implosion that FF says will occur if the farmers herd tests positive for TB.


$3,400.00 is a lot of money if you are paying it and your competitors are not. Insurance does nothing for the short term profit margins farmers are subject to. Maybe you would like the Govt. to mandate all farmers buy coverage (fencing) so that no one farmer is impacted unfairly and the rest of us can carry on as we wish comforted by the knowledge that now, all will be well.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Maybe all attention because, the ban on baiting was nothing more than a joke. Solely based on one captive deer with cwd that was most likely brought here from another state. What have the dnr and fda done about transporting game across the state lines or farm animals for that matter? If cwd ever does get introduced into the wild deer herd it would most likely be through Wisconsin. Where baiting is allowed in the UP. Some people never will see the big picture they just get caught up in all the drama


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> Maybe all attention because, the ban on baiting was nothing more than a joke. Solely based on one captive deer with cwd that was most likely brought here from another state. What have the dnr and fda done about transporting game across the state lines or farm animals for that matter? If cwd ever does get introduced into the wild deer herd it would most likely be through Wisconsin. Where baiting is allowed in the UP. Some people never will see the big picture they just get caught up in all the drama


I put you in the "some people" category if you think the state of origin of the CWD deer negates in some way the need to mitigate the potential damages that could result from it's presence.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Then please explain to me why that was the time the dnr chose to ban baiting


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> $3,400.00 is a lot of money if you are paying it and your competitors are not. Insurance does nothing for the short term profit margins farmers are subject to. Maybe you would like the Govt. to mandate all farmers buy coverage (fencing) so that no one farmer is impacted unfairly and the rest of us can carry on as we wish comforted by the knowledge that now, all will be well.


Nope, I'm not for the government mandating that the farmers fence their land, it should be up to them whether they consider it worth the economic risk not to spend money on preventative measures. But if they choose not to take preventative measures and the unfortunate happens, then it's their own fault to a certain degree. Kind of like the guy who can afford insurance but would rather spend his money on toys and then gets burned when he manages to total his car. 

As a businessman, the government mandates that I spend a certain amount of money each year for reasons that they deem worthwhile, despite the fact that my business does not benefit from my doing so in any tangible way. It's one of the costs of operating a business.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Btw, I have yet to see a picture of bait used within legal limits drawing large numbers of deer from different family groups into one small location.


That's because there are none.:evil:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> I put you in the "some people" category if you think the state of origin of the CWD deer negates in some way the need to mitigate the potential damages that could result from it's presence.


Presuming that banning baiting provides any substantive mitigation, which is unlikely. The fact of the matter is that there a bunch of other vectors that will cause CWD to spread despite a baiting ban. If all you needed to do was ban baiting, the problem would be solved in Wisconsin. Sadly, food plots, farm fields, poorly stored animal feed and other vectors all provide the necessary conduit for the spread of disease. The single most effective means of preventing the spread of disease is dramatic population reduction. It's what the DNR in Wisconsin has attempted to do and ironically enough one of their methods is shooting deer over bait piles! :yikes:


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> Then please explain to me why that was the time the dnr chose to ban baiting


If 4,346 posts in you don't know, it's because you don't want to know. I can't help you with that one. :sad:


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Nope, I'm not for the government mandating that the farmers fence their land, it should be up to them whether they consider it worth the economic risk not to spend money on preventative measures. But if they choose not to take preventative measures and the unfortunate happens, then it's their own fault to a certain degree. Kind of like the guy who can afford insurance but would rather spend his money on toys and then gets burned when he manages to total his car.
> 
> As a businessman, the government mandates that I spend a certain amount of money each year for reasons that they deem worthwhile, despite the fact that my business does not benefit from my doing so in any tangible way. It's one of the costs of operating a business.


That should have been two separate posts, either one by itself is fine. Together, not so much.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

standsetter said:


> If 4,346 posts in you don't know, it's because you don't want to know. I can't help you with that one. :sad:


Yes sir your right, and I guess I would have to put you in the category as one of the people that will never see the big picture. But then again sometimes we have to climb off our high horse and take a look around and actually see what happening


----------



## Buckdumper (Mar 19, 2010)

standsetter said:


> Surely you have seen the statistics that show loss of baiting as an option effects harvest rates very minimally and even then for only a period of 1-2 years.
> 
> NO way you haven't at least stumbled on to that in your research efforts.


 
I would love to see those stats, cause I have yet to stumble on to any, that are worth the paper they're printed on.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Presuming that banning baiting provides any substantive mitigation, which is unlikely. The fact of the matter is that there a bunch of other vectors that will cause CWD to spread despite a baiting ban. If all you needed to do was ban baiting, the problem would be solved in Wisconsin. Sadly, food plots, farm fields, poorly stored animal feed and other vectors all provide the necessary conduit for the spread of disease. The single most effective means of preventing the spread of disease is dramatic population reduction. It's what the DNR in Wisconsin has attempted to do and ironically enough one of their methods is shooting deer over bait piles! :yikes:


I put you in the "some people" category if you think the state of origin of the CWD deer negates in some way the need to mitigate the potential damages that could result from it's presence. 

What I said was what I meant. I wasn't implying the ban was an end all, be all, solution to a complicated problem.

His argument was silly. I equate it to a Jerry Springer episode, "It can't be my baby, cause she's a Ho".


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

UNCLE TUB said:


> No fear!!!
> *I do work with the D.N.R.E. at Muskegon on habitat and other outdoor projects......* .


How's that been working out?


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Buckdumper said:


> I would love to see those stats, cause I have yet to stumble on to any[, ]that are worth the paper they're printed on.


If you want the post to read as intended you should edit out the comma. :evil:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> I put you in the "some people" category if you think the state of origin of the CWD deer negates in some way the need to mitigate the potential damages that could result from it's presence.
> 
> What I said was what I meant. I wasn't implying the ban was an end all, be all, solution to a complicated problem.
> 
> His argument was silly. I equate it to a Jerry Springer episode, "It can't be my baby, cause she's a Ho".


I think that what he was saying is that if a the deer that had been found to be positive had been in the free ranging herd, instead of behind a high fence where it could have come from another state, that the likelihood of CWD being a threat to the free ranging population would have been substantially higher.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

standsetter said:


> I put you in the "some people" category if you think the state of origin of the CWD deer negates in some way the need to mitigate the potential damages that could result from it's presence.
> 
> What I said was what I meant. I wasn't implying the ban was an end all, be all, solution to a complicated problem.
> 
> His argument was silly. I equate it to a Jerry Springer episode, "It can't be my baby, cause she's a Ho".


Some of your posts remind me of one gentlemen s signature, "never argue with a idiot they beat you with experience every time"

sorry I can't remember who it was but I just thought I would share that with you


----------



## Drop Tine (Aug 29, 2006)

foxriver6 said:


> Just a word of caution, as of right now this ruling is only applicable to that district which the judge presides in. It would take an appeals court and then the state supreme court to extend this ruling outside of Otsego County.


While this is 100% correct, it is only a matter of time before a ticketed hunter fights his ticket from, say, Clinton county, and his lawyer uses this as precedence.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Economic times is probably the factor which brings them there thus creating the trespassing. As far as sitting 10 yards off the road is an issue that because it is legal and
they are on state land that they have to address the effectiveness themslves.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> Nope, I think you are jumping the gun a little. . . Not hardly any baiting issues anymore, , ,. . Just people issues more than ever now. . . the "still huge piles of orange here" was referring to the orange army of people who don't know where to hunt now without bait so they just check a plat-map and find any piece of stale land 10 yards off the road and sit there. . . not to mention trespassing as well. . . at least with baiting, people had one spot and stayed there. . .made life easier for all of the locals around here.


 you want the baiting ban lifted so these clowns don't bother your hunting so all the locals lost their favorite hunting spots that are 10 yards off the road, sorry to hear that:lol::lol: maybe a gps for x-mass will help ya out


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Drop Tine said:


> While this is 100% correct, it is only a matter of time before a ticketed hunter fights his ticket from, say, Clinton county, and his lawyer uses this as precedence.


 This will also be presided by a judge or if it goes further judges which will more than likely be in favor of the state law.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Boy, these sure are some funny looking does and some big family groups. :lol:


Late fall and winter Doe family groups can be large as your pictures show. As you know Doe family groups include the matriarch doe, her surviving offsping and their progeny.

Buck bachelor groups are another seasonal grouping of animals, who unlike the females do disperse to a wider degree. Sometimes much wider when you factor in as you mentioned the young bucks dispersal behaviors. This behavior plays a large role in the increased risk of CWD presence you have mentioned before. It isn't age alone that increasing the likelyhood of contamination, it is behavior. Bucks in general can spread a contagious desease far and wide begining in their second year of life.



Munsterlndr said:


> In all seriousness, you are correct that many of the groups feeding are family groups. Family groups don't diminish the risk factor much due to buck fawn dispersal. Deer within the same family group tend to show a higher prevalence rate for TB and when dispersal occurs the spread of the disease to another area can occur.


Not just TB but any communicable desease would have a higher prevelence amoung family group members, IMO. The exception would be for deseases transmitted by exposure to infected parasites. "Buck fawn" dispersal...there are a whole lot of fellows here that would resent you for calling those "legal bucks" fawns. Get off your high horse buddy.



Munsterlndr said:


> Btw, I have yet to see a picture of bait used within legal limits drawing large numbers of deer from different family groups into one small location. Maybe you can provide us with some to support your contention. It does not happen because the bait simply gets consumed too quickly. Dominant does tend to keep strangers from accessing the bait before her particular family group can consume it. Now if you are talking about pickup truck loads of carrots, that's another story but those are illegal. Keep in mind that almost all of the conclusions drawn by the DNR are based on two "studies" that were based on the impact of massive post season supplemental winter feeding that took place in club country during the 1980's and early 90's. I'm not aware of any studies other than Tim Van Deelans Wisconsin study that utilized bait in small quantities and even that study used 5 gallon portions as the minimum.


There is no prohibition on the frequency of a bait site being "refreshed". And I think you would agree that legal amounts of bait being used now, then, whenever, are a distinct minority. Any study would have to reflect the compliance rate when factoring risk. No different than you have suggested when an example is offered to support your own contentions.





Munsterlndr said:


> And nobody is suggesting that food plots be banned, just for the record.


If it were possible, I would suggest that they should be. Particularly the tuberous varieties.


None of what I said is news to you. I only say the things I do not in an effort or need of mine to "educate" you but to point out things I believe you sometimes "omit" from your conclusions. When I offer something contrasting your argument, it is almost always a fringe issue, not a "smoking gun" dismissal. Your argument is always sound, but never airtight. Sometimes, I think your efforts to provide the airtight case brings your objectiveness into question. Your intelligence and ability to communicate your thoughts effectively requires that you hold yourself to the same standards regarding burden of proof and objectivity you demand of others.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

The topic of this thread is about the Judge's ruling on the baiting ban. Let's keep to it.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Neal said:


> The topic of this thread is about the Judge's ruling on the baiting ban. Let's keep to it.


Not so. It is about the judges's ruling regarding the recreational feeding ban. :evil:

Point taken though, I will stay on topic as suggested.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

standsetter said:


> Not so. It is about the judges's ruling regarding the recreational feeding ban. :evil:
> 
> Point taken though, I will stay on topic as suggested.


 I agree with you especially on post 165. 
I stated earlier that one district judges ruling would not likely overturn the states law. The plan was put together by the state and I believe the farm bureau thus the ban was not entirely the states and will probably not be overturned. Anyone trying to overturn the ban will be fighting more than just the state. The was just one judges ruling and
I do not believe she intended for a total baiting ban to be lifted..


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

I couldn't read all the pages, can someone tell me who 'won' and who was 'right'?


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

standsetter said:


> Not so. It is about the judges's ruling regarding the recreational feeding ban. :evil:
> 
> Point taken though, I will stay on topic as suggested.


You may be correct. I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, as it got mucked up in off topic discussions. My post was based on the title of the thread.


----------



## USMarine2001 (Feb 23, 2010)

I love how it has become in somes eyes that if you are hunting over a bait pile you are not hunting, and the ONLY way to hunt is to spend time in the woods and not use bait or this or that. The fact is WE ALL enjoy hunting for OUR own reasons. If you want to trophy hunt or hunt without bait or hunt with bait, that is on you, that is what YOU enjoy, but that doesnt make it any less enjoyable for me if I shoot a 6pt or a Doe over bait or without or with a bow or gun.

The other underlying issue is that CWD was found in ONE deer in a FENCED in area, as I said before this seems pretty and fairly contained to me. So therefore why should the baiting ban affect me in Lapeer County? Which is at least a 2 hr drive.

To say the Judge or prosecutor failed is in my mind a bit out there. Each side pleads their case according to their understanding of the law. Tickets can be issued and can be dismissed, that doesnt mean that all tickets issued are by the book .And of course the MDNR is going to say its under review, they dont want to possibly admit that they were wrong. Or they maybe trying to regroup and attack at a different angle.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> It seems to me that if I'm a cattle farmer and I'm worried about protecting my livelihood and such a substantial economic investment, that instead of relying on either the state passing unenforceable laws or the goodwill of others, that I would be taking tangible pro-active steps to protect my herd.


The cattle industry will do whatever is in its best financial interests. If it's cheaper to get lobbyists to drastically reduce the deer herd and baiting than other tactics - they'll do it.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

pescadero said:


> The cattle industry will do whatever is in its best financial interests. If it's cheaper to get lobbyists to drastically reduce the deer herd and baiting than other tactics - they'll do it.


 Very good point as I have tried to point out in this thread earlier.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Man, I figured after 12 pages there would actually be some info on a baiting ban but I guess not. Looks like baiting is still banned in the LP. Just another dead horse to beat. Par for the course in the deer hunting forums.


----------



## blood trail (Mar 31, 2010)

So far state wide there has only been 1 confirmed case of CWD in Michigans deer herd. Im sure most of you know that the 1 case was found in Kent Co. in a captive cervid facility in 2008. Testing for CWD in captive cervids has been conducted on 15,365 animals since 2002 with the only case testing positive in 2008.
Testing has been conducted on our free range herd with out any cases being reported. So far testing has been conducted on 32,294 free range deer since 1998.
MI DNRE conduct prevelance testing. This type of testing is used to determine a percentage type research base to feel confident that the disease either is/is not found in the herd. Statistics I have at this time show a 0.12% is the current guidline for the time being. To try and help clear this up a little I will expalain it the way it has been told to me.
I will use the Kent Co. surveillance method.
The DNR estimate that there are aproximately 13,000(free range) deer in the 9 township area surrounding the Kent Co. facility. That means that at a .12% prevelance rate there must be 16 or more deer that will test positve for having CWD for the DNR to be able to detect 1 case.
13,000 deer X0.0012(prevelance)= 16 infected deer.
MI DNR have stated that... "By testing 2,300 deer in the 9 township area surrounding Kent Co., we can be 95% confident of detecting CWD at a .12% or greater prevelance rate.

Hope this helps a bit, I know it may be some what confussing!!!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> The cattle industry will do whatever is in its best financial interests. If it's cheaper to get lobbyists to drastically reduce the deer herd and baiting than other tactics - they'll do it.


Apparently, if that was their intent, then they need to get better lobbyists since they have failed pretty miserably on both counts.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> you want the baiting ban lifted so these clowns don't bother your hunting so all the locals lost their favorite hunting spots that are 10 yards off the road, sorry to hear that:lol::lol: maybe a gps for x-mass will help ya out


you obviously had a plan to put your words in to my post. . . Where did I say I wanted baiting to be legal?? I just said it was easier to hunt without dealing with people who always had their "baited" spots.

where did I say that I hunted state land? or 10 yards off the road for that matter?

I hunt primarily private land and when I do hunt public land, I expect to see people. . Unless I am hunting in the U.P public land. . never seen a person there. . I was pointing out that around the areas that I live, you could drive around during any day of hunting season this year, and see MORE people than normal, and most just sat 10 yards off the road. . There were more people than ever hunting here. . 

FYI. . I do own a GPS, and usually when I hunt, if I see someone, they are tresspassing. .


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

this was posted today on one of the local news stations websites. . it is still a newsgroup, so dont take everything to heart, but it sounds like the DNR isn't even sure what the judge meant specifically about overturning the ban , , ,

Monday, April 12, 2010 at 11:21 a.m. 

Read more: Local, State, Community, Outdoors, Deer Baiting Ban, Baiting Ban, Otsego County, Court Ruling, Michigan, Dnre

A judge in Otsego County has thrown out a case against a man charged under Michigan's ban on baiting and feeding deer in the Lower Peninsula, saying the ban is too vague.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment says it's not clear whether the ruling by District Court Judge Patricia Morse effects just the county or the entire state.

Ken Borton was charged with illegally feeding deer from bird feeders.

Borton said he just wanted to feed birds.

The ban was imposed after a case of chronic wasting disease was discovered in a Kent County deer in 2008.

A DNRE spokeswoman says the state is looking into the ruling.

7 & 4 News is following this story with reaction to the ruling and how one group is trying to get the state to take a closer look at the ban. The latest coming up on 7 & 4 News at 6.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

and another. . update i guess I didnt see this one first. . . 


Monday, April 12, 2010 at 6:28 p.m. 

Read more: Local, State, News, Deer, Baiting, DNRE, Overturned, Overruled, Ban

OTSEGO CO., MI -- Chronic Wasting Disease was discovered in Kent County in 2008.

With this discovery, the state followed an emergency response plan to minimize the spread of the disease, and that was to outlaw deer feeding or baiting.

A recent decision in an Otsego County courtroom has overturned the ban.

The images appear to be harmless, photography with a simple click at the right moment, freezing it in time. Ken Borton, who runs the website, "Snowmancam.com," says images from his streaming webcam, like these, are snapped by viewers all the time.

"Back years ago, when it was legal to feed the deer, I did put corn out, once the baiting ban went in place, I've stopped doing that, so I know the difference between baiting deer, and not baiting deer," said Borton.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment cited Borton with a misdemeanor for baiting deer. The case went to the Otsego County Courthouse, where 87th District Court Judge Patricia Morse threw out the case citing "unlimited discretion to enforcement" and it being "unconstitutionally vague."

$205 is all the ticket would have been if Borton had just paid it, but rather, he fought it, and thousands of dollars later, it's become an issue, not just with the county, but with the state.

State Representative Kevin Elsenheimer says this was the right decision, and the DNRE should revisit the issue.

"The D-N-R needs to look at it from the ground up. Is chronic wasting disease a real problem in the state, or was it just used as a way to end baiting in Michigan," said Elsenheimer.

John Ingersoll, who has been following this case and is a hunter, agrees change is needed.

"The way the law's set up now, it's too vague, as the judge mentioned, it leaves too much discretion to the law enforcement officer, if they like you or have a vendetta against you, it could go either way, and it should be point blank," said Ingersoll.

"I hope the powers-to-be can get together and decide what's right and make it understandable so we can all abide by the rules," said Borton.

The DNRE says they're still reviewing the opinion and has no comment.

There's no word if the DNRE will appeal Judge Morse's decision.

All charges were dropped against Borton.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I was giving this decision some thought regarding some of the ramifications and I think that due to it being a statewide statute, the judges decision does indeed envelop the entire state. If this was a municipal code/infraction then the scope of her authority would be limited to her district(municipal). But because it's a MCL brought before her court by the State, her decision specifically effects that MCL and by extension the entire state.

So get your birdfeeders out and stock em with a few tons of 'bird' feed now and you might be able to get your feeder grandfathered in once the language is cleared up.


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37705---,00.html

As far as the DNRE is concerned, it is still unlawful to bait deer. Sooooo..... who wants to be the hero and go ahead with another court case challenging the current decision on the books?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Kalamazooxj said:


> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37705---,00.html
> 
> As far as the DNRE is concerned, it is still unlawful to bait deer. Sooooo..... who wants to be the hero and go ahead with another court case challenging the current decision on the books?


Considering this is April 13th, I would imagine you'd have more troubles than 'baiting' to worry about if you're out pursuing deer.


----------



## thwack_master76 (Feb 14, 2010)

Elk5012 said:


> I have a compost pile, mostly corn and beets that I'm working. Boy it sure does turn into soil fast! :lol:


i like that one, lol, mine does too!!!:lol:


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Michihunter said:


> I was giving this decision some thought regarding some of the ramifications and I think that due to it being a statewide statute, the judges decision does indeed envelop the entire state. If this was a municipal code/infraction then the scope of her authority would be limited to her district(municipal). But because it's a MCL brought before her court by the State, her decision specifically effects that MCL and by extension the entire state.


This is along the lines of the way I was thinking as well. This ruling sets precedence and opens the door to get this ban over-turned for good. 

The part that never ceases to amaze me is, how bad the DNR can botch something up...


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

William H Bonney said:


> This is along the lines of the way I was thinking as well. This ruling sets precedence and opens the door to get this ban over-turned for good.
> 
> The part that never ceases to amaze me is, how bad the DNR can botch something up...


The problem almost always is in the language used in these laws. A great example of that would be the 350fps crossbow rule when they used the term "a crossbow with the 'capacity' to exceed 350fps" to limit the speed.


----------



## Buckdumper (Mar 19, 2010)

William H Bonney said:


> This is along the lines of the way I was thinking as well. This ruling sets precedence and opens the door to get this ban over-turned for good.
> 
> The part that never ceases to amaze me is, how bad the DNR can botch something up...


 
DNR- Does Nothing Right.

They are sittin around, scratchin their heads, wonderin what went wrong.

They still cant figure out what happened to our Brown trout fishery, but they keep planting em.


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

Thankfully I know where the brown trout are I would like to think that this is the end of the stupid baiting ban but I doubt it. All the DNR needs to do is attempt to change the statute to permit bird feeders. No big deal.


----------



## DRHUNTER (Sep 15, 2002)

unclecbass said:


> Thankfully I know where the brown trout are I would like to think that this is the end of the stupid baiting ban but I doubt it. All the DNR needs to do is attempt to change the statute to permit bird feeders. No big deal.[/QUO
> 
> 
> Yep and then we'll see bird feeders all over the woods. Like someone else stated its all in the wording or someone WILL find a loop hole.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

It's good that the baiting ban has fallen. Now they can resurect it and cover the upper in the new baiting ban. Baiting should be banned permanently.


----------



## Dale87 (Dec 19, 2008)

Isn't the ban going to be done with after next year anyways? I was under the impression that when they found CWD they would ban baiting and feeding and go into there little plan for 3 years and if they hadn't found any more cases then it would revert back to normal. Or are you guys thinking they are going to just extend the ban indefiantly just for the heck of it?


----------



## Melthuselah (Dec 3, 2007)

After sitting here reading most of the post on this thread I find it amusing at how many people defend those that still bait in the LP. This is an illegal activity. In other words it is poaching. Somewhat akin to hunting at midnight. I have no problem with people not liking a law and stating there opinion but to disregard it because you don't like it is ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## bowhunter1670 (Sep 27, 2009)

FixedBlade said:


> It's good that the baiting ban has fallen. Now they can resurect it and cover the upper in the new baiting ban. Baiting should be banned permanently.


 Why do you think it should be banned??


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It was made permanent last year.


----------



## Buckdumper (Mar 19, 2010)

unclecbass said:


> Thankfully I know where the brown trout are I would like to think that this is the end of the stupid baiting ban but I doubt it. All the DNR needs to do is attempt to change the statute to permit bird feeders. No big deal.


 
So you know where the browns are? Well East and West bay in Traverse suck compared to years past. Maybe they all headed to Wi. Indian nets, or bird feed. Feel free to enlighten me with a PM.


----------



## Buckdumper (Mar 19, 2010)

Melthuselah said:


> After sitting here reading most of the post on this thread I find it amusing at how many people defend those that still bait in the LP. This is an illegal activity. In other words it is poaching. Somewhat akin to hunting at midnight. I have no problem with people not liking a law and stating there opinion but to disregard it because you don't like it is ridiculous in my opinion.


Exactly,

Need to have a statewide ban, or none at all.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

For the same reason you can't bait ducks.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

FixedBlade said:


> For the same reason you can't bait ducks.


Yet it's legal to bait bear.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

And yet you use bait in your traps.


----------



## tjstebb (Jun 5, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Yet it's legal to bait bear.


 
I was just in the bear forum and the way i understood it you only use bear bait as a place to start your dogs on! :16suspect


tjstebb


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

I bait ants and mice too.


----------

