# Lets look at proposal G



## e. fairbanks

ENGLER DECLARES SUPPORT FOR BEAR HUNTING PROPOSAL G
http://www.state.mi.us/migov/PressReleases/199609/bearhunt.html
Proposal G would grant the NRC exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game. The alternative initiative, Proposal D, is backed by animal rights groups and would prohibit the use of bait and dogs to hunt bear.
Michigans Proposal G was on the Nov. 7. 1996 election ballot in Michigan. It passed with 68.7 % OF VOTERS IN FAVOR.
Was this a trial baloon (Prop. D) by animal rights? Prop G effectively nullifies further attempts by animal rights to ban hunting by using the ballot. Was the immediate ban on baiting and feeding deer in the Lower to counter future attempts by animal rights to condemn the use of
these practices to sway public opinion in their favor? Was it not good political strategy? Most states are condemning the practice of baiting and feeding. For this same reason ?


----------



## ahoude23

A little off subject, however, I often thought Prop. G would apply to the Dove season in some way?


----------



## e. fairbanks

11/5/2008 - Prop 2 closes down the California egg industry - affecting95% of the states egg production and forcing consumers to buy eggs from other states and Mexico.
A huge victory for Prop 2 supporters, which are the animal rights groups Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society.
Bismarck, N Dakota - A N D program that distributes venison to the needy will accept only deer killed with arrows, fearing that firearm shot meat may contain lead fragments.
Us mighty hunters are no match for the animal lovers, we would rather spend our time arguing


----------



## 6inchtrack

Then you non baiter's need to help and get behind us hunters who want to be able to use baiting as a method for deer hunting.
Yea, lets stop aruging, and get back to just being united hunters.
Help us get our chosen method deer hunting back.


----------



## swampbuck

While g isnt perfect, when you condsider putting control over hunting or any other outdoor activity under the influence of the voting public you have to include ALL of the voting public.


----------



## Direwolfe

6",

Are you going to join in the crusade to protect the time honored tradition of "jacking" deer? This was the perfectly honorable tradition of going out on a river or lake in the middle of the night. While one guy rowed, another stood at the bow with a blazing torch. The other guys with the rifles scanned the bank for deer that would just stare at the light. Easy to get those deer that went nocturnal. Today we refer to it as shining and it is illegal. 100 years ago it was perfectly acceptable however. 

The idea that we all have to band together to defend every method of hunting is a trap for the foolish . The non-hunting majority of the public has to see our methods and goals as fair chase and in the interests of the resource, respectively. Standards of fair chase evolve over time. Shining was seen as against the principle of fair chase and outlawed. If we cling to short cuts and lose the good will of the majority, we risk not only the short cut but the whole hunt. This is not an argument to cave to every criticism of hunting. The public increasingly sees baiting as unfair chase and it diminishes the stature of the sport. This is not one of those situations where education is going to change the perception. Are you writing your congressman to repeal the five shot clip limit while hunting? Shooting deer in water or from a boat? Why not? At one point it wasn't the law. According to your logic we must overturn it or we risk losing all our hunting.


----------



## 6inchtrack

I live for deer hunting. Its my all time favorite pastime.
My wife is just as passionate about it as I am. My son has been setting in stands and blinds for the last three years, It was so cool to watch his eyes when deer would come into the bait, we didnt need to shoot a deer each time we went out, it was satisfying just seeing them.
This was his first year to be able to hunt, practiced his little butt off, He is 100% at 10 and 15 yards and 80% at twenty. Couldnt wait to get in the tree stand, then came the baiting ban, I told him that we would see deer just wait, We set up on runs coming in and out of bedding areas. But we havent seen any deer. He went out with us 5 times and didnt see any deer, has not wanted to go anymore for the last 2 weeks, my wife got upset and tried to make him come and he started crying, so I intervened, I want him to come with us, but I dont want to make him come with us.
And to tell the truth, its starting to be a drag to me also, I never would have thought that, I love just being in the woods. Ive been in the woods 75% of the days so far this season, and Ive only seen one fawn. I get out there and Im just not into it anymore. Im impatient, cant sit still any more, Monday just said to heck with this and packed up and out at 4:30. Ill keep trying the rest of this bow season, but we are banking on firearm season.
I got a hunch that if this years a bust, Im going to throw in the towel and give up.
Well, last week, while in the stand, I was thinking about the upcoming election. We were up for township manager again.The old manager is ok, older guy, church goer, and a hunter. The other guy smart as a whip, probably be able to take our township in a good new direction, but he is anti guns. And didnt vote for him. Thinking about it, I have done this my whole voting life, passed a better candidate, solely based on a candidates stand on firearms. How am I going to feel if I become a non-hunter and firearms are not as important any longer? Probably vote for the better guy regardless of thier stand on firearms.
Do you think this sport of ours needs to loose any more people?
Im going to finish this season, we will just have to see.


----------



## traditional

6inchtrack said:


> Thinking about it, I have done this my whole voting life, passed a better candidate, solely based on a candidates stand on firearms. How am I going to feel if I become a non-hunter and firearms are not as important any longer? Probably vote for the better guy regardless of thier stand on firearms.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> Do you think this sport of ours needs to loose any more people?
> Im going to finish this season, we will just have to see.


I know exactly how you feel. I can relate to all of your post. There were several times last year that I said to heck with it and just left the woods well before I should have. The trouble is some on here just don't care about you. In fact some want you to leave. What they don't realize is it will affect the way we vote in the future. I have not bought a license this year. I am not missing it at all. Take it from a guy who has enjoyed deer hunting for more than 40 years. There is life after deer hunting. Good luck 6 on what ever road you choose.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Direwolfe said:


> 6",
> 
> Are you going to join in the crusade to protect the time honored tradition of "jacking" deer? This was the perfectly honorable tradition of going out on a river or lake in the middle of the night. While one guy rowed, another stood at the bow with a blazing torch. The other guys with the rifles scanned the bank for deer that would just stare at the light. Easy to get those deer that went nocturnal. Today we refer to it as shining and it is illegal. 100 years ago it was perfectly acceptable however.
> 
> The idea that we all have to band together to defend every method of hunting is a trap for the foolish . The non-hunting majority of the public has to see our methods and goals as fair chase and in the interests of the resource, respectively. Standards of fair chase evolve over time. Shining was seen as against the principle of fair chase and outlawed. If we cling to short cuts and lose the good will of the majority, we risk not only the short cut but the whole hunt. This is not an argument to cave to every criticism of hunting. The public increasingly sees baiting as unfair chase and it diminishes the stature of the sport. This is not one of those situations where education is going to change the perception. Are you writing your congressman to repeal the five shot clip limit while hunting? Shooting deer in water or from a boat? Why not? At one point it wasn't the law. According to your logic we must overturn it or we risk losing all our hunting.


Some things are pretty clear to all who look. Shining or shooting a deer while swimming would probably get a thumbs down from a majority of hunters. Baiting on the other hand, was practiced by nearly 50% of hunters. It wasn't banned because of it's evil nature, it was banned because someone thought it would stem the spread of a disease. This was in my opinion a knee jerk reaction using outdated science. Some will say "But where were you when they developed this plan?" I was right there thinking this was the best option for the information available at the time. The problem I have is a lot of time has passed, and apparently nobody brought this plan out of the closet and dusted it off, compared it's contents against todays knowledge, and updated it. As far as the fair chase argument goes, what do you think will be banned next? Food plots, scent free clothing, scents and lures? All of these assist the hunter and tilt the fair chase balance. This is not about whether one can or cannot bait for me personally. The folks making these kinds of decisions are responsible for OUR wildlife and habitats. That to me is just plain scary.


----------



## johnhunter

6inchtrack said:


> Do you think this sport of ours needs to loose any more people?


That might be a worthwhile poll to post. Beyond the oversimplified generality of "more hunters = better for the future of hunting", it is an interesting topic.

I would argue that the future of hunting may well be better served by fewer, more serious, and more ethical hunters.


----------



## cadillacjethro

farmlegend said:


> I would argue that the future of hunting may well be better served by fewer, more serious, and more ethical hunters.


I bet you would. Tell me FL, how's it going down there in the SLP? Ya got things under control? Let me guess; you want to be on the ethics committee don't you.


----------



## north-bound

farmlegend said:


> That might be a worthwhile poll to post. Beyond the oversimplified generality of "more hunters = better for the future of hunting", it is an interesting topic.
> 
> I would argue that the future of hunting may well be better served by fewer, more serious, and more ethical hunters.


Wow!! Thats a strong statement and to me an arrogant one as well, but i would like to see the pole for curiosity.


----------



## johnhunter

cadillacjethro said:


> I bet you would. Tell me FL, how's it going down there in the SLP? Ya got things under control? Let me guess; you want to be on the ethics committee don't you.


If invited to serve, I probably would.

Now that this baiting ban thing is settled, we have far weightier issues to address; trespassing, poaching, and slovenly hunting behavior, for starters.


----------



## johnhunter

north-bound said:


> Wow!! Thats a strong statement and to me an arrogant one as well, but i would like to see the pole for curiosity.


Ad hominem noted. Or is it arrogant to even notice?


----------



## north-bound

farmlegend said:


> Ad hominem noted. Or is it arrogant to even notice?


 Arrogant? Maybe. What i was really looking for was a response to your statement.


----------



## fairfax1

With the recent election there is some current information on number of voters in Michigan. Today's Freep...or was it the Lansing State Journal?....stated that about 5.1mm folks voted in Tuesday's election......about 65% of registered voters. If it is 65%, then the total voters could have been 7.8mm.

So, let's go with 7.8mm. And figure there are about 750,000 folks who buy deer licenses (I think that's close). So, 750,000 divided by 7.8mm comes to 9.6%.

So, *9.6% *hunt deer, the other *90.4%* don't.

And which poster on this site wants deer issues, baiting issues, to be decided by popular vote? 90.4% vs 9.6%. 

Let's be a bit more lax...say it is just 5.1mm voters. So then, 750,000 divided by 5.1mm comes to *14.7%* 
14.7% hunt, 85.3% don't.

I still don't like the odds. 

It gets worse. What are the chances that 100% of those 750,000 deer hunters will vote to support baiting. Let's say it'll be 50%.....oh hell, make it 60%. Now we get 450,000 vs 7.8million......5.8%

On which side should I bet will get to define what _'fair chase'_ really should be?

...........................

If there is one bullet-to-the-head that the pro-bait faction simply seems to ignore it is that the non-hunting public (remember them...the 90.4%, or is it 85.3%) do not necessarily think that luring deer into a pile of carrots is really hunting. 

The very last thing the pro-bait guys want is for this thing to go to public referendum. Baiting will ....in my opinion.....be nuked.


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> If there is one bullet-to-the-head that the pro-bait faction simply seems to ignore it is that the non-hunting public (remember them...the 90.4%, or is it 85.3%) do not necessarily think that luring deer into a pile of carrots is really hunting.


While I'm not a supporter of a referendum any hunting issue, I've got some news for you FF. The non-hunting public does also not think that it's particularly cricket for a camo-clad, scent loc'd, treestand perching hunter to shoot a buck from 150 yards away while it's sniffing his bottle of synthetic doe pee. If you are going to try and convince the non-hunting public that what we do is "fair" they are going to want to see you out there with a loin cloth and flint tipped arrows. Good luck with that one.

When the over-populated deer herd starts munching on the begonias in their back yard and destroying their ornamental shrubbery, most members of the public cease to view deer as Bambi and start to view them as rats with long legs. At that point, most of them could care less whether the deer gets whacked over a bait pile or by a land mine, they just want the problem to go away and hunting is the only reasonably cost effective method to make it happen. 

In legal quantities, non-hunters are going to be completely oblivious to the use of bait for hunting.


----------



## Pinefarm

Go to non-hunters and ask permission to hunt. Even when legal, have one guy say he hunts natural and have the other say he hunts with bait. I bet the non-baiter had better luck getting permission. 

From MDNR/MSU on non-hunters take on baiting for deer...

ETHICS

The primary basis for opposition to baiting seems to be one of ethical judgment. Respondents opposed to baiting were asked to rate the importance of six statements as reasons for opposition. Fifty percent of those
who were opposed to baiting felt the statement &#8220;Baiting is unethical.&#8221; was a very important reason for their position. Forty-seven percent of this group felt the statement &#8220;Baiting threatens to decrease the quality of deer hunting in Michigan.&#8221; was a very important reason. A third statement, &#8220;Baiting increases interference and/or competition among deer hunters.&#8221; was rated as a very important reason by 39 percent of respondents supporting a ban on baiting (Minnis and Peyton 1994).

Another ethical concern is one of fair chase. Fair chase is a set of hunting conditions in which the individual decision-maker judges the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter (Peyton 1998a).
Some hunters and many non-hunters think that baiting deer is too easy and &#8220;unfair&#8221; to the deer. Fair chase issues may serve to draw non-hunters&#8217; attention to a controversy, such as baiting deer. Non-hunter perceptions of &#8220;unsporting&#8221; behaviors can also create a poor image of those who participate in or allow the practice, and thus erode credibility of the agency and its hunting constituents (Peyton 1998b).

*In a 1994 telephone survey of randomly dialed households, respondents were asked whether they found certain hunting practices to be acceptable or unacceptable. When respondents who oppose all forms of hunting (12 percent of sample) were dropped from the analysis, 33 percent of the remaining non-hunters found hunting deer with bait to be acceptable, 58 percent said it was unacceptable, and 9 percent were undecided (Peyton and Grise 1995). This public sentiment must be placed in context. It did not reflect a mandate to do away with deer baiting. Hunting bear with bait was also unacceptable to 63 percent of this group, and if anti-hunter opinions are added to this total, the proportion of the non-hunting public opposing
bear baiting was over 70 percent. Yet Proposal D failed to pass in 1996. In part, this was likely because the opposition to baiting was not a strong attitude and other factors outweighed this in deciding the final vote.
It appears that deer baiting is not a pleasant activity for many non-hunters, but it may not be one for which they will demand change unless some action is precipitated.*


Now that CWD is in the state, what do you think those random numbers would be? 75% against baiting?


----------



## Pinefarm

This is an interesting read also, the whole link...

http://www.alabamawildlife.org/baitingbill/research.asp

F. SOCIETY AND ETHICS

1. Citizens of the United States, the majority of whom do not hunt, are increasingly skeptical of hunters who tilt the tables too far in their favor. Recreational hunting is supported by the majority of society, (Duda and Young, 1998) but only when hunter behavior is legal and ethical, and hunting itself does not unreasonably compromise the animals' instinct and abilities to avoid or elude their pursuers. 

2. Our Constitution established a Public Trust Doctrine, born of English Common Law, wherein natural resources, which were "too important to be owned" belonged to all of us, including navigable waters, scenic and historic sites, and wildlife (Williamson, 2000). 

3. David Langford, Director of the Texas Wildlife Association states, "Once animals are dependant on their de facto owners for their nourishment, the principles of wildlife management have been replaced by those of animal husbandry." And, "The more like animal husbandry that wildlife management becomes, the less defensible hunting becomes." 

4. One basis for opposition to baiting deals with ethical judgement. Survey respondents opposed to baiting felt baiting was unethical or baiting decreased the quality of deer hunting in Michigan (Minnis and Peyton, 1994). Because of this view, baiting lends ammunition to anti-hunting groups (Kammermeyer and Thackston, 1995). Animal rights activists argue that hunters are only interested in the kill and that limited broken habitats make hunting about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1992). 

5. Fair chase is a set of hunting conditions in which the individual judges the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter (Peyton, 1998). Fair chase issues draw attention of non-hunters to the baiting controversy. Non-hunters' perceptions of hunter behaviors can also create a poor image of those who participate in or allow the practices, and thus erode the credibility of the agency and its hunting constituents (Peyton, 1998). In a 1994 telephone survey of random households, 58% of non-hunters considered deer hunting with bait to be unacceptable (Peyton and Grise, 1995). 

6. Past attempts at emergency feeding by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources sent the wrong message to the public and reinforced erroneous ideas about deer management (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999). People mistakenly thought that deer could be stockpiled beyond the carrying capacity of the range. 

7. Citizens who recreationally feed wildlife tend to start assuming ownership of the animals in their area and may become inclined to oppose the hunting of "their" animals (Williamson, 2000). 

8. Supplemental feeding to increase numbers of deer available for harvest or to improve antler development to increase potential of trophy harvest has many of the same negative perception issues contained within the baiting issue. Supplemental feeding creates conflict between proper management of a state resource to provide ecological benefits and a variety of social needs versus a policy to provide wildlife-related recreational opportunities (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999). 

9. United States citizens, the majority of which do not hunt, are increasingly skeptical of hunters who create unfair harvest situations. Society is well served by regulated, ethical hunting. However, supplemental feeding perceive as increasing deer mainly for hunters tends to reduce public support for all hunting and, more importantly, for wildlife management in general (Williamson, 2000). 

10. Some hunters and many non-hunters think that hunting over bait is too easy and "unfair" to animals (Lamport, 1996; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999). This practice goes against the principles of "fair chase", a set of hunting conditions that advocate fair hunting requires the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter (Posewitz, 1994; Peyton, 1998). Non-hunter perceptions of "unfair" hunting behaviors can also create a poor image of those who participate in or allow the practice and, as a consequence, erode credibility of the agency and its hunting constituents (Peyton, 1998). 

11. A 1998 survey indicated 64% of Mississippi hunters opposed hunting deer over bait. A 2001 survey of Mississippi deer/turkey license buyers indicated 63% of respondents were opposed to a change in hunting regulations that would allow hunting deer over bait (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 2001; see http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlifeissues/articles.asp?vol=6&article=54). Of these respondents, 67% agreed that hunting over bait negatively influences non-hunter attitudes towards hunting, and 65% agreed that hunting over bait is not considered fair chase.


----------



## Pinefarm

More?
http://www.mswildlife.org/baiting/index.html

Jeopardize the tradition and sport of hunting in Mississippi 

We believe relaxation of restrictions that would allow hunters to harvest game animals with the aid of bait will further widen the opinion and perspective gaps between citizens who support and participate in the sport of hunting and the citizens who do not hunt but also do not oppose the sport. The non-hunting, as well as the anti-hunting publics, will view hunting with the aid of bait as unethical and inappropriate. This will serve only to further compromise our efforts to perpetuate and preserve our hunting tradition in the face of increasing public sentiment against the sport. Additionally, the use of bait by hunters may increase the incidence and severity of illegal harvest, including bag limit violations, gender and antler size violations. Such illegal harvest will have implications not only upon the property upon which the action takes place, but can have a detrimental effect upon surrounding properties that lie within the normal home range of the game animals. Such impacts could be detrimental to the management efforts of these adjoining landowners/managers. Moreover, the use of bait is contrary to the spirit of fair chase, and the majority of both the hunting and non-hunting publics consider such use of bait as unethical. 
Create biological and wildlife population problems

The increased density of game animals at, or in the vicinity of, bait sites will increase the likelihood of wildlife disease transmission. The risk of disease transmission directly from the bait is well documented, as target and non-target wildlife ingest wet, moldy or fungus infected grain or other feedstuffs. Such acceleration in the speed and efficiency of disease transmission will affect many species, and can potentially result in epidemic situations in wildlife populations. Additionally, there is potential increased predation that will be facilitated by these aggregations of game animals, both through the density increase and the increased exposure that results when prey species are lured out of protective cover. 
Create habitat problems that pose significant threat to long-term sustainability of the wildlife and forest resources. 

Supplemental feeding and baiting has the potential to artificially increase animal populations above natural carrying capacity of the habitat. Such artificially high populations invariably result in habitat degradation and, long-term, reduction in carrying capacity. Like the disease implications, the effects of habitat degradation will have a landscape level impact, and could affect a broad array of both plant and animal populations.


----------



## Pinefarm

More reading...
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/Exec Summary.pdf


There are greater percentages in each group who think that hunting white-tailed deer by attracting them using bait should be illegal than think it should be legal, when there are no conditions attached to the question, although the difference is not great among hunters and landowners.

 Majorities of the general population (59%) and landowners (54%), and just less than a majority of hunters (49%), think it should be illegal to hunt deer using bait unconditionally.
 Those who support do so most commonly because it will increase the hunters chance of harvest, that it allows for better deer population control, and that it helps with quality deer management. Tradition was also cited by many.
 Those who oppose do so most commonly because it is not perceived as fair to the deer and that it is unethical to trick the deer.
 When the condition is place on the question about support or opposition for hunting deer directly over bait if it were part of a year-round feeding program, opposition (52%) still exceeds support (31%) among the general population, but not among hunters, who had more support (56%) than opposition (37%), and among landowners, who were evenly split between support (45%) and opposition (45%).


----------



## hunterdude772

pinefarm 

Hat's off to you. You actually did some research and presented some documentation to back it up. Unlike the other ANTI's that just spew venom.

Here's some food for thought:

1. I don't know about you but I have never been called and asked any of these questions. They don't even tell you how many people they called. Normally it is like 1200 or less people. Now if there are 5 to 7 million voters, that would be like calling people in Crump MI to decide how an entire state feels about an issue. Always been silly in my book. Also this can be spun for ones own benefit by calling only people in a geographic area that may support your agenda (i.e. major metro areas). Exactly the way you spun the information by omitting the following facts from the beginning of your post.

**Just over half (53 percent) of the respondents in the 1993 survey believed that baiting in Michigan should remain legal, whereas 29 percent believed that deer baiting in Michigan should be banned (Minnis and Peyton 1994).* People who had hunted deer over bait were asked to rate the importance of seven statements as reasons for hunting deer over bait. Nearly three-fourths of those who baited reported that baiting is more exciting because they can watch more deer and other wildlife, and 63 percent reported that
they have a better chance to harvest a deer by baiting than with other methods. About one out of five (22 percent) deer baiter's reported that the need to compete with other hunters using bait was a very important
reason for deer baiting.
ETHICS
The primary basis for opposition to baiting seems to be one of ethical judgment. Respondents opposed to
baiting were asked to rate the importance of six statements as reasons for opposition.***

2. The sources for all your "facts" are all provided by states that have an anti baiting agenda. This is simply anti baiting propaganda. Read both sides of any issue (abortion, gay marriage etc.) and you will find convincing opinions for both sides. If you read your "facts" very carefully, you will see that they consist of all opinion and really no fact.

3. Why is it that hunters don't give a crap about what non-hunters think unless it fits their agenda? First of all non-hunters do not pay one dime of any wildlife management. (Maybe the DNR is trying to change that by letting them have a say.) And if the DNR/NRC's job and responsibility is only to the wildlife and not the hunters then what the heck does it matter what the general public thinks anyway? 
Should non-hunters decide:
Compound vs traditional bows
Shotgun vs rifle
Scent or no scent
Food plot or farm field
Bag limits
Tree stand vs ground blind
or anything else that gives the hunter an advantage?
I would think not.

4. Seems you've conceded to the fact that this has NOTHING to do with disease and EVERYTHING to do with a minorities opinion that something is unethical. Keep in mind that the same report you quote from says:
*"Archery hunters use bait at a higher rate than firearm hunters; 71 percent reported using bait during at least part of the*
*season compared to 53 percent of firearm hunters (Minnis and Peyton 1994)."*
That would constitute a majority.
Once again that bring this back to pushing your values on others which, when it comes back to bite you in the butt, you will understand is dead wrong.

Thanks again for at least doing some homework!


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Hey pinefarm, you seen any studies on people hunting over bait vs plots in michigan, as far as if there is any percieved difference in the public opinion? I can't find a poll, I'm thinking about doing one, if somebody hasn't already.


----------



## 6inchtrack

hunterdude772 said:


> pinefarm Exactly the way you spun the information by omitting the following facts from the beginning of your post.
> 
> **Just over half (53 percent) of the respondents in the 1993 survey believed that baiting in Michigan should remain legal, whereas 29 percent believed that deer baiting in Michigan should be banned (Minnis and Peyton 1994).*


Pinefarm, did you really do that?
Omit that statement so you could make your point?
Sometimes Pinefarm, Sometimes...


----------



## Pinefarm

Scott, ask MDNR/MSU to do that poll. I'd like to see the results too. While they're at it, have them ask if the general public views firearms hunters differently than bowhunters too.

6inches, I checked out the profile of your month long membership. About all you seem to do is bash MDNR because you can't bait. Are you that addicted to bait and unable to see deer without it? Just wondering because there seems to lots of anger in your posts. What county (counties) do you hunt?
Are you hunting your old bait locations, but now just without bait? 

My buddy and I saw 5 bucks yesterday and 2 of those were nice 8pt's. In fact, I had one 8 yards from me in a 2 minute staredown but couldn't get a shot due to brush. I was hunting natural on the ground, with my longbow. 
Very cool though. 
But we almost can't seem to go anywhere without seeing deer. May I suggest another area? I hear people say it's the worst season ever and then others say it's the best ever. Think about reasons why that may be the case?


----------



## swampbuck

Pinefarm said:


> This is an interesting read also, the whole link...
> 
> http://www.alabamawildlife.org/baitingbill/research.asp
> 
> F. SOCIETY AND ETHICS
> 
> 1. Citizens of the United States, the majority of whom do not hunt, are increasingly skeptical of hunters who tilt the tables too far in their favor.
> 
> 3. "Once animals are dependant on their de facto owners for their nourishment, the principles of wildlife management have been replaced by those of animal husbandry." And, "The more like animal husbandry that wildlife management becomes, the less defensible hunting becomes.
> 
> 7. Citizens who recreationally feed wildlife tend to start assuming ownership of the animals in their area and may become inclined to oppose the hunting of "their" animals (Williamson, 2000).
> 
> 8. feeding to increase numbers of deer available for harvest or to improve antler development to increase potential of trophy harvest has many of the same negative perception issues contained within the baiting issue. (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999).
> 
> 9. United States citizens, the majority of which do not hunt, are increasingly skeptical of hunters who create unfair harvest situations. Society is well served by regulated, ethical hunting. However, supplemental feeding perceive as increasing deer mainly for hunters tends to reduce public support for all hunting and, more importantly, for wildlife management.http://


pinefarm and others,

do you honestly believe the non/anti hunting public would support food plots in this context. I would also like to see a poll and a referendum.


----------



## cadillacjethro

The thread is about Proposal G which calls for the use of sound scientific principles to manage wildlife. I see nowhere in the proposal where your ethics are mentioned, Pinefarm. If ever we are to manage properly, it is my opinion fact not emotion or personal opinion must rule. While your opinions are welcomed and may even be valued, they are YOUR opinions. I believe that if emotion were taken out of this equation and *sound scientific principles* mixed in with a little common sense were used, we would not be discussing a baiting ban.


----------



## Pinefarm

And looking at the totality, allowing bait is not sound scientific principles. Simple and done.

MDNR deer specialists wanted a bait ban and the NRC voted unanimously for it too. 

The typical people against it people who profited from hunters grossly violating the 2 gallon limit and hunters who have a difficult time seeing deer without baiting them in. 

The good PR with the non-hunting public with the ban is just a bonus. 

I would welcome a legit poll of non-hunters comparing their thoughts on habitat improvements and dumped bait. :lol: Be careful what you ask for. :lol:
One is like writing a novel yourself, the other is reading Cliff Notes on that novel. IMHO.


----------



## Pinefarm

I would suggest everyone read the October 2008 Quality Whitetails. On page 70, there's a 5 page artcle called Baiting vs Food Plots. In it, you'll read the positions of many state game biologists across the country.


----------



## e. fairbanks

When we have read all thestuff that was said
What some call "fair chase" just seems out of place
When it comes from the mouth of people down south
Where they still hunt bullfrogs and they hunt deer with dogs 

Up here in the north when us mighty hunters go forth
To get to our stand on our 40 acres of land
With our pail full of beets and some other choice treats
We hope for good luck, maybe shoot a big buck

It's different strokes for different folks
We get our deer with what works up here We dont hunt bullfrogs and we dont hunt deer with dogs We want our deer to stay, we dont chase them away


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> I would welcome a legit poll of non-hunters comparing their thoughts on habitat improvements and dumped bait. :lol: Be careful what you ask for. :lol:
> One is like writing a novel yourself, the other is reading Cliff Notes on that novel. IMHO.


I think if you were to run that poll you would be called a hypocrite. Habitat improvement involves more than food plots, and in my opinion doesn't include them at all. A return to a natural state would be habitat improvement IMHO. If you were to look at this in totality (your word) you might just conclude this is about more than baiting. You have proven time and again an inability to do that. If you have an ethical problem with baiting, be a man and go after it on those grounds.


----------



## swampbuck

Pinefarm said:


> I would suggest everyone read the October 2008 Quality Whitetails. On page 70, there's a 5 page artcle called Baiting vs Food Plots. In it, you'll read the positions of many state game biologists across the country.


Where can I read the article without joining qdm. And as far as the poll it should be about food plots not habitat improvement. which are 2 completely different topics in my opinion.


----------



## Pinefarm

Jethro,
I think I know about habitat improvements. We've hand planted 70,000 saplings and I spent a better part of a decade spending my winter's with a chainsaw in my hand, not for firewood, but for fine tuned habitat improvements. If you read many of my posts, you'll see that I say thick cover/browse is usually a better option than food plots for most landowners in most area's most people hunt, that being M-55-ish and south. 

As far as being a man...I have a problem with baiting as far as disease spread. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunter social problems. I have a problem with baiting as far as ethics. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunters "learning" more aspects of hunting/deer behavior. I have a problem with baiting as far as how hunters hunt over bait, expecting and focusing on bucks.
Frankly, I have a problem with others baiting and screwing up deer movements. Now with the bait ban, we're seeing deer all over moving much more than we ever saw with bait piles everywhere.

I've been polite and cordial on these threads as not to offend many here. But since you want me to man up and be very clear, I will. 
Those most angry about the bait ban reveal that they are totally lost without bait. They're don't know enough about scent control, travel patterens, etc., to scout and find deer consistenty. For 20 years now, most new hunters have learned to hunt only with bait. Not that bait is gone, they now see almost nothing. 
They can use every excuse they want, be it that they want bait to kill more deer, it's good for the economy, etc. But those demanding bait return need bait themselves. Hunting without bait is arcane to them.


Bait has been Michigan's #1 deer hunting ill for the last 20 years. This CWD thing just finalized it's end. 

The bonus is, hunters will adjust and learn with this ban. After hunters start having good sucess without bait, we'll look back at these discussions about how they fought for bait to return as rather silly.

Now the ball is in the court of those who always baited to man up. Prove me wrong. Go out and hunt without bait for the next 2-3 years. As soon as the lightbulb starts going off and guys put tags on a lot of deer, you'll see attitudes change. Look for lots of deer to get tagged on Nov. 15-16 this year, more than expected, barring terrible weather.


----------



## hunterdude772

The bonus is, hunters will adjust and learn with this ban. After hunters start having good sucess without bait, we'll look back at these discussions about how they fought for bait to return as rather silly.
Rose colored glasses at best. To most hunters, hunting is a form of entertainment not a lifestyle (as it apparently is for you). This is like saying that if you can not compete in golf or tennis on a professional level then you don't deserve to participate.

States and wildlife groups have worked hard and spent millions to try to bring people into this sport. The sport is dying. And this will be one more nail in the coffin. For most people it is a sport and nothing else.

I know you understand that your entire post was your opinion and certainly not shared by the majority of hunters so answer the questions below.

1. What percentage the all hunting license buyers will turn from sport enthusiasts to serious lifestyle hunters? What percentage will just find some other form of entertainment?

2. For someone who hunts State Land on the weekends, how can they practice habitat improvement (food plots, chain saws etc.)?

The outcome of these questions will effect your hunting future far more than how many does you kill.


----------



## 6inchtrack

> 6inches, I checked out the profile of your month long membership.


So I guess that makes me an infant here huh?

[/COLOR]


> About all you seem to do is bash MDNR because you can't bait.


The legislature passed a resolution asking the commission to modify the ban, and have further discussions. Then commission simply ignored our elected officials, that needs to stop. Proposal G. needs to be reversed or changed so that the commission would have to be elected by you and me, and they should be.



> Are you that addicted to bait and unable to see deer without it?


Sure does seem like it doesn't it. I did see a fawn one day. 


> Just wondering because there seems to lots of anger in your posts.


[/FONT]

I was thinking the same thing about you, especially when you are tring hard to make a point, and purposly omit an important piece of the artical that you are posting just to make that point.



> What county (counties) do you hunt?
> Are you hunting your old bait locations, but now just without bait?


Clare mostly, But have been in Roscommon, and Gladwin a little this year And Jackson when I can get down state. Started on my old spots (they have always been good), But I've tried a lot of different locations this year. 



> My buddy and I saw 5 bucks yesterday and 2 of those were nice 8pt's. In fact, I had one 8 yards from me in a 2 minute staredown but couldn't get a shot due to brush. I was hunting natural on the ground, with my longbow.
> Very cool though.
> But we almost can't seem to go anywhere without seeing deer. May I suggest another area? I hear people say it's the worst season ever and then others say it's the best ever. Think about reasons why that may be the case?


I've noticed that too, Deer have to do certain things, they got to eat (if you have food plots, or hunt near AG land you should be good) deer got to sleep (thats what I've been tring to key on) and deer got to huba huba (I found a rub line yesterday 1/2 mile long with 5 different scrapes, and two were real fresh, I spent this afternoon setting up on that. My son is going to try again)
and
Pinefarm you seem to have a lot of deer,
Can I please come hunt with you?


----------



## Pinefarm

Public land is improved all the time. If in the NWLP, stop in any USFS ranger station and ask where they have been cutting poplars. I can think of several lightly hunted public parcels that are better than most private land in my area. 
It's a little late now, but call the USFS in Jan-Feb for 2009, when nothing is going on, and pick some foresters brains about where they've cut in the past few years where there's nice rolling terrain and where they saw lots of deer.


----------



## Pinefarm

Pinefarm you seem to have a lot of deer,
Can I please come hunt with you?


Actually, we have a select group of friends and family that hunt and that help pay the mortgage and taxes. We're set on people.

I've weeded out anyone who wouldn't go along with my program, since it's my land. If you don't like my program, I suggested buying, leasing or public land.

Frankly, I've hunted with a lot of people in a lot of places. Nothing ruins a hunt like a camp whiner. And the worst whiners at camp are often DNR whiners/bashers.
Hunting with people that see the positive in the hunt makes for a better experience.


----------



## fairfax1

*Curmudgeon*.....haven't ignored your responding posts....it's just that it's hunting season. Doing sits instead. Tho I do check in briefly each day to see what the flame-du-jour is.

Your response above: 
_"While I'm not a supporter of a referendum any hunting issue, I've got some news for you FF................ If you are going to try and convince the non-hunting public that what we do is "fair" they are going to want to see you out there with a loin cloth and flint tipped arrows......

When the over-populated deer herd starts munching on the begonias in their back yard and destroying their ornamental shrubbery, most members of the public cease to view deer as Bambi and start to view them as rats with long legs. At that point, most of them..... just want the problem to go away and hunting is the only reasonably cost effective method to make it happen. 

In legal quantities, non-hunters are going to be completely oblivious to the use of bait for hunting."_

As usual C, your responses are articulate. But well said doesn't always interpret as right said. Let me do an autopsy on your post:

The loin-cloth/flint arrows observation is, maybe, a tad hyperbolic. You think? 
Or, maybe just plain wrong.

Without citing studies or links....which would require doing some homework.....I believe that the majority of 'non'-hunters are not negatively pre-disposed towards hunting. Many, if not most, believe that wildlife populations need some control and hunters can do that. That is if many even think about hunting at all. 

Having said that I still don't want any 'hunting' referendum on the ballot. What we do....hunt & kill animals for fun....is really really easy to skew into sadism and bloodlust. Throwing that kind of red meat at the unwashed electorate is way too dangerous. It is naivete' to want to put to the vote membership in the NRC, or Prop G, or most any kind of hunting linked measure. In my humble opinion.

Then your comment on the missing begonias and long-legged rats (echoes of Eric Sharp?). Well, you have a point. I've heard my suburban neighbors vent on losing their tulips, impatiens, and newly planted crabs, etc. Bambi becomes Bambizilla. _"Save my Rose-of-Sharon bush and you can electrocute Bambi.....and his damn Mom...... for all I care."_

The problem with that is not that many voters grow begonias. Not that many voters have direct 1-to-1 contact with misbehavin' Bambi. It's the vast numbers of apartment, condo, townhome, inner-city, BIG suburb, dwellers that can test your belief on the begonia caper.

Then, lastly, from you----"_In legal quantities,"..._oh man-o-man C, hasn't that ground been well plowed already?

Let's Tee that sucker up again in January. My alarm goes off at 5:10 tomorrow morning.

*FX*


----------



## Munsterlndr

As stated, I think a referendum would be a particularly poor idea, we're in agreement there. Was there a widespread public concern and outcry about baiting prior to the ban? I must have missed it. Other than the 10% of loony animal rights activists on the far edge, I rarely heard anybody comment about whether or not bait should be used, outside of the hunting community. Trying to justify the bait ban by saying it will have positive PR value for the sport is a pretty lame reason, as there was no indication that most non-hunters gave a rats *** about the issue, unless they were prodded into considering it for some survey.

And no, whether the vast majority of hunters abided by the bait limits that were established is not a settled point. All we have is the anecdotal opinions of a few vocal anti-baiter's who like to paint a certain picture. Since the DNR's word seems to be 'good enuf for you' maybe we should look and see what the DNR has had to say about hunters willingness to abide by bait limits in the past; 

"field personnel in DMU 452 reported good compliance with the five-gallon quantity restriction in place during the 1998 hunting season." (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999)


----------



## yoopertoo

The public does not and never will like hunting or hunters. We can not hunt doves because of the whims of a public that does not understand anything about hunting ethics. I know! Let's lobby the DNR to run a poll of the general public to see what they think of shooting waterfowl over decoys with calls in a farmers field. We can word it something like this:

*"Do you think killing waterfowl, from an artificial blind setup in corn fields where these birds regularly and routinely feed and rest during long migration flights, over artificial decoys designed to exploit the birds instinctual desire to flock, is unethical or unfair to the waterfowl in any way?"*

On second thought maybe we should not ask the general public what the hell they think because we know for sure they don't understand.

We need to realize that we can be our own worst enemy. 



Pinefarm said:


> Those most angry about the bait ban reveal that they are totally lost without bait. They're don't know enough about scent control, travel patterns, etc., to scout and find deer consistently. For 20 years now, most new hunters have learned to hunt only with bait. Not that bait is gone, they now see almost nothing.


Me, I don't need bait to be lost. My hunting skills suck, and I don't care one iota what anyone else thinks about my hunting skills. I simply oppose anyone who tries to self righteously impose their ethics on me and then tries to back it with trumped up reasons based on ****-chat in front of a store counter.



Pinefarm said:


> Bait has been Michigan's #1 deer hunting ill for the last 20 years.


According to who? Just because you are obsessed with it does not mean it is true.


----------



## Munsterlndr

yoopertoo said:


> The public does not and never will like hunting or hunters. We can not hunt doves because of the whims of a public that does not understand anything about hunting ethics. I know! Let's lobby the DNR to run a poll of the general public to see what they think of shooting waterfowl over decoys with calls in a farmers field. We can word it something like this:
> 
> *"Do you think killing waterfowl, from an artificial blind setup in corn fields where these birds regularly and routinely feed and rest during long migration flights, over artificial decoys designed to exploit the birds instinctual desire to flock, is unethical or unfair to the waterfowl in any way?"*
> 
> On second thought maybe we should not ask the general public what the hell they think because we know for sure they don't understand.
> 
> We need to realize that we can be our own worst enemy.
> 
> 
> Me, I don't need bait to be lost. My hunting skills suck, and I don't care one iota what anyone else thinks about my hunting skills. I simply oppose anyone who tries to self righteously impose their ethics on me and then tries to back it with trumped up reasons based on ****-chat in front of a store counter.
> 
> 
> According to who? Just because you are obsessed with it does not mean it is true.


I just have to say that I'm in violent agreement with pretty much everything you said in this post!


----------



## bucketmouthhauler

Pinefarm said:


> Jethro,
> I think I know about habitat improvements. We've hand planted 70,000 saplings and I spent a better part of a decade spending my winter's with a chainsaw in my hand, not for firewood, but for fine tuned habitat improvements. If you read many of my posts, you'll see that I say thick cover/browse is usually a better option than food plots for most landowners in most area's most people hunt, that being M-55-ish and south.
> 
> As far as being a man...I have a problem with baiting as far as disease spread. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunter social problems. I have a problem with baiting as far as ethics. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunters "learning" more aspects of hunting/deer behavior. I have a problem with baiting as far as how hunters hunt over bait, expecting and focusing on bucks.
> Frankly, I have a problem with others baiting and screwing up deer movements. Now with the bait ban, we're seeing deer all over moving much more than we ever saw with bait piles everywhere.
> 
> I've been polite and cordial on these threads as not to offend many here. But since you want me to man up and be very clear, I will.
> Those most angry about the bait ban reveal that they are totally lost without bait. They're don't know enough about scent control, travel patterens, etc., to scout and find deer consistenty. For 20 years now, most new hunters have learned to hunt only with bait. Not that bait is gone, they now see almost nothing.
> They can use every excuse they want, be it that they want bait to kill more deer, it's good for the economy, etc. But those demanding bait return need bait themselves. Hunting without bait is arcane to them.
> 
> 
> Bait has been Michigan's #1 deer hunting ill for the last 20 years. This CWD thing just finalized it's end.
> 
> The bonus is, hunters will adjust and learn with this ban. After hunters start having good sucess without bait, we'll look back at these discussions about how they fought for bait to return as rather silly.
> 
> Now the ball is in the court of those who always baited to man up. Prove me wrong. Go out and hunt without bait for the next 2-3 years. As soon as the lightbulb starts going off and guys put tags on a lot of deer, you'll see attitudes change. Look for lots of deer to get tagged on Nov. 15-16 this year, more than expected, barring terrible weather.


Thats funny, I almost had a tear fall from my eye when I read this I played the national anthem in my head and put my hand on my heart. 

I couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## yoopertoo

Munsterlndr said:


> I just have to say that I'm in violent agreement with pretty much everything you said in this post!


Hmmm ... I hope the "pretty much everything" excluded my hunting skill estimation. :lol: :lol: You're going to destroy my self esteem.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> Jethro,
> I think I know about habitat improvements. We've hand planted 70,000 saplings and I spent a better part of a decade spending my winter's with a chainsaw in my hand, not for firewood, but for fine tuned habitat improvements. If you read many of my posts, you'll see that I say thick cover/browse is usually a better option than food plots for most landowners in most area's most people hunt, that being M-55-ish and south.


I never condemned you for it either. See the difference?



Pinefarm said:


> As far as being a man...I have a problem with baiting as far as disease spread. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunter social problems. I have a problem with baiting as far as ethics. I have a problem with baiting as far as hunters "learning" more aspects of hunting/deer behavior. I have a problem with baiting as far as how hunters hunt over bait, expecting and focusing on bucks.
> Frankly, I have a problem with others baiting and screwing up deer movements. Now with the bait ban, we're seeing deer all over moving much more than we ever saw with bait piles everywhere..


These are personal problems.



Pinefarm said:


> I've been polite and cordial on these threads as not to offend many here. But since you want me to man up and be very clear, I will.
> Those most angry about the bait ban reveal that they are totally lost without bait. They're don't know enough about scent control, travel patterens, etc., to scout and find deer consistenty. For 20 years now, most new hunters have learned to hunt only with bait. Not that bait is gone, they now see almost nothing.
> They can use every excuse they want, be it that they want bait to kill more deer, it's good for the economy, etc. But those demanding bait return need bait themselves. Hunting without bait is arcane to them


You will not offend me. I checked what feelings I had at the door years ago. When I said man up I did not want to hear your concerns. I want you to convey those concerns to the powers that be and convince them baiting is the root of all evil and get it banned because of this fact. The problem is this is not fact, but only opinion.



Pinefarm said:


> Bait has been Michigan's #1 deer hunting ill for the last 20 years. This CWD thing just finalized it's end.
> 
> The bonus is, hunters will adjust and learn with this ban. After hunters start having good sucess without bait, we'll look back at these discussions about how they fought for bait to return as rather silly.
> 
> Now the ball is in the court of those who always baited to man up. Prove me wrong. Go out and hunt without bait for the next 2-3 years. As soon as the lightbulb starts going off and guys put tags on a lot of deer, you'll see attitudes change. Look for lots of deer to get tagged on Nov. 15-16 this year, more than expected, barring terrible weather.


The first statement is purely your opinion. I'm going to say this slowly so maybe this time you get it. This is about more than baiting white tailed deer for me. This is about all the incidentals that were never considered. This is about why the plan wasn't updated. This is about using sound science. This is about why the heck weren't these things considered. If this is their (DNR/NRC) model for operation, it flat out sucks. 
I don't mean to demean you Pinefarm but you are not hearing me. I don't condemn you for habitat improvement. It's your property, do with it what you want. What pisses me off is when you try to be my moral/ethical compass. I don't need or want you to perform that duty.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Pinefarm said:


> Go to non-hunters and ask permission to hunt. Even when legal, have one guy say he hunts natural and have the other say he hunts with bait. I bet the non-baiter had better luck getting permission.
> 
> From MDNR/MSU on non-hunters take on baiting for deer...
> 
> ETHICS
> 
> The primary basis for opposition to baiting seems to be one of ethical judgment. Respondents opposed to baiting were asked to rate the importance of six statements as reasons for opposition. Fifty percent of those
> who were opposed to baiting felt the statement Baiting is unethical. was a very important reason for their position. Forty-seven percent of this group felt the statement Baiting threatens to decrease the quality of deer hunting in Michigan. was a very important reason. A third statement, Baiting increases interference and/or competition among deer hunters. was rated as a very important reason by 39 percent of respondents supporting a ban on baiting (Minnis and Peyton 1994).
> 
> Another ethical concern is one of fair chase. Fair chase is a set of hunting conditions in which the individual decision-maker judges the taking of prey as acceptably uncertain and difficult for the hunter (Peyton 1998a).
> Some hunters and many non-hunters think that baiting deer is too easy and unfair to the deer. Fair chase issues may serve to draw non-hunters attention to a controversy, such as baiting deer. Non-hunter perceptions of unsporting behaviors can also create a poor image of those who participate in or allow the practice, and thus erode credibility of the agency and its hunting constituents (Peyton 1998b).
> 
> *In a 1994 telephone survey of randomly dialed households, respondents were asked whether they found certain hunting practices to be acceptable or unacceptable. When respondents who oppose all forms of hunting (12 percent of sample) were dropped from the analysis, 33 percent of the remaining non-hunters found hunting deer with bait to be acceptable, 58 percent said it was unacceptable, and 9 percent were undecided (Peyton and Grise 1995). This public sentiment must be placed in context. It did not reflect a mandate to do away with deer baiting. Hunting bear with bait was also unacceptable to 63 percent of this group, and if anti-hunter opinions are added to this total, the proportion of the non-hunting public opposing*
> *bear baiting was over 70 percent. Yet Proposal D failed to pass in 1996. In part, this was likely because the opposition to baiting was not a strong attitude and other factors outweighed this in deciding the final vote.*
> *It appears that deer baiting is not a pleasant activity for many non-hunters, but it may not be one for which they will demand change unless some action is precipitated.*
> 
> 
> Now that CWD is in the state, what do you think those random numbers would be? 75% against baiting?


What do you think the general public will think about hunters useing ploting to attract deer, hold them, and shoot them in light of CWD? Once they know it can be transmitted through dirt, and that dirt is going to moved around and spread when they plow and disk their plots, (nobody is going to bury their topsoil) that are only used for the purpose of killing and carrying more deer?

One more thing Pinefarm, I get a real kick out of your highhorse. Baiters need to learn how to scout and hunt blah blah. You then suggested getting trailcams to help scouting.

How can you fault someone for puting native food in the woods and then waiting by that native food for a shot at the animal. Then turn around and tell people to go out and get electronic cameras and film when and where the deer is going to be, show up at the predetermined time and kill it?


----------



## johnnysmallgame

It's a funny world when the press has evolved to "opinion" and chat forums are condemned for it.


----------



## hunterdude772

Pinefarm said:


> Public land is improved all the time. If in the NWLP, stop in any USFS ranger station and ask where they have been cutting poplars. I can think of several lightly hunted public parcels that are better than most private land in my area.
> It's a little late now, but call the USFS in Jan-Feb for 2009, when nothing is going on, and pick some foresters brains about where they've cut in the past few years where there's nice rolling terrain and where they saw lots of deer.


So is your total habitat improvement plan, cutting poplars? Or is that all that people that do not have their own land get stuck with? Just as long as you get what works for you then screw them, right? Get my point? All you anti's do is think about yourself.

Before the ban they could feed the deer the same way you do with your food plots.

To set the record straight I do not hunt state land. I own my hunting property. I just care about other people. I just care about the sport. Unlike you anti's that only care about yourself.


----------



## Pinefarm

Hunterdude,
In light of the ban to help fight potential spread of disease, re-ask yourself about who's only worried about themselves and who's being seflish. Those demanding bait return, against MDNR's wishes or those going along with MDNR's suggested plans.

Who cares about the sport and who cares only about themselves again?:lol:

As far as being an anti-hunter, you caught me. I opened a sporting goods store as the ulitmate ruse. It was very tough to do for nearly 15 years, hating all those hunters, so. Then I signed up here years ago because I knew that tricking everyone and being asked to be a moderator would surely advance my militant anti-hunting views. :lol:

Oh yeah, I was a jr. State Champ in skeet shooting some 30 years ago because I hate guns too. I only shot competition as a cover. :lol:

The truth is, the farther we get away from the initial ban date, and all the pro-bait posts that follow, we all get a pretty good idea of who is only really worried about themselves. IIMHO


----------



## Pinefarm

BTW, since joining on 10-25, every one of your posts in about the ban too. :16suspect


----------



## johnhunter

hunterdude772 said:


> So is your total habitat improvement plan, cutting poplars? Or is that all that people that do not have their own land get stuck with? Just as long as you get what works for you then screw them, right? Get my point? All you anti's do is think about yourself.
> 
> Before the ban they could feed the deer the same way you do with your food plots.
> 
> To set the record straight I do not hunt state land. I own my hunting property. I just care about other people. I just care about the sport. Unlike you anti's that only care about yourself.


:lol:
If I read this right, as your response to Pinefarm's post, you seem to be suggesting that using public funds to perform habitat improvements to public lands for the purpose of benefitting deer hunters which hunt those lands is a positive thing. 
A few sentences later, you suggest that Pinefarm and those that share his views are the selfish ones. Do you write comedy for a living?

As to what your former username was, I'm still working on it. Have a few finalists in mind.


----------



## hunterdude772

Pinefarm said:


> Hunterdude,
> In light of the ban to help fight potential spread of disease, re-ask yourself about who's only worried about themselves and who's being seflish. Those demanding bait return, against MDNR's wishes or those going along with MDNR's suggested plans.
> 
> Who cares about the sport and who cares only about themselves again?:lol:
> 
> As far as being an anti-hunter, you caught me. I opened a sporting goods store as the ulitmate ruse. It was very tough to do for nearly 15 years, hating all those hunters, so. Then I signed up here years ago because I knew that tricking everyone and being asked to be a moderator would surely advance my militant anti-hunting views. :lol:
> 
> Oh yeah, I was a jr. State Champ in skeet shooting some 30 years ago because I hate guns too. I only shot competition as a cover. :lol:
> 
> The truth is, the farther we get away from the initial ban date, and all the pro-bait posts that follow, we all get a pretty good idea of who is only really worried about themselves. IIMHO


pinefarm
What disease? This has been asked over and over. It is not in the wild herd!!!! You speak like it is destroying our herd as we speak (fact: Colorado = 40 yrs. with CWD, >5% infection rate hmmmm). Besides the fact that it is not proven baiting has anything to do with CWD, and common sense says no more than anything else, including food plots. 

Your previous posts where all about why YOU think baiting should be banned. Now you want to spin back to disease because you anti's (I'll get to that) can not address what is asked on a factual basis. You guys have the same MO in every thread. Just spin spin spin. Dodge the facts and the questions asked.

As far as anti's. Did I ever say you were anti hunting (although I think your actions will inadvertantly contribute, my opinion) or anti gun? Spin again to take focus off facts. YOU are anti baiting, anti choice and anti anything that does not fit your agenda. So this indeed makes you an anti. Hits a nerve doesn't it. Think the anti hunters have the same passion as you do about anti baiting? Think they would love to push their values on you the way you do others?

Fact: remove a large number of participants from a sport and it is not good for the sport. Exactly what banning baiting will do.

Read this again and see if you can respond in a realistic way.

Rose colored glasses at best. To most hunters, hunting is a form of entertainment not a lifestyle (as it apparently is for you). This is like saying that if you can not compete in golf or tennis on a professional level then you don't deserve to participate.

States and wildlife groups have worked hard and spent millions to try to bring people into this sport. The sport is dying. And this will be one more nail in the coffin. For most people it is a sport and nothing else.

I know you understand that your entire post was your opinion and certainly not shared by the majority of hunters so answer the questions below.

1. What percentage the all hunting license buyers will turn from sport enthusiasts to serious lifestyle hunters? What percentage will just find some other form of entertainment?

2. For someone who hunts State Land on the weekends, how can they practice habitat improvement (food plots, chain saws etc.)?

The outcome of these questions will effect your hunting future far more than how many does you kill.


----------



## hunterdude772

Pinefarm said:


> BTW, since joining on 10-25, every one of your posts in about the ban too. :16suspect


Could be I dislike having your opinions and values forced on people that don't believe the same way you do. Imagine that!


----------



## hunterdude772

farmlegend said:


> :lol:
> If I read this right, as your response to Pinefarm's post, you seem to be suggesting that using public funds to perform habitat improvements to public lands for the purpose of benefitting deer hunters which hunt those lands is a positive thing.
> A few sentences later, you suggest that Pinefarm and those that share his views are the selfish ones. Do you write comedy for a living?
> 
> As to what your former username was, I'm still working on it. Have a finalists in mind.


Your wasting your time. Never been here before. But go ahead and entertain yourself.

If funds are available I have never had an issue habitat improvements. Just don't share your idea that that is the ONLY ethical way. See the difference between you and I? I am for what will preserve the resource, advance and grow the sport, allow people choice, using common sense, not bias and not pushing my values on anyone. You on the other hand are for only what you believe in.

In your infinite wisdom why don't you take a crack at answering EVERYTHING below.

Rose colored glasses at best. To most hunters, hunting is a form of entertainment not a lifestyle (as it apparently is for you). This is like saying that if you can not compete in golf or tennis on a professional level then you don't deserve to participate.

States and wildlife groups have worked hard and spent millions to try to bring people into this sport. The sport is dying. And this will be one more nail in the coffin. For most people it is a sport and nothing else.

I know you understand that your entire post was your opinion and certainly not shared by the majority of hunters so answer the questions below.

1. What percentage the all hunting license buyers will turn from sport enthusiasts to serious lifestyle hunters? What percentage will just find some other form of entertainment?

2. For someone who hunts State Land on the weekends, how can they practice habitat improvement (food plots, chain saws etc.)?

The outcome of these questions will effect your hunting future far more than how many does you kill.


----------



## Munsterlndr

So Bob, if you had to guess, how many deer do you think the baiting ban has prevented from catching CWD so far? :SHOCKED:


----------



## johnnysmallgame

Rose colored glasses at best. To most hunters, hunting is a form of entertainment not a lifestyle (as it apparently is for you). This is like saying that if you can not compete in golf or tennis on a professional level then you don't deserve to participate. More like saying if you need a tee to hit a baseball.....

States and wildlife groups have worked hard and spent millions to try to bring people into this sport. The sport is dying. And this will be one more nail in the coffin. For most people it is a sport and nothing else.sport or hobby, please define your point

I know you understand that your entire post was your opinion and certainly not shared by the majority of hunters so answer the questions below.

1. What percentage the all hunting license buyers will turn from sport enthusiasts to serious lifestyle hunters? What percentage will just find some other form of entertainment? how about hunting license buyers turning into hunters

2. For someone who hunts State Land on the weekends, how can they practice habitat improvement (food plots, chain saws etc.)? don't have to, scouting should suffice

The outcome of these questions will effect your hunting future far more than how many does you kill. you are correct


----------



## scott kavanaugh

farmlegend said:


> :lol:
> If I read this right, as your response to Pinefarm's post, you seem to be suggesting that using public funds to perform habitat improvements to public lands for the purpose of benefitting deer hunters which hunt those lands is a positive thing.
> A few sentences later, you suggest that Pinefarm and those that share his views are the selfish ones. Do you write comedy for a living?
> 
> As to what your former username was, I'm still working on it. Have a few finalists in mind.


Tell me farmlegend, why is it everytime somebody starts getting the better of you or has a view that doesn't agree with yours, and their new. You start whineing about them being a banned member??????

Tell me when you were in school, did you always wait till the teachers were around so you could get in somebodys business and act real big, knowing they would save your butt?:lol:


----------



## johnhunter

scott kavanaugh said:


> Tell me farmlegend, why is it everytime somebody starts getting the better of you or has a view that doesn't agree with yours, and their new. You start whineing about them being a banned member??????
> 
> Tell me when you were in school, did you always wait till the teachers were around so you could get in somebodys business and act real big, knowing they would save your butt?:lol:



Out of over 6000 posts, I think I've asked that question of two individuals.

Henceforth, I'll have to assume that all of your posts are likewise embellished.


----------



## Pinefarm

I brought it up some time ago with the mod staff. It doesn't take much to know something is up when a brand new member busts out of the gate with numberous angry posts, on only one focued subject.

But this thread is now turning to personal slams. It's closed, but anyone can still read it.


----------

