# ...$500 fine for first baiting offense.....



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

This from the Oscoda Herald: http://oscodaherald.com/detail/83203.html


*$500*.........if only all jurisdiction within the State would adhere to this notable _$500_ suck to the wallet.
I suspect that that alone would be a significant deterrent to the illegal baiting practices. 

From anecdotal stories it seems our CO's could stay busy writing citations every day. Evidently bait violations are not too difficult to find.

Which is sort of a 'Duh'! statement....what with too many 'Mom & Pop' service stations selling 25lb bags of carrots and 50lb bags of corn.

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

Wonder what a "_2nd time offense"_ would win a guy?


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

I have never seen a CO walk through the woods looking for bait during the season.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

I dont give a darn about the baiting argument either way.... But if you are going to make something illegal, discourage it. Some people have bait out that cost more than the fine they are going to receive. 

Loss of hunting privileges hurts more than money IMO


----------



## thunder river outfitters (Aug 21, 2007)

i dont think they would have to walk thru the woods when they sit right by these mom and pop shops watching you buy them. then all they have to do is fallow you to the woods and watch you carry bags out. 
the corner store here in town cant keep up with the demand. i cant believe people are still baiting.


----------



## Tommy99 (Jun 11, 2009)

Since there was no CWD found in the wild last year (I know it can take time to show up), I think that some people are just disregarding it. If they do not find any deer this year with CWD you're going to see a big push to legalize baiting again.


----------



## peva4me (Dec 17, 2007)

This is an Oscoda county paper...........
Baiting has been banned in the area for years, not since last year because of CWD. This sounds like another Drew Sharpe article from the Free Press. I doubt the information on the baiting fines is correct, it will be up to $500.00 based on the number of violations.


----------



## Masterblaster1 (Sep 28, 2004)

I've never seen a CO in the woods anywhere, actually i've never seen the guy get out of his truck! I was on the stateland in Macomb county this week and counted 4 illegal treestands and 3 baitpiles.....


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> *$500*.........if only all jurisdiction within the State would adhere to this notable _$500_ suck to the wallet.
> I suspect that that alone would be a significant deterrent to the illegal baiting practices.


It's amazing how fixated some people are on the baiting issue! :lol:

Since you seem so enthusiastic about imposing such a substantive fine on individuals who illegally dump a couple of gallons of feed in the woods, then it would be interesting to hear your take on imposing a similar level of enforcement on farmers who ignore the MDA guidelines for the storage of bulk feed and the management of culled or unharvested crops.

Per Michigan MDA guidelines
*A person shall not allow feed used for livestock to remain in areas frequented by deer or elk unless the area is occupied by livestock actively consuming the feed on a daily basis, or unless the feed is covered so as to prevent deer and elk from gaining access to the feed. In all cases, agricultural by-products and culled or unmarketable commodities should be managed in a manner to minimize the congregation of, and close contact between, deer or elk.*

Now since you seem to feel that $500 is appropriate for scofflaws who deposit a few gallons of bait, what would be an appropriate fine for farmers who knowingly ignore this directive and place or leave literally tons and tons of food in the fields which can concentrate deer and elk and facilitate the spread of disease?

Since we being heavy handed in our application of fines, maybe a fine of $5,000 per violation would get farmers attention and bring about an end to lax practice of generally ignoring a regulation that has been in place for over 10 years now in Michigan. Or maybe you are of the mindset that all farmers are in compliance and never violate this directive? 

I'm sure that farmers, being the salt of the earth that they are, would never knowingly ignore laws that are generally unenforced, unlike those unethical hunters who lack moral character and seem to violate at will. 

I look forward to you mounting as vigorous a campaign against unethical farming practices as you have against the demon bait but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

M......I'm just a humble reporter of what other reporters have reported. See Oscoda Herald.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> M......I'm just a humble reporter of what other reporters have reported. See Oscoda Herald.


Nice dodge! :lol: 

So you see nothing hypocritical in rigorous enforcement of the baiting ban while turning a blind eye to farmers ignoring regulations that are intended to accomplish the same goal as the baiting and feeding ban, in preventing the spread of disease?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Do as I say, not as I do. :lol:


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Nice dodge! :lol:
> 
> So you see nothing hypocritical in rigorous enforcement of the baiting ban while turning a blind eye to farmers ignoring regulations that are intended to accomplish the same goal as the baiting and feeding ban, in preventing the spread of disease?




Yep the law/s should be enforced equally in both cases......bust em both..





.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> It's amazing how fixated some people are on the baiting issue! :lol:
> 
> Since you seem so enthusiastic about imposing such a substantive fine on individuals who illegally dump a couple of gallons of feed in the woods, then it would be interesting to hear your take on imposing a similar level of enforcement on farmers who ignore the MDA guidelines for the storage of bulk feed and the management of culled or unharvested crops.
> 
> ...


I take it then you are attempting to justify illegal activity?


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

boehr said:


> I take it then you are attempting to justify illegal activity?


Huh, I didn't take it that way.


----------



## Brandon7 (Jun 2, 2006)

You guys are more worried about getting people in trouble rather than sharing hunting stories, and great experiences. This site gets a little depressing once in a while


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

boehr said:


> I take it then you are attempting to justify illegal activity?


Justifying Illegal activity? 

Nope, I never justify illegal activity. I simply believe that if we are going to enforce one part of the baiting & feeding restrictions, that we should enforce all parts of the law with equal enthusiasm.  It's called equal protection under the law and is one of our fundamental rights. 

Don't you agree that all farmers should comply with the section of the baiting and feeding regulations that stipulates that feed should not be left uncovered or accessible to deer and elk or that culled or unharvested agricultural products should be managed in a way that prevents access by deer or elk? Why would you want to exempt one group from compliance with a law that many seem to think is the only thing from stopping a statewide epidemic that has the potential to wipe out the deer herd? :SHOCKED: 

Just curious, in your professional opinion, do you think most farmers in Michigan are in compliance with this part of the regulation and do you think that as many farmers are ticketed annually for violations of the baiting and feeding regulations as are hunters? Honest answers to those questions would certainly be illuminating.


----------



## sdgdh1 (Oct 18, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Justifying Illegal activity?
> 
> Nope, I never justify illegal activity. I simply believe that if we are going to enforce one part of the baiting & feeding restrictions, that we should enforce all parts of the law with equal enthusiasm.  It's called equal protection under the law and is one of our fundamental rights.
> 
> ...


Read the Michigan Right to Farm Act.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

I havent heard of a single farmer getting fined. I dont expect to either.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Justifying Illegal activity?
> 
> Nope, I never justify illegal activity. I simply believe that if we are going to enforce one part of the baiting & feeding restrictions, that we should enforce all parts of the law with equal enthusiasm.  It's called equal protection under the law and is one of our fundamental rights.
> 
> ...


_Honest answers to those questions would certainly be illuminating._ Are you trying to indicate that I would not give honest answers?

I have no idea how many if any farmers are ticketed for their farming activity. I would be greatly disappointed if COs started patrolling for farming activity thus taking them away from their priority activities of hunting and fishing.

I do believe in everyone obeying the law in whatever activity they are participating in but I would not use farming in an attempt to confuse a topic of feeding game under hunting laws with the full intent of feeding game where as I would believe that all farmers, probably most are not intent on the hunting/feeding part.

Just like you to attempt to confuse my statement with, _"Why would you want to exempt one group from compliance with a law..."._ I can't figure out where I indicated that I want to exempt anyone but you seem to like to do that a lot. Notice my question to you was asking what side you were on of course your reply was more accusatory or maybe mis-leading is a better word. Glad you stated where you stand on that topic though, I'm sure you will begin immediately if you haven't already at contacting the proper authorities to get more enforcement on the farming issue.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sdgdh1 said:


> Read the Michigan Right to Farm Act.


Um, the RTFA does not exempt farmers from having to follow the law, it just gives them some protection from civil liability for nuisance law suits. The regulations that I quoted are part of the same WCO that made baiting illegal for hunters in the LP. Farmers are exempted from the law if they are following "normal agricultural practices" but the MDA has specifically defined NAP as _not_ including the storage of bait as quoted above.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

boehr said:


> _Honest answers to those questions would certainly be illuminating._ Are you trying to indicate that I would not give honest answers?


Honest answer as opposed to dodging the question posed as the original poster chose to do. Relax Ray, your paranoia is showing. 


boehr said:


> I have no idea how many if any farmers are ticketed for their farming activity. I would be greatly disappointed if COs started patrolling for farming activity thus taking them away from their priority activities of hunting and fishing.


Enforcing the restrictions against baiting and feeding are part of a CO's responsibility and the restrictions governing the storage of feed are part of those restrictions. It's both hypocritical and short sighted for the DNR to concentrate on ticketing baiting offenses by those engaging in hunting/feeding while turning a blind eye to farmers breaking the same regulations. It's the same potential violation, except farmers are doing so on a substantially larger scale, which has a much greater potential for negative consequences then a couple of gallons of illegal bait. 



boehr said:


> I do believe in everyone obeying the law in whatever activity they are participating in but I would not use farming in an attempt to confuse a topic of feeding game under hunting laws with the full intent of feeding game where as I would believe that all farmers, probably most are not intent on the hunting/feeding part.


Violations of the baiting and feeding restrictions by a certain subset are an integral part of any discussion of the topic of baiting and feeding. The idea that farmers should be exempted from scrutiny or left out of the discussion because the underlying basis for their violation is not related to hunting is just plain silly. It's illegal for them to violate the regulation because it could contribute to the spread of disease. Do you think the DNR/NRC was just kidding when they included the storage of feed material in the baiting and feeding restrictions? 

I thought the underlying basis for the ban was as a preventative measure to potentially slow the spread of disease. It's simply not logical to focus on only one type of violation of the restrictions while ignoring other blatant violations........unless of course your primary motivation has little to do with actually preventing the spread of disease and instead has to do with curing the lack of some hypothetical moral or ethical component associated with baiting.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Not worth the time arguing about it, the baiting poll pretty much sums it up. And add to the fact the game ranches are still doing business just shows it's all about polotics.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

tommy-n said:


> Not worth the time arguing about it, the baiting poll pretty much sums it up. And add to the fact the game ranches are still doing business just shows it's all about polotics.


Ya im tryin to figure how that all works out myself. seein how this whole mess started cause of a high fence hunting farm.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

exactly, I would like to see a fence with in a fence so the wild deer can't even get close to the captive deer. If they can't do it just simply shut them all down. Oh thats right we live in michigan were the little man always has to pay the price


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

tommy-n said:


> exactly, I would like to see a fence with in a fence so the wild deer can't even get close to the captive deer. If they can't do it just simply shut them all down. Oh thats right we live in michigan were the little man always has to pay the price


If it makes you feel any better, 80 captive cervid operations in Michigan that had been found to not be in compliance with disease testing requirements in the 2002 Captive Cervid audit, were still not in compliance as of this spring. 7 years has gone by and the DNR continues to pat them on the head and say "Just give us a call when your ready to be inspected, no hurry." 

Since the topic of this thread was about substantive fines for non-compliance with regulations, how about the DNR or the Legislature puts some teeth into the captive cervid regulations and starts fining these high fence operations $1,000 for every week that they remain non-compliant. My guess is that it would not take 7 years for them to get off the stick and do the required testing.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> It's amazing how fixated some people are on the baiting issue! :lol:
> 
> Since you seem so enthusiastic about imposing such a substantive fine on individuals who illegally dump a couple of gallons of feed in the woods, then it would be interesting to hear your take on imposing a similar level of enforcement on farmers who ignore the MDA guidelines for the storage of bulk feed and the management of culled or unharvested crops.
> 
> ...


Have you made your unharvested crops inaccessible to deer and elk? 

EDIT: Nevermind, I just read the entire WCA and it exempts plantings for wildlife.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Justifying Illegal activity?
> 
> Nope, I never justify illegal activity. I simply believe that if we are going to enforce one part of the baiting & feeding restrictions, that we should enforce all parts of the law with equal enthusiasm.  It's called equal protection under the law and is one of our fundamental rights.
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know what you think farmers should do? Put a tarp over their entire unharvested corn fields too? Ridiculous!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Steve said:


> I honestly don't know what you think farmers should do? Put a tarp over their entire unharvested corn fields too? Ridiculous!


Your example of corn that is unharvested would not fall under culled or unmarketable agricultural products, so it would be exempt from the regulation, unless the farmer decided not to harvest it which is unlikely.

I don' t have any suggestions for what measures farmers should take, I was not the one that wrote the stupid law. That would be the DNR/NRC. But the baiting and feeding regulations are the law and simply saying that it's OK to ignore part of it arbitrarily because it's ridiculous seems like an arbitrary approach that is unfair to those who are prosecuted under other portions of the same law. 

*"In all cases, agricultural by-products and culled or unmarketable commodities should be managed in a manner to minimize the congregation of, and close contact between, deer or elk."*

The DNR/NRC obviously included this portion under the baiting and feeding regulations for a reason. Do you think that it's Ok for farmers just to ignore it and do what they want? 

Is it equitable under the law for a farmer to dump several tons of culled carrots on his back 40 that can be eaten by deer, in clear violation of this regulation while the guy on the wood lot next door gets written up for dumping two gallons of carrots to hunt over? 

Again, if the basis for the baiting restrictions are due to a fear of the spread of disease, which of the above scenarios has the greatest potential for concentrating deer, a two ton pile of cull carrots or a two gallon bucket of carrots in the woods? 

Or for that matter, why should captive cervid operations be exempted from feeding practices that concentrate deer? Because they are commercial operations? Give me a break! It's not like there is a very good record of high fence operations preventing game from escaping and mingling with wild populations, just look at the feral pig situation as all the proof that is needed.

We either need to scrap the baiting & feeding ban and go back to the previous regulations or else they need to be enforced on a consistent and equitable basis. How can you possibly justify to hunters that they should stop baiting for the good of the resource while turning a blind eye to others violating the same regulation on a massive scale? I find that concept to be ridiculous.


----------



## Chasin (Jun 25, 2002)

I was in my favorite gun shop last week and the baiting issue came up. 
One guy said there was a out report that stated of the 543 baiting tickets issued last year 514 were because of someone turning someone else in.

If that is the case the DNR is not looking for baiters.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Honest answer as opposed to dodging the question posed as the original poster chose to do. Relax Ray, your paranoia is showing.


You again make stuff up as you go. My reply was to BS that you post, nothing more, nothing less. 



> Enforcing the restrictions against baiting and feeding are part of a CO's responsibility and the restrictions governing the storage of feed are part of those restrictions. It's both hypocritical and short sighted for the DNR to concentrate on ticketing baiting offenses by those engaging in hunting/feeding while turning a blind eye to farmers breaking the same regulations. It's the same potential violation, except farmers are doing so on a substantially larger scale, which has a much greater potential for negative consequences then a couple of gallons of illegal bait.


I didn't realize how much of an expert you were in what a COs responsibilities are of course, you think your an expert in everything, now you think your an expert in farming practices.:yikes: But now who have showed me that you only think your an expert and really know very little. Show me where the violation you are talking about is part of the Wildlife Conservation Orders or part of Act 451 and not part of the laws that deal with farmers specifically and you might sound rational, right now you sound like your stance on so many things, way off to the left.



> Violations of the baiting and feeding restrictions by a certain subset are an integral part of any discussion of the topic of baiting and feeding. The idea that farmers should be exempted from scrutiny or left out of the discussion because the underlying basis for their violation is not related to hunting is just plain silly. It's illegal for them to violate the regulation because it could contribute to the spread of disease. Do you think the DNR/NRC was just kidding when they included the storage of feed material in the baiting and feeding restrictions?


 You are starting to sound like a politician, baffle them all with BS. Maybe that's why you are way off to the left.



> *I thought* the underlying basis for the ban was as a preventative measure to potentially slow the spread of disease. It's simply not logical to focus on only one type of violation of the restrictions while ignoring other blatant violations........unless of course your primary motivation has little to do with actually preventing the spread of disease and instead has to do with curing the lack of some hypothetical moral or ethical component associated with baiting.


There you go, thinking again.


----------



## markbarth (Sep 30, 2008)

I honestly don't know what you think farmers should do? Put a tarp over their entire unharvested corn fields too? Ridiculous!

How about mandating that farmers fields be fenced in with a high fence

If the dnr and mda were truly concerned about the spread of cwd, this would have been a top priority to stop deer from congregating for the potential spreading of diseases.

I can already hear the farmer's response to this this proposal
and it reminds me of the punchline of an old joke about a doctor delivering a newborn

"when he grows up he gonna be a farmer,how can you tell?asks the father, because he's crying already!


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

"when he grows up he gonna be a farmer,how can you tell?asks the father, because he's crying already! 


Thats a good one. The DNR is not out looking for baiters no more than state troopers are looking for jaywalkers. its against the law but I feel there are a lot of C.O.'s out there that have much more on their plate than baiting. I woul rather they focus on the people shining and shooting and robbing the state of our valuable resources. The farming thing is a totally different issue with me. Tehy do cry about everyting they want crop damage permits but do not allow hunting without an expensive lease, they want reimburement to "not farm" from the government, and they cry about the weather no matter what happens. If I can't bait then they shouldn't be able to "accidentally spill corn" in the corner of their field bordering a wodlot which happens to be where a box blind is set up. Don't reply and tell me it doesn't happen I have seen it all too often. they are playing the game with the rules they have been given either way its baiting which is not a high crime in my books 

Ganzer


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

That won't cost much!,... a 9 foot fence around let's say 1600 acres not to mention what they'd have to pay the state for creating what would be essentially a captive herd.


----------



## sniper's mojo (Nov 29, 2005)

Got a call from a buddy up in Paris this weekend and the DNR stopped by and walked his 70 acres looking for bait. He said he received a complaint earlier in the week about it. Not likely in that area, more likely they saw his 55 gallon blue drums connected to automatic feeders when they were doing fly overs for pot. These were left up from a couple of season ago and the officer did not issue a ticket since their was no bait in them or evidence of baiting this season around them. I suppose he will finally take them down now.:lol: $500 is not high enough to deter the illegal act of baiting it should be at least double that if they want to really stop it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

boehr said:


> Show me where the violation you are talking about is part of the Wildlife Conservation Orders or part of Act 451 and not part of the laws that deal with farmers specifically and you might sound rational.


I'll ignore the repeated personal attacks and respond to the only part of your post that was an actual question. 

_Executive Directive (No. 1998-01) was issued by the Governor on January 29, 1998. Consistent with this directive, the Natural Resources Commission amended The Wildlife Conservation Act Order under the authority of Section 8, Act 256 of the Public Acts of 1988. The Order defines bait and baiting, and establishes the conditions for baiting. Act No. 66 of the Public Acts of 1999 was approved by the Governor on June 25, 1999, and took immediate effect. The Act amends Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994. The amendments define feed and feeding, and establish the conditions for feeding.

These changes were enacted as components in the strategy to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and relate to the management of feed and bait materials that may result in the congregation of deer or elk.

The following farm management practices have been developed to provide producers and growers with compliance assistance information. The feeding and baiting regulations have statewide application and thus so do the Normal Agricultural Practices. The presence of TB in northern Michigan has created the need to put special emphasis on the implementation of these practices. Monitoring of compliance with the Normal Agricultural Practices will be ongoing._

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDA_normal_6453_7.pdf


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Steve said:


> That won't cost much!,... a 9 foot fence around let's say 1600 acres not to mention what they'd have to pay the state for creating what would be essentially a captive herd.


Cost? What difference does that make to those in charge when a whole slew of farmers/retailers lost their shirts due to the response to a single deer in a penned facility?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Steve said:


> That won't cost much!,... a 9 foot fence around let's say 1600 acres not to mention what they'd have to pay the state for creating what would be essentially a captive herd.


Pretty common practice for christmas tree farmers in the NLP to put up deer proof fences around large acreage parcels and somehow they stay in business. Sure would cut down on crop damage and trespassing, too.  

The bait ban impacted farm revenues estimated to be about $50 million to our economy........is that much? 

Look on the bright side, if they become a captive herd operation, then they are exempt from the restrictions governing feed storage. :lol:


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Just what we need, more captive herds.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I'd agree that more captive herds would not be a good thing. What we need is a more realistic regulatory approach that will actually have a meaningful impact in addressing the potential spread of disease instead of the current situation, which does nothing to actually prevent the spread of disease.


----------



## St. Clair Slayer (Aug 31, 2009)

Yeah that. Thanks Munsterlndr.

Maybe we change the subject to National health care. LOL


----------



## markbarth (Sep 30, 2008)

That won't cost much!,... a 9 foot fence around let's say 1600 acres not to mention what they'd have to pay the state for creating what would be essentially a captive herd.

A farmer in Gladwin fenced in his whole farm due to crop damage. Dnr was on the spot to make sure that no deer were enclosed. End of problem.

As for the cost, the fence will pay for itself.

Remember, farm bureau was a supporter of the ban,so one would think that their members would be the first to step up to the plate to ensure
that deer would not congregate. 

That's a small price to pay to ensure the health of our herd!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> I'll ignore the repeated personal attacks and respond to the only part of your post that was an actual question.
> 
> _Executive Directive (No. 1998-01) was issued by the Governor on January 29, 1998. Consistent with this directive, the Natural Resources Commission amended The Wildlife Conservation Act Order under the authority of Section 8, Act 256 of the Public Acts of 1988. The Order defines bait and baiting, and establishes the conditions for baiting. Act No. 66 of the Public Acts of 1999 was approved by the Governor on June 25, 1999, and took immediate effect. The Act amends Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994. The amendments define feed and feeding, and establish the conditions for feeding.
> 
> ...


Personal attacks, yeah right.:lol:

You can't answer a simple question, the part you posted has to do with hunting and feeding for recreational purposes and has nothing to do with farming. Baffle us more with BS.:yikes:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

boehr said:


> Personal attacks, yeah right.:lol:
> 
> You can't answer a simple question, the part you posted has to do with hunting and feeding for recreational purposes and has nothing to do with farming. Baffle us more with BS.:yikes:


Boehr- You might want to actually click on the link. Munster's absolutely right.


----------



## GettinBucky (Jul 18, 2007)

You two are funny...bickering like a couple women!!!!! If you guys were on the same team then maybe then you could get something accomplished!!!! Flippin hilarious!!!


----------



## UNREEL (Jun 8, 2007)

GettinBucky said:


> You two are funny...bickering like a couple women!!!!! If you guys were on the same team then maybe then you could get something accomplished!!!! Flippin hilarious!!!


 
I agree!!

The hilarious part is some of these guys spend ALL DAY fighting back and forth on an internet chat room. Pathetic.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

boehr said:


> Personal attacks, yeah right.:lol:
> 
> You can't answer a simple question, the part you posted has to do with hunting and feeding for recreational purposes and has nothing to do with farming. Baffle us more with BS.:yikes:


Ray, with all due respect, read the link that I posted. After having done so, if you still think that the baiting and feeding regulations, as enacted under the quoted WCO and PA 451 do not include restrictions governing the storage of animal feed and requirements for the handling of culled or unmarketable agricultural products, then let us know and I'll be happy to walk you through it line by line.


----------



## kmonty (Aug 26, 2009)

Brandon7 said:


> You guys are more worried about getting people in trouble rather than sharing hunting stories, and great experiences. This site gets a little depressing once in a while


Because most people here think baiters are a joke, and think that the way they hunt is the only way to hunt. Sorry baiting, food plots, following scrape lines, what ever.. its all a tactic..

And i agree about the farmers issue, i usually see alot of round bails left in the fields just for the deer back home.. and they always seem to be near a house, or a deer blind..


----------



## kmonty (Aug 26, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> Boehr- You might want to actually click on the link. Munster's absolutely right.


lol


----------



## CBMscorer (Sep 19, 2007)

There are so many people missing the point! If it is against the law to bait than don't bait! if you see someone baiting turn them in. If you know of some one baiting turn them in! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GET MORE INVOLVED AND DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT! Don't wait for some one else to do it!!!!!!!!! if you are a true sportsman than you will fallow the laws that you are given and speak up for the laws you would like to see changed!


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Oh man I cut the hay field, I think I left a couple pieces of hay in the field:lol: SOB I am going to jail.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Ray, with all due respect, read the link that I posted. After having done so, if you still think that the baiting and feeding regulations, as enacted under the quoted WCO and PA 451 do not include restrictions governing the storage of animal feed and requirements for the handling of culled or unmarketable agricultural products, then let us know and I'll be happy to walk you through it line by line.


Ok Munsterlndr, walk me through it line by line showing me where and why COs should become involved in enforcing farming regulations that don't deal with hunting. That is out main disagreement here since no where did I state that any law shouldn't be enforced but I content that the farm laws need to be enforced by the Dept of Ag, not the COs. So walk me through it.

Of course there is another person who claims to be a law enforcement officer that just posted, maybe he can enforce it.:evil:


----------



## kmonty (Aug 26, 2009)

boehr said:


> Ok Munsterlndr, walk me through it line by line showing me where and why COs should become involved in enforcing farming regulations that don't deal with hunting.


Dont deal with hunting, have you noticed all the pictures he posted of hay bails with 10+ deer standing on it??? Same thing back home in the U.P, farmers do this and next to that haybail, or what ever else they left in the field as bait is a hunting blind?? But seriously read the thread a little closer... and maybe you will see his point?


----------



## kmonty (Aug 26, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


>





Munsterlndr said:


>





Munsterlndr said:


>





Munsterlndr said:


>


 
All the pics he posted, and i see the same thing all over michigan, farmers leaving BAIT behind for their hunting needs.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Ok, you guys are right. We need to fence in every farm in the state with 9' fencing. Have the DNR involved to make sure no deer are captive during the fencing operation. With all the unemployment in Michigan, hopefully we can have the fence made here and the workers it will take to erect the fence from this state too. Sounds like a good stimulous. Should help reduce the deer population too as the deer will have much less to eat and a lot less land to live on. Then we should continue on and put a 9' fence around all oak and apple trees. Wouldn't want that to look like baiting either.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

kmonty said:


> Dont deal with hunting, have you noticed all the pictures he posted of hay bails with 10+ deer standing on it??? Same thing back home in the U.P, farmers do this and next to that haybail, or what ever else they left in the field as bait is a hunting blind?? We all know your the big bad retired CO, and you know every law to man kind... but seriously read the thread a little closer... and maybe you will see his point?


Nor do you have the authority to deal with it. Of course you have no need to know hardly any laws with no athority to enforce them.

Stay on point here, if the source of food is there for the reasons of hunting then the CO should and likely would become involved. If the source is there that has nothing to do with hunting and is just bad farming practices then those that are charged with enforcement of farming regulations should be on point to handle the problem. After all, this is as much if not more a problem to those with cattle as it is for the deer herd and the Dept of Ag has always been concerned about the cattle, more then they are the deer. 

A picture only tells what a persons imagination wants it to say. It doesn't provide any factual information without a full explanation by the person who took the picture. A LEO would know that.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

boehr said:


> Ok Munsterlndr, walk me through it line by line showing me where and why COs should become involved in enforcing farming regulations that don't deal with hunting.


 
The catalyst behind the baiting and feeding regulations was the potential impact that a particular communicable disease which had been found in the deer herd, Bovine Tuberculosis, could have on the Michigan dairy and beef industry. Losing TB free status cost Michigan producers millions of dollars. The DNR concluded that the primary means of transmission between infected deer and cattle was likely to occur at cattle feeding sites that were accessible to deer, water holes used by both deer and cattle and also improperly stored feed or culled agricultural products that were accessible to deer. They also concluded that the potential for transmission between deer was increased when deer were concentrated unnaturally. 

In order to try and contain the spread of Bovine TB within the deer herd and also to prevent future transmission of the disease to cattle, the NRC enacted regulations governing baiting and recreational feeding. Contained in those regulations were certain exceptions to the limitations on feeding, as defined by the DNR. One of those exceptions related to methods used by farmers to feed domesticated farm animals and to store feed. The MDA established guidelines for what was acceptable and non-acceptable for farmers, in order to be in compliance with the baiting and feeding regulations. If farmers are not in compliance with the established guidelines, they are in violation of the baiting and feeding regulations. 

Violations of the baiting & feeding regulations potentially threaten the health of our deer herd, one of our most valuable natural resources. The DNR is the law enforcement body charged with enforcing regulations enacted under NRC wildlife conservation orders and PA 451. Whether or not a particular practice directly relates to hunting is immaterial, if it's a violation of a DNR regulation, then CO's should be actively enforcing it. 

Recreational feeding is a practice regulated under the same WCO and it has nothing to do with hunting. Are you seriously suggesting that because recreational feeding does not have to do with hunting, that CO's should ignore violations or that it should not be their responsibility to enforce the restrictions on recreational feeding? 

The primary reason behind the baiting ban is to prevent cattle from being infected with TB and potentially with CWD. It makes absolutely no sense to enforce the portion of the baiting & feeding regulations prohibiting hunters from using bait, while ignoring the portion of the same law that is designed to minimize contact between deer and cattle, which was the primary reason for the regulations in the first place.

For a CO to take the attitude that "Hey if it relates to farmers, it's not my problem, let the MDA deal with it" is both short sighted and extremely disappointing from a disease management standpoint. The DNR is supposed to enforce laws designed to protect our wildlife resources. I don't care if it's a meth addict dumping toxic chemicals or a boater dumping used motor oil in a lake or a dirt bike rider tearing up hillsides, none of those relate to hunting or fishing but they sure as heck fall under the jurisdiction of a CO to enforce the law and prevent damage to our natural resources. Enforcing a portion of the baiting & feeding regulations that prevents deer from spreading disease is not any different. 

The elephant in the room that nobody seems willing to discuss, however, is the fact that all of the regulations regarding baiting & feeding and those relating to farmers are essentially pointless, if a communicable disease is not present. Hunters are aware of that fact as are recreational feeders and farmers, as well. It's one of the main reasons that there is such a lack of compliance. 

If you pass stupid laws, they are generally going to be ignored. These regulations need to be repealed in those areas of the state where there is no definitive proof of TB or CWD being present. Hunters should be able to bait within established limits, viewers should be able to feed and farmers should not be subject to regulations governing feeding and culled product, outside of area 452 and the 9 township CWD zone in Kent Co. In those areas, enforcement of the regulations should be consistent and applied equally across all of the practices that fall under the restrictions. 

That would be a reasonable and equitable application of the law, something we are miles away from at this point in time.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> The catalyst behind the baiting and feeding regulations was the potential impact that a particular communicable disease which had been found in the deer herd, Bovine Tuberculosis, could have on the Michigan dairy and beef industry. Losing TB free status cost Michigan producers millions of dollars. The DNR concluded that the primary means of transmission between infected deer and cattle was likely to occur at cattle feeding sites that were accessible to deer, water holes used by both deer and cattle and also improperly stored feed or culled agricultural products that were accessible to deer. They also concluded that the potential for transmission between deer was increased when deer were concentrated unnaturally.
> 
> In order to try and contain the spread of Bovine TB within the deer herd and also to prevent future transmission of the disease to cattle, the NRC enacted regulations governing baiting and recreational feeding. Contained in those regulations were certain exceptions to the limitations on feeding, as defined by the DNR. One of those exceptions related to methods used by farmers to feed domesticated farm animals and to store feed. The MDA established guidelines for what was acceptable and non-acceptable for farmers, in order to be in compliance with the baiting and feeding regulations. If farmers are not in compliance with the established guidelines, they are in violation of the baiting and feeding regulations.
> 
> ...


Well said. Something that merits more attention. If we cannot _enforce or properly manage_ all people involved within the boundaries of this legislation, maybe we ought to re-think said legislation. FWIW, I don't bait.


----------



## kmonty (Aug 26, 2009)

boehr said:


> Nor do you have the authority to deal with it. Of course you have no need to know hardly any laws with no athority to enforce them.
> 
> A picture only tells what a persons imagination wants it to say. It doesn't provide any factual information without a full explanation by the person who took the picture. A LEO would know that.


 
Have i once ever said i had authority, negative.. its because you cant read what people put down on this message board correctly. And i dont appreciate the personal threats alright? Do not PM me threats anymore unless you have something good to say?? Good deal..

Ill say this again.. hopefully you read it this time... i have seen all over lower michigan and upper michigan farms... with round bails sitting out on the edge of a field, near a deer blind. I have seen round bails behind houses, all of them used for one thing... baiting deer to hunt.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

It's pretty safe to say that many leo's see what they want to see. Not just dnr officers, actually they seem to be more fair than the small town local cops for the most part


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

CBMscorer said:


> There are so many people missing the point! If it is against the law to bait than don't bait! if you see someone baiting turn them in. If you know of some one baiting turn them in! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GET MORE INVOLVED AND DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT! Don't wait for some one else to do it!!!!!!!!! if you are a true sportsman than you will fallow the laws that you are given and speak up for the laws you would like to see changed!


Right, I call the cops everyday when that guy speeds past me at 71 MPH. And when I see someone not wearing there seatbelt I have the LEO's on speed dial!!!

The whole baiting ban and CWD is a joke, a fast one being pulled off on us. If sugar beets were a taxable item there wouldn't be a ban and the CWD would never have been found. 

I have 5 stands that I hunt, one is over looking a corn field, one a bean field, three on high traffic funnel areas, and my trailcam is overlooking a trophy rock under a corn producing oak tree. I am sleeping well, thanks for asking!!!


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Ah yes, the 'baiting' mosh-pit.

I started the thread as I thought a $500 fine on any and all baiters would have a salutary effect.

Then, curmudgeon-like, the thread was hijacked by the pro-bait faction who---never-fail--- minimize the risk, denigrate the need, then distract by introducing some other issue; in this case, they smoked-the-screen with: "_baiting ain't so bad when you compare it to farm practices"._

Ah yes, the baiting mosh-pit. I luv it. Ain't nuthin' like it. Can't get enuff of it.

*Then, these quotes*:

_"I have seen round bails behind houses, all of them used for one thing... baiting deer to hunt."_

Well there it is, your honor! Slam dunk! String 'em up! 
A round bail near a 'house' ...even a farm house....is proof positive of baiting deer for hunting. _Therefore, we all should be able to bait too!_

I sure hope that poster ain't a LEO ....or worse yet, a prosecutor or District Court judge. That righteous one would make 'em pay for their round bales.

Then this from a regular west Michigan poster: _".......my trailcam is overlooking a trophy rock under a corn producing oak tree."_
A not atypical post from that source; defiantly proclaiming...anonymously.... that he violates the law, ethical behavior, good sportsmanship, and, by implication, may be a poacher. Sleep the sleep of the... innocent?......or maybe, the not so clue-full? 

Then, most curiously : _"The elephant in the room that nobody seems willing to discuss, however, is the fact that all of the regulations regarding baiting & feeding and those relating to farmers are essentially pointless, if a communicable disease is not present. Hunters are aware of that fact as are recreational feeders and farmers, as well. It's one of the main reasons that there is such a lack of compliance."_
Elephant in the room? Nobody is talking? ........... You must've missed a hint somewhere. 
I'd humbly submit that many are talking. And most of them are coming from the ranks of NLP foodstuff growers, bait merchants, and the hopelessly addicted hunters who can't see a deer for the carrots. THEY are talking a lot. Whining and complaining. 

"Essentially pointless"....again, humbly submitted....that is simply and singly one prolific posters rather curious opinion. And in contrast to the reams of information submitted by professional biologists and veterinarians charged with and responsible for (talk about 'skin-in-the-game')...the _protection of our wildlife._ 
Pointless? How curious.

Arrayed against that curios opinion is the law; the DNR biologist staff; the NRC; the DNR's law enforcment division; the weight of the scientific community; and a not insignficant..near a majority....of Michigan hunters who feel baiting for deer is a threat to our wildlife resource, our impassioned hobby, and to the ethic of 'fair chase'. 

Baiting remains controversial because: the money-changers in the production and marketing of vegetables for deer are loathe to see a cash cow expire; and, because a not insignifcant proportion of Michigan's deer hunters like sitting security over rotting vegetables. They know no other way.

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

But, I'd suggest, for future reference, if one wishes to debate the merits of farm law vis-a-vis wildlife issues......well, start a seperate thread on it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Your apparent love of the baiting mosh pit is obvious since you keep starting threads about it and don't ever miss an opportunity to chastise others for their (perceived) moral shortcomings when it comes to the baiting issue.

You accuse me of trying to distract a conversation about baiting by raising the issue of farmers who are potentially in violation of the baiting and feeding regulations? :lol: And that's off topic, how, exactly?

Then your diatribe continues with your typical sarcastic jab at other sportsman who's apparent crime seems to be to have a differing opinion about a controversial topic then you do ( were the anti-baiter's whining and complaining when they talked about baiting prior to the ban when it was legal?)

And then you try to bolster your argument by falling back on the same tired old litany of polishing the credentials of the "professional biologists and veterinarians" blah, blah blah......ad nauseam.

So tell me this and maybe you can answer the question this time instead of bliovating about the evils of baiting, those same professionals that you are so laudatory of in the DNR, included restrictions regarding the storage of animal feed and the management of culled or unharvested crops in the baiting & feeding regulations.

Should as much attention be devoted to prosecuting violations of the baiting & feeding restrictions by farmers, as is allocated to pursuing hunters using bait?

Are farmers who ignore or fail to comply with the restrictions imposed on them by the baiting & feeding regulations as equally devoid of ethical or moral standards as those hunters who fail to comply with the restrictions?

A couple of pretty simply questions deserving of straight forward answers.


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

I follow the rules, What irks me is people that break the rules and whine about it when they get caught.


----------



## MichMatt (Oct 24, 2008)

MuskyDan said:


> a corn producing oak tree.
> 
> I tried planting corn to grow an oak tree years ago but something or someone kept eating or taking my magic seeds. I found out one day when a deer tried to steal some of my seeds. I stopped him and made sure he didn't do it again. But something else came along and took the rest of the seeds before they could grow.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> Arrayed against that curios opinion is the law; the DNR biologist staff; the NRC; the DNR's law enforcment division; the weight of the scientific community; and a not insignficant..near a majority....of Michigan hunters who feel baiting for deer is a threat to our wildlife resource, our impassioned hobby, and to the ethic of 'fair chase'.
> 
> Baiting remains controversial because: the money-changers in the production and marketing of vegetables for deer are loathe to see a cash cow expire; and, because a not insignifcant proportion of Michigan's deer hunters like sitting security over rotting vegetables. They know no other way.


I believe the one sentence should be edited for accuracy. _*Arrayed against the opinion ................ that the congregation of deer in ANY manner poses a risk of disease transmission.*_ 

And a 'near majority' is still a minority. But I guess I don't have to remind you that there are several polls here that point to it actually being a _severe_ minority.

Even if you are opposed to the practice, the reasons for the controversy should be accurately portrayed. Baiting remains controversial because it _is_ an effective way to hunt, it is a source of income for many people in this state, AND because of the means in which it banned.

As for the Farmer/Baiting point, the WILDLIFE Conservation Act Order includes Farming practices as well as Baiting. Seems to be a most relevant part of the equation IMO.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

M ..... It's late and I'm huntin' in the morn....so won't autopsy your last post.

But, will leave with these thoughts: Farmers vs. Baiting. Leave the bait issue on this forum. Take the farm issue to, well maybe, the Farm Bureau forum. Or, start another thread.

Then this observation of yours: _" .....your typical sarcastic jab at other sportsman who's apparent crime seems to be to have a differing opinion about a controversial topic then you do."_

Tell me, M, does your _'apparent crime'_ just cover differences of opinion....or can we stretch it a little broader? As in: _".......my trailcam is overlooking a trophy rock under a corn producing oak tree."_

By thy words ye shall know them.


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

Can't wait to tune in tomorrow when hopefully Fairfax can just simply answer the questions!  




Munsterlndr said:


> So tell me this and maybe you can answer the question this time instead of bliovating about the evils of baiting, those same professionals that you are so laudatory of in the DNR, included restrictions regarding the storage of animal feed and the management of culled or unharvested crops in the baiting & feeding regulations.
> 
> Should as much attention be devoted to prosecuting violations of the baiting & feeding restrictions by farmers, as is allocated to pursuing hunters using bait?
> 
> ...


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

I think the fact that some goups might be targeted while others may not, makes it harder to gain exceptance. It just dvides the parties even more. I don't see this issue going away for a long time.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Hey come on guys, with the price of coffee and donuts going up they need to do some thing, $500 seems pretty reasonable


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

Last fall, my uncle who has a hobby farm and is a part time deer hunter had a interesting situation. He had a gravity wagon full of corn for feeding his two cows and pig. Somehow the corn got all wet and moldy rotten. His thought was to drive it out back and dump it. I can't tell you exactly how many bushels it was but I am sure you could see it from miles away. His options would have been to take the corn to the dump maybe and pay to get rid of it? I am not sure what he could have done to dispose of it. Either way, if he walked out back to hunt on his land he would or could have been ticketed for baiting, right? What would you have done in the situation?


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Whats the difference, there are regulations against both, one is being enforced the other is not. 
Oscoda could make a ton of money if they could get somebody to enforce the other also.

The majority so far, chooses to use bait if they legally could.

FF maybe you could just start buying up the bait and depose of it in a proper manner so the disgruntled hunters couldn't feel tempted.

The NRC should step up and lift the ban in except in Kent County and the TB zone, and make the wildlife guys put up or shut up.

Does anybody know if the profits increased for this site because of all the activity caused by these issues?


.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> But, will leave with these thoughts: Farmers vs. Baiting. Leave the bait issue on this forum. Take the farm issue to, well maybe, the Farm Bureau forum.


Your reluctance to give straight answers to a couple of simple questions is illuminating.

The implication above, that farming has nothing to do with this issue illustrates the underlying basis for your fixation with the bait issue.

It's apparent that to you and a few others in these forums, that the baiting issue has little if nothing to do with actual disease prevention or it's impact on the health of the herd. That's why you don't want to talk about the potential for food plots to act as disease vectors or the impact that improper farming practices may have on penitentially spreading disease both to and from the deer herd. 

I'd surmise that this is because you focus almost solely on the ethical and moral implications of the use of bait. It seems that you have reached the conclusion that baiting violates a sense of fair chase and that it is morally and ethically repugnant and you want to impose this same ethical conclusion on everybody else. Kind of like an evangelical Christian who has seen the light and decides that it's his duty to convert everyone else to his brand of theology and condemns those who are not true believers. Zeal of this type is certainly not uncommon among certain factions of sportsmen, there tends to be a strong streaks of it among some QDM practitioners as well as some traditional archers, just to name a few. 

Despite your desire to impress your moral construct on the rest of the hunting fraternity, the fact of the matter is that the regulations relating to baiting and feeding and the recent ban were the result of biological concerns, not social or ethical ones. 

Disease prevention is the underpinning of these regulations. I don't think anyone wants TB or CWD to spread and our focus should be on enacting and enforcing regulations that are relevant in the context of preventing disease. That means examining all potential sources of spread, including food plots and farming, even if that means goring someone's sacred cow. 

However, if no disease is present, then the regulations become superfluous. 

It's time to take another look at these regulations and determine whether they are still necessary or whether they are not accomplishing anything except causing economic hardship to a lot of people and preventing large numbers of hunters from employing an effective and legitimate method for facilitating the harvest of deer. The sole criteria that should be used in examining this issue is the impact that these regulations have on preventing the potential spread of disease. With any honest appraisal of the current situation it becomes readily apparent that the current regulations are actually accomplishing very little in that context and that there are some other approaches which would provide substantially more protection that are easily achievable.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

I agree munster, Alot of people never see the "big picture". There blind to things going on around them unless it fits their agenda

The amount of bait hunters put out does not even come close the the amount the farmers leave laying in the fields every year. Yet we somehow have people hear that would turn their neighbors in for a small bait pile but drive by farm fields everyday and just look the other way. Some folks never see the big picture, they live in their own little world


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

The baiting/feeding law under the Wildlife Conservation Act;



> *3.100 Taking of deer; prohibited firearms, bait and baiting defined, conditions for baiting established in certain area; unlawful acts.*
> Sec. 3.100 (3) For the purposes of this section, "bait" means a substance composed of grains, minerals, salt, fruits, vegetables, hay, or any other food materials, whether natural or manufactured, which may lure, entice or attract deer. "Bait" does not include the establishment and maintenance of plantings for wildlife, foods found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting practices, foods available to deer through normal agricultural practices of livestock feeding if the area is occupied by livestock actively consuming the feed on a daily basis, or standing farm crops under normal agricultural practices. *For the purposes of this section, "baiting" means to place, deposit, tend, distribute, or scatter bait to aid in the taking of a deer.*
> (4) It shall be unlawful for a person to make use of bait to aid in the taking of a deer within the Lower Peninsula.
> (5) In the Upper Peninsula a person may engage in baiting only if all of the following conditions apply:
> ...


I find no place in this law where bad farming practices should be enforced or is the responsibility of the DNR (now DNRE) or conservations officers.

A link posted by Muster is a paper by the MDA and is NOT law.

While I have and do agree that bad farming practices should be enforced the differences obvioulsy are the interpetation of the hunting laws and who should enforce "farming" laws.

I guess the only answer will be is how many tickets are issued to farmers for bad farming practices which I will guess none.

Muster talks about COs enforcing other things like oil in the water etc which are part of Act 451 but maybe he also thinks that COs should start taking a larger stance on cruelty to animals too for PETA. I doubt if he does but it does provide for thought under his interpetation and opinion'

Muster, you can have the last word because my interpetation and opinion can not be made any more clear than has already been stated.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

boehr said:


> The baiting/feeding law under the Wildlife Conservation Act;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess you missed the first paragraph where "normal agricultural practices" is mentioned several times.:lol: The link Munster provided DEFINES those practices per PA 66.

"Bait" does not include the establishment and maintenance of plantings for wildlife, foods found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting practices, foods available to deer through normal agricultural practices of livestock feeding if the area is occupied by livestock actively consuming the feed on a daily basis, or standing farm crops under normal agricultural practices.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Michihunter said:


> I guess you missed the first paragraph where "normal agricultural practices" is mentioned several times.:lol: The link Munster provided DEFINES those practices per PA 66.
> 
> "Bait" does not include the establishment and maintenance of plantings for wildlife, foods found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting practices, foods available to deer through normal agricultural practices of livestock feeding if the area is occupied by livestock actively consuming the feed on a daily basis, or standing farm crops under normal agricultural practices.


I guess our interpetation is different too.

No I didn't miss that part but that part has always been there to allow waterfowl hunting in areas where food is based on normal agricultural practices and therefore would also apply to hunting those same areas for deer without being in violation of baiting. Again all based on *hunting*.

Have you ever looked through Public Act 66 and see if it also defines enforcement responsibility for violating those farming practices and what the penalty is?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

boehr said:


> I guess our interpetation is different too.
> 
> No I didn't miss that part but that part has always been there to allow waterfowl hunting in areas where food is based on normal agricultural practices and therefore would also apply to hunting those same areas for deer without being in violation of baiting. Again all based on *hunting*.
> 
> Have you ever looked through Public Act 66 and see if it also defines enforcement responsibility for violating those farming practices and what the penalty is?


 Is "Feeding" DNR enforcable? And does it have anything to do with hunting?
I haven't checked for who's responsible for enforcement of this in the context of baiting and/or feeding but I would have to assume that any part of the WCAO is enforcable by the DNR, no?


After some searching it appears that the law is indeed a shared responsibility that INCLUDES the DNR. You need to back track from MCL 324.40102(which is part of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) but it's definitely there. The penalty is a misdemeanor punishable of up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine not less than $50 but no more than $500 per incident.

Here's an easier way to understand who's responsibility it is for enforcement. PA 66 effectively amends PA 451 otherwise known as the *Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act*. It is not a stand alone act per se but legislature that amends a previous act. I think we can both agree that the DNR is primarily responsible for enforcing PA 451.


----------



## jc502 (Oct 8, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> Nice dodge! :lol:
> 
> ....rigorous enforcement of the baiting ban while turning a blind eye to farmers ignoring regulations that are intended to accomplish the same goal as the baiting and feeding ban, in preventing the spread of disease?


Most beet fields are being harvested in mid-michigan right now. I see beets left in the headrows on every field, easily tons of beets, in addition to 4ft high piles of beet scraps. 

Last night I took a drive as it got dark, and sure enough, the bean fields were empty and the beet fields had deer picking up the leftovers, which amount to more than I've ever seen in the woods. 

Complete hypocrisy. But only if you believe baiting was banned because of CWD. Which it wasn't. It was banned because the state wanted to ban it, used CWD as the justification, rather than be forthright about why they did it. Either way, Munster hit it on the head.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Michihunter said:


> Is "Feeding" DNR enforcable? And does it have anything to do with hunting?


 Ah yes, and hears lies a big problem. Is it the intent of bad farming practices the sole purpose of "feeding". Feeding under the law is for hunting and recreational viewing. Bad farming practices is not for either.

Like I said our interpetation is different too.

Maybe the COs can enforce bad farming practices in their spare time. :evil: Maybe the MDA should donate some of their budget to the DNRE to regulate their farmers.:evilsmile



> I think we can both agree that the DNR is primarily responsible for enforcing PA 451.


All parts of 451 are not the primary responsibilities of COs to enforce.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

boehr said:


> All parts of 451 are not the primary responsibilities of COs to enforce.


 According to MCL 324 they are the ONLY agency listed for enforcement duties..http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iw...aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-451-1994-I


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iw...px?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-451-1994-I-5
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iw...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-1501
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994


324.1501 Conservation officers as peace officers; powers, privileges, prerogatives, and immunities.

Sec. 1501.

Conservation officers appointed by the department and trained and certified pursuant to the Michigan law enforcement officers training council act of 1965, Act No. 203 of the Public Acts of 1965, being sections 28.601 to 28.616 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, are peace officers, and except as otherwise provided by law, are vested with all the powers, privileges, prerogatives, and immunities conferred upon peace officers as provided in this act, in Act No. 109 of the Public Acts of 1986, being sections 300.21 to 300.22 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and in the general laws of this state.


History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995
Popular Name: Act 451
Popular Name: NREPA


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iw...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-1601
324.1601 Duties of department and appointed officers.

Sec. 1601.

The department and any officer appointed by the department shall do all of the following:

(a) Enforce the statutes and laws of this state for the protection, propagation, or preservation of wild birds, wild animals, and fish.

(b) Enforce all other laws of this state that pertain to the powers and duties of the department or the commission.

(c) Bring or cause to be brought or prosecute or cause to be prosecuted actions and proceedings in the name of the people of this state for the purpose of punishing any person for the violation of statutes or laws described in this section.


History: Add. 1995, Act 60, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995
Popular Name: Act 451
Popular Name: NREPA


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Hear!! Hear!!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

skipper34 said:


> Either way, illegal baiting is still being done and it is giving deer hunting a bad rap. That is my biggest concern through all of this. This should be a concern of everyone who hunts deer. It was not nor is not my intention of stepping on any toes here. This is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.


 Good point........Although baiting has always given hunters a bad rap (ask the non/anti hunters and voting majority) Now its worse!!!!

As far as the fine, I dont care if its $100 or $500. They need to suspend hunting priveleges for one year first offense and 3 for subsequent offences. Killing deer over bait is now poaching...and should be treated that way.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Goshdarnit, M! .....you tempted me. Just when I felt so strong.

So, for the record, just before the close.

The following quote...."_We all agree that a $500 fine is counter-productive _ .....is a lonely wail against the oncoming dark and rainy night.

The reality is that a $500 dollar spank will get the attention and may...hopefully...serve as a corrective to those who scoff at our game laws.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> Goshdarnit, M! .....you tempted me. Just when I felt so strong.
> 
> So, for the record, just before the close.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree, there should be a stiff fine and maybe a loss of hunting privilege. I am not a lynchmob member, but I can recall when the fine for baiting was so scant, the violators would merely pay the fine and continue with their illegal act. I do not know what the fine is currently, whether it depends on the county, or what. I can also see Munster's point about not being a level playing field. My thoughts is that the state wants baiting banned, maybe not for disease transmission reasons, but for the overall hassle that it represents. I am not one to point fingers and scorn those who favor baiting as a hunting method. I have, like I said, used it as a hunting tool myself. But to me, hunting and the game that we seek is precious and I would like to see it remain that way. I look at illegal baiting as I do any game-law violation, be it illegal shining, poaching, whatever. My beef is with the outlaws, not the pro-baiters or those who want it to return. As hunters, we are already outnumbered by the voting public. Why give the voting majority any more fodder to put an end to our livelihood?


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

skipper34 said:


> Yes, I agree, there should be a stiff fine and maybe a loss of hunting privilege. I am not a lynchmob member, but I can recall when the fine for baiting was so scant, the violators would merely pay the fine and continue with their illegal act. I do not know what the fine is currently, whether it depends on the county, or what. I can also see Munster's point about not being a level playing field. My thoughts is that the state wants baiting banned, maybe not for disease transmission reasons, but for the overall hassle that it represents. I am not one to point fingers and scorn those who favor baiting as a hunting method. I have, like I said, used it as a hunting tool myself. But to me, hunting and the game that we seek is precious and I would like to see it remain that way. I look at illegal baiting as I do any game-law violation, be it illegal shining, poaching, whatever. My beef is with the outlaws, not the pro-baiters or those who want it to return. As hunters, we are already outnumbered by the voting public. Why give the voting majority any more fodder to put an end to our livelihood?


Right On Skipper34


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> But why are they so obsessed about how other people decide to go about it?


Because the method being discussed is against the law in the areas they hunt?



Munsterlndr said:


> One can only assume that it's some kind of exercise in ego-boosting, that allows them to pat themselves on the back, telling themselves that they are "real" hunters, while looking down on anybody else that doesn't measure up to their standards with disdain


I think they have every right as sportsmen to look upon fellow hunters who are deliberately violating the law with disdain. Ego-boosting has nothing to do with it.

-na


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Nick Adams said:


> Because the method being discussed is against the law in the areas they hunt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the archives, the attitudes described predated the baiting ban. Crossbows are now legal, yet those who use them are treated with disdain by the same usual suspects, as is the point of view that casual hunters who don't put hours and hours of scouting time during the pre-season are not "real" hunters. The legality issue is a thin veneer to disguise moral judgmentalism.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Read the archives, the attitudes described predated the baiting ban. Crossbows are now legal, yet those who use them are treated with disdain by the same usual suspects, as is the point of view that casual hunters who don't put hours and hours of scouting time during the pre-season are not "real" hunters. The legality issue is a thin veneer to disguise moral judgmentalism.


As long as we are talking about human beings, there are going to be the things that you describe. No way out of it.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Well, I thought Nick Adam's observation was a solid triple along the right field line. Driving in a key run.
A bingo.

But, then a poster responds: 
_"The legality issue is a thin veneer to disguise moral judgmentalism."_

Well, I guess that settles the legal question. 
An illegal baiter need only demonstrate to the magistrate that the C.O., the Sheriff's deputy, or the tipster wrongly applied _'moral judgmentalism'. _

It'll be a sure-fire get-outta-jail card. 

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


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Where have I suggested violating the ban? Since you quoted me in your response, I am assuming that the remark was directed at me. Nowhere have I suggested violating the ban, so don't attempt to deceptively tar me with that brush, thank you. 

As for the finger wagging, as Skipper noted, it's a pretty basic human behavior and has existed both before and after the ban. If the ban is rescinded, I'm reasonably sure that the same little group of morality police will continue to wag away and grumble to their sporting compatriots that just because bait is legal, it's still a morally corrupt and unethical practice. 

The same tired old rant that we've heard about baiting and a myriad of other topics that don't happen to fit the world view of MS's pack of moral mavens.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> As for the finger wagging, as Skipper noted, it's a pretty basic human behavior and has existed both before and after the ban. If the ban is rescinded, I'm reasonably sure that the same little group of morality police will continue to wag away and grumble to their sporting compatriots that just because bait is legal, it's still a morally corrupt and unethical practice.


You follow the law. You follow your own standard for ethical behavior. Why the hell do you care what the moralizers think?

The only reasons I can think of be defensive over the finger wagging are:
- not having your own code of ethical behavior, relying on others to supply you with one.
- recognizing some flaw in your code of ethical behavior; seeing some truth in the finger wagging and needing to rationalize to yourself a behavior in spite of it.
- being way too reliant on external validation.



-na


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Nick Adams said:


> The only reasons I can think of be defensive over the finger wagging are:
> - not having your own code of ethical behavior, relying on others to supply you with one.
> - recognizing some flaw in your code of ethical behavior; seeing some truth in the finger wagging and needing to rationalize to yourself a behavior in spite of it.
> - being way too reliant on external validation.
> ...


Nick, I've known Munster for a few years and have had a few disagreements with him from time to time. Having worked with him closely on an issue for two years I can tell you that he is NONE of the above.......quarenteed.


----------



## Direwolfe (Sep 11, 2007)

Not to wander anyways closer to the original thread, but...

It always struck me as odd that a violation is usually punished by revoking the violaters hunting privleges for three years. I'm all for it but it seems odd that we tell someone who just violated game laws "we're not going to let you hunt for three years so you don't violate any game laws." Like that's going to stop them?

Just a comment... back to your bickering...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Nick Adams said:


> Why the hell do you care what the moralizers think?


Because I find proselytizing in all it's forms to be both irritating and pretentious. I could care less about what they "think", it's when they start to try and push their moral code on others in an unsolicited manner that it becomes annoying.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I guess I am one of the finger waggers.....

Nick is right, Everyone has to decide for themselves what is morally and ethically right for them. Because my view of baiting and its impact on the future of hunting may not be the same as the majority, Does not take away my right to state that I believe baiting is morally and ethically wrong. Anymore than your opininion takes away your right to extrol the virtues of baiting.

Many laws in the state/country are not popular with the majority. As with all laws game or otherwise the social side has to be balanced with the scientific/environmental reality.

The pro baiting side has every right to try to overturn the ban, just as the anti-baiting side has the same right to try to strengthen the ban.

As of now baiting is illegal. I take some small satisfaction in knowing that those who violate the law will be held as an example of why the ban needs to be strengthened and penaltys enforced....Give them enough rope.........:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Because I find proselytizing in all it's forms to be both irritating and pretentious. I could care less about what they "think", it's when they start to try and push their moral code on others in an unsolicited manner that it becomes annoying.


 MUNSTER......I think you may be doing the same thing.

I believe that baiting is a threat to the future of hunting, and that I am morally obligated to speak against it. If you viewed something as a threat to the future of hunting wouldnt you do the same ?????????


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Funny but I never get upset when somebody0accusesme of hunting in a manner that requires an in dept knowledge of the game pursued or for using a weapon that requires a great deal of practice and discipline
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

swampbuck said:


> I guess I am one of the finger waggers.....
> 
> Nick is right, Everyone has to decide for themselves what is morally and ethically right for them. Because my view of baiting and its impact on the future of hunting may not be the same as the majority, Does not take away my right to state that I believe baiting is morally and ethically wrong. Anymore than your opininion takes away your right to extrol the virtues of baiting.
> 
> ...



And why does the ban need to be strengthened? Because people are incapable of following the power like blind sheep? Is it a power struggle? I can't really understand why the ban should be strengthened, in fact I see many reasons why the ban should be dropped and zero reasons to maintain it away from the "tainted zones"!


----------



## tubejig (Jan 21, 2002)

The only way to strengthen the ban is to double ban it! And if that doesn't work, triple snowcone ban it, that will fix em.:lol::lol:


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

swampbuck said:


> MUNSTER......I think you may be doing the same thing.
> 
> I believe that baiting is a threat to the future of hunting, and that I am morally obligated to speak against it. If you viewed something as a threat to the future of hunting wouldnt you do the same ?????????


How is baiting threatening the future of hunting? There are more deer now than there has been probably ever in the lower section of the lower. There are records being broken and book bucks being shot every year. In the words of Uncle Ted, "you can't break records if the animals aren't *healthier than they've ever been*!" So how does baiting threaten hunting? How does the small cornpile in Saginaw County affect the hunting at your house?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

MuskyDan said:


> And why does the ban need to be strengthened? Because people are incapable of following the power like blind sheep? Is it a power struggle? I can't really understand why the ban should be strengthened, in fact I see many reasons why the ban should be dropped and zero reasons to maintain it away from the "tainted zones"!


 Then you should lobby the NRC and you congressmen to get it changed, good luck!

When I say strengthen the ban I am referring to the penalty for breaking the law. I would like to see penaltys in the same range as poaching. Including hunting suspension and equipment seizure if an animal is killed over said bait.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

This is exactly why our natural resources should be based on science and not morality. Our right to gather food is the only ground we have. Bring in morality and even I as a hunter know those against us will win. We are our own worst enemy. You may win the moral battle against a fellow hunter today but next time the cry of unity goes out, you will stand with less people than before.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

swampbuck said:


> Then you should lobby the NRC and you congressmen to get it changed, good luck!
> 
> When I say strengthen the ban I am referring to the penalty for breaking the law. I would like to see penaltys in the same range as poaching. Including hunting suspension and equipment seizure if an animal is killed over said bait.


So in a state that is losing hunters, your brilliant suggestion is to ban people from buying licenses? I do have the congressman on speed dial and I like to think I was instumental in getting the license hike stopped. Why don't you work on getting retailers shut down, the ones that sell lucky buck and C'Mere Deer? There are more mineral stations in Michigans lower penninsula than at anytime in history and the DNR could care less. In fact I would bet that the sales tax being put into Michigan's economy from the sales of minerals ifs a helpful boost.

What should the penalty be for speeding? Suspended priveledges and vehicle seizure?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> MUNSTER......I think you may be doing the same thing.
> 
> I believe that baiting is a threat to the future of hunting, and that I am morally obligated to speak against it. If you viewed something as a threat to the future of hunting wouldnt you do the same ?????????


I have no problem with someone stating their opposition to a certain practice. I don't tell others how to hunt. If I think something poses a potential threat, I'll voice that opinion and back the opinion up with information in an attempt to educate but if someone decides not to follow the same route, I'm not going to castigate them for the decision, it's up to them. At least your consistent in your position and I respect that. What I take issue with is when somebody who hunts over a corn field who then makes remarks that are clearly intended to be disparaging such as "Chumming for deer." As I've made clear many times before, it's the obvious hypocrisy of such a stance that undermines the legitimacy of the argument.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

MuskyDan said:


> So in a state that is losing hunters, your brilliant suggestion is to ban people from buying licenses?
> 
> What should the penalty be for speeding? Suspended priveledges and vehicle seizure?



This would be great if there was scientific evidence to support a baiting ban, but the State has yet to provide any evidence as to why the ban should be kept in place...NOW, if there was evidence that baiting was a risk to the herd in Michigan, then YES, I say adjust the fines to deter the act. If it means removing hunting privileges, then so be it. The loss of that license buyer is insignificant to the over all value of the herd. BUT again, this is if there is actually a risk....so far there is no evidence to support continuation of the ban.

Oh and Dan...yeah..they will suspend your driving license for up to 5 years for speeding or any other moving violation for repeated violations and impound your vehicle. Feel free to ask me how I know


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

TrekJeff said:


> This would be great if there was scientific evidence to support a baiting ban, but the State has yet to provide any evidence as to why the ban should be kept in place...NOW, if there was evidence that baiting was a risk to the herd in Michigan, then YES, I say adjust the fines to deter the act. If it means removing hunting privileges, then so be it. The loss of that license buyer is insignificant to the over all value of the herd. BUT again, this is if there is actually a risk....so far there is no evidence to support continuation of the ban.
> 
> Oh and Dan...yeah..they will suspend your driving license for up to 5 years for speeding or any other moving violation for repeated violations and impound your vehicle. Feel free to ask me how I know


I agree, Jeff, no evidence. But seeing as how the NRC is the law-making body, they really don't need any evidence other than the directive from several years ago that indicated that they would ban baiting if CWD ever showed up. They make the rules, so evidence to support them is really of no importance to them it would seem to me.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

This should be interesting when January comes and the DNR/DEQ is combined into one entity, the DNRE..Department of Natural Resources and Environment". If you read through the declaration on the DNR web page it looks like the new agency will have a work load normally held by numerous...
"The executive order also transfers the Commission of Natural Resources to the DNRE and renames it the Natural Resources Commission. The commission retains its authority to regulate the taking of game and other duties as prescribed by law. The NRC also will advise the director on natural resources and conservation issues.
[SIZE=-1] 
Several boards, councils or committees are abolished by the executive order. The Site Review Board process is being eliminated for greater efficiency in environmental proceedings. The Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks and the Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council are abolished and their functions transferred to the Natural Resources Commission.

The Michigan Trailways Advisory Council and the Michigan Snowmobile Advisory Committee also are abolished. Their functions are transferred to a new seven-member Michigan Trails Advisory Council within the DNRE that will advise the governor and the DNRE director on creating, developing, operating and maintaining motorized and non-motorized trails in Michigan.

Several other entities are transferred to the DNRE. They are the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority, Mackinac Island State Park Commission, Michigan Forest Finance Authority, Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board, and Office of the Great Lakes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The executive order also authorizes the DNRE director to convene a seven-member Environmental Science Review Board composed of experts in biological sciences, chemistry, ecological science, engineering, geology, physics and related disciplines. The board will advise the DNRE on scientific issues affecting the protection and management of Michigan's environment and natural resources."

[/SIZE]


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

This has been a most entertaining thread. Thank you W-1, Steve, Ferg(?)...or any Mod....who has elected to keep it open (so far). For a 'bait' thread it is a long one but quite civil. That's a good thing. Some aspects of the familiar arguments have been cast in an informative light. 

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

I've been somewhat of a fan of poster Nick Adams insights on a number of topics ....witness the use of one of his in my signature line. So, when he responded to another posters' stated concerns over the critical attitude expressed towards violators with: 

_ "I think they have every right as sportsmen to look upon fellow hunters who are deliberately violating the law with disdain."_ 

Well, I applauded it. It summed up...far better than I could.... one key point in the debate between the pro-bait forces and the anti-bait group: *It **is now against the law in the LP---yet many continue the practice.* 

Some posters come on these sportsman chatboards to serve as apologists for it; some even admit to continuing it; and there are a few who attempt to call the bad behavior to account. Disdain does creep in. But not unjustifiably. 

I truly believe that baiting puts the health of our herd at risk. I've thought that for a long time, well before CWD finally occurred within the borders. The TB issue solidified my conviction. I also believe that baiting ...as actually practiced in Michigan....comes burdened with several unsportsmanlike behaviors. But, despite that, it is the health of the herd that is paramount. 

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

But to the disdain issue. If one reads posts such as this by a prolific poster:

*post #60*_..."my trailcam is overlooking a trophy rock under a corn producing oak tree."_

*post #148*_...."I am happy to report I have killed a couple of deer. One of which came off of my corn food plot which I planted in October."_

Are we other Michigan sportsman supposed to amused? proud? Or should we point to it as either hyperbolic web-fibbing, or just poor sportsmanship....or, in fact, a violation? 

That very same poster in #238 rhetorically asks: _*'And why does the ban need to be strengthened?" *_

I'd submit that the answer to that question lies within posts #60 & #148.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

And unlike those that sit behind their computers and cast stones at those of us who chose to bend the law or fib about it. The guy who authored those posts has sold 1,000's of dollars worth of deer attractants this season and last. Those food supplements were bought to be used in the lower and that is just one store. Where is the call for action or the sense of urgency(sp) to stop this herd murdering practice? Where is the DNR or the legion of bait haters doing their part to protect their sport?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> I truly believe that baiting puts the health of our herd at risk. I've thought that for a long time, well before CWD finally occurred within the borders. The TB issue solidified my conviction. I also believe that baiting ...as actually practiced in Michigan....comes burdened with several unsportsmanlike behaviors. But, despite that, it is the health of the herd that is paramount.


And here is the relevant point, baiting in and of itself is incapable of putting the herd at risk or impacting the health of the herd, the aspect that you feel is paramount.

Disease puts our herd at risk and threatens it's health. 

When disease is present, a multitude of factors puts our herd at risk or threatens it's health. The practice of baiting concentrates deer. It's the congregation of deer that poses the threat not the bait itself or someone choosing to hunt over bait.

Baiting concentrates deer.

Food plots concentrate deer.

Water holes concentrate deer.

Farm crops concentrate deer.

Acorns concentrate deer.

Certain types of habitat improvements concentrate deer.

Poorly managed cattle feed concentrates deer.

Culled agricultural products concentrate deer.

Some of these practices are regulated by law. Some are not and should be. Some probably can't be. All serve as potential vectors for the transmission of disease. If disease is not present, none pose any kind of a biological threat.

Our attempts to prevent the spread of disease should be based on reality. If disease is not present, no amount of regulation will make any sort of difference. If disease _*is*_ present, then preventative measures have to go a whole lot further than simply plugging one out of a dozen or so holes, or that ship will quickly sink. 

The only time a baiting ban is justified is when there is a documentable potential for disease being present and in 95% of the State of Michigan, that is such a remote possibility as to be inconsequential.


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Munster a BB dropped an ear of corn on the ground tonight, I almost shot him for breaking the law:lol: He quickly ate it, so I decide to let him go


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swoosh said:


> Munster a BB dropped an ear of corn on the ground tonight, I almost shot him for breaking the law:lol: He quickly ate it, so I decide to let him go


There you go making up stories just trying to make NS jealous again.


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> There you go making up stories just trying to make NS jealous again.


Hold on, LOL making up stories, I have visual evidence. There he is eating the ear of corn he kocked off the stalk. If he would have left it lay, I would have whacked him for breaking the law:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Now you've done it, NS is gonna be pissed!


Btw, seeing that pic gives me a better understanding of why some feel it's unsporting to hunt over bait. Those old school methods certainly require difficult to learn and superior hunting skills! :lol:

(do the deer prefer the corn or the acorns?)


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Now you've done it, NS is gonna be pissed!
> 
> 
> Btw, seeing that pic gives me a better understanding of why some feel it's unsporting to hunt over bait. Those old school methods certainly require difficult to learn and superior hunting skills! :lol:
> ...


It's the White oak trees to my left and the one I am in:lol: I have watch the deer eat acorns every night I have sat in that tree. If you take notice I am hunting where they enter and exit the CRP(bedding areas) to my right. I have been stuck in that tree twice this year with deer eating acorns. The BB pretty much ate corn all night, I could hear him eating it 40 yds deep into the field. A doe was to my left for about 30 mins also, eating acorns

Old school, hunting where deer like to eat, how much more old school can i get

Next year I'll plant beans in that field, that spot is really good


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> Then you should lobby the NRC and you congressmen to get it changed, good luck!


 
Swampbuck
I see that we are on opposite sides of this fence, first time.

*To contact your representatives and senators.*

If you follow this link you can find your representatives and senators, and their contact info.
There are two form letters that you can print, one for sportsman and one for non-sportsman.

This is how the letter reads;

Dear
Senator_____________________________
Rep. _______________________________
I am a Michigan resident and a sportsman.
As you are aware, a single case of Chronic Wasting Disease was discovered in August 2008 at a deer
farm in Kent County. As a precausonary measure, the head of the MDNR imposed a tempory ban of
feeding and baiting of deer and elk in Michigans Lower Peninsula.
Fearing an added economic hard ship to some Michigan businesss during an already stressed economy,
and an increase in whitetail deer numbers in areas already stressed with overpopulation problems. The
Michigan House of Representatives adopted House Resolution No. 96. (With no opposition) that asked
the head of the MDNR to reduce the baiting ban to a containment area around the infections discovery
and to hold further discussions. These were our elected officials, and they were simply ignored.
On October 9th 2008. At the monthly meeting of the Michigan Natural Resources Commission, A vote was
passed unanimously to impose a permanent ban on the feeding of whitetail deer and elk. This was
imposed regardless that no other cases of the disease has been found either at the original source of the
infection or in our wild herd. As of this date, no other cases of CWD have been found.
The problem that has materialized with this situation is that the Natural Resources Commission are
appointed by the Governor, and not elected like our Senators or Representatives. They are not
accountable to the voters of Michigan or our elected officials. They were given this undisputed power by
Proposal G as a result of Public Act 377 of 1996 (Senate Bill 1033), and adopted by a majority of the
electors.
It is my understanding that Proposal G can be amended by a majority vote of our House of
Representatives.
So I am asking you as a resident and sportsman of Michigan to prepare and pass legislation to amend
Proposal G so our elected officials could enact the veto process and overturn decisions made by this nonelected
commission that are detrimental and unpopular to the residents of the state of Michigan.
Thank You
Name;
Address;
Phone;
E-Mail


If you oppose the feeding / baiting ban go to this site and print a letter to send to your elected officials.
E-Mail the link to your friends and family.
*http://sixinchtrack.tripod.com/*



.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

HEY, that looks like mY spot!! Except you are seeing deer....:yikes:



swoosh said:


> Hold on, LOL making up stories, I have visual evidence. There he is eating the ear of corn he kocked off the stalk. If he would have left it lay, I would have whacked him for breaking the law:lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Now you've done it, NS is gonna be pissed!
> 
> 
> Btw, seeing that pic gives me a better understanding of why some feel it's unsporting to hunt over bait. Those old school methods certainly require difficult to learn and superior hunting skills! :lol:
> ...


 
Planting corn is a skill?


.


----------

