# tribal view on baiting ban



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

*GTB Supports Deer Baiting Ban*

Jump to Comments From the TC Record-Eagle:
TRAVERSE CITY  Some Michigan politicians want to lift a ban on using bait to lure deer during hunting season in lower Michigan.
State officials banned baiting over fears it could help spread a deadly deer disease, but politicians who oppose the restriction said those who grow and sell bait crops could suffer financially.
State Sen. James Barcia, D-Bay City, plus state Reps. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, and Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City, sponsored similar resolutions in the Michigan legislature this week to urge state officials to rescind a ban enacted after a deer at a private ranch in Kent County tested positive last month for chronic wasting disease.
The politicians contend state officials overreacted.
***
Not everyone agrees.
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians supports the baiting ban. Michigans wild deer herd is a valuable natural resource for the public and the tribe, said Hank Bailey, a tribal fish and wildlife technician and elder tribe member.
If they bow to this, they are jeopardizing that resource, Bailey said, adding he fully expected politicians to meddle in the decision.

DNR officials, meanwhile, balk at the idea of politics interfering with wildlife management.
Concentrating deer activity at bait sites increases the likelihood that diseases will be passed from deer to deer. The DNR doubts that most people would say yes to the question: Are you willing to risk causing Michigans deer herd to be sick from chronic wasting disease from this day forward just so that you can use bait? said Mary Dettloff, agency spokeswoman.
The impact of CWD in the wild herd would hurt many small businesses around the state, many of whom do not sell bait.
The politicians say its not just about lost profits, but also finding a real solution to the disease.
I feel that its probably not a wise decision based on whats happened in other states. Why would we try to do the same thing that doesnt work? Sheltrown said.
In Wisconsin, CWD was discovered in wild deer in 2002. The Wisconsin DNR banned baiting in areas surrounding CWD surveillance zones and also tried to eradicate the deer there through liberal hunting seasons and the use of sharpshooters.
At best, weve slowed the spread of the disease, said Davin Lopez, CWD biologist with the Wisconsin DNR.
No deer tested positive for CWD in areas where baiting remains legal, but numbers of deer with the disease in the states CWD surveillance zones did increase, he said.
A statewide baiting ban never went into effect in Wisconsin, primarily due to politics, Lopez said.
It may very well be a drastic reaction, especially economically. But when you consider the risk, if Michigan ends up finding it in the wild deer it will be a much bigger problem, he said. Its good to utilize all tools to limit the spread"

http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/gtb-supports-deer-baiting-ban/


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

That is great news. The often maligned native nations, with whom the US governmment made binding treaties with, are for the baiting ban. Yet, many of those Michigan residents who would ridicule native nations as taking "too much game", even though allowed by treaty, will be against MDNR and the tribe will be with MDNR. 

When things get a little hot, we find out who are those more interested in the resource and those really interested in themselves.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

You don't think a lot of the tribal members weren't buying bait, too? You're kidding yourself if you do. They bought just as much, if not more, bait than anybody-most of them have a lot more time than a lot of people. The tribal members are no different than any other deer hunters up here. They just get to take more deer and hunt longer than non-tribal members do.


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

Pinefarm said:


> When things get a little hot, we find out who are those more interested in the resource and those really interested in themselves.


You really should try to sell what you're smoking.


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

Do the Indians even have to follow any game laws, on the reservation? It is nice they support the baiting ban or say they do.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Linda G. said:


> You don't think a lot of the tribal members weren't buying bait, too? You're kidding yourself if you do. They bought just as much, if not more, bait than anybody-most of them have a lot more time than a lot of people. The tribal members are no different than any other deer hunters up here. They just get to take more deer and hunt longer than non-tribal members do.


They didn't say the had not baited in the past. What they say is they support the ban NOW.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I'm sure many union members will vote for McCain to, despite the union leadership's endorsements.
The fact is, as Tom mentions, the tribal leadership supports the ban now. 
That says something to me, when the tribe could have opted to stay neutral on the matter.


----------



## Jim Zellinger (Jul 12, 2008)

Reservations laws are not subject to US or Michigan laws. If the want to bait, they will be able too. This could be why they support the ban, it just makes it easier for them to lure deer in and cheaper with more bait than the market needs. Let's see how much they really support it, can anyone show me a reservation law banning the use of bait?


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

They support the ban for whitemen but will continue to bait as indians, wow


----------



## Jim Zellinger (Jul 12, 2008)

Are you saying that they are giving up gill nets now too? I know that it sound bad but they do get a few advantages that we do not when it comes to the outdoors. And I don't care if they do or do not. If it were legal I would have my corn feeders out. I just think that it is a little funny that the anti-baiters will use anything to support there view. And I wonder what they will say about all of the rotten comments that they have made if baiting and the people who bait return. Sorry if I offended you I did not mean to


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

they gave up gill nets years ago.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Read the agreement, they have most definitely NOT given up gill nets.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Linda G. said:


> You don't think a lot of the tribal members weren't buying bait, too? You're kidding yourself if you do. They bought just as much, if not more, bait than anybody-most of them have a lot more time than a lot of people. The tribal members are no different than any other deer hunters up here. They just get to take more deer and hunt longer than non-tribal members do.



 Linda's got it right. 

We live near one of the largest reservations in the state, right in between two of the indian casinos.

Some indians have, quite literally, made a living baiting deer. They buy and use more bait than anybody. And they dont give two hoots about "white mans laws". They mean nothing to them.

Dont be fooled by some PR PC puff piece written by a tribal mouthpiece. See what they do, not what they say. I have.:rant:

NB


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

Did the spokesperson for the tribe say that the tribal members would obey the ban? Pine you got to stop smoking pine needles.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> they gave up gill nets years ago.


If that is so, then why do they still use gill nets for chubs up and down the coast. Plus all the trap nets they use for whitefish, and anything else they "accidentally catch" that happens to swim by. 

Agreed, why wouldn't they support the ban. It doesn't hurt them.


----------



## 2tundras (Jan 11, 2005)

FYI:

Bay Mills Indiam Community (Brimley), Sault Ste Marie Tribe, Little Traverse Bay Band (Harbor springs), Grand Traverse Band and Little River Band (Manistee) have all amended thier hunting regulations to ban all deer baiting below the bridge. None of the other L.P. Tribes have recognized treaty rights so their members are under the State licesing system.


----------



## Mitchell Ulrich (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm not saying anything...last time I did I was forced to "Re-register" which conveniently would not work for about 10 days!!!

All because a moderator took the word "Ingrate" as a racial slur! 

*ingrates*

One entry found. 






Main Entry: in·grate  Pronunciation: \&#712;in-&#716;gr&#257;t\ Function: _noun_ Etymology: Latin _ingratus_ ungrateful, from _in-_ + _gratus_ grateful  more at grace Date: 1622 *:* an ungrateful person 

Mitch


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The crux of this article is simply a false construct, that if you ban baiting, you will eliminate the spread of CWD. Sorry, but the sad fact is that if CWD gets into the free ranging herd the "resource is jeopordized" and a baiting ban is not going to change that fact. So after we become like Wisconsin and have CWD and a baiting ban and the disease continues to spread, what is the next step? 

There is only one answer and that is massive herd reduction. It begs the question, why wait? All of you guys are critical that we waited to ban baiting until after the threat of CWD reared it's ugly head, despite that a baiting ban is going to have a minimal impact in actually limiting the spread of the disease. We already know that lower populations are the best preventitive for limiting the spread of contagions, so why wait? Because it would be politically unpopular? As I've said before, leaders lead. The DNR should change the management policy status quo and create an environment that will facilitate major herd reductions. Anything short of that is abdicating their responsability to manage the herd in manner that is best for the resource. The entire baiting issue is a distraction from the changes that really have to be made.


----------



## scott kavanaugh (Jan 8, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> There is only one answer and that is massive herd reduction. It begs the question, why wait? All of you guys are critical that we waited to ban baiting until after the threat of CWD reared it's ugly head, despite that a baiting ban is going to have a minimal impact in actually limiting the spread of the disease. We already know that lower populations are the best preventitive for limiting the spread of contagions, so why wait? Because it would be politically unpopular? As I've said before, leaders lead. The DNR should change the management policy status quo and create an environment that will facilitate major herd reductions. Anything short of that is abdicating their responsability to manage the herd in manner that is best for the resource. The entire baiting issue is a distraction from the changes that really have to be made.


You know munsterlndr seeing how you seem to be hell bent on the idea that we need to kill a bunch of deer off, and you seem to be eluding to baiting having little to do with this.

Here's a notion, maybe this is just Gods way of straigtening out what the DNR is clueless as to how to handle.

This is just an idea, but maybe the best way to handle this would be to. Let every one bait, plot, scent, etc. When and if CWD gets in the wild deer herd, it should if any of the theories are slightly right, hit the areas of heavy concentrations the DNR can't touch the hardest.

The farms, clubs, associations, pockets and city deer would be in theory the worst hit (basically any overpopulation of animals). This should finally eliminate the deer that aparently you and the DNR so desperatly want to see destroyed.

Meanwhile the rest of Michigan can continue to exist in our state of mediocracy which is currently Michigan deer hunting. 

To me it makes a lot more sense than killing all are deer off our public lands, so they won't get a disease and die. What sense does that make? Been there , done that.


----------



## BigDog25 (Sep 19, 2008)

Scott, Do you know the 800 # that I need to call if I need to report a DNR Black Ops Helicopter or to report a Cougar being released to control the deer population?


----------

