# 1 buck law opposed to 2 in mi



## jimmyo17 (Jun 7, 2011)

im not gunna get in on the argument but i love getting to shoot 5 does


----------



## FireFox23 (Oct 18, 2007)

broom_jm said:


> Man, I wish like heck I could disagree with ya, but you're basically spot-on in your assessment. There would be guys, in areas with SOME decent bucks, who would keep that single tag in their pocket until something bigger than a spike came along. That would probably be the case for at least the first few years, at which point you would see a gradual increase in the number of bigger bucks in many areas. That would result in a lot more guys holding onto their tag, knowing they might have a decent chance at the biggest buck they've ever killed.
> 
> The whole scenario played out in Indiana, starting about 10 years ago. It took a good 3-4 years, in some places, before the vast majority of hunters decided they REALLY liked the OBR, due to the number of good bucks they were seeing. Would it work the same way in Michigan? Maybe...maybe not. On QDMA coops, where enough people and land are involved, it is being proven that selective harvest works to improve the age structure in a localized herd. Whether that could ever translate on a state-wide scale, with the number of hunters Michigan has? Personally, I'd like to try it and find out, but mostly because it would go a long way toward fixing the over-population in some areas, not because I think it would result in a lot more adult bucks, right away.



I agree broom. I wouldn't mind seeing an OBR for those reasons. I would like to think that guys would use some control, choose their targets wisely, and you would see an overall increase in larger bucks. But I honestly don't have a lot of faith in the average hunter. Look how many were still baiting when it was banned. And NO I'm not trying to bring that discussion back up. :lol: Just making a point that I think there will still be A LOT of spikes taken. I believe that Michigan hunters for the most part have a different outlook or philosophy on hunting. You are also correct that the DNR would have to make major changes in management, and education to get a OBR to work. As long as they continue down the traditional deer management route, not much will change. But we can always hope.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

FireFox23 said:


> I agree broom. I wouldn't mind seeing an OBR for those reasons. I would like to think that guys would use some control, choose their targets wisely, and you would see an overall increase in larger bucks. But I honestly don't have a lot of faith in the average hunter. Look how many were still baiting when it was banned. And NO I'm not trying to bring that discussion back up. :lol: Just making a point that I think there will still be A LOT of spikes taken. I believe that Michigan hunters for the most part have a different outlook or philosophy on hunting. You are also correct that the DNR would have to make major changes in management, and education to get a OBR to work. As long as they continue down the traditional deer management route, not much will change. But we can always hope.


And hope, I will. What else are you gonna do when you truly care about something? :coolgleam


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

What if you took OBR one step farther: put a quota on "unlimited" buck tags. What I mean is, have a drawing to shoot any buck and draw +/- 400,000 tags for guys to shoot any buck. If you don't want or don't get that tag, have APR tags available for everyone else. 

Seems like your result would be that the percentage of 1 1/2 year old bucks taken would go from the current 50%-60% to a lower targeted number like 40%. 

Frankly, I was surprised to find out that the yearling buck harvest was as low as it is. Based on all the howling about letting them grow, I would have guessed 80% or more of the buck harvest was yearlings. But in the spirit of cooperation and progressiveness, such a compromise might make everyone a little happier. 

The guys that want to shoot anything should have that opportunity on average every other year. And in the off years, maybe they will discover that Broom Jim was right all along. And those that already limit what they shoot should be happier even thought they want more.

I understand the argument for keeping the 2 buck system, but I would be in favor of one buck rule.


----------



## Soil Sample (Aug 8, 2011)

One buck would be great.


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> The nice thing about MI regs is that if you feel 1 buck per year is beneficial to you, the rules give you the latitude to do just that.


Exactly.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

michhutr said:


> Originally Posted by *Michihunter*
> _The nice thing about MI regs is that if you feel 1 buck per year is beneficial to you, the rules give you the latitude to do just that._
> 
> ​Exactly.


The rules also give everyone else the latitude to ensure that your individual decision to practice selective harvest will be an exercise in futility. Mass consumption bereft of discretion benefits no one...and is directly to blame for the current issues facing Michigan's deer herds.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> The rules also give everyone else the latitude to ensure that your individual decision to practice selective harvest will be an exercise in futility. Mass consumption bereft of discretion benefits no one...and is directly to blame for the current issues facing Michigan's deer herds.


In other words, the majority should sacrifice their enjoyment in order to make your goals easier to accomplish even though there is no biological need for those changes. 

BTW- What are these current 'issues' that would be 'solved' by anything you are trying to implement? We've already ascertained that population control is NOT a benefit of OBR as seen by the comparative harvest figures of IN and MI's SLP.


----------



## michigansnorkeler (May 24, 2006)

I like large antlers as well as the next hunter, but it is not the main goal (or even the secondary goal) of my hunting. I'm out there to put meat on the table (I'm fortunate that my family is ok with us not buying beef). This isn't an economic thing...we like the low fat alternative, and it is satisfying to harvest from the wild. I'm also out there to commune with nature...corny sounding but no other way to put it.

I like our state that allows us a plethora of ways of harvesting that meat. If I wanted a huge rack for the wall, I suppose I would pay a little more to head to one of those states that seems to value horn size over allowing a family to collect their years supply of red meat during a hunting season.

I have only shot bucks 4 of my 11 years of hunting, but in two of those I shot two...I don't want to lose that opportunity to get two when the opportunity presents itself...and I don't want to have to "earn a buck" first and have to pass something nice when the opportunity presents itself. I have shot two or more does (and a couple "oops" bb's before I got better at IDing them) all of those years. 

Fortunately for me, the rules for Michigan fall perfectly into my goals for hunting...they allow me LOTS of time to harvest using LOTS of methods and to garner a full freezer that usually lasts an entire year...and usually I can hook my parents up with some meat and be the guy that can cook for a party and supply a bunch of meat a couple times a year. I also choose to be fairly selective without a rule telling me so. I have passed NUMEROUS bucks that didn't meet my personal standard for that year or that hunt. 

I do hunt in one of those areas where does are plentiful and legal (near Eaton Rapids), so I do understand that a huge portion of the state will not see it my way. If you can't fill your freezer, it isn't as satisfying, I guess.

If the opportunity for large horns is high on your priority, save up some money and head for one of those areas where they are plentiful (IN, IL, IA, WI, etc.) Meanwhile, for those of us who are looking at harvesting meat, Michigan is a plentiful supermarket of venison that provides us incredible bounty at a very reasonable price. 

I would be happy if Michigan(at least DMU486) does not do anything drastic with rules and regs...I like it the way it is.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I looked for surveys in surrounding states but could only find one. It appears that a majority of Indiana's hunters want to go back to a two buck tag system. http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/OneBuckRuleSurveyFinalReport.pdf

54% supported or strongly supported going back the the two buck system but it didn't list how many didn't care so it would be safe to assume that number is in double digits. Would that mean about 1 in 3 hunters supported a one buck rule?


----------



## perchpile88 (Dec 30, 2009)

I think a obr is a great idea bigger racks more meat per deer whats not to like.:evil:


----------



## dburroak (Aug 10, 2007)

i`m all for the obr. with the amount of doe tags available there is no reason for anyone to take more than one buck. in my oppinion one of the worst things that has happened to mi. deer hunting was the change to being able to buy two buck tags.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

dburroak said:


> i`m all for the obr. with the amount of doe tags available there is no reason for anyone to take more than one buck. in my oppinion one of the worst things that has happened to mi. deer hunting was the change to being able to buy two buck tags.


There's a couple of guys on here that would agree with you regarding that change to 2 buck tags. However, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but it was changed to 2 from 4.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

dburroak said:


> .......... in my oppinion one of the worst things that has happened to mi. deer hunting was the change to being able to buy two buck tags.


How was Michigan deer hunting better before 1977 ? The one area that is better and can not be disputed is that there is a lot less illegal tagging of bucks now than in those 60+ years that Michigan was an OBR state. At least in my area, an illegal tagging of a buck now is rare, not so in the past. Take an OBR state like Ohio, Ind., or Ill. the illegal tagging of bucks is naturally going to much higher than Michigan. Why should the cheaters be the only ones to kill 2 bucks ?
Remember, only about 4% of all deer hunters tagged 2 bucks last year.

L & O


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Ask your local CO on the percentage of illegal deer taken are in your area. The good news is that it is no where the near the 1 to 1 ratio that it used to be. The bad news is that it is still somewhere near 2 legal to 1 illegal deer killed. What do you think happened to all those nice bucks that many of us have watching all summer? Poaching is a problem and always has been. The minimal amount of second bucks taken is insignificant in comparison to illegal kills. Some just bend the rules a little but others are blatant about it.


----------



## weatherby (Mar 26, 2001)

I would like to see everyone fill their own tags instead of their whole families before we make the jump to 1 buck per person. That would make a big difference IMO


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Ask your local CO on the percentage of illegal deer taken are in your area. The good news is that it is no where the near the 1 to 1 ratio that it used to be. The bad news is that it is still somewhere near 2 legal to 1 illegal deer killed. .........
> .


2 to 1 would put the illegal kill at about 135,000 last year assuming that the illegal kills were reported in the annual survey as legal kills. I have posted this before, but after reading something like this a few years ago I asked a CO at an outdoor show about illegal kill numbers.
His guess was(and he made it clear that it was a guess)that the number of deer killed by what everyone would consider flat out poaching was maybe 25,000 animals. That would be taking a deer out of season, shinning and shooting, in season but illegal weapon, etc.
Lesser violations like loading a weapon too early or too much bait or improper tagging, etc. would be much, much higher. Now I could see 100,000 animals being taken and some minor violation being broken. I hunt private land 100% of the time and I never carry my wallet which is where my license is so I guess 100% of my kills are illegal, oh well. 

L & O


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Why should the <5% of hunters that shoot 2 bucks per year have to give up that right?:rant::lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> weatherby said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see everyone fill their own tags instead of their whole families before we make the jump to 1 buck per person. That would make a big difference IMO


YEAH!!! Everybody knows that people that are predisposed to filling other's tags, are content to stop at 2 bucks if legal! No sense in turning good law bidding citizens into poachers by limiting them to just 1 buck!!:rant: :lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> roger carv said:
> 
> 
> > *Just wanted to put up a friendly thread* and get your guys thoughts,...


How's that workin for ya?:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

I am always disappointed when the logic or rationale behind a given regulation goes something like, "well, if you do that, more guys will just poach". If it's true, how sad of a commentary is it that we cannot have law-abiding hunters to base deer management decisions on? If it's not true, and people aren't out there poaching a lot of deer, are we making poor regulatory decisions based on supposed violations, or would-be violations?

Color me naive, but shouldn't we have rules and regulations that _presume_ most sportsmen and women will follow them? If that is not the case, shouldn't we be doing more to patrol our own ranks, along with increased efforts to educate and police the general hunting populace? It's troubling how many decisions are made by the DNR, and law-abiding hunters, that are driven by those few people who disregard the laws and sour the experience for everyone else.

If one of the reasons behind the 2-buck combo tag is that a certain percentage of guys will just kill more than one buck anyway, I think that is a poor excuse. If more hunters would do the right thing, and the LEGAL thing, maybe the Michigan DNR would be able to see their management objectives met with more regularity?


----------



## stndpenguin (May 19, 2010)

How is only being able to kill 1 buck going to help us have older deer? Sounds like we're catering to people that don't do any scouting and complain about not seeing anything.

"If he doesn't shoot 2 small bucks, that gives me a better chance to shoot a small buck" ... 2 small bucks still die


----------



## FireFox23 (Oct 18, 2007)

stndpenguin said:


> How is only being able to kill 1 buck going to help us have older deer? Sounds like we're catering to people that don't do any scouting and complain about not seeing anything.
> 
> "If he doesn't shoot 2 small bucks, that gives me a better chance to shoot a small buck" ... 2 small bucks still die


I believe what was catered to as far as people who don't scout, and complain about possibly not seeing anything so that can they shoot a small buck was the baiters. I'm in favor of an OBR, and I scout and see plenty of deer. 

I don't believe this is the case with those in favor of an OBR. In my opinion I wouldn't mind seeing an OBR so that, even if it's a minimal amount of extra bucks making it through, you are hopefully growing the buck population. Couple that with an increased doe harvest, assuming it's needed in a DMU, and you are then balancing the sex ratio. Which can ideally make for a healthier herd. But again, that's my opinion for how I see an OBR.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

broom_jm said:


> I am always disappointed when the logic or rationale behind a given regulation goes something like, "well, if you do that, more guys will just poach". If it's true, how sad of a commentary is it that we cannot have law-abiding hunters to base deer management decisions on? If it's not true, and people aren't out there poaching a lot of deer, are we making poor regulatory decisions based on supposed violations, or would-be violations?
> 
> Color me naive, but shouldn't we have rules and regulations that _presume_ most sportsmen and women will follow them? If that is not the case, shouldn't we be doing more to patrol our own ranks, along with increased efforts to educate and police the general hunting populace? It's troubling how many decisions are made by the DNR, and law-abiding hunters, that are driven by those few people who disregard the laws and sour the experience for everyone else.
> 
> If one of the reasons behind the 2-buck combo tag is that a certain percentage of guys will just kill more than one buck anyway, I think that is a poor excuse. If more hunters would do the right thing, and the LEGAL thing, maybe the Michigan DNR would be able to see their management objectives met with more regularity?


 Yep


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

sbooy42 said:


> Yep


Please tell me your 'yep' wasn't in agreement with Brooms premise for the combo tag Shawn. As far as the rest of his post, I too would be in agreement with that 'hope'. But in all honesty, there really isn't a need for 'hope' when you review the rules and regulations. I personally can't think of one that was written with the intent to alleviate the concerns of poaching. Can you?


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> Please tell me your 'yep' wasn't in agreement with Brooms premise for the combo tag Shawn. As far as the rest of his post, I too would be in agreement with that 'hope'. But in all honesty, there really isn't a need for 'hope' when you review the rules and regulations. I personally can't think of one that was written with the intent to alleviate the concerns of poaching. Can you?


My frustration is with the people that break existing laws. This can, and does, lead to others opposing changes to the regulations, under the premise that "guys will just poach more deer". I did not claim that the combo tag was implemented in response to deer being poached. What I'm saying is this: Some people have claimed that changing the combo tag to only allow one buck to be harvested would result in more people breaking the law and shooting whatever deer they want. I find this logic troubling, whether the conclusion being reached is accurate or not. 

The DNR, and society in general, should be able to enact the best laws and regulations possible, without any real, or imagined, future illegal activity. In other words, if an OBR was a great idea, supported by a vast majority of hunters, but it was not implemented because a small subset of "sportsmen" would simply ignore the law and shoot whatever deer they chose, that would be a very sad thing, indeed. I think most law-abiding hunters feel the same way.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> Please tell me your 'yep' wasn't in agreement with Brooms premise for the combo tag Shawn. As far as the rest of his post, I too would be in agreement with that 'hope'. But in all honesty, there really isn't a need for 'hope' when you review the rules and regulations. I personally can't think of one that was written with the intent to alleviate the concerns of poaching. Can you?


 I think Broom untwisted it nicely and I would again, have to agree with his above post..


----------



## Walker Rd (Aug 9, 2011)

sbooy42 said:


> I think Broom untwisted it nicely and I would again, have to agree with his above post..


I am not sure if it was mentioned but I would like to see MI adopt the rule that you have to fill 1 doe tag to get a buck tag.


----------



## thunder river outfitters (Aug 21, 2007)

the "1 buck rule" isnt an issue. i think less then 5% of hunters take 2 bucks anyway. i know every bit helps, but i think the state has done that to generate dollars.


----------



## cmark (Mar 27, 2008)

"The DNR, and society in general, should be able to enact the best laws and regulations possible, without any real, or imagined, future illegal activity. In other words, if an OBR was a great idea, supported by a vast majority of hunters, but it was not implemented because a small subset of "sportsmen" would simply ignore the law and shoot whatever deer they chose, that would be a very sad thing, indeed. I think most law-abiding hunters feel the same way."

I am against an OBR, but I agree with this.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> My frustration is with the people that break existing laws. This can, and does, lead to others opposing changes to the regulations, under the premise that "guys will just poach more deer". I did not claim that the combo tag was implemented in response to deer being poached. What I'm saying is this: Some people have claimed that changing the combo tag to only allow one buck to be harvested would result in more people breaking the law and shooting whatever deer they want. I find this logic troubling, whether the conclusion being reached is accurate or not.


I guess you just uncovered the reason why laws exist in the first place. It's not because people that adhere to them are an issue but instead it's a means to penalize those that don't adhere to them.
Once again, I can't think of one rule, regulation, or law that has been written with your scenario in mind. Can you?


broom_jm said:


> The DNR, and society in general, should be able to enact the best laws and regulations possible, without any real, or imagined, future illegal activity. In other words, if an OBR was a great idea, supported by a vast majority of hunters, but it was not implemented because a small subset of "sportsmen" would simply ignore the law and shoot whatever deer they chose, that would be a very sad thing, indeed. I think most law-abiding hunters feel the same way.


Personally I would hope that fear mongering to advance an agenda didn't exist. However, I can guarantee that it is definitely more of a reality than what you have suggested might be done by our legislators and/or agencies in charge of regulating hunting. To even hint that your premise MIGHT be taking place without the existence of any evidence to suggest that this has ever happened would in my opinion fit the definition of fear mongering.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> Once again, I can't think of one rule, regulation, or law that has been written with your scenario in mind. Can you?
> .


Maybe not written but I know there will be fewer violators this year because one that was lifted..


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Laws exist to maintain a civilized society, but they are mostly enacted to regulate the behavior of a relative few. Most people use common sense and decency to self-regulate their behavior. Laws are rarely there to protect us from "good" people. 

More than a few members on this sight have used the "logic" that folks will just break any new law enacted, if they don't like it. Buying "mother-in-law" tags, not tagging a deer at all, baiting, etc. 

If you want a recent regulation change that was driven by the fact that people were just going to break it, anyway...you need look no further than the reversal of the baiting ban. MANY people thumbed their noses at that law...to such an extent that the DNR was essentially unable to enforce it. Had they persisted in keeping a baiting ban in place, thousands of people would have just continued to ignore it. The DNR is allowing 2 gallons because they KNOW they couldn't keep so many people from putting out bait, anyway. Do you not agree?

This season, thousands of people will be baiting with far more than the 2 gallons allowed by law. Thousands of deer will be shot out of season or otherwise harvested by illegal means. The DNR doesn't have the means to catch and prosecute even one percent of violators, so it falls on hunters to do the right thing. I am worried about the number of people willfully breaking game laws because they jeopardize our very freedom to hunt. Hunters need to be self-regulating and obey the letter of the law, so that the non-hunting public continues to view us a viable and lawful means to control certain game populations. The hunters who ignore the rules put all of us in a bad light, especially when they force bad regulations into existence, or prevent better regulations from being enacted.

If you are not concerned about hunters who ignore the law and do whatever they want, forcing what "might" prove to be a bad decision to allow baiting again, then I'm afraid we have no basis for a worthwhile discussion. A one-buck rule could go a long way toward making Michigan a "better" place to hunt, in the eyes of a majority of hunters. We'll probably never find out and one of the reasons is because some hunters claim if that law was passed, many others would just break the law, anyway. Any ethical sportsman _should_ find that deplorable; I know I do.


----------



## lastflighttaxidermy (Jul 12, 2010)

first off i agree with the one buck tag issue. will it happen. who knows. they always complain about loosing money and i always said just make the one buck tag the same price as a combo tag. michigan liscenses are already one of the lowest in the nation anyway. people will still by them if they are going to hunt. and as for the poaching issue, poachers are going to poach no matter what the laws are. will it cause more. who knows, they would have to try the law in order to figure that out. thanks just my opinion though.!!!!


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

Michihunter said:


> I guess you just uncovered the reason why laws exist in the first place. It's not because people that adhere to them are an issue but instead it's a means to penalize those that don't adhere to them.


Wow, way to make a criminal/poacher sound like a victim, being pulled down by the great bad law abiding outdoorsman/citizen. 

OBR, with APR, instantly improves hunting for the public land hunter, and instantly improves the economy for those towns up north surrounded by public land. 

What it comes down to is, scum buckets are still going to poach, they're still going to steal stands, they're still going to fill the tags of their mother-in-law who's on oxygen sitting in a nursing home, etc etc. 

I'm optimisitic, I feel these individuals make up a very small percentage of those entering the field. They're individuals, I refuse to call them hunters, sportsmen, etc...

The fact that rules are lifted or not made in the first place because of these bottom-feeders is a sad state of affairs. The fact that they allow the purchase of a non apr license is proof that this is taking place. "Well, better give out the gimme license just to cover the poaching base. They're going to kill any size buck anyways so we might as well make sure they do it as legal as possible."


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Broom- The more you reply the more your ignorance shines through. If you knew why baiting was banned in the first place you'd understand why it was reinstated. The baiting 'ban' was 'reinstated' because CWD was not found outside the one deer that acquired it.For a clue check out the Emergency Response Plan for CWD.

GVDoc- How does your highlighted portion of my response, which of course is the FACT of the matter, make a criminal sound like a victim? Especially when you say the exact same thing in your comments?


----------



## Supa Roosta (Jul 1, 2003)

Heck,,, the YOUNGER the Better!
Doe or Button Buck.
If I'm really Lucky I can wipe the afterbirth off of em and save it!
Makes for an awesome Gravy Base!!!


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Supa Roosta said:


> If I'm really Lucky I can wipe the afterbirth off of em and save it!
> Makes for an awesome Gravy Base!!!


 And here I've been using it as lotion when I could have been using it for gravy


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> Broom- The more you reply the more your ignorance shines through. If you knew why baiting was banned in the first place you'd understand why it was reinstated. The baiting 'ban' was 'reinstated' because CWD was not found outside the one deer that acquired it.For a clue check out the Emergency Response Plan for CWD.
> 
> GVDoc- How does your highlighted portion of my response, which of course is the FACT of the matter, make a criminal sound like a victim? Especially when you say the exact same thing in your comments?


I have no idea why you put 'ban' or 'reinstated' in quotes, when those are the appropriate terms to use? Are you intimating that there never WAS a ban, so baiting could not possibly be reinstated?  I'm also not sure why you failed to put any spacing between your last two sentences; is that some kind of new-age punctuation you're using? Calling others ignorant is always such a slippery slope. 

Ask a few people in the DNR if they felt it was their decision, from a scientific standpoint, to repeal the ban on baiting. Aside from all the science, the fundamental truth is the same; thousands of people were baiting illegally and the DNR was basically powerless to stop it. I'm trying to fathom why you are suborning their actions by engaging in a debate you cannot hope to win. Unless you really think folks are going to join in with you on the side of those who break game regulations, tarnishing the image of law-abiding sportsmen? Are you really aligning yourself with this element? 

I've publicly given you credit for being a serious and dedicated sportsman. I don't think I was wrong in doing so, but now I'm starting to wonder...


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> I have no idea why you put 'ban' or 'reinstated' in quotes, when those are the appropriate terms to use? Are you intimating that there never WAS a ban, so baiting could not possibly be reinstated?  I'm also not sure why you failed to put any spacing between your last two sentences; is that some kind of new-age punctuation you're using? Calling others ignorant is always such a slippery slope.
> 
> Ask a few people in the DNR if they felt it was their decision, from a scientific standpoint, to repeal the ban on baiting. Aside from all the science, the fundamental truth is the same; thousands of people were baiting illegally and the DNR was basically powerless to stop it. I'm trying to fathom why you are suborning their actions by engaging in a debate you cannot hope to win. Unless you really think folks are going to join in with you on the side of those who break game regulations, tarnishing the image of law-abiding sportsmen? Are you really aligning yourself with this element?
> 
> I've publicly given you credit for being a serious and dedicated sportsman. I don't think I was wrong in doing so, but now I'm starting to wonder...


How in Gods name do you conclude that I side with the poaching element by explaining why an INTERIM baiting ban was reinstated or why laws are created? You sir are deluded.


----------

