# Live from the baiting ban hearings



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Hmmm, the guy from the bait shop was interesting.....


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> November Sunrise said:
> 
> 
> > As you know, testifying in front of the committee is a little unsettling. Most of these have done a real solid job representing their perspectives.


You betcha! Madigan is an imposing figure and he has steely eyes.:yikes::lol:
Seriously NS, I'm with ya and I admire and salute every single person that has taken the time to stand up and state their position on the issue, not enough of us do it.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Steve said:


> Hmmm, the guy from the bait shop was interesting.....


Odd to me that some are in favor of baiting but talk about a 2 gallon limit. I agree with the guy who said that making the amount an easily measured quantity of 5 gallons would make better sense.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> You betcha! Madigan is an imposing figure and he has steely eyes.:yikes::lol:
> Seriously NS, I'm with ya and I admire and salute every single person that has taken the time to stand up and state their position on the issue, not enough of us do it.


Yep. I'm having fun poking at a few of them (take that hat off!!), but showing up and stating your case is a good thing.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

And by the way, kudos to MUCC for streaming this. I appreciate them doing that, and great job Steve on making it available through MS as well.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

This is tough to watch.....

Hopefully Munster is on deck soon...:lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

I would like to suggest that cough drops be available on the goodie table for the commissioners.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Yeap, you gotta give everybody who took the time to testfiy a big salute. Watch here.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> I would like to suggest that cough drops be available on the goodie table for the commissioners.


 
I think my ear drums are bleeding because of the coughing. :yikes:

Very cool that they did a live stream of the meeting, and good to see people getting involved.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

I was going to go but the dog ate my power point presentation.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

232 people watching at one time. We kicked that up a notch here.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Steve, I only caught about 40 minutes of it, any way you can get it up later to view the whole broadcast later when we have time?

Thanks, Pez


----------



## Jigin-N-Grinin (Jan 22, 2008)

I was interested in this topic about a month or two ago.....then a friend that was at some deer management meeting and one of the big wigs told him the baiting ban WILL be lifted. So the way I see it, all these meetings are for nothing. They have already made up there minds.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Pez Gallo said:


> Steve, I only caught about 40 minutes of it, any way you can get it up later to view the whole broadcast later when we have time?
> 
> Thanks, Pez


I will try.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

The next meeting is scheduled for April 7th in E. Lansing at the Diagnostic Center on campus.
I would like to suggest that any one that is interested in attending, that we get together for breakfast before heading over (regardless of your position).
I already have the day scheduled off to hit the Detroit River with Koz for walleye so I'll be happy to detour to the meeting.
What say you? Anybody in for some fellowship prior to the meeting?

Big T


----------



## Jigin-N-Grinin (Jan 22, 2008)

Im sure my info came from a good source...anyone else think there is any truth to what I heard????


----------



## cmark (Mar 27, 2008)

Looks like it's off the air. How or when can I watch it? Any help is appreciated.

CM


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Wouldn't you think if the USDA and Farm Bureau were so concerned about bTB, that they would be in favor of tightening up some regulations about where the farmers would be allowed to store their livestock food?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Jigin-N-Grinin said:
> 
> 
> > Im sure my info came from a good source...anyone else think there is any truth to what I heard????


As of a month ago I was told that there are 5 of the 8 commissioners that are leaning toward lifting the ban.
With some of the great testimony that took place today, I would be surprised if some didn't reconsider their position on the subject.
Interesting how ALL of the ag organizations are for the ban.

Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

I never considered silage as a baiting option. Other than the smell, that stuff looks like chopped leaves and would blend in to the landscape pretty well. The cement bunker would be tough to hide though.


----------



## HTC (Oct 6, 2005)

William H Bonney said:


> Hopefully Munster is on deck soon...:lol:


Is that serious, do you know if he is there to speak?


----------



## BigGriz (Dec 2, 2009)

Well organized event. Good points on both sides of the issue.


----------



## mcfish (Jan 24, 2010)

QDMAMAN said:


> I never considered silage as a baiting option. Other than the smell, that stuff looks like chopped leaves and would blend in to the landscape pretty well. The cement bunker would be tough to hide though.


They don't use bunkers much anymore around my area. They put it in long plastic tubes. The deer paw through the plastic cuz they love sileage so much. It is so bad that the DNR supplies farmers with shotgun blanks that are like fireworks. It isn't very effective unfortunately.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Steve said:


> I will try.


 
That would great... I'm at work and its pointless and not very entertaining without sound


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

HTC said:


> Is that serious, do you know if he is there to speak?


No,,,, I have no idea if he was there,, that was just wishful thinkin'...


----------



## HTC (Oct 6, 2005)

They have been off the air for over a 1/2 hour. Must be these state workers were allowed to collective bargain for 1 hour lunches...:lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Which guy was 6"?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I wonder which of those guys was our famous 6 inch track.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

You beat qdmaman


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

qdmaman said:


> which guy was 6"?


 maybe the guy that said he can't get money from his wife for a food plot.:d


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

I didn't see the meeting since I am at work, but how did it look. Were more for lifting the ban and did they have some convincing points? Were there any against lifting and did they have any valid points? 
From the sounds of some of these posts sounds to me like it was more of a whining fest. Hopefully I will be able to view the meeting later.

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

4:30 meeting T man. Breakfast, you buying?


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

HTC said:


> They have been off the air for over a 1/2 hour. Must be these state workers were allowed to collective bargain for 1 hour lunches...:lol:


The time period for the meeting on baiting was only from 10:00 - 12:00.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Jigin-N-Grinin said:


> Im sure my info came from a good source...anyone else think there is any truth to what I heard????


Yes. But I can't devoldge


----------



## BigGriz (Dec 2, 2009)

bucksnbows said:


> I didn't see the meeting since I am at work, but how did it look. Were more for lifting the ban and did they have some convincing points? Were there any against lifting and did they have any valid points?
> From the sounds of some of these posts sounds to me like it was more of a whining fest. Hopefully I will be able to view the meeting later.
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


My general impression was there were more in favor of lifting the ban then keeping it. I will say those who were in favor of keeping the ban made some decent points. Obviously I hope it gets lifted for the sake of recruitment and retention but that's just me


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> 6inchtrack said:
> 
> 
> > 4:30 meeting T man. Breakfast, you buying?


You can just eat off my plate.:lol::lol:


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

6inchtrack said:


> 4:30 meeting T man. Breakfast, you buying?


I'll buy. 2 gallon limit and the food must be spread out evenly on the entire table.

L & O


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> You can just eat off my plate.:lol::lol:


 
:lol::lol: You are pretty brave to allow that if he attended that meeting today. There was definitely a virus or two in that room today.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Liver and Onions said:


> I'll buy. 2 gallon limit and the food must be spread out evenly on the entire table.
> 
> L & O


Caution, keep your hands away from 6s mouth and teeth while he is eating.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> NoWake said:
> 
> 
> > :lol::lol: You are pretty brave to allow that if he attended that meeting today. There was definitely a virus or two in that room today.


Well...I'm hoping this rash is gone by then...but if not...Oh well!:lol:


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> I'll buy. 2 gallon limit and the food must be spread out evenly on the entire table.
> 
> L & O


 
:lol: :evil: :lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Well...I'm hoping this rash is gone by then...but if not...Oh well!:lol:


Whore in church?


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

he shares kool aid cups


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

HTC said:


> Is that serious, do you know if he is there to speak?


:lol: I was there this morning but did not speak, I'll share a few brief comments during public comment this afternoon. 

As far as my take on this morning, I too applaud those who take the time to come and speak, it's easy to poke fun at their technique but if you don't speak in public on a regular basis, it can be very intimidating.

I didn't really hear any arguments on either side of the issue that have not been made a thousand times on MS. I would say that pro-baiters outnumbered anti-baiters at about 3:2 of those in attendance.

I thought Steve Schmitt's presentation was fairly weak and not very compelling. 

The bowhunting instructor from Kent Co. was pretty condescending and there was a palpable air of resentment to some of his comments after he finished. 

I loved the 85 year old retired vet, who made the comment about bait piles spreading lead poisoning, that bit of comedic relief scored some tangible points with several NRC members.

I was frankly appalled by the short sightedness of Wheatlakes proposal to plant large scale food plots on public land in the TB area. Let's see if we can create another vector to concentrate deer and spread disease. 

Lot's of muttering after the guy from the ag department speculated that USDA would hold up changes to the bTB accreditation changes if the NRC reverses the ban. It was telling that when Wheatlake challenged him on it, he admitted that he was only speculating. There is obviously no love lost between the ag community and the hunting community over this issue. 

The guy from the building trades association probably was the most compelling in my mind. His admission that he previously opposed both the youth season and the crossbow expansion....until this year when his 11 year old son bagged a deer during the youth season with a crossbow, showed a laudable willingness to re-assess things based on new information, instead of just sticking to a pre-ordained point of view.

From the questions being asked by the Commissioners, it appears that they have pretty much decided to over-turn the ban and are focusing now on the mechanics (how much bait allowed).

All in all, it was pretty predictable, some of the later meetings might get a little more lively.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Steve Schmitt's presentation was fairly weak and not very compelling.


I'm shocked you think this Jim!:yikes::lol:
FWIW...it's Dr. Steve Schmitt.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: I was there this morning but did not speak, I'll share a few brief comments during public comment this afternoon.


 
If I give you my cell number can you text me when you're on deck? That is if this afternoon's meeting will be streamed live.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> The guy from the building trades association probably was the most compelling in my mind. His admission that he previously opposed both the youth season and the crossbow expansion....until this year when his 11 year old son bagged a deer during the youth season with a crossbow, showed a laudable willingness to re-assess things based on new information, instead of just sticking to a pre-ordained point of view.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NoWake said:


> If I give you my cell number can you text me when you're on deck? That is if this afternoon's meeting will be streamed live.


Not sure if they are streaming this afternoon or not, I think I'm up after Dale Sheltrown. Don't look for anything profound, there is not enough time to really address the issue, I'm just going to have a little fun with it.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't really hear any arguments on either side of the issue that have not been made a thousand times on MS. I would say that pro-baiters outnumbered anti-baiters at about 3:2 of those in attendance.



I wasn't keeping count but I thought that those that testified, when I was watching, favored a contiuance of the ban. Are you saying that the crowd in the room that didn't testify, was at 3:2 pro-baiting? And if so what method did you use to poll them?
I'll rewatch the meeting later and keep a score card, you may be right.

Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if they are streaming this afternoon or not, I think I'm up after Dale Sheltrown. Don't look for anything profound, there is not enough time to really address the issue, I'm just going to have a little fun with it.


Probably nothing we aint heard from you a thousand times on MS.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I wasn't keeping count but I thought that those that testified, when I was watching, favored a contiuance of the ban. Are you saying that the crowd in the room that didn't testify, was at 3:2 pro-baiting? And if so what method did you use to poll them?
> I'll rewatch the meeting later and keep a score card, you may be right.
> 
> Big T


Both based on people who testified and comments and conversations that I had wth others in the room. A majority of those who spoke favored repeal in some form or another.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > Both based on people who testified and comments and conversations that I had wth others in the room. A majority of those who spoke favored repeal in some form or another.


Gotcha, I sure hope your conversations weren't a distractions.:16suspect
Were you moving about the room or just talking to the folks sitting next to you?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I had a dream that the baiting ban was repealed and then I thought, what will those guys whine about now? After a milli-second, I was relieved with the notion that they'd find something.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> FREEPOP said:
> 
> 
> > I had a dream that the baiting ban was repealed and then I thought, what will those guys whine about now? After a milli-second, I was relieved with the notion that they'd find something.


Full inclusion of spears is up next! Maybe even an early unique season, say Sept. 1-8. It would be a great opportunity to take a velvet buck.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Since I don't make it over here often, make sure to PM me when blow gun season comes around or the early "follically challenged hunt"


----------



## WhiteTailHunter87 (Nov 29, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Full inclusion of spears is up next! Maybe even an early unique season, say Sept. 1-8. It would be a great opportunity to take a velvet buck.


:lol:


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> Since I don't make it over here often, make sure to PM me when blow gun season comes around or the early "follically challenged hunt"


Uhhhhhhh..........Ummmmm you're interested in Blow_gun season? Really? :16suspect :lol:


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

and poison darts


----------



## BigGriz (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm guessing they won't be streaming this afternoons. No cameras set up yet.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

I just pray to God that this will end the baiting debate on ms.com. I am so sick of it I almost want to give up deer hunting. I've realized what a desperate, miserable group of people arise when the word 'bait' is thrown into a conversation, and it isn't pretty.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Liver and Onions said:


> Interesting. If the "single bite size" bait has been discussed before, I missed that. As a food plotter, my turnips are hit time several times by different deer before being leveled to the dirt. I hope I don't have to dig my turnips up and chop them into pieces.
> 2 gallons or 5 gallons. A bag of bait is about 5 gallons. Guessing that many baiters drop about a bag per location. If it's spread out over a 250 sq.ft. area I can't see where that is any different than 2 gallons in a 100 sq. ft.
> I have never once seen the "mountain" of bait described on this site so often. Who could afford that ??
> Gotta keep this simple if it is going to be done.......can't see the bite size pieces being done by most guys.
> ...


Asking a person to voluntarily chop up bait is like asking a hooker for a freebee! It aint going to happen. PERIOD! 

There are very few baits that meet the criteria whereby it can be totally consumed without any residual and, before another deer can come along and pee or poop on it and that it a VERY small amount of shelled corn. Like, less than a gallon small.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> The MDNR would just be making those guys into criminals that wouldn't chop up their bait so why bother with "such a silly" law?


I think it's hypocritical for anyone raising turnips or sugar beets for deer to expect baiters to chop their food into pieces when we can watch a number of deer come back to our frozen turnips and beets and gnaw on those night after night as we sit on our bait plots in Dec. The amount of deer poop on my turnip patch right now is amazing. That's because the deer keep coming back even though it looks like all the turnips are gone or level with the dirt. 
If chopping up bait is what is decided upon, I think 2"X2" or 3"X3" is more practical. I wonder how many calls the CO's will get because the pieces of bait are just a little bit too large.
I can see where a press with blades could slice through a lot of beets, carrots or apples pretty quickly.

L & O


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Ive testified at several NRC meetings over the last 10 years. Its really no different than any other type of meeting where you are trying to get someone to seriously consider your viewpoint. They key is preparation. You want to hit them with some simple points and do so in a way to get them to engage you with discussion. Ive been able to stretch my allotted time to over 20 minutes by making my testimony conversational. As long as the commissioners are asking questions and discussing things, there really is no time limit. The best way to accomplish an engaging presentation is to have a handout prepared and give it to them just before the public comment period starts. The handout should have a few bullet points on it and be no longer than about 100 words. It needs to be kept simple because most of the commissioners are not going to pay much attention to anything complicated or long winded. After you are done with your spiel, dont forget to thank them and always follow up after the meeting with a note to the commissioners reiterating your main points and thanking them once again. You really have be nice to them even it causes you great pain. If they still fail to do what you think is right, then you can always come on this forum and bash them.

Id love to testify at the next meeting on this baiting issue, but Im booked solid with fishing charters starting next week through the third week of April. If the weather turns Erie to mud-soup, then I may be able to head up to Lansing though. My main concern in this baiting dilemma is getting the protocols of the states Emergency Response Plan for Chronic Wasting Disease changed to something that allows logical decisions to be made instead of the questionable decisions that we have seen in the past. Case in point, when the WI DNR announced last fall that a deer had CWD in a game farm some 40 miles from the MI boarder. The MI DNR immediately banned baiting/feeding in the U.P. without even waiting for the test results to come back, which were negative for CWD. The MI DNR got major egg on their collective faces on that one but it did show that they were willing to sacrifice perhaps more than half the UPs deer herd, which is what a feeding ban would ultimately accomplish there. The winter kill in the U.P. from such a ban would be far more destructive to the herd than all the combined outbreaks of CWD have. That knee jerk reaction really showed the need to make some changes.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

TR, did you mess up? The MDNR did NOT ban baiting in the UP last fall when that suspect deer was found near the border with Wisconsin. Am I wrong?


----------



## 2britts (Dec 21, 2008)

If I remember right there wasn't a ban issued last fall but the DNR did issue a press release asking hunters not to put out any more bait.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

da Appleknocker said:


> TR, did you mess up? The MDNR did NOT ban baiting in the UP last fall when that suspect deer was found near the border with Wisconsin. Am I wrong?


The day after the WI DNR anounced their finding the sick deer the MI DNR told people not to put bait out and it was right around the opener of the firearm deer season too. It created a lot of confusion for sure. They later recinded the baiting ban when the test came in negative for CWD.


----------



## Get Out (Dec 29, 2010)

I for one will be happy when the edict is handed down from on high so we can stop talking about this.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Get Out said:


> I for one will be happy when the edict is handed down from on high so we can stop talking about this.


get out...if the topic of baiting did not exists, there would be no need for this website! :lol:

Do not be so naive as to think that whatever the decision made by the NRC is, all, dialog will cease. Rather, the topic of baiting will live as long as man needs oxygen to breath! Which, is to say, "forever."


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> I think it's hypocritical for anyone raising turnips or sugar beets for deer to expect baiters to chop their food into pieces L & O


So...you're saying you're a hypocrite?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

da Appleknocker said:


> Tony, the reason I did not speak is because my father once told me, "You can sit there a let people think you are an idiot, or you can open your mouth and remove all doubt".



Do you still think Munster is handsome?:lol:


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

TS, the DNR did NOT ban baiting. I hunt exclusively in the UP and asking hunters to be carefull is NOT banning.

Tony, you got me there!


----------



## BigGriz (Dec 2, 2009)

BigR said:


> Two facts I've gained from this thread:
> 1.Guys are sooo "concerned" acting as if the live streaming is something new, when NRC meetings have been streamed live for over a year.
> 
> 2. Where were all these concerned "sportsmen" and I use the term loosely, when the dove referendum got slayed by the anti hunters.
> ...


As far as I can recall, they've live streamed 3-4 times over the last couple years. Usually just a portion of the day when there is a "big" issue on the table. Unless they are hiding cameras someplace that I don't know about. Which could be the case.....


----------



## BigGriz (Dec 2, 2009)

2britts said:


> If I remember right there wasn't a ban issued last fall but the DNR did issue a press release asking hunters not to put out any more bait.


 
A lot of good that did all the guys who were already in camp and off the "grid" so to speak. Fortuanately I heard about it from a friend downstate when I went into town and got my voicemails.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Liver and Onions said:


> I wonder how many calls the CO's will get because the pieces of bait are just a little bit too large.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
ring ring 
*DNR RAP LINE, CAN I HELP YOU? *
ah ah yea, I'm standing in this here bait pile and this here poacher didn't chop his sugar beets in to 1 inch pieces, these are all 2 inches.
*SIR DID YOU SAY YOU WERE STANDING IN A BAIT PILE?*
yea, I saw where some poacher had been parking and followed his path to see if he was complying with the law, I keep your rap line on speed dial in my droid.
*OK THEN, WELL HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE PIECES ARE 2 INCHES?*
I measured them, I always keep a tape measure in my pocket so I can help and catch these here poachers.
*SIR, GET A LIFE*
click
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:





Liver and Onions said:


> I can see where a press with blades could slice through a lot of beets, carrots or apples pretty quickly.
> L & O


Large butcher knife, machete, hatchet.
The butcher knife works great.
A bag of beet will fit into a 6-gallon pail if chopped to 2 or 3 inches. 
That same bag will fit into a 5-gallon pail when chopped to 1-inch cubes.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

6inchtrack said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ring ring
> *DNR RAP LINE, CAN I HELP YOU? *
> ah ah yea, I'm standing in this here bait pile and this here poacher didn't chop his sugar beets in to 1 inch pieces, these are all 2 inches.
> ...


I think that I know what you used for your 2 inch ruler 

Simple solution is move to the UP and hunt, you can feed all the Jays & Ravens hoping that a lost deer strolls by !


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

A few of the right sized sugar beets also fit nicely inside the pockets of your hunting coat..... I think.....:evilsmile


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

6inchtrack said:


> A bag of beet will fit into a 6-gallon pail if chopped to 2 or 3 inches.
> That same bag will fit into a 5-gallon pail when chopped to 1-inch cubes.



Now THAT is the kind of "science" that I believe the NRC commissioners are looking for.
Did your kid win at the science fair?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

da Appleknocker said:


> TS, the DNR did NOT ban baiting. I hunt exclusively in the UP and asking hunters to be carefull is NOT banning.
> 
> Tony, you got me there!


Actually they did ban baiting in the U.P. They told everyone not to put more bait out on or about Nov. 16. They also said that on Dec. 1 that they would start enforcing the baiting ban law. They also told hunters in counties that boarder WI to bring harvested deer into check stations for CWD testing starting on or about Nov. 16. I was up there then when it all went down. They didn't tell hunters to be carefull, rather they started to put in place a baiting/feeding ban based on no hard CWD evidence what so ever. Thankfully the game farm deer tested negative for CWD, but the DNR still looked awfully bad the way they handled the situation. The funny thing is that when the deer test results came back negative, everyone was so releaved that they did not hold the DNR accountable for their actions.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Actually they did ban baiting in the U.P. They told everyone not to put more bait out on or about Nov. 16. They also said that on Dec. 1 that they would start enforcing the baiting ban law. They also told hunters in counties that boarder WI to bring harvested deer into check stations for CWD testing starting on or about Nov. 16. I was up there then when it all went down. They didn't tell hunters to be carefull, rather they started to put in place a baiting/feeding ban based on no hard CWD evidence what so ever. Thankfully the game farm deer tested negative for CWD, but the DNR still looked awfully bad the way they handled the situation. The funny thing is that when the deer test results came back negative, everyone was so releaved that they did not hold the DNR accountable for their actions.


alot like the $20million that was 'found' ... heads didnt roll for that either.....


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

hunt-n-fool said:


> alot like the $20million that was 'found' ... heads didnt roll for that either.....


It was 18.5 million....:lol:


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Riva said:


> I believe he said something to the effect that "we call killing over bait shooting, not hunting."


I reviewed the recording again and he never said anything of the sort.

Perhaps we are not talking about the same person.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Tom Morang said:


> I reviewed the recording again and he never said anything of the sort.
> 
> Perhaps we are not talking about the same person.


Perhaps.. somebody said it though. Was hard to decipher over the coughing and hacking going into the commissioner's microphones. Somebody should tell them to turn off their mike when not speaking. Even then, some of them should keep their mike turned off even while speaking! :lol:


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

I think that the guy who said it was Dan Nameth, I use to work with him until he retired. Balding, short, glasses, hearing aid on the left ear (never saw the right ear).


----------



## muliefever (Jul 2, 2007)

did the first meeting get recorded? i would like to watch it.. thanks


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Someone earlier ask who the sixth speaker was, it was Dale Sheltrown from the Gladwin area.

It was the twelth speaker who said and I quote, "Hunters don't bait, just shooters do", and supported food plots on state land but not two gallons of enticements. His name was Richard Hanson. He wore a green plaid wool hat and his wife spoke after him and suggested a special license to sell bait. She was followed by Jeffery D. Jager (sp) who spoke of the "scofflaws who complain about the state making them villians and outlaws because they want to use bait", then referred to them as irresponsible. He also claimed he did a survey of twenty-six people who ranged in age from twenty to seventy-two and 100% of them were against baiting. He claimed to be an instructor for the International Bow-Hunters Education Foundation and taught his students that baiting was UNETHICAL in any form.

Why am I so sure of this? Because after my faultless report of Dr. Russ Mason in Grand Rapids and the hoopla it caused, I now RECORD every meeting I attend and I attend them all! 

P.S. Dan Neymouth did also distinguish between Sportsmen and shooters.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

da Appleknocker said:


> Why am I so sure of this? Because after my faultless report of Dr. Russ Mason in Grand Rapids and the hoopla it caused, I now RECORD every meeting I attend and I attend them all!


Taking that one to the grave eh Appleknocker?
I am torn whether to believe your "faultless" reporting or the other 6 reputable people that were in the room I talked to, including the man you "quoted", that report exactly the opposite which, BTW, explained why "you couldn't believe your ears".

Big T


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Every deer shot without bait is gut shot?


Was this something that was actually said at the meeting?


----------



## Hungry Wolf (Mar 26, 2002)

bucksnbows said:


> Was this something that was actually said at the meeting?


Its a scientific fact...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Was this something that was actually said at the meeting?


Appleknocker can verify with is recording but, one guy that testified said his friend was a deer processor that had to give it up when the bait ban took effect because EVERY deer that came in was gut shot because, apparently, his clients weren't capable of making a clean shot on any deer that wasn't standing perfectly still on a bait station.
What I'd like to know is...did this deer processor take advantage of the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance when the bait ban put him out of work?
I wonder if 6" figured this stat into the negative economical impact of the bait ban?
Life is stranger than fiction.

Big T


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

I thought that the context of that statement was:

cant bait, the deer dont stand still, (so they are moving) and they all get shot in in the guts.

To imply, if they could use bait, then the deer would stand still and they could shoot them in the chest......


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

hunt-n-fool said:


> I thought that the context of that statement was:
> 
> cant bait, the deer dont stand still, (so they are moving) and they all get shot in in the guts.
> 
> To imply, if they could use bait, then the deer would stand still and they could shoot them in the chest......


:lol::lol:


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

da Appleknocker said:


> Someone earlier ask who the sixth speaker was, it was Dale Sheltrown from the Gladwin area.
> 
> It was the twelth speaker who said and I quote, "Hunters don't bait, just shooters do", and supported food plots on state land but not two gallons of enticements. His name was Richard Hanson. He wore a green plaid wool hat and his wife spoke after him and suggested a special license to sell bait. She was followed by Jeffery D. Jager (sp) who spoke of the "scofflaws who complain about the state making them villians and outlaws because they want to use bait", then referred to them as irresponsible. He also claimed he did a survey of twenty-six people who ranged in age from twenty to seventy-two and 100% of them were against baiting. He claimed to be an instructor for the International Bow-Hunters Education Foundation and taught his students that baiting was UNETHICAL in any form.
> 
> ...


I am thinking you hear what you want to hear because that is not what was said. You should go over the video again and listen real good.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*Q*....or heck, '*6inch'*......either one of you got a link to this?

_"I wonder if 6" figured this stat into the negative economical impact of the bait ban?_

Would love to see such an analysis.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

> Originally Posted by Riva
> I believe he said something to the effect that "we call killing over bait shooting, not hunting."


Great minds.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Wonder if some of those folks would apply that same standard to all of the bear "shooters" that we have in Michigan.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

There are options when it comes to Bear hunting, baiting is the easiest of them.

Years ago I had the opportunity to take over a Bear and Moose hunting operation in Canada. Making the swap involved him working his last Moose season with me, so I could get the ins and outs of that. As for the Bear Season, I would just take it over, not like it takes any real skill, put out bait, shoot Bears when they come to eat it.

My wife shot it down when she learned that in an emergency, with the aid of a helicopter we could get to the hospital in 3 hours.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Riva said:


> I believe he said something to the effect that "we call killing over bait shooting, not hunting."


I feel the same way about those that sit in a nice warm box overlooking their food plot. I don't let it bother me...their choice.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Tom Morang said:


> I am thinking you hear what you want to hear...



Mr. Morang:

This is a little off the subject but I'm just curious if I heard it wrong when Mr. Mason seemed to say that baiting "*is the reason there's TB in Michigan?"*

KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

2PawsRiver said:


> There are options when it comes to Bear hunting, baiting is the easiest of them.
> 
> Years ago I had the opportunity to take over a Bear and Moose hunting operation in Canada. Making the swap involved him working his last Moose season with me, so I could get the ins and outs of that. As for the Bear Season, I would just take it over, not like it takes any real skill, put out bait, shoot Bears when they come to eat it.
> 
> My wife shot it down when she learned that in an emergency, with the aid of a helicopter we could get to the hospital in 3 hours.


So can we assume then that you are one of those who would say that anyone hunting bear over bait is merely a "shooter", not a hunter?

How about this guy sitting in his blind overlooking his food plot, is he a "shooter" or a "hunter"? Is there some tangible ethical difference resulting from hunting over food, if the roots are still attached?


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

KPC said:


> Mr. Morang:
> 
> This is a little off the subject but I'm just curious if I heard it wrong when Mr. Mason seemed to say that baiting "*is the reason there's TB in Michigan?"*
> 
> KPC




Mr kpc,

Ya, don't change the subject.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Road Dog, in post #165 I did not use "" "" around my statement, (taught his students that baiting was unethical in any form), I was interpretting the statement and I quote, "And as far as ah,ah, the angle from the legal side, I am current instructor for the IBHEF. When I start teaching that class, we base on ethics." Is that better. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

KPC said:


> .........
> By the way, I'll ask again. Did you even watch the video?
> ....
> KPC


RoadDog,
I'm wondering about this too.

L & O


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Nick, I have been feeding deer in the UP for twenty years and have never seen them delay migration because there is food left. When its time to scram they know and they do.


----------



## Kabooyah (Feb 1, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> So can we assume then that you are one of those who would say that anyone hunting bear over bait is merely a "shooter", not a hunter?
> 
> How about this guy sitting in his blind overlooking his food plot, is he a "shooter" or a "hunter"? Is there some tangible ethical difference resulting from hunting over food, if the roots are still attached?


 So if I arrow a nice buck as he is pulling an apple off the tree I'm a hunter (yesss) but if the apple falls to the ground and I arrow that buck as he eats it I'm merely a shooter (dang). I'm with you Munster. Waiting for one of the "true hunters" for enlightenment. 


Hypocrisy:*1. **feigned high principles: *the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings _It would be sheer hypocrisy for them to turn around and do what they criticize in others._


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> RoadDog,
> I'm wondering about this too.
> 
> L & O


What I'm wondering is what is RoadDog's other handle on this site? :lol:


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

da Appleknocker said:


> Nick, I have been feeding deer in the UP for twenty years and have never seen them delay migration because there is food left. When its time to scram they know and they do.


I have been driving the highways up here year around for even longer than that and you learn real quick where people are feeding in the back yard through the winter and where they are not.

-na


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

da Appleknocker said:


> Road Dog, in post #165 I did not use "" "" around my statement, (taught his students that baiting was unethical in any form), I was interpretting the statement and I quote, "And as far as ah,ah, the angle from the legal side, I am current instructor for the IBHEF. When I start teaching that class, we base on ethics." Is that better. Sorry to disappoint.


Thank you for correcting and admitting that you were interpreting what he said. You think you know what he meant.



Liver and Onions said:


> RoadDog,
> I'm wondering about this too.
> 
> L & O


Yes I viewed the video.

My interpretation of the statement is that he was referring to his previous statement about scofflaws who presently defy the baiting ban. That is how ethics entered his discussion, he feels it is unethical to break the law.


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

I only have one handle that I use at the present time munstrlndr.

How bout you?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_&#8220;.......throwing out a *couple of gallons of shelled corn* will have a substantially negative impact on the resource, when the farmer next door is leaving 100 acres of corn on the stalk to dry or the hunters on the next 40 are knocking down the corn in front of their blind in their 3 acre food plot.&#8221;_

Ah, would that it be so.
That mythical, that idealized, that formerly legal: &#8220;_couple of gallons_&#8221;.
It&#8217;s a fiction.

Well, mostly a fiction. A relatively few hunters...albeit the most responsible ones.... stuck to the 2gallons. 
Even fewer spread that 2gallons over the required 100sqft

Nope. Michigan&#8217;s baiters, in actual practice, tend to dump their 50lb bag of corn in a convenient pyramid. A pyramid that was perhaps 16sqft..... 4'x4'.....maybe they kicked it around a bit to make it 36sqft.

That is a rich food table, a dense food table. Far denser than that 100acre corn field the poster describes....or, for that matter, the 3acre corn he describes as a plot.

&#8220;_2 gallons spread over 100sqft&#8221;........_was a requirement that way too many wanted to ignore and did so. 

If the bait community would have adhered to that 2gallons/100sqft practice we may not be in the pickle we are. Baiters have no one to blame except themselves.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

RoadDog said:


> I only have one handle that I use at the present time munstrlndr.
> 
> How bout you?


Bingo! Want to share with us who you were in a former life? :yikes::lol:

As for me, nope, never multi-nicked and I use the same screen name on all of the hunting related forums that I frequent. Believe me, my style is evident enough that if I used a different name, it would be all too obvious! :lol:


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> What I'm wondering is what is RoadDog's other handle on this site? :lol:


I was wondering the same thing. 

Hmmmmmmm...



Just sayin'.

KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> Ah, it's going to be so.
> that soon-to-be legal: &#8220;_couple of gallons _&#8221;.
> It&#8217;s the coming reality.


There, I fixed it for you. 

You better start hitting the Bottle FF because your hopes are going to be dashed this coming June. :lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> There, I fixed it for you.
> 
> You better start hitting the Bottle FF because your hopes are going to be dashed this coming June. :lol:


Well he is probably not going to need his fiber anymore cause he is going to just ****.


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

6inchtrack said:


> Well he is probably not going to need his fiber anymore cause he is going to just ****.



Dang, you guys are cold.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

RoadDog said:


> Thank you for correcting and admitting that you were interpreting what he said. You think you know what he meant.
> 
> 
> Yes I viewed the video.
> ...


Road Dog, why is it OK for you to interpret if I can't do it? His exact statement was, "To think that scofflaws sitting in here speaking, are saying that the State is making them villians and making them outlaws because they WANT to bait". Not one of them said they were breaking the law by currently baiting, or defying the ban. So again I ask, why can you interpret and I can't? :lol:


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> _.......throwing out a *couple of gallons of shelled corn* will have a substantially negative impact on the resource, when the farmer next door is leaving 100 acres of corn on the stalk to dry or the hunters on the next 40 are knocking down the corn in front of their blind in their 3 acre food plot._
> 
> Ah, would that it be so.
> That mythical, that idealized, that formerly legal: _couple of gallons_.
> ...


Fairfax, once again you are full of it. How much of the state did you cover on your daily walks? Must have been quite a lot for you to know how everyone baited. You're kinda like pinefarm and his "truckloads" of bait, you just have to keep painting that picture don't you? You, and guys like you are the reason non-hunters view baiting the way they do. Maybe someday I'll be able to return the favor.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

Fairfax1

Just how many of those people (breaking the baiting rules)did you report?

Are any of them your friends/relatives ?


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

da Appleknocker said:


> Road Dog, why is it OK for you to interpret if I can't do it? His exact statement was, "To think that scofflaws sitting in here speaking, are saying that the State is making them villians and making them outlaws because they WANT to bait". Not one of them said they were breaking the law by currently baiting, or defying the ban. So again I ask, why can you interpret and I can't? :lol:



Never said you couldn't interpret. I said your interpretation was wrong and it was.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Justin said:


> Fairfax, once again you are full of it. How much of the state did you cover on your daily walks? Must have been quite a lot for you to know how everyone baited. You're kinda like pinefarm and his "truckloads" of bait, you just have to keep painting that picture don't you? You, and guys like you are the reason non-hunters view baiting the way they do. Maybe someday I'll be able to return the favor.


Oh I don't know about full of it. He never said that everyone baited that way, just that very few (only the most responsible ones) stuck to the guidelines of 2 gallons spread over 100sq ft, which is something I tend to agree with. With the amount of illegal baiting that currently occurs in my area, I have little reason to believe that the people still buying bait were baiting in a responsible manner before the ban.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

All anyone has to do is look at all those trucks towing trailers loaded with bait up I75 and know that 1/2 a ton of bait aint gonna fit into a 2 gallon bucket. I travel I75 every day and see all the baiters heading north. Its more than just a few. To say that those guys are filling up a 2 gallon bucket and hauling it out to the woods every day is rediculous. Its more like drive the trailer down a new 2 track and dump it and then cut down a tree to block the obscure 2 track.This is what we get to look forward to again state wide.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_"Fairfax, once again you are full of it."_
Ah, Justin. We be cool.
You get a lotta slack from me 'cause I think you've been so right on the turkey stuff.

Deer and baiting?

Not so much.

But I ain't the type to hyperventilate over such stuff........despite your admission in a post in the not-too-distant past that you were one of those who --pre-2008---used to bait; but even then wouldn't follow the law.

So be it.

I ain't the bait police.
............................

Baiting in some form may come back. As one of the posters above hinted.
It's too soon to tell.
If it does, even in a quantity of say, 1gallon ziptop bag of wheat or shelled corn, I think it would be a wrongheaded decision. 
Sorta like being a little bit pregnant.

IMHO, baiters, as a whole --- with admirable exceptions....just don't have a track record for following our game protection regulations. To them a little bit of bait is good.....a whole lot is better. 

Should we not view the scofflaws in the TB-zone as the poster-child for the bait community? 

AND.....the deafening silence in condemning them by baiting's defenders on this forum.
....................................

poster *6inch* _".....cause he is going to just ****_. 


*6inch.....*did you really post something about the economics of the bait ban? 

If so, would you link us to it?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Some time ago when several regular posters were repeatedly making the claim that large illegal bait piles were the standard, I suggested that since many hunters now carry a camera, in the form of a cell phone with them when hunting, that when they came across one of these illegal piles that they take pictures of them and post them with the locations, time and date stamped, in this forum. This was several years ago, I think and I do not believe that anyone has yet to do so. With the gargantuan piles of feces covered carrots being as common as some would have you believe, it's a mystery as to why no photographic evidence has yet to show up? 

The only conclusion that comes to mind is that that maybe some of what gets described is composed of more fiction then fact. Or maybe the individuals who run across these illegal piles are trespassing and don't want to bring attention to that fact?


----------



## boostfan (Feb 7, 2011)

Fairfax,

I agree with a lot of your perceptions of baiters. I don't however agree with keeping baiting illegal because of people who don't adhere to rules. Law breakers will break them anyway. If responsible baiting is safe, why not allow responsible hunters to do it?


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

hunt-n-fool said:


> Fairfax1
> 
> Just how many of those people (breaking the baiting rules)did you report?
> 
> Are any of them your friends/relatives ?


deafening silence is your response to this one Fairfax1


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> If the bait community would have adhered to that 2gallons/100sqft practice we may not be in the pickle we are. Baiters have no one to blame except themselves.


 Wow... Kinda shallow ya think? :coco:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

hunt-n-fool said:


> deafening silence is your response to this one Fairfax1


Give him some time, he's busy giving advice about which type of apples to feed the deer with, over in the habitat forum. :lol:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=371850


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> This was several years ago, I think and I do not believe that anyone has yet to do so. With the gargantuan piles of feces covered carrots being as common as some would have you believe, it's a mystery as to why no photographic evidence has yet to show up?
> 
> The only conclusion that comes to mind is that that maybe some of what gets described is composed of more fiction then fact. Or maybe the individuals who run across these illegal piles are trespassing and don't want to bring attention to that fact?


Take a look at "dead short" profile pic (if you can't tell, it's a huge illegal bait pile) I wouldn't doubt if he has several more.

As for running across "illegal piles", sorry, can't really say I've seen them. Then again I'm only on my own property during season and not traipsing across other people's land looking for bait - I have better things to do. However, if I see the local gas station running out of bait multiple times during opening week and the kid at the grain elevator can't stuff bait in bags fast enough for those still willing to buy it, I have no reason to believe that baiting is/was occurring in a responsible manner.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

the ol addage........... 

If you cant beat em, lie like hell about them still stands true today !


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

Illegal bait pile found Sep 30 2007. Over 2 gallons and deposited on State Land before the season began. 

Yes, Dead Short was notified.

I find them every year.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

RoadDog said:


> Illegal bait pile found Sep 30 2007. Over 2 gallons and deposited on State Land before the season began.
> 
> Yes, Dead Short was notified.
> 
> I find them every year.


Well, that's one. Now we only need about 300,000 more pictures from 2007 showing illegal piles to support FF's contention that almost all of those who used bait when it was legal, exceeded the limits. I'm sure they will be forthcoming. 

By the way, still waiting for you to reveal the other names that you have posted on MS under. 

Cat got your tongue?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Finally watched the video, An initial obsevation is that, I think the bait/food plot comparison may be a good tactic. More focus on proposed regs would be good. Discrediting those opposed may be helpful.........I thought former Rep. Sheltrown did well.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Well, that's one. Now we only need about 300,000 more pictures from 2007 showing illegal piles to support FF's contention that almost all of those who used bait when it was legal, exceeded the limits. I'm sure they will be forthcoming.



Here is one that I came across a few years ago. I honestly can't tell if it's over 2 gallons or not. It appears to be to me but then again, I'm not the one that writes the tickets. At least it appears to be spread out enough.













KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

KPC said:


> Here is one that I came across a few years ago. I honestly can't tell if it's over 2 gallons or not. It appears to be to me but then again, I'm not the one that writes the tickets. At least it appears to be spread out enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Should be ok, since this quantity apparently does not pose a threat to the resource.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Should be ok, since this quantity apparently does not pose a threat to the resource.


Looks like an apple tree to me :lol: au natural!


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

Like sand through an hour glass, as the silence continues.....


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

A good slideshow might be helpful.......I also liked the fellow who brought up antler restriction in the tb zone. He seemed pretty critical of the NRC/DNR......Another thought would be the infamous letter to the landowners in the TB zone asking them not to plant certain food plots. The mdnr has already recognized the risk.

On the idea to plant food plots on public land....Is Madigan even aware that they did that on a scale bigger than what he was suggesting, in the past...RESULTS?......And does he need to be reminded that food plots were discontinued in favor of jack pines.

Just trying to think it through........


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

There were some good thoughts on here about the guys who put out the legal amount of bait and why should baiting be discontinued for the guys who are legite. I dont have any problems with those folks or baiting as a whole if everyone followed the rules.But its the guys that dont follow the rules and i think you would be a fool to conclude that it is not the vast majority. Its those folks that keep the deer nocturnal, or draw the deer into one central local. Disrupt the normal daytime travel patterns. Its those types of things that spoil it for the legal hunters. Its quite clear that the majority of the baiters are breaking the laws. Just look at all the bait that gets dispersed when its illegal let alone legal.
I dont need a damn picture to prove it either. Just do the math, figure it out a little bit. Joe baiter comes up north and puts a little bait out a week before opener, and then thinks should i put more out to keep the deer coming back while im gone? You betcha, Hmm will 2 gallons be enough? Hell no! I better dump this 20 bucks worth that was dumped in my truck. 
That is what is happening deny it or not but that is exactly what goes on. And this is what we will see all over again. Hell of a thing some folks our teaching a new generation.
Sorry if my opinion disturbs you.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> There were some good thoughts on here about the guys who put out the legal amount of bait and why should baiting be discontinued for the guys who are legite. I dont have any problems with those folks or baiting as a whole if everyone followed the rules.But its the guys that dont follow the rules and i think you would be a fool to conclude that it is not the vast majority. Its those folks that keep the deer nocturnal, or draw the deer into one central local. Disrupt the normal daytime travel patterns. Its those types of things that spoil it for the legal hunters. Its quite clear that the majority of the baiters are breaking the laws. Just look at all the bait that gets dispersed when its illegal let alone legal.
> I dont need a damn picture to prove it either. Just do the math, figure it out a little bit. Joe baiter comes up north and puts a little bait out a week before opener, and then thinks should i put more out to keep the deer coming back while im gone? You betcha, Hmm will 2 gallons be enough? Hell no! I better dump this 20 bucks worth that was dumped in my truck.
> That is what is happening deny it or not but that is exactly what goes on. And this is what we will see all over again. Hell of a thing some folks our teaching a new generation.
> Sorry if my opinion disturbs you.


In my opinion, the majority of any society will follow laws as written, the majority of the time, regardless if they agree with it or not.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

brushbuster said:


> I better dump this 20 bucks worth that was dumped in my truck.
> That is what is happening deny it or not but that is exactly what goes on. And this is what we will see all over again. Hell of a thing some folks our teaching a new generation.
> Sorry if my opinion disturbs you.


Your opinion doesn't disturb me at all. However, eliminating a "tool" completely, because some people choose to misuse it isn't the answer. Do you know how many people break game laws every while hunting with a rifle? Do we prosecute them for their infraction or do we eliminate rifles as a tool to hunt deer? 

I would say at least 95% of the people that drive cars routinely exceed the speed limit. Do we eliminate cars as a mode of transportation or do we ticket the offenders when we catch them?

KPC


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

The problem with anti baiters is simple bait can be placed in better spots than foodplots, spots with good cover or poor soil, and much cheaper and quicker results, that is in fact the great equalizer, they put alot of time and effort not to mention $$$ into the bait plots, Or the great hunters that scout and scout to find the so called magic spot only to learn someone changed the game for them with a bait site.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

brushbuster said:


> There were some good thoughts on here about the guys who put out the legal amount of bait and why should baiting be discontinued for the guys who are legite. I dont have any problems with those folks or baiting as a whole if everyone followed the rules.But its the guys that dont follow the rules and i think you would be a fool to conclude that it is not the vast majority. Its those folks that keep the deer nocturnal, or draw the deer into one central local. Disrupt the normal daytime travel patterns. Its those types of things that spoil it for the legal hunters. Its quite clear that the majority of the baiters are breaking the laws. Just look at all the bait that gets dispersed when its illegal let alone legal.
> I dont need a damn picture to prove it either. Just do the math, figure it out a little bit. Joe baiter comes up north and puts a little bait out a week before opener, and then thinks should i put more out to keep the deer coming back while im gone? You betcha, Hmm will 2 gallons be enough? Hell no! I better dump this 20 bucks worth that was dumped in my truck.
> That is what is happening deny it or not but that is exactly what goes on. And this is what we will see all over again. Hell of a thing some folks our teaching a new generation.
> Sorry if my opinion disturbs you.


You have a good point, And a few of the speakers touched on enforcement. Whatever the law is it needs to have enforcement and severe penaltys including loss of hunting priveleges.

I think if the pro baiting crowd were to include the idea of enforcement and increased penaltys for violations, in their campaign. It would have a positive effect on their efforts.


----------



## newaygogeorge (Aug 16, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> You have a good point, And a few of the speakers touched on enforcement. Whatever the law is it needs to have enforcement and severe penaltys including loss of hunting priveleges.
> 
> I think if the pro baiting crowd were to include the idea of enforcement and increased penaltys for violations, in their campaign. It would have a positive effect on their efforts.


humm, compromise, work together for common ground
best post in 10 pages swampbuck


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> You have a good point, And a few of the speakers touched on enforcement. Whatever the law is it needs to have enforcement and severe penaltys including loss of hunting priveleges.
> 
> I think if the pro baiting crowd were to include the idea of enforcement and increased penaltys for violations, in their campaign. It would have a positive effect on their efforts.



That sounds good and I agree but you know as well as the rest of us that an increase in penalties can only be enacted by the legislature. 

Increased enforcement is only effective if the local prosecutor and judge will take the time to make it so.

One more thing that should be discussed must be to educate the hunting public about the rule. It is amazing to me how many didn't know (or care to admit) what the maximum allowable amount of bait was. Some think it's 5 gallons others think it's a bucket full. Case in point, one of the speakers at the meeting (yes it's in the video) was under the impression the limit before the ban was 2.5 gallons..........not 2 gallons.


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

brushbuster said:


> There were some good thoughts on here about the guys who put out the legal amount of bait and why should baiting be discontinued for the guys who are legite. I dont have any problems with those folks or baiting as a whole if everyone followed the rules.But its the guys that dont follow the rules and i think you would be a fool to conclude that it is not the vast majority. Its those folks that keep the deer nocturnal, or draw the deer into one central local. Disrupt the normal daytime travel patterns. Its those types of things that spoil it for the legal hunters. Its quite clear that the majority of the baiters are breaking the laws. Just look at all the bait that gets dispersed when its illegal let alone legal.
> I dont need a damn picture to prove it either. Just do the math, figure it out a little bit. Joe baiter comes up north and puts a little bait out a week before opener, and then thinks should i put more out to keep the deer coming back while im gone? You betcha, Hmm will 2 gallons be enough? Hell no! I better dump this 20 bucks worth that was dumped in my truck.
> That is what is happening deny it or not but that is exactly what goes on. And this is what we will see all over again. Hell of a thing some folks our teaching a new generation.
> Sorry if my opinion disturbs you.


Agree with everything


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

William H Bonney said:


> In my opinion, the majority of any society will follow laws as written, the majority of the time, regardless if they agree with it or not.


For you WHB 

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/michigan

Be honest, how many of these laws did you break :lol:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

RoadDog said:


> That sounds good and I agree but you know as well as the rest of us that an increase in penalties can only be enacted by the legislature.


 That is a good point, And at first I agree, but then again. When the ban was enacted the penalty was set at up to $500....I dont believe the legislature did that, Who did.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> You have a good point, And a few of the speakers touched on enforcement. Whatever the law is it needs to have enforcement and severe penaltys including loss of hunting priveleges.


I think enforcement is the biggest issue. What I would like to see is that baiting stay banned, penalties increased, with a portion of that money being used as a reward to people who turn in baiters.

I'd just sit up at the local gas station and follow these people to their properties, phone the address in, and let the CO sort out the rest. I'd get to collect a nice little cash bonus during deer season too :evilsmile 

(just a pipe dream, I know :lol


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Radar420 said:


> I think enforcement is the biggest issue. What I would like to see is that baiting stay banned, penalties increased, with a portion of that money being used as a reward to people who turn in baiters.
> 
> I'd just sit up at the local gas station and follow these people to their properties, phone the address in, and let the CO sort out the rest. I'd get to collect a nice little cash bonus during deer season too :evilsmile
> 
> (just a pipe dream, I know :lol


This is not a pipe dream! "IF" the NRC allows baiting, and right now, that is a big "IF", it will be for certain types of bait (shelled corn) and VERY small amounts (one gallon or less). This will then draw a huge line in the sand as it relates to baiting because virtually all other bait foods (carrots, apples and beets will be 100% illegal.) Not only that, but carrots, apples and beets are certainly more visible than corn when placed on the ground--as in easier to spot!

Frankly, if the NRC does absolutely nothing as it relates to the baiting regulations (status quo or, allows a limited amount of baiting as I have just described), I do not see it altering human behavior on iota! 50% of the deer hunter universe is going to bait and 95% of them are going to be doing it illegally (wrong type of bait and/or in excess of volumes). So, to a certain degree, everything the NRC is doing right now is somewhat of a charade--widespread, illegal baiting is going to continue irrespective of whatever regulations are established!

Yes, rigid enforcement and stiffer penalties are only part of the answer--and needed. However; it is a "reactive" response..i.e. discover, trial, punish/fine. Regrettably though, fines and penalties will not change illegal behavior. It simply makes the law breakers to become better at their craft through stealth. 

In my opinion, the better way to alter human behavior is through the wallet and not the whip. The State must develop processes to assess fees and charges on those items that are used for illegal baiting. In other words, a bait tax! say, $3 per-bag of carrots sold at retail. etc. And, with the funds earmarked solely to the DNR just like lotto money is earmarked solely to education.

This does not imply that carrots and beets sold at the gas station are illegal. It simply states that certain identified products sold in certain venues will have a special tax assessed to them. So, if you don't want to pay the $3 per-bag tax on a bag of carrots, may I suggest that you buy your carrots at the grocery store produce section where the tax does not apply. 

In the Bible it is said "for the poor ye always have with ye." Similarly, it can be said that, " for baiters will always be amongst ye." In short, there is always going to be those that operate outside the scope of the law. And, deer baiting is perhaps the most widespread arena where laws and regulations are violated by so many, so frequently. They are here to stay. So, I say, if you can't beat them, tax em! Yes, it's a "sin tax" but remember..the only people paying the sin tax are the sinners!

Before you go all crazy on me..consider these benefits derived from these fees..how about funding those 50,000 acres of food plots on State land that Mr. Wheatlake proposed? How about wildlife habitat improvement? How about more HAP leases? How about no increase in hunting licence fees for the next 50 years!


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Riva I do like your idea about a sin tax. Any quantity of bait that exceeds 2 gallons should have a high (outrageously high.)and i mean high tax on it. The front end loader style of distributing bait should be so highly taxed high enough so that the owner of the tractor could have it paid for in 2- 3 dumps:lol:. If that method of selling bait was done away with we would see less and less unauthorized 2 tracks on public grounds and fewer people would abuse the rules. Most people are lazy and dont want to cary 4-5 bags to their stand.


----------



## ScrubBuck (Feb 1, 2010)

Come on now RIVA, what do apples hurt? You mean to tell me that if "bait" returns apples wouldn't be allowed. That's about as stupid as the ban anyways. What's the DNR going to try and do then make you cut down all the apple tree's in the country? A little corn and apples never hurt a thing. Haha.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

brushbuster said:


> Riva I do like your idea about a sin tax. Any quantity of bait that exceeds 2 gallons should have a high (outrageously high.)and i mean high tax on it. The front end loader style of distributing bait should be so highly taxed high enough so that the owner of the tractor could have it paid for in 2- 3 dumps:lol:. If that method of selling bait was done away with we would see less and less unauthorized 2 tracks on public grounds and fewer people would abuse the rules. Most people are lazy and dont want to cary 4-5 bags to their stand.


I'm confused, (I know I know it happens all the time) how would taxing the heck out of scoops of bait benefit the owner of the tractor so they could pay for the tractor faster?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

NoWake said:


> I'm confused, (I know I know it happens all the time) how would taxing the heck out of scoops of bait benefit the owner of the tractor so they could pay for the tractor faster?


 Your right that was a stupid statement. tax would go to the state Duh.
Sorry


----------



## mustang72 (Feb 13, 2005)

If I want to write a letter on where i stand on this issue where is the best place to send it? Thanks


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

mustang72 said:


> If I want to write a letter on where i stand on this issue where is the best place to send it? Thanks



http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_11862-26986--,00.html


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

William H Bonney said:


> Wouldn't you think if the USDA and Farm Bureau were so concerned about bTB, that they would be in favor of tightening up some regulations about where the farmers would be allowed to store their livestock food?


They have, to the point that it has put many out of business. The beef industry in that area has been devastated. Try and sell animals from inside the TB zone to any of the markets outside of it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

brdhntr said:


> They have, to the point that it has put many out of business.


I would love to see some supporting evidence that increased requirements for the storage of feed has put a cattle or dairy operation out of business.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > As for me, nope, never multi-nicked and I use the same screen name on all of the hunting related forums that I frequent. Believe me, my style is evident enough that if I used a different name, it would be all too obvious! :lol:


Hey! Aren't you the artist formerly known as Munsterlndr now going by CrossbowKid?:evil::lol::lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Those 40-bushel bags of shelled corn are for my corn burner (yes I have one)
The 5 bags of carrots are for canning (we do that)
We go to the cider mill and buy cider and the 5 bushels of apples we buy are to make apple pie filling to can and put up for a latter use.
And that truckload of sugar beets were purchased is for making alcohol in the still out back, opps forget that last one.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Radar420 said:


> For you WHB
> 
> http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/michigan
> 
> Be honest, how many of these laws did you break :lol:


I break half of those laws before I roll outta bed in the morning....:lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

mustang72 said:


> If I want to write a letter on where i stand on this issue where is the best place to send it? Thanks


Mail comments to;
Natural Resources Commission, 
P.O. Box 30028, 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 




E-Mail to; [email protected]


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> Kind of bassakwards seeing that the deer are carrying the disease and the cows are not
> Do you have to be a cat to get catscratch fever? and just whom carries Scarletfever?
> What a mongo


Cows are not carrying the disease? Tell that to the Emmett Co. farmer who rented a bTB positive bull to breed his cows last year and infected his herd.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

If he didn't ask for certification for that animal before putting it in with his herd or getting it tested himself, he saved some money but it cost him in the long run. He has only the person in the mirror to blame that one on.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> Kind of bassakwards seeing that the deer are carrying the disease and the cows are not


Well how did the deer get a cow disease in the first place?

Mongo? I'm lost.

We need to eradicate the cow herd. 
unlimited tags. 
It doesn't taste as good as venison but I'll do my part.
I'm going to need a bigger freezer.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> If he didn't ask for certification for that animal before putting it in with his herd or getting it tested himself, he saved some money but it cost him in the long run. He has only the person in the mirror to blame that one on.


I don't disagree with you on that point but you can make a similar argument about the farmers who risk their operations by not taking adequate steps to prevent store their feed in a manner where deer can't get to it. Farmers in the bTB zone who employed the fencing system developed by USDA have virtually eliminated the threat posed by deer infecting cattle feed, monitoring has shown that not one of the enclosures has been penetrated by deer. Average cost for those fences was around $7,500. How much is a cattle herd worth?

After bTB being a threat in the zone, why did it take the cattle farmers there over ten years to agree to adopt the recommended bio-security measures from USDA? Even with the program being pushed by MDA and USDA, less then half of the farmers there have agreed to employ those safeguards.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> After bTB being a threat in the zone, why did it take the cattle farmers there over ten years to agree to adopt the recommended bio-security measures from USDA? Even with the program being pushed by MDA and USDA, less then half of the farmers there have agreed to employ those safeguards.


I think you're asking the wrong person, maybe the farmers, USDA, MDA or someone that may live there, but not me.

Then the disease vector (bait piles or mountains) came into effect and the rest is history.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

6inchtrack said:


> Well how did the deer get a cow disease in the first place?


Food plotters put it there to get baiting banned, of course :lol:


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> ..........
> why did it take the cattle farmers there over ten years to agree to adopt the recommended bio-security measures from USDA? Even with the program being pushed by MDA and USDA, less then half of the farmers there have agreed to employ those safeguards.


Perhaps for the farmer with a very small herd, the cost of fencing isn't worth the smaller risk of disease.
Or perhaps some are just saying, "B..S.., this is my property and I'm going to do it my way" Just like a lot of property owners in the LP who continue to bait, they aren't going to let the government tell them that they can't feed or bait on the property that they own. Some on here want smaller government, but yet want a bigger government and more unenforceable rules when it comes to deer regulations in areas where there is no known disease.

L & O


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Liver and Onions said:


> Perhaps for the farmer with a very small herd, the cost of fencing isn't worth the smaller risk of disease.
> Or perhaps some are just saying, "B..S.., this is my property and I'm going to do it my way" Just like a lot of property owners in the LP who continue to bait, they aren't going to let the government tell them that they can't feed or bait on the property that they own. Some on here want smaller government, but yet want a bigger government and more unenforceable rules when it comes to deer regulations in areas where there is no known disease.
> 
> L & O


I've often wondered what the rationale behind NOT fencing off their cattle or feed is?? 

It seems painfully obvious what will happen if they don't fence it off, especially in the TB zone.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> Food plotters put it there to get baiting banned, of course :lol:


 Your post is kind of ironic.....It was the guys up in 452 that are now foodplotting, who's past baiting practice's have been identified as the cause of the problem.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Baiting doesn't cause disease, it's just a vector avenue. The food plots are to introduce CWD


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I think you know what/who I am talking about.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> swampbuck said:
> 
> 
> > Your post is kind of ironic.....It was the guys up in 452 that are now foodplotting, who's past baiting practice's have been identified as the cause of the problem.


Why? Because they owned infected cattle?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

A poster above asserts: _"You are obviously suffering from the same misconception that Dr. Mason is, that bait causes disease. If a free range deer comes down with lurking CWD it is not going to be caused by bait. It just simply is not, no matter how many times you or the good Doctor repeat that assertion._

Oh Jimminy Cricket!!!! 
Just how many miles does this Strawman have on his tires? Can there be any stuffing left in this fake argument?

The poster.(though and in all fairness to him, he is not alone in perpetrating the tired old fiction.though one has to question why he still hoists it up as hes been called out on it many times on these forums)..anyway, this poster calls up from the failed&tired bench the Strawman argument that those who oppose increasing the risk of disease transmission.are doing so solely because they think that bait causes CWD. Or causes bTB. Or causes any other infectious disease that deer can contract.

Munster, my friend, it aint true. What you believe --or maybe just claim ---just aint so. 
This side of the argument does not believe bait will cause CWD, or TB.
No matter how many times you claim we do ----we dont.

We believe the dumping vegetables in the woods in the manner Michigans baiting community does will unreasonably increase the risk of disease transmission. And, as another above poster prudently observed, it is a risk without a compensating reward.

I aint gonna belittle you by claiming Im typing slower, or in bigger font, or in different colors..I simply trust you will eventually get that picture after being told it multiple times.

You gotta move on in life, and put this old threadbare dance-step behind you.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> QDMA member #34744 expires 4/2014, or never...which ever is the latter.


Tony
You could even set up a trust in your will that would insure that you would still be a member of QDMA after your long gone and fertilizing the cemetery.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Another way for it to get here are the out of state hunters. They bring back an infected deer. Butcher it at home and then toss the bones hide and what not of the left overs out in their back field. 

The grounds/fields that the food plotters are turning over could have been former cattle farm pastures. They turn the ground over and bring some of the disease back to the surface for the current animals to become infected.


I hunt with a couple MD's. We are not a drinking club. Most are in the area we hunt. Alcohol usage will will cause brain damage. Some of these clubs it has become apparent they have been using alcohol for a long while. Knowing it will cause brain damage will not stop them from drinking it either. :lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> You gotta move on in life, and put this old threadbare dance-step behind you.


I'm going to keep this and repeat it to you over and over after the ban is lifted in June.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

btt, I will assist - just for the fun of it, because it wont affect me either way.......


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> Tony
> You could even set up a trust in your will that would insure that you would still be a member of QDMA after your long gone and fertilizing the cemetery.


 

Come on now... Seriously  I hope your not older then 18 :sad:


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

It is a relief to see that the poster of post number 313 has finally seen the light and now agrees that feeding wild animals vegatables does not cause disease. I'm glad we finally got that our of the way.

The conclusion then must be that as long as disease is not present, feeding wild animals fresh vegetables will not introduce disease into the herd.

I'm glad we are done arguing about that.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> A poster above asserts: _"You are obviously suffering from the same misconception that Dr. Mason is, that bait causes disease. If a free range deer comes down with lurking CWD it is not going to be caused by bait. It just simply is not, no matter how many times you or the good Doctor repeat that assertion._
> 
> Oh Jimminy Cricket!!!!
> Just how many miles does this Strawman have on his tires? Can there be any stuffing left in this fake argument?
> ...


Mr. Fairfax, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

brushbuster said:


> So... how do you legal baiters do it?


My wifes favorite spot was the only spot that repeated time and time again (other than firearm season. During firearm season it would be my mother in-laws spot and my wifes after thanksgiving doe blind) My wifes favorite spot is near an intersection of three runs that lead to two different bedding areas, because of man made and natural factors the deer hardly ever approach down wind with a prevailing wind.
Most every other spot is only ever hunted once or twice. I scout just like other hunters, I find runs that are used frequently, and look for shoot able areas in or very near cover. I put out 1 to 2 gallons the first time baited and then leave it alone for a day or two, and then I come in to hunt. I will refresh the spot with no more than a gallon (zip-lock bag) of bait and set up 25 to 30 yards away (I do not climb anymore). At the same time that all this is happening I am looking at and working on other spots for another day.
Before the ban my son would come with one of us on the weekends, I would place 2 gallons near my mother in-laws ground blind or another natural ground blind on Thursday or Friday so he could see deer (I only ever killed 1 deer with him setting with me). The first year of the ban was his first year hunting, He hasn't seen a deer while bow hunting and last year he never went out during the archery season.
Thats how I used to use bait. Now next fall is going to be different, I just can't get around like I used to. I am going to need to rely on what I've learned in the past and even try to draw the deer closer to the two tracks.
Now this was just me.

When my brother would come with the boys for firearm season some times they would make a trip before firearm season to scout and build blinds, in other years they relied on me and I would set them in spots that looked good and bait shooting lanes for them. They quit hunting after the first year of the ban (with his income, bringing home a deer justified spending the money for the trip).
My cousin also quit after that first year.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> dump&shoot advocacy vs professional wildlife management


We have not had professional wildlife management in Michigan for decades.


----------



## Manthus (Jul 5, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> We have not had professional wildlife management in Michigan for decades.


you don't consider yourself a professional?:lol:


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Don't consider you either.

I believe that who Michigan has now are just a little bit to close to special interest and lobbyist.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Six, so what party store/gas station do you own? Just want to make sure I avoid it. No one pushes baiting this much without having a agenda. U can't be this passionate about dumping carrots just because
you need to to kill a deer.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> So... how do you legal baiters do it? I havent baited in a long time but im curious as to how you guys who are legal bait. Do you buy one bag and then fill a 5 gallon bucket 1/3 of the way up? do you guys carry this bucket out to your stand every time you hunt? Do you guys hunt the stands in the mornings or evenings? Is the bait usualy still there when you get to your stand? It doesnt seem like it would be. It also seems that if the deer have been hanging around at night and then lay down next to the bait that you would kick them up in the morning. It also seems to me that you guys are dispersing a heck of alot of scent lugging bait out. Do you guys just hang a spin caster out on state land?
> I dont know it just seems like a lot of effort and money if you ask me. I have a hard enough time carrying my climber and bow out each time. I work up enough of a sweat just doing that. I couldnt imagine carrying a plastic bucket out with me. I use to hunt the trails that lead into the bait but that was before the size limits many years ago. I dont imagine there is much of a trail with just 2 gallons of bait. It also seems like a big expense to drive up north just to dump out 2 gallons of bait a week ahead of time.
> Sorry guys im just having a hard time figuring out how all you legal baiters find it worth the effort.
> Now if you guys arent doing it within the legal paramaters than why put up a fuss about it being banned? what does it matter if its lifted or not if your just breaking the rules anyways? Just curious. I know everyone here is doing legal like. Is it realy worth it?


spincast feeders. Fill them up in September with 350lbs of corn, and leave them turned off. Sometime mid-late in October (as the food sources begin to change) turn them on and set to dispense the legal amount of 2 gallons once per day. The corn will last about 28 days until the feeder runs out, which should last until approx. the second week of firearm.


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> My wife&#8217;s favorite spot was the only spot that repeated time and time again (other than firearm season. During firearm season it would be my mother in-laws spot and my wife&#8217;s after thanksgiving doe blind) My wife&#8217;s favorite spot is near an intersection of three runs that lead to two different bedding areas, because of man made and natural factors the deer hardly ever approach down wind with a prevailing wind.
> Most every other spot is only ever hunted once or twice. I scout just like other hunters, I find runs that are used frequently, and look for shoot able areas in or very near cover. I put out 1 to 2 gallons the first time baited and then leave it alone for a day or two, and then I come in to hunt. I will refresh the spot with no more than a gallon (zip-lock bag) of bait and set up 25 to 30 yards away (I do not climb anymore). At the same time that all this is happening I am looking at and working on other spots for another day.
> Before the ban my son would come with one of us on the weekends, I would place 2 gallons near my mother in-laws ground blind or another natural ground blind on Thursday or Friday so he could see deer (I only ever killed 1 deer with him setting with me). The first year of the ban was his first year hunting, He hasn't seen a deer while bow hunting and last year he never went out during the archery season.
> That&#8217;s how I used to use bait. Now next fall is going to be different, I just can't get around like I used to. I am going to need to rely on what I've learned in the past and even try to draw the deer closer to the two tracks.
> ...


 That is sad, I'm glad no one in our hunting party calls it quits after eating tag soup for just one year. None of us would be left.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

CBMLIFEMEMBER said:


> That is sad, I'm glad no one in our hunting party calls it quits after eating tag soup for just one year. None of us would be left.


 I agree... but different strokes for different folks and I guess.. Oh well the herd needs thinning:16suspect


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> These exchanges are always productive. When two divergent interests intersect ---- dump&shoot advocacy vs professional wildlife management ----you can always expect a lively dialogue.


Professional wildlife management? Would you be referring to that type of professionalism offered by those 'big buck' states such as WI, OH, and IN that currently allow baiting? Or does their 'dump and shoot' technique somehow not offer the same risk as MI?:16suspect

I'm also curious as to why you're not so vocal about all the other man made vectors that increase the risk of disease transmission? Could it be that your agenda is strictly focused on the one thing that you don't partake in while knowing full well the other practices you partake in ALSO increase risk? I'd have to think your Dew Drop Inn must be serving on tap a good healthy batch of ol' fashioned hypocrisy, no?


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Tracker83 said:


> spincast feeders. Fill them up in September with 350lbs of corn, and leave them turned off. Sometime mid-late in October (as the food sources begin to change) turn them on and set to dispense the legal amount of 2 gallons once per day. The corn will last about 28 days until the feeder runs out, which should last until approx. the second week of firearm.


Before the baiter-haters look down there nose at you with disgust I'll point out one flaw on the automatic feeding program.
It is possible for the deer not to show up for a regular scheduled 2 gallon drop resulting in the possibility of more than 2 gallons on the ground. 
At that point and time you should just turn yourself in.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> Before the baiter-haters look down there nose at you with disgust I'll point out one flaw on the automatic feeding program.
> It is possible for the deer not to show up for a regular scheduled 2 gallon drop resulting in the possibility of more than 2 gallons on the ground.
> At that point and time you should just turn yourself in.


Raccoons, porkies, turkeys, squirrels, blue jays and various other critters are pretty sound insurance that does not happen very often. 

What is that the food plot guys are always saying about their plots benifiting more then just deer? I get as least as many pics of other critters eating bait as I do deer.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Posted: (A pro-ban position): *..... dumping vegetables in the woods in the manner Michigans baiting community does will unreasonably increase the risk of disease transmission........as another above poster prudently observed, it is a risk without a compensating reward."*

*Response A:* . _......what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought._

Fair enough. I somewhat regret that I wasnt clear enough in my choice of language so as to sidestep the incoherent accusation; but, at the end of the day, I am satisfied enough that you could still comprehend it and be willing to participate in productive discourse. Appreciate the constructive insight.

*And then Response B:* _It is a relief to see ..........that feeding wild animals vegetables does not cause disease. I'm glad we finally got that out of the way.
The conclusion then must be that as long as disease is not present, feeding wild animals fresh vegetables will not introduce disease into the herd.
I'm glad we are done arguing about that. _

Well, it was never a real argument. It was a _strawman_.....an argumentative device that mis-characterizes the pro-ban position in order to appear to dismantle it. It is a common sleight-of-hand used in insincere debate. 
Whatever anxiety that was vexing you about the cause of deer diseases Im afraid was self-inflicted. Nonetheless, am relieved that you are relieved.

Then re: your as long as disease is not present observation -------Do you accept the rampant scofflawism that is practiced in the area of the TB zone? 

.................................
Lastly, as far as the high-fiving, chest-bumping frat-boy antics...........I gotta admit the little mouse-trap made me LMAO.

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

Lastly, x2 ........re: the DewDrop's Hypocricy. As in so many things in life.......it is a matter of degree. Dumping grain and vegetables in the deer woods for deer to congrete upon poses a greater risk of disease transmission than planting a highbush cranberry.

But a tip-o-the-tin-hat for contributing.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > What is that the food plot guys are always saying about their plots...


Tell us do!


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> Lastly, x2 ........re: the DewDrop's Hypocricy. As in so many things in life.......it is a matter of degree. Dumping grain and vegetables in the deer woods for deer to congrete upon poses a greater risk of disease transmission than planting a highbush cranberry.
> 
> But a tip-o-the-tin-hat for contributing.


 Perhaps you can point us to the study that shows the incremental degrees of risk each vegetable/grain product poses when it comes to planted vs dumped?

For example(but certainly not limited to):

A two gallon bucket of apples tossed vs 20 gallons of dropped apples from a planted tree?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> We have not had professional wildlife management in Michigan for decades.


Ever

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Speaking of hypocrisy.....one of the wildlife professionals that some speak so highly about made a very concise statement about the factors that increase the potential for the spread of disease. Only two were named and they were listed in order of concern.

Population

Aggregation


It continues to be an ongoing source of irony that the individuals who gnash their teeth and wring their hands continually over the evils inherent with the use of bait....are often the same individuals who are planting food sources and improving habitat in areas where the population density is already substantially over goal, thus contributing to the single highest risk factor for the spread of disease...............over-population

They also engage in planting food plots and trees solely for the use of deer, which has an indisputable aggregating effect, thus increasing the second highest risk factor for the spread of disease.

When brought their attention, this is blithely dismissed as a strawman, conveniently ignored because acknowledging it might force them to also acknowledge that the behaviors mentioned above only constitute an increased level of risk...........if disease is present, which is also true with the use of bait. 

But if they grudgingly cling to the point of view that disease is always present to pose a risk, then the behavior mentioned above, which potentially increases population and aggregation, simply becomes blatant hypocrisy, there is just no other way to describe it. The "do what I say, not what I do" attitude is wearing decidedly thin.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Speaking of hypocrisy.....one of the wildlife professionals that some speak so highly about made a very concise statement about the factors that increase the potential for the spread of disease. Only two were named and they were listed in order of concern.
> 
> Population
> 
> ...


Very well put!
When it is put on the table is it really about the "health of the herd" or is it about the "health of *MY* hunting"?
Honest answers only please.
I have installed the latest version of Personal Agenda Bulls**t Detector 8.5 onto my computer.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

wintrrun said:


> I have installed the latest version of Personal Agenda Bulls**t Detector 8.5 onto my computer.


Might want to turn the settings down to a 'low/moderate' level or your puter will undoubtedly freeze up


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Michihunter said:


> Perhaps you can point us to the study that shows the incremental degrees of risk each vegetable/grain product poses when it comes to planted vs dumped?
> 
> For example(but certainly not limited to):
> 
> A two gallon bucket of apples tossed vs 20 gallons of dropped apples from a planted tree?


It's gonna be a cold day in hell if this one ever gets answered.


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug05/3.html


----------



## SPH (Jan 20, 2004)

IEATANTLERS: I don't really care about the thread but I had a little snot come out with the photos and captions!!!


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Is that elk in the first pic showin' us his _'O Face _??


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

Wow some of you have way too much time on your hands. The amount of effort some of you are spending arguing and whining with each other is just hilarious. I wonder which team some of you will be on when were facing a real issue, like "fighing the antis to keep our hunting rights". The antis gotta be loving this right now. All the fighting amongst hunters. We should be taking the fight to the antis and not taking the fight to other hunters. Quite frankly a few of you probably could go back to 1st or 2nd grade and learn how to share or keep your comments to yourself. And without singling anyone out I think a few of you know who you are. We got bigger issues at hand than if someone does or does not want to bait. If its legal then so be it. If you do or do not want to do it then thats *YOUR* choice.....nobody elses. These baiting disputes have been going on long enough and its time for it to end. If it is legal it is legal so let it be. If it is not legal then its not legal so let it be. I am just amazed at how many people whine and cry when people don't do what they want them to do even when its completely within their legal right to do so. I don't like people shooting jakes or spearing small pike. Does that mean I can whine and cry when someone doesn't follow my lead. Hell no. Thats their choice, its not my choice but I don't care because they have the same rights as I do. We've got bigger fish to fry than this guys. Put it to bed and lets get some real issues corrected.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Ieatantlers said:


> Munster going right back to the age old tactics of showing bait piles vs. food plots. Haven't seen that before!
> 
> This whitetail forum gets more pathetic every day as long as this baiting thing carries on. Have you guys really nothing more important to argue about than freakin bait piles?
> 
> I'm about to go all Stinger63 up in here just to lock this thing down.


You have the right to remain silent. Please do not give up this right. 

We have heard your spiel too many times to care.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

*


HTC said:



They sell the same thing at Gander Mountain, it is called, "Food Plot in a Can". Marketed specifically to the hunter ...

Click to expand...

*...who has more money in his wallet than brains in his head.

:lol:

You do bring up an interesting point though. All these *"for the health of the herd"* folks that tell us about the 10, 20, 30, 40, and 80 acre food plots that are supposedly being planted to keep the deer spread out, I wonder how many *"food plot's in a can"* it takes to plant 40 acres?



KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

*


CaptainNorthwood said:



Wow some of you have way too much time on your hands... Put it to bed and lets get some real issues corrected.

Click to expand...

*With all due respect Cap, this is how the process works. Meetings are held (which is what this thread is all about by the way), people speak their minds, people write letters and emails, people make posts on talk forums (which you can *BET YOUR LAST DOLLAR *are being monitored by the people making the decisions). That's what a democracy does. That's how laws are made. If you are content to just sit back and abide by whatever law is made, that's fine. Other people want to be part of the process. If you consider that whining, that's your choice. 

And make *no mistake about it*, this forum, and what is posted here *IS* part of the process. It is being watched.



Oh, and I agree with you...who am I to judge what someone else does as long as they are acting within the law.

KPC


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

:lol::lol:


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Ieatantlers said:


> Case in point. You don't need bait piles for deer to be close and spreading germs.


 No but it sure helps....

Long live Stinger

I am very surprised no one has brought up the guy who got CWD from eating those baited deer in WI...heck we discussed everything else


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Go to this thread;

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358486&highlight=peta&page=4

Read post #129

The ban on bait would be the president in a court of law.


----------

