# Baiting Ban Here to Stay



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

blizzak said:


> Well, the point I was tring to make was when an economy or an individual is walking a financial tightrope, it doesn't take much to finish things off. The past time of his elected/paid officials shouldn't be shaking the rope, just because they don't care and they like shaking things for people.
> 
> I guess with your logic the cattle farmers in Michigan need to just switch to Turkeys and quit whineing about bTB. Any land that will grow cattle will grow a turkey and the entire NL doesn't have to pay for the DNRE/USDA mismanagement of bTB in the NELP. There are plenty of other states that produce cattle Michigan doesn't have to be in the game.


My logic infers that if a farmer made money selling bait, he would still make money selling other crops grown on the same land that was previously farmed for bait. It is not rocket science, its just smart business. I don't know of any markets turning away crop right now so common sense tells me that a crop farmer is a crop farmer and plants what the market bears. 

At the end of the day, baiting is done in the LP. It's time for some folks to get over it and move on. The horse is dead.


----------



## blizzak (Jan 8, 2009)

skipper34 said:


> If I am understanding this post, it is the baiting ban that has caused this dire situation?


No, I'm not stupid enough to believe the baiting ban is the source of all of Michigans woes. I realize there are people not comming north because there are more deer down south, they are not working, we've lost hunters, etc. 

However, from September 15- December 30th business owners could expect some business. Guys comming up getting bait, filling up, getting grocheries, fixing saws, and eating at restaurants. There is a substantial amount of people that just don't come or only come for the first couple of days since the ban, and I don't care how the DNRE wants to try and spin that and say it aint so. Bow hunters are becoming myth.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

blizzak said:


> No, I'm not stupid enough to believe the baiting ban is the source of all of Michigans woes. I realize there are people not comming north because there are more deer down south, they are not working, we've lost hunters, etc.
> 
> However, from September 15- December 30th business owners could expect some business. Guys comming up getting bait, filling up, getting grocheries, fixing saws, and eating at restaurants. There is a substantial amount of people that just don't come or only come for the first couple of days since the ban, and I don't care how the DNRE wants to try and spin that and say it aint so. Bow hunters are becoming myth.


Farmers have to find their niche to make a living. Not all farmers have the equipment to run all the different kinds of cash crops. Not all farm land will produce whatever you want to plant. Theres more to it than throwing some seed down and walla you make money.

Now as far as the NELP hunting since the TB rules started. I would say its about 40%-50% of the hunters that used to come up there. 
The 2 weeks of rifle season could account for 20-25% of their yearly sales at the small stores. Cut that amount in half and the small business has a hard time staying afloat up there without the deer hunters money. So yes the TB rules have probably cost some business their lively hood.


----------



## blizzak (Jan 8, 2009)

farmlegend said:


> It's worse than that, Blizzak. I'm convinced that North Korea's recent acts of belligerence to South Korea can be directly linked to the baiting ban. EU officials have privately disclosed that our baiting ban was a contributing factor to triggering Greece's financial collapse. Why, my own cousin down in Louisiana likewise blames Michigan's baiting ban for the BP oil spill. Devastating.


 farmlegend, how are things over there in ohio or canada or where are you from again. I was talking to your cousin the other day, not the one from Louisiana though, this one has some great information too. I'll share it in another thread sometime. Ta Ta for now, thanks for your insightful input, as always.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

blizzak said:


> .
> 
> However, from September 15- December 30th business owners could expect some business. Guys comming up getting bait, filling up, getting grocheries, fixing saws, and eating at restaurants. There is a substantial amount of people that just don't come or only come for the first couple of days since the ban, and I don't care how the DNRE wants to try and spin that and say it aint so. Bow hunters are becoming myth.


Sorry I disagree...But if you believe there is a substantial amount of hunters who dont come north just because of bait ..so be it

Why are they staying south where bait is also banned?...If bait is so important why dont they cross bridge where its legal ?

I'm just try'n to grasp how/why dumping 5(whatever it was) gallons of corn is keeping so many hunters away from the north when the rule encompasses the entire LP..


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

sbooy42 said:


> Sorry I disagree...But if you believe there is a substantial amount of hunters who dont come north just because of bait ..so be it
> 
> Why are they staying south where bait is also banned?...If bait is so important why dont they cross bridge where its legal ?
> 
> I'm just try'n to grasp how/why dumping 5(whatever it was) gallons of corn is keeping so many hunters away from the north when the rule encompasses the entire LP..


If you can't answer this question on your own perhaps you should think twice about posting opinions on the matter.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

MuskyDan said:


> If you can't answer this question on your own perhaps you should think twice about posting opinions on the matter.


YES SIR thought twice about it, maybe a 3rd time too
I have my thoughts on the subject they just conflict with what I'm reading...May be you can enlighten me on this bait thing


----------



## bucklessyooper (Jun 13, 2003)

Swamp Monster said:


> My logic infers that if a farmer made money selling bait, he would still make money selling other crops grown on the same land that was previously farmed for bait. It is not rocket science, its just smart business. I don't know of any markets turning away crop right now so common sense tells me that a crop farmer is a crop farmer and plants what the market bears.
> 
> At the end of the day, baiting is done in the LP. It's time for some folks to get over it and move on. The horse is dead.


It absolutely is not a "dead horse" and the issue needs to be brought to light again and again until the ban is lifted. This is the democratic process.

You will disagree because you don't like baiting, I am o.k. with that, it is your right. Just as it is my right to keep bringing the subject up.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bucklessyooper said:


> It absolutely is not a "dead horse" and the issue needs to be brought to light again and again until the ban is lifted. This is the democratic process.
> 
> You will disagree because you don't like baiting, I am o.k. with that, it is your right. Just as it is my right to keep bringing the subject up.


Sweet post!! I agree completely.


----------



## STEELCHASER5150 (Aug 23, 2006)

blizzak said:


> No, I'm not stupid enough to believe the baiting ban is the source of all of Michigans woes. I realize there are people not comming north because there are more deer down south, they are not working, we've lost hunters, etc.
> 
> However, from September 15- December 30th business owners could expect some business. Guys comming up getting bait, filling up, getting grocheries, fixing saws, and eating at restaurants. There is a substantial amount of people that just don't come or only come for the first couple of days since the ban, and I don't care how the DNRE wants to try and spin that and say it aint so. Bow hunters are becoming myth.


 Fixing Saw's huh, That's a Hoot FunnyMan...


----------



## blizzak (Jan 8, 2009)

STEELCHASER5150 said:


> Fixing Saw's huh, That's a Hoot FunnyMan...


 Alright I have a couple minutes to kill, enlighten me, whats so funny? A guy breaking his saw and getting it fixed is a bad example of the kind of business generated when people actually are at their places in the NL? Is the concept that a baiter could actuall use a saw suppose to be funny, or what?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

These baits threads mars threads tb threads are quite funny and sad ridiculous even. They should just ban hunting, and get it over with. Baiting is illegal, food plots arent.Get over it. Mars hasnt passed in nelp. wether it does or dont get over it. I cant wait until june then we can whine,belittle and gloat on another issue.


----------



## STEELCHASER5150 (Aug 23, 2006)

blizzak said:


> Alright I have a couple minutes to kill, enlighten me, whats so funny? A guy breaking his saw and getting it fixed is a bad example of the kind of business generated when people actually are at their places in the NL? Is the concept that a baiter could actuall use a saw suppose to be funny, or what?[/QUOTE All the other activities ya mentioned sounded about right,but fixing a saw....Sounded funny.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Traverse city record eagle on Feeding. . 

Deer baiting ban may be tweaked
----

LANSING &#8212; A state lawmaker says he's introducing legislation aimed at protecting people from prosecution if they inadvertently violate Michigan's ban on deer baiting.

The ban put in place in 2008 prohibits people from feeding or baiting free-ranging deer and elk in an effort to prevent the spread of disease among the animals.

Democratic Rep. Mark Meadows of East Lansing said in a statement Thursday he'll introduce legislation that would prevent the prosecution of people who unintentionally feed deer or elk.

The exclusion from prosecution would include people whose primary purpose is to feed birds or other animals rather than deer or elk.


----------



## RDS-1025 (Dec 1, 2008)

Gee, this wouldn't be a thinly veiled attempt at a GIANT LOOPHOLE now would it.


----------



## .480 (Feb 21, 2006)

Ya, I was just on the pig hunting forumn and they are telling you guys how to "legally" bait for pigs.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
Some guy says to put corn in a cylinder with holes drilled in it and deer won't eat it.
This is getting hysterical.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

bucklessyooper said:


> It absolutely is not a "dead horse" and the issue needs to be brought to light again and again until the ban is lifted. This is the democratic process.
> 
> You will disagree because you don't like baiting, I am o.k. with that, it is your right. Just as it is my right to keep bringing the subject up.


 It is not going to be lifted. It is indeed a "dead horse".


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

A CO told me he believes about half the hunters pay no attention to the No-baiting law.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Falk said:


> It is not going to be lifted. It is indeed a "dead horse".


Just curious, where did you get that info?


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

hunting man said:


> A CO told me he believes about half the hunters pay no attention to the No-baiting law.


Im sure some maybe even a lot of people disregard it, but for a CO to say half is BS. . maybe in his area he patrols, but I doubt that as well. . there is no way to put a number on it


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> Im sure some maybe even a lot of people disregard it, but for a CO to say half is BS. . maybe in his area he patrols, but I doubt that as well. . there is no way to put a number on it


Kinda like Ol Pinfarm constantly claiming that the majority exceeded the size limit. Where is the proof?


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Yes it was for his area. I asked for a rough estimate and thats what he told me.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

The poster in #101 observes:

_"Kinda like Ol Pinfarm constantly claiming that the majority exceeded the size limit. Where is the proof?_ 

The poster alludes to the M-S alumni '_Pinefarm'_....now retired (?), or perhaps deployed to Afganistan...who knows?

Regardless, I don't need to defend or explain PF.....he's quite capable. 
But to more directly respond to post #101:

It's true......there is little verifiable, quantifiable, 'proof' that most of those baiting under the pre-2008 rules were laying down more bait than the _"2-[_I]gallons spread over 100sqft"[/I] rule allowed.

I myself claim that is the case......however, I've got no substantiating proof. I do have plenty of my own anecdotal experiences of never seeing a single bait pile that met the legal strictures......but still it is only my word of my experiences.

But the poster of #101 needs be careful...... in that the sword he yields has two-edges: As I find no proof whatsoever that those who were baiting pre-2008 were doing it legally.
(I will concede that some, an admirable few, were doing it legally.)

In fact, I would argue that the merchandising of bait foodstuffs in Michigan pre-disposed baiters towards violating the rules......in that, packaging of foodstuffs was seldom---if ever---done in a '2-gallon' unit. And thus, those who bought their 60lb bag of corn; or 40lb bag of apples/beets, would then simply dump the whole contents of this single commercial "unit" onto a little pyramidal pile of about 3'x3'.

Intuitively I believe that because I think I know how folks behave in such situation after lugging 40 to 60lbs into the woods (or loading it onto their quads). At least, I think I know. 
And.......that is what I saw in the dozens and dozens of baitpiles I have personally observed over many years ----specifically, a compact pile of food product, and oftentimes, the plastic packaging bag nearby.

So, I guess if I ever get called to the witness stand my experiences could only be '_proof'_ in the sense of one witnesses' testimony.

Hard to say if that would be enough 'proof'. But it may counter to an unknown degree those who say baiters always baited in the legal manner.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> But the poster of #101 needs be careful...... in that the sword he yields has two-edges: As I find no proof whatsoever that those who were baiting pre-2008 were doing it legally.


How about past testimony from DNR law enforcement division personnel that indicated good compliance with the quantity limit that was in place at the time? I would say that might be reasonable "proof" that would debunk the oft employed tar brush that some like to employ, depicting the majority of baiter's as violators. 

Now granted, that testimony was regarding a specific portion of the State, the NELP, but I seem to remember reading something recently written by a sage old internet pontificator, _"Nonetheless, even without the bona fides of having ancenstral ties to the NELP......it is still deer hunting, ...... Which, with some relatively small variation, is fairly similar all over ...meaning, what you do and how you do it, is fairly familiar to those in Barry County as it is in Alcona."_ 

This would certainly seem to indicate that it's reasonable to believe that the experiences of those NELP DNR law enforcement personnel, vis a vis compliance with baiting quantity restrictions, are a reasonable representation of what might be found in other parts of the state, as well.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

A poster above states in observing that CO's in the NELP felt that compliance with the old (pre-2008) baiting rules was fairly good:

_"This would certainly seem to indicate that it's reasonable to believe that the experiences of those NELP DNR law enforcement personnel, vis a vis compliance with baiting quantity restrictions, are a reasonable representation of what might be found in other parts of the state, as well."_
...........................

Well, OK. That could be entered for the defense. 
But, at this point, without more evidence I remain unconvinced. It flies in the face of my own, admittedley narrow, experience. Still if the DNR itself...or, maybe better yet, those CO's who I personally know and trust....if they said the same, well, I'd start a re-think.
It would be a big pill......but I would approach it with an open mind.

I confess I struggle with believing that 'good compliance' was the norm......as I said my own eyeballs revealed it wasn't. And then, we get posts like this one a little earlier in this very same thread: 

_"A CO told me he believes about half the hunters pay no attention to the No-baiting law."_

It is the occassional jarring comment like that....maybe mis-heard, maybe wrong, maybe beer-talk, may be true......that plants the seed of doubt that compliance...now or then.....was utmost in the mind of those who chose to bait.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> A poster above states in observing that CO's in the NELP felt that compliance with the old (pre-2008) baiting rules was fairly good:
> 
> _"This would certainly seem to indicate that it's reasonable to believe that the experiences of those NELP DNR law enforcement personnel, vis a vis compliance with baiting quantity restrictions, are a reasonable representation of what might be found in other parts of the state, as well."_
> ...........................
> ...


How many legal baitpiles do you think those COs were called out to investigate? Of coarse the majority of the piles they see are going to be illegal. If they didn't happen to walk by mine within 12 hours they wouldn't see anything.:lol: Another thing to consider...the bag I carried out usually baited 3-4 different spots. Most of the guys I hunt with did the same.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

bucklessyooper said:


> It absolutely is not a "dead horse" and the issue needs to be brought to light again and again until the ban is lifted. This is the democratic process.
> 
> You will disagree because you don't like baiting, I am o.k. with that, it is your right. Just as it is my right to keep bringing the subject up.


It is not a democratic process. You have right to free speech, (and I have no probelm with anyone's opinion) but you don't have the option to "vote" to bait. You don't get a say in the matter. Neither do I. It is a dead horse. There is little if any chance at baiting becoming legal in the LP anytime soon. As for my personal feelings on baiting, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I know for some, even some on this thread, that without baiting, they are miserable...it's just not hunting if they can't haul a bag a carrots to the woods with them. I generally feel sorry for those folks. Hopefully the ban is in place for a couple of generations so the next couple of generations don't have the "I need bait to deer hunt" mentality. 
And then you have those that liken the bait debate to class warfare, claiming those that have the means to own property have the option to plant food plots and that is not fair. I have news for them, they have the same option, just buy property....lots of it for sale right now. Can't? Thats nobody's fault but their own, don't blame other property owners.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Swamp Monster said:


> It is not a democratic process. You have right to free speech, (and I have no probelm with anyone's opinion) but you don't have the option to "vote" to bait. You don't get a say in the matter. Neither do I. It is a dead horse. There is little if any chance at baiting becoming legal in the LP anytime soon. As for my personal feelings on baiting, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I know for some, even some on this thread, that without baiting, they are miserable...it's just not hunting if they can't haul a bag a carrots to the woods with them. I generally feel sorry for those folks. Hopefully the ban is in place for a couple of generations so the next couple of generations don't have the "I need bait to deer hunt" mentality.
> And then you have those that liken the bait debate to class warfare, claiming those that have the means to own property have the option to plant food plots and that is not fair. I have news for them, they have the same option, just buy property....lots of it for sale right now. Can't? Thats nobody's fault but their own, don't blame other property owners.


Your right and wrong at the same time. Most of the jackholes making the decisions are appointed rather than elected. No surprise most of the deer management issues are a done deal before you see them here. Just like most politics a few hand picked individuals swings the vote their way. But to say it's over is wrong, when people stick together things can be changed, unless your a person that just rolls over and plays dead


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

tommy-n said:


> Your right and wrong at the same time. Most of the jackholes making the decisions are appointed rather than elected. No surprise most of the deer management issues are a done deal before you see them here. Just like most politics a few hand picked individuals swings the vote their way. But to say it's over is wrong, when people stick together things can be changed, unless your a person that just rolls over and plays dead


Unless you can get some different folks appointed to the NRC, the chance is slim. Even if it were to go to ballot, imho, the non hunting public and the hunters against it would out number those that support it. Unless you can get bioligists hired for the DNRE or appointed to the NRC that are in favor of baiting, those that want it reinstated have a very long uphill battle. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## blizzak (Jan 8, 2009)

Swamp Monster said:


> Unless you can get some different folks appointed to the NRC, the chance is slim. Even if it were to go to ballot, imho, the non hunting public and the hunters against it would out number those that support it. Unless you can get bioligists hired for the DNRE or appointed to the NRC that are in favor of baiting, those that want it reinstated have a very long uphill battle. Again, just my opinion.


Hold up there cowboy, If this went to general ballot maybe, but the same could be said for QDMA, since when do we want people that don't hunt deciding our fate? I'm afraid you would find out just what a minority the anti baiting group is amoungst the brotherhood of hunters. You got any numbers to make us believe otherwise? 

If the ban, is because of a scientific reason, then there will never be a vote. However, the ripple affect that this feeding case in the NELP is going to have is interesting to say the least.

It's minimally showing that even intelligent, power yielding, goverment employees are stepping back and saying, wait a minute, really?????? She questioned the loosness of the law, however if she really believed he was a threat to the safety of the deer herd or the cattle, do you think she would of risked stepping up?

The DNR by using there magic (SCIENCE OK STAMP) every time they want to accomplish something and don't have political support is quickly losing support on many levels. In my opinion.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Swamp Monster said:


> Unless you can get some different folks appointed to the NRC, the chance is slim. Unless you can get bioligists hired for the DNRE or appointed to the NRC that are in favor of baiting, those that want it reinstated have a very long uphill battle. Again, just my opinion.


I'm not so sure that this is the case. I don't know whether you have gone to any NRC meetings and watched the commission in action, but the sense that I get from many if not most of the NRC commissioners is that they are not dyed-in-the-wool anti-baiters. I think the only reason that the ban was extended is because Steve Schmitt almost got down on his knees and begged them to keep it in place for another year, despite there being no other reported cases other then the captive deer in the index facility. I may be reading things wrong but just from comments that some of the commissioners have made and how they have responded to some public testimony, I would not at all be surprised that if there is no further evidence of CWD by next year, that they will be open to re-visiting the issue of limited baiting & feeding in the LP. Time will tell but I don't think that the issue is as dead as some of the dedicated anti-baiter's would like it to be.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

blizzak said:


> Hold up there cowboy, If this went to ballot I'm afraid you would find out just what a minority the anti baiting group is. You got any numbers to make us believe otherwise?
> 
> If not baiting, is because of a scientific reason, then there will never be a vote. However, the ripple affect that this feeding case in the NELP is going to have is interesting to say the least.
> 
> .


No numbers here how about you? You seem to know that anti baiters are the minority so I would love to see your data....... Remember, if it goes to ballot (It won't) everyone in the states gets to vote, even non hunters and ant-hunters. Still think non hunters are going to be in favor of baiting animals, especially their neighborhood deer? (remember, many non hunters that are ok with hunting never realized baiting was even an option) Think anti's are going to vote yes on bait? Northern Michigan doesn't have the clout to get it done.....not any more. The general hunting population has drifted to southern michigan.......happened years ago if you hadn't noticed. High deer numbers and high deer hunter numbers are not coming back to northern Michigan anytime soon. The habitat is what it is and supplemental feeding/baiting should not be introduced to keep these animals at higher levels than they should be. Just because going north with 300#'s of carrots in the back of the truck is tradition, it doesn't make it right. Just because you could join a club in NELP that brought semi loads of bait in daily, didn't mean it was good for the herd, or good for the hunter, but people did it. I've been down that road myself and don't miss the bait in the least.

I doubt there is much of a ripple effect. People are hurting because unemployment are at ridiculous levels. Business's are closing because people are not traveling, not spending nearly as much. Bringing back baiting is not going to change any of this. Deer numbers are still going to be kept low, people are still going to hunt more and more in the southern half of the state. if economics is the only argument pro baiters have, ya'll (in my best cowboy speak) are sunk.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Swamp Monster, I'm sure most intelligent people would understand what a farce the bait ban is if it was explained to them. However, with so many so called hunters painting false pictures and outright lies about baiting you are probably right. Just remember, what goes around comes around. I personally don't like foodplots, deer drives, buckshot, or many other types of hunting. I don't go out of my way to stop any of them. One day one of your methods of hunting may be under the gun. It's really a shame this is dividing hunters.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Justin said:


> Swamp Monster, I'm sure most intelligent people would understand what a farce the bait ban is if it was explained to them. However, with so many so called hunters painting false pictures and outright lies about baiting you are probably right. Just remember, what goes around comes around. I personally don't like foodplots, deer drives, buckshot, or many other types of hunting. I don't go out of my way to stop any of them. One day one of your methods of hunting may be under the gun. It's really a shame this is dividing hunters.


I'm not sure it's a farce. It can stand on it's own based on biological evidence, and given that info, intelligent folks could easily reason that baiting may not be a good idea. If by farce you mean that poachers disregard the law and continue to bait, you may have an argument. Seems to be a problem among those that thnk the baiting regulations don't apply to them. I have not gone out of my way to ban baiting or keep baiting illegal. I've never written a letter to any legislator, NRC member or DNR employee concening my opinions on the baiting issue. Maybe you put to much relevance on this forum.


----------



## blizzak (Jan 8, 2009)

Swamp Monster said:


> No numbers here how about you? You seem to know that anti baiters are the minority so I would love to see your data....... Remember, if it goes to ballot (It won't) everyone in the states gets to vote, even non hunters and ant-hunters. Still think non hunters are going to be in favor of baiting animals, especially their neighborhood deer? (remember, many non hunters that are ok with hunting never realized baiting was even an option) Think anti's are going to vote yes on bait? Northern Michigan doesn't have the clout to get it done.....not any more. The general hunting population has drifted to southern michigan.......happened years ago if you hadn't noticed. High deer numbers and high deer hunter numbers are not coming back to northern Michigan anytime soon. The habitat is what it is and supplemental feeding/baiting should not be introduced to keep these animals at higher levels than they should be. Just because going north with 300#'s of carrots in the back of the truck is tradition, it doesn't make it right. Just because you could join a club in NELP that brought semi loads of bait in daily, didn't mean it was good for the herd, or good for the hunter, but people did it. I've been down that road myself and don't miss the bait in the least.
> 
> I doubt there is much of a ripple effect. People are hurting because unemployment are at ridiculous levels. Business's are closing because people are not traveling, not spending nearly as much. Bringing back baiting is not going to change any of this. Deer numbers are still going to be kept low, people are still going to hunt more and more in the southern half of the state. if economics is the only argument pro baiters have, ya'll (in my best cowboy speak) are sunk.


 If the DNRE/NRC chooses to railroad this proposal through Thursday, with their (SCIENCE OK STAMP), I'll bet if there is still enough baiters in the NL to see if the general public views food plots as baiting.:yikes:


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> I'm not sure it's a farce. It can stand on it's own based on biological evidence, and given that info, intelligent folks could easily reason that baiting may not be a good idea. If by farce you mean that poachers disregard the law and continue to bait, you may have an argument. Seems to be a problem among those that thnk the baiting regulations don't apply to them. I have not gone out of my way to ban baiting or keep baiting illegal. I've never written a letter to any legislator, NRC member or DNR employee concening my opinions on the baiting issue. Maybe you put to much relevance on this forum.


Maybe I do. I've been told that before. My post was not meant to be directed toward you personally. The fact still stands...baiting does not cause disease where there is none to begin with.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Justin said:


> Maybe I do. I've been told that before. My post was not meant to be directed toward you personally. The fact still stands...baiting does not cause disease where there is none to begin with.


Gotcha. I agree, as far as we know, CWD does not exist. The key though is "As far as we know". We don't need to re-hash the disiease debate as it's been done round and round. But, the fact is we really don't know. CWD could be in our soil laying in wait. I see nothing wrong with taking precautionary measures. Like you I hope we never see it in our wild deer, just like I hope TB is under wraps as best it can be without drastic measures. Unfortunately those diseases are a potential threat or we wouldn't need to have this debate.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

What complicates the issue is that baiting is not the only practice proscribed by the ban. Feeding for recreational viewing is also banned and that takes it out of just being a hunting issue and into the court of the general public. While I agree with Swamp Monster that the general non-hunting public may view baiting used for hunting somewhat negatively, I think that for the most part they would support the use of feeding for recreational viewing, unless there was some very, very compelling evidence that it posed a serious threat to the deer. That evidence is almost totally lacking at this point. 

I think many would be surprised how popular recreational feeding was and how passionate people are about being able to feed and watch deer during the winter. I saw an 80 year old testify in front of the NRC, in tears, because he and his wife were no longer able to put out some corn for "their" deer. When the DNR comes in and starts issuing tickets to octogenarians who just want to put out a little food so they can get some enjoyment from watching their wildlife friends, I think that most normal, rational non-hunters look at such tactics and say "Are you kidding me? Turning people into criminals for putting out bird feeders?" 

After Watching the Commissioners listen to that elderly gentleman, it was clear that they would like nothing better then to allow people to feed deer again, the only thing stopping them was Dr. Schmitt's plea, that while it appears there is no CWD in the free ranging herd, we need at least another year of testing to make sure. The problem the NRC is going to have is that it will be very difficult to allow feeding because disease is no longer deemed to be a major threat but not to also allow baiting. Because of the position that puts them in, I would not be surprised if they reverse the ban next year, so that people can feed and also allow baiting to avoid the inevitable argument that allowing one without the other is hypocritical.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> that while it appears there is no CWD in the free ranging herd, we need at least another year of testing to make sure. .


There ya go!!!!!!!
There is your answer for all of you who can't stop complaining how ridiculous the ban is. These same people always agree with Munsterlndr on the baiting issues, so your king has spoken. (not a shot at you Munster) 
So hang in there for one more year and you will probably be able to dump your carrots and draw the deer to you away from your fellow hunters:evil:


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bucksnbows said:


> There ya go!!!!!!!
> There is your answer for all of you who can't stop complaining how ridiculous the ban is. These same people always agree with Munsterlndr on the baiting issues, so your king has spoken. (not a shot at you Munster)
> So hang in there for one more year and you will probably be able to dump your carrots and draw the deer to you away from your fellow hunters:evil:


Yes, kinda like the food plots do.:lol: As for agreeing with Munster on the baiting issues...why not. He makes more sense than anyone else here. Most of the pro-ban guys have hidden agendas or just always hated baiting.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> There ya go!!!!!!!
> There is your answer for all of you who can't stop complaining how ridiculous the ban is. These same people always agree with Munsterlndr on the baiting issues, so your king has spoken. (not a shot at you Munster)
> So hang in there for one more year and you will probably be able to dump your carrots and draw the deer to you away from your fellow hunters:evil:


:lol: I was quoting the venerable Dr. Schmitt there, that was not me saying that we need another year of testing. But I tell you what, if Steve Schmitt was willing to agree that if we keep the ban in place for another year and that if there are no further deer found to have CWD that the ban would then be rescinded and that baiting in small quantities would be allowed, I'd agree to that deal.

My suspicion is that Dr. Schmitt, after having stated that 3 years of no CWD positives would allow us a an acceptable probability rate indicating that CWD is not present, will then want to move the goal posts and say that we need a further period of testing to insure an even smaller degree of probability that CWD is not in the free ranging herd. I'd even go so far as to make that a prediction. But it's also my guess that the NRC, at least in it's current configuration, will be reluctant to swallow the argument that we need a longer period of evaluation. As I have said, the feeling that I get from the major players on the NRC is that they would like to restore recreational feeding and will go along with restoring baiting, as well, as long as no more positive deer show up in the next year.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Swamp Monster said:


> No numbers here how about you? You seem to know that anti baiters are the minority so I would love to see your data.......


Ah
Remember this?
.


----------



## neeso1aj (Aug 23, 2006)

beer and nuts said:


> Coming from a SE Michigan great white hunter. Oh please tell us hunter of grunt calls, scentlock clothing, carbon arrows and $800 bow, human elimination spray, badboy buggie, doe-in-heat, infrared cameras, corn field sitter, stilts blind heater user, kill plot planter, pay big bucks outfitter client, 3x9x50 scope user....how do you "actually" hunt again!!
> 
> Get over yourself would ya!!


 
I almost thought you were talking about me but my scope is a 6x18x50


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

6inchtrack said:


> Ah
> Remember this?
> .


Um, yea. Is that a statewide poll or an MS poll? That is a retorical question btw. Oh boy, 509 people make it official! :lol::lol:


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Swamp Monster said:


> Gotcha. I agree, as far as we know, CWD does not exist. The key though is "As far as we know". We don't need to re-hash the disiease debate as it's been done round and round. But, the fact is we really don't know. CWD could be in our soil laying in wait. I see nothing wrong with taking precautionary measures. Like you I hope we never see it in our wild deer, just like I hope TB is under wraps as best it can be without drastic measures. Unfortunately those diseases are a potential threat or we wouldn't need to have this debate.


Good post,,, and I think we all pretty much agree with this. 


Here comes the_ "but"_ though,,, shocker, I know, right?:lol:

Quite a few of the resident M-S.com Scientists have posted data from other states with CWD and the prevelance rate/transmission rate, whatever you call it,,, pretty much remained unchanged, with or without baiting. Even massive reductions of deer, really hasn't put a significant dent in the prevelance rate. 
The bottomline is,, if CWD is here,,, it's here! There's nothing we're going to be able to do about it. At this point though, what we do know is,, CWD is not this God Awful Disease that wipes out entire herds in a single bound (as evident from other states).


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Swamp Monster said:


> Um, yea. Is that a statewide poll or an MS poll? That is a retorical question btw. Oh boy, 509 people make it official! :lol::lol:


509 is actually a pretty decent sized sample group. If anything, I would guess that MS users would lean towards the non-baiting side of the spectrum. The results of this poll are very similar to the percentage of hunters who used bait when it was legal, so it's not really very earth shattering that a similar percentage would still be in favor of it. My guess is that if baiting was put up as a referendum among hunters that it would pass with an overwhelming majority.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Considering we have over 500,000 licended deer hunters, 500 is a good sample? If you say so....... If it were to go to vote, it would be open to all, not just hunters.


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Well there it is, we all knew it would happen. Baiting bans are going to hit every state on public land IMO. My guess is Texas will be the last state, the UP is going to have a ban also in the future.

Baiting has become taboo just like smoking. The deer biologist have made their decsion.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Swamp Monster said:


> If it were to go to vote, it would be open to all, not just hunters.


I would love to do the media campaign on that.

First I would point out the things that the DNR have said;

The best plan for preventing the spread of disease is lowering the population density numbers.
TB and CWD were found in certain areas of the state.
CWD was found inside a pen at a deer farm in Kent County.
After 2 years of testing, no additional cases of CWD have been found.
No CWD has ever been detected in the States wild deer population.
 
Baiting when legal is a tool that hunters use to harvest deer.

Bait brings deer to a location to offer the hunter a chance for a successful harvest.
There were rules and limits that allowed hunters to use bait in the aid to help them harvest deer. And there should be again.
The best way to lower deer population density numbers is by harvesting the animals.
Legal baiting would help to draw deer off properties for harvest that are not available or accessible for population control.
 
The DNR when trying to kill off the deer herd in the townships that surrounded the CWD discovery area used bait to draw the deer to their snipers.
So you see that baiting works.

A lower deer population would lower deer human contact such as automobile / deer accidents, some that cause human death.
A lower deer population would help decrease property damage caused by deer.
A lower deer population would help decrease loss to farmers from damage to crops due to deer.

Vote YES 
On the proposal to legalize the use of bait for deer hunting.​


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> Considering we have over 500,000 licended deer hunters, 500 is a good sample? If you say so....... If it were to go to vote, it would be open to all, not just hunters.


 If the general public got a chance to vote on this, I wonder what the results would be? Munster, please comment.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Falk said:


> If the general public got a chance to vote on this, I wonder what the results would be? Munster, please comment.


I wasn't suggesting that the general public vote on it, if you note my previous post I suggested polling hunters when they purchase licenses. 

Having said that, it all depends on how it was presented to the public. If they were informed that baiting increases hunter success rates thus helping mitigate the deer over-population problem and potentially reducing the number of car/deer accidents, property damage and human disease threats like Lyme disease, then I think you might be surprised how supportive the public might be. 

Kind of like if you promote QDM as being all about creating a healthy, more natural herd, non-hunters will tend to support it. If you present it as being a program developed by wealthy private land owners, designed to manipulate the natural environment and produce the trophy antlered bucks needed to satisfy their ego's, then I doubt the general public would be quite as accepting of it. 

It's all about how you package the message.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> I
> 
> Kind of like if you promote QDM as being all about creating a healthy, more natural herd, non-hunters will tend to support it. If you present it as being a program developed by wealthy private land owners, designed to manipulate the natural environment and produce the trophy antlered bucks needed to satisfy their ego's, then I doubt the general public would be quite as accepting of it.
> 
> It's all about how you package the message.


Oh The QDMA are marketing their package well. They are trying their best not to mention "Bigger Bucks" and harp on the healthier herd, better age structure. I predict they will have oohhh say ....10,000 members before too long.


----------



## ACE2311 (Mar 15, 2010)

Baiting is illeagal in the LP but legal in the UP. Isn't the UP the part of our state that borders Wisconsin ? Our only border state that has CWD.
If the goal of the ban is to prevent disease, then isn't this backwards? Bait restrictions were already in place to stop the spread of TB. This does not make any sense to me. I don't rely on bait but it is a tactic I like to have available. I use whatever technique I think will produce in a given situation and one has been taken from us and I have not heard a reason why yet that dosen't just smell funny.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

doublegun said:


> can't tell you about grunt calls, scentlock, sprays, badboy buggies, trail cams, heaters, paying an outfitter, or big glass. If you need all of that crap to kill a spindly *** 18-month old buck then you probably need all of the help you can get so i can understand why you would need bait to take a deer. Bating has been banned, hopefully for good - get over that.


 I agree with you. People are creatures of habit and have to complain that something they once had was taken away.


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

srconnell22 said:


> cliff's notes version?
> 
> Sorry, I'm really lazy...
> 
> I'm guessing the One Buck Rule I asked for wasn't included...:lol:


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> I would love to do the media campaign on that.
> 
> First I would point out the things that the DNR have said;
> 
> ...


 Warning: baiting does bring in the occasional slob hunters who will sabotage others and their sites.
Baiting will often cause hunters to quarrel and sometimes get down right angry with each other at the baiting site due to public land disputes and whose property belongs to who because someone was there first.
Baiting will also bring in unwanted litter,Illegal trails throughout the woods caused by pickups driving into the woods to dump the bait.
Not all baiters will oblige to the 2 gallon size restrictions this has been heavily documented when it was legal
The baiting of deer will cause deer to become nocturnal and veer of their normal grazing areas and it may cause the spread of certain diseases


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> Warning: baiting does bring in the occasional slob hunters who will sabotage others and their sites.
> Baiting will often cause hunters to quarrel and sometimes get down right angry with each other at the baiting site due to public land disputes and whose property belongs to who because someone was there first.
> Baiting will also bring in unwanted litter,Illegal trails throughout the woods caused by pickups driving into the woods to dump the bait.
> Not all baiters will oblige to the 2 gallon size restrictions this has been heavily documented when it was legal
> The baiting of deer will cause deer to become nocturnal and veer of their normal grazing areas and it may cause the spread of certain diseases


Hey, if gonna drive my truck all the way to my stand to unload my bait, than thats my spot!!!! I dont care what anyone says!!!!
















:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Its legal to bait in Ohio isn't it srconnell22?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

It is legal to bait in Ohio. Ohio has been doing it as long as they have had a legal season.However, buckeyes seem to understand things a little better than Michiganders and for whatever reason do not have the baiting issues that Michigan once did.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Those are the key words, and this does not only apply to baiting or even just hunting. There are people (slobs) who will take advantage and abuse the rules in everything.



brushbuster said:


> Warning: baiting does bring in the *occasional slob *hunters who will sabotage others and their sites.
> Baiting will often cause hunters to quarrel and sometimes get down right angry with each other at the baiting site due to public land disputes and whose property belongs to who because someone was there first.
> Baiting will also bring in unwanted litter,Illegal trails throughout the woods caused by pickups driving into the woods to dump the bait.
> Not all baiters will oblige to the 2 gallon size restrictions this has been heavily documented when it was legal
> The baiting of deer will cause deer to become nocturnal and veer of their normal grazing areas and it may cause the spread of certain diseases


Then there are people like us, who haul out other peoples litter, and not only hunter deposited liter.

.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> Those are the key words, and this does not only apply to baiting or even just hunting. There are people (slobs) who will take advantage and abuse the rules in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well I just thought if something is going to be marketable dont you think that the general public should be advised to some of the warnings associated with the marketable product. These sideaffects that i brought up are substantial and have and will occur again.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> It is legal to bait in Ohio. Ohio has been doing it as long as they have had a legal season.However, buckeyes seem to understand things a little better than Michiganders and for whatever reason do not have the baiting issues that Michigan once did.


They don't have near the numbers of hunters we have and they hunt the Ohio way. When I hunted in southern Ohio we would sit for a couple hours and then conduct deer drives. No need to bait if your not going to be sitting on the pile. No reason to tresspass either as we would all gather and have a deer drive. We would have most of the neighboring hunters with us. 

We were well known to take many deer every year. The OFG officers (C.O.)would stop right out at the farm to check us out each year. Saved us the trip to town to have our deer checked in too.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

brushbuster said:


> Well I just thought if something is going to be marketable dont you think that the general public should be advised to some of the warnings associated with the marketable product. These sideaffects that i brought up are substantial and have and will occur again.


OK
you lost me


.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> OK
> you lost me
> 
> 
> .


Sorry,
Your media campaign is actually trying to sell the public an idea that baiting is ok.What i am saying is if your going to sell the public something shouldnt you put in a few disclaimers on what it is your selling. Like the warnings i mentioned. After all dont you want the public informed on what it is they are voting on?


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Now wouldn't that be the opposition that would bring up the possibilities of these things that you are mentioning?


.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> Now wouldn't that be the opposition that would bring up the possibilities of these things that you are mentioning?
> 
> 
> .


Havent you ever seen the pill adds that have all those disclaimers on their products?


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

brushbuster said:


> Havent you ever seen the pill adds that have all those disclaimers on their products?


Yes, but I'm not sure why you think that this is similar. Would you feel better if each bag of bait had a disclaimer?

OK, now I'll work on this.



brushbuster said:


> Warning: baiting does bring in the occasional slob hunters who will sabotage others and their sites.
> Baiting will often cause hunters to quarrel and sometimes get down right angry with each other at the baiting site due to public land disputes and whose property belongs to who because someone was there first.
> I have never seen this. And the only place that I have heard about this is people talking about it on this web site (M.S.) and usually its second hand (hear say) Has anybody had to deal with this personally?
> 
> ...


 
.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

hunting man said:


> They don't have near the numbers of hunters we have and they hunt the Ohio way. When I hunted in southern Ohio we would sit for a couple hours and then conduct deer drives. No need to bait if your not going to be sitting on the pile. No reason to tresspass either as we would all gather and have a deer drive. We would have most of the neighboring hunters with us.
> 
> We were well known to take many deer every year. The OFG officers (C.O.)would stop right out at the farm to check us out each year. Saved us the trip to town to have our deer checked in too.


While true, they dont have the numbers we have. . . the way of hunting of a whole state cannot be put upon the area and people that you hunt with down there. . . 

If it were that way, then I would say the same about Michigan because I see more deer drives going on Opening day and the next 3 days then anywhere.. .


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

6inchtrack said:


> Yes, but I'm not sure why you think that this is similar. Would you feel better if each bag of bait had a disclaimer?
> 
> OK, now I'll work on this.
> 
> ...


I'll second everything you said.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

I haven't hunted the whole state of Ohio and of course don't know about all of it. Where we hunted it was common to push deer.


Ohio and Illinois hunting has way less pressure than most any where in the LP. With the exception of the 3 or 4 outfitter heavy counties such as Pike county in Ill. I hunt where its all private land for miles and miles. The most pressure I had to deal with in Ohio was when I hunted the Red Diamond dynamite factory property. The employees tend to hunt it hard for a few days.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> Yes, but I'm not sure why you think that this is similar. Would you feel better if each bag of bait had a disclaimer?
> 
> OK, now I'll work on this.
> 
> ...


You might want to consider getting glasses. It got so bad one year that the dnr had to put an insert into the hunting guide about public land issues. Fred trost did a show entirely on baiting and nocturnal deer.
Rob trot did a show on public land issues and baiting.
The entire reason why baiting was banned in the nelp was because of such theory.
Either get glasses or open your eyes


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

brushbuster said:


> You might want to consider getting glasses. It got so bad one year that the dnr had to put an insert into the hunting guide about public land issues. Fred trost did a show entirely on baiting and nocturnal deer.
> Rob trot did a show on public land issues and baiting.
> The entire reason why baiting was banned in the nelp was because of such theory.
> Either get glasses or open your eyes


Where do you hunt? Im sure glad that I dont hunt where you do.

If Fred Trost did a show then your probably talking 20 or so years ago, correct?
Back in the day's of truckloads of bait.
We also did truckloads, but only at one location on 80 acres, about 40 or 50 yards in front of my dads blind. And my dad never shot a deer while it was at the bait.
And the rest of us used to always see and take deer.

As for litter, I've picked up a lot, but most of it wasn't from hunters.

As for hunters quarreling, I have never witnessed or had somebody tell me first hand of it happening, I will not say that it doesnt happen, but I doubt that it is to the degree that you would have us believe. 


.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

I was confronted in a my state land blind once.
Opening morning a new trailer camp was setting near the spot I had parked at for over 10 years. 15 minutes before legal shooting light I heard foot steps coming from the road. A huge man steps up to my blind and demanded I get out of "his" blind. I asked "your blind" and he says "yes its my blind I have my bait pile right over here wheres yours?" I tried to explain that I or someone from my camp had sat right there for the last 10+ years and we don't use bait. He wouldn't hear of it and again demanded I leave "his" blind. Not wanting to have to shoot someone in self defense.:lol: I got up and left the blind. I walked over the edge of the ridge and sat at the bottom of the ridge where the deer come from. At 7:30 I shot a basket racked 8 point and again at about 8:45 took another bigger 8 point. I didn't wait for help to drag em out. I would drag one for 50 yards or so and then go back and drag the other up to the first. I made sure to drag right past "his" blind on my way out and took my time doing it. I yelled to him "Thanks buddy for getting me to move to the right spot". He was one angry big man but he did get to sit in "his" blind. 

Knowing he would return late to his bait pile the next morning. I deposited a nice pair of fresh logs on the seat of "His" blind.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

There's 1
You don't also crap in other guys ice shanties do you?
I read on here last winter about somebody craping in some guys ice shanty.

.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> You might want to consider getting glasses. It got so bad one year that the dnr had to put an insert into the hunting guide about public land issues. Fred trost did a show entirely on baiting and nocturnal deer.
> Rob trot did a show on public land issues and baiting.
> The entire reason why baiting was banned in the nelp was because of such theory.
> Either get glasses or open your eyes


This is the typical b.s. the bait haters always spew. In 35 years of hunting state land from the u.p. to Kent county and about 6 counties in between, neither myself or anyone I know ever had any "issues" over a bait pile. They actually make it easier to see where other guys are sitting, making those surprises at first light less likely. Also, I always thought baiting was banned in the nelp due to Tb.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

It wasn't always that way.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

hunting man said:


> A CO told me he believes about half the hunters pay no attention to the No-baiting law.


 
Until baiting is banned in the U.P. I believe thos stats are correct, how can anyone take it serious when there are bags of carrots and beats on every corner gas station.

In Northern Lower Mi. there is as much bait available as ever.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

hunting man said:


> I was confronted in a my state land blind once.
> Opening morning a new trailer camp was setting near the spot I had parked at for over 10 years. 15 minutes before legal shooting light I heard foot steps coming from the road. A huge man steps up to my blind and demanded I get out of "his" blind. I asked "your blind" and he says "yes its my blind I have my bait pile right over here wheres yours?" I tried to explain that I or someone from my camp had sat right there for the last 10+ years and we don't use bait. He wouldn't hear of it and again demanded I leave "his" blind. Not wanting to have to shoot someone in self defense.:lol: I got up and left the blind. I walked over the edge of the ridge and sat at the bottom of the ridge where the deer come from. At 7:30 I shot a basket racked 8 point and again at about 8:45 took another bigger 8 point. I didn't wait for help to drag em out. I would drag one for 50 yards or so and then go back and drag the other up to the first. I made sure to drag right past "his" blind on my way out and took my time doing it. I yelled to him "Thanks buddy for getting me to move to the right spot". He was one angry big man but he did get to sit in "his" blind.
> 
> Knowing he would return late to his bait pile the next morning. I deposited a nice pair of fresh logs on the seat of "His" blind.


wow. . . so you were mad that this "big guy" was pushing you around, and felt the need to act like a middle schooler? Karma. . .. you may both get it. . .


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> wow. . . so you were mad that this "big guy" was pushing you around, and felt the need to act like a middle schooler? Karma. . .. you may both get it. . .


He was pushing around a kid. Let it happen to your son and tell me how your Karma is running.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

so you are only 16? . . . ok. . there is a difference between "pushing around" and being an ass and telling you to leave. . . 

Taking a crap sounds like a 16 year olds revenge. . . thanks for clarifying. .


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Timberwork, that is Pet food! Pet goats, rabbits, horses, etc., those critters eat a ton you know:lol:.

There is no law banning the selling or the buying of it for the matter; only in the using it in front of a blind or I suppose where deer can get to it as the starvation plan is in force.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

ridgewalker said:


> Timberwork, that is Pet food! Pet goats, rabbits, horses, etc., those critters eat a ton you know:lol:.
> 
> There is no law banning the selling or the buying of it for the matter; only in the using it in front of a blind or I suppose where deer can get to it as the starvation plan is in force.


 
I agree that if anyone wants to bait they can, you will always have apples and corn available. 

But if baiting is banned in the ENTIRE state of Mi. you will no longer see bags of carrots and beats, the store owners will quit selling it.

Agree?


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

Michigan will have to ban the U.P. and it will still take years for Mi. to be known as a non-baiting State.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

It now seems like people always have and I would guess always will bait for deer. There is a whole generation that doesn't know any other way to hunt.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> I agree that if anyone wants to bait they can, you will always have apples and corn available.
> 
> But if baiting is banned in the ENTIRE state of Mi. you will no longer see bags of carrots and beats, the store owners will quit selling it.
> 
> Agree?


I wouldnt agree with that statement. . There are a LOT of places that still have signs up for "deer feed". . not just "carrots, apples". . etc. . Those places wouldnt quit selling it if it was banned statewide. . who is to stop them? No one. .


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

I would highly doubt you would see any carrots or beats for sale.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> I would highly doubt you would see any carrots or beats for sale.


give me some good reasons why you think that. . There is no one that would stop them, and people are still going to bait. . .Maybe after years of a statewide ban it would be reduced, but it would take just that. . . YEARS .. .


----------



## flinch (Aug 10, 2003)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> give me some good reasons why you think that. . There is no one that would stop them, and people are still going to bait. . .Maybe after years of a statewide ban it would be reduced, but it would take just that. . . YEARS .. .


Snagging still goes on but at least it has been significantly reduced. Will it ever be eliminated? Of course not. And neither will baiting, even years later as you state. Bait will continue to be sold and poachers will continue to bait. But at least it will be reduced if it is outlawed statewide. If it continues to be legal in the UP then it will continue to be significant in the lower.


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

hunting man said:


> There is a whole generation that doesn't know any other way to hunt.


I agree and it's pretty pathetic. Minimal skill and a truck - that's all they think they need.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Doublegun said:


> I agree and it's pretty pathetic. Minimal skill and a truck - that's all they think they need.


:lol::lol: Spoken like a 'real' hunter.:lol::lol:


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> give me some good reasons why you think that. . There is no one that would stop them, and people are still going to bait. . .Maybe after years of a statewide ban it would be reduced, but it would take just that. . . YEARS .. .


 
You actually think people will buy carrots and beats if the entire State of Mi. is banned from baiting? Nobody will sell it. There wont be a market.

The illegal baiters will go to the orchards and mills for apples and corn.

I have hunted Iowa and Ill. many times, and have yet to see bags of beets being sold. Even though the farmers might accidently spill some corn from time to time.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

The reason they don't sell sugar beets in Iwoa and Ill is the fact its pretty much useless, also too far to ship and sell, and when you have fields of corn and beans and great grasses, deer don't want sugar beets. 

Lots of outfitters and hunters do use lots of corn and block stations to attract and supplement deer as well.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct08/bait.html



> *Seventeen years after the Department of Natural Resources banned the practice*.................................... it's not hard to find when firearms season opens in November.
> 
> "I'm seeing baiting everywhere I fly, even in the farm areas,'' said Lt. Tom Pfingsten, a conservation officer-pilot who patrols much of the central portion of the state. "[In one case] they dumped corn in the corner of a plowed field, right in front of a deer stand.''
> 
> "It's one of those things I shake my head at because I don't understand why so many people are doing this,'' said Mark Johnson, executive director of the 19,000-member Minnesota Deer Hunters Association. "It's not going away. Baiting is a big problem that's getting bigger across more of the state.''


----------



## dallasdog (Nov 17, 2009)

michigans deer management is one of the worst wildlife programs ever it started a while ago and the heard is messed up, atleast they are doing something now, only time will tell if its right but they are doing something and it cant get any worse. People used to consider michigan one of the better places to hunt big white tales, now its probably one of the worst, they need to take a management plan from a state like PA, or KS and do something about it. PA the whole state has to have 3 points or more and a large portion have to have 4 or more on one side. People complained the first few years but now its not uncommon there to kill 8 pointers on state land. i think qdm is a good thing and i would like to see michigan use it more then it does.


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

dallasdog said:


> michigans deer management is one of the worst wildlife programs ever it started a while ago and the heard is messed up, atleast they are doing something now, only time will tell if its right but they are doing something and it cant get any worse. People used to consider michigan one of the better places to hunt big white tales, now its probably one of the worst, they need to take a management plan from a state like PA, or KS and do something about it. PA the whole state has to have 3 points or more and a large portion have to have 4 or more on one side. People complained the first few years but now its not uncommon there to kill 8 pointers on state land. i think qdm is a good thing and i would like to see michigan use it more then it does.


DD, save your breath. If Michigan hunters are whining because they can't bait they they aren't going to tolerate not being able to kill any/every buck that walks by. Don't you know they have a RIGHT to kill any buck they see?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Doublegun said:


> DD, save your breath. If Michigan hunters are whining because they can't bait they they aren't going to tolerate not being able to kill any/every buck that walks by. Don't you know they have a RIGHT to kill any legal buck they see?


 A small correction and ironically enough something that holds true for every state in the union.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> Don't you know they have a RIGHT to kill any buck they see?


 phew, I'm glad I live in Michigan!!


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

Michihunter said:


> A small correction and ironically enough something that holds true for every state in the union.


Really? Please show me where you have a legal right to hunt deer, let along kill deer in Michigan.

I'll make it easy for you; here's a link to the MI Legislatures website so you can look it up in the Michigan Compiled Laws. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2pxay145hrh5qg451ohfsres))/mileg.aspx?page=MCLBasicSearch


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Drop it Michihunter, he is an attorney and he is getting his technical rocks off..you win Doublegun...go follow a ambulance now.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

dallasdog said:


> michigans deer management is one of the worst wildlife programs ever it started a while ago and the heard is messed up, atleast they are doing something now, only time will tell if its right but they are doing something and it cant get any worse. People used to consider michigan one of the better places to hunt big white tales, now its probably one of the worst, they need to take a management plan from a state like PA, or KS and do something about it. PA the whole state has to have 3 points or more and a large portion have to have 4 or more on one side. People complained the first few years but now its not uncommon there to kill 8 pointers on state land. i think qdm is a good thing and i would like to see michigan use it more then it does.


Are you required to know how to spell the animal you're hunting in KS and PA?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> Drop it Michihunter, he is an attorney and he is getting his technical rocks off..you win Doublegun...go follow a ambulance now.


Even an attorney should understand the difference between an inherent or Constitutional right and a purchased or consumer right(licensed). But I'll take your advice and bow out of the semanticist's BS.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Was he one of the 50% that finished in the bottom half of their class? 
He must be using us for practice to sharpen his skills.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> You actually think people will buy carrots and beats if the entire State of Mi. is banned from baiting? Nobody will sell it. There wont be a market.
> 
> The illegal baiters will go to the orchards and mills for apples and corn.
> 
> I have hunted Iowa and Ill. many times, and have yet to see bags of beets being sold. Even though the farmers might accidently spill some corn from time to time.


Yes I do think people will still sell it and still buy it. . . It will be less and less every year, but it will not just "disappear" if the UP gets closed to baiting as well. . . Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. .


----------



## laterilus (Mar 18, 2006)

It's only wrong if you get caught!:evilsmile


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

They could speed up the process by increasing the baiting penalty......say mandatory $1500 fine, 30+ days, and loss of hunting for 3-5 years. They could also make a harvest over bait a poaching case and add those penaltys if a deer is killed over it.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

swampbuck said:


> They could speed up the process by increasing the baiting penalty......say mandatory $1500 fine, 30+ days, and loss of hunting for 3-5 years. They could also make a harvest over bait a poaching case and add those penaltys if a deer is killed over it.


I hear ya but that must be done by the legislature. Do you think the Honorable House Rep from your district would spearhead such legislation?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> I hear ya but that must be done by the legislature. Do you think the Honorable House Rep from your district would spearhead such legislation?


 I dont know for sure but doubt it, Probably wouldnt help the Senate run.. I was not very pleased with his actions after the ban......Although he did not push his ideas too hard. Maybe his brother will when He's elected. :idea:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Baiting is bad!:evilsmile


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Thunderhead said:


> I'd give _alot_ to see if you guys would talk to each other like you do here while actually standing face to face in the same place. Bet it'd be quite as a mouse in that room.
> 
> I've ran into some of the resident internet badasses of M-S while doing a show or on the road. When they found out who they were talking to, it didn't take long to beat feet. *NOT* that I was intimidating in any way, I don't do that. Figured that they musta left their internet balls at home cause they were quite nice and respectfull in person.
> 
> ...


thunderhead, as usual, you've hit it exactly on the mark...


----------



## doack (Dec 17, 2009)

swampbuck said:


> They could speed up the process by increasing the baiting penalty......say mandatory $1500 fine, 30+ days, and loss of hunting for 3-5 years. They could also make a harvest over bait a poaching case and add those penaltys if a deer is killed over it.


 
Hey Swampbuck, did you shoot that bear in your profile pick over a 50 gallon barrel stuffed with twinkies???? 


Thought so....


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

bucksnbows said:


> Baiting is bad!:evilsmile


I agree
Baiting is Bad Ass!
Helps the hunter successfully harvest deer.
And if a hunter doesn't want to use it, then dont.
Just do not push your bull over me.


.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

doack said:


> Hey Swampbuck, did you shoot that bear in your profile pick over a 50 gallon barrel stuffed with twinkies????
> 
> 
> Thought so....


 
So far baiting for bear is still legal, using a barrel isn't.


.


----------



## dallasdog (Nov 17, 2009)

baiting isnt the problem with the deer heard and by banning baiting wont fix the problem.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> Yes I do think people will still sell it and still buy it. . . It will be less and less every year, but it will not just "disappear" if the UP gets closed to baiting as well. . . Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. .


 
I disagree, if the U.P. is banned you wont see bags of carrots or beets anywhere. No one will sell it.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> I disagree, if the U.P. is banned you wont see bags of carrots or beets anywhere. No one will sell it.


If someone will buy it...someone will sell it!


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

lol, ok. . . the DNR will have a press release, and POOF. . . all bait will be gone from gas stations and sporting goods stores/hardwares/feed stores. . .


----------



## doack (Dec 17, 2009)

6inchtrack said:


> So far baiting for bear is still legal, using a barrel isn't.
> 
> 
> .


 
Just get a chuckle out of the "if you use bait you don't know how to hunt" crowd 6inchtrack, I realize its legal to bait for bear, but if swampbuck is such a great hunter, then why???


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> lol, ok. . . the DNR will have a press release, and POOF. . . all bait will be gone from gas stations and sporting goods stores/hardwares/feed stores. . .


What you smoking Mike?

.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

6inchtrack said:


> What you smoking Mike?
> 
> .


nothing. . its just funny how people think it will all just disappear if it gets banned in the U.P


some are living in a little fantasy world because they are too afraid of reality


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> nothing. . its just funny how people think it will all just disappear if it gets banned in the U.P
> 
> 
> some are living in a little fantasy world because they are too afraid of reality


 then wouldn't it just be illegal to use and maybe considered poaching


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Im referring to people who think it will up and disappear from the gas stations etc. . 

Yes, it would still be illegal to use, but people will still sell it, and of course people will still buy it. .


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

Every season I see people stocking up on C'mere deer, Deer Cane, and countless other $60 bags of acorns and stuff. Baiting isn't going away folks, it's just against the law. 

It's kind of funny how people who hunt on state land are more prone to being caught then those who bait/plot like crazy on private land.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Every season I see people stocking up on C'mere deer, Deer Cane, and countless other $60 bags of acorns and stuff. Baiting isn't going away folks, it's just against the law.
> 
> It's kind of funny how people who hunt on state land are more prone to being caught then those who bait/plot like crazy on private land.


I could not agree more, baiting is not going away. Kinda like speeding, it may be against the law but alot of folks keep doing it. If your a speeder your not a felon, but if your a baiter you are a POACHER. At least in the eyes of alot on these forums. Alot of people crack me up here, it's ok to break the laws they break but if you break one they don't you must be a poacher:lol:


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> I could not agree more, baiting is not going away. Kinda like speeding, it may be against the law but alot of folks keep doing it. If your a speeder your not a felon, but if your a baiter you are a POACHER. At least in the eyes of alot on these forums. Alot of people crack me up here, it's ok to break the laws they break but if you break one they don't you must be a poacher:lol:


I agree its not going away but it will slow down...

You have to commit a felony to become a felon.. speeding is not a felony therefore its not possible.  I'd bet if speeding was a felony more people would slow down..

So Tommy what do you call someone who breaks hunting and fishing laws?
Or what is your definition of a poacher?


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> You have to commit a felony to become a felon.. speeding is not a felon therefore its not possible.  I'd bet if speeding was a felony more people would slow down..
> 
> So Tommy what do you call someone who breaks hunting and fishing laws?
> Or what is your definition of a poacher?


Thanks for being the first sucker to fall into my trap, your correct there misdemeanors. My point is anyone that breaks any law is no better than someone that puts bait out illegally. Seems to be alot of people here that are quick to judge others before they look at themselves in the mirror. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Many,many people try to justify in their own minds what ever laws they break are fine, but if you or I do something different than them where no good.

One day a friend of mine stops by last fall and gets out of his truck with a open beer. Apperently he was on his way home from a gas station and just bought a bag of corn to throw out for the deer because he can't see any with-in bow range. He starts talking about a mutual freind and says that sob shot three bucks this year, two with his tags and one with his sons tag. He says "I ought to turn him in" I just laughed and said your no better than he is. You just got out of your truck with a beer open (more than half gone) and you got some bait to put out. He looks at me and says well, I replied well what, the truth hurts sometimes don't it


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> Thanks for being the first sucker to fall into my trap, your correct there misdemeanors. My point is anyone that breaks any law is no better than someone that puts bait out illegally. Seems to be alot of people here that are quick to judge others before they look at themselves in the mirror. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Many,many people try to justify in their own minds what ever laws they break are fine, but if you or I do something different than them where no good.
> 
> One day a friend of mine stops by last fall and gets out of his truck with a open beer. Apperently he was on his way home from a gas station and just bought a bag of corn to throw out for the deer because he can't see any with-in bow range. He starts talking about a mutual freind and says that sob shot three bucks this year, two with his tags and one with his sons tag. He says "I ought to turn him in" I just laughed and said your no better than he is. You just got out of your truck with a beer open (more than half gone) and you got some bait to put out. He looks at me and says well, I replied well what, the truth hurts sometimes don't it


Ya got me you SOB

Hey I know that guy too


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

:lol::lol::lol: I think we all know somebody like that


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

tommy-n said:


> I could not agree more, baiting is not going away. Kinda like speeding, it may be against the law but alot of folks keep doing it. If your a speeder your not a felon, but if your a baiter you are a POACHER. At least in the eyes of alot on these forums. Alot of people crack me up here, it's ok to break the laws they break but if you break one they don't you must be a poacher:lol:


The better analogy is to substitute shooting deer at night or hunting on property you don't have permission to be on for speeding. Those are both against the law yet people keep doing them so by your logic they are acceptable practices.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Skibum said:


> The better analogy is to substitute shooting deer at night or hunting on property you don't have permission to be on for speeding. Those are both against the law yet people keep doing them so by your logic they are acceptable practices.


Skibum, in all fairness I never said it's accectable. Just trying to make the point breaking the law is breaking the law. I guess it's up to the courts to decide which ones are more severe and what punishment fits the crime. I'm just saying someone that breaks a law really has no right to sit back and judge someone else for something they do, at least thats the way I feel


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

Oh, and if someone baits... it's considered "cheating" and against the rules!


Isn't the goal to reduce the deer herd? :lol: TB never comes up when they hear about someone baiting- it's more of a jealousy thing that someone didn't get a deer.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Oh, and if someone baits... it's considered "cheating" and against the rules!
> 
> 
> .


call it cheating, breaking rules or whatever...if its illegal its illegal


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

tommy-n said:


> Skibum, in all fairness I never said it's accectable. Just trying to make the point breaking the law is breaking the law. I guess it's up to the courts to decide which ones are more severe and what punishment fits the crime. I'm just saying someone that breaks a law really has no right to sit back and judge someone else for something they do, at least thats the way I feel


I disagree because you are basically saying there is no such thing as right or wrong. Based on your example a person who speeds has no right to judge the pedophile living next door because breaking the law is breaking the law. If I exceed the speed limit I know what I am doing is wrong and I'm willing to accept the penalty resulting from my own actions. I also can look at the behavior of others in light of the law, common decency, and social standards and form a viewpoint that judges that behavior as being right or wrong.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Skibum said:


> I disagree because you are basically saying there is no such thing as right or wrong. Based on your example a person who speeds has no right to judge the pedophile living next door because breaking the law is breaking the law. If I exceed the speed limit I know what I am doing is wrong and I'm willing to accept the penalty resulting from my own actions. I also can look at the behavior of others in light of the law, common decency, and social standards and form a viewpoint that judges that behavior as being right or wrong.


To each their own, I walk away with this thinking whatever laws YOU break are fine, but frown upon other for doing something wrong. 
Wrong is wrong, yes some things are more severe than others, at least we can agree on that


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> *Thanks for being the first sucker to fall into my trap*, your correct there misdemeanors. *My point is anyone that breaks any law is no better than someone that puts bait out illegally*. Seems to be alot of people here that are quick to judge others before they look at themselves in the mirror. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Many,many people try to justify in their own minds what ever laws they break are fine, but if you or I do something different than them where no good.


I'd love to see how your "logic" plays out when a pedophile moves in next door. 

The "sucker" in your trap is you. Here's the key, to use or throw away, your choice.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrapositive


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

I see your point

By the way when the pedophile touches one of my family members and I cap him, I also understand I am no better than the pedophile himself


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> I see your point
> 
> By the way when the pedophile touches one of my family members and I cap him, I also understand I am no better than the pedophile himself


I guess that would depend on what you did to him after you capped him.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

This is starting to get a little to far off topic

The only comment I have is "The bible says Adam and Eve", not Adam and Steve


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> Im referring to people who think it will up and disappear from the gas stations etc. .
> 
> Yes, it would still be illegal to use, but people will still sell it, and of course people will still buy it. .


Yep, especially the private property's that border one of the sections of state land where we hunt, they are still dumping truck and trailer loads.

One reason that we hunt the property lines.

.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

So if I speed all the way up north and texting my buddies and then putting bait out its illegal!?? Someone call the cops. i'm having too much fun!!:lol: Oh and drinking also!!:evilsmile
Scott


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

6inchtrack said:


> Yep, especially the private property's that border one of the sections of state land where we hunt, they are still dumping truck and trailer loads.
> 
> One reason that we hunt the property lines.
> 
> .



Even though I agree with your post and I don't really know all the details, let me throw this out there. Your always talking about hunting the property lines. Fine, but if you are within a certain distance from that bait I would guess the dnr could give you a ticket for hunting over it, even though you did not put it out. Is it really much difference than I hang a stand on state land and bait it. You come along and see the stand and decide to hunt over the bait or trails leading to it. Granted you never put the bait out yourself, but in some round about way your still hunting over it. Not really trying to start nothing but I'm sure it's happened before. What do you guys think?


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

fishinmachine2 said:


> So if I speed all the way up north and texting my buddies and then putting bait out its illegal!?? Someone call the cops. i'm having too much fun!!:lol: Oh and drinking also!!:evilsmile
> Scott


In my eyes your human. But in the eyes of some michigan sportsman forum members your a poacher,violator and felon.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

tommy-n said:


> Even though I agree with your post and I don't really know all the details, let me throw this out there. Your always talking about hunting the property lines. Fine, but if you are within a certain distance from that bait I would guess the dnr could give you a ticket for hunting over it, even though you did not put it out. Is it really much difference than I hang a stand on state land and bait it. You come along and see the stand and decide to hunt over the bait or trails leading to it. Granted you never put the bait out yourself, but in some round about way your still hunting over it. Not really trying to start nothing but I'm sure it's happened before. What do you guys think?


 
I would have to think you need to be caught redhanded hunting over bait?

Anyway ban the U.P. and we wont have this problem.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> nothing. . its just funny how people think it will all just disappear if it gets banned in the U.P
> 
> 
> some are living in a little fantasy world because they are too afraid of reality


No fantasy here dude, if there is NO bait at the stores and gas stations, it will all go away.

Many dont take it serious in lower Mi. cause there is bait being sold everywhere.

Ban the U.P. and nobody is gonna be buying or selling, zero market.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Timberwork said:


> No fantasy here dude, if there is NO bait at the stores and gas stations, it will all go away.
> 
> Many dont take it serious in lower Mi. cause there is bait being sold everywhere.
> 
> Ban the U.P. and nobody is gonna be buying or selling, zero market.


Do you really believe this? Stores and gas stations are not the only places to get this stuff. Do you really think that would end the market? What evidence is there that compliance in the UP would be better than in the LP? Buying bait or deer feed is not illegal. Using it to bait or feed deer is. There is a difference. At this point in time the DNRE has no authority to regulate commerce which is what buying and selling is.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

ridgewalker said:


> Do you really believe this? Stores and gas stations are not the only places to get this stuff. Do you really think that would end the market? What evidence is there that compliance in the UP would be better than in the LP? Buying bait or deer feed is not illegal. Using it to bait or feed deer is. There is a difference. At this point in time the DNRE has no authority to regulate commerce which is what buying and selling is.


 
You're missing the point,

If BAITING IS BANNED State wide, there is no loop hole. There is NO reason to buy or sell carrots and beets.

You wont be able to buy a trailer full of beets in Traverse City and say you're going to Escanaba on the weekend. 

There will be NO reason to sell beets or carrots. Sure you can run over to your local mill or orchard and buy corn and apples, that wont go away.

But your roadside bait stands are history.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> You're missing the point,
> 
> If BAITING IS BANNED State wide, there is no loop hole. There is NO reason to buy or sell carrots and beets.
> 
> ...


I think you are wrong. It will only make them buy it down the road or behind the barn of the farmers. Banned it in the lower and maybe half the hunters quit. I think there is a whole generation of bait and wait hunters now.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

If I were a betting man I would make a wager with you on that Timberwork, but I am not. In my post I was not speaking about geography but about other places that readily sell the items that you are concerned with in this thread. You are speaking about folks not selling a legal commodity. That will not end and noone is about to declare carrots and apples illegal items to market.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

ridgewalker said:


> If I were a betting man I would make a wager with you on that Timberwork, but I am not. In my post I was not speaking about geography but about other places that readily sell the items that you are concerned with in this thread. You are speaking about folks not selling a legal commodity. That will not end and noone is about to declare carrots and apples illegal items to market.


I will bet the days of gettin a scoop of carrots or beets would be OVER, if the baiting ban is STATEWIDE.

Trust me, I was the guy saying baiting was gonna be banned before it was banned.

Boy did I catch alot of hell for that.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> You're missing the point,
> 
> If BAITING IS BANNED State wide, there is no loop hole. There is NO reason to buy or sell carrots and beets.
> 
> ...


The reason people will STILL buy "bait" is because some people will still bait regardless of whether or not it is illegal. . 

The reason places will still sell "bait" is because of $$$. . 

Not everyone that sells bait asks people if they are going to take it to the U.P. . 

There may not be near as many places that sell them, but there will still be a LOT that do. . YOU are missing the point that just because it is illegal, doesnt mean everyone is just going to stop doing it. . 

If you are that ignorant to believe that everywhere but farms/mills/orchards will quit selling bait immediately, then I do not know what to tell you. . . 

Baiting IS banned in the LP. . so by your sense, the only ones that buy it are people oing to the U.P because there is "no market" for it in the LP. . 

Explain please? you think every roadside bait stand is only selling to people who go to the U.P?. . horsecrap. . and If you believe this. . then I don't know what to tell you. . lol


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

*Baiting Ban here to stay.*

Good.


----------



## Timberwork (Jun 18, 2010)

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> The reason people will STILL buy "bait" is because some people will still bait regardless of whether or not it is illegal. .
> 
> The reason places will still sell "bait" is because of $$$. .
> 
> ...


 
Right now if I buy a pickup load of beets in Traverse City I have an "excuse", I can say im going to the U.P. even though I might be going to Kalkaska to dump them.

But if it is illegal to bait in the U.P. then what am I gonna say about having a pickup load of beets? Im going to Ohio and hunt?

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Listen carefully, if Mi. has a STATEWIDE ban on baiting, there will no longer be any farm markets with mountains of beats and carrots for sale.

Who would buy it? Would you? There is no reason to have it, there is no excuse.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Timberwork said:


> Who would buy it? Would you? There is no reason to have it, there is no excuse.


 I think it would have an effect on the sales for sure. It may also slow production from local farmers and slow the imported goods. 
But you already gave one excuse (ohio) there is also people who actually buy this stuff for other reasons. Like feeding animals like horses, rabbits, goats, etc. Ever been to a petting zoo. So there is a market other than hunters, but yes, I do believe hunters are the main target of sale.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

How can anyone honestly question that IF baiting is banned statewide that that ban would not serve to be an inhibitor to the retail business of selling bait foodstuffs?

Gee.....if I was selling retail bait I surely would not look upon a statewide ban as a good thing. A market opportunity.

For that matter, if I had a thriving wholesale bait business in, say, Prudenville, I could ignore the current ban in the LP.

That's not to say some will not be sold...hell, look at dope, look at meth,etc. There will always be those who ply their trade outside the law.

But, the point is, once banned statewide the market becomes much more restricted. It no longer is a growth opportunity.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

There was significantly less activity at that place in Prudenville last year........but still a little too much.


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

tommy-n said:


> In my eyes your human. But in the eyes of some michigan sportsman forum members your a poacher,violator and felon.


I take it you have never had a loved one killed by a driver "just having fun" like fishinmachine 2 claims to be doing by speeding, texting, and drinking while driving? I hope he is just stirring the pot but I lost my mom to someone doing exactly those things. No, it had nothing to do with baiting but please don't try and rationalize that kind of behavior.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e (Feb 3, 2005)

Timberwork said:


> Right now if I buy a pickup load of beets in Traverse City I have an "excuse", I can say im going to the U.P. even though I might be going to Kalkaska to dump them.
> 
> But if it is illegal to bait in the U.P. then what am I gonna say about having a pickup load of beets? Im going to Ohio and hunt?
> 
> ...


lol, I understand that there will be less places that will sell it. . not arguing that. . 

MY point is that Your excuse of where you are going to use it is for yourself. . There are not CO questionnaires that need to be filled out when you buy bait, and frankly, I'm sure the store owners will not care what you are doing with it because they want the money!

Ive seen plenty of places that had signs up last year for "DEER FEED". . . not just "apples and corn for sale"

There will ALWAYS be a market for it. . 
May not be large, and it may be reduced year after year, BUT there will still be a market. . 

People will not quit buying it to use, and for that matter, how many businesses are against the ban to begin with and are still going to sell it because they know people will buy it?! I don't have numbers, but Ive bought licenses, shotgun shells, fishing tackle etc at enough places and talked to a lot of people who are against it. . 
They make money from it, they will not just give up if the ban goes statewide. . 

My point is the "excuse" of where it is going to be used doesnt make a difference. . thats a personal excuse. . I'd be willing to bet the guy you are handing your money to will not care. . PLUS, Oho is just as much of an excuse as the U.P!


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> How can anyone honestly question that IF baiting is banned statewide that that ban would not serve to be an inhibitor to the retail business of selling bait foodstuffs?
> 
> Gee.....if I was selling retail bait I surely would not look upon a statewide ban as a good thing. A market opportunity.
> 
> ...


Good post. Baiting won't completely go away and there will still be places that sell it but the market will change and you'll see a reduction in demand over time.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

tommy-n said:


> Even though I agree with your post and I don't really know all the details, let me throw this out there. Your always talking about hunting the property lines. Fine, but if you are within a certain distance from that bait I would guess the dnr could give you a ticket for hunting over it, even though you did not put it out. Is it really much difference than I hang a stand on state land and bait it. You come along and see the stand and decide to hunt over the bait or trails leading to it. Granted you never put the bait out yourself, but in some round about way your still hunting over it. Not really trying to start nothing but I'm sure it's happened before. What do you guys think?


First I oppose the ban (can't you tell), I would diffidently use bait if I could. We have killed a lot of deer using bait.
Now the private properties have the preferred food sources in the area, and now that we can no longer use bait to lure deer to us, we capitalize on the food sources that the private properties provide by hunting the edges and the runs going to and from those food sources.
None of the food plots or the bait that they place is visible to us (as far as I know). But either I or somebody that I know has witnessed the truck and trailer loads of bait. And it is not hard at all to figure out which runs the deer use coming and going. 
[/COLOR] 
Now are we going to debate an ethical issue?

Because I hunt a run leading to a food source (private property bait and food plots) its wrong?
But if I hunt a run that leads to an oak or apple tree it would be ok?
Not to me, I'm hunting for deer on runs from bedding areas to food sources. And I see nothing wrong with that.
But I do know that if I was allowed to put out my own food source again (bait) I just might be able to kill one of those buggers once again.

 
.


----------



## pete (Nov 27, 2007)

6inch-- your like a cock blocker at a bar. cant get your own so you sit on someone else. low life


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pete said:


> 6inch-- your like a cock blocker at a bar. cant get your own so you sit on someone else. low life


Just like the blocker at the bar, if your game ain't good enough to overcome, don't get mad at the player, get mad at the game.


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

Would you guys be mad if 6incher baited on his public land next to your private land and the deer changed their routes to the bait? If so... pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## pete (Nov 27, 2007)

no, but cutting me off next to my hunting spot would.


----------



## tomhorn (Jul 15, 2010)

pete said:


> 6inch-- your like a cock blocker at a bar. cant get your own so you sit on someone else. low life


 
I dont get it? Please explain.


----------



## tomhorn (Jul 15, 2010)

pete said:


> no, but cutting me off next to my hunting spot would.


 
What does cutting off mean? 

If I shoot a deer heading in YOUR direction on MY side of the fence is that cutting you off?

When you figure out how NOT to get CUT OFF in the State of Michigan without sittin in the middle of big piece of private property, let me know.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

pete said:


> 6inch-- your like a cock blocker at a bar. cant get your own so you sit on someone else. low life


Excuse me.
Yours / mine ?
When I set on State Land, and the deer is on State Land, and I kill it, then it's mine.
If you don't want me to kill a deer that you feel is is yours, then tell it to stay your property.

If I'm a low life for hunting the runs leading to and from food sources / bedding areas, well.....

HOW LOW CAN I GO? 

Mich. You said it, Blame the game. 
I never hunted the edges before the ban, didn't have to.


.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

pete {QUOTE} 6inch-- your like a cock blocker at a bar. cant get your own so you sit on someone else. low life 


Thats pretty funny, try sitting at the closest table in the runway to the ladies room. That way you;ll be the first and last thing they see when they squat. Maybe this will up your odds a little and you'll get lucky. Then you won't be so crabby anymore


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

6inchtrack said:


> Excuse me.
> Yours / mine ?
> When I set on State Land, and the deer is on State Land, and I kill it, then it's mine.
> If you don't want me to kill a deer that you feel is is yours, then tell it to stay your property.
> ...


I feel exactly the same.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Every season I see people stocking up on C'mere deer, Deer Cane, and countless other $60 bags of acorns and stuff. Baiting isn't going away folks, it's just against the law.
> 
> It's kind of funny how people who hunt on state land are more prone to being caught then those who bait/plot like crazy on private land.


 
I've seen a couple of real small bait spots on state land sense the ban went into place, no large ones anymore, but I have seen truck and trailer loads of bait being hauled into the private properties that boarder a couple of sections of state land that we like to hunt.

Last year I did see a couple of the guys that hunt one piece of state land that we hunt driving down a trail with a scoop of beats in the back of the truck, one guy was driving and the other was throwing beats off one side of the trail and then the other 
I asked what the heck they were doing, and was told "screwing with the dogs that were trained to find bait". :yikes: 
They probably covered a mile and a half to two miles of trail.

I didn't hunt there much after that last year.


.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

pete said:


> no, but cutting me off next to my hunting spot would.


I have never knowingly set up any closer than 100 yards from another hunter except my father (he sat on one side of a thicket, I sat on the other, about 45 yds).
And even further during the firearm season.
But I have had other hunter's set up closer than that to me. I would always try to make them aware of my location, some would move when they would notice me, some wouldn't.

What do you feel is no mans land or your comfort zone?



.


----------

