# 5 CASES CWD Hampshire County W.V.



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunterdude772 said:


> It is simply "the minority want to push their values and beliefs on the majority". Pure and simple. Not what freedom is all about.


:lol:

If you really believe that, there's a simple solution. Put together a petition drive, gather the signatures, and get a proposal to allow Michigan deer hunters to use bait on the ballot for all of the citizens of the state of Michigan to weigh in on.

If the baiting supporters gather 25% of the vote, I'll buy you a case of beer.


----------



## hunterdude772 (Oct 26, 2008)

farmlegend;

You know I didn't reply to your last post because all you ever offer is your own smart a** opinions and never anything useful to the conversation.

Maybe you could save it for someone who enjoys it.

Your personal attacks and name calling never seems to get addressed by the moderator. Yet others get censored.

I would appreciate if you disagree with me to keep it to what you disagree about and leave the snide personal attacks out.

Hart and pinefarm I'm interested in hearing from you about what we discussing.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunterdude772 said:


> farmlegend;
> You know I didn't reply to your last post because all you ever offer is your own smart a** opinions and never anything useful to the conversation.
> Maybe you could save it for someone who enjoys it.
> Your personal attacks and name calling never seems to get addressed by the moderator. Yet others get censored.
> I would appreciate if you disagree with me to keep it to what you disagree about and leave the snide personal attacks out.


Really! Go back and re-read 'em; all I've done is artfully illustrate how ridiculous your remarks are.


----------



## hunterdude772 (Oct 26, 2008)

farmlegend said:


> Really! Go back and re-read 'em; all I've done is artfully illustrate how ridiculous your remarks are.


For example:
"You don't disappoint, do you? You're just as irrational here as you've been all along"

Along with many others.

I'm just asking for you to those kind of comments to yourself.

Done talking about it.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunterdude772 said:


> For example:
> "You don't disappoint, do you? You're just as irrational here as you've been all along"
> Along with many others.
> I'm just asking for you to those kind of comments to yourself.
> Done talking about it.


HD, if it weren't for your ridiculous remarks, I wouldn't have made single post on this thread.

1. You were the one that suggested that those that support the baiiting ban are playing into the hands of anti-hunters. 
2. You suggested that the baiting ban will reduce hunter numbers by 30-50%, and that the future of hunting will be thereby imperiled. 
3. You claimed that the baiting ban represents a minority pushing their beliefs upon the majority. 

All of of the above are both unsupportable and ridiculous. When you make those sort of remarks you should not be surprised when others identify them for what they are.

If you're done, so am I, but I'll be back if you persist in being irrational.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

One thing I have learned in my 30+ years of hunting, put two "hunters" in a room and they'll find something to argue about. Be it method of take, opinions on game management or game regulations. We are our wost enemy and the anti's are licking their chops at the incessant infighting and they are looking for the next ***** in our armor. Dove hunting is gone thanks to "hunters" who drank the kool aid HSUS handed out. I wish I had a dollar for every "hunter" who told me they were not supporting the dove hunt, it makes me sick. Its not a matter of "if" they will go after another form of hunting, its "when". We had the hounds men fighting bobcat trapping in the l.p. We have bow hunters against cross bow full inclusion. And of course we have the bait v. anti bait crowd. We are cannibals eating our own, we might not see any more changes in our hunting lives but our grandchildren and great grandchildren just might.


----------



## hunterdude772 (Oct 26, 2008)

Spartan88 said:


> One thing I have learned in my 30+ years of hunting, put two "hunters" in a room and they'll find something to argue about. Be it method of take, opinions on game management or game regulations. We are our wost enemy and the anti's are licking their chops at the incessant infighting and they are looking for the next ***** in our armor. Dove hunting is gone thanks to "hunters" who drank the kool aid HSUS handed out. I wish I had a dollar for every "hunter" who told me they were not supporting the dove hunt, it makes me sick. Its not a matter of "if" they will go after another form of hunting, its "when". We had the hounds men fighting bobcat trapping in the l.p. We have bow hunters against cross bow full inclusion. And of course we have the bait v. anti bait crowd. We are cannibals eating our own, we might not see any more changes in our hunting lives but our grandchildren and great grandchildren just might.


 
My point exactly. I guess some are too blind to see or just don't want to admit it.

We should stand united. I don't wing hunt anymore but would never want to see others denied the opportunity (doves for example). Cross bow should be embraced if they even have a *chance* of bring new hunters into the sport or lengthen an older person chances of to keep hunting.

I wonder if we have such need to confront and disagree because of the nature of our sport? Seek and kill.

I don't know, but I for one am getting very tried of others telling me what is right and wrong for me just because that is what they practice. I am going to take my hunting and money out of state next year. If I have to move from state to state in the future because we the hunters assist these anti- hunters in their bid to take our chosen method of sport, then I'll do that.

Good post.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

The bait ban does not matter to me, I hunt the TB zone where its been banned for ten years. To be honest, I can draw more deer on one of my food plots than a carrot pile ever could. But lets be honest, my food plots are in fact bait and in the eyes of some, what I do is just as "reprehensible" as sitting over a pile of carrots. My method of take may be legal, but I will not tell a guy who hunts state land in Michigan that I'm happy he can no longer bait or that his method of take is inferior to mine.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Spartan88 said:


> The bait ban does not matter to me, I hunt the TB zone where its been banned for ten years. To be honest, I can draw more deer on one of my food plots than a carrot pile ever could. But lets be honest, my food plots are in fact bait and in the eyes of some, what I do is just as "reprehensible" as sitting over a pile of carrots. My method of take may be legal, but I will not tell a guy who hunts state land in Michigan that I'm happy he can no longer bait or that his method of take is inferior to mine.


 Thank for your honesty, You are one of only a handful of food plotters here who have been willing to admit the obvious... that food plots are bait


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

The bait ban does not matter to me, I hunt the TB zone where its been banned for ten years. To be honest, I can draw more deer on one of my food plots than a carrot pile ever could. But lets be honest, my food plots are in fact bait and in the eyes of some, what I do is just as "reprehensible" as sitting over a pile of carrots. My method of take may be legal, but I will not tell a guy who hunts state land in Michigan that I'm happy he can no longer bait or that his method of take is inferior to mine.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunterdude772 said:


> I don't know, but I for one am getting very tried of others telling me what is right and wrong for me just because that is what they practice.


Consider the possibility that the practices of others may be wholly irrelevant to the opinions they hold. 

Just a suggestion.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> farmlegend;
> 
> You know I didn't reply to your last post because all you ever offer is your own smart a** opinions and never anything useful to the conversation.
> 
> ...


:lol: Welcome to MS and deer management. Its getting worse and your exactly right!


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

hunterdude772 said:


> Hart, I'm somewhat confessed by your reply to my post. It seems you think I believe science is absolute. On the contrary I have come to realize that science is simply a guess. A guess about dinosaurs, a guess about space, a guess about global warming, a guess about God and yes a guess about medicine.
> 
> So now it comes down to who's guess do you choose to believe. Which becomes opinion. What I don't like is the twisting of said guesses to fit ones agenda. When twisted enough it is just a plain old lie.
> 
> ...


I don't believe there are many guesses about dinosaurs - I've seen near complete skeletons of them reconstructed. If you are predisposed to believe that their existence has not been 100% proven and there is still a debate, I think you're beyond help, with all due respect. Space? I think we've got a pretty good handle on that as well, except the "infinity" aspect. However, by definition, "infinity" is beyone quantification. Global warming? Ice caps are melting at alarming rates regardless of the abnormal snowfall we're seeing. I've seen no other good explanation for that, not even cyclical variations in the sun. God? The "existence" of God is nothing more than faith-based. There is zero science to support the existence of God, only religious dogma. Why is there so little written about the life of Jesus in his mid/later years? 

I prefer to subscribe to the guesses that are most based in science or tangible evidence. Science uses the term "educated guess". Again, I am biased in this direction due to my schooling. I can't and won't deny that.

When I used my "doctor" example, I wasn't referring specifically to "your" doctor, it was simply a rhetorical device. The examples of treatment you suggest above in red are extreme, and are neither what I suggested, or comparable to what DNR biologists are proposing in instituting a baiting ban. If they were to propose the flat-out eradication of the entire herd, I'd say that would be a closer analogy to what you suggest in your "treatments".

Being a biologist by schooling (though admittedly not a wildlife biologist per se) and after having served 11 years in the DNR/DEQ, I have an abundance of confidence that my last paragraph is true. I lived it for those 11 years during the Engler administration. 

However, to suggest that the antis are better funded than the pro-hunting lobby? I would take serious exception with that proposal. Without having the numbers at hand while I type this, I would say that I doubt PETA is better funded than the NRA. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Other than this past election cycle, the right has typically been better funded than the left (to the greatest extent).


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

hunterdude772 said:


> So the fact that Colorado has dealt with it for 40 years in captive herds and 28 years in the wild with <5% infection rate is not long enough to make a decision? Just how long do you think it takes?
> 
> I'd maybe agree with this, DNR biologists aren't willing to take that chance with the deer herd they're entrusted to manage, if these guys haven't had an agenda for ten years to try and ban baiting.
> 
> ...


The variables involved in studying a captive herd vs. a wild herd are numerous. Enough so for me to say that it's an apples/oranges comparison of _some_ value, but limited. This doesn't take into account genetic differences in Colorado's herd compared to ours (take a look at the differences in our own deer U.P./L.P. deer herds as an off-the-cuff example). 

I dispute your opinion of the DNR having an "agenda" to ban baiting. What is their motivation to say "no more baiting"? You think all DNR biologists are purists who don't bait? 

As I mentioned in my last reponse, I worked closely with them for 11 years, and I never saw an agenda except one: to manage the resources to the best of their ability based on the best available science. The only place in the issue that is devoid of politics is at the field level, among the field staff - the people offering up much of the advice to Lansing. Which, not coincidentally, is where all the politics originate. 

In my considered opinion, again based on my past experience working for the agency, I would politely suggest to you that your opinion regarding a minority wanting to push their values and beliefs on the majority is ill-informed. 

It's got nothing to do with freedom or anything like that. It's got everything to do with dedicated public servants who make dick for pay, are subjected to constant ridicule and second-guessing, and who get little to no thanks for their public service doing what they honestly feel is in the best interest of the resource and the Michigan public in general. 

Nothing more, nothing less. Again, I declare somewhat of a bias based on past experience, but it is nonetheless a bias based on experience.


----------



## pumpfake (Dec 12, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> Thank for your honesty, You are one of only a handful of food plotters here who have been willing to admit the obvious... that food plots are bait


No SH!! food is bait and that is all they have in common.


----------

