# NRC meeting today



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Some of the guys have used buckwheat up here in the past. Except for when it was planted closer to camp, the deer ate it to the ground after it was about 6 in. high. I like it and it is good for weed control. However if it is possible the boys might put in a few soys yet. It was surprising as the deer ate them down last year and the plants grew back once or twice. Then the guys did a little replanting. Usually there are some extra soys around one of the nearby farms from last year. For us, they grow as well as commercially treated seed and the price is right.

If the baiting thing is really back, we might use a little corn, corn screenings, or some other bite size stuff distributed out but that remains to be seen. Up here even the older bag piles didn't last more than three days. The two gal. amount lasts maybe a day or day and a half. I enjoy seeing the squirrels and birds go crazy over it. Occasionally a deer to three will come by, during the rut more because the does drag the bucks with them.(for some odd reason)


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> can anyone help me find these results from the extensive 3yr testing of cwd in MI deer herd???


Oh, you wanted the numbers? I thought you just wanted to know if it was posted anywhere. :lol:

11,368 deer tested over the last 3 years, 0 positive for CWD.

Follow this link for the 2008 numbers by county, on the right hand side there will be links for the 2009 & 2010 test results. 

http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,1607,7-186-25806_26404-202922--,00.html


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

soggybtmboys said:


> In all seriousness, I really don't care about baiting one way or the other



Seriously ? In my honest opinion, This whole baiting issue seems to bother you quite a bit...


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Not really, just tired of the bs from certain posters who believe they know more than the wildlife division.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

soggybtmboys said:


> Not really, just tired of the bs from certain posters who believe they know more than the wildlife division.


 
Heres my take on the biologists recommendation.
I am an Arborist w/ a Forestry Degree.
Too me life would be easier if everyone who called me to diagnose a problem with a tree, pruning recommendations and fertilization would just take my advice and have me cut every tree on there property down.
Why??? 
It would make my job that much easier.
I don't though. I love my job and take it seriously and do not sell people a line of crap based on my beliefs or what i think.
Its about the health of the canopy, ya know.

Til the biologists prove there theory on baiting is the root of all high risk,possible vectored, deer disease transmission tool than they can take there beliefs and park em where the sun don't shine.
Why???
Because they like all the anti's are still peddling the wave of fear that high fenced doe brought to us back in 08'. It points to, suspect, possible, etc..... are there new keywords. I want to hear the words " its a scientific fact".
Until that time you go right ahead and keep drinking that Koolaid there serving at the Bio Bar.

Ya know, if anything good comes out of this whole ordeal going on with in the hunting community. I would hope that you might change that wet Huggies thats got ya all worked up, Soggy. Because your obvious "coming out" of the baiter haters closet is somewhat overdue.
I am sure alot of others would as well.
Thanks ahead of time


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

While listening to the speakers, there were really only two that impressed me, one positively, one negatively.

First was the gentleman from the department of agriculture (never got his name) that basically said that although the department is in favor of keeping the ban in place, *"We admit we will never completely mitigate threats."* He also went on to say that the elimination of baiting and feeding could actually exacerbate the problems to agriculture/residential interests, as the less food there is on public land, the deer are going to migrate to the lands that offer the best food source. 

In my opinion, it was kind of refreshing to hear someone that while he has his own agenda, he understands that there needs to be give and take on both sides. No solution is going to be perfect, so how can we make the most people happy, while still doing what we can to protect all parties involved?

Contrast that with the fellow from the bTB advisory committee(Dr. James something or other), that when pressed with questions about the resumption of baiting and the split state status, he literally tripped all over himself trying to "finesse" an answer, and never really came up with one.

It was obvious to me, which one of those two individuals was actually seeking a working solution to the problems out there, and which one was just trying to advance an agenda.

Very telling.



KPC


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Oh, you wanted the numbers? I thought you just wanted to know if it was posted anywhere. :lol:
> 
> 11,368 deer tested over the last 3 years, 0 positive for CWD.
> 
> ...


 Yeah I figured you were mess'n with me
I have to admit when you responded I was wondering if you were feeling OK... That was the shortest post I've ever seen from you...:lol: 

Thanks for the link


----------



## walshaa1 (Aug 10, 2009)

I have an uncle who hunts outside of Madison, WI in the CWD hot zone of Wisconsin. There, they hunt corn fields and agricultural lands where he passes on 10 and maybe even 12 pt bucks because he only shoots 150 class deer and higher. The deer he passes on would be ones that I would give my pinky finger for to have walk by my stand.

Anyway, it has been my impression that CWD spread like wildfire across several counties in Wisconsin before much mitigation was done. However, due to the nature of the land they were inhabiting (primarily ag land) the disease was still spreading. The practice of baiting was not widespread. 

My question is this, how can we use WI as an example and how the spread of disease can be controlled through baiting? In WI, baiting had little effect. I believe the gentlemen a couple posts above was accurate in pointing out the fact that we will never be able to make a decision where we can actually mitigate the problem. 

Baiting or not, if CWD comes along, there will be problems and it will spread.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

I want to thank those that took the time to go and give your thoughts.
Especially at a time when our ranks are shrinking. You let everybody in the state know that we are still very concerned about what we all love to do.

Gas stations and mom and pop stores would not waste there time selling bait if they had to rely on the likes of me over the years. I am glad that the state land boys and small parcel owners will be able to bait again.

Hopefully the cwd plan will be altered to contain the area around where it is found when it shows up again. Putting the entire lower half of Mi. under the same plan hurt the credibility of those in charge of this problem. 

Soon I'll be putting minerals out on my piece of paradise. Today I'll be spraying a couple fruit trees for gypsy moths.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

walshaa1 said:


> Anyway, it has been my impression that CWD spread like wildfire across several counties in Wisconsin before much mitigation was done. However, due to the nature of the land they were inhabiting (primarily ag land) the disease was still spreading. The practice of baiting was not widespread.
> 
> My question is this, how can we use WI as an example and how the spread of disease can be controlled through baiting? In WI, baiting had little effect. I believe the gentlemen a couple posts above was accurate in pointing out the fact that we will never be able to make a decision where we can actually mitigate the problem.
> 
> Baiting or not, if CWD comes along, there will be problems and it will spread.


I would take issue with the statement highlighted in red, according to the best estimates available, based on prevalence and geographic modeling of the outbreak in Wisconsin, it's very likely that CWD has been in Wisconsin for 40 - 50 years, yet in large part has not spread outside of the two counties surrounding the core. That estimate comes from Davin Lopez who is the CWD project leader for the Wisconsin DNR.

There is no evidence that CWD spreads like "wildfire" anywhere that it's been found. It spreads slowly but surely, taking decades to expand it's core area and to reach any significant level of prevalence. 

This is not to downplay the threat, just to point out that if it does come to Michigan, it's not going to spread throughout the state in short order. If it was introduced in one location, it would likely be centuries until a significant portion of the state was faced with CWD. 

That is why the whole statewide baiting ban issue, in regards to CWD is a pure strawman argument, if we find CWD to be present, there is going to be plenty of time to change policy to mitigate the spread, by banning baiting and also curbing other factors that act as potential vectors. 

That's also why stepped up monitoring of the border counties is going to play a vital role in minimizing the potential impact, if CWD comes to Michigan by walking across the border. If we really want to take a proactive approach, we should be testing 200 - 300 deer per year in each of the 6 southern tier SLP counties and in each of the UP counties that border Wisconsin, that might actually provide some defense against helping to stop the spread of CWD in Michigan.


----------



## walshaa1 (Aug 10, 2009)

I appreciate the thoughtful, levelheaded, response munster. That statement was just my impression.

I guess I feel a little better about CWD if what you're saying is true. Not sure if that's good or bad though.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> I would take issue with the statement highlighted in red, according to the best estimates available, based on prevalence and geographic modeling of the outbreak in Wisconsin, it's very likely that CWD has been in Wisconsin for 40 - 50 years, yet in large part has not spread outside of the two counties surrounding the core. That estimate comes from Davin Lopez who is the CWD project leader for the Wisconsin DNR.
> 
> There is no evidence that CWD spreads like "wildfire" anywhere that it's been found. It spreads slowly but surely, taking decades to expand it's core area and to reach any significant level of prevalence.
> 
> ...


Another example to back your argument of baiting really being a small factor in the spread of CWD would be the western states. Colorado and Wyoming have been tracking and fighting CWD for decades in their mule deer herds. I've hunted in some of these infected counties and can tell you first hand that baiting is a non factor as far as hunting methods. The disease gradually spreads whether there is baiting or not. The questions seems to be if baiting will speed up the spread, NOT if it will eliminate the threat altogether because it is probably going to happen regardless. So far, whether it actually influences the spread has not officially been proven either way. It is still at the hypothesis stage of the scientific method we all learned in school.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Or......as Dr. Mason, the experienced professional biologist we have hired to advise us on wildlife issues, states:

_"The presence of bait or feed can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

And that could be CWD, that could be bTB, that could be brucellosis, that could be any number of diseases that can afflict wildlife.

But, part-time seasonal hobbyists who pour carrots on a pile and wait for a deer to show up know far more than university trained, field experienced, and highly regarded professionals may know.

Gee, who should I listen to?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

_"The presence of bait or feed can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."

"The presence of corn fields can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

_"The presence of pastures can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

_"The presence of water holes can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

_"The presence of cedar swamps can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."

"The presence of cattle feed can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."

"The presence of apple trees can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."
_
_"The presence of gardens can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

_"The presence of ornamental shrubs can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."

"The presence of food plots can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_

All true statements, the key word being c_an._ Selective regulation of individual vectors without eliminating others is essentially pointless.

Density control is the only prophylactic measure that is likely to have a meaningful impact on decreasing the spread of disease, because it limits all vectors equally, by limiting the vehicle for transmission, the deer.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> Or......as Dr. Mason, the experienced professional biologist we have hired to advise us on wildlife issues, states:
> 
> _"The presence of bait or feed can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_
> 
> ...


That has always been my thought. Even as smart and as convincing that some of the members here come across, at the end of the day I would go with the advice of the proffesional in most cases. 
Sure some one like munster could debate a good fight with the "professional" but still if I had to choose I would pick the biologist over a very well educated small business owner from TC.
Of course I am not for or against the ban so my train of thought is not leaning more to one side. 


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> Or......as Dr. Mason, the experienced professional biologist we have hired to advise us on wildlife issues, states:
> 
> _"The presence of bait or feed can accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection."_
> 
> ...


If you re-read the quote by Dr. Mason you will see the word "can". He did not say "does". A fine line I know, but in the scientific view it makes all the difference. The NRC members are educated individuals who are getting their information for this decision from other educated proffesionals, some of whom are considered experts in their field. What they are being told is that baiting, in the form we know it as, *may* lead to the spread of a disease once it is introduced into the herd. I don't question that theory as I am not a biologist and it does make sense to me. However, the NRC as was mentioned earlier is under tremendous pressure from both sides and they have to justify their decision. Justification upon a "theory", while not neccesarily the wrong thing to do, leaves themselves wide open for criticism and possible issues down the road with other policies they must decide on. He can replace the term "bait or feed" with "game farms" or "hay bales" and it would carry the same credibility and also be correct as far as we know. I don't see anybody seriously going after the USDA as far as placing heavier restrictions upon farmers and growers the same way they are going after the "baitpile".

Hopefully within a few years some of the ongoing studies on how baiting effects wild deer in terms of disease transmission will be completed and retested. Then the term "can" will be changed to "does" and baiting will be eliminated. Until then we are playing with a ton of untested variables and trying to make a true judgement call with an awful lot at stake.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

From a post above:

_I don't see anybody seriously going after the USDA as far as placing heavier restrictions upon farmers and growers the same way they are going after the "baitpile"._

No, we are not seeing such restrictions, nor should we. We NEED beef, NEED dairy, NEED pork----and pastures, and corn, hay, and feed. 
We do not NEED baiting.

Big difference. Key difference. Defining difference.
..

_. we are playing with a ton of untested variables and trying to make a true judgment call with an awful lot at stake._

Indeed, there is a lot at stakewhich mandates a sense of prudence and caution; particularly so when what is given up.baiting..is so minor, so insignificant, in our appreciation of and/or pursuit of wild deer. 

Putting at risk our wildlife resource.and not just deer, as Dr.Mason took pains to point out yesterday..by perpetuating the practice of dumping food in the woods for the sole reason it makes our hobby more fun is not what anyone can call prudent.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> Putting at risk our wildlife resource.and not just deer, as Dr.Mason took pains to point out yesterday..by perpetuating the practice of dumping food in the woods for the sole reason it makes our hobby more fun is not what anyone can call prudent.


Yet you continue to dump food in the woods.......

Cut down your apple trees, root up your brassicas and then maybe one could view your alarmist obsession with baiting with a slightly more compelling degree of legitimacy.

Barring that, it simply continues to be an endless repetition of "do what I say, not what I do".


----------



## Magic Man (Apr 17, 2010)

I have not chimed in on any of this stuff til now and I am not a biologist rather apply common sense. Wouldn't it make the most sense when an animal is spreading a disease to eliminate the carrier, the animal. I mean come on when mice were found to carry the plague they didn't outlaw cheese, they killed the mice. Maybe the NRC and DNR should look to better population control practices as a means to prevent disease.

Just doesn't make any sense to take away an advantage that was used by the vast majority of Michigan hunters. Who by the way are the DNR's best asset to control the population. I think the NRC and DNR understand this, now.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> Or......as Dr. Mason, the experienced professional biologist we have hired to advise us on wildlife issues...


Just curious, would that be the same Dr. Mason that uses (I've heard him say it multiple times, so it's not an accident) the completely inaccurate, and totally misleading analogy when responding to those of us that say there is no need for a bait ban in an area where no disease is present...

*"That's to me like saying when I get cancer, I will quit smoking."*

The problem is, smoking *causes* cancer. Bait most certainly *does not* cause TB or CWD.

It can absolutely be proven that smoking causes cancer. It doesn't spread cancer, it causes it. It causes it in certain people whether or not any cancer is present in anyone else.

On the other hand, if there is no disease present, no amount of bait is going to cause it. Fact.

To suggest otherwise is simply untrue. (effective to your cause perhaps, but untrue just the same.)

KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> No, we are not seeing such restrictions, nor should we. We NEED beef, NEED dairy, NEED pork----and pastures, and corn, hay, and feed.
> We do not NEED baiting.
> 
> Big difference. Key difference. Defining difference.
> ..


What about the gentleman from the Dept. of Ag. that suggested that removing all foodstuffs from public land might actually make the threats WORSE on ag and residential lands. After all, as he said, these are free ranging deer and they will migrate to where the food is. That's what deer do.

If I didn't know better, I would almost think that certain posters seem to want to pick and choose which "experts" they choose to believe.

KPC


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> e.
> ..
> 
> __
> ...


With so much at stake, it seems like the farmers would be taking steps to protect their investment. Until I see that happening, why should I care? They don't seem too worried.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

KPC said:


> Just curious, would that be the same Dr. Mason that uses (I've heard him say it multiple times, so it's not an accident) the completely inaccurate, and totally misleading analogy when responding to those of us that say there is no need for a bait ban in an area where no disease is present...
> 
> *"That's to me like saying when I get cancer, I will quit smoking."*


It's the same Dr. Mason that was integral in putting APR's in place in the bTB zone, despite the fact that APR's are designed to protect yearling bucks that have a high potential for spreading disease outside of a core area due to dispersal and the fact that APR's increase the number of older bucks in the herd, the component that has the highest prevalence for both bTB and CWD and have the highest potential for spreading it to non-family member deer. Those are demonstrable facts that are backed by published research, yet Dr. Mason pushed to implement APR's, while admitting that there was no science behind the change and that they did not know what the results would be. 

Russ may prove to be an apt administrator for the wildlife division and I applaud his willingness to expand the amount of input and interaction that occurs between the public and the DNR but some of the views that he has expressed over this issue are painfully dogmatic and seem to be more about pushing the party line instead of an actual examination of the underlying dynamics of disease prevention.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Magic Man said:


> I have not chimed in on any of this stuff til now and I am not a biologist rather apply common sense. Wouldn't it make the most sense when an animal is spreading a disease to eliminate the carrier, the animal. I mean come on when mice were found to carry the plague they didn't outlaw cheese, they killed the mice. Maybe the NRC and DNR should look to better population control practices as a means to prevent disease.


I would agree with ya.
Problem is if population goals for the state were really maintained it would just be bitched about as well.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

A little after Michigans scientists and biologists decided baiting and supplemental feeding needed to banned in NELP New Jersey biologists and scientists decided baiting would be useful for herd reduction. They helped to get legalized baiting enacted. In the next few years other states did the same thing.
What a cunumdrum that some would be in if they hunted New Jersey and Michigan. 
Oh my!! Which scientist and biologist will I ever side with. I have to decide because I am only concerned for the health of the herd.

Below is a pic of a New Jersey hunt. Basically it shows the end result of a combination of bait with some lead added. The lead is the real world result of baiting. it kind of goes against an over simplified internet scenario of an egregous evil vector for disease.

If Michigan is truley interested in lowering the prevalence rate they should legalize limited baiting in the tb zone. 

Which would work better, limited baiting and lead or antler restrictions?

I for one am struggling with this one.:lol:


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Airoh said:


> If Michigan is truley interested in lowering the prevalence rate they should legalize limited baiting in the tb zone.
> 
> Which would work better, limited baiting and lead or antler restrictions?



Nice kill.....they don't have to legalize it in the tb zone, because so much of it is already happening illegally. The number one reason that deer numbers have increased in the tb zone is because of the hunters refusing to keep on slaughtering the antlerless deer like they had been for the first 5 years or so. Like it or not, that is pretty much the truth. I know plenty of guys that will refuse to shoot does any longer after some long years of what alot called pitiful hunting and no deer. I have no problems killing some slickheads though.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

It would help bring back some of the flatlanders that abandoned the area. After all any flatlander with common sense doesn't come up here anymore.
Oh wait a minute!:lol: Just kidding.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Yet you continue to dump food in the woods.......
> 
> Cut down your apple trees, root up your brassicas and then maybe one could view your alarmist obsession with baiting with a slightly more compelling degree of legitimacy.



Yep those dam apples trees are just terrible, letting them grow is a horrible thing to do since it will feed deer. What about these guys? It must be horrible they eat them too....better to just dump it on the ground for a few weeks right?


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Airoh said:


> It would help bring back some of the flatlanders that abandoned the area. After all any flatlander with common sense doesn't come up here anymore.
> Oh wait a minute!:lol: Just kidding.


Ha ha touche lol

I think if they install food plots with the APR's in place would bring some of the flatlanders back, I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens, it will be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

So I guess your saying 2 gallons = bad?
2 tons = good?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> Yep those dam apples trees are just terrible, letting them grow is a horrible thing to do since it will feed deer. What about these guys? It must be horrible they eat them too....better to just dump it on the ground for a few weeks right?


Regardless of the benefit to other wildlife, it's indisputable that planted crops like apple trees and other common foods commonly found in food plots unnaturally concentrate deer and can facilitate the transmission of disease, if disease is present, just as bait can. Either the potential for the transmission of disease is important or it's not, you can't have it both ways, Dean. 

Most wildlife will exist just fine without being supplementally fed by human planted crops. If supplemental feeding is necessary to sustain that wildlife, then density numbers should be reconsidered. 

The double standards that you adhere to are truly mind boggling.

fruit on the ground is anathema if it's in a bait pile but if it's in a pile under an apple tree then it's a good thing because the squirrels and turkeys can eat it.

Supplemental feeding is bad in the TB zone unless it's planted rye fields, one of the first documented vectors for the transmission of bTB, because it might result more trophy bucks.

Truly an amazing degree of rationalization occurs in your world.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Keeping deer numbers below carrying capacity is what keeps them healthy, supplemental feeding is not. Supplemental feeding is putting food in feeders or throwing it on the ground, not growing it. Agricultural practices add to the available biomass and get calculated into carrying capacity as well as other factors. Supplemental feeding and baiting does not. The wildlife professionals have not come out and condemned wildlife plantings, and in most cases they encourage it because of all the benefits of it. 

I would hardly call being happy with a 2.5 yr old buck trophy hunting by any stretch of the imagination.

Geesh, why so ornery Jim? Did you get a ticket for baiting in the last 3 years?:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> Keeping deer numbers below carrying capacity is what keeps them healthy, supplemental feeding is not. Supplemental feeding is putting food in feeders or throwing it on the ground, not growing it. Agricultural practices add to the available biomass and get calculated into carrying capacity as well as other factors. Supplemental feeding and baiting does not.


As you point out, food plots and wildlife plantings are capable of increasing the carrying capacity, thus sustaining increased densities.

Bait that is put out for a short duration, I think you mentioned three weeks, does not result in increased carrying capacity or sustain increased population densities. 

When contemplating disease risk mitigation, increasing the density by increasing the carrying capacity through plantings is the exact opposite of what you want to do if the goal is to minimize the transmission of disease. 

Even the most rookie of those wildlife biologists that you seem to worship will tell you that increased population densities are the number one greatest contributing factor to the spread of communicable disease. See Aldo Leopold, if you have any questions about that point.

Why would you be in favor of a policy that is likely to result in increased densities in the bTB zone, when that is the exact opposite of what the underlying goal of the DNR is? Mind boggling. :nono:


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

soggybtmboys said:


> Keeping deer numbers below carrying capacity is what keeps them healthy.
> 
> The wildlife professionals have not come out and condemned wildlife plantings, and in most cases they encourage it because of all the benefits of it.
> :


Did you see the picture?









Aparently you don't know about Canadian provinces that feel they are a problem.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

soggybtmboys said:


> Nice kill.....they don't have to legalize it in the tb zone, because so much of it is already happening illegally. The number one reason that deer numbers have increased in the tb zone is because of the hunters refusing to keep on slaughtering the antlerless deer like they had been for the first 5 years or so. Like it or not, that is pretty much the truth. I know plenty of guys that will refuse to shoot does any longer after some long years of what alot called pitiful hunting and no deer.


 
Sound like the "earn a buck" program might be just what the tb zone needs. Shoot a doe and get your first buck tag. Shoot another doe and get your 2nd buck tag.
Its a sound plan and will show results!:evilsmile


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> As you point out, food plots and wildlife plantings are capable of increasing the carrying capacity, thus sustaining increased densities.
> 
> Bait that is put out for a short duration, I think you mentioned three weeks, does not result in increased carrying capacity or sustain increased population densities.
> 
> ...



What policy would that be Jim? APR? Isn't APR primarily a tool to increase antlerless harvest? Isn't antlerless harvest the best way to knock a herd down? I fail to see your point.

In case you haven't noticed in the past bunch of years I have no problem killing does and I am averaging about 10-15 does for every buck I kill.

Worship is such a colorful word, I often find that zealots reduce their vocabulary to such when frustrated.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

wintrrun said:


> Sound like the "earn a buck" program might be just what the tb zone needs. Shoot a doe and get your first buck tag. Shoot another doe and get your 2nd buck tag.
> Its a sound plan and will show results!:evilsmile


I have no problem with earn a buck, however, wasn't it Wisconsin that ended up ditching it because it didn't work?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> What policy would that be Jim? APR? Isn't APR primarily a tool to increase antlerless harvest? Isn't antlerless harvest the best way to knock a herd down? I fail to see your point.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed in the past bunch of years I have no problem killing does and I am averaging about 10-15 does for every buck I kill.
> 
> Worship is such a colorful word, I often find that zealots reduce their vocabulary to such when frustrated.


No APR's are primarily a tool to protect yearling bucks and increase the number of older age class bucks in the herd. In high population density scenario's increased antlerless harvest is sometimes an ancillary benefit but in the case of the NELP, anterless harvest is already maximized so the most likely result will be more yearling bucks dispersing out of the core area and more older age class bucks that have the highest prevalence of disease and are most likely to spread it outside of the family unit. 

The other policy that you seem to support is planting food plots in the bTB zone, which you just admitted increase carrying capacity, thereby sustaining increased densities, the opposite of what you want to do if curbing the spread of disease is the goal. 

Both policies have the potential to do further damage within the bTB zone,yet apparently you don't even question the wisdom of them, apparently because they might increase the number of older bucks available to shoot.

Speaking of zealots.....


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Airoh said:


> /QUOTE]
> 
> Yep proof that baiting is bad.
> See that deer just died of CWD.
> :lol::lol:


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Why would I have a problem with food plots when the professionals don't? You certainly are no authority with any standing whatsoever to tell me how to manage my land, especially when I have every intention of harvesting a significant number of antlerless deer in proportion to the area.

The only problem that was referred to with food plots in the tb zone came out in a memo and is one I am going to honor.

If you are so concerned with my corner of the state, then perhaps your time would be better suited promoting the rigorous enforcement of the illegal baiting that happens there. Otherwise, you strike me as a malcontent from the NWLP who is pissed off for one reason or the other why you can no longer bait.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Airoh said:
> 
> 
> > /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

APR's
They were designed to protect 1.5 old bucks. They will help in advancing age structure.
They have not shown any substantial increase in doe harvests where they are implimented. Not so sure if they will help in the way the DNR claims they will, in the tb area.
Best thing that can be done any where to help prevent or isolate disease is kill alot of deer and keep the population down. Problem is hunters like to see deer and they like to see them often. This leads to baiting, food plots, habitat improvements, not shooting does, etc. The biggest hurdle to over come in all areas of deer management is ......hunter management. We all could use a few lessons.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> bucksnbows said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, clearly it was lead poisoning.
> ...


----------



## thongg (Jul 10, 2007)

i dont think russ mason has a degree in wildlife studies or biologhy its in psychology and some checical degree i think


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you do understand I am only joking. I could careless if the ban remains or is lifted.
> ...


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> bucksnbows said:
> 
> 
> > I knew you were joking, as was I.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

thongg said:


> i dont think russ mason has a degree in wildlife studies or biology its in psychology and some chemical degree i think


Russ has a Phd in Wildlife biology from Clark University.

His area of expertise is in wildlife psychology and developing chemically based animal repellents.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

showing proper baiting techniques...........






:lol:


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Anyone know if the NRC meeting from Thursday is available for play back yet?


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Nevermind...found it.

[ame="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/14650881"]May 12, 2011 NRC Meeting 05/12/11 08:18AM, May 12, 2011 NRC Meeting 05/12/11 08:18AM MOOD_Magazine on USTREAM. Breaking News[/ame]


----------



## thongg (Jul 10, 2007)

knew it was something like that is bio states a ba in pysch, masters in animal studies and phd in chemical ecology


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

soggybtmboys said:


> showing proper baiting techniques...........
> 
> YouTube - Whitetail Deer Baiting Instructions.mp4
> 
> :lol:


Damn and I wasted all that time and money at boot camp.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

I just watched a bit of the meeting that Radiohead posted up and the first guy I saw was complaining about how much he spent on food plots. ????????? Is that the type of arguments that are being put up against the ban? I hate to say it but if I were on the NRC I would of busted out laughing.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> Why would I have a problem with food plots when the professionals don't? You certainly are no authority with any standing whatsoever to tell me how to manage my land, especially when I have every intention of harvesting a significant number of antlerless deer in proportion to the area.
> 
> The only problem that was referred to with food plots in the tb zone came out in a memo and is one I am going to honor.
> 
> If you are so concerned with my corner of the state, then perhaps your time would be better suited promoting the rigorous enforcement of the illegal baiting that happens there. Otherwise, you strike me as a malcontent from the NWLP who is pissed off for one reason or the other why you can no longer bait.


Don't think I was telling you how to manage your land, I was commenting on the flaws inculcated in two policies that will/are potentially being applied in the NELP, which could have a negative impact on the spread of disease. You were apparently applauding those programs because they might result in more older bucks and I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of that stance, in light of your ongoing attacks on baiting in the rest of the state. 

If you want to believe that food plots don't concentrate deer or contribute to increased population densities in the NELP, then that's your privilege. Your wrong but that's Ok, you have been wrong on other issues, in the past. :lol:

As far as my being a malcontent, nope, nothing could be farther from the truth. If I see a cause I think is worth supporting, I get involved, not because I'm upset but because I enjoy the debate and the political process of achieving change. That's why I was involved in the crossbow issue and that's why I have been involved in rescinding the baiting ban. If either effort had failed, no big deal I have recurves and compounds I can hunt with and I grow food plots on my property, so no big loss. But the crossbow initiative passed and it's looking increasingly likely that the baiting ban rescission will also prevail. Looks like you are going to be 0 for 2, Dean.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

You sure you're looking at the right video? The one I am looking at you have to jump to the 17:00 mark for the start of public comments, and the first speaker is our very own, Riva.

Excellent job Riva, that was great testimony.



bucksnbows said:


> I just watched a bit of the meeting that Radiohead posted up and the first guy I saw was complaining about how much he spent on food plots. ????????? Is that the type of arguments that are being put up against the ban? I hate to say it but if I were on the NRC I would of busted out laughing.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Russ has a Phd in Wildlife biology from Clark University.
> 
> His area of expertise is in wildlife psychology and developing chemically based animal repellents.


 
Thats it!!!!!!!!
He can develop a chemical that will repel deer from crossing over into our borders thus eliminating any deer carrying the ever lurking CWD!!!
Its sheer genius!
Russ Mason , our saviour!


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

KPC What about the gentleman from the Dept. of Ag. that suggested that removing all foodstuffs from public land might actually make the threats WORSE on ag and residential lands. After all said:


> _That seems to be a common event in the debates on this site._[/I]
> 
> KPC





Munsterlndr
Russ may prove to be an apt administrator for the wildlife division and I applaud his willingness to expand the amount of input and interaction that occurs between the public and the DNR but some of the views that he has expressed over this issue are painfully dogmatic and seem to be more about pushing the party line instead of an actual examination of the underlying dynamics of disease prevention.[/QUOTE said:


> _He is a paid gun. If he did not state the words of his employer then he would no longer be paid. He said, "it can." That does not require an academic specialty nor does it require being an "expert"._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Obviously I still do not have the multiquote thing right:lol:. I tried to redo the above post twice by the prompts I was given by this site and I still messed up so I will not try again at this time. I hope someone can make something out of it.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

ridgewalker said:


> Obviously I still do not have the multiquote thing right:lol:. I tried to redo the above post twice by the prompts I was given by this site and I still messed up so I will not try again at this time. I hope someone can make something out of it.


If I were you, I don't think I'd claim *"expert"* status on that process.

Actually, the more I think about it, based on where the bar has been set, maybe you _*ARE*_ and expert. 

Just sayin...

:lol:

KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

soggybtmboys said:


> Nice kill.....they don't have to legalize it in the tb zone, because so much of it is already happening illegally. *The number one reason that deer numbers have increased in the tb zone is because of the hunters refusing to keep on slaughtering the antlerless deer like they had been for the first 5 years or so. Like it or not, that is pretty much the truth. I know plenty of guys that will refuse to shoot does any longer after some long years of what alot called pitiful hunting and no deer.* I have no problems killing some slickheads though.



Are you saying that despite what the *"experts"* say needs to be done, these people are only concerned about their own selfish desires?

*"Lepers"* I say, nothing but *lepers...*

Oh, and the children. What about the children?

:16suspect

:lol:

KPC


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

ridgewalker said:


> bucksnbows said:
> 
> 
> > APR's
> ...


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

couple things..

Regarding the deer in the NELP....The data clearly shows that the increasing density and tb prevalance are on private land. But hey, They deserve a "return on their investment" As W. Sitton from TLC said..........I hope its not a return to the mid 90's.

R. Mason....Personally I think he is a QDM tool who should go back to persecuting wild horses in Nevada. But in the big picture if you look at who's driving the ship, All the way from the NRC to Stokes,Mason ETC.
I think its very clear that wildlife management in Michigan is a rudderless ship drifting aimlessly........And slowly sinking into an abyss.:sad:


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Justinn said:


> Couple things,shut up already. You're a jerk off.



Look at that..I go away for 2 or 3 days and you guys are still calling each-other names. I would have thought that you kids would have solved this entire baiting issue during my absence. Well, it just looks like I'll have to get it done by myself! 

And, in case you were interested..I was in Chicago watching my daughter graduate from Loyola University. Some things are more important than arguing about bait! :lol:


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Nothing new in this post.
Rather, little that hasn't been posted before.

But, some other posts (and those certainly weren't new either)...do demand responses so the misimpression they offer have some of the coin's other side shown.
...............

But, before that.....and this is NEW:

Congratulations squared to poster '*Riva'*. 

First, and foremost, for a daughter with a fresh degree from Loyola. That's a pridefull accomplishment----for her, of course; but also, for the parents (ATM's?) back in Michigan. Good for her. Good for you.

Then congratulations on your presentation before the NRC this past Thursday. I watched it on the screen this morning and I must say, of all the testimonials that have been shown on these various 'live-streamings'...Riva's was the most masterful----focused, on point, and credible.
.........................................

And then to address some of the posts farther up this thread:

There are those here who offer that they will not take transmissible diseases in cervids seriously because, as they say, _it seems like the farmers would be taking steps to protect their investment. Until I see that happening, why should I care?_

How can we know what this posters experience with cattle or dairy farming is? He may live somewhere that doesnt offer him the opportunity to observe real world professional farming. If such, we can forgive his naivete.

But the reality for the rest of us.who work in or drive by todays agriculture.. is that farmers who farm for a living expend much effort, much time, and much money _protecting their investment. _In this case, as I believe that poster is referencing, cattlemen/dairymen, etc. wrap their hay in poly, erect fences, and bunker most if not all feed. 

To be sure, smaller operators, undercapitalized operators, part-time operators, or those who are simply unmindful may leave rolled but uncovered alfalfa bales along a remote fencerow.
To arbitrarily set a standard that ALL farmers, or every family that rolls up hay (for sale or for feed) must meet that posters standards of agricultural best practices.before transmissible diseases should be taken seriouslyis.either naïve or just willfully ignoring that which one doesnt want to address.
.

There are also others who assert that because cedar swamps, cornfields, water holes, pastures, gardens, and ornamental plants can also serve to accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection..that, well, we shouldnt then just pick on baitpiles dumped in the deer woods.

Id point out that in the testimony taken at the NRC meeting this past Thursday that the chief of Michigans Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, Dr.Russ Mason, notably selected just one of those items.*baitpiles*..as being at issue. Mason made no mention of cedar swamps or cornfields or crabapples. I would offer that if he, or the scientific community, held the opinion that those other entities posed an unnecessary risk of transmissible disease infection.well, I think it would have been brought up. Dont you?

As much as some would like to ignore it, hide it, or deflect away from it *baitpiles* -- NOT cedar trees are THE problem. 
.......

Lastly, there is this frequently trotted out canard: _it's indisputable that planted crops like apple trees and other common foods commonly found in food plots unnaturally concentrate deer and can facilitate the transmission of disease, if disease is present, just as bait can._

This bit of offered chatroom opinion is dragged on the trail like the proverbial red herring: *that one is as bad as another.*

Not so.

Dumping food in our deer woods is different than a growing field of clover---or chicory, or buckwheat, or even corn.

Dumped foodin what we can say is a generously sized 16sqft area offers a spatially confined feeding-opportunity that exceeds natural or even intentionally grown food in product density, frequency of occurrence, persistency of place, and intensity of use.

In short, the substantive and practical difference between dumped food vs. grown food *is an issue of degree.* Dumping food dramatically increases the degree of food density and the intensity of usagethus offering an increased likelihood of transmission of any one of several transmissible diseases.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

fairfax1 said:


> Nothing new in this post.
> Rather, little that hasn't been posted before.
> 
> But, some other posts (and those certainly weren't new either)...do demand responses so the misimpression they offer have some of the coin's other side shown.
> ...


Excellent post FF


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Thank you FairFax. Those are kind words.

A new thought....

At the end of the public testimony during Thursday's NRC meeting, several of the Commissioners made ad-hoc comments about how perplexing this entire baiting situation is and, how difficult it will be to ultimately make a decision.

I know one and perhaps two or more made similar statements that coincide with my own testimony "that whatever regulations they (NRC) creates, short of unlimited and unrestricted baiting, that the regulations will be patently ignored by HUGE portion of the hunter universe." 

What was troubling to me, and I hope that I am wrong, that they might make their decision based on the fact that, indeed, so many people will simply ignore the regulations--therefore..why not simply allow baiting for this reason alone.

Again, I hope I heard this incorrectly however; if this indeed is ANY part of the criteria that contributes to the ban on baiting being rescinded then, more than the deer herd has been put at risk. The entire process will be flushed down the proverbial toilet. 

That's because you don't make decisions, big decisions, based on the path of least resistance. And, once you make that decision, whether it be yes or no, you had better be in a position to support and defend it, based on science and facts--and NOT because a gut feeling, real or perceived, that there will be those that are going to ignore you. 

I hope the members of the NRC are reading this... Say "yes" or, say "no"
based on your duty as a leader and decision maker. Do not make your decision based on the fact we live in a colony where there is a blatant disregard for the law.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> In short, the substantive and practical difference between dumped food vs. grown food *is an issue of degree.* Dumping food dramatically increases the degree of food density and the intensity of usagethus offering an increased likelihood of transmission of any one of several transmissible diseases.


Utterly and demonstrably false. Keep planting those apples for the deer to consume, it's an excellent illustration of why the statement above is false and pushing that meme' continues to highlight a truly epic level of hypocrisy on this issue.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)




----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

According to you that is going to happen with or without a ban, so your point is?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

terry posted a link in the disease section confiming doe to fawn direct transmission. (before birth).......Maybe they should ban that.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> How can we know what this posters experience with cattle or dairy farming is? He may live somewhere that doesnt offer him the opportunity to observe real world professional farming. If such, we can forgive his naivete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I'll tell ya FF. I grew up on a beef farm, worked on several other farms, and currently live in farmland with a decent size dairy operation directly across the road. I see several apple growers close by that have fenced in entire orchards to protect them. I haven't seen one cattle farm around here even fence in a barnyard. Maybe farms in the NELP have done it, I haven't been up there for a few years, but I doubt it. Either way I'm not ready to panic yet.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

soggybtmboys said:


>


Did you take these photos? If so where and when? I hope you reported those piles. In over 35 years of hunting state land in several counties I've never seen anything like that.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

I nearly forgot...Congrats to Riva and his daughter! My daughter will be starting her senior year at Trine U. next fall. My reason for not owning my own hunting land. I'm sure you have made some sacrifices also. You both should be proud.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> Nothing new in this post.
> Rather, little that hasn't been posted before.
> 
> But, some other posts (and those certainly weren't new either)...do demand responses so the misimpression they offer have some of the coin's other side shown.
> ...






Fairfax, With all do respect - Your hatred of baiting is getting in the way of seeing the truth in this matter. Lets say, I fill up a 5 gallon bucket with apple's from a tree on my hunting property. I take that 5 gallon bucket and dump the Apples 200 yards away under my tree-stand. According to you, this is offering an increased likelihood of disease. With all do respect, Your theory makes no sense what so ever. You can't do food plots and plant trees, Then turn around and tell someone else its ok for you to concentrate deer, but not them. They are drawing deer in, Just like you are..


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

*"There are also others who assert that because cedar swamps, cornfields, water holes, pastures, gardens, and ornamental plants can also serve to accelerate the establishment and the rate of transmission of infection&#8230;..that, well, we shouldn&#8217;t then just pick on baitpiles dumped in the deer woods.

I&#8217;d point out that in the testimony taken at the NRC meeting this past Thursday that the chief of Michigan&#8217;s Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, Dr.Russ Mason, notably selected just one of those items&#8230;.baitpiles&#8230;..as being at issue. Mason made no mention of cedar swamps or cornfields or crabapples. I would offer that if he, or the scientific community, held the opinion that those other entities posed an unnecessary risk of transmissible disease infection&#8230;.well, I think it would have been brought up. Don&#8217;t you?"*

Actually, no.

Why, you might ask? The answer in simple.

Of the 4327 possible disease vectors, the DNR actually has control over exactly one.

What do you expect the good doctor to say.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Department of Natural Resources is committed to doing everything we possibly can to protect Michigan's deer herd from the spread of disease. Therefore, we have identified a number of possible disease vectors. Listed below are some the possible disease vectors and what action is recommended pertaining to each.

*Fruit trees/mast crops*. We have absolutely no control over the planting of these trees, but we have written a memo asking the trees nicely to refrain from dropping their fruit.

*Food plots*. We have absolutely no control over the planting of food plots but again, we have encouraged the owners of such plots to put signs up, telling the deer that they are not welcome in them.

*Scrapes/licking branches*. We have absolutely no control over scrapes and licking branches, but we have suggested to the deer herd that they no longer communicate via scent markings, due to the inherent danger of such practices.

*Normal socialization*. We have absolutely no control over normal deer socialization but we have suggested that all deer avoid any, and all contact other deer at all costs.

*Mating.* We have absolutely no control over the mating process but we have also suggested that for the long term benefit of the resouce, deer should no longer attempt to mate.

*Bait.* Now, this is a practice that we actually do have some control over, therefore we suggest that all baiting be banned. This, combined with all the other things above, should eliminate the spread of all disease and virtually guarantee the protection of our treasured resource for generations to come.

The hunting communty should feel very good knowing that all is well. It should also be known that as an ancillary benefit, many of the people that previously hated both hunting and hunters now love us because of our ethical superiorty.



KPC


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

FF doesnt even hunt.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_ Lets say, I fill up a 5 gallon bucket with apple's from a tree on my hunting property. I take that 5 gallon bucket and dump the Apples 200 yards away under my tree-stand. According to you, this is offering an increased likelihood of disease._

No, 2Dogs, that is not according to me.

Your 1-time/2gallon bucket of apples is not the problem. Never has been. The problem with baiting.be it with the current scofflaw practice, or worse, as a public policy of legal allowance is a problem of degree, of scale , and of scope. Your 1-time/2-gallons doesnt mean squat.

What does mean squat is this: The 40 or 50lb --or more--- quantities of corn or carrots or sugar beets dumped in a pile and repeatedly refreshed, oftentimes over extended periods of time. That very real-world occurrence presents a food density that is greater in degree than what is offered via natural forage, agricultural/orchard best practices, or in habitat improvements and plots. And it applies to spin-cast feeders that insert food into a small defined area repeatedly .and again often times over long periods of time.

Then the scope of these practices---- those piles & their refreshing are inserted millions of times right where our deer live, in the known deer habitats of Michigans woods & fields.THAT is problematic. THAT means squat.

Then the scale.$20 million to $28 million worth of food products(as mentioned in the recent NRC meeting). Lets split the difference and say it is only $24,000,000. 24 million dollars worth of low value cull apples, or cull carrots, sugar beets, or heck, high-priced corn.means tons and tons and tons of food being dumped in our deer woods. THAT is problematic. THAT means squat.

The food density these practices provide; the intensity of use over extended periods; and the persistence of repeated placements..those things offer increased opportunity for disease transmission and they do it over a broad scope of Michigans prime deer habitats and at a scale that allows a huge percentage of the free-range herd to be exposed.

That is what I am talking about. NOT your 1-time/2 gallons of apples..no matter if you grew em, gathered em, or bought em at Krogers. 


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

Then from a poster above: "_FF doesnt_ (sic) _even hunt_." 

Ouch, a witness to my lack of skill. Hate it when that happens!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunting man said:


> FF doesnt even hunt.


I would say that anyone that shoots deer over a pile of vegetable matter dumped on the ground doesn't hunt. They may shoot deer, but they don't hunt them.

Outdoorswise, I have nothing in common with those that shoot deer over bait, and, particularly after watching the webcast commentary, have no interest whatever in building bridges with them. Just one self-serving rationalization after another. 
"Allowing baiting allows the kids to see deer, and "hooks" them on the sport(and what sport would that be?)."
"My grandpa is too old to "hunt" any other way, and if the ban isn't repealed, he'll just break a hip and die."
"The farmers brought this on themselves, let them deal with it and leave us Johnny Lunchbucket baiters alone."
"Baiting is no worse than ____________(fill in the blank) and therefore should be allowed."
"Baiting allows us regular Joes to compete with the "big boys" who own lots of private land and green tractors and should therefore should be allowed to be practiced purely as a matter of social justice."
"The baiting ban has wrought economic devastation across our land. How are those farmers supposed to move $8 corn?"

And a good half dozen more that I don't have the time to list.


Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with. And it will happen.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Every time a hunter pulls the trigger sitting over a food plot, a corn field or an acorn bed, he is hunting over bait. A distinction without a difference and to imply that there is some kind of a moral or an ethical superiority being practiced by the hunter who plants his bait instead of placing it, is laughable. 














































As far as a ballot initiative designed to ban hunting over bait, the groups that you would be partnering with would see banning hunting over bait as a starting point, not an end goal. Banning bow hunting would likely be the next step and banning hunting period, would most likely be their ultimate objective. Worth thinking twice about what sort of people you get into bed with, you may end up opening a Pandora's box that is likely to have pretty serious consequences.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

A perceptive poster to these forums offers in an above post:

_"Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with. And it will happen."_

Such a coincidence that this long-time contributor would mention this. Just last evening an astute observer of Michigan's deer hunting culture informed me of this : (I'm paraphrasing)

_The NRC gets to make this decision..one way or the otherin relative anonymity. Meaning, ONLY hunters (and catering merchants) are paying attention; and both groups are relatively small. The weight of accountability cannot be as significant as it would be if a wider constituency or a more intense media eye was watching. 

Without that scrutiny the NRC can feel freer to give in to the temptation to make a decision that gets them off the popular hook..by appeasing a significant vocal group who wants their corn piles. 

However, in clear distinction, a decision to again allow baiting flies in the face of the advice of the very wildlife professionals we have hired to advise the NRC..the DNRs Wildlife Division. That advice, as we know, is that baiting is bad for deer, bad for our wildlife resource. _

I agree with his observation. It is plausible and credible. There is a great potential that those enthusiasts of the wild world.. folks other than just deer hunters will become aware of this wide-ranging wildlife issue. 

And with their awareness and their attention our NRC can more readily understand that their constituency is not just those hunters who want to make their hunting easier..but also the 94% of people who dont hunt deer and want all our deer to be healthy.

If the Humane Society, or newspaper columnists, or feature reporters put this _dump & shoot _issue into greater play for the wider public.........well, the game goes to a whole different level for the NRC.

Rather than being sensitive to just the crusty baiters who can't see deer without a pile they will be confronted by representatives of the other 94% of Michigan who demand they represent all of us.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> I would say that anyone that shoots deer over a pile of vegetable matter dumped on the ground doesn't hunt. They may shoot deer, but they don't hunt them.
> 
> Outdoorswise, I have nothing in common with those that shoot deer over bait, and, particularly after watching the webcast commentary, have no interest whatever in building bridges with them. Just one self-serving rationalization after another.
> "Allowing baiting allows the kids to see deer, and "hooks" them on the sport(and what sport would that be?)."
> ...


Waaaaa!:gaga:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Balderdash. 

Is the deer herd unhealthy in those area of the state where baiting is currently allowed? Nope. Clearly allowing baiting, in and of itself, does not cause the herd to be unhealthy.

In the one area of the state where the deer herd is demonstrably "unhealthy" , baiting has been banned for 10 years and will continue to be banned for the foreseeable future. 

What the non-hunting public wants is a deer herd with the population under control. It's pretty easy to make the case that baiting in legal quantities facilitates hunters efforts to harvest deer, thus keeping the population under control and helping to mitigate car/deer accidents, crop damage and personal property damage. 

The other group of non-hunters that will be fully supportive of the rescission of the baiting ban will be the hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters who enjoy placing some feed out during the winter, to recreationally view deer. Don't see that group getting behind any kind of a public initiative to ban bait, any time soon. 

What we are seeing now is the _"sour grapes"_ phase emerging among the internet pontificators who realize that the decks are awash on their anti-baiting ship and that their hopes and dreams of a continued baiting ban are being dashed as we speak. Funny, when the ban was in place, we frequently herd "It's the law, live with it". I'd suggest a similar bit of advice for the hand wringers and teeth gnashers, baiting is soon going to be legal again. Learn to live with it.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Justinn said:


> Lock the thread. This is all that needs to be said.


In other words, "please save us from the truth". 

As some of us have been saying for over a decade, far better it be that hunters rid ourselves of the plague of baiting, than wait the the public to do so. Pick your poison.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Balderdash.
> 
> Is the deer herd unhealthy in those area of the state where baiting is currently allowed? Nope. Clearly allowing baiting, in and of itself, does not cause the herd to be unhealthy.
> 
> ...


Great post! Well said.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

A public ballot for game management is not legal according to the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine was passed so that the public does not make the game management laws, the government does. It also lays down a framework and criteria by which the government needs to manage. Yes, the dove ballot was theoretically illegal, but no one challenged it. Many states have rescinded game management laws passed by public ballot based on the PTD argument.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> ...............
> Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with. And it will happen.


Bear hunting would take the biggest hit with your great plan. 

L & O


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Liver and Onions said:


> Bear hunting would take the biggest hit with your great plan.


Only bear hunting over bait would be affected. PA has managed their bear population quite effectively without baiting, and, in the process, expanded bear hunting opportunity. We could do the same.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> Only bear hunting over bait would be affected. PA has managed their bear population quite effecively without baiting, and, in the process, expanded bear hunting opportunity. We could do the same.


Ok, how about ending all bait fishing too ? You didn't say, are you willing to stop planting foodplots which also concentrate deer to one area? I'm not. The biggest difference between me sitting near my plots and another hunter sitting near his small amount of bait spread out on the ground is that I have many, many gallons of bait that don't need constant attention. 

L & O


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Unfortunately _some_ in the pro-baiting community are already aligning themselves with groups that are a threat to all hunters regardless of whether or not you're for baiting or against, QDM member or not, state land hunter or private.

It's amazing the degree to which a select few (and by no means do I think this represents anywhere close to a tangible portion of the pro-baiting community), will sell their hunting souls out for the ability to sprinkle some carrots out in the woods.



Munsterlndr said:


> As far as a ballot initiative designed to ban hunting over bait, the groups that you would be partnering with would see banning hunting over bait as a starting point, not an end goal. Banning bow hunting would likely be the next step and banning hunting period, would most likely be their ultimate objective. Worth thinking twice about what sort of people you get into bed with, you may end up opening a Pandora's box that is likely to have pretty serious consequences.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

radiohead said:


> Unfortunately _some_ in the pro-baiting community are already aligning themselves with groups that are a threat to all hunters regardless of whether or not you're for baiting or against, QDM member or not, state land hunter or private.
> 
> It's amazing the degree to which a select few (and by no means do I think this represents anywhere close to a tangible portion of the pro-baiting community), will sell their hunting souls out for the ability to sprinkle some carrots out in the woods.


Huh? It looks to be just the opposite to me. It's the anti-baiters doing the threatening.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> Unfortunately _some_ in the pro-baiting community are already aligning themselves with groups that are a threat to all hunters regardless of whether or not you're for baiting or against, QDM member or not, state land hunter or private.
> 
> It's amazing the degree to which a select few (and by no means do I think this represents anywhere close to a tangible portion of the pro-baiting community), will sell their hunting souls out for the ability to sprinkle some carrots out in the woods.


Elaboration please?


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

I went to a wedding last night that was held at, of all places, the Detroit zoo.
It was quite novel yet elegant with the event conducted outdoors near a fountain located between the llamas, camels and vultures. It was a bit chilly outside however; everybody chuckled when somebody asked if the ceremony would be performed by the arch-bishop or the arch-elephant! (thought you folks might some levity this morning before we resume battle).

FairFax...you bring up an excellent point..generally speaking, this thing has flown under the radar of the public at large-media-wise. Heck, crossbows got more print. However; the public at large could really give a heck about crossbows, at the end of the day. However; the public-at-large and deer hunters are terms that are being used interchangeably whereas in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

If this issue were to become a referendum here, in my opinion, is how it would be the building blocks that 94% universe that you refer would decide the issue:

- Deer are an asset of the entire state of Michigan, not just hunters

- The State has allowed baiting in limited amounts in the past

- There is/was widespread abuse of the baiting regulations by hunters when it was legal

- A single deer was found at a game ranch in Michigan with CWD

- The State of Michigan prohibited baiting (LP) because it is believed that baiting could contribute as one of many possible agents in the spread of CWD

- During the total prohibition on baiting, there was widespread disregard for the law by hunters

- Currently, 29 States totally prohibit baiting

- Deer harvest rates are about equal when hunting over bait versus without

- Deer are an asset of the State of Michigan, not just hunters. 

I challenge anybody to look at the above bullets and show me an untruth. Everything I list there is a FACT! 

The public at large doesn't give a rat's ass about baiting. Nor do they know if baiting indeed plays a role in the possible transmission of a disease. 

All they know that if this thing called CWD is bad enough to have the State place an outright ban on the practice of baiting, it must be some pretty funky stuff. 

And, they know that lots of other states prohibit baiting. 

And, they know when they see pallet upon pallet of bags of carrots at a party store, they will equate that the practice of baiting. 

And, they know that the regulations are frequently abused and/or ignored

And, they know that they own the resource as much as the hunters do

And, they know that just as many deer can be harvested without bait versus with bait.

You are correct FairFax, the NRC has been lucky so far that this thing has been flying under the radar to such a large degree. However; when they uphold the ban on baiting, which I believe is a very real possibly, part of the reason will because the NRC has to take into consideration the other 94%.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

There are pro-baiters trying to recruit the organizations that represent the single largest threat to us hunters, to try and get what they want and/or punish other hunters that don't agree with them. I've seen the solicitations and that's as much details you'll get from me.




Munsterlndr said:


> Elaboration please?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> There are pro-baiters trying to recruit the organizations that represent the single largest threat to us hunters, to try and get what they want and/or punish other hunters that don't agree with them. I've seen the solicitations and that's as much details you'll get from me.


That is your privilege but I have to say that if you are going to throw out that type of accusation, providing some substantiation would certainly increase the credibility of the charge. I can only assume that you are talking about HSUS or Peta, since they probably represent the largest threat to hunting and for the life of me I can't think why they would have an interest in promoting the legalization of hunting techniques that would likely result in an increase in the number of deer killed.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

Riva said:


> I went to a wedding last night that was held at, of all places, the Detroit zoo.
> It was quite novel yet elegant with the event conducted outdoors near a fountain located between the llamas, camels and vultures. It was a bit chilly outside however; everybody chuckled when somebody asked if the ceremony would be performed by the arch-bishop or the arch-elephant! (thought you folks might some levity this morning before we resume battle).
> 
> FairFax...you bring up an excellent point..generally speaking, this thing has flown under the radar of the public at large-media-wise. Heck, crossbows got more print. However; the public at large could really give a heck about crossbows, at the end of the day. However; the public-at-large and deer hunters are terms that are being used interchangeably whereas in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
> ...


 Riva, This is one great post. Nice job.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

If I was interested in dropping accusations I could have put this out there a month ago.
It was specifically in response to this:


Munsterlndr said:


> As far as a ballot initiative designed to ban hunting over bait, the groups that you would be partnering with would see banning hunting over bait as a starting point, not an end goal. Banning bow hunting would likely be the next step and banning hunting period, would most likely be their ultimate objective. Worth thinking twice about what sort of people you get into bed with, you may end up opening a Pandora's box that is likely to have pretty serious consequences.



It is what is. I only sleep 4 hours a night as it is. So I'm not going to lose any over whether or not the M-S.com community views my claims as credible or not.


Munsterlndr said:


> That is your privilege but I have to say that if you are going to throw out that type of accusation, providing some substantiation would certainly increase the credibility of the charge. I can only assume that you are talking about HSUS or Peta, since they probably represent the largest threat to hunting and for the life of me I can't think why they would have an interest in promoting the legalization of hunting techniques that would likely result in an increase in the number of deer killed.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Riva said:


> If this issue were to become a referendum here, in my opinion, is how it would be the building blocks that 94% universe that you refer would decide the issue:
> 
> - Deer are an asset of the entire state of Michigan, not just hunters
> 
> ...


If the issue ever came to a referendum, here is how the 94% of the general public would likely see the issue;

_Deer populations are out of control in much of the southern lower peninsula, where the bulk of the non-hunting public lives._

_There were almost 68,000 car/deer accidents last year and 10 people were killed by accidents caused by deer._

_Car/deer accidents cost Michigan drivers $130 million dollars last year._

_Deer over-population causes hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural damage in Michigan every year._

_A majority of studies show that the use of bait increases hunter success rates._

_Bait is such an effective tool for hunters that when cities and municipalities employ professional animal control experts to reduce problem deer populations, it almost always takes place over bait. _

_The sale of bait injects over $50 million dollars a year into Michigan's flagging economy. _

_A majority of US states allow either baiting or recreational feeding of deer. _

_New Jersey recently passed legislation legalizing baiting and there is currently a bill in the Georgia legislature which would legalize baiting in Georgia. _

_The use of bait helps control problem deer over-population, which left unchecked, can result in increased levels of Lyme disease and other threats to human public health. _

Obviously, as with any political issue, it can be spun both ways. I'd say, though, that the non-hunting public would generally see bait as an effective tool in helping to keep deer populations under control and as a result would be generally supportive. It's counter-intuitive to think that hunters would want to use bait if it did not help them harvest deer and the general public is smart enough to realize that. I also doubt that they would be overly impressed with biologists warning about the evils of bait, those same biologists would like to see bird feeders banned, due to the risk of disease transmission and my guess is that most members of the public would view the two prohibitions with equal skepticism, an over-reaction by a bunch of bureaucrats.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Wow!! Throw down the gloves, it's gettin' ugly on here!! Keep up the good posts Munster, the other side really don't like it when they can't force their opinions onto the rest of us. Never could, never will. JMHO RNS


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> If the issue ever came to a referendum, here is how the 94% of the general public would likely see the issue;
> 
> _Deer populations are out of control in much of the southern lower peninsula, where the bulk of the non-hunting public lives._
> 
> ...


Munster, are we having our first fight, dear? (or should I say "deer") 

Yes, there are always counterpoints.

In nearby Rochester Hills, they have a chronic overpopulation of deer. The powers that be started to thin them out until the locals objected based on the reason that they simply like seeing the deer. 

I don't think people really care that there are car-deer accidents. Nobody starts out their day thinking they are going to hit a deer. When they see a deer on the side of the road, they say to themselves some other unlucky bastard hit a deer.

As for the losses incurred by car-deer accidents, I guess that's what we have insurance for. Frankly, I could argue that it is even a good thing (other than personal injury). $130,000,000 in a lot of moola injected into the economy. Body shops love deer! 

As far as crop damage, I am sorry to say, it is simply not an issue with consumers. It is for farmers obviously, but ultimately, that loss is passed on to consumers who pay the penalty. 

As far as bait injecting $50 million into the economy, screams the question why we are not taxing the stuff!! This is found money!


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree.
I really don't like it when the pro-baiting community tries to force baiting into the hunting regulations.



Rut-N-Strut said:


> the other side really don't like it when they can't force their opinions onto the rest of us. Never could, never will. JMHO RNS


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

radiohead said:


> I agree.
> I really don't like it when the pro-baiting community tries to force baiting into the hunting regulations.


HAHAHA! You could not be more mistaken! You know why? *Not 1 of us Pro-Baiters can force YOU to bait*


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Well now that you've cleared that up *I feel very silly!

*


Rut-N-Strut said:


> HAHAHA! You could not be more mistaken! You know why? *Not 1 of us Pro-Baiters can force YOU to bait*


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Riva said:


> IIf this issue were to become a referendum here, in my opinion, is how it would be the building blocks that 94% universe that you refer would decide the issue:
> 
> - Deer are an asset of the entire state of Michigan, not just hunters
> 
> ...


There would be one more thing amongst those building blocks:

A television ad, featuring a chubby guy in a shack, swilling on a Pabst, emptying his Model 94 on a button buck which expires with his spindly legs kicking and a carrot dangling out of his mouth while the shooter chortles with joy and gives thanks that Michigan remains one of the handful of states where hunting deer over bait piles is still legal.

Protected free speech under the 1st amendment, you know. The example may be extreme, but you can well imagine what a well-financed media campaign (funded, most assuredly, by both hunters and non-hunters) can communicate to the public about the culture of shooting deer over bait. Not a pretty picture.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

I know someone posted a link of the record version of the hearing, but I can't find it.

Can someone post it again?


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

I thought it was all but over guy's. Why are people really surprised, the 3 years are up and no cwd found in all the tested deer. Seems like one last ditch effort with anti-baiters lashing out against baiters.

In the end one day I just wish WE all could be hunters


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

It sounds like some neighbors will be running bait on the property lines in Hillsdale and your not too happy with them. :lol:


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> I went to a wedding last night that was held at, of all places, the Detroit zoo.
> It was quite novel yet elegant with the event conducted outdoors near a fountain located between the llamas, camels and vultures. It was a bit chilly outside however; everybody chuckled when somebody asked if the ceremony would be performed by the arch-bishop or the arch-elephant! (thought you folks might some levity this morning before we resume battle).
> 
> FairFax...you bring up an excellent point..generally speaking, this thing has flown under the radar of the public at large-media-wise. Heck, crossbows got more print. However; the public at large could really give a heck about crossbows, at the end of the day. However; the public-at-large and deer hunters are terms that are being used interchangeably whereas in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
> ...


You, my friend, are totally delusional.

First you say that the general public doesn't give a rats ass about baiting, yet you think they know, or even care that people are doing it illegally.

Or what in the heck other states are doing??

Oh, and they supposedly know what harvest numbers are with or without bait??

Come on, you are kidding yourself.

I think my wife is a pretty good example of the "general public." I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that she represents far more people than your scenerio will ever know.




This is how she feels... 

*I plant a vegetable garden and the deer eat it. I want them dead.

Today, my Hostas look wonderful, tomorrow they are gone. The deer ate them. I want the deer dead.

I spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year trying to discourage deer from damaging or killing everything I plant. Do what you have to do to kill them.

I'm sick and tired of driving in fear of hitting a deer and ruining my car or even worse. We have too many deer, I want them dead.

Don't bother me with the details of how you do it, I JUST WANT THEM DEAD.*




Even the lady that lives across the street, who claims to be an anit-hunter, feels the same way.

To the majority of the non hunting public, deer are a pain in the ass and they would just as soon see them gone.

And you think they are paying attention to harvest rates, and illegal baiting activites? Get real.



KPC


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

diztortion said:


> I know someone posted a link of the record version of the hearing, but I can't find it.
> 
> Can someone post it again?


It is located on post #110,


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

KPC said:


> You, my friend, are totally delusional.
> 
> First you say that the general public doesn't give a rats ass about baiting, yet you think they know, or even care that people are doing it illegally.
> 
> ...


Boy, KPC, I am certain we must be on the right track when we get you to resort to name calling. In poker, that's called a "tell". So, perhaps I'll continue with this approach or, perhaps I won't.  

BTW, a person (Falk?) stated that my post was great. I guess that cancels out your vote. So there. 

I'll give you credit, you're a good writer. You would be more credible, IMHO, if you put up your own thoughts versus merely tearing apart, point by point, original thoughts put up by others. And, the name calling should really stop. 

btw you have "street" misspelled.


----------



## IceDaddy (Dec 18, 2002)

KPC said:


> You, my friend, are totally delusional.
> 
> First you say that the general public doesn't give a rats ass about baiting, yet you think they know, or even care that people are doing it illegally.
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention the "Sweet" side of them, When they are stating this is the worse winter in years and deer are starving to death.
every non hunter in the world would rather "Feed" a starving deer, VS letting it STARVE to death. Everyone knows that is the worst possible death there is. In fact they would break laws, in order to save starving deer. such as putting down a huge trail of corn. And wouldn't care less if the Dnre or whatever they are called this month had a state wide ban on feeding,baiting,bait ploting, feed ploting, or whatever else you want to call it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> There would be one more thing amongst those building blocks:
> 
> A television ad, featuring a chubby guy in a shack, swilling on a Pabst, emptying his Model 94 on a button buck which expires with his spindly legs kicking and a carrot dangling out of his mouth while the shooter chortles with joy and gives thanks that Michigan remains one of the handful of states where hunting deer over bait piles is still legal.
> 
> Protected free speech under the 1st amendment, you know. The example may be extreme, but you can well imagine what a well-financed media campaign (funded, most assuredly, by both hunters and non-hunters) can communicate to the public about the culture of shooting deer over bait. Not a pretty picture.


With a well financed media campaign, you can sell just about anything to the uneducated public. After all, Obama got elected. 

You could also put together a pretty compelling ad showing a food plotter spraying chemicals on his plot, interwoven with pictures of two headed frogs and dead birds, with the subtext that out-of-control trophy hunters are assaulting the environment with dangerous toxic chemicals, just so that they can ambush unsuspecting deer and put a bigger rack on the wall. An ad like that would likely hit a chord with the growing segment of non-hunting environmentalist's out there. Any truth to that idea? About as much as your portrayal of every hunter who uses bait being a chain-smoking, Pabst swilling slob. 

Like I said, attacking other segments of the hunting fraternity is probably a bad idea and the potential backlash could be substantial. Pandora's box bears thinking about.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

KPC said:


> I think my wife is a pretty good example of the "general public." I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that she represents far more people than your scenerio will ever know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Attended a meeting to discuss herd reduction for Stoney Creek Metro Park years back.
If you think one woman can be pretty vocal you should of seen a group of them with one thing on their mind. They all said...I want the deer dead!

When the non hunting public has a problem with them they become no different than a rat in their mind.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> Boy, KPC, I am certain we must be on the right track when we get you to resort to name calling. In poker, that's called a "tell". So, perhaps I'll continue with this approach or, perhaps I won't.
> 
> BTW, a person (Falk?) stated that my post was great. I guess that cancels out your vote. So there.
> 
> ...


Wow, thanks for the tip in the misspelled word. Yeah, sometimes I think faster than what I can type.

I don't play much poker but where I come from we call what you just did a *"dodge."*

Rather than respond to anything of substance, bring up misspelled words, make accusations of name calling, (which unless you consider "friend" name calling, it didn't happen. "Delusiona"l isn't name calling, it's simply an observation based on your post. Now, had I called you a delusional twit, that would have been namecalling) etc., just to divert attention away from the facts.

Responding to other's posts is kind of what we do here. It would be a little chaotic if everyone just posted non-related original thoughts all the time, don't you think?

Nice try, but these are conversations after all, sometimes debates. You know, the whole point, counter point thing? 

I think I might walk across the street and ask the anti-hunter lady what her opinion is on harvest rates between baiters and non-baiters. I might even quiz her on some game laws, just to see if she's as up to speed as you think. I doubt it though, seeing that she feeds deer, thinking if she does, they might leave her garden alone. What a "leper" she is.



:lol:

KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Airoh said:


> Attended a meeting to discuss herd reduction for Stoney Creek Metro Park years back.
> If you think one woman can be pretty vocal you should of seen a group of them with one thing on their mind. They all said...I want the deer dead!
> 
> When the non hunting public has a problem with them they become no different than a rat in their mind.


You know that, I know that, but apparently some posters think those women sit home contemplating harvest rates, legal hunting methods, and whether the corner gas station is selling carrots.

:lol:

KPC


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> With a well financed media campaign, you can sell just about anything to the uneducated public. After all, Obama got elected.
> 
> You could also put together a pretty compelling ad showing a food plotter spraying chemicals on his plot, interwoven with pictures of two headed frogs and dead birds, with the subtext that out-of-control trophy hunters are assaulting the environment with dangerous toxic chemicals, just so that they can ambush unsuspecting deer and put a bigger rack on the wall. An ad like that would likely hit a chord with the growing segment of non-hunting environmentalist's out there. Any truth to that idea? About as much as your portrayal of every hunter who uses bait being a chain-smoking, Pabst swilling slob.
> 
> Like I said, attacking other segments of the hunting fraternity is probably a bad idea and the potential backlash could be substantial. Pandora's box bears thinking about.


Personally, I would have no difficulty posting the name address and picture of any person caught violating the baiting laws on the front page of the New York Times, the same way, I would have no difficulty posting same for a trespasser or tree-stand thief. Lawbreakers are lawbreakers and thus, are scum. 

If one wanted to win a media campaign on the merits of baiting versus non baiting, all one would have to do is illustrate the behavior of upwards of 50-% of the hunter universe in the lower peninsula over the last three years-- when a total ban was in force. THAT would win the day, IMHO.

Again, I happen to believe that part of the NRC's thought process will be that, if they allow any sort of baiting, it is certain to be abused by so many as to render any regulations meaningless. And, that leaves them a choice; totally prohibit baiting or remove all limitations and regulations. They said as much at last Thursday's meeting.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

Riva said:


> Personally, I would have no difficulty posting the name address and picture of any person caught violating the baiting laws on the front page of the New York Times, the same way, I would have no difficulty posting same for a trespasser or tree-stand thief. Lawbreakers are lawbreakers and thus, are scum.
> 
> If one wanted to win a media campaign on the merits of baiting versus non baiting, all one would have to do is illustrate the behavior of upwards of 50-% of the hunter universe in the lower peninsula over the last three years-- when a total ban was in force. THAT would win the day, IMHO.
> 
> Again, I happen to believe that part of the NRC's thought process will be that, if they allow any sort of baiting, it is certain to be abused by so many as to render any regulations meaningless. And, that leaves them a choice; totally prohibit baiting or remove all limitations and regulations. They said as much at last Thursday's meeting.


Your post makes no sense at all. If we use your logic they would have to close all the roads in michigan because people sometimes speed.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> With a well financed media campaign, you can sell just about anything to the uneducated public. After all, Obama got elected.
> 
> You could also put together a pretty compelling ad showing a food plotter spraying chemicals on his plot, interwoven with pictures of two headed frogs and dead birds, with the subtext that out-of-control trophy hunters are assaulting the environment with dangerous toxic chemicals, just so that they can ambush unsuspecting deer and put a bigger rack on the wall. An ad like that would likely hit a chord with the growing segment of non-hunting environmentalist's out there. Any truth to that idea? About as much as your portrayal of every hunter who uses bait being a chain-smoking, Pabst swilling slob.
> 
> Like I said, attacking other segments of the hunting fraternity is probably a bad idea and the potential backlash could be substantial. Pandora's box bears thinking about.


 Any referendum on baiting could easily be amended to include food plots,trophy management,obr,apr Etc............ I am comfortable hunting the traditional way, Go ahead guys, lets take that trail.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

swampbuck said:


> Any referendum on baiting could easily be amended to include food plots,trophy management,obr,apr Etc.


But. It most certainly would not be. The drafters of such a petition drive will be (are ) crafty enough to design the referendum as narrowly as possible, so as to maximize the likelihood of its success. It'll be straight up on baiting for the purpose of shooting deer, just as the practice is currently defined. It will absolutely exclude recreational feeding, so as to make sure the birdseed crowd is fully on board. Which they will be.

I don't buy the "circle the wagons, we hunters are all in this together" routine to be terribly persuasive in encouraging hunters oppose a move to put the matter of baiting before the voters. After watching the testimony of those that oppose the baiting ban, I'm more convinced than ever that I have nothing in common with those guys.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I have seen foodplots mentioned on the HSUS website........And they love trophy hunting !


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> It will absolutely exclude recreational feeding, so as to make sure the birdseed crowd is fully on board. Which they will be.


So it will have an inherent contradiction that will serve to illustrate that an actial concern over the spread of disease plays no role in this initiative. Such an initiative would not have a hope in hell of ever getting on the ballot. Too funny!


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Ok, one more...


There once was a fellow called Riva
As to the bait ban he always yelled viva!
When he spoke to the panel
They weren't on his channel
So now he's acting the diva





KPC


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

radiohead said:


> There once was a hunter named Nate.
> He never saw Deer without bait.
> The baiting returned,
> and Nate soon learned,
> There still were no button bucks on his plate.


 

Hey now...My button bucks have always been very tasty :evilsmile


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

KPC said:


> There once was a group from the mitten
> With a bait ban they all seemed quite smitten
> Then it was said
> That the ban might be dead
> ...


Operative word: That the ban _*might*_ be dead

Still some doubt; ants in the wall. Goddamn ants!


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> Operative word: That the ban _*might*_ be dead


You know me Riva, I'm all about accuracy.

Careful, those peach pits can be nasty.

:yikes:



KPC


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

KPC said:


> You know me Riva, I'm all about accuracy.
> 
> Careful, those peach pits can be nasty.
> 
> ...


Ants in the wall..:evil:


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

walshaa1 said:


> that was the first meeting i was able to watch in almost its entirety. There are some very passionate individuals on both sides of the equation.
> 
> I, in no way, envy the position of the commissioners. No matter what the decision, there is going to be a great deal of backlash.


Like I mentioned before...the decision to end baiting was made many months ago and the "informational" meetings on this issue were a complete waste of time and an insult to sportsman who were looking for, at minimum,a little due diligence out of these CLOWNS!!! I can't believe some people actually think for a moment the NRC is legit. Even the wildlife director knew the ban would be lifted back in Febuary and that "sound science" has NOTHING to do with this issue even though that is what we voted for under prop. G. This whole process was (is) a joke.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't think that the NRC considers this issue a joke. After the proposal was drafted the bricks were most likely dropping by the load down the thrones in the offices of the dnr. You can bet that they are doing everything they can to put pressure on the NRC to squeeze them into changing this proposal or into voting against it.

Put this issue on the ballot and it will be the beginning of the end of deer hunting in Michigan. Period. Once the door is open it will not close.

Continue to elevate this debate with the angst and the feelings being expressed in this thread and baiting will be the least of anyone's problems. Some hunters will be so fired up that there will be morons out there that will try to justify shooting other hunters because they feel threatened. Hunting over food material is done to attract deer no matter how the food gets there. What is so hard to understand about that concept? People hunt near stands of oaks, by agricultural fields, by orchards, by clover and grasses found in the wild, near apple trees, by natural salt licks, by beet dumping sites (where trucks dump after returning from unloading beets at the factory); at baiting sites, near or on food plots, etc etc. Good hunters will always hunt the feeding locations of their prey just as predators do. We hunt to kill and the best do it by the most effective legal method available. If a hunter does not understand the importance of knowing the feeding and watering habits of the game animal that they hunt, then they are not usually successful as hunters.


----------



## Standsniper (Feb 7, 2011)

im sittin in my trusty ol chair,,,lookin at the bait pile,,,but they aint there

maybe i should head out and pop the trunk,,,,get my liquor out and just get drunk


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

From post #207 above:
_"Hunting over food material is done to attract deer no matter how the food gets there. What is so hard to understand about that concept?"_"

Your question is a bit of a non sequitur. There is nothing hard about it at all. In fact, it seems to me that there is nobody that does NOT _understand.
_
The issue isnt understanding the advantages of hunting over food......the issue is that dumping food in recognized deer habitats, in the manner of Michigans deer hunters, unnecessarily raises the risk of transmission of any one of multiple diseases that afflict cervids and other wildlife.

And society gets so very little for elevating that risk, i.e., it gets only some short-cut conveniences for a small minority of its members. And then they are only part-time hobbyists at that!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

ridgewalker said:


> IPut this issue on the ballot and it will be the beginning of the end of deer hunting in Michigan. Period.


It sure seems to me that, for many Michigan "hunters" that post on this site, the imposition of the baiting ban already did represent the end of their deer hunting.

Get used to the thought of the practice of hunting deer over bait being put forth to the voters. I'd say by 2014. It'd be supported by probably half the guys that now buy deer hunting licenses and about 80% of everyone else.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> The issue isn&#8217;t understanding the advantages of hunting over food......the issue is that dumping food in recognized deer habitats, in the manner of Michigan&#8217;s deer hunters, unnecessarily raises the risk of transmission of any one of multiple diseases that afflict cervids and other wildlife.
> 
> And society gets so very little for elevating that risk, i.e., it gets only some short-cut conveniences for a small minority of its&#8217; members. And then they are only part-time hobbyists at that!


Well, at least the above poster is being honest...to a certain extent. The issue never has been what the first underlined statement asserts. It's *always* been more about what the second statement suggests.

The poster did a fairly decent job at trying to disguise it, or so he thought, but it is more about who he (they) consider to be real hunters, than it ever has been about disease transmission, and it always has been.

The original poster knows that there are no studies that indicate that in the absense of bait, disease transmission will be less. They don't exist. Even Dr. Mason eluded to that fact by saying *"The science does not exist to evaluate the relative risk of one form of baiting restriction over the other." * The real question how we define "bait." All we know is that bait has the potential to congregate deer, therefore some make the case that it raises the risk of disease transmission. What they conveniently leave out is that if bait never existed, there are still more than enough natural ways to congregate deer, and therefore, aid in disease tansmission, that it makes a bait ban irrelevant.



farmlegend said:


> It sure seems to me that, for many Michigan "hunters" that post on this site, the imposition of the baiting ban already did represent the end of their deer hunting.
> 
> Get used to the thought of the practice of hunting deer over bait being put forth to the voters. I'd say by 2014. It'd be supported by probably half the guys that now buy deer hunting licenses and about 80% of everyone else.


Case in point.

Some people will apparently do whatever it takes to purge the ranks of those that they don't consider to be real *"hunters."* They are so arrogant and myopic that they don't realize that sooner or later it will be their ox that is being gored and when they come for support, there will be nobody left.

Like my man *Cee Lo* says... *"I'm like, f-yoouuuuu..." *

:lol:

KPC


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

In a reference to a previous post (this one: "The issue isnt understanding the advantages of hunting over food......the issue is that dumping food in recognized deer habitats, in the manner of Michigans deer hunters, unnecessarily raises the risk of transmission of any one of multiple diseases that afflict cervids and other wildlife.

And society gets so very little for elevating that risk, i.e., it gets only some short-cut conveniences for a small minority of its members. And then they are only part-time hobbyists at that!"

*Another poster--in his reference-- asserts*: _The issue never has been what the first underlined statement asserts. It's always been more about what the second statement suggests.
it is more about who ...[is].... consider to be real hunters, than it ever has been about disease transmission, and it always has been._

There are those here who may have misinterpreted the above reference to _hobbyist_ as pejorative to the skill or dedication of sport hunters. That is a regrettable misinterpretation as it clouds the issue...and re-directs attention away from the concerns over disease transmission.

The reference to _hobbyists_ means that all of us who hold this passion for deer chasing---all of us--- do so at our leisure. We are playing. Sport hunting is a recess activity for us. Me included. 

All of us can survive without venison. All of us can find another recreational activity. None of the families of we hunters is dependent upon our success or lack thereof...in securing meat for the pot. Or jerky for the pocket.

And as such, our very parochial playtime interests need be suborned to the interest of society as a whole, and to our responsibilities towards wildlife conservation.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Sport hunting in Michigan contributes $500 million annually to the Michigan economy. For those whose livelihood depends in part or in whole on that contribution, it's hardly a hobby, nor is it simply an insignificant recreational pursuit.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that implementing a baiting ban will have any significant, tangible impact on thwarting the potential spread of disease. It's a meaningless, "feel good" gesture, that accomplishes nothing of substance, other than to give the appearance of doing something about the potential problems relating to disease.

The NRC is making the correct decision in rescinding the baiting ban, there is no credible evidence that allowing baiting outside of the bTB zone will have any negative impact on the resource.


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Sport hunting in Michigan contributes $500 million annually to the Michigan economy. For those whose livelihood depends in part or in whole on that contribution, it's hardly a hobby, nor is it simply an insignificant recreational pursuit.
> 
> There is no evidence, whatsoever, that implementing a baiting ban will have any significant, tangible impact on thwarting the potential spread of disease. It's a meaningless, "feel good" gesture, that accomplishes nothing of substance, other than to give the appearance of doing something about the potential problems relating to disease.
> 
> The NRC is making the correct decision in rescinding the baiting ban, there is no credible evidence that allowing baiting outside of the bTB zone will have any negative impact on the resource.


 The two highlighted in red statements make no sense coming from the same person. If it was good idea in the Tb area to curb baiting why does it not have any significant impact on reducing the chance of disease in other parts of the state. Why are you willing to feed the hunters in the TB zone to the dogs. Baiting doesn't increase the spread of diseases! the baiting bunch would like us to believe.


----------



## turk877 (Mar 10, 2010)

we just printed in our local paper the nrc is recommending back to 2 gal limit.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

CBMLIFEMEMBER said:


> The two highlighted in red statements make no sense coming from the same person. If it was good idea in the Tb area to curb baiting why does it not have any significant impact on reducing the chance of disease in other parts of the state. Why are you willing to feed the hunters in the TB zone to the dogs. Baiting doesn't increase the spread of diseases! the baiting bunch would like us to believe.


As I have stated probably a hundred times, baiting, without the presence of any disease, poses no threat to the resource. 

Determining the absence or presence of disease is why we conduct testing.

We know for a fact that disease is present in the bTB area, because the results of quantitative testing affirm it. That's why the use of bait or food plots or water holes or stored cattle feed that is accessible to deer, is a bad idea in that area, because food concentrates deer and when deer are concentrated, the potential for the spread of disease is increased.

The decision that the NRC is making is in regards to allowing bait in areas of the state where extensive testing has determined a reasonable likelihood, that no disease is present to be transmitted by potential vectors. If future testing determined that disease was present, it becomes reasonable to entertain risk mitigation strategies, including the banning of the use of bait. In the absence of any indications that disease is present, it's reasonable to allow the use of bait, since in and of itself, it poses no threat to the resource. 

The fact that you would have different policies for different areas of the state, depending on whether or not disease has been verified to be present, is logically consistent and really not that hard to understand. It's the common approach that is taken to public health issues in this country every day.

For example, it's not uncommon for local public beaches to be closed due to high _e coli_ counts, resulting from fecal contamination. Should we restrict swimming in all lakes, rivers and streams in the State when a local outbreak occurs, just to be on the safe side? After all, swimming is a purely recreational endeavor, nobody has to swim. I think any reasonable person would say doing so would be a gross over reaction and such a public policy would have an unreasonable economic impact on all of the business's related to swimming and watersports in Michigan. That's why we engage in testing. If the test results don't show any disease to be present, then it's a reasonable approach to allow the activity in question. Pretty simple.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> As I have stated probably a hundred times, baiting, without the presence of any disease, poses no threat to the resource.
> 
> Determining the absence or presence of disease is why we conduct testing.
> 
> ...


Somewhat logical but it sort of assumes that CWD will be somehow discovered here in Michigan. I have stated all along that the most probable location is where the disease is already prevalent, Illinois! THAT will prove to be the stimuli to shut down whole baiting thing just like before. 

Am I hoping for this to occur? Hell no. Is it highly probable that CWD will be discovered within 50 miles of Michigan's borders in the next few years? Regrettably, yes. 

And, in case you didn't hear Wheatlake's comments last week, he stated in essence that there will be no changes made to the CWD response plan as it relates to the 50-mile radius criteria.


----------



## bobbyt (May 17, 2011)

I joined QDMA early last year, and I have been a member of MUCC via. The Oakland County Sportsman Club for more than eleven years. 
I have been a member of this site for more than seven years, I have enjoyed a lot of the discussions and have been disgusted by a lot of the discussions. 
When my grandfather passed away my sister and I inherited 40 acres of my grandfathers 80-acre hunting property. My uncle inherited the remaining 40 and promptly divided it into 10-acre parcels and I entered into a contract for one of the adjoining parcels. So I am currently working on 50 acres to create an incredible piece of prime hunting property. 
I have received a lot of help for my project by reading and asking the knowledgeable members of this site. I even had a member come and walk the property with me, he liked what I was doing and gave me some really good tips. 
I would like to give a big thank you to everybody who has helped me. 
I am posting this anonymously because I do not want to be chastised and hope to keep some of the friends that I have made. 

I am totally discussed with something that has been posted recently. 
farmlegend, I have always looked up to you and respected you point of view on the baiting issue but the threat that you are making about putting a hunting issue in front of Michigan voters and having the non hunting public make hunting policy is the most disturbing thing that I have ever seen a member of this site post. 
I will not stand beside you in this idiotic idea of yours. I see Riva and Fairfax have joined you in this idea and I am very disappointed with them also. 
The other members of this website should distance themselves from you and this damaging idea of yours and any other member who supports it. 
If you manage to get an initiative to bring the Michigan voters into this issue, I will disassociate myself with any organization that backs your movement. I am seeing you now through a different set of eyes, and I am really disappointed in you.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

One little post and you're ready to dive all-in with the anti-QDMA wingnuts on this site?

I didn't read anywhere in FL's post in reference that he was suggesting anything on behalf of the QDMA. You're obviously looking for a reason to begrudge the organization. Save yourself the trouble and quit now while you're ahead.






bobbyt said:


> I joined QDMA early last year, and I have been a member of MUCC via. The Oakland County Sportsman Club for more than eleven years.
> I have been a member of this site for more than seven years, I have enjoyed a lot of the discussions and have been disgusted by a lot of the discussions.
> When my grandfather passed away my sister and I inherited 40 acres of my grandfathers 80-acre hunting property. My uncle inherited the remaining 40 and promptly divided it into 10-acre parcels and I entered into a contract for one of the adjoining parcels. So I am currently working on 50 acres to create an incredible piece of prime hunting property.
> I have received a lot of help for my project by reading and asking the knowledgeable members of this site. I even had a member come and walk the property with me, he liked what I was doing and gave me some really good tips.
> ...


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

bobbyt said:


> I joined QDMA early last year, and I have been a member of MUCC via. The Oakland County Sportsman Club for more than eleven years.
> I have been a member of this site for more than seven years, I have enjoyed a lot of the discussions and have been disgusted by a lot of the discussions.
> When my grandfather passed away my sister and I inherited 40 acres of my grandfathers 80-acre hunting property. My uncle inherited the remaining 40 and promptly divided it into 10-acre parcels and I entered into a contract for one of the adjoining parcels. So I am currently working on 50 acres to create an incredible piece of prime hunting property.
> I have received a lot of help for my project by reading and asking the knowledgeable members of this site. I even had a member come and walk the property with me, he liked what I was doing and gave me some really good tips.
> ...


bobbyt, I appreciate your wanting to be anonymous but it's a site violation to have more than one user name, FYI.
Concerning your post...you obviously misunderstood what FL typed. He wasn't suggesting that he was planning to push for such a referendum he simply said that it's a real possibility and elaberated on how it may come about.

Big T


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

bobbyt said:


> I joined QDMA early last year, and I have been a member of MUCC via. The Oakland County Sportsman Club for more than eleven years.
> I have been a member of this site for more than seven years, I have enjoyed a lot of the discussions and have been disgusted by a lot of the discussions.
> When my grandfather passed away my sister and I inherited 40 acres of my grandfathers 80-acre hunting property. My uncle inherited the remaining 40 and promptly divided it into 10-acre parcels and I entered into a contract for one of the adjoining parcels. So I am currently working on 50 acres to create an incredible piece of prime hunting property.
> I have received a lot of help for my project by reading and asking the knowledgeable members of this site. I even had a member come and walk the property with me, he liked what I was doing and gave me some really good tips.
> ...


Congrats on your property and your efforts to improve it. I wouldn't worry too much about the qdma jihadists, most can see the situation for what it is. Baiting is a threat to them, because it's a wildcard to their expensive plans. Always remember the people that have the hardest time getting people to see their point just speak louder than the rest, hoping their voice gets heard, but being heard and persuasion are two different animals.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Concerning your post...you obviously misunderstood what FL typed. He wasn't suggesting that he was planning to push for such a referendum he simply said that it's a real possibility and elaberated on how it may come about.
> 
> Big T





farmlegend said:


> Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with.


Sounds like a little bit more then just passive speculation to me.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> One little post and you're ready to dive all-in with the anti-QDMA wingnuts on this site?
> 
> I didn't read anywhere in FL's post in reference that he was suggesting anything on behalf of the QDMA. You're obviously looking for a reason to begrudge the organization. Save yourself the trouble and quit now while you're ahead.


The only place bobbyt mentioned QDMA was when he said that he joined it last year. FL said that he was looking forward to partnering with an entity to push for a public referendum on baiting, it appears to me that all bobbyt was saying is that he would disassociate himself from any entity partnering with FL on this type of divisive venture. So I'm not sure why you are jumping all over his case simply for stating his opinion?


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Lets stop the bickering about baiting and putting it up for a voter referendum and go dove hunting.:yikes:


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Right Munster.
The fact that 3 words into his salvo the QDMA was dropped in and the fact that FL is one of the more prominent QDMA members here is mere coincidence.



Munsterlndr said:


> The only place bobbyt mentioned QDMA was when he said that he joined it last year. FL said that he was looking forward to partnering with an entity to push for a public referendum on baiting, it appears to me that all bobbyt was saying is that he would disassociate himself from any entity partnering with FL on this type of divisive venture. So I'm not sure why you are jumping all over his case simply for stating his opinion?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> Right Munster.
> The fact that 3 words into his salvo the QDMA was dropped in and the fact that FL is one of the more prominent QDMA members here is mere coincidence.


He also mentioned MUCC and the Oakland Sportsman's club, does FL have anything to do with those organizations? Paranoia runs rampant, apparently.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> He also mentioned MUCC and the Oakland Sportsman's club, does FL have anything to do with those organizations? Paranoia runs rampant, apparently.


Does he sit in the parking lot during meetings at those organizations?

You cannot claim to be a member of something without being involved.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

turk877 said:


> we just printed in our local paper the nrc is recommending back to 2 gal limit.


I surmise that if the bait sellers were to sell this quantity of bait to all baiters they wouldnt sell bait anymore. I would venture to say they would go broke and be sitting on a large volume of unused bait. Even if all baiters were to buy this quantity every day of the seasons.
Its a ridiculous recomendation if it wont be adhered to, and its perposperous to think it will be.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

diztortion said:


> Does he sit in the parking lot during meetings at those organizations?
> 
> You cannot claim to be a member of something without being involved.


Huh? What is your point? All bobbyT did was mention several organizations that he is a member of and then say that he would disassociate himself with any organization joining FL and his merry band of pranksters, in a crusade that would be divisive to hunters in Michigan. RH was the one who was jumping to the (apparently unfounded) conclusion that bobbyt was talking about QDMA. The implication being that he had some kind of ax to grind with QDMA and therefore his criticism of FL should not be taken seriously. If anything, his mention that he is a member of QDMA would imply that he has no pre-existing anti-QDMA bias, that might color his opinion of the attitudes that FL et. al. are espousing.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Huh? What is your point? All bobbyT did was mention several organizations that he is a member of and then say that he would disassociate himself with any organization joining FL and his merry band of pranksters, in a crusade that would be divisive to hunters in Michigan. RH was the one who was jumping to the (apparently unfounded) conclusion that bobbyt was talking about QDMA. The implication being that he had some kind of ax to grind with QDMA and therefore his criticism of FL should not be taken seriously. If anything, his mention that he is a member of QDMA would imply that he has no pre-existing anti-QDMA bias, that might color his opinion of the attitudes that FL et. al. are espousing.


It was a crappy comment based on lurking here for eleven years.

Nothing based on the other organizations. 

I apologize to the OP.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

bobbyt said:


> I am posting this anonymously because I do not want to be chastised and hope to keep some of the friends that I have made.


We know who you are, and, so that the chastising may begin in earnest, we'll make sure your "friends" learn your identity also. Oooh oooh oooh aaah aaah aaahhh!!!





bobbyt said:


> I am totally discussed with something that has been posted recently. farmlegend, I have always looked up to you and respected you point of view on the baiting issue but the threat that you are making about putting a hunting issue in front of Michigan voters and having the non hunting public make hunting policy is the most disturbing thing that I have ever seen a member of this site post.


Now THAT'S saying something!



bobbyt said:


> I will not stand beside you in this idiotic idea of yours. I see Riva and Fairfax have joined you in this idea and I am very disappointed with them also.


Say what you want about me, but slandering the co-chairmen of the non-profit "Michigan Deer Hunters For Ethical Fair Chase" is truly beyond the pale. You owe an apology to both of them.



bobbyt said:


> I am seeing you now through a different set of eyes, and I am really disappointed in you.


Whatever you say, Mom!


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Lets not forget FL wants to throw bait bear hunters under the bus also. FL, you might not want to mention this to your new pals and my neighbors at TLC...


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

bobbyt said:


> I am totally discussed with something that has been posted recently.
> farmlegend, I have always looked up to you and respected you point of view on the baiting issue but the threat that you are making about putting a hunting issue in front of Michigan voters and having the non hunting public make hunting policy is the most disturbing thing that I have ever seen a member of this site post.
> I will not stand beside you in this idiotic idea of yours. I see Riva and Fairfax have joined you in this idea and I am very disappointed with them also.
> The other members of this website should distance themselves from you and this damaging idea of yours and any other member who supports it.
> If you manage to get an initiative to bring the Michigan voters into this issue, I will disassociate myself with any organization that backs your movement. I am seeing you now through a different set of eyes, and I am really disappointed in you.




"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
Groucho Marx

To begin with, you're somewhat naive in thinking the NRC is the sole body that can create policy regarding hunting and fishing issues. The legislature has as much, if not more power to establish rules and regulations than does the NRC. And, the great majority of the members of the legislature do not hunt. But they are equally, as much as the NRC, stewards of the resource--for ALL citizens, not just hunters.

You also demonstrate your naivety when you relegate these matters solely as a hunting policy referendum. Nothing could be further from the truth. CWD and bTB transcend way way way beyond being able to place bait or not being able to place bait. Think the cattle industry, think travel and tourism, think the long-term continuance of the resource and the recreational opportunity it supplies. In other words, think about tomorrow and stop thinking so much about me, me, me.

The NRC has a long history of making political and social accommodations to keep as many people happy as possible. The problem with that is Proposal G stipulates that political and social accommodations are forbidden. Only science can be used in making decisions surrounding management of the resource. 

When the NRC fails to adhere to Proposal G, that is typically when the legislature steps in to clean up the mess. Perhaps you will recall in 2008, the NRC created a mishmash of convoluted policy and regulations for crossbows that it was mind-numbing-even to those that opposed them. And these regulations were established with FULL KNOWLEDGE of their own Wildlife Division's official opinion that the use of crossbows would categorically, not have a negative effect upon th resource! That's when the legislature stepped in and introduced a bill to make crossbows legal across the board, in spite of the NRC's position. As it turns out, the NRC saw that they were probably going to be trumped by the legislature, and changed the crossbow regs to what we have today.

Finally, this is not just a hunter issue. It is a Statewide "resource" issue where hunters are merely one of the players--and a small player at that. Being that, public referendum and the legislature have every right to weigh in on matters that effect the resource as a whole. The thing people don't like about these two entities having a vote is that their vote may not coincide with your perfect world. Well, that's democracy and we simply have to live with it, whether you agree with the policies or not.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*Thank you, Riva*. You boiled it down to its essence: _*"Finally, this is not just a hunter issue. It is a Statewide "resource" issue where hunters are merely one of the players--and a small player at that."*_

One of the problems-or-our-making we hunters are burdened with is our conviction that deer are there just for us. Primarily us. That we have 'dibs' on deer and deer policy.

And we are ..what?...5%? 6%?.....of the total population. 

What happens to our deer-resource has a broad & interested constituency beyond the guys who sit on stumps with weapons.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> There are those here who may have misinterpreted the above reference to _hobbyist_ as pejorative to the skill or dedication of sport hunters. That is a regrettable misinterpretation as it clouds the issue...and re-directs attention away from the concerns over disease transmission.
> 
> The reference to _hobbyists_ means that all of us who hold this passion for deer chasing---all of us--- do so at our leisure. We are playing. Sport hunting is a recess activity for us. Me included.
> 
> ...


As impressive as your vocabulary is, I'll stick by my original assertions. Simply put, you don't have to search very many threads to get to the first *"why don't you learn how to hunt"* reference by the anti-baiting crowd. For them, this has never been about disease transmission.

My prediction is that if the bait ban is lifted, the *"it's the law, get over it"* crowd will make 6inchtrack look like he couldn't type.



But hey, it's your story...you can tell it any way you want.

KPC


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

Riva said:


> "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
> Groucho Marx
> 
> To begin with, you're somewhat naive in thinking the NRC is the sole body that can create policy regarding hunting and fishing issues. The legislature has as much, if not more power to establish rules and regulations than does the NRC. And, the great majority of the members of the legislature do not hunt. But they are equally, as much as the NRC, stewards of the resource--for ALL citizens, not just hunters.
> ...


Take the blinders off once and look around, life outside your world actually goes on


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

If CWD is such a transcendent issue, please show us the impact that it has had on the Wisconsin dairy industry? No evidence that CWD impacts anything other then cervids and a significant amount of research that shows that it does not cross the species barrier. Has tourism stopped in Wisconsin in the last ten years? Are they no longer producing cheese? Heck, have lease rates in Buffalo County even taken a dip? Hardly. The threat that CWD poses is not one that will be felt widely across society, it's largely contained within the hunting community and even there has had a fairly minimal impact, even in states where the prevalence has increased. 

As far as bTB, nobody is suggesting bringing baiting back in the bTB zone. Baiting has been banned there for ten year. During that time period there has been no significant expansion of the bTB zone, despite the fact that baiting was allowed outside of the zone for most of that time period. The head biologist for the DNR has stated that bTB poses a very low risk outside of the zone and that a small degree of risk will always be present, regardless of whether or not baiting is legal. 

This issue would never even make it out of committee in the legislature. A 5 minute power point presentation would quickly educate legislators about the reality of deer and disease transmission risks and the minimal role that legal baiting would potentially play in that process.


----------



## crossboy17 (Sep 29, 2008)

Holy crap, just where the hell did this all come from?
Riva you sure sound different than watching you on the live stream video.
You guys planning on putting the last nail in the coffin of NRC?
It's really only about greed and selfishness with you guys. You are getting your butts whooped and you know it. 
At least you guys are showing the rest of these people just what kind of jelly fish you really are.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Georgia Governor signs law allowing deer baiting in Georgia.

_"the new law will allow for hunters and land owners in the Southern Hunting Zone to bait fields to better manage deer and feral hog populations."_

Imagine that! :lol:

http://www.albanyherald.com/news/headlines/Gov_Deal_signs_deer_baiting_bill_121543729.html?ref=729


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> This issue would never even make it out of committee in the legislature. A 5 minute power point presentation would quickly educate legislators about the reality of deer and disease transmission risks ...


For once on this topic we agree. All they would have to see are pictures like this, and it's all over.














































Then hear how there is a small risk and no one will guarantee that it won't happen, and it is all over.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I'd welcome such pictures Dean, because it would allow the opportunity to expose such a presentation as fraudulent. You showed pics of ground beef recalls, has there been one ground beef recall that has occurred in this country due to either bTB or CWD? Just one? Because that is certainly what you imply by including those pics. Beef gets recalled due to E. Coli or Salmonella contamination, neither of which has anything to do with the deer baiting issue. Pretty easy to indict such a false presentation. Lying while presenting testimony in front of legislative committee's is never a good idea, you may want to rethink that strategy.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

So no cattle herds or heads of beef were destroyed because of bTB infection huh?

Food stuffs aren't a concern for human consumption if they are infected with certain diseases huh? 

Yep, I am sure they would deem it an acceptable risk to put food for human consumption at risk to appease the small populace who intend to dump bait for for recreational purpose of killing deer.

I am sure the wildlife divisions will go to bat for ya and tell them that there is nothing wrong with baiting for deer too , correct? Better think again.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> So no cattle herds or heads of beef were destroyed because of bTB infection huh?
> 
> Food stuffs aren't a concern for human consumption if they are infected with certain diseases huh?
> 
> ...


So you are saying that if baiting is banned that there will be no longer be any risk of cattle catching bTB? 

How many people have caught bTB in Michigan from food consumption in counties where baiting has been legal in the last ten years? 

You are trying to imply a cause and effect link that simply does not exist. Pretty easy to point that out. 

The issue is largely moot, anyway. In June the NRC is going to legalize bait again and it will be the law in Michigan for the foreseeable future. The idea of the Legislature stepping in or a ballot initiative are the pipe dreams of the disenchanted anti-baiter's who are frustrated that their side of the debate came out on the losing end.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> The issue is largely moot, anyway. In June the NRC is going to legalize bait again and it will be the law in Michigan for the foreseeable future. The idea of the Legislature stepping in or a ballot initiative are the pipe dreams of the disenchanted anti-baiter's who are frustrated that their side of the debate came out on the losing end.


Perhaps. Perhaps not.

You, more than anyone, should understand this statement.

ba


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

_*For those who believe the NRC is incompetent, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe this fact, no explanation is possible.*_


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

ridgewalker said:


> I don't think that the NRC considers this issue a joke. After the proposal was drafted the bricks were most likely dropping by the load down the thrones in the offices of the dnr. You can bet that they are doing everything they can to put pressure on the NRC to squeeze them into changing this proposal or into voting against it.
> 
> Put this issue on the ballot and it will be the beginning of the end of deer hunting in Michigan. Period. Once the door is open it will not close.
> 
> Continue to elevate this debate with the angst and the feelings being expressed in this thread and baiting will be the least of anyone's problems. Some hunters will be so fired up that there will be morons out there that will try to justify shooting other hunters because they feel threatened. Hunting over food material is done to attract deer no matter how the food gets there. What is so hard to understand about that concept? People hunt near stands of oaks, by agricultural fields, by orchards, by clover and grasses found in the wild, near apple trees, by natural salt licks, by beet dumping sites (where trucks dump after returning from unloading beets at the factory); at baiting sites, near or on food plots, etc etc. Good hunters will always hunt the feeding locations of their prey just as predators do. We hunt to kill and the best do it by the most effective legal method available. If a hunter does not understand the importance of knowing the feeding and watering habits of the game animal that they hunt, then they are not usually successful as hunters.


If you re-read my post, I did not say the NRC considers this a joke...I said *the NRC IS a joke *


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

soggybtmboys said:


> For once on this topic we agree. All they would have to see are pictures like this, and it's all over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you're bringing e-coli into the mix? I suggest you do a little research before making such a desperate grasp. Entertaining, but ignorant.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

To illustrate my post above, you'll notice Soggy is borrowing images from non-related subjects in some of the photos he posted. Here's the link to the e-coli story with the borrowed photo.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/117738118.html

http://www.knowabouthealth.com/cargill-recalls-8500-lbs-of-ground-beef-after-e-coli-illness/5969/


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

soggybtmboys said:


> For once on this topic we agree. All they would have to see are pictures like this, and it's all over.


Don't forget to throw in a good sad kitty picture Soggy, it is just as irrelevant as the ones you posed, but sad kittens always pull at their heartstrings.











Heck, as a fundraiser for your cause, you could even sell sweatshirts...












:lol:

KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

KPC said:


> Don't forget to throw in a good sad kitty picture Soggy, it is just as irrelevant as the ones you posed but sad kittens always pull at their heartstrings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, I have to get one of those sweatshirts! :lol::lol:


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

KPC said:


> Don't forget to throw in a good sad kitty picture Soggy, it is just as irrelevant as the ones you posed, but sad kittens always pull at their heartstrings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I need mine in size Xtra Large. Too funny!


----------



## tdduckman (Jan 17, 2001)

Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with. And it will happen.[/QUOTE]


I may be late to the party on this, I am not in favor of deer baiting but any agenda to bring hunting practices to a public vote is a very bad idea.

This is why we do not have a Dove season. 

If we as a hunting community do this we will all loose.


TD


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

tdduckman said:


> Looking forward to partnering up with any effective entity to launch that petition drive to permanently ban the practice of shooting game animals over bait on the ballot for all of the voters of the state of Michigan to dispense with. And it will happen.


I may be late to the party on this, I am not in favor of deer baiting but any agenda to bring hunting practices to a public vote is a very bad idea.

This is why we do not have a Dove season. 

If we as a hunting community do this we will all loose. TD[/QUOTE]

_________________________________________________________________

I think the jitters you have surrounding a democratic vote rests not in the process but rather, it because the other guy's agenda could prevail. And, in this case, probably would when you consider that hunters make up about 6% of the population--and half of them don't bait. 

Couple that with the tag line that 29 other states don't allow baiting (for reasons of disease transmission and fair chase) and, that the deer harvest is virtually the same with bait as without, you have potentially a 97% to 3% stack. Based on those odds, you're correct in not wanting these matters to be put to a vote. 

You cite the dove bill as an example why we should never allow matters such as these fall into the hands of the electorate. Just remember that Proposal G was a vote of the electorate. Should we have squashed that initiative too simple because non-hunters were able to determine its fate?

Remember, the legislature still has authority to amend Proposal G and can step into the process at any time it deems appropriate.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Riva said:


> . And, in this case, probably would when you consider that hunters make up about 6% of the population.


 
If your numbers are correct, why would we want ANY hunting or hunting related issue on the ballot? Careful what we wish for...:yikes:


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

One problem with your post Riva, you fail to mention of the 29 states that don't have baiting and never did some still have CWD


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> One problem with your post Riva, you fail to mention of the 29 states that don't have baiting and never did some still have CWD


C'mon Outdoorsman, don't let anything like facts get the way of a good story. You're taking all the fun out of it.



:lol:

KPC


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Who has ever said that banning baiting will absolutely, positively, without fail, prevent CWD from ever appearing in Michigan?

None of the people I know who are opposed to the practice of baiting are naive enough to think that eliminating baiting is a cure all.



Outdoorsman17 said:


> One problem with your post Riva, you fail to mention of the 29 states that don't have baiting and never did some still have CWD


----------



## crossboy17 (Sep 29, 2008)

Remember, the legislature still has authority to amend Proposal G and can step into the process at any time it deems appropriate.

Riva, 
You want to do all this just to stop other hunters from being able to hunt a man provided food source (bait).
It is plane to me that you are only doing this out of greed.
Just how much money do you have invested in your hunting property?
A disease can't be spread if there isn't one there.
Get over yourself bud, and let other people hunt.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

> None of the people I know who are opposed to the practice of baiting are naive enough to think that eliminating baiting is a cure all.
> 
> Your correct, there's no sound science to back up it will accomplish anything at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

That's now what I said, but it's the narrative many on the pro-baiting side of the fence try to make this out to be. You've gone from one fabricated version of my stance to another in a matter of minutes.

You know, I disagree with Munsterlndr's opinion on the baiting issue. But at least he takes the time to put together honest and compelling reasons for it. You can't even figure out how to use the quote feature in the forum.




Outdoorsman17 said:


> Your correct, there's no sound science to back up it will accomplish anything at all.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

radiohead said:


> That's now what I said, but it's the narrative many on the pro-baiting side of the fence try to make this out to be. You've gone from one fabricated version of my stance to another in a matter of minutes.
> 
> You know, I disagree with Munsterlndr's opinion on the baiting issue. But at least he takes the time to put together honest and compelling reasons for it. You can't even figure out how to use the quote feature in the forum.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

touche, and you can't spell


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

You got me there, I made my 1 mistake for the day. 
Congrats, by the way on figuring out the quoting feature. Although I suspect it's only because I fixed it from your previous post.

Now if you could only add intellectual honesty to your arguments we might be on to something.



Outdoorsman17 said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> touche, and you can't spell


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

radiohead said:


> You got me there, I made my 1 mistake for the day.
> Congrats, by the way on figuring out the quoting feature. Although I suspect it's only because I fixed it from your previous post.
> 
> Now if you could only add intellectual honesty to your arguments we might be on to something.



:lol::lol:

I'll let munster do the copying, quoting and pasting. He is very good at it and has more time. By the way I have a bachelor degree in business management and carried a 4.0 GPA through high school and college

Have a good day, I have grass to mow


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> By the way I have a bachelor degree in business management and carried a 4.0 GPA through high school and college
> 
> Have a good day, I have grass to mow


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Maybe you should have dropped out of college like Bill Gates did. Someone else could cut your grass while you sit here and make up stories about other people's stance on baiting.



Outdoorsman17 said:


> By the way I have a bachelor degree in business management and carried a 4.0 GPA through high school and college


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

radiohead said:


> Maybe you should have dropped out of college like Bill Gates did. Someone else could cut your grass while you sit here and make up stories about other people's stance on baiting.


Why such harsh words? Did you not have enough toys to play with growing up?

You seem to have alot of spare time on your hands. I'll give you 8 bucks an hour if ya want to mow it for me. You can use my mower and gas if that will help you out


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> One problem with your post Riva, you fail to mention of the 29 states that don't have baiting and never did some still have CWD


You are correct. CWD is still in its infancy even at 50 years of age. Many of the States that implemented a ban on baiting did so well before the emergence if CWD. Again, the basis for these restrictions are (1) to deter possible transmission of disease (known and unknown) and (2) fair chase. If I were a betting man, I would say the latter criteria, fair chase, played a more prominent role in establishing these laws.

I, for one, don't have an issue as it relates to baiting and fair chase. I stated in my testimony in front of the NRC last week that I/we regularly put out legal amounts of bait up at my place--prior to the ban. Thus, for me, this dialog is primarily about the resource and secondarily, the moral and ethical vacuum that exists amongst literally hundreds of thousands of users who, regardless of what the NRC creates as the next regulations, they will patently ignore the volume limitations. If that's someone's idea of all hunters being one big happy family, include me out! I share nothing in common with these people! 

Last week, I heard someone say that when baiting was legal, he NEVER saw a legal bait pile. Never is a pretty big word however; looking back, it is probably more accurate than it is inaccurate. Which brings this post full circle...how to respond those those that violate the regulations, whatever they may be, total ban or limited baiting?

There is some precedence for this. Language contained in Proposal D (1996)
describes the penalties that would be imposed for violating baiting regulations. While the initiative was not approved by the voters, this language should serve as a template for any new regulations going forward, specifically:

_*"People convicted of violating the law would forfeit their hunting license for three years for their first offense, and be permanently prohibited from obtaining a hunting license if convicted a second time."​*_
If, as some of you say, the NRC is going to allow limited baiting, I think we should all agree that this exact punishment be imposed on violators. At least it will garner some modicum of compliance.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

Riva said:


> You are correct. CWD is still in its infancy even at 50 years of age. Many of the States that implemented a ban on baiting did so well before the emergence if CWD. Again, the basis for these restrictions are (1) to deter possible transmission of disease (known and unknown) and (2) fair chase. If I were a betting man, I would say the latter criteria, fair chase, played a more prominent role in establishing these laws.
> 
> I, for one, don't have an issue as it relates to baiting and fair chase. I stated in my testimony in front of the NRC last week that I/we regularly put out legal amounts of bait up at my place--prior to the ban. Thus, for me, this dialog is primarily about the resource and secondarily, the moral and ethical vacuum that exists amongst literally hundreds of thousands of users who, regardless of what the NRC creates as the next regulations, they will patently ignore the volume limitations. If that's someone's idea of all hunters being one big happy family, include me out! I share nothing in common with these people!
> 
> ...


I can agree with most of your post Riva. Putting out to much bait and repeat offenders is really a separate issue that needs to be addressed if the baiting ban is lifted. On another note I really enjoy your posts in the bbq forums and regularly use some of your recipes and rubs AWESOME


----------



## tdduckman (Jan 17, 2001)

Riva said:


> I may be late to the party on this, I am not in favor of deer baiting but any agenda to bring hunting practices to a public vote is a very bad idea.
> 
> This is why we do not have a Dove season.
> 
> If we as a hunting community do this we will all loose. TD


_________________________________________________________________

I think the jitters you have surrounding a democratic vote rests not in the process but rather, it because the other guy's agenda could prevail. And, in this case, probably would when you consider that hunters make up about 6% of the population--and half of them don't bait. 

Couple that with the tag line that 29 other states don't allow baiting (for reasons of disease transmission and fair chase) and, that the deer harvest is virtually the same with bait as without, you have potentially a 97% to 3% stack. Based on those odds, you're correct in not wanting these matters to be put to a vote. 

You cite the dove bill as an example why we should never allow matters such as these fall into the hands of the electorate. Just remember that Proposal G was a vote of the electorate. Should we have squashed that initiative too simple because non-hunters were able to determine its fate?

Remember, the legislature still has authority to amend Proposal G and can step into the process at any time it deems appropriate.[/QUOTE]





I respectively disagree, I was hoping the NRC would keep the ban in place but, asking for a vote by the public is a bad idea. 

Who is going to fund it? Let me guess PETA, HSUS, fund for animals....... Thats who provided funding when they tried to ban bear baiting.... Speaking of which the "proposal" said big game....


Has anyone realized the impact on bear hunter (most of whom use bait)


I think that baiting deer is a bad idea, I think going to a 90% non-hunting public to resolve hunting issues is a worse idea.

TD


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

tdduckman said:


> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> I think the jitters you have surrounding a democratic vote rests not in the process but rather, it because the other guy's agenda could prevail. And, in this case, probably would when you consider that hunters make up about 6% of the population--and half of them don't bait.
> 
> ...


 



I respectively disagree, I was hoping the NRC would keep the ban in place but, asking for a vote by the public is a bad idea. 

Who is going to fund it? Let me guess PETA, HSUS, fund for animals....... Thats who provided funding when they tried to ban bear baiting.... Speaking of which the "proposal" said big game....


Has anyone realized the impact on bear hunter (most of whom use bait)


I think that baiting deer is a bad idea, I think going to a 90% non-hunting public to resolve hunting issues is a worse idea.

TD[/QUOTE]

Was Proposal G a bad idea? It was a public referendum.

Was Proposal D a bad idea? Enough people got out to defeat that one and I can assure you, less than 1% of the people that voted were bear hunters.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

I have a real hard time digesting the idea that a sane person, who understands deer behavior could believe bait would have a profound effect on spreading a disease that doesn't exist. We've been over this a thousand times. Everything deer do spreads disease.... Where disease exists. We don't have CWD here. 
I've often wondered, and have never been informed about the one deer in the enclosure that tested positive. If it was jammed in a pen with all those other deer, how many of the other deer were infected? Surely they were sharing feed in that pen weren't they? Only one? 
Imagine Wisconsin had problems with liquor stores being robbed, and we had no crime. The Wisconsin state police said a handgun "may have" been used in the robberies. Would it be appropriate to ban 38 caliber revolvers- just 38 caliber revolvers, because they "could" be used to rob liquor stores? That's the equivalent of banning baiting and hiding behind the "disease vector" facade.
How many of you that consider yourselves "anti-bait" are NOT landowners? Better yet, how many of you hunt predominantly state land? I know there are a few, but it's obvious that the lions share of the anti bait crowd have more than disease on their mind. CDAD


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> _*"People convicted of violating the law would forfeit their hunting license for three years for their first offense, and be permanently prohibited from obtaining a hunting license if convicted a second time."​*_
> If, as some of you say, the NRC is going to allow limited baiting, I think we should all agree that this exact punishment be imposed on violators. At least it will garner some modicum of compliance.



Why, because baiting happens to be a pet peeve of yours, and the decision to lift the bait angers you so much that you want to really sock it to someone.

No, personally, I think the laws that are on the books right now are sufficient if enforced.

*Violation of permits, season, bag limits, shooting hours and methods of taking game

$50 to $500 fine and/or up to 90 days in jail.

Illegal taking/possession of deer, bear or wild turkey

$200 to $1,000 fine and 5 to 90 days in jail, restitution of $1,500 for bear, $1,000 for deer/turkey, plus revocation of hunting licenses for remainder of year convicted, plus next three consecutive years

Illegal use of artificial light with bow and arrow or firearm

$100 to $500 fine and/or 90 days in jail, plus revocation of hunting licenses for remainder of year convicted, plus next consecutive year.

Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs

$500 fine and/or up to 93 days in jail. 

Multiple offender: two convictions within preceding five years

$500 to $2,000 fine and 10 to 180 days in jail. *


KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

TheCrawdad said:


> How many of you that consider yourselves "anti-bait" are NOT landowners? Better yet, how many of you hunt predominantly state land? I know there are a few, but it's obvious that the lions share of the anti bait crowd have more than disease on their mind. CDAD


It's *never* been about disease, CDAD. Disease just provides the cover to push their agenda.

KPC


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Riva said:


> _*"People convicted of violating the law would forfeit their hunting license for three years for their first offense, and be permanently prohibited from obtaining a hunting license if convicted a second time." *_​


Baiting is not my pet peeve, it's those damned speeders. The limit on my street is 25. Some people drive over 40 mph, which is fast enough to kill a child if struck. I think I should be able to shoot the bastards -in self defense of course. I have young children you know. CDAD


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

KPC said:


> It's *never* been about disease, CDAD. Disease just provides the cover to push their agenda.
> 
> KPC




What's the agenda???


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

TheCrawdad said:


> I have young children you know. CDAD


Ah yes, the children. 

After all, it *is* all about the children.



:lol:

KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

wally-eye said:


> What's the agenda???


Take your pick...

There's the "baiting isn't hunting, it's shooting" agenda.

The "I'm a real hunter, you're not" agenda

The "I spent too much money growing, protecting, and manupulating these deer to have you lure them off my land with a pail of corn and shoot them before I say they are ripe" agenda

The "your not nearly as ethical as me" agenda

The "if you don't hunt just like me, you are wrong" agenda

The list goes on and on but for the most part, they can all be boiled down to the "if you're using bait, you might get a chance to shoot him before I do or before I think he deserves to be shot" agenda.

KPC


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

originally Posted by *Riva*  _*"People convicted of violating the law would forfeit their hunting license for three years for their first offense, and be permanently prohibited from obtaining a hunting license if convicted a second time."​*_
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379726&page=19#ixzz1MkS14oHTUsing this logic we should forfeit our driver license for 3 years for a first speeding violation:lol:​_*


​






​*_


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

KPC said:


> Why, because baiting happens to be a pet peeve of yours, and the decision to lift the bait angers you so much that you want to really sock it to someone.
> 
> No, personally, I think the laws that are on the books right now are sufficient if enforced.
> 
> ...


KPC...you have become your own contradiction. You want baiting. You want it on your terms. And, you want any penance if you are caught in violation, to be so trivial, that it equates into a schoolboy's snickering equal to "oh well, boys will be boys."

Well, by my standards, that approach is mindless, it's heartless and, it's cowardly. Read my lips..it's my resource too,Sir! And, if you f*** it up, you pay the price. In Latin, it's called "Lex Talionis", "an eye for an eye." (don't argue with me, I've had 8 years of the stuff)

Bottom line..if you f*** up MY resource, you pay in equal measure to your crime. First offence = 3 years. Second offence= life! 

No, KPC...you can't have both. No risk with no punishment is fair. Moderate risk with moderate punishment is fair. Catastrophic risk, with catastrophic punishment is fair. 

The bottom line is this...nobody, you and me included, has the DEFINITIVE response to CWD. All we have is prose. As such, that elevates these matters to being potentially catastrophic. Accordingly, the law of restraint, "Lex Talionis" must be invoked. Otherwise, the control becomes meaningless.

Idle threats? Simple banter? I suggest you caucus with a few of your cloth that know me. This shyt is really easy to get done once you get the hang of it. 

First offense = 3 years

Second offence = Life!

It is, after all, the resource we're talking about. In the mortgage business, it's called a 'JUMBO!"


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Riva, are you a speeder?


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Quadd4 said:


> It amazes me on the tenacity of the anti-baiters and their claim "for the heath of the heard" yet i never see any of these folks take on the battle cry to prohibit the high fence operations. Why is that?
> 
> Was there testimony by these folks at the NRC meeting regarding the risk that these organizations pose to the resource? By golly, that's how it got here in the first place!
> 
> :sad:


Well then... since it's obvious that everybody else has to carry your luggage, why weren't you at the last NRC meeting? Oh, that's right, you were knitting a sweater for your niece and just couldn't break free! If you think that high fence operations are part of the problem, then Sir, my suggestion to you is: "either show up or shut up" 
I really tire of armchair quarterbacks :sad:


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Riva said:


> It's called. "I used to bait, there's a new threat, and some of us simply want to make sure that the resource can live" agenda!:yikes:


Google OCD. Get help ASAP.

L & O


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Riva said:


> Well then... since it's obvious that everybody else has to carry your luggage, why weren't you at at a NRC meeting? Oh, that's right, you were knitting a sweater for your niece and just couldn't break free! If you think that high fence operations are part of the problem, then Sir, my suggestion to you is: "either show up or shut up" . And, that goes the same for the big m_S Internet cheerleader, the *K*entucky *P*ried.
> *C*heerleader
> 
> I really tire of armchair quarterbacks :sad:


Riva, kudos to you for addressing the board, and having you opinion heard. The fact still remains that even if you take it to the supreme court, baiting is still not going to bring CWD to Michigan.
Edit: BTW you're resorting to name calling......


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Originally Posted by *Riva*
> _It's called. "I used to bait, there's a new threat, and some of us simply want to make sure the resource can live" agenda!:yikes:_
> 
> One question for you, please answer honestly
> ...


 Honest answer....

I will not bait on my property, nor, will I allow any of my guests to bait. The reason is based on the fact that NOBODY has the definitive answer. Not me, not my neighbor, not the DNR, NOBODY! NOBODY has the definitive answer. And, if they say they do, they are a fu***ng LIAR!

I told you folks,..,I used to bait regularly on my property. It stopped 100% when the ban was put in force. Easy decision for me. Apparently not so easy for a few hundred thousand people that continued to bait during the 100% total ban over the last 3 years. 

To me that speaks volumes to the crud value of so many Michigan deer takers. During the last three years, nobody knew the law. Very few knew the implications of this disease. Even fewer thought beyond the concept that baiting is what I want to do, therefore, I'm going to keep doing it". Damn the resource. To me, that mentality is akin to unprotected sex with a stranger in a dark alley. Read my lips..IT's my resource too!

Answer; No. 
No bait at Rivaville. No food plots at Rivaville. No violators at Rivaville!


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Riva said:


> Honest answer....
> 
> I will not bait on my property, nor, will I allow any of my guests to bait. The reason is based on the fact that NOBODY has the definitive answer. Not me, not my neighbor, not the DNR, NOBODY! NOBODY has the definitive answer. And, if they say they do, they are a fu***ng LIAR!


 I have the answer! (easy on the language there big guy) If deer A isn't sick, then no amount of contact between deer A and deer B will cause deer B to get sick! Bait is simply organic material, it isn't poison for crying out loud.


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

Riva said:


> Well then... since it's obvious that everybody else has to carry your luggage, why weren't you at at a NRC meeting? Oh, that's right, you were knitting a sweater for your niece and just couldn't break free! If you think that high fence operations are part of the problem, then Sir, my suggestion to you is: "either show up or shut up" . And, that goes the same for the big m_S Internet cheerleader, the *K*entucky *P*ried.
> *C*heerleader
> 
> I really tire of armchair quarterbacks :sad:


Riva, it doesn't matter one way or another to me if it comes back or not and I'm sorry that the post offended you. I'm just curious why you're not so vocal on the original source that brought it here to begin with? Why is it just a baiting thing with you guys? 

The heath, the risk, could be coming to a pen near you, maybe even before Joe Private land owners planted apples or Joe hunters bait pile even becomes a factor.

I wasn't at the NRC meeting because I can live with either decision.

It seems to be fact that the deer in high fenced pen was the problem. It could again become the next problem. What do you really care about, CWD coming to Michigan or Baiting returning to Michigan?


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

TheCrawdad said:


> I have the answer! (easy on the language there big guy) If deer A isn't sick, then no amount of contact between deer A and deer B will cause deer B to get sick!


Fine. 

Now, move your compass a mere 115 miles to the northwest, to McHenry County, Illinois and, make the same statement.:yikes: 

You people are simply not listening...CWD will, in all probability, will come to Michigan from the west, not from within!


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Quadd4 said:


> Riva, it doesn't matter one way or another to me if it comes back or not and I'm sorry that the post offended you. I'm just curious why you're not so vocal on the original source that brought it here to begin with? Why is it just a baiting thing with you guys?
> 
> The heath, the risk, could be coming to a pen near you, maybe even before Joe Private land owners planted apples or Joe hunters bait pile even becomes a factor.
> 
> ...



Answer: CWD coming to Michigan. 

Now, what part of that answer don't you understand?


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

I do not disagree with your assessment, fl. It could very well lose as you suggest but once the door is open to management by public referendum it will not close. All hunters will lose because by one vote at a time, hunting will be ended. Those that do not believe this have their eyes closed to the new agenda by the anti groups in this state. Go ahead and open the box, it will make their day.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Riva said:


> Fine.
> 
> Now, move your compass a mere 115 miles to the northwest, to McHenry County, Illinois and, make the same statement.:yikes:
> 
> You people are simply not listening...CWD will, in all probability, will come to Michigan from the west, not from within!


There is no baiting in McHenry Co., yet according to you, CWD is still being transmitted. 

There is no Baiting in Northern Indiana, along the corridor that a deer would have to travel from McHenry Co. to reach Michigan, yet according to you the deer is still going to head this way.

How does allowing baiting in Michigan impact either of those facts in any way? 

Even if baiting is banned in Michigan, if the disease has spread through Illinois and Indiana with no baiting, why do you think it's going to be any different in Michigan?

If CWD comes to Michigan from Mchenry Co., bait will have played no role n that event. Even with bait being banned, CWD will continue to spread in Michigan if it comes here.

So what exactly is the point of banning bait? What have you accomplished? It won't stop CWD from coming and it won't stop CWD from spreading, so what exactly will it do?


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

Riva said:


> Answer: CWD coming to Michigan.
> 
> Now, what part of that answer don't you understand?


That's easy to understand!
So to understand you further, why do you choose to battle against a vector that is so insignificant as oppose to battle against the original factual source?

Do you understand my question? 
Just curious.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Riva said:


> Fine.
> 
> 
> You people are simply not listening...CWD will, in all probability, will come to Michigan from the west, not from within!


and there will be a bait ban again... People will still whine and bait...And people will find ways to argue that bait is no harm.. And if food plots arent included, there will be a big push and they will eventually follow...

God, I hope I'm wrong


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Riva said:


> Fine.
> 
> Now, move your compass a mere 115 miles to the northwest, to McHenry County, Illinois and, make the same statement.:yikes:
> 
> You people are simply not listening...CWD will, in all probability, will come to Michigan from the west, not from within!


Are you saying that maintaining the ban will prevent this? Are you saying that maintaining the ban will prevent CWD from spreading if it enters by this means? The absence of baiting HAS NOT PREVENTED THE SPREAD of CWD in any state where it has occurred. Why do we not then work to find a real method for stopping this disease? Apparently the prevention of disease or the prevention of its spread is not the real motivation for the emotional effort to keep the ban in place.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> Boy, KPC, I am certain we must be on the right track when we get you to resort to name calling. In poker, that's called a "tell". So, perhaps I'll continue with this approach or, perhaps I won't.





Riva said:


> Well then... since it's obvious that everybody else has to carry your luggage, why weren't you at at a NRC meeting? Oh, that's right, you were knitting a sweater for your niece and just couldn't break free! If you think that high fence operations are part of the problem, then Sir, my suggestion to you is: "either show up or shut up" . And, that goes the same for the big m_S Internet cheerleader, the Kentucky Pried Cheerleader



You know Riva, I was going to reply to some of your recent blatherings but in all honesty, sitting back and watching you completely unravel is much more fun. I do have to admit though, it is getting kind of sad. 

Big deal, a retired man with nothing better to do went and spoke (apparently ineffectively I might add) in front of a commission that had, to most thinking people, apparently already made their decision, and were just going through the motions.

Yeah, we know, you speak well in front of others. How do we know? You told us. :lol: If you consider using the Lord's name in vain, dropping the F-bomb three or four times in your last few posts, calling people names, accusing them of staying home knitting sweaters, etc. being a good public speaker, you just keep right on speaking. Our side couldn't ask for a better teammate. 




Riva said:


> KPC...you have become your own contradiction. You want baiting. You want it on your terms. And, you want any penance if you are caught in violation, to be so trivial, that it equates into a schoolboy's snickering equal to "oh well, boys will be boys."


Sorry my friend, if I have been anything, it is consistent. I have said from day one, that baiting poses no more risk to "your" precious resource than any other naturally occuring disease vector. Therefore I am being completely consistent when I say that the punishment for a baiting violation should be no different than that of any other "illegal method" violation. You are the one giving it more importance, not me.

Lastly, I don't want baiting on "my terms." I want it on the terms that the DNR set forth prior to the CWD "crisis." Not my terms, I had nothing to do with them.

Maybe you need to step back from your keyboard, take a deep breath, and maybe even take up knitting. :lol: As great a public speaker as you are, you are coming completely unwound.

KPC


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Riva said:


> Fine.
> 
> Now, move your compass a mere 115 miles to the northwest, to McHenry County, Illinois and, make the same statement.:yikes:
> 
> You people are simply not listening...CWD will, in all probability, will come to Michigan from the west, not from within!


 If you can find me some bait that will draw a deer from 115 miles away, I'll buy it from you. The facts remain the same. We don't have CWD. Bait doesn't cause CWD. If CWD does make it here, it will in all likelihood have absolutely nothing to do with baiting. Deer get CWD from_ other deer_. High densities of social animals surely increase contact thus increase the likelihood that a disease (if present) will spread. The high density numbers in the SWLP are far more likely to be a problem than bait in our area, yet the hot topic is all about moving the deers food around.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_&#8220;I promise that if CWD were to get to Michigan, it certainly won't be caused by moving organic materials. ......... that's what baiting really is isn't it? Pick some apples up over here and move them over there. (sugar beets, carrots, corn etc.........)&#8221; _

A &#8220;promise&#8221;, no less! On CWD&#8217;s occurrence? Or, perhaps he means &#8216;non-occurrence&#8217;. Whichever&#8230;.I&#8217;m cool with either. A &#8216;promise&#8217; sure appeals to me. 

Although, and I hate to ask as it seems so darn ......well, 'skeptical'.......but, can the poster offer his bona fides so we can feel a little more confident in putting money on his game?

Not that I lack confidence in his opinion&#8230;..though gotta admit he threw me a bit with his baiting is logistics suggestion. Which is kinda like his earlier speeding reference.......after all, speeding by the playground ain't breaking the law....it's logistics. Moving the vehicle from over here to over there.
&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

And then this offered wisdom: _&#8220;......baiting is really not the real issue for most of the most ardent opponents, that it has become a convenient excuse to mask an underlying agenda.......&#8221;._

It rears it's insidious tinfoil-hat yet again.....the _hidden_ agenda, the _underlying _agenda, the _conspiratorial_ agenda.

Folks, I truly don't can't tell if that offered insight is a hiss from a high horse, or yet another sermon from the Grassy Knoll.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Riva said:


> KPC...you have become your own contradiction. You want baiting. You want it on your terms. And, you want any penance if you are caught in violation, to be so trivial, that it equates into a schoolboy's snickering equal to "oh well, boys will be boys."
> 
> Well, by my standards, that approach is mindless, it's heartless and, it's cowardly. Read my lips..it's my resource too,Sir! And, if you f*** it up, you pay the price. In Latin, it's called "Lex Talionis", "an eye for an eye." (don't argue with me, I've had 8 years of the stuff)
> 
> ...


There is a principle in law that says a penalty shall fit the crime. Your suggestion would not do that and would not stand up to the very certain appeals that would happen.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Quadd4 said:


> It seems to be fact that the deer in high fenced pen was the problem. It could again become the next problem. What do you really care about, CWD coming to Michigan or Baiting returning to Michigan?





Quadd4 said:


> So to understand you further, why do you choose to battle against a vector that is so insignificant as oppose to battle against the original factual source?
> 
> Do you understand my question?
> Just curious.


Make no mistake about it Quadd4, they understand the question, and they know the answer. They just won't answer it, at least not honestly. 

They call people names, make references to the grassy knoll, drop a few GD's and F-bombs and act all high and mighty. That's been successful for them in the past, unfortunately, people are starting to look at the evidence, think for themselves, and push back.

I've been around this forum for a long time and I can tell you that if you are waiting for them to be honest with you, you are going to be disappointed. Up until recently, they have succeeded in getting threads closed, shouting over people, and running people off by spouting their pseudo science. As you can see, it's no longer working and they are literally coming unglued. 

Stay respectful, continue stating the facts, and it will drive them crazy. Sometimes you even have to take your shots from the "grassy knoll."

:lol:

KPC (aka Kentucky Pried Cheerleader)


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> _&#8220;I promise that if CWD were to get to Michigan, it certainly won't be *caused* by moving organic materials. ......... that's what baiting really is isn't it? Pick some apples up over here and move them over there. (sugar beets, carrots, corn etc.........)&#8221; _
> 
> A &#8220;promise&#8221;, no less! On CWD&#8217;s occurrence? Or, perhaps he means &#8216;non-occurrence&#8217;. Whichever&#8230;.I&#8217;m cool with either. A &#8216;promise&#8217; sure appeals to me.
> 
> ...


 FF try writing somthing that isn't filled with 50 dollar words. This is a deer forum. Nobody wants to read your drivel. Now, again I PROMISE that no matter WHERE you put a material that a deer would like to eat, It won't magically contract CWD. Perhaps you need to look up CAUSE in the dictionary. It may be too small of a word for you to comprehend.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> Which is kinda like his earlier speeding reference.......after all, speeding by the playground ain't breaking the law....it's logistics. Moving the vehicle from over here to over there.


 This is taken so far out of context that I have a hard time believing even you would go there.... And I don't expect much of you.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

KPC said:


> You know Riva, I was going to reply to some of your recent blatherings but in all honesty, sitting back and watching you completely unravel is much more fun. I do have to admit though, it is getting kind of sad.
> 
> Big deal, a retired man with nothing better to do went and spoke (apparently ineffectively I might add) in front of a commission that had, to most thinking people, apparently already made their decision, and were just going through the motions.
> 
> ...


Perhaps.

In any event, I forgive you!


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Riva said:


> In any event, I forgive you!


Thank you so much Riva, I wasn't sure if I'd be able to go on.

Now I can.



:lol:

KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> And some would have you believe that there's no link between deer baiters and salmon snaggers.


Actually, I think you may be misreading what the poster was intending to say. I may be wrong but I think this is what he was trying to ask. 

*"so if for some unknow reason the nrc desides to up hold the ban but also outlaws food plots for the taking of game do you think those that are currently plotting will stop putting in plots or try to find away around the law so they can still put in plots?"* (emphasis in red is mine)

If that's the case, I think it is a valid question. I suspect that there would be a LOT of food plotting *"lepers"* if that actually did happen.

One thing I did find rather interesting is the way you linked plotters, with baiters, and then to salmon snaggers...

Very interesting indeed.

:16suspect

KPC


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

A poster in #286 above has offered constructive criticism of an earlier post of mine. He suggested that my opinion expressed as: _..... baiting __unnecessarily elevates the risk of transmitting any one of several diseases that negatively impact wild deer and other wildlife_......was, perhaps, too wordy. 

I thank him. He is right. Less is more.

So, with his advice, Ill tee-up again: _Dumping food in the woods is bad for deer. Bad for wildlife._


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Hmmmm...I wonder what happened to FL's post? It seems to have disappeared.

:16suspect

One has to wonder if he realized how bad it looked.

:lol:

KPC


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

The NRC would never ban food plotting. Why?
Because not only would those who plant food plots be against it. But every pro-baiter in the state of Michigan would be against it. After all, food plotting is baiting and there is absolutely positively no sound science behind prohibiting the use of bait.

And I know you pro-baiters aren't in this for your own selfish desires to just sprinkle some carrots on the ground...you're in it for doing the right thing! I think it might actually be a good idea for the NRC to try and ban food plots.

I can see that NRC meeting, with a wall of hunters locked hand-in-hand...baiter...food plotter...baiter...food plotter...baiter...food plotter shouting "What do we want? FOOD PLOTS!!!"..."When do we want 'em?....NOW!!!!"





KPC said:


> Actually, I think you may be misreading what the poster was intending to say. I may be wrong but I think this is what he was trying to ask.
> 
> *"so if for some unknow reason the nrc desides to up hold the ban but also outlaws food plots for the taking of game do you think those that are currently plotting will stop putting in plots or try to find away around the law so they can still put in plots?"* (emphasis in red is mine)
> 
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> _Dumping food in the woods is bad for deer. Bad for wildlife._


:lol: Yeah, it's damn near destroyed the deer herd in Texas. :lol:

(Texas has the largest deer herd in the Country at 3.7 million animals. more then double the next closest state.)


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

radiohead said:


> The NRC would never ban food plotting. Why?
> Because not only would those who plant food plots be against it. But every pro-baiter in the state of Michigan would be against it. After all, food plotting is baiting and there is absolutely positively no sound science behind prohibiting the use of bait.
> 
> And I know you pro-baiters aren't in this for your own selfish desires to just sprinkle some carrots on the ground...you're in it for doing the right thing! I think it might actually be a good idea for the NRC to try and ban food plots.
> ...


I love the way you guys set up these strawman arguments, and then argue against yourselves. Farm Legend did it and apparently he thought he could remove his post before anyone saw it. It's getting laughable.



Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions (lies) in the above post. I'll try to be as clear as I can, so there is no confusion.

1. Nobody that is in favor of lifting the bait ban (at least none that I have seen) has ever suggested that food lots should be banned...ever. Food plots are a form of bait, and for the most part, present the same risk of disease transmission as any other method of congregating deer.

2. Unlike food plotters, I have never seen where any baiter has suggested they are "doing the right thing" for the deer, or as you folks like to "say for the health of the herd." People that utilize bait as a tool have never felt the need to convince others that they are doing something other than what they are. Is it selfish? Of course, but no more selfish than utilizing any other tool in the quest of killing a deer. Deer benefit from food, no matter what the source. 

3. People that choose to bait, do it for one reason. To lure animals to a specific area for the the sole purpose of killing them. Period. They have always been honest about it, something that many of the plotters have never been willing or able to do. 

If there is anything that you don't understand about that, let me know. I'll try to help you as much as I can.

KPC


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

You baiters are the ones who brought up the scenario of food plots being banned...not me.



KPC said:


> I love the way you guys set up these strawman arguments, and then argue against yourselves. Farm Legend did it and apparently he thought he could remove his post before anyone saw it. It's getting laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

KPC said:


> I love the way you guys set up these strawman arguments, and then argue against yourselves. Farm Legend did it and apparently he thought he could remove his post before anyone saw it.


If that's what you think, you don't even know what a straw man argument is. Irving Copi would be so disappointed in you.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

radiohead said:


> You baiters are the ones who brought up the scenario of food plots being banned...not me.


Show me where any "baiter" suggested that food plots be banned.



KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> If that's what you think, you don't even know what a straw man argument is. Irving Copi would be so disappointed in you.


Oh, I know exactly what a straw man argument is.


*A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that ones position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument, therefore making his own argument only appear superior"*

Kind of like suggesting that some person or some group is in favor of banning food plots, when they are not, and then building an argument, or making statements based on that fallacy.

Now, just out of curiosity, what happened to your post that I quoted, which is now gone?

:16suspect

Did you think better of what you were implying or the connections that were being made?

:lol:

Oh, and by the way, I don't think Irving would mind, he's dead. Apparently just like the bait ban.



KPC


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

KPC said:


> A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that ones position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument, therefore making his own argument only appear superior"
> 
> Oh, and by the way, I don't think Irving would mind, he's dead. Apparently just like the bait ban.




Been doing some google searches today, I see.

The post I deleted had nothing whatever to do with even making an argument; it was, I thought, an amusing illumination of the "interesting" prose which appears on this thread. I deleted it so as to avoid embarassing anyone. By now, you should know that I'd never want to do such a thing.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Riva said:


> Bottom line..if you f*** up MY resource, you pay in equal measure to your crime. First offence = 3 years. Second offence= life!


*"YOUR" Resource? As in You own it?*


*The problem I have is when people like you, put yourself up on this high pedestal looking down on everybody else thinking it is your right to play judge, jury and executioner.* 
*Hate to burst your bubble*

*I just hope and pray that the NRC rescinds the baiting ban so you can plant "YOUR" SOUR GRAPES!!!!!*


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> *"YOUR" Resource? As in You own it?*
> 
> 
> *The problem I have is when people like you, put yourself up on this high pedestal looking down on everybody else thinking it is your right to play judge, jury and executioner.*
> ...



It is my resource. Every bit as much as it is _your_ resource. Not a difficult concept to grasp, actually.

And, if I am looking down on people as you assert, it is because it is hard to look "up" to a lawbreaker. It is even more difficult to look up to 300,000 of them. But, if it'll make you happy, I'll go with two years for first offense but it's still a lifer for the second.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Riva said:


> It is my resource. Every bit as much as it is _your_ resource. Not a difficult concept to grasp, actually.
> 
> And, if I am looking down on people as you assert, it is because it is hard to look "up" to a lawbreaker. It is even more difficult to look up to 300,000 of them. But, if it'll make you happy, I'll go with two years for first offense but it's still a lifer for the second.


 
Funny thing, you "assuming" all baiters are lawbreakers would be the equivalent of me thinking all posters who put a winking emoticon (like you did) on the the of their post are gay! Haha It holds no water.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Funny thing, you "assuming" all baiters are lawbreakers would be the equivalent of me thinking all posters who put a winking emoticon (like you did) on the the of their post are gay! Haha It holds no water.


I am not assuming anything, sir. It is a 100% FACT that anybody that used bait during the last 3 years in the LP was breaking the law. So that means, by my math, that all baiters were lawbreakers.

Going forward, I, quite frankly, don't think it will be much different. It's called "Michigan Math"; 2 gallons will be 5; 5 becomes 10. Leopards never lose their dots! 

I happen to believe that the crime is not trivial and as such, the penalty for breaking the law should likewise, not be trivial. There is, however, one way to mitigate this punishment if you believe it to be too severe. And, that is to obey the law. Again, not a difficult concept.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> I deleted it so as to avoid embarassing anyone. By now, you should know that I'd never want to do such a thing.


I know you deleted it to avoid embarassing anyone. *Yourself.*

:lol:

Now, if you ever manage to embarass me, I'll let you know. 

But please, don't flatter yourself, and certainly don't hold your breath.





KPC


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

TheCrawdad said:


> How many of you that consider yourselves "anti-bait" are NOT landowners? Better yet, how many of you hunt predominantly state land?



I own no hunting land, and have hunted state land (in several counties) since I started hunting in the late 1980's.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> So banning baiting insures that the resource will live?


No.

It merely reduces the risk of disease spread. Which is a very good thing.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

TheCrawdad said:


> I promise that if CWD were to get to Michigan, it certainly won't be caused by moving organic materials.


Ummm... what exactly do you think deer are made of?


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

pescadero said:


> Ummm... what exactly do you think deer are made of?


 You guys never miss a beat do ya? I hate to say it, but if the weather gets better, I won't be around to play 24/7 like some of you. CDAD


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_*.....all posters who put a winking emoticon ...... on the end of their post are gay....*_

Yowza!.......that's a concept I havent seen before on this particular chatroom. 

May act as somewhat of a speed-bump to rampant winking. Donchathink?

-----OR--------

(Steve......there may be another demographic in here that you can slice up and pitch to advertisers.)


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> No.
> 
> It merely reduces the risk of disease spread. Which is a very good thing.


No, it _may_ reduce the risk. then again, it _may_ not result in any reduction in risk, what-so-ever. The baiting ban does not exist in a vacuum, for every positive result there is also a potential negative result, which also has to enter into the equation when deciding policy. 

Reasonable public policy is the result of balance, when all factors are taken into account. A baiting policy that allows limited quantities in areas where there is no tangible evidence of disease being present, is a reasonable approach to this issue.


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

Riva said:


> I am not assuming anything, sir. It is a 100% FACT that anybody that used bait during the last 3 years in the LP was breaking the law. So that means, by my math, that all baiters were lawbreakers.
> 
> Going forward, I, quite frankly, don't think it will be much different. It's called "Michigan Math"; 2 gallons will be 5; 5 becomes 10. Leopards never lose their dots!
> 
> I happen to believe that the crime is not trivial and as such, the penalty for breaking the law should likewise, not be trivial. There is, however, one way to mitigate this punishment if you believe it to be too severe. And, that is to obey the law. Again, not a difficult concept.


Riva, If I recall, you admitted that you baited when it was legal. It is safe to assume that your 2 gallons expanded to 10 as you assert in your "Michigan Math"?


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Quadd4 said:


> Riva, If I recall, you admitted that you baited when it was legal. It is safe to assume that your 2 gallons expanded to 10 as you assert in your "Michigan Math"?


I was/am not a practitioner of Michigan Math. Period.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Riva said:


> I am not assuming anything, sir. It is a 100% FACT that anybody that used bait during the last 3 years in the LP was breaking the law. So that means, by my math, that all baiters were lawbreakers.


I'm sorry, I assumed the 300,000. # thrown out there was closer to the number of legal baiters before the ban, not lawbreakers over the last 3 years. You did not specify. Where did that # come from? Was there a study somewhere or is that just a SWAG? 

300,000 - Could it be a 100% FACT?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Still arguing guys? 
Should be a nice day out tomorrow, I got the day off. Going to head out to the property to do a little prescribed burn hopefully. Got get ready for my plots. I will have to check in late Saturday to see if yall' got things straight.

I do have a question though.................................
So I have read alot that if disease is not present then baiting has no effect on the spread of disease. I agree.
What if we just don't know that disease is present, lift the ban, and it helps with the spread? What will the baiters have to say then? Is it worth throwing the extra "vector" out there, or is it better to eliminate one of thousands? Or does it make a difference either way? Is a food plot in areas of large amounts of AG fields adding to the spread?
Should we all just quit food plotting and forget baiting to help prevent any disease from spreading if and when one does show up?
Is there really anything that we can do or should I say willing to do as a whole to limit the damage? I will go out on a limb here and say then, NO 90% of us hunters are not willing to do what is actually right. IMO that is no food plots, no baiting and alot of population control and yes I fall into that 90%.
I am sure once disease hits we will all follow the recommended procedures to help control it, the problem is like alot of things humans wait until something breaks before they fix it rather than prevent it from breaking.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

Nice post BnB. CDAD


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> I do have a question though.................................
> So I have read alot that if disease is not present then baiting has no effect on the spread of disease. I agree.
> What if we just don't know that disease is present, lift the ban, and it helps with the spread? What will the baiters have to say then? Is it worth throwing the extra "vector" out there, or is it better to eliminate one of thousands? Or does it make a difference either way? Is a food plot in areas of large amounts of AG fields adding to the spread?


If disease is present, then food plots, bait piles, farm fields, gardens, habitat improvements, water sources, etc. will all provide a small avenue for the transmission of disease. My opinion, and it's just an opinion but it's based on having read a *lot *about the transmission of bTB and CWD, is that the small amount of increased risk over the short term, by allowing some vectors to exist, is really not anything to lose much sleep over.

Let me say two things about the risk; regarding bTB, outside of the bTB zone, the chances of bovine tuberculosis becoming endemic to the point of creating a serious risk is pretty low, with or without bait. Only about a 1 in 10 chance according to Steve Schmitt. 

In regards to CWD, it is a very slow spreading disease and it's relatively difficult for free ranging deer to transmit. If it comes to Michigan, it's very likely to be years before it's even detected and even then is very likely to be localized in a very small area. If one of dozens of potential vectors, such as baiting, increases the risk of it spreading by a very small fraction, in the greater scheme of things it's going to be essentially meaningless. With or without baiting, it's going to slowly progress and slowly spread but we are talking in terms of decades not a matter or weeks. This is what Davin Lopez, CWD coordinator for the Wisconsin DNR said about CWD _"This is not a fast moving disease nor is it HIGHLY contagious (it is not influenza)." _



bucksnbows said:


> Should we all just quit food plotting and forget baiting to help prevent any disease from spreading if and when one does show up?
> Is there really anything that we can do or should I say willing to do as a whole to limit the damage? I will go out on a limb here and say then, NO 90% of us hunters are not willing to do what is actually right. IMO that is no food plots, no baiting and alot of population control and yes I fall into that 90%.


I think most of those preventative measures would be unnecessary and really would not accomplish much. Whether or not you do them, at least in terms of CWD, it's going to spread if it comes here. If I had to pick one prophylactic measure that might be a good idea, it would be to try and reduce the population in the SLP by about 30% - 50%. Reduced density is the number one best means of limiting the spread of disease. the other step that I would take, is to substantially increase the amount of testing and monitoring that is done in the three counties in the extreme Southwest of the SLP and the 3 counties in the Up that border WI/MN. It's pretty amazing to me that we are only testing a handful of deer a year from these counties, which are the most likely access points for CWD walking across out border. The other thing that should be done is to get rid of the captive cervid industry, it is by far the most likely means for disease being introduced into our state and the amount and methods of monitoring that is done of captive cervid enclosures in Michigan is laughable.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> If disease is present, then food plots, bait piles, farm fields, gardens, habitat improvements, water sources, etc. will all provide a small avenue for the transmission of disease. My opinion, and it's just an opinion but it's based on having read a *lot *about the transmission of bTB and CWD, is that the small amount of increased risk over the short term, by allowing some vectors to exist, is really not anything to lose much sleep over.
> 
> Let me say two things about the risk; regarding bTB, outside of the bTB zone, the chances of bovine tuberculosis becoming endemic to the point of creating a serious risk is pretty low, with or without bait. Only about a 1 in 10 chance according to Steve Schmitt.
> 
> ...


 
I can agree with all of this. IMO number 1 point of focus should be the captive cervid farms. I am not a pro baiter in terms of putting out a pile of "food" only because I do not believe it will help me kill a big buck. I, as any of you who frequent this site should know, that I am all in favor of putting the odds in ones favor. Habitat work, food plots, bait pile, what ever, and after months of involving myself and removng myself from these bait discussions I can not see why we must argue. If the ban is lifted lets be responsible, you don't need a dump truck load of bait in one area. Getting hunters to obey the "rules" has and always will be a problem when it comes to baiting and to me that seems to be the biggest problem.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

bucksnbows said:


> I can agree with all of this. IMO number 1 point of focus should be the captive cervid farms. I am not a pro baiter in terms of putting out a pile of "food" only because I do not believe it will help me kill a big buck. I, as any of you who frequent this site should know, that I am all in favor of putting the odds in ones favor. Habitat work, food plots, bait pile, what ever, and after months of involving myself and removng myself from these bait discussions I can not see why we must argue. If the ban is lifted lets be responsible, you don't need a dump truck load of bait in one area._* Getting hunters to obey the "rules" has and always will be a problem when it comes to baiting and to me that seems to be the biggest problem.*_



Bingo, we have a winner. The biggest problem with allowing baiting to come back is the inability to effectively regulate it. When it is mentioned to get penalties similar to the tough snagging laws, it is met with just as much resistant tenacity as the pro baiters put forth to ending the ban.

When the ban was put into place and we really had no idea what we were dealing with at that point in time, guys didn't give a rats **** and went ahead and did it anyways, even in the face of the unkown and not letting the DNR try and get their arms around the situation and sort it out, it was business as usual and the hell with everyone else.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

One of the reasons that I have heard for this response was that sharpshooters were allowed to use them in sanctioned urban hunts. Geographical location does not determine the viability of transmission when the methods used are identical. It was a matter of the dnr saying one thing and then not intervening to stop it in when used in other geographical areas. 

Another reason that I heard was that the dnr never made a case for the ban in the wild for the originally stated impetus. I could go on and on but it comes down to the idea that more than a few folks stopped finding credibility with the dnr some time ago. Please note that any assumption that baiting took place, other than food plotting, at my blind during the past illegal years would be incorrect.


----------



## stickem (Oct 31, 2007)

still arguing about this subject eh.....some people need to go outside and smell the roses...this thread is proof of how some people can be 100% selfish


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

soggybtmboys said:


> Bingo, we have a winner. The biggest problem with allowing baiting to come back is the inability to effectively regulate it. When it is mentioned to get penalties similar to the tough snagging laws, it is met with just as much resistant tenacity as the pro baiters put forth to ending the ban.
> 
> When the ban was put into place and we really had no idea what we were dealing with at that point in time, guys didn't give a rats **** and went ahead and did it anyways, even in the face of the unkown and not letting the DNR try and get their arms around the situation and sort it out, it was business as usual and the hell with everyone else.


Precisely the issue! If the pro-baiting side contends that there can be no risk if there no disease, then anti-baiting contingent--as well as the pro baiting side must admit that there can not be laws wherein there are no controls. 

Below is your typical bag of carrots. Also, is a two gallon bucket. The yellow line is what I approximate to be about two gallons--roughly half of bag. Collectively, these are the components of "Michigan Math".

Thankfully, the Michigan Legislature has a voice in determining penalties when Michigan Math is flushed out. First offense; *3-year license* revocation. Second offence: *lifetime*. 

Trivial penance does not stop salmon snagging. Nor will it stop Michigan Math. You cannot have laws wherein there are no controls.


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

Munsterlndr said:


> A baiting policy that allows limited quantities in areas where there is no tangible evidence of disease being present, is a reasonable approach to this issue.


If in fact no disease is present, then why the need for any limitations at all? If no disease is present, why not just go back to the baiting explosion of the 80's, where beets were sold by the frontloader scoop rather than the bag or bucket. 

If in fact no disease is present, then any support for any limits on bait quantity would seem to imply that there are other tangible reasons to limit this activity.

The argument that no amount of bait will spread a non-existent disease is irrefutable. Put another way, a 10 sq. ft. spread of shelled corn poses no more risk than a mountain of carrots.

Why the limits then? Let's turn that $50 million baiting industry into $75 million, or $100 million.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

I will be interested to hear the responses on this one too. Great question. Baiting is not a disease transmission vector worthy of worrying about (per the baiting proponents), so why the need to limit it at 2 gallons?




Tom (mich) said:


> If in fact no disease is present, then why the need for any limitations at all? If no disease is present, why not just go back to the baiting explosion of the 80's, where beets were sold by the frontloader scoop rather than the bag or bucket.
> 
> If in fact no disease is present, then any support for any limits on bait quantity would seem to imply that there are other tangible reasons to limit this activity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

radiohead said:


> I will be interested to hear the responses on this one too. Great question. Baiting is not a disease transmission vector worthy of worrying about (per the baiting proponents), so why the need to limit it at 2 gallons?


DING DING DING! 

Read my signature


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

stickem said:


> still arguing about this subject eh.....some people need to go outside and smell the roses...this thread is proof of how some people can be 100% selfish


But it is entertaining to watch the stuff people come up with to support their argument..I love Munster's pics


Tom (mich) said:


> If in fact no disease is present, then why the need for any limitations at all? If no disease is present, why not just go back to the baiting explosion of the 80's, where beets were sold by the frontloader scoop rather than the bag or bucket.
> 
> If in fact no disease is present, then any support for any limits on bait quantity would seem to imply that there are other tangible reasons to limit this activity.
> 
> ...


I agree.. No disease = no limit..
Heck now we're seeing the argument that bait where disease is present doesnt aid the spread.. So why not no limit statewide.. I mean in this make everything a level fair playing field world.. we shouldn't discriminate those in the NELP... Oh wait I think Soggy already covered that


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

radiohead said:


> I will be interested to hear the responses on this one too. Great question. Baiting is not a disease transmission vector worthy of worrying about (per the baiting proponents), so why the need to limit it at 2 gallons?


I'm going to guess that falls under social science. Minimizing the investment minimizes ones "stake" on public property. Not being a baiter, I'm not sure what a truck load of bait costs, but I imagine someone sitting on a sizable investment of bait becomes even more entitled, than sitting on just 2 gallons. Additionally, having bait restricted to a size that is totable by a human no doubt decreases the use of atvs and other vehicles in areas that are restricted to their use.


----------



## crossboy17 (Sep 29, 2008)

Sib said:


> I'm going to guess that falls under social science. Minimizing the investment minimizes ones "stake" on public property. Not being a baiter, I'm not sure what a truck load of bait costs, but I imagine someone sitting on a sizable investment of bait becomes even more entitled, than sitting on just 2 gallons. Additionally, having bait restricted to a size that is totable by a human no doubt decreases the use of atvs and other vehicles in areas that are restricted to their use.


3 years ago it was $25.00 a scoop for beats and cob corn.
We used to split between three of us neighbors.
More than enough for the entire season.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Oh man I can see it now. Class warfare amongst the baiters will be the next front line of this battle.
Baiting welfare! We must stop the agenda of Big Baiting and protect the little guy who can only afford a few Shekel's of shelled corn :lol:



Sib said:


> I'm going to guess that falls under social science. Minimizing the investment minimizes ones &quot;stake&quot; on public property. Not being a baiter, I'm not sure what a truck load of bait costs, but I imagine someone sitting on a sizable investment of bait becomes even more entitled, than sitting on just 2 gallons. Additionally, having bait restricted to a size that is totable by a human no doubt decreases the use of atvs and other vehicles in areas that are restricted to their use.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

radiohead said:


> Oh man I can see it now. Class warfare amongst the baiters will be the next front line of this battle.
> Baiting welfare! We must stop the agenda of Big Baiting and protect the little guy who can only afford a few Shekel's of shelled corn :lol:


Bridge card


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Don't think it qualifies as welfare, but social engineering, perhaps. Not unprecedented in the world of outdoors. I think I have about 18 - 25 fishing poles, but the regs restrict how many I can use while fishing.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

The 2-gallon limit will keep the greedy carrot company executives and their Wall Street cronies in check!

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> I will be interested to hear the responses on this one too. Great question. Baiting is not a disease transmission vector worthy of worrying about (per the baiting proponents), so why the need to limit it at 2 gallons?


For the answer to that, we need only look at history. Since the 1920's, private clubs in what is now known to be the bTB area, engaged in massive amounts of supplemental feeding. It was not uncommon to find five, ten or twenty tons of food placed regularly on individual properties. This created a massive problem with artificially sustained population densities. Habitat that could support 20 DPSM naturally was being forced to accommodate 100 to 120 DPSM due to the massive artificial feeding that was conducted. This resulted in instances of 50 lb yearling's that were on the verge of starving on a year round basis, significant degradation of habitat and just way to many deer in general (except from the point of view of the private clubs). 

These practices of unrestricted volumes of food, resulted in circumstances that were ripe for the spread of an infectious disease like bTB, when it made it into the deer herd sometime in the 1950's.

Unrestricted feeding or baiting can potentially be a bad thing, because it could potentially replicate the results that occurred in the bTB zone, in terms of overpopulation compared to what the natural environment can support. Without restrictions, quantities used in baiting can start to approach the large quantities that were historically used for supplemental feeding and I don't know of anyone who is suggesting bringing back those sorts of practices. Even in the absence of disease, such practices hurt the herd more then they help. 

There is little danger, however, that restricted quantities of bait, in the 2 to 5 gallon range, are going to provide enough extra food to significantly increase the density of the herd. You are essentially providing the deer with a snack, just enough to attract them on a regular basis. 

Pretty simple distinction to understand if you actually understand the mechanics of how the current bTB problem came about.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

At what quantity does baiting become a vector we should be concerned about? Is 5 gallons the max?
We need to know as the next fight may be to expand the quantity limits if 2-5 gallons does not get the pro-baiter their desired results.

I don't want Joe Hunter to be able to get to the level of those hunt clubs that created all these problems.




Munsterlndr said:


> There is little danger, however, that restricted quantities of bait, in the 2 to 5 gallon range, are going to provide enough extra food to significantly increase the density of the herd. You are essentially providing the deer with a snack, just enough to attract them on a regular basis.


----------



## walleyedude (Feb 7, 2011)

What about the idea of instead of using a gallon limit per bait site use the regulation of for every gallon of bait/feed dispersed it needs to be in a 10ft by 10ft area. If a person wanted to use 5 gallons it needs to be spread out in a 50ft by 50ft area. Would this idea work?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

radiohead said:


> At what quantity does baiting become a vector we should be concerned about? Is 5 gallons the max?
> We need to know as the next fight may be to expand the quantity limits if 2-5 gallons does not get the pro-baiter their desired results.
> 
> I don't want Joe Hunter to be able to get to the level of those hunt clubs that created all these problems.


While I don't know that there is any definitive cut off, I do know of two studies that looked at the impact of baiting, that used 5 gallon amounts and both determined that baiting in those quantities typically attracted only small groups of deer, far less then the large concentrations of deer that occurred with massive amounts of supplemental feeding (in the thousands of pounds). Both Garner & Van Deelan, in separate studies, found a mean group size utilizing 5 gallons of bait, to be similar or smaller then typical family group size, (2 deer in one study, 3 in the other)

That would indicate to me that somewhere in the 2 - 5 gallon range probably presents a pretty low risk and would be acceptable. If someone wants to push for a higher limit, I'd suggest they do some research and provide some factual support for a higher limit, I'm satisfied with two gallons.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

I think you're on to something!
If a hunter wants to buy 200 gallons of bait, but is willing to spread it out over an area where this vector will not pose a risk, who's to say he can't?

At that point it's no different than a food plot anyway!



walleyedude said:


> What about the idea of instead of using a gallon limit per bait site use the regulation of for every gallon of bait/feed dispersed it needs to be in a 10ft by 10ft area. If a person wanted to use 5 gallons it needs to be spread out in a 50ft by 50ft area. Would this idea work?


----------



## crossboy17 (Sep 29, 2008)

radiohead said:


> At what quantity does baiting become a vector we should be concerned about? Is 5 gallons the max?
> We need to know as the next fight may be to expand the quantity limits if 2-5 gallons does not get the pro-baiter their desired results.
> 
> I don't want Joe Hunter to be able to get to the level of those hunt clubs that created all these problems.


Actually with the amount and type of questions that you are asking it is really starting to look like you my friend are contemplating being a closet baiter.
You will probably just keep up the front that you don't use bait, but will probably be using it just like the rest of us.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

radiohead said:


> I will be interested to hear the responses on this one too. Great question. Baiting is not a disease transmission vector worthy of worrying about (per the baiting proponents), so why the need to limit it at 2 gallons?


Here we go again...












KPC


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> For the answer to that, we need only look at history. Since the 1920's, private clubs in what is now known to be the bTB area, engaged in massive amounts of supplemental feeding. It was not uncommon to find five, ten or twenty tons of food placed regularly on individual properties. This created a massive problem with artificially sustained population densities.
> ...................


Since the 1920's ??? 
That is very different than anything that I have ever read. Were sugar beets and carrots even know to be deer food at that time or maybe you are referring to corn & hay only. It's hard to imagine any feeding of deer during the Depression or during WWII. What I remember reading is that supplemental feeding was rather small during the 50's & 60's and then exploded in the 70's. Not sure about baiting, but thought that got going pretty good in the late 60's or early 70's. 
Not many hunters back in the 20's either......36,800 in 1920. 75,000 in 1930. 90,000 in '35. 150,000 in '39. 
Lots of the NLP was closed to hunting in the 20's and early 30's. All of the SLP closed until '48.
Anyone have a link to any articles about supplemental feeding of deer in the NLP before 1960 ?

L & O


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> Anyone have a link to any articles about supplemental feeding of deer in the NLP before 1960 ?
> 
> L & O


The supplemental feeding that was going in Club country in the early days was usually hay. As detailed in this report, they also tried to import cut cedar boughs left over from timber operations in other parts of the NLP, to sustain the overpopulated density that resulted from the practices of the hunting clubs.

You might find this report interesting. Particularly the description of a visit to the Turtle Lake Club (page 12), the very property where the bTB index case would be found roughly 50 years later. 

The conditions that resulted in endemic bTB are not something that were created over night. It took 75 years of concentrated efforts by the hunt clubs in that area to create optimal conditions for the outbreak of disease. 

http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...fehabitat/reports/wld-library/288-399/327.pdf


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

25 Pages later and this topic has become completely FUBAR.

No wonder why Michigan deer hunting is dying a slow death. :sad:


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> No, it _may_ reduce the risk. then again, it _may_ not result in any reduction in risk, what-so-ever.


No, it DOES reduce the risk.

We can argue about the DEGREE to which it does so.



Munsterlndr said:


> A baiting policy that allows limited quantities in areas where there is no tangible evidence of disease being present, is a reasonable approach to this issue.


While at this point there are areas with no tangible evidence of CWD or bTB, there aren't any with no tangible evidence or likelihood of disease. We've had several equine encephalitis and EHD outbreaks over the years.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

While at this point there are areas with no tangible evidence of CWD or bTB, there aren't any with no tangible evidence or likelihood of disease. We've had several equine encephalitis and EHD outbreaks over the years.[/QUOTE]

_I do not eat horses.:lol: EHD has been found in localized areas at specific times of the year. The DNR has never indicated that hunting in those areas is a problem which I have not done at any rate. EHD has a rapid progression from what I have read about it which means that symptoms and death occur in a relatively quick time after infection (in deer). I have never read of anyone eating an EHD infected deer._


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> No, it DOES reduce the risk.
> 
> We can argue about the DEGREE to which it does so.
> 
> ...


The context of the discussions regarding baiting are concerning bTB and CWD. In that context, if those diseases are not present to be transmitted, then a ban on baiting *does not* decrease the risk of transmission, because the risk is already zero. 

If you were to walk into a McDonald's in Ann Arbor and start eating the left over food that other patrons had discarded, there is zero risk that you would contract small pox from doing so. You might contract other food borne illnesses but not small pox. The chance is zip, zero, nada.

If CWD and Btb are not present to be transmitted, then the risk of baiting increasing the potential for the spread of those diseases is zip, zero, nada. It's a physical impossibility to transmit a disease that is not present. 


Now, you can argue about the likelihood of disease being present in different areas and circumstances but that is a different discussion and that is where the discussion of acceptable risk comes into play.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> The context of the discussions regarding baiting are concerning bTB and CWD.


Only because some folks want to limit to those diseases.

We've got any number of other diseases we should also be concerned with.





Munsterlndr said:


> If you were to walk into a McDonald's in Ann Arbor and start eating the left over food that other patrons had discarded, there is zero risk that you would contract small pox from doing so. You might contract other food borne illnesses but not small pox. The chance is zip, zero, nada.



Actually, as long as live virus cultures exist - I'd say the odds are non-zero. Infinitesimally small, yes. Zero, no.



Munsterlndr said:


> Now, you can argue about the likelihood of disease being present in different areas and circumstances but that is a different discussion and that is where the discussion of acceptable risk comes into play.


No - that is the very heart of this discussion. What is acceptable risk tied with what is an acceptable cost to obviate risk.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> .....................
> The conditions that resulted in endemic bTB are not something that were created over night. It took 75 years of concentrated efforts by the hunt clubs in that area to create optimal conditions for the outbreak of disease.
> 
> http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...fehabitat/reports/wld-library/288-399/327.pdf


Very interesting and changes my knowledge about supplemental feeding, clubs and the NELP prior to WWII . Late 30's......you would think that they would have pushed to legalize harvesting an adequate number of does considering the economy at the time. Hindsight is always near perfect. The clubs sure did want the government to pay for additional feeding programs didn't they ?
Thanks for posting that report. Hope many take the time to read or at least scan it.

L & O


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> Very interesting and changes my knowledge about supplemental feeding, clubs and the NELP prior to WWII . Late 30's......you would think that they would have pushed to legalize harvesting an adequate number of does considering the economy at the time. Hindsight is always near perfect. The clubs sure did want the government to pay for additional feeding programs didn't they ?
> Thanks for posting that report. Hope many take the time to read or at least scan it.
> 
> L & O


The DNR wanted to put an antlerless season in place but there was significant resistance from the hunt clubs and they had a lot of influence with the legislature, who set game policy during that era, prior to proposal G. Ilo Bartlett was the author of that report, he was the big game specialist for the DNR and he was very interested in reducing densities through antlerless deer harvest. Pennsylvania was facing similar issues with over-population and substantial winter kill and they had introduced an antlerless deer season in 1937, which was fresh in Bartlett's mind when he authored that report. I've also read the transcripts of a couple of radio interviews that he did during that general time period and he was very vocal about the need to kill excess does to reduce winter kill. Here is a report regarding the 1937 PA antlerless season that he put together. At the end of the report are copies of a number of newspaper articles from that era in Pennsylvania, which I found kind of cool. 

http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...fehabitat/reports/wld-library/288-399/362.pdf


----------

