# Barrels on state land



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

The new bait barrel regulation is kind of odd in my opinion. The barrels have to be on state land, not CFA or Federal. That’s not really earthshaking!

This is what is; The barrels have to be 100 yards from a state forest road or CLOSER?

This regulation was trying to get passed since 2009. It barely passed. 3-1 with a two year sunset clause. Two commissioners were absent. So with a full board I doubt if it would of passd. The MUCC opposed I believe in 2017. 

This is a dog hunter strike bait. I’m a dog hunter not a bait hunter. I really don’t think any bait sitters will be sitting next to a road, be an easy drag I guess.

Any thoughts?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Is it to help in cleanup when people leave their crap in the woods?


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Not for trash barrels, there can only be up to three one inch holes in the barrel...common name is corn shaker.

Back in 2009 the barrel advocate(s) pointed out dog/wolf conflicts. Wolves can’t get into the bait. What’s even more compelling this year is we are saving the deer herd from CWD by using barrels. Deer cannot access the corn. Both are reasonable theories.

WHATS ODD IS THAT THE STATE MAY BE ASSUMING WOLVES AND DEER ARE ONLY ON STATE LAND, AND WITHIN 100 YARDS OF A ROAD?


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

I’m glad the rules changed. A year late for me. But the 100yds from the road is a head scratcher. I tried to get as far off the road as I could when I hunted and if I could’ve used a barrel I probably would have went ever farther knowing I wouldn’t have to bait as much. Weird. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

My thoughts are that it sounds ridiculous. 100 yards? Hell I haven’t even started to sweat at the 100 yard mark.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

As a bear hunter I don't get the whole barrel thing, private or public, but c'est la vie.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

The reason it’s odd is this is exclusively for dog hunters. I’m a dog hunter but this is not a good idea in my opinion. There are lots of reasons not to allow corn shakers. The biggest reason is to protect the bear population. With all the technology we use ( both bait and dog hunters ) do you really think ten guys should be able to set up three barrels each on state land, then come up dog running on the weekend? Constant bait is huge advantage to the hunter.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Commissioner Louise Klarr, from Jackson, requested a revision to the bear regulation that allows the use of barrels on state-managed public land assuming they meet the following criteria:


Made of steel
Minimum size of 33-gallon-barrel
One per bait station
With a proper tag of identification
Chained no longer than 8 feet
No more than three holes, each with a maximum size of 1 inch
Within 100 yards of a state forest road.


https://mucc.org/february-nrc-recap/


I agree it's not very useful for bait hunters.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

This very reckless revision has been advocated by a few indviduals for ten years. It barely passed, without the sunset clause, Commisioner Creagh was a no vote. As far as I can decipher, only two commissioners were a for sure yes. 
Sound Science, there isn’t any that I can see? I want someone to enlighten me and other users why this is a good idea. All I can see is few big hound groups will have a distinct advantage over the resource and other bear hunters.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

I think it would be better if people didn't use the "sound science" argument to attack everything about the sport they object to. I'm not targeting you alone. I see it all of the time in other forums here as well. I'm not sure how we all fell into this trap. But we all have it seems to me. The sound science is the use of hunting to control populations more then the tactics involved. IMHO.

I liked the idea of barrels for baiting. So, I'm a little disappointed in this version of the rules. It will surely make road hunting with hounds a little easier. But having baits scattered around for over a month makes bear trails across roads pretty common and an easy thing to spot.

If the hunters who use barrels follow the rules and actually police up their barrels. Then maybe the NRC will be willing to broaden the use of barrels and allow for larger holes at least.

Good luck this season!


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Bingo! Expand the use of barrels! I was waiting for such a response. That’s actually the most dangerous reason there is to oppose. I don’t think people understand how this baiting method holds bears. If you want to really mess up bear hunting, this is the way. 

The larger holes are not nessesary, in fact not very smart. The best way is one one inch hole. I have seen these work. Barrels will be as shiny from use. Asking for larger holes is telling me you are not familiar with corn shakers.

I don’t see anything wrong with mentioning sound science. I am glad you explained it to me. Controlling bear numbers will certainly work in this case. I see a spike in harvest in 2019 and 2020 on state land.

By the way, there are still barrels in the woods from the 70’s in 80’s in my area. Only a couple...but there. Barrels will be in the woods in August, September, and October in the UP. 

Now I still want some enlightenment on why this is a good idea. It was pushed by a few..to benefit a few.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Nostromo said:


> I think it would be better if people didn't use the "sound science" argument to attack everything about the sport they object to. I'm not targeting you alone. I see it all of the time in other forums here as well. I'm not sure how we all fell into this trap. But we all have it seems to me. *The sound science is the use of hunting to control populations more then the tactics involved. IMHO*.
> 
> I liked the idea of barrels for baiting. So, I'm a little disappointed in this version of the rules. It will surely make road hunting with hounds a little easier. But having baits scattered around for over a month makes bear trails across roads pretty common and an easy thing to spot.
> 
> ...


This is what Proposal G says: Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable,* to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game*. The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. (The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game." The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.)

It clearly states- "...to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions REGARDING the taking of game." So the sound scientific management was not intended to be using hunting as a management tool. Sound scientific management was to be used in making decision how game is to be hunted. The problem is "sound scientific management" was never defined in Proposal G. And since the time Proposal G passed, it has translated into including "social science". Social science according to our illustrious NRC can be as simple as a small very vocal group making demands. My personal opinion is that when Proposal G was on the ballot no one who voted for it envisioned "social science" being used in place of "sound scientific management". I know I didn't.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Biggbear said:


> This is what Proposal G says: Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable,* to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game*. The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. (The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game." The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.)
> 
> It clearly states- "...to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions REGARDING the taking of game." So the sound scientific management was not intended to be using hunting as a management tool. Sound scientific management was to be used in making decision how game is to be hunted. The problem is "sound scientific management" was never defined in Proposal G. And since the time Proposal G passed, it has translated into including "social science". Social science according to our illustrious NRC can be as simple as a small very vocal group making demands. My personal opinion is that when Proposal G was on the ballot no one who voted for it envisioned "social science" being used in place of "sound scientific management". I know I didn't.


Thanks for posting that. I believe, and I'm not alone on this. That people take liberties with the term "principles of sound scientific management". Believing it somehow relates to whether or not to keep bait in a barrel as opposed to a hole in the ground or a stump is just one example. Some may argue it's their right to take things as literally as possible. But it's certainly not the intent of the law.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I kind of agree about keeping the sound science out of the mix...sorry. 

I still would like someone to explain to me why and how the barrel recommendation passed? It benefits large hound groups and no one else. 

It adds a multitude of enforcement related problems as well as user group confrontations.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Bearboy said:


> I kind of agree about keeping the sound science out of the mix...sorry.
> 
> I still would like someone to explain to me why and how the barrel recommendation passed? It benefits large hound groups and no one else.
> 
> It adds a multitude of enforcement related problems as well as user group confrontations.


Confrontations in the bear hunting community? People will start to think we are deer hunters. 

Getting back to the hunting aspect. You're right I don't have a lot of experience with corn shakers. The advantage I see with using a barrel is the bait station can literally be where it suits me best. With a couple choices for stand locations etc. What I want from the barrel is what I want from a rock on a stump or logs over a hole. I want the bear to make a quick survey of the area then be preoccupied with my bait. This way, I can size the bear up and be sure it's one I want to take. If not, I want to snap a few pics and enjoy watching the bear do his or her thing in peace. I think holes large enough for him to stick a paw into and dig is preferable to smaller ones where he has to be man-handling the barrel to get his treat. AS his head is up it's more likely he'll sense me, or worse see me raise by rifle.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Bearboy said:


> I kind of agree about keeping the sound science out of the mix...sorry.
> 
> I still would like someone to explain to me why and how the barrel recommendation passed? It benefits large hound groups and no one else.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jimmyferris (Mar 27, 2019)

Let's be honest....where ever someone establishes a bait site on public land they expect exclusive use even though the law does not allow it. It is a never ending catalyst for confrontation between users. Ask any conservation officer. Now, consider how the big dog crews can exploit barrels becoming legal on state land. They can legally take over an entire area setting up barrels every mile along an entire roadway.most sportsmen will not hunt around others bait sites....so, they effectively take over an entire area....or, intimidate other users attempting to hunt in their "take-over," area. This barrel issue will be exploited. And, Michigan bear hunting will be more degraded than it already is.


----------



## River raider (Dec 25, 2017)

If you want to increase your odds of a larger male, be at least 1/2 mile from a road . This barrel use is most directed for hound hunting or running with hounds. Bears love to travel roads , mostly in the dark of night. The greatest advantage of a barrel for hunting over a bait, is a reference of size in relation to the barrel. I have created , what I feel is the ideal bait holder. Anyone interested, just send me a PM, glad to share this proven device. Bear feel very comfortable with it . Another thing I've learned is less bait is best to harvest in daylight hours. I hope the hound hunters have great success, and pick up the bait stations .


----------



## Jimmyferris (Mar 27, 2019)

Nostromo said:


> Confrontations in the bear hunting community? People will start to think we are deer hunters.
> 
> Getting back to the hunting aspect. You're right I don't have a lot of experience with corn shakers. The advantage I see with using a barrel is the bait station can literally be where it suits me best. With a couple choices for stand locations etc. What I want from the barrel is what I want from a rock on a stump or logs over a hole. I want the bear to make a quick survey of the area then be preoccupied with my bait. This way, I can size the bear up and be sure it's one I want to take. If not, I want to snap a few pics and enjoy watching the bear do his or her thing in peace. I think holes large enough for him to stick a paw into and dig is preferable to smaller ones where he has to be man-handling the barrel to get his treat. AS his head is up it's more likely he'll sense me, or worse see me raise by rifle.


----------



## Jimmyferris (Mar 27, 2019)

Instead of focusing on dwindling bear habitat and fighting for sound scientific bear management...it's all about making it even easier to kill bear. With all the evolving technology bear hunting with dogs is not the physical challenge it once was. And now they want barrels to make it even easier. I am ashamed for what passes as bear management in Michigan, and the political appointees in the NRC we entrust the state's fish and wildlife to.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Jimmyferris said:


> Instead of focusing on dwindling bear habitat and fighting for sound scientific bear management...it's all about making it even easier to kill bear. With all the evolving technology bear hunting with dogs is not the physical challenge it once was. And now they want barrels to make it even easier. I am ashamed for what passes as bear management in Michigan, and the political appointees in the NRC we entrust the state's fish and wildlife to.


Well, you're entitled to your opinions.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Bearboy said:


> I kind of agree about keeping the sound science out of the mix...sorry.
> 
> I still would like someone to explain to me why and how the barrel recommendation passed? It benefits large hound groups and no one else.
> 
> It adds a multitude of enforcement related problems as well as user group confrontations.


You pretty much answered your own question. It benefits hound hunters. Period. That's what it was suppose to do. It's really that simple.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Jimmyferris said:


> Let's be honest....where ever someone establishes a bait site on public land they expect exclusive use even though the law does not allow it. It is a never ending catalyst for confrontation between users. Ask any conservation officer. Now, consider how the big dog crews can exploit barrels becoming legal on state land. They can legally take over an entire area setting up barrels every mile along an entire roadway.most sportsmen will not hunt around others bait sites....so, they effectively take over an entire area....or, intimidate other users attempting to hunt in their "take-over," area. This barrel issue will be exploited. And, Michigan bear hunting will be more degraded than it already is.


Obviously being a forum, not everyone agrees on everything or every opinion. This barrel issue is controversial for sure. I don't believe the barrel use ruins bear hunting at all. No more than baiting deer does. It offers a better way to keep bear bait at a location longer keeping the hunter out of the area in turn leaving less human scent around. Barrels were once legal and it worked. The problem then was, barrels remained in the woods all year long. Chains hung from trees with cow skulls hanging on them, barrels, buckets and various metallic or plastic items were littering the woods so barrels were banned. We're our own worst enemies when it comes to these issues. Today walk thru state lands and count the number of treestands, ground blinds or ladders in trees. It's ignorant. All year long there sitting in the woods. It's clear the new barrel use is a plus for bear dog hunters. I've always been a bear bait hunter in Michigan since I started "Bear hunting". I say "Bear hunting" because back in the old days, I purchased a bear tag for firearm deer season( prior the 1989, when they started the bear drawings). Many years I observed bears while deer hunting in Marquette county and killed a few in November. I wasn't bear hunting but harvested an occasional bear while hunting for deer. The only part of this entire new barrel rule that does not help or benefit a bear ( bait ) hunter is the 100 yard rule. It only benefits dog hunters. It needs to benefit all bear hunters equally. If or once that change occurs, I believe most bear hunters will definitely benefit from barrels. Another reason I think they put that 100 yard rule in place ( if you ask them) is so it makes it easier for bear hunters to remove them after the season. It kinda camoflauges the real reason of only benefiting dog hunters.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

River raider said:


> If you want to increase your odds of a larger male, be at least 1/2 mile from a road . This barrel use is most directed for hound hunting or running with hounds. Bears love to travel roads , mostly in the dark of night. The greatest advantage of a barrel for hunting over a bait, is a reference of size in relation to the barrel. I have created , what I feel is the ideal bait holder. Anyone interested, just send me a PM, glad to share this proven device. Bear feel very comfortable with it . Another thing I've learned is less bait is best to harvest in daylight hours. I hope the hound hunters have great success, and pick up the bait stations .


Be alot easier to send you a PM if you had that option on your profile page. The forum isn't allowing a conversation with you thru PMs.


----------

