# GR Hunting Show Russ Mason Meeting?



## countryboy (Nov 9, 2000)

Did anyone attend the meeting at the hunting show last night thast Russ Mason hosted? I had to work, otherwise I would have went. Just wondering how it went.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Yes, I was in attendance along with 130 other interested and involved deer hunters. Russ started on time at 6:30 and spoke and answered questions for approx. 75 minutes. The discussion would have went longer but was interrupted by the show promoter Tom Antor and he held Russ to just three more questions. 

Russ surprised everybody (at least surprised the hell out of me) when he opened with the statement " Ending the baiting ban is absolutely the right thing to do." Then went on to say as the wildlife Chief he will oppose the lifting. He told everybody interested in lifting the ban to make their reasons known to the NRC as they will be the ultimate decider. He aslo stated as of right now he felt there were five NRC members leaning towards lifting the ban. I took a lot of notes and will discuss more later as I smell supper!


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

I better paint the corn spreader *before fall gets here*


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

where did the earlier thread on this go
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

Am I missing something, you said that he said lifting the baiting ban was the right thing to do? Then he went on to say he opposes it???


----------



## JOHNL (Feb 10, 2000)

da Appleknocker said:


> Yes, I was in attendance along with 130 other interested and involved deer hunters. Russ started on time at 6:30 and spoke and answered questions for approx. 75 minutes. The discussion would have went longer but was interrupted by the show promoter Tom Antor and he held Russ to just three more questions.
> 
> Russ surprised everybody (at least surprised the hell out of me) when he opened with the statement " Ending the baiting ban is absolutely the right thing to do." Then went on to say as the wildlife Chief he will oppose the lifting. He told everybody interested in lifting the ban to make their reasons known to the NRC as they will be the ultimate decider. He aslo stated as of right now he felt there were five NRC members leaning towards lifting the ban. I took a lot of notes and will discuss more later as I smell supper!


That is a surprise to me as well as the Baiting ban seems to be one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history.


----------



## lkn2fish (Mar 24, 2007)

JOHNL said:


> That is a surprise to me as well as the Baiting ban seems to be one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history.


:coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco:

Lkn2fish


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

that the feeding ban is part of the baiting ban, and if he's looking at the general displeasure of most people in this state who enjoy feeding deer, who are concerned over the loss of wild turkeys due to a fear of being ticketed for feeding deer, whether they are or not, not to mention the continued decline of sales both of deer hunting and wild turkey hunting licenses in this state as a result of both the ban on baiting and the ban on feeding, the loss of income to thousands of farmers from fewer sales of baiting and feeding materials, and the continued defiance of many hunters regarding the ban, when we've not found one certifiable case of CWD in the wild herd and haven't seemed to make much of a dent in the numbers of TB present in the wild herd in the years since the ban's been in effect in the TB zone, then he is a man with common sense.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Contrary to the poster above's twirling-finger editorial....I agree 100% with poster JOHNL. 

The bait-ban needs to be maintained and expanded to the UP. Its' implementation signalled a new beginning and a revival of Michigan's long tradition of fair-chase pursuit of wild deer.

It disappointing that too many of today's Michigan deer hunters ---tho I carefully say not all, as there are many who are responsible --- but too many ignore the weight of the scientific community's judgement that congregrating wild deer on these mounds of corn or beets is an acknowledged risk-enhancer for disease transmission. An unnecessary and controllable risk-enhancer. And it is a particularly egregious increase to risk when done in the manner of too many of Michigan's bait violators with their reliance on overly large amounts of foodstuffs. 

Instead, too many want the convenience and ease of dumping a bag of food ...like chumming fish..... and then setting up guard-duty over it. 

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

At this point though, we have not read here another verification of the earlier posters' observation that R.Mason said "_lifting the ban is the right thing to do."_

If, in fact, he said it we would all appreciate a fuller account of the context of that commentary. And/or a fuller account of his other comments and the exchanges with the audience.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I kinda feel the football player that scores the touchdown in the opposing staduim and does the finger to the lips celebration...ya know.."sssshhhhhhhh", like boy, its quieter in here!!!

From what i hear in other states more CWD investigators are looking at areas that have turned up cwd recently. Its heavy QDM, food plot areas that have heavy deer density and cwd investigators are not happy!:help:


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> Instead, too many want the convenience and ease of dumping a bag of food ...like chumming fish..... and then setting up guard-duty over it.


 You are talking about food plots, right?!?!


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

From the poster in #8 above: _"........ not to mention the continued decline of sales both of deer hunting and wild turkey hunting licenses in this state as a result of both the ban on baiting and the ban on feeding,......_

I'd suggest that linking the decline to the ban is a questionalbe linkage. Whatever decline has occurred can easily be explained by many other factors....the same factors that are influencing similar declines throughout the nation, in states that do and do not allow baiting for wild deer; not to mention, a Michigan economy that too obviously has impacted virtually all activities, including recreational spending. 



_".....the loss of income to thousands of farmers from fewer sales of baiting and feeding materials,...."_

Others would just as reliably assert that the ban has spurred an explosion in activities (and spending) on habitat improvements and/or food plotting which has a much wider ripple effect in our economy....with tax paying employers, employees, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and retailers. Contrast that to the significant portion of hidden bait-sales income that is pocketed in tax avoidance schemes. The positive 'ripple effect' of that activity is minimal. 


_".....and the continued defiance of many hunters regarding the ban, when we've not found one certifiable case of CWD in the wild herd and haven't seemed to make much of a dent in the numbers of TB present in the wild herd in the years since the ban's been in effect in the TB zone......_

Perhaps, the poster of #8 has revealed a truth here. A real cause and effect. Cannot one claim that it is the too frequent violations of our baiting game laws that prevents that "dent" in TB numbers the poster bemoans.

As far as _"not one certifiable case of CWD". _I'd suggest that it is the other shoe. Whose drop should not surprise. Look to: Illinois, now Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, New York, et al.


----------



## anon5311 (Dec 26, 2009)

beer and nuts said:


> I kinda feel the football player that scores the touchdown in the opposing staduim and does the finger to the lips celebration...ya know.."sssshhhhhhhh", like boy, its quieter in here!!!
> 
> From what i hear in other states more CWD investigators are looking at areas that have turned up cwd recently. Its heavy QDM, food plot areas that have heavy deer density and cwd investigators are not happy!:help:[/quote
> 
> From what you hear? no link?


----------



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

fairfax1 said:


> *Contrary to the poster above's twirling-finger editorial....*I agree 100% with poster JOHNL.
> 
> The bait-ban needs to be maintained and expanded to the UP. Its' implementation signalled a new beginning and a revival of Michigan's long tradition of fair-chase pursuit of wild deer.
> 
> ...


Aint the pot calling the kettle black here ???


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

da Appleknocker said:


> .
> 
> Russ surprised everybody (at least surprised the hell out of me) when he opened with the statement " Ending the baiting ban is absolutely the right thing to do."


 
Can someone explain why ending the ban would be the absolute right thing to do?
I can't think of a reason.

Don't need it to hunt.
Shouldn't use it to help the animals through the winter.
Helping the economy is really a grasp at nothing.
Loss of hunter numbers IMO is an absolute BS excuse. 

The absolute right thing to do is focus on deer management and applying the correct forms of management for a particular area. 
Get rid of baiting 100% through out the state will eliminate any problems that baiting may cause.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

In the past I have never supported or hunted with bait. Since the ban I have been struck by the continuos utter hypocracy of the bait with roots crowd. Screw it, make the playing field level again.....DROP THE BAN!!!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Hell I don't even know if mason said that...but man, if it isn't true, this thread was sure fun!!!:lol:



> Get rid of baiting 100% through out the state will eliminate any problems that baiting may cause.


 There in lies the half-truth of it all. Baiting hasn't been "proven" to cause anything!!!


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> In the past I have never supported or hunted with bait. Since the ban I have been struck by the continuos utter hypocracy of the bait with roots crowd. Screw it, make the playing field level again.....DROP THE BAN!!!


What "playing field" are you referring to? Since when has deer hunting become some kind of competition? They should keep the ban in effect, and include the UP.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> In the past I have never supported or hunted with bait. Since the ban I have been struck by the continuos utter hypocracy of the bait with roots crowd. Screw it, make the playing field level again.....DROP THE BAN!!!


 This is just an argument for the sake of arguing. Level the playing field.............give me a break. I suppose we should all be able to hunt private land with an abundance of deer too. 
When and if they find food plots to be detrimental to a deer herd like they have been claiming bait piles to be in many states then the correct move would be to ban them too. 

Baiting and traditional deer management have had the finger pointed at them for way too long, time to try something else.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bucksnbows said:


> Can someone explain why ending the ban would be the absolute right thing to do?
> I can't think of a reason.
> 
> 
> ...


History has proven that we will never get rid of baiting 100 percent. As long as bait plots are legal we won't come close. We need to get rid of this rediculous ban and use our limited resources on things such as deer farms, sloppy farming practices and the taxidermy trade. Why not try to stop disease at its source?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

beer and nuts said:


> There in lies the half-truth of it all. Baiting hasn't been "proven" to cause anything!!!


To my knowledge no it hasn't. But many wildlife biologist do not have much if anything good to say about it. Since they are highly educated in the subject of wildlife biology I will take their word on the subject.

Here is a little reading from a hunters perspective on baiting. 
The good, the bad, and the ugly of baiting. (notice 2/3 of the subject are negative.........)
http://www.buckhuntersblog.com/baiting-deer-good-bad-or-ugly


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

My biggest problem with baiting is alot of hunters haul a bag of bait out into the woods, empty the bag, *and then stuff the empty bag into the crotch of a tree*. Not all, but alot of them do. If you hunt state land and have never seen this then you aint lookin' at your surroundings too well. Hell I have even seen it on my lease when baiting was legal. That guy no longer hunts with me and part of the reason he was kicked off was due to his problem of never picking up after himself.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> To my knowledge no it hasn't. But many wildlife biologist do not have much if anything good to say about it. Since they are highly educated in the subject of wildlife biology I will take their word on the subject.


 This is such BS. Total BS. Every wildlife biologist, in Texas has no problem baiting on those mega ranches, how about SK the candian prov of mega bucks--Bait. I have seen the biggest names in the industry hunt over bait, I have seen the biggest well-know wildlife biologist hunt over bait. The biggest outfitters in the business bait where every legal. Salt blocks, mineral blocks, corn and pellet feeders. Everybody baits when and where legal. Send a MI wildlife biologist to Texas and run a ranch and he has no problems with bait. 

Total BS statement.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bucksnbows said:


> My biggest problem with baiting is alot of hunters haul a bag of bait out into the woods, empty the bag, *and then stuff the empty bag into the crotch of a tree*. Not all, but alot of them do. If you hunt state land and have never seen this then you aint lookin' at your surroundings too well. Hell I have even seen it on my lease when baiting was legal. That guy no longer hunts with me and part of the reason he was kicked off was due to his problem of never picking up after himself.


Yes, you are correct. A lot of fisherman leave trash on the ice too, I see it every time I go out. Should we ban ice fishing too?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Looks like its time for the land wars again. More little obscure 2 tracts all over over public land leading to trimmed out trees. Bait bags left in the woods. nocturnal deer. Armies of hunters dumping off huge bait piles. If there gonna bring it back then i sure as hell hope its on private only like they do in Ohio.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> This is just an argument for the sake of arguing. Level the playing field.............give me a break. I suppose we should all be able to hunt private land with an abundance of deer too.
> When and if they find food plots to be detrimental to a deer herd like they have been claiming bait piles to be in many states then the correct move would be to ban them too.
> 
> Baiting and traditional deer management have had the finger pointed at them for way too long, time to try something else.


 I am refering to things like the complaints of people using bait to lure their deer off their property, Or discussions regarding developing the property to hold their deer on their land, so those on neighboring lands cant get them......etc. 

How many of the "deer managers" here used minerals, How many would if it were legal.....How many do anyways ?

In the case of CWD in Wisconsin the finger was not pointed at bait and traditional management.........It was pointed squarely at antler supplements and QDM propertys.

The biggest reason the "deer managers" are opposed to baiting is because it might lure "their deer" off thier little deer farm......I could pull up lots of post's to demonstrate that, But why bother there so.......:rant:


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> I am refering to things like the complaints of people using bait to lure their deer off their property, Or discussions regarding developing the property to hold deer, so those on neighboring lands cant get them......etc.
> 
> How many of the "deer managers" here used minerals, How many would if it were legal.....How many do anyways ?
> 
> ...


You are spot on!


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> Looks like its time for the land wars again. More little obscure 2 tracts all over over public land leading to trimmed out trees. Bait bags left in the woods. nocturnal deer. Armies of hunters dumping off huge bait piles. If there gonna bring it back then i sure as hell hope its on private only like they do in Ohio.


I hunt state land in four different counties and don't see any of this. Must be a local thing.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I saw it a lot in lapeer and oakland counties and in Crawford county.
Crawford County is where i see the new 2 tracks. Its been over 10 years since the ban on bait here and you can still see the scars on the land from pickups dropping off bait.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

The new two tracks and trails that I find have nothing to do with bait. They are being made by dirt bikes and quads, mostly in the off season. I do find bags on occasion, but I find more beer cans and cigarette butts than bags.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

I didn't care what Mason had to say except for the part about "5 NRC members are leaning towards lifting the ban". They are the ones we will get any action from. It would be great to know the names to better lobby the others to "do the right thing" and lift the ban. 

I want to use my home-made antler traps to collect some sheds in the back yard again. Once the snow hits they work great with a little corn in the center.

It was always nice to have a viewing site right out the back window of deer camp or our homes to watch the deer throughout the year. Nothing breaks up a card game faster than a decent buck showing up right out the window at deer camp.

I didn't run bait all year or ever in huge truck load piles. A few apples and some corn would make me happy.


----------



## Joedirt (Dec 3, 2010)

brushbuster said:


> I saw it a lot in lapeer and oakland counties and in Crawford county.
> Crawford County is where i see the new 2 tracks. Its been over 10 years since the ban on bait here and you can still see the scars on the land from pickups dropping off bait.


I'd like to see pictures of new 2 tracks leading to bait piles in Oakland county. Lapeer also....

Your talking State parks and Rec ares not State and Federal forrest land. I'm betting you would meet some quick resistance if you tried this in these 2 counties

And some hefty fines.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Joedirt said:


> I'd like to see pictures of new 2 tracks leading to bait piles in Oakland county. Lapeer also....
> 
> Your talking State parks and Rec ares not State and Federal forrest land. I'm betting you would meet some quick resistance if you tried this in these 2 counties
> 
> And some hefty fines.


 Like I said Crawford is the county where i would see new 2 tracks pop up. The other counties i mentioned did not go without hunting spot disputes bait bags left every where but in a trash can, deer moving after dark to feed.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> Like I said Crawford is the county where i would see new 2 tracks pop up. The other counties i mentioned did not go without hunting spot disputes bait bags left every where but in a trash can, deer moving after dark to feed.


And don't forget the deer being spread out all over the country side, even to all the less attractive habitat.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

brushbuster said:


> Like I said Crawford is the county where i would see new 2 tracks pop up. The other counties i mentioned did not go without hunting spot disputes bait bags left every where but in a trash can, deer moving after dark to feed.


 I will second what Brushbuster observed. I hunt the same part of the state and have seen it on a grand scale.....And it still continues on a lesser scale.

I still dont like baiting...... I am just so sick of the My deer movement. And the hypocracy of food plots arent bait thing, That I am no longer opposed to bringing it back.

People in the TB zone and across the state are baiting anyways, The managed clubs in the TB zone and big landowners statewide are maintaining unsafe deer densitys for their own self interest.......Hell even the MDNR put antler regulations in the TB zone at the behest of the clubs. That are designed in every other place to increase buck age structure, But by some magical event we are supposed to believe it will lower it in the tb zone. And They have clearly stated that mature bucks have up to 12X the TB rate........I dont even think they care about disease anymore. as Mr. Sitton of T.L.C. said "The owners deserve a return on their investment and big antlers are part of that return"

The only people paying the price are the small parcel owners and the public land hunters........Its sickening what hunting has become, CLASS WARFARE.........level the field, let them bait. Maybe I will even do it, Along the local hunt clubs fence. If disease spreads then that can level the field.

Hopefully the bait limits/ No offroad travel/ no littering will be enforced better.

And about R. Mason's public statement......It should be legal but he wont support it.......What the hell kind of statement is that for the wildlife manager. Is that based on his ideals or someone else's.

I wonder how the Clubs and antler restriction guys like him now.

Where's Six inch track.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

beer and nuts said:


> This is such BS. Total BS. Every wildlife biologist, in Texas has no problem baiting on those mega ranches, how about SK the candian prov of mega bucks--Bait. I have seen the biggest names in the industry hunt over bait, I have seen the biggest well-know wildlife biologist hunt over bait. The biggest outfitters in the business bait where every legal. Salt blocks, mineral blocks, corn and pellet feeders. Everybody baits when and where legal. Send a MI wildlife biologist to Texas and run a ranch and he has no problems with bait.
> 
> Total BS statement.


Read.
http://www.huntonly.com/deer_hunting/baiting_deer.html
http://www.wideerhunters.org/articles/baitissue.html
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct08/bait.html
http://blog.newsok.com/outdoors/2011/01/28/still-more-about-quail/
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul06/5.html
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Issue_Reviews/99baiting.pdf
http://www.scilowcountry.org/georgia_wildlife_baiting_controversy.htm
http://www.alabamawildlife.org/uploadedFiles/Deer Management Issues.pdf
http://www.wideerhunters.org/articles/baitingeffects.pdf


I could get more. Other than Texas (not suprising) no one has much good to say about baiting. Infact all studies done show that hunters were more successful without bait (also with less effort) than those that hunted over bait.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> I will second what Brushbuster observed. I hunt the same part of the state and have seen it on a grand scale.....And it still continues on a lesser scale.
> 
> I still dont like baiting...... I am just so sick of the My deer movement. And the hypocracy of food plots arent bait thing, That I am no longer opposed to bringing it back.
> 
> ...


So basically you are going to drop your stance on baiting, because of the practices of others and how you disagree with their type of management choices. 
:sad::sad:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

[/COLOR]Just so you all don't jump all over me too much. I really don't care if it is legal or illegal. I at times would like to put down some corn during the LAS, but the reality of baiting is the practice has raised concern across the country in terms of the health of not only deer but other wildlife. 
So now ask the question again.................Is dropping the ban the absolute right thing to do for the wildlife or for the hunters?

Here is a biologist from SC answer to the question on food plots.

What About Food Plots?

Ruth was quick to note there is a difference between baiting and planting food plots. &#8220;Food plots are part of an overall habitat management plan that also benefits other species,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The food plot is out there 24/7, 365 days of the year. You don&#8217;t have unnatural congregations of deer, and as a result, they&#8217;re less susceptible to disease issues.&#8221;

Obviously, a lot depends on your food plot layout: how big your plots are, how many you plant and what type of forages they contain. Food plots, however, are much more akin to concentrated natural food sources. Again as Ruth pointed out, they&#8217;re out there 24/7-365, unlike a pile of corn placed a week or two before the season, and maintained only until the season ends. They&#8217;re part of the landscape, and deer visit them more like they would a natural food source. 

You can read the whole story here


http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/jul06/5.html

I am done with this baiting issue. I have not used bait in over 15 years and could careless if it is legal or not. What I do care about is its potential for disease. I have not seen any hard facts that prove it is the "devils serum"
but more times than not you can find negative info on it very easily. I found it is much harder to find any kind of positive literature on the issue of baiting for deer.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

da Appleknocker said:


> Russ surprised everybody (at least surprised the hell out of me) when he opened with the statement " Ending the baiting ban is absolutely the right thing to do." Then went on to say as the wildlife Chief he will oppose the lifting. He told everybody interested in lifting the ban to make their reasons known to the NRC as they will be the ultimate decider. He aslo stated as of right now he felt there were five NRC members leaning towards lifting the ban.


Is it possible, based on the first statement that Mason made about lifting the ban being the right thing to do, that maybe Da Appleknocker forgot the word "not" in the next sentence? 

In other words, since Mason says it's the right to do, wouldn't it stand to reason that he will NOT oppose the lifting?

Appleknocker, can you clarify this statement. Does Mason support lifting the ban or does he stand in conflict with himself in terms of it "being the right thing to do but he opposes it?"


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

November Sunrise said:


> Is it possible, based on the first statement that Mason made about lifting the ban being the right thing to do, that maybe Da Appleknocker forgot the word "not" in the next sentence?
> 
> In other words, since Mason says it's the right to do, wouldn't it stand to reason that he will NOT oppose the lifting?
> 
> Appleknocker, can you clarify this statement. Does Mason support lifting the ban or does he stand in conflict with himself in terms of it "being the right thing to do but he opposes it?"


I talked to a friend of mine that was at the event and he said Mason was crystal clear that he opposes baiting. He said it is flat out bad for deer and wildlife in general...nothing good comes out of baiting period! He went on to state the the NRC will make the call and it is completely up to them...He does expect some form of baiting will be re-introduced in the future. That's the word I got...did anyone else attend?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

I'm not sure I can perform in this ring. I never ran away with the circus....or ever really wanted to. (life was good at home). Much of this 'carney' chatter goes over my head. Still, baiting threads are generally 3-ring circus-like.

Or, maybe, Thunderdome-like.
(sure miss Master/Blaster)
................................

But let me put posters '_NoWake'_ and '_Appleknocker'_ at ease. 
I ain't pickin' on either of 'em.

But......their opinions? 
Well, that's an apple of another color.

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

*NoWake* asks: _"I ain't afraid to admit I am not a very intelligent person, so with that in mind, can someone explain to me what a "twirling-finger" editorial is? __Maybe poster #X can fill us all in."_..............................................

Sure NoWake, be glad to. But we gotta do a little archival research first....you know, like go back to the early posts in this thread:

My observation in post *#9* was referring to post *#7* by lkn2fish' ..who was commenting on post *#6* by JOHNL'.

If poster Appleknocker thought that my post was a critique on his post *#2*.well, it wasnt. 
A simple mistaken assumption that....... well, hey, can happen to anyone. And Ill readily concede I couldve been clearer in my reference. I do have a tendency towards the esoteric.

Will try to be clearer in the future.

*Fairfax1 * 
(somewhat sheepishly I gotta admit I sorta like the "_FairFacts_"-moniker. 



*PS#1*.confidentially, and just between the two of us and no one else..an argument can be made that it was not inappropriate to blame *Whit1.* 
I am dead-solid convinced that he has likely pulled some stuff and dodged the blame for it. So blaming him now for this _twirling finger_-business is sorta like divine retribution. Karma? 


*PS#2*.oh by the way, in that controversial post of mine, * (#9)*.....you know, where I was expressing support of poster JOHNL when he posted: 

[B]..the baiting ban seems to be one of the best things that has happened for hunting in recent history.[/B] 

Remember that comment?

Well, I still support it at least 100%.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

LOL :lol: I totally missed the post:



lkn2fish said:


> :coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco:
> Lkn2fish


I guess you meant twirling finger editorial quite literally. Your always such a deep thinker, I was looking for the reference to be some sort of metaphor. :lol: Well at least I made it clear I wasn't very intelligent up front.

Ooops I almost forgot. We are not to address one another directly. We are supposed to address our audience. With that in mind. The author of #82 (throwin' in a little 3rd person) is curious which of his opinions post #81 is referring to. 

_
"But let me put posters '__NoWake' and '__Appleknocker' at ease. 
I ain't pickin' on either of 'em.

But......their opinions? 
Well, that's an apple of another color."


_ 
​


----------



## lkn2fish (Mar 24, 2007)

lkn2fish said:


> :coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco::coco:
> 
> Lkn2fish


Is a smile for :CoCo 
Cuckoo
*midk*-13c. echoic of the male bird's mating cry Slang sense of "crazy" (adj.) is Amer.Eng. 1918, but noun meaning "stupid person" is first recorded 1580s, perhaps from the bird's unvarying, oft-repeated call. The O.E. name was _geac_, cognate with O.N. _gaukr_, source of Scottish and northern English _gowk_. The Germanic words presumably originally were echoic, too, but had drifted in form. _Cuckoo clock_ is from 1789 
Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. Explain that to the poor father and son who saved their whole life to buy 40 acres in Curran with admittedly somewhat marginal deer habitat that havent saw a deer in weeks. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to them when they make their $629.29 loan payment on time every month for land that is for all intents and purposes useless. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to the poor farmer that is forced to let the carrots lay in his fields and rot because he cant sell them at the market because they dont look like the carrots on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to the throngs of hunters that have left the sport leaving us more and more vulnerable to the antis. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. tell us how the Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginiansis) a species some 3½ million years old is suddenly going to have structure of their very existence altered by a hunter in the state of Michigan feeding them a coffee can full of corn. Wake up people the Baiting Ban was brought about by wildlife biologists and public officials that had a hidden agenda in regards to baiting with no science behind it what so ever PERIOD. If you fail to see that then you must be :coco:


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

beer and nuts said:


> The more one analyses the comments the more you should realize he was just covering his butt on both sides so everybody is not mad at him. then he passes the buck onto the NRC, which is typical of any gov't employee.


That's exactly what I thought when read it too. The political winds recently shifted in MI and I think many in the DNR will be changing their tunes some to cover their butts.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> fairfax1 said:
> 
> 
> > I do have a tendency towards the esoteric.


:16suspect:lol::lol:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

lkn2fish said:


> Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. Explain that to the poor father and son who saved their whole life to buy 40 acres in Curran with admittedly somewhat marginal deer habitat that havent saw a deer in weeks. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to them when they make their $629.29 loan payment on time every month for land that is for all intents and purposes useless. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to the poor farmer that is forced to let the carrots lay in his fields and rot because he cant sell them at the market because they dont look like the carrots on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. to the throngs of hunters that have left the sport leaving us more and more vulnerable to the antis. Explain one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history. tell us how the Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginiansis) a species some 3½ million years old is suddenly going to have structure of their very existence altered by a hunter in the state of Michigan feeding them a coffee can full of corn. Wake up people the Baiting Ban was brought about by wildlife biologists and public officials that had a hidden agenda in regards to baiting with no science behind it what so ever PERIOD. If you fail to see that then you must be :coco:


So are you saying lifting the baiting ban will fix all of the above?

Explain that to the poor father and son who saved their whole life to buy 40 acres in Curran with admittedly somewhat marginal deer habitat that havent saw a deer in weeks
They own the property lots of things can be done to help out the situation without baiting.


to the poor farmer that is forced to let the carrots lay in his fields and rot because he cant sell them at the market because they dont look like the carrots on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. 
The possiblity of a bait ban has been known for awhile before it happened. Farming to grow "bait" as income had a risk. 
[/COLOR] 
to the throngs of hunters that have left the sport leaving us more and more vulnerable to the antis.
If a hunter quit hunting because they could no longer bait then IMO they really weren't too big of a hunter.

tell us how the Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginiansis) a species some 3½ million years old is suddenly going to have structure of their very existence altered by a hunter in the state of Michigan feeding them a coffee can full of corn.
Do a little research on the negative possibities that can stem from baiting. Maybe nothing has been proven 100% but do you really want to take a chance?

Wake up people the Baiting Ban was brought about by wildlife biologists and public officials that had a hidden agenda in regards to baiting with no science behind it what so ever PERIOD.

Can you prove this?


----------



## Nimrod1 (Apr 26, 2004)

I'm working my way through this thread, but I had stop and address this.




November Sunrise said:


> I guess I just can't make sense of him saying that "it's the right thing to do" and then stating that he "opposes it."
> 
> Seems like something's being lost in the translation here, as it's really hard to see how those two statements could go together.


What I remember Russ saying was "Opening the discussion about baiting is the right thing to do." He also very clearly stated "As the head of the Wildlife Division I will go on record as being against allowing baiting."


----------



## Nimrod1 (Apr 26, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> I'm guessing that you might have put your finger on the context of what he was saying. From that perspective his statements do seem to go together.


Still working through this, but NS has hit it on the head! The 3 year plan is up, time to allow baiting again because the reason for the current ban is over, but he will come out very much opposed to baiting.


----------



## JOHNL (Feb 10, 2000)

lkn2fish said:


> Is a smile for :CoCo
> Cuckoo
> *midk*-13c. echoic of the male bird's mating cry Slang sense of "crazy" (adj.) is Amer.Eng. 1918, but noun meaning "stupid person" is first recorded 1580s, perhaps from the bird's unvarying, oft-repeated call. The O.E. name was _geac_, cognate with O.N. _gaukr_, source of Scottish and northern English _gowk_. The Germanic words presumably originally were echoic, too, but had drifted in form. _Cuckoo clock_ is from 1789
> Explain &#8220;one af the best things that has happend for hunting in recent history.&#8221; Explain that to the poor father and
> ...


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

In post #87 a poster asserted:

_"What I remember Russ saying was "Opening the discussion about baiting is the right thing to do."_

Look, folks, I ain't the brightest candle on the cake.....but I think that if what this poster states is the reality........ well, doesn't that put Dr.Mason's remarks in a whole different light?

If this is true, as #87 states, it is simply Mason stating that: it is appropriate to again review...*to discuss*.....the deer-baiting topic.

That is a far cry from "_ending the deer-bait ban is the right thing to do_".

Am I sideways on this? or do others here read it the same way?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> In post #87 a poster asserted:
> 
> _"What I remember Russ saying was "Opening the discussion about baiting is the right thing to do."_
> 
> ...


Thats the way I read it.


----------



## Kabooyah (Feb 1, 2009)

Wow, I've been hunting the U.P. for 35 years and I did not realize that I'm not a "true hunter" because I throw down some corn. I shot a nice buck this year after an 8 year drought but he was worth the wait. Myself and the guys I hunt with pass up numerous bucks every year in hope of seeing that 3 1/2 year old but we're not "true hunters". I suppose in order to be considered a "true hunter" I'll have to stop throwing down my gallon of corn and instead throw my support behind a ridiculous law that has sucked much of the fun out of hunting for so many...you know the part where you get to see deer. I can also pretend to be concerned for the herd when in reality my biggest concern is to put in a nice food plot of turnips or beets (nose to nose contact doesn't pose a risk on private land) to pull the deer away from non-landowners trying to hunt public land. Soon after I'll have to start throwing out self-righteous bombs on forums such as this....then I can again consider myself a "true hunter".


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

I'm sorry but this whole 'class warfare' whine has grown tiresome.
You own land.
I don't.
You're rich.
I'm not.
You're bad.
I'm good.

It is a whine perpetrated by those who simply want to chum for deer,
despite the weight of the scientific community decrying the practice as 
an unnecessary risk enhancer for disease transmission. (Oh, never mind that)

*I've* never seen a sick animal....so it doesn't exist. (like that dimwit of a baiter on the TV clip last fall)

In fact, the ban is a conspiracy hatched by ____________(fill in the blank)


----------



## JOHNL (Feb 10, 2000)

From the above posts it would seem that we would be nearly 100% in agreement of the baiting ban if food plots were banned as well. I don't have a place to put a food plot so they are really a non issue to me as I don't see the harm they cause like baiting can. They are not a disease threat and because they are not on public land they do not pose the risk to you of unsuspectingly walking up on one and getting a feeling that you just got to close to a sow with cubs (referring to the territorial mind set of many baiters and also with food plots there are no illegal two tracks or paths leading to them (again they are only on private land) The feed from plots fade out gradually not all of a sudden after the young of the year have grown dependent on it and the hunter stops supplying it once he has killed his deer. I could go on about the litter that some baiters leave. So if it is just about the food plots and you can not see the difference maybe you can get them banned as well.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

I'm not going to argue with biologists, if they say the form of baiting that the ban includes, is too great of risk from a disease standpoint, then so be it. It doesn't make any difference to me at all, and I don't think the ban would realistically ruin that many people's hunting experience.

My biggest contention with these discussions is the hypocrisy of so many who hunt using farm fields, food plots, fruit and oak trees as bait telling the guys who spread out a 10X10 bait pile to 'learn how to hunt'. I am in no way saying a bait pile is the SAME thing as a farm field or food plot. However as soon as they are both used to lure a deer to a certain area, then they both become used for the same thing at that time. It takes no more "hunting skill" to hang a stand near an apple tree than it does to throw out a few apples near a tree stand. 


The 'class warfare' comments only get traction because of the statements from private landowners complaining about public land baiting slobs luring deer off of their property. Maybe it's a case where poster #93 will say *"I've* never seen a statement like that.........so it doesn't exist." (like that dimwit of a QDMA'er in that magazine article last fall)


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

noshow said:


> Quit cryin, baiting isnt hunting. Does anyone hunt turkeys over bait? HHHHMM i didnt think so!!!!!!!


Its one thing to state your opinion on an issue, but a direct insult of a large group of legal hunters such as this childish, divisive commentary should not be allowed on a site like this.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

lkn2fish said:


> Explain that to the poor father and son who saved their whole life to buy 40 acres in Curran with admittedly somewhat marginal deer habitat that havent saw a deer in weeks.


Do you own a chainsaw? 

I would explain that they could buy a copy of Neil and Craig Dougherty's book _Grow 'Em Right_ and read chapter 3 _"A Chainsaw Is A Deer's Best Friend"_. You can create some very good deer habitat with a chainsaw.

A private land owner who owns 40 acres of marginal deer habitat has no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

I posed the question to Russ Mason in an email this morning and asked him to clarify the conflicting statements that daAppleknocker posted.

Good morning Russ,
We've met and talked on several occasions at QDMA events here in southern Michigan.
I frequent the Michigan Sportsman's forum and there is some debate concerning your opening statements at the meeting Friday evening.
One person in the crowd claims you said "ending the baiting ban is absolutely the right thing to do" and then you went on to say "that as wildlife chief, you opposed the lifting of the band. These to statements seem in conflict.
Yet another in attendance remembers your opening statement as this "opening the discussion about baiting is the right thing to do", this seems more in line with your second statement about being against baiting.
Please clarify if you would.

Sincerely,

Tony Smith Eaton Co. Branch QDMA

His response.


 Tony,

Not surprisingly, people hear what they want to hear. 

What I said clearly and multiple times (also loudly and slowly) was the latter: I will ask the NRC to revisit whether or not to allow baiting. In the LP because we have not found CWD in the wild herd and because we told people we would. It's simply the right thing to do. 

I also said clearly and multiple times that baiting presents a serious biosecurity (disease vector) risk for the herd. There is overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of this position, and for that reason, I will simply refuse to engage folks in arguments on this silly point. Rhetorically, it's like arguing with someone about whether gravity exists. However, there may be compelling social reasons to reallow baiting, and those are what I hope the discussion involves.

At the end of the day, should the NRC decide to reallow baiting, I hope the argument is more sophisticated than that hunters simply want what they want when they want it. That would portray hunters and hunting in a profoundly bad light.

You can quote me.

Cheers!

Russ 
Russ Mason, Ph.D. 
Chief, Wildlife Division 
Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment 
530 West Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48909


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Lock it up!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

The chainsaw thing is getting old as well. The value of land is dependent on what standing timber is present. Most people buy land for recreational use or investment, most hoping to sell at anytime that might seem fit in their life. 

Take a 40 acres and start a chainsaw to it whether it be a small clearcut, hedge etc..you turn the landscape into a possible unsellable piece of tangle or open space. Sure you can hope to sell it under, "deer hunting property" but you will take away a good percentage of potential buyers.

For those that think they are going to own it for the rest of you lives, take warning, choose wisely because you might be taking money out of your pocket with ever cut!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

beer and nuts said:


> For those that think they are going to own it for the rest of you lives, take warning, choose wisely because you might be taking money out of *YOUR* pocket with ever cut!


Right you are! It's MY pocket. Trees are a renewable resource B&N!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Hey QDMAboy, that is exactly what appleknocker said in his first post. He said the same thing in the response back to you. :SHOCKED:

Russ is playing both sides of the fence JUST in case ANYTHING happens and he can say "told ya so". Typical gov't employee, and then he goes on to say what he wants YOU to hear and then contradicts himself again. Funny response but no different that hwat appleknocker reported. Guarenteed he made most people walk out of that meeting happy becuase he played both sides.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> I posed the question to Russ Mason in an email this morning and asked him to clarify the conflicting statements that daAppleknocker posted.
> 
> Good morning Russ,
> We've met and talked on several occasions at QDMA events here in southern Michigan.
> ...


 
Thanks for this post Tony


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Russ is 100% correct. People hear what they want to hear.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It appears to me from his response that....Because no CWD deer were found, That he believes baiting should probably be reinstated because that was the plan that was presented to hunters. Although He does not support baiting because of disease concerns.........If that is correct, I would say his position is fair.

Although I would still like to see the QDM Tool FIRED!!


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Exactly as I said.


----------



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

beer and nuts said:


> Russ is playing both sides of the fence JUST in case ANYTHING happens and he can say "told ya so". Typical gov't employee, and then he goes on to say what he wants YOU to hear and then contradicts himself again.


Both sides of the fence? Contradiction??? I think his response is perhaps the most unambiguous statement I've ever seen from a government employee. Seems to me he is firmly on just one side of the fence.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I posed the question to Russ Mason in an email this morning and asked him to clarify the conflicting statements that daAppleknocker posted.
> 
> Good morning Russ,
> We've met and talked on several occasions at QDMA events here in southern Michigan.
> ...


 
There's that "social" word again. Right out of Proposal G.......................right!!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

beer and nuts said:


> Hey QDMAboy,


Exactly the response I would expect from you B&N.
I simply asked Russ to CLARIFY the CONFLICTING accounts and posted his response.
Your response to me, is a reflection of your pre pubescence.

Big T


----------



## JBIV (Jan 29, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I posed the question to Russ Mason in an email this morning and asked him to clarify the conflicting statements that daAppleknocker posted.
> 
> Good morning Russ,
> We've met and talked on several occasions at QDMA events here in southern Michigan.
> ...




What he said seems crystal clear to me.




.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

B&N......

I ain't tryin' to be a provocateur ........but..............I'm dyin' to hear your opinion about gravity?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

I've read another account of the meeting from a member of the State Chapter QDMA that is in line with Russ's response to me.
Simply put...daAppleknocker misheard Russ, which is perhaps why he made this statement.



> Russ surprised everybody (at least surprised the hell out of me) when he opened with the statement...



Nobody was calling daAppleknocker a liar, they just simply wanted clarification of a recount that made absolutely no sense.
I think it's clear now and perhaps daAppleknocker will chime in.

Big T
​


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> B&N......
> 
> I ain't tryin' to be a provocateur ........but..............I'm dyin' to hear your opinion about gravity?


FairFact#1,
You may want to s l o w d o w n and speak up.:lol:

Big T


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Russ Mason said:


> I also said clearly and multiple times that baiting presents a serious biosecurity (disease vector) risk for the herd. There is overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of this position, and for that reason, I will simply refuse to engage folks in arguments on this silly point. Rhetorically, it's like arguing with someone about whether gravity exists. However, there may be compelling social reasons to reallow baiting, and those are what I hope the discussion involves.


There are plenty of sound scientific arguments both for and against baiting and anybody that denies that fact is biased, plain and simple. When someone in his position calls all opposing arguments to his biosecurity concerns as silly and refuses to engage folks that disagree, then that pretty much proves that he knows that his argument is flawed.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> There are plenty of sound scientific arguments both for and against baiting and anybody that denies that fact is biased, plain and simple. When someone in his position calls all opposing arguments to his biosecurity concerns as silly and refuses to engage folks that disagree, then that pretty much proves that he knows that his argument is flawed.


Is the science "social" Mike? Because the harvest certainly hasn't been negatively affected by the ban.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Whats missing or am I misreading it. From his statement.


> I will ask the NRC to revisit whether or not to allow baiting. In the LP because we have not found CWD in the wild herd and because we told people we would. It's simply the right thing to do.





> I also said clearly and multiple times that baiting presents a serious biosecurity (disease vector) risk for the herd. There is overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of this position, and for that reason, I will simply refuse to engage folks in arguments on this silly point. Rhetorically, it's like arguing with someone about whether gravity exists. However, there may be compelling social reasons to reallow baiting, and those are what I hope the discussion involves.


 I understand his stance, but you don't follow what you percieve as fact with a "however". There may be "reasons" to reallow baiting. Understand that too. I'm not listening, I reading it and reading what he actually said. 

We have yet to see overwhelming evidence to support his stance, we have seen opionions, but no where have we seen evidence that baiting is the vector of CWD or TB for that matter. We actually have just as much "evidence" to conclude food plots are just as much a vector than anything else.

There is a difference between the Law of Gravity and the hypothesis of how TB and cwd is spread and the vector or the way it is spread. Right now all Russ has is weak hypothesis studies. Basic science below for those that don't know the differences. Maybe forward to Russ. 



> Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They dont really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
> 
> Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
> 
> ...



Sorry you took offense to being called qdmaboy, thought that was your screen name. My mistake. And yes, I'm just hitting puberty years thats whay I called you qdmaboy!!


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

QDMAMAN said:


> Is the science "social" Mike? Because the harvest certainly hasn't been negatively affected by the ban.


When I said "sound scientific" I was not referring to social science, although there is plenty of that too.

There is overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of baiting and feeding deer, and for that reason, I will simply refuse to engage folks in arguments on this silly point. Rhetorically, it's like arguing with someone about whether gravity exists.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

I believe the bioligists when they suggest that feeding deer has the POTENTIAL for spreading disease. Frankly, if there is one deer with a disease, there will be numerous ways that the potential for spreading the disease will exist or be created. But at the same time, providing numerous feeding sites can have the effect of dispersing deer, creating less contact between family groups, so the argument could be made that feeding deer can REDUCE the potential that disease is spread. (I think Joe has made these arguments on this forum well in the past.) Point is, I think there is room to debate the issue. 

A suggestion of compromise came from a surprising source recently when PineFarm suggested a compromise where deer feeding would be allowed but only with corn, no root crops. That option sure seems like it would be worth discussion. After all, how can throwing a gallon of corn kernals on the ground create a bigger vector than driving your quad through your standing corn crop to make it more convenient for the deer?

Where is Munsterlinder when you need him?????? Please!!!


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> When I said "sound scientific" I was not referring to social science, although there is plenty of that too.
> 
> There is overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of baiting and feeding deer, and for that reason, I will simply refuse to engage folks in arguments on this silly point. Rhetorically, it's like arguing with someone about whether gravity exists.


Mike, could you give an example of the overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of baiting and feeding deer? I have never seen this but I sure would like to.


----------



## Termie33 (Sep 26, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> Is the science "social" Mike? Because the harvest certainly hasn't been negatively affected by the ban.


Here is my thought on that. The QDMers in general are shooting more deer off their food plots to keep their deer "in check". As they shoot more deer, deer from neighboring areas come in and take their place. Where as if the baiting was still taking place the deer would be scattered over a larger area.

I have no science to back this up, but this is the conclusion ive drawn from talking to people from all walks of life. Private land people with large food plots are enjoying life. People with out access to private land and food plots are working much harder to even see a deer lately.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Termie33 said:


> Here is my thought on that. The QDMers in general are shooting more deer off their food plots to keep their deer "in check". As they shoot more deer, deer from neighboring areas come in and take their place. Where as if the baiting was still taking place the deer would be scattered over a larger area.
> 
> I have no science to back this up, but this is the conclusion ive drawn from talking to people from all walks of life. Private land people with large food plots are enjoying life. People with out access to private land and food plots are working much harder to even see a deer lately.


I agree with you and disagree in ways too.

Agreed......
QDMers shooting does off their food plots to help keep the population in check.
Baiting would have the deer scattered all over.
You have no science to back this up........:lol:
The conclusion you have drawn............(I agree with your conclusion)

Disagree...........
Not just QDMers plant food plots

I agreed that bait piles would have deer scattered all over the place, but most activitey at a bait pile is done under the cover of darkness when we can't even hunt them. I posted earlier in this thread with a group of links of different studies or discussions on baiting from other web sites, government agencies and university studies. All of them stated that the harvest numbers were better without bait and done with less effort from the hunter. All of them also stated (like Russ Mason) that there is much more potential for disease transmission when baiting is allowed. Now if food plots have the same potential, you would think one would be able to do a few simple "google" searches to find the same results as I did when I looked into the baiting issues. I have tried and it is not easily found. What I do find is only debates between hunters on the subject of bait vs food plots, nothing from biologist and the potential for disease transmission via food plot.
Now to say that those who do not have access to private land and food plots are working much harder to see deer.........well I guess they may be working harder, if you call hunting work. 


Do I plant food plots? Yes last year was the first time.
Did I hunt over them? Yes 3 times. Two times in October to see if the deer were feeding on them during hunting hours, with the hopes of killing a doe. One time in December because I figured my plots may have been a food source they were hitting on the way to the cut corn field.
I was right about all three hunts and killed one doe off a plot during December. Plots or no plots my harvest numbers on does would of been the same (3, I average 3 does a year the past 15 years) The only difference is the plots drew more attention to a particular section of the property and that was the goal. To give the deer a reason to use this section of the property and due to the choice of "crops" I planted they will have reason to use this section after the season, the spring, and summer.
Oh and by the way I won't even be hunting that piece of property next year but will still maintain the plots.


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

Learn to "hunt" deer. Newsflash***deer are mobile, so you should be too.
Michigan Hunters need to quit making excuses including why bait is necessary and why food plots and private land owners are the devil or why they are going to go out of state to a "state that knows their deer management". Constant bickering amongst hunters over something as stupid as a baiting ban is the joke in my eyes....not the DNR, not QDMA, not Private land owners, but the people who constantly cry and make excuses for why they want to be lazy and engage in baiting are the ones people should be pointing their fingers at. Start banding together, we have a federal court case that could result in 70,000 acres of lossed hunting land. Dove hunt was lost by sportsmen, the moose hunt will be lost, trapping will be next, and all the while we continue to fight not only against the DNR that believe it or not is for the hunters, but also and most importantly against ourselves. Baiting was never illegal until 2008 in the lower peninsula, so it will take time to erase the mentality of baiting in people.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> Mike, could you give an example of the overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of baiting and feeding deer? I have never seen this but I sure would like to.


I'm going to give a list of states that allow baiting or feeding of some sort, so if we are taking the disease factor it seems a crap load of state biologists have nothing against feeding or baiting. Now some states on the list allow feeding but not hunting over bait, or bait has to be removed with a certain time frame ranging from 10-60 days before you can hunt over it. This should be proof enough. If any states banned it in 2010 shoudl not be in the list but its hard to look at every state. I got some off the lucky buck website as well, others I looked at dnr sites. Didn't look at all of them just what time allowed. So there are more states andsome western states allow feeding of elk as well.

Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan UP, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentcky, Neb, WI, Indiana, Ala., Ark, Conn, Delaware, Fla, Ga., La, Maine, Maryland, Minn., Mass., and also all Canadian provinces. 

**Remember this is feeding and baiting that is allowed. And not just hunting over bait.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

After reading all of these posts i think a crack head has an easier time getting off of crack than a baiter has getting off of bait.:yikes:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

beer and nuts said:


> I'm going to give a list of states that allow baiting or feeding of some sort, so if we are taking the disease factor it seems a crap load of state biologists have nothing against feeding or baiting..


Just because it is allowed doesn't mean biologist are not against it. Sometimes biologist only can "recommend" not make the laws.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Termie33 said:


> Here is my thought on that. The QDMers in general are shooting more deer off their food plots to keep their deer "in check".


Termie33,
Do you believe that "QDMers" are taking a disproportionate number of deer?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

http://www.lucky-buck.com/fblaws.html 

Of course bucksnbows. 

What about all the big deer biologists that run the monster Texas ranches, all suplement feed and bait. 

All the supplement mineral feeding that goes on with the Drury, Lakoskis, and the likes. Every whitetial bio woudl love to work with them guys! I have seen Mr. Deer whack deer off baited sites. QDMA bios recommend mineral licks and supplemental pellets for antler growth onthe private properties they work with, where legal...which by the way is about every state in the union!

These are not "maybe"s, "if's' and and "but"'s...facts people.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Now if food plots have the same potential, you would think one would be able to do a few simple "google" searches to find the same results as I did when I looked into the baiting issues. I have tried and it is not easily found. What I do find is only debates between hunters on the subject of bait vs food plots, nothing from biologist and the potential for disease transmission via food plot.
> .


While I agree there is not much in the way of food plots. There is a couple things including the 2007 letter to property owners in the TB zone and studys regarding the transmission of CWD in contaminated pastures.... We should also note that the few biologist who have spoke on it stated that food plots did not carry the same level of risk.....Find one that said food plots carry no risk.... Like baiting the is no absolute proof but there is an indication of some level risk.


----------



## Termie33 (Sep 26, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> Termie33,
> Do you believe that "QDMers" are taking a disproportionate number of deer?


Again, not scientific, but yes, i do. From people ive talked to over the past couple years the qdmers, or the people with access to large food plots are having much higher success rates then those who do not have access to food plots or private land. Ive also seen them having better success the longer the bait ban goes on. As the ban goes on i also believe they are pulling deer off of adjacent lands that may have held those deer with bait in the woods.

To clear things up, im not against food plots. If you have access to it, by all means do it and i encourage it. I would do the same if i had the same access. The only issue i have is people with food plots(bait in the ground) telling other people how wrong it is to have bait placed above ground. Its a little hypocritical if you ask me.

To further clear things up, back in the day i baited some of the time, and some of the time i did not. It was simply nice to have the choice to do it, or not to do it. Unfortunately i dont have the choice to plant large food plots for my own private use.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> I'm going to give a list of states that allow baiting or feeding of some sort, so if we are taking the disease factor it seems a crap load of state biologists have nothing against feeding or baiting. Now some states on the list allow feeding but not hunting over bait, or bait has to be removed with a certain time frame ranging from 10-60 days before you can hunt over it. This should be proof enough. If any states banned it in 2010 shoudl not be in the list but its hard to look at every state. I got some off the lucky buck website as well, others I looked at dnr sites. Didn't look at all of them just what time allowed. So there are more states andsome western states allow feeding of elk as well.
> 
> Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan UP, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentcky, Neb, WI, Indiana, Ala., Ark, Conn, Delaware, Fla, Ga., La, Maine, Maryland, Minn., Mass., and also all Canadian provinces.
> 
> **Remember this is feeding and baiting that is allowed. And not just hunting over bait.


I am asking about the SCIENTIFIC support of baiting and feeding, which Trophy Specialist stated there is overwhelming evidence. I still haven't seen any. Everything you speak of is SOCIAL evidence, of which we already have plenty of. Show me any biologist or wildlife expert who has SCIENTIFIC evidence that baiting and feeding is a good thing. Chances are good that none exists.


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

Learn to "hunt" deer. Newsflash***deer are mobile, so you should be too.
[/QUOTE]

Talk about weak and so lame! I would guarantee I know hunters who have forgot more about "hunting" than most will ever know. And at sometime in there hunting careers they used baiting as a tool to harvest a few deer. 

Here is your News Flash, some people are old and not mobile, as matter of fact we have large majority of baby boomers hunting, and they don't have buddies with land or have or there own. Although they didn't need bait early in the season when oaks and other browse are within there reach, and could access the available food sources, it was always a nice option for mid winter hunting. Once dead of December rolls around and there is 12"+ snow it was nice to lure the deer in and actually have a chance at a harvest, using bait as a tool to harvest deer is not evil, to many people read into slob baiting and that's giving the entire baiting spectrum a black eye.
You want real hunting, head to the north woods state land in December and tag a deer any deer, carrying your portable stand on your back cutting trails though snow. Do that consistently with or without bait, and throw in using a stick bow as well.... I've got money I know a have dozen 65-70 and even 80 year olds that will take your real hunters to school...


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Termie33,
> Do you believe that "QDMers" are taking a disproportionate number of deer?


 While the percentage of private landowners being qdm advocates or having food plots is unknown......The fact that harvest numbers are much higher on private land is indisputable.

The harvest difference can be easily found on table7 of the MDNR harvest report. It is especially noticeable in areas with a high percentage of public land.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

skipper34 said:


> Mike, could you give an example of the overwhelming and unassailable evidence in support of baiting and feeding deer? I have never seen this but I sure would like to.


Na, I'd rather argue about gravity rather than hash over the same old baiting stuff that's been posted on these forums since I joined some 10 years ago and I'm sure before then too. 

I will make this comment though, if baiting were so dangerous to deer, then why does the DNR use bait to capture deer and to kill deer themselves? The DNR also supplementally fed deer plenty too even after they proclaimed that baiting and feeding deer was bad. Its hard to take what the DNR says seriously about baiting when they dont even practice what they preach.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> While the percentage of private landowners being qdm advocates or having food plots is unknown......The fact that harvest numbers are much higher on private land is indisputable.
> 
> The harvest difference can be easily found on table7 of the MDNR harvest report. It is especially noticeable in areas with a high percentage of public land.


Swamp,
While I would love to believe that the "majority" of private land owners in Michigan are QDM proponents, I know first hand that it's a very low percentage. However, I will concede that it is growing.
Now...I am confident that true practitioners of QDM are taking a disproportionate number of does vs. bucks. My observations may be anecdotal, but may be substantiated by the data collected at some of the co op jawbone nights. I don't know if the MDNR would, or even could, separate the harvest data but the simple fact that MDNR biologists are firmly in support of QDM and the QDM co op movement indicates to me that they're in support of our focus on controlling numbers through doe harvest and want more of it.
I'm also aware of the report hat you referenced. It also indicates in that report that Michigan hunters have traditionally taken more bucks in the harvest than does. The small percentage of QDMers in this state haven't been able to sway that.

Big T


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

for all you people who think food plots and farm fields don't spread disease explain to me why the DNR allowed a early hunt to take place in the TB zone in April and may. the DNR wanted deer shot because large numbers were herding up on farmland and they we're afraid of disease being spread. funny how food plots and fields spread disease in April or may but not in October or November. this action alone should lead you to believe that the dnr believe plots and farmland spread disease.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



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

[quote="JOHNL, post: 3525925BIG SNIP 
Thats right their all out to get "You"

Some advice: you should drop the name calling it just shows how ignorant you are.[/quote]

hmmmm


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

poz said:


> for all you people who think food plots and farm fields don't spread disease explain to me why the DNR allowed a early hunt to take place in the TB zone in April and may. the DNR wanted deer shot because large numbers were herding up on farmland and they we're afraid of disease being spread. funny how food plots and fields spread disease in April or may but not in October or November. this action alone should lead you to believe that the dnr believe plots and farmland spread disease.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



poz,
The MDNR's stated goal in the tb zone is to drastically reduce the deer population there.
The fact that they were shooting deer in April and May probably had more to do with the "large numbers" rather than the chance of disease transmission in a crop field. The deer were there and the deer were killable.

Big T


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> Swamp,
> While I would love to believe that the "majority" of private land owners in Michigan are QDM proponents, I know first hand that it's a very low percentage. However, I will concede that it is growing.
> Now...I am confident that true practitioners of QDM are taking a disproportionate number of does vs. bucks. My observations maybe be anecdotal, but may be substantiated by the data collected at some of the co op jawbone nights. I don't know if the MDNR would, or even could, separate the harvest data but the simple fact that MDNR biologists are firmly in support of QDM and the QDM co op movement indicates to me that they're in support of our focus on controlling numbers through doe harvest and want more of it.
> I'm also aware of the report hat you referenced. It also indicates in that report that Michigan hunters have traditionally taken more bucks in the harvest than does. The small percentage of QDMers in this state haven't been able to sway that.
> ...


Are the same biologists that firmly support QDM, also setting population density goals? For example. If a biologist consults with a co-op and gives them the green light to try and maintain a population density higher than what is recommended for the entire DMU, is that biologist considering the risk of disease spreading? Or does better habitat trump densities in regards to disease risk? 

I'm not implying, fishing, or trying a 'set-up'. It's an honest question I don't know the answer to.


----------



## Kabooyah (Feb 1, 2009)

BigR said:


> Learn to "hunt" deer. Newsflash***deer are mobile, so you should be too.
> Michigan Hunters need to quit making excuses including why bait is necessary and why food plots and private land owners are the devil or why they are going to go out of state to a "state that knows their deer management". Constant bickering amongst hunters over something as stupid as a baiting ban is the joke in my eyes....not the DNR, not QDMA, not Private land owners, but the people who constantly cry and make excuses for why they want to be lazy and engage in baiting are the ones people should be pointing their fingers at. Start banding together, we have a federal court case that could result in 70,000 acres of lossed hunting land. Dove hunt was lost by sportsmen, the moose hunt will be lost, trapping will be next, and all the while we continue to fight not only against the DNR that believe it or not is for the hunters, but also and most importantly against ourselves. Baiting was never illegal until 2008 in the lower peninsula, so it will take time to erase the mentality of baiting in people.


Posts like this will certainly pull us together. It's real easy to lecture that we should drop the issue and move on when you're on the perceived "winning" side of a very divisive issue. Why not some form of compromise instead of the "my way or the highway" mentality to unite the hunting community?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> poz,
> The MDNR's stated goal in the tb zone is to drastically reduce the deer population there.
> The fact that they were shooting deer in April and May probably had more to do with the "large numbers" rather than the chance of disease transmission in a crop field. The deer were there and the deer were killable.
> 
> Big T


the DNR stated they were afraid of disease was the main reason for the hunt. the deer were herding up and they had large numbers concentrated in farm fields. they were given permits to people to start shooting deer inorder to get the deer to disperse so they don't spread disease
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

hunting man said:


> Forget Mason and lobby the NRC members if you want the bait ban lifted.


Or continued and/or expanded.


----------



## noshow (Sep 24, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> Classic..........You do realize that whitetal deer evolved about 4,000,000 years ago, dont you.



Um yeah and people probably didnt use bait to hunt them. Plus the amount of hunters we have now and the way they shoot everything can keep people whining about not seeing any deer. Boo Hoo all the private land owners are drawing all the deer to there place, and i cant with bait. Now thats classic!!!!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Kabooyah (Feb 1, 2009)

Beam me up Scotty...


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I just read an article by Kenny Darwin in the February issue of Woods N' Water News on the baiting issue. Man was that article ever a scathing review of the DNR. He made some good points. Anybody else read that one?


----------



## giver108 (Nov 24, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I just read an article by Kenny Darwin in the February issue of Woods N' Water News on the baiting issue. Man was that article ever a scathing review of the DNR. He made some good points. Anybody else read that one?


I read it too and thought he made some good points as well. He looked at the issue from both sides and made good arguments in each case. Unfortunately no way for me to provide a link to the article.


----------



## onenationhere (Dec 18, 2008)

giver108 said:


> I read it too and thought he made some good points as well. He looked at the issue from both sides and made good arguments in each case. Unfortunately no way to provide a link to the article.


http://www.woods-n-waternews.com/Articles-i-2011-02-01-207166.112113-Michigans-baiting-dilemma.html

Here is a link to the article on baiting by Kenny Darwin


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

That article had zero scientific evidence, just a bunch of rambling and chest thumping very reminiscent of the drivel heard on the forums and at the outdoor shows of " I can learn a dnr biologist a few things, i have several years under my belt" yadda yadda yadda. Hunters crying about bait just speaks volumes about why our economy is the way it is in. People want things the easy way, handed to them on a silver platter, and god forbid they get off their asses and put some time in to actually hunt deer. Every lame excuse in the book, from someone being elderly to no time...yea I've heard it all. I choose to spend a majority of my time hunting waterfowl, I begin about August, stop just now. I log more miles in that time frame scouting alone than what most guys do in a whole year on their pickup. I would love to take the Michigan Whitetail deer hunter approach of stop at the Quick Stop, get my case of beer and some bags of carrots, head up to my hunting trailer on Friday, throw the bag of carrots out, drink some beers, see some 1.5 year old bucks come into the bait, shoot a scrub buck and then complain why Michigan doesn't rank in comparison to the whitetail states, to which I have never visited.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

BigR said:


> That article had zero scientific evidence, just a bunch of rambling and chest thumping very reminiscent of the drivel heard on the forums and at the outdoor shows of " I can learn a dnr biologist a few things, i have several years under my belt" yadda yadda yadda. Hunters crying about bait just speaks volumes about why our economy is the way it is in. People want things the easy way, handed to them on a silver platter, and god forbid they get off their asses and put some time in to actually hunt deer. Every lame excuse in the book, from someone being elderly to no time...yea I've heard it all. I choose to spend a majority of my time hunting waterfowl, I begin about August, stop just now. I log more miles in that time frame scouting alone than what most guys do in a whole year on their pickup. I would love to take the Michigan Whitetail deer hunter approach of stop at the Quick Stop, get my case of beer and some bags of carrots, head up to my hunting trailer on Friday, throw the bag of carrots out, drink some beers, see some 1.5 year old bucks come into the bait, shoot a scrub buck and then complain why Michigan doesn't rank in comparison to the whitetail states, to which I have never visited.



And some how you find their way of hunting wrong? Guess they should do it just the way you do then. They might think you are not right for wasting all that time running in circles just to hunt. Different strokes for different folks ya know.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

What could have been a good thought provoking article, Came off as a unintelligible rant.....Come on Mr. Darwin your a better writer than that.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> swampbuck said:
> 
> 
> > What could have been a good thought provoking article, Came off as a poorly assembled rant.....Come on Mr. Darwin your a better writer than that.


STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!! I agree with Swampy on something!:lol:


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

hunting man said:


> And some how you find their way of hunting wrong? Guess they should do it just the way you do then. They might think you are not right for wasting all that time running in circles just to hunt. Different strokes for different folks ya know.


When I was 14 I remember asking my Dad if I could put out a bait pile. He told me, "bait isn't going to get you a big buck, but if you want to put out some carrots, you are paying for them". So I did, I saved up money, I visited farmers I knew to gather old apples and pumpkins when they were done for the season, etc. I remember filling the trunk of my old lebaron when I was 16 so full of pumpkins once that the wheels were rubbing on the wells. I did this from about 14-19 and couldn't figure out why all I would see was does and small bucks, yet trail cams revealed nice deer at night coming through. When I was 20 I declared I wasn't hunting with bait and started looking at a variety of other factors to increase my deer killing skills. It was amazing to me how I saw just as many does, if not more, at all times of the day, and bucks too.

Now I don't deer hunt to speak of at all, mainly because of my love and passion for waterfowl has taken over so much. When I do deer hunt and don't put any time into it, I don't have unrealistic expectations of what I am going to see, shoot, etc. This year I plan on buying a crossbow to try my hand at some archery season hunting, but I won't have unrealistic expectations for that either. If I show up a week before season, cut a few shooting lanes, build a ground blind, and call it good...I know that my chances of seeing a ton of deer or a nice buck is not nearly what it would be as if say I started now, finding their areas in the snow, and continue on until October. I don't look down on people for baiting, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere where they have to realize that bait isn't the only answer, getting mad at people who plant food plots, or any number of DNR reasons is NOT the reason they aren't shooting more deer, let alone trophy deer. Deer hunting in Michigan with 700,000 deer hunters covering the state, no public land to speak of in large tracts in Southern, MI and a variety of other factors makes deer hunting in Michigan extremely tough. Some guys just can't seem to wrap their heads around that. Deer hunting in Michigan, particularly the Southern Half of the state can be good someday, but it took generations upon generations of hunters with the if its brown its down mentality, if it has horns kill it, if I don't see 40 does on a hunt I'm unhappy, that will have to be reversed and hopefully the new generation can learn to live and hunt without bait. The population is getting larger in the state and the number of hunters, hunting access, is going down. I feel baiting causes just as much of a black eye in the eyes of the 80% who are on the fence about hunting as poaching does, the idea of a pile of unnatural food, put out at key times, to shoot a deer looks to the non hunter as someone killing a deer basically like a livestock animal, with zero skill involved other than pulling the trigger.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

The interesting thing is that Kenny Darwin is well known as an expert whitetail stalker and still hunter.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The facts of the matter of this issue are this;

Baiting can increase the potential for the spread of disease........When disease is present.

Water Holes can increase the potential for the spread of disease.........When disease is present.

Food plots can increase the potential for the spread of disease.........When disease is present.

Mineral licks can increase the potential for the spread of disease.........When disease is present.

Farm Fields can increase the potential for the spread of disease.........When disease is present.

The scientific evidence that supports this premise is, as so correctly stated by Dr. Mason, overwhelming and unassailable. There is no scientific data available that shows that any of these vectors has a higher potential for disease transmission than any of the others. The data that we have has to do with materials that bovine TB can survive on for extended periods of time, long enough for transmission to an uninfected animal to occur. 

None of the data has to do with the specific method in which the material is used, in relation to other methods. If you accept the conclusion from Whipple and Palmer, that bTB can remain viable on sugar beets for extended periods of time, then you have to accept that viability and the risk it poses, whether that sugar beet is in a bait pile or in a food plot. If you accept the conclusion that Williams and Hoy reached based their research, that bTB can remain viable for extended periods in feces deposited in pastures, then you have to accept that viability whether the pasture in question is for farmer Browns Herefords, or the alfalfa or winter wheat planted in your food plot. If you accept the conclusions of Mike Miller and Beth Williams, that CWD can remain viable in soil for extended periods of time, you have to accept that viability, whether its in a captive cervid enclosure, around a bait pile or in a food plot. 

The point is that you cant pick and choose which potential vector you believe might be a problem, simply based on your own personal ideas of whether you think baiting is a good or bad practice or whether you think food plots or water holes are a good or bad thing. Science does not work that way, you either buy the concept of beets, carrots, apples, cereal grasses, water and dirt potentially serving as a vector for the spread of disease based on the available evidence, or you dont. It matters none, whether the apple is in a bait pile or your back yard or in an orchard, the location does not result in a mitigating factor for risk reduction.

Dr. Masons opposition to baiting stems at least in part to the presumption that disease is always present, despite the absence of any proof that would support the premise that a given disease is present in a given area. With all due respect to Dr. Mason, this is not a logical presumption and it goes against the current policy employed by the NRC, based on the conclusions of the CWD task force, which presumes that CWD is not present in a given peninsula, unless it has been detected within a 50 mile buffer zone of that peninsula. 

To presume, for example, that bTB exists within the free ranging herd in Hillsdale County, despite annual testing of numerous deer that has never indicated a positive case of bTB, is simply illogical, in my opinion. If the presumption is that disease exists everywhere, why bother with a testing regime? The basis of testing is the opposite, the logical presumption is that disease does not exist and the testing verifies that presumption. If a positive case of disease is found, then the presumption changes to one of disease being present, until a sufficient period of testing goes by showing no further evidence of disease and then the presumption switches again. 

There are 83 counties in Michigan, bTB has been detected in 8 of them and CWD has never been detected in any of them, in the free ranging herd. Its reasonable to presume, based on the extensive testing that has occurred annually for the last 15 years, that bTB and CWD do not exist in the deer herd in 96% of Michigan. 

It seems to me, based on that presumption, that baiting, feeding and other practices that can potentially create an increased risk of transmission, should be allowed within those 75 Counties where there is no evidence of communicable disease being present. In the counties where bTB has been found, baiting and feeding should be restricted and other practices, such as food plots and unfenced gardens, should be strongly discouraged by the DNR.

That seems like a logical, reasonable and fair handed approach to the baiting issue and one that I hope the NRC will enact in the coming months.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> When I was 14 I remember asking my Dad if I could put out a bait pile. He told me, "bait isn't going to get you a big buck, but if you want to put out some carrots, you are paying for them". So I did, I saved up money, I visited farmers I knew to gather old apples and pumpkins when they were done for the season, etc. I remember filling the trunk of my old lebaron when I was 16 so full of pumpkins once that the wheels were rubbing on the wells. I did this from about 14-19 and couldn't figure out why all I would see was does and small bucks, yet trail cams revealed nice deer at night coming through. When I was 20 I declared I wasn't hunting with bait and started looking at a variety of other factors to increase my deer killing skills. It was amazing to me how I saw just as many does, if not more, at all times of the day, and bucks too.


 Wow...not enough money for a bag of carrots, but you had trail cams!! Wonder how old you are now?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

The above poster goes over well-plowed ground; none of his assertions.particularly the mantra of _if disease is present._are new to regular members of this chatroom.

Nor are the rejoinders to his assertions new. We have all read em before. But, in the spirit of fair & balanced reporting lets offer an airing of another version of _the facts of the matter...._


First, it is a fact that the above poster does not know if disease is present, or where it will pop-up next. No one did.or does for the re-occurring incidences of TB nor for that --so far---single incident in Kent County. It is always somewhat of a surprise. Our government authorities continue to look for it.as we want them to, and they are mandated to. But still, the nature of transmissible diseasesespecially in animals with the mobility and the elusiveness of free range wild deer is always.always gonna be a will-o-wisp experience. Here today, over there tomorrow..and how did it get that far so soon?. Wildlife diseases pose the most extraordinary of challengesbecause, guess what, the animals are wild. 

It was a wild deer that popped up with TB in Shiawasee county. It was a wild deer that popped up with CWD in Mt.Horeb, Wisconsin; near Rochelle, Illinois, in West Virginia, in Minnesota, in New York. Wild deerbecause they are wild..go wherever instinct guides them regardless if disease is present. 

Nor do we have confident control over the cervid farming industry where treating deer like cattle ensures cattle-like diseases. In particular, what confident control do we have over the outliers of that industry..those whose actions are criminal, or negligent, or incompetent? We know too well the increased risk those operations pose. Are we to establish an infrastructure of widespread baitpiles so that tight mingling of released or escaped infected animals is assured? 

We cant emphasize it enough; congregating deer over piles of foodstuffs piles, not fields..unnecessarily increases the risk of transmissible infections. Cattle farmers know that very well. But, importantly, and in clear distinction from wild deer-----livestock raisers have ready access to their animals; ready access to medication; ready access to professional veterinary care. None of that is true for free range deer.

In short, when one of these diseases is suddenly detected in a high deer density area say, Shiawasee County, or Sanilac County, or Jackson County, or Montcalm Countythere will be little comfort in falling back on the mantra of : it is only a danger if disease is present.

When we discover it..it may be too late.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

fairfax1 said:


> The above poster goes over well-plowed ground; none of his assertions.particularly the mantra of _if disease is present._are new to regular members of this chatroom.
> 
> Nor are the rejoinders to his assertions new. We have all read em before. But, in the spirit of fair & balanced reporting lets offer an airing of another version of _the facts of the matter...._
> 
> ...


So with your arguement are you willing to eliminate all manmade vectors or only the one you don't like?


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

tgafish said:


> So with your arguement are you willing to eliminate all manmade vectors or only the one you don't like?


I am willing to allow the NRC/DNR to eliminate the vectors they have jurisdiction over if they see fit to do so.

-na


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> In short, when one of these diseases is suddenly detected in a high deer density area say, Shiawasee County, or Sanilac County, or Jackson County, or Montcalm Countythere will be little comfort in falling back on the mantra of : it is only a danger if disease is present.
> 
> When we discover it..it may be too late.


While I agree completely with the above statement. Isnt the continued failure or even admitted unwillingness on the part of landowners/managers in those high deer density areas to lower the deer density's to a safe level, Causing just as much or more risk to the deer herd as baiting.

Seems like a double standard there.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I will say it again, the presumption that disease is present, in the absence of any tangible proof to support that premise, is illogical from a scientific standpoint. Public health officials presume that small pox has been eradicated and that it does not pose a threat to our population. This determination is based on extensive testing that shows that vaccination efforts succeeded, to the point that small pox no longer posed a threat because it no longer existed as a potential pathogen in the public sphere. Acting on that presumption, we stopped routine vaccination for small pox in 1972 in this country. If we acted on your premise, that we can't know for sure whether disease is present therefore we have to presume that it is, then we should simply presume that small pox is still potentially present in the environment, despite extensive testing that shows it's absence. If that was the case we would still be routinely vaccinating our population to prevent the spread of small pox. And with small pox we are talking about a disease that is deadly to humans and poses serious threats to the population, not a disease that poses almost no threat to humans, like bTB. 

What is also illogical is the presumption that a given practice such as baiting creates a higher risk of disease transmission then other potential vectors such as food plots, in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary. That evidence simply does not exist. If the above poster thinks that it does, he is welcome to provide it. Equally illogical is singling out one practice that is employed to potentially increase the harvest of deer as being unnecessary. Since when are food plots, mineral licks and water holes a necessary part of hunting? 

You just can't cherry pick your data or apply it arbitrarily and expect there to be any kind of a valid scientific basis for your presumptions.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

What is the difference on private property, if I go and drop a bag or corn or another guy goes and drops a bag of seed on the ground?? The DNR has jurisdiction over each act. 


Also, maybe they need to look at "permitting" agricultural acts. What makes one a designated "farmer" using agricultual methods for sale or prvate usage for livestock?! Maybe MI can be the first state to take the lead into labeling "food plots" illegal, based on agricultural permits. As long as their good intent(fence, wire) to keep wildlife out,,gardening is exempt. Plant a rye field without agricultral permit, deemed and labeled baiting!! POACHER!!!!!!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

From a legal standpoint, the determination has already been made that wildlife plantings are different from farming (I.E. normal agricultural practices). Look at the statute. While it does not specify what criteria the state used to define wildlife plantings as opposed to farming, the legal distinction has been made and presumably the NRC has jurisdiction over the enforcement of wildlife plantings, as they have jurisdiction over the management of Michigan's natural resources.

Btw, this in no way should be taken as the suggestion that planting food plots be banned in areas where disease is not known to be present, merely the desire that potential vectors that can be regulated, that can pose a threat to the resource, be regulated in even handed manner.


----------



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

Munsterlndr said:


> What is also illogical is the presumption that a given practice such as baiting creates a higher risk of disease transmission then other potential vectors such as food plots, in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary.


While I tend to agree, isn't the fundamental issue that the DNR/NRC cannot regulate the planting of food plots, but they can easily regulate the use of bait? For the sake of argument, what language would you propose that would allow planting for agricultural or aesthetic purposes, but disallow as a "food plot"?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Responding to several posts above:

The analogy of small pox doesn&#8217;t apply with our dilemma with the detection or control of wildlife diseases. 

As mentioned in my earlier post&#8230;..transmissible diseases in wildlife pose unique challenges. Most especially so in highly mobile, highly elusive animals like free range wild deer. We simply cannot line &#8216;em up like school-kids and inoculate &#8216;em on Tuesday morning. Collecting & controlling wild deer for regular veterinary care is a non-starter.

The point made in my previous post is that caution&#8230;..in great degree&#8230;..is required. Required of Dr. Mason, required of all governmental regulators including the NRC, and also required of sportsmen. The consequences are too dire to unnecessarily increase the risk of disease transmission by utilizing a tactic that, most damningly, has value only to mere hobbyist. It is simply and exclusively a plaything for recreationists. It has too little societal value to put our hunting culture and our hunting economy at risk&#8230;&#8230;..not to mention risking a highly valued natural resource. 

In numerous jurisdictions we know that the individual occurrences of these cervid diseases have been unexpected: in Wisconsin, in New York, West Virginia, in Kent County, in Shiawasee County. In short, we can have no confidence that &#8220;the disease ain&#8217;t there.&#8221; It too often has proved to be there. And if we establish an infrastructure encouraging close congregation of cervids....ala' bait piles.....we cannot be surprised when it is discovered ever more frequently.

Proponents of deer-bait too frequently wish to blame farm fields & clover fields for their challenges with getting baiting accepted. Those fields are not the issue&#8230;.not legally, and not in the eyes of the scientific community. What is overwhelmingly supported within the scientific community is the conviction that concentrating animals over placed baits&#8230;..in our case cervids, but it is applicable to other wildlife also&#8230;..increases the risk of disease. You can&#8217;t get more clear and stark than that.
...........................

A poster observes: _"the continued failure or even admitted unwillingness on the part of landowners/managers in those high deer density areas to lower the deer density's to a safe level, Causing just as much or more risk to the deer herd as baiting."_Well, relucatance to kill females has been a long standing cultural issue throughout the state of Michigan for 3 or 4 generations....by Yoopers, and 'Up North', and 'Down South'. We can, however, say that that reluctance is abating a bit. The times....they are a changin'. 

In not a few southern high density counties the percentage of antlerless in the harvest in growing. For example: In Montcalm county...our highest deer density county...the antlerless kill in 2009 was 55%; #2 Sanilac was 54%; #3 Calhoun was 57%; #4 Jackson was 61%. I found those numbers encouraging. Still further to go, but still, encouraging.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tom (mich) said:


> While I tend to agree, isn't the fundamental issue that the DNR/NRC cannot regulate the planting of food plots, but they can easily regulate the use of bait? For the sake of argument, what language would you propose that would allow planting for agricultural or aesthetic purposes, but disallow as a "food plot"?


The NRC has the jurisdiction to regulate the taking of game, in whatever capacity that they want. As stated above, they have already legally differentiated between plantings for wildlife and plantings for agricultural purposes, in the statute restricting baiting. Simply regulate hunting within a fixed distance of wildlife plantings and leave it up to the discretion of the CO to make the judgment as to whether there is a violation, just as CO's are tasked today with deciding whether a practice falls under the exemption for "Normal agricultural practices" or whether it's in violation of the baiting statute.

With apologies to Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to define wildlife plantings, but I know one when I see it"!

Keep in mind, we are speaking hypothetically here. I don't support banning wildlife plantings (except on public property, which the NRC has already precluded) in any way. What I favor is an equal application of regulation, if the real purpose is to curb risk enhancing practices, it makes no sense to make an arbitrary distinction between potential vectors, when there is no scientific evidence that would support one being a greater vector over another.


----------



## Mar-Vo (Feb 3, 2011)

beer and nuts said:


> I'm going to give a list of states that allow baiting or feeding of some sort, so if we are taking the disease factor it seems a crap load of state biologists have nothing against feeding or baiting. Now some states on the list allow feeding but not hunting over bait, or bait has to be removed with a certain time frame ranging from 10-60 days before you can hunt over it. This should be proof enough. If any states banned it in 2010 shoudl not be in the list but its hard to look at every state. I got some off the lucky buck website as well, others I looked at dnr sites. Didn't look at all of them just what time allowed. So there are more states andsome western states allow feeding of elk as well.
> 
> Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan UP, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentcky, Neb, WI, Indiana, Ala., Ark, Conn, Delaware, Fla, Ga., La, Maine, Maryland, Minn., Mass., and also all Canadian provinces.
> 
> **Remember this is feeding and baiting that is allowed. And not just hunting over bait.


***Since I am a new member here, I am not allowed to post links. If you copy and paste the below links add the www and remove the spaces it should still work.***

Hey, thanks for using Lucky Buck's site on feeding and baiting deer. If anyone else wants to look at that the link is lucky-buck. com/ fblaws. html

More importantly though, I decided to make an account here today so I could share with you all our company's position on feeding and baiting deer in MI. You can check that out on our facebook page @ tinyurl. com/47g8uw7

Best Regards,
A proud Lucky Buck Mineral employee


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

BigR said:


> That article had zero scientific evidence, just a bunch of rambling and chest thumping very reminiscent of the drivel heard on the forums and at the outdoor shows of " I can learn a dnr biologist a few things, i have several years under my belt" yadda yadda yadda. Hunters crying about bait just speaks volumes about why our economy is the way it is in. People want things the easy way, handed to them on a silver platter, and god forbid they get off their asses and put some time in to actually hunt deer. Every lame excuse in the book, from someone being elderly to no time...yea I've heard it all. I choose to spend a majority of my time hunting waterfowl, I begin about August, stop just now. I log more miles in that time frame scouting alone than what most guys do in a whole year on their pickup. I would love to take the Michigan Whitetail deer hunter approach of stop at the Quick Stop, get my case of beer and some bags of carrots, head up to my hunting trailer on Friday, throw the bag of carrots out, drink some beers, see some 1.5 year old bucks come into the bait, shoot a scrub buck and then complain why Michigan doesn't rank in comparison to the whitetail states, to which I have never visited.


the funny thing is people keep saying baiters want an easy way to hunt when the opposite is true. many people complain about not seeing big bucks so they want everyone else to change their hunting styles to make it easier for them to shoot a big buck. seems like you want an easy hunt

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

interesting read from Wisconsin

*Food plots​*The Department does not promote food plots as an acceptable deer management practice for
many of the same privatization, ethical, and human conflict issues identified above. Additionally,
planting food plots can have the same effect of providing additional (and unnecessary) energy as
a bait site or feeding station, however that effect is for a more limited time (food is not replaced)
and spread geographically over a greater area. As a result deer to deer contact and local site
contamination is less likely to occur at a food plot than at a bait site or feeding station thus​significantly reducing the risk of disease transmission at a food plot. 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/baitfeed.pdf

They did not say NO risk, Although they state the food plot is less risk because it is available for a more limited time. According to the plotters here its advantage is being available year around versus bait a limited time. So the reduction in risk may not be as great for Michigans year around food plots.........But they do not promote them


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> interesting read from Wisconsin
> 
> *Food plots*
> The Department does not promote food plots as an acceptable deer management practice for many of the same privatization, ethical, and human conflict issues identified above. Additionally, planting food plots can have the same effect of providing additional (and unnecessary) energy as a bait site or feeding station, however that effect is for a more limited time (food is not replaced) and spread geographically over a greater area. As a result deer to deer contact and local site contamination is less likely to occur at a food plot than at a bait site or feeding station thus significantly reducing the risk of disease transmission at a food plot.​
> ...


I have yet to see any scientific data that would support this conclusion. It's a conclusion that some biologists have drawn based on intuition, not on science and it disregards some innate behavior found in most herbivores, that impacts their spatial distribution while feeding on human planted crops. 

Here is the MDNR's reasoning for why food plots pose less of a risk;

_"GNO asked Dr. Steve Schmitt, a wildlife veterinarian with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, to explain the difference between a bait pile and a one-tenth-acre food plot. Here are his comments:_

_"For me it's pretty easy to visualize. A small food plot is still a much larger area than even a large pile of sugar beets, a 15-foot by 15-foot pile. That's bringing the deer together in a closer concentration, and that's where the direct transmission takes place." _
_"The other thing is that once that food plot is eaten it's gone and it's not being replenished, where a bait pile or food site is being replenished with more apples or sugar beets being dumped on it in the exact same spot. An apple or an acorn only falls once from the tree and it's not replaced." _
_"That's not saying that some of those small food plots might not bring deer into contact with each other a little bit more if you didn't have that, but it's a lot more spaced out than a feeding site. When acorns are there the deer could concentrate some, or they could concentrate in an alfalfa field in the spring, but in all of those it's usually not close enough contact." _
_"We're trying to limit the things we can control and reduce the contact between deer. Obviously you can have some transmission taking place in a world where no feeding or baiting or human concentration of deer takes place. To maintain itself, every TB positive deer has to transmit it to another deer to keep things perfectly level. If that deer transmits to 1.1 deer then it's going up, but if it transmits to .9 deer, then it's going down. And that's what we're talking about."_
In response to Dr. Schmitt - his assumption that size mitigates the potential for close contact is not based on any scientific data, it's based on his "visualization". It ignores the impact that aggregation has on deer behavior while feeding. See this thread for more detailed information.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=359792

Secondly, his claim that food plots are not replenished and once eaten the food is gone is simply not the case in most food plot applications. Cereal grasses and clover continue to grow month after month. Brassicas provide forage from within a couple weeks of being planted until the deer have dug up the last turnip in the spring. The same with beet, carrots, etc. 

Juxtapose his comment about the duration of bait vs. food plots with this statement by a S.C. biologist (which was used earlier in this thread as proof of the benefit of food plots vs.bait) and you will see that the opinions of these two wildlife specialists are diametrically opposed. 

_"Here is a biologist from SC answer to the question on food plots.

__What About Food Plots?

Ruth was quick to note there is a difference between baiting and planting food plots. Food plots are part of an overall habitat management plan that also benefits other species, he said. The food plot is out there 24/7, 365 days of the year. You dont have unnatural congregations of deer, and as a result, theyre less susceptible to disease issues.

Obviously, a lot depends on your food plot layout: how big your plots are, how many you plant and what type of forages they contain. Food plots, however, are much more akin to concentrated natural food sources. Again as Ruth pointed out, theyre out there 24/7-365, unlike a pile of corn placed a week or two before the season, and maintained only until the season ends. Theyre part of the landscape, and deer visit them more like they would a natural food source." _
_[/COLOR]_ 
So which is it? Is the problem with baiting that it's constantly replenished for extended periods of time as Dr. Schmitt says or is it that it's only put out for a week or two like Dr. Ruth says? Are food plots less of a danger because once the food is eaten it's gone as opposed to being replenished like bait, as Dr. Schmitt says? Or are they less of a danger because they are there 24/7/365 to provide food, like Dr. Ruth say?

Why are these perceptions of about food plots so diametrically opposed by two different wild life professionals? 

Because both are simply based on opinion and speculation, not on scientific fact. As Dr. mason stated, people hear what they want to hear. It's also true that people see what they want to see and that is certainly true with the whole baiting/food plot issue. 

As far as both of them saying that you don't see unnatural concentrations of deer in food plots, well......I've got some pictures to show them and would love to hear their explanation for what they show. :lol:


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

beer and nuts said:


> What is the difference on private property, if I go and drop a bag or corn or another guy goes and drops a bag of seed on the ground?? The DNR has jurisdiction over each act.
> 
> 
> Also, maybe they need to look at "permitting" agricultural acts. What makes one a designated "farmer" using agricultual methods for sale or prvate usage for livestock?! Maybe MI can be the first state to take the lead into labeling "food plots" illegal, based on agricultural permits. As long as their good intent(fence, wire) to keep wildlife out,,gardening is exempt. Plant a rye field without agricultral permit, deemed and labeled baiting!! POACHER!!!!!!


 Go take your Meds.


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> The consequences are too dire to unnecessarily increase the risk of disease transmission by utilizing a tactic that, most damningly, has value only to mere hobbyist. It is simply and exclusively a plaything for recreationists. It has too little societal value to put our hunting culture and our hunting economy at risk..not to mention risking a highly valued natural resource.


This punch is about deceased. Are you kidding me, I mean this is unbelievable that you can actually believe that placing 2 to maybe 5 gallons of bait out is going to destroy the deer herd in Michigan! Consequences, what a joke its called reality and baiting is not going to ruin deer hunting thats plain and simple.. Its almost like saying the consequences of you driving 2 mph over the speed limit in a 70mph zone gives you a greater or increased risk of injury in a car accident. Why dont you lobby that, it could save someones life let alone improve gas mileage, IMO, your efforts would be much better off.

Baiting, Food Plots, Deer Grooming, Deer Social behavior in general, Deer naturally feeding, Eared Corn, Soy Beans, Honeysuckle Browse, Gardens, Flowers, Scrubs, Cedar, the list goes on and on, unless we get deer numbers down to 3-5 per square mile the deer in Michigan are doomed.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

mechanical head said:


> This punch is about deceased. Are you kidding me, I mean this is unbelievable that you can actually believe that placing 2 to maybe 5 gallons of bait out is going to destroy the deer herd in Michigan! Consequences, what a joke its called reality and baiting is not going to ruin deer hunting thats plain and simple.. Its almost like saying the consequences of you driving 2 mph over the speed limit in a 70mph zone gives you a greater or increased risk of injury in a car accident. Why dont you lobby that, it could save someones life let alone improve gas mileage, IMO, your efforts would be much better off.
> 
> Baiting, Food Plots, Deer Grooming, Deer Social behavior in general, Deer naturally feeding, Eared Corn, Soy Beans, Honeysuckle Browse, Gardens, Flowers, Scrubs, Cedar, the list goes on and on, unless we get deer numbers down to 3-5 per square mile the deer in Michigan are doomed.


 Huh?


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

mechanical head said:


> This punch is about deceased. Are you kidding me, I mean this is unbelievable that you can actually believe that placing 2 to maybe 5 gallons of bait out is going to destroy the deer herd in Michigan! Consequences, what a joke its called reality and baiting is not going to ruin deer hunting thats plain and simple.. Its almost like saying the consequences of you driving 2 mph over the speed limit in a 70mph zone gives you a greater or increased risk of injury in a car accident. Why dont you lobby that, it could save someones life let alone improve gas mileage, IMO, your efforts would be much better off.
> 
> Baiting, Food Plots, Deer Grooming, Deer Social behavior in general, Deer naturally feeding, Eared Corn, Soy Beans, Honeysuckle Browse, Gardens, Flowers, Scrubs, Cedar, the list goes on and on, unless we get deer numbers down to 3-5 per square mile the deer in Michigan are doomed.


You better get a hold of B&N.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

CBM do you have anything to bring to this discussion or just little shots at posters?1 Nothing huh!? No lead sheep to follow, so just cheap shots!?


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> CBM do you have anything to bring to this discussion or just little shots at posters?1 Nothing huh!? No lead sheep to follow, so just cheap shots!?


 Only if he gets a CBM trophy to show off.


----------



## noshow (Sep 24, 2010)

Nothin like a good ol baiting thread to pit everyone against one another. If they do happen to bring baiting back then fine. But i hope that OBR and APR comes along with it.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

noshow said:


> Nothin like a good ol baiting thread to pit everyone against one another. If they do happen to bring baiting back then fine. But i hope that OBR and APR comes along with it.


We have APR now. They started new APR rules in the TB hot zone. I can't wait to have all those huge old bucks running around.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

hunting man said:


> We have APR now. They started new APR rules in the TB hot zone. I can't wait to have all those huge old bucks running around.


 Actually in the NELP antler restrictions are supposed to reduce the number of mature bucks....It will only result in more in the other areas. Same plan different results. :lol: Maybe Russ Mason and the Turtle lake club (TB ground zero) can explain how they do that......


----------



## qdmaer (Oct 30, 2008)

hunting man said:


> Only if he gets a CBM trophy to show off.


 
He puts more than just CBM bucks on the wall.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> beer and nuts said:
> 
> 
> > CBM do you have anything to bring to this discussion or just little shots at posters?1 Nothing huh!? No lead sheep to follow, so just cheap shots!?


Pot meet kettle.:lol:


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

Falk said:


> Huh?


Yeah exactly, its just about as precise as the thousands of useless anti baiting quotes Ive read.. Mind Boggling isnt it..


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER (Feb 6, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> Pot meet kettle.:lol:


 :coolgleam


----------

