# Odds bait ban will be lifted before gun season



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Zero, no matter what the Senate does. Whitmer has to sign it into law. That won’t happen this year or next.


----------



## A.M. General (May 3, 2001)

Yes, state land. CO walked up to the hunter on stand. I believe he received a $300 fine and court appearance.


bigbuck said:


> Anyone heard of any tickets being written for baiting?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

bigbuck said:


> Anyone heard of any tickets being written for baiting?


I have not heard of a single ticket being written in the UP even in the small area where it illegal.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Haven't heard of any around my area. Should be easy ,just follow the trail in the snow probably no more then 100 yards. I've found a few this year before the snow.
You wouldn't believe all the folks that think it's legal now since the word came down about it passing the house. That's the talk of the area. SMH.


----------



## Huntahalic (Feb 9, 2010)

Slim to none I'm not totally against baiting but I am definitely against the politicians sticking their damn noses into it. Not where they belong.....


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

OAKSnPINE said:


> Same here. I stopped by one place last week to get some propane and while I was getting a tank filled I counted 9 trucks loading bags of beets and carrots. Agree with baiting or not it’s a damn joke so many think they can just disregard regs. No shades of right and wrong. It takes a lack of ethics to break a law whether you agree with it or not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What laws do you break that you consider ethical? Are speeding, rolling stops and other often dangerous traffic violations ethical? How about some of the game law violations that are broke by tons of hunters like adherence to strict hunting hours, use of lights, transporting weapons, tagging game, cutting shooting lanes, and the list goes on and on? Even spitting, picking up a quarter and keeping it can be illegal. Taking a piss in the woods can be considered criminal sexual conduct. Lets face it, everybody breaks laws. The righteous indignation I see on here is often amazing.


----------



## jstfish48162 (Mar 8, 2003)

bigbuck said:


> Anyone heard of any tickets being written for baiting?


Yes
Had a customer tell me he got a ticket for baiting on private land in Hillsdale County.
Said he was busted by a drone. He had a small pile (according to him under 40 lbs) in front of a camera to get an inventory of deer on his new property he acquired over the summer.
He stated that the fine was $800!!!:yikes::yikes:


----------



## HillbillyDeluxe (Mar 12, 2018)

Woodsman Traveler said:


> 0%..... it has to go to
> gretchickens desk, right?


Gretchicken? Thats the worst attempt at a nickname I've ever heard lol.


----------



## Gone Coastal (Apr 28, 2003)

jstfish48162 said:


> Yes
> Had a customer tell me he got a ticket for baiting on private land in Hillsdale County.
> Said he was busted by a drone. He had a small pile (according to him under 40 lbs) in front of a camera to get an inventory of deer on his new property he acquired over the summer.
> He stated that the fine was $800!!!:yikes::yikes:


800.00 would buy a lot of beef.


----------



## Old lund (Apr 20, 2016)

Gone Coastal said:


> 800.00 would buy a lot of beef.


I was thinking the same thing


----------



## sourdough44 (Mar 2, 2008)

Turnips grow easily, wide variety of soil types. They are more attractive as temps fall & the easy food is gone. Deer will dig in the snow for them.

Clear a patch with some sun, plant turnips. You have to do it in August or so, to late now.

If farming, leave some standing corn. It’s not always about shooting deer OVER bait, but gets them hanging around. The bucks come by checking for a date.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

jstfish48162 said:


> Yes
> Had a customer tell me he got a ticket for baiting on private land in Hillsdale County.
> Said he was busted by a drone. He had a small pile (according to him under 40 lbs) in front of a camera to get an inventory of deer on his new property he acquired over the summer.
> He stated that the fine was $800!!!:yikes::yikes:


Fake news when the max fine is $500. I doubt there are any judges that are going to hand out a max fine unless its a repeat offender or some irregular circumstance. Most of the fines I've seen, are the $50 minimum if they aren't thrown out, which a lot are in some parts of the state.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Fake news when the max fine is $500. I doubt there are any judges that are going to hand out a max fine unless its a repeat offender or some irregular circumstance. Most of the fines I've seen, are the $50 minimum if they aren't thrown out, which a lot are in some parts of the state.


Yes a gal that used to work with my wife got busted after sweeping acorns out of her driveway and placing them out back on her property .A neighbor seen her and turned her in .The judge stated that he did not consider moving acorns to a different spot illegal baiting and dismissed the case .


----------



## jiggin is livin (Jan 7, 2011)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Zero, no matter what the Senate does. Whitmer has to sign it into law. That won’t happen this year or next.


She's a Democrat. All they care about is money for pet projects and people that didn't earn it. The only way to get that is through taxes and license fees. License sales plummet, she'll sign her soul to the devil for that money. 

Sent from my E6810 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## jiggin is livin (Jan 7, 2011)

Trophy Specialist said:


> What laws do you break that you consider ethical? Are speeding, rolling stops and other often dangerous traffic violations ethical? How about some of the game law violations that are broke by tons of hunters like adherence to strict hunting hours, use of lights, transporting weapons, tagging game, cutting shooting lanes, and the list goes on and on? Even spitting, picking up a quarter and keeping it can be illegal. Taking a piss in the woods can be considered criminal sexual conduct. Lets face it, everybody breaks laws. The righteous indignation I see on here is often amazing.


Agree. About 80% of the laws are overreach and laughable. 

I don't really care what anyone does, just know that if you're doing what you think is right, you might have to pay a little.

My judge of character is if someone is willing to own it. Get pulled over for speeding, take your ticket and don't be a dick. That kind of thing. Just man up. 


Sent from my E6810 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## jiggin is livin (Jan 7, 2011)

Thirty pointer said:


> Yes a gal that used to work with my wife got busted after sweeping acorns out of her driveway and placing them out back on her property .A neighbor seen her and turned her in .The judge stated that he did not consider moving acorns to a different spot illegal baiting and dismissed the case .


Sounds like a neighbor that needs to be reminded to mind his own business. 

People like drive me absolutely insane. 

Good on the judge. 


Sent from my E6810 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Well that flew through pretty quick, lol.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

$800 fine. LOL. Trying to scare the 52 people that read this thread? Good lord.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Baiting/feeding bill just passed and now goes to the Governer.


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Baiting/feeding bill just passed and now goes to the Governer.


Sweet!! Stand by!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

poz said:


> Because you have 2 different set of rules for the citizens of Michigan. A good lawyer will fight it and get it dismissed. The dnr would have to explain why they have 2 different laws for the people of Michigan. A good judge will see right through it


What law says they cannot have two sets of rules? We have all sorts of sets of rules in hunting. We have atleast like 5 or more apr restriction zones. 

By your logic if i am caught shooting a spike in an apr zone that doesnt allow it I can win that too. What about duck hunting in zone 3 on the UP opener? 

Better yet I should use worms in a flies only water.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

tmitchell2889 said:


> Where are all the good lawyers and judges?


Making sure you don't see Robert Kraft's rub n tug video.


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

snortwheeze said:


> I will not either !! Was just joking.. not worth the hassle for me, I'm good. *I'll find some scrapes, rubs, runways or some acorns..*



Under 19" of snow?
We're clobbered here, everything is hunkered down...not even songbirds flying around.
Some of us handicappers can't navigate too far on flat/even ground, let alone buried sticks/logs/potholes and vines to go in and punch them out.


----------



## don (Jan 20, 2001)

I have no dog in the fight because I don't bait but I spoke to an Isabella area conservation officer asking if he had written many baiting non-compliance tickets.
He said while he did not actively patrol for baiting violations he did do follow ups on complaints from disgruntled neighbors and hunters who discovered bait piles etc.
He said approximately half of the tickets he had written since the deer season opened was for baiting violations.
He also said he estimated there has been about 50% compliance with the current baiting regs which was far greater than I suspected personally. Those who want to bait will probably continue, no matter the law. His words, not mine.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

fishjump said:


> I friend got a game violation ticket, cost him
> 
> $250. $50 was the violation- the rest was court costs. $800 could be including his court costs.


 No need to go to court on a baiting violation. You just call and get the fine amount then pay it like a parking ticket. I certainly wouldnt go if it was an $800 court cost.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

It really surprises me how many people need bait to kill a deer. I guess I'd push pretty hard to get the ban reversed too if I couldn't figure out how to kill without it. Have any of the die hard baiters on here had success without using bait during early bow???? I really felt that many of those who have always waited for deer over a bait pile would find more success by taking the fight to them deers.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

tmitchell2889 said:


> Flawed logic there. Using fishing regulations as an example: The possession for walleye is (5) 15" and over on the Detroit river but (6) 13" and over on the St. Clair river. That looks like a different set of rules for the citizens of Michigan. Where are all the good lawyers and judges?


That is different there is a reason for that. The dnr would have to explain how bait doesn't spread disease in th U.P. but does in the lower. Fish limits are based on the body of water they are in. Every body of water is different. Thus they have different rules. Bait doesn't magically stop spreading disease once it crosses the bridge. Just like the marijuana bill. It was passed in the state, they can't just say marijuana is legal in these counties but not these other counties.


----------



## D&D2012 (Oct 29, 2012)

poz said:


> Because you have 2 different set of rules for the citizens of Michigan. A good lawyer will fight it and get it dismissed. The dnr would have to explain why they have 2 different laws for the people of Michigan. A good judge will see right through it


That "good lawyer" is going to cost a lot more than the ticket


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

There were once counties with no Sunday hunting and dry counties


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

fishx65 said:


> It really surprises me how many people need bait to kill a deer. I guess I'd push pretty hard to get the ban reversed too if I couldn't figure out how to kill without it. Have any of the die hard baiters on here had success without using bait during early bow???? I really felt that many of those who have always waited for deer over a bait pile would find more success by taking the fight to them deers.


It's just a tool that is used, nothing else. Many people own and hunt 5 - 20 acre parcels of woods up north, bait is used to bring deer on their property. Or to bring deer to an area on state land.


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

poz said:


> That is different there is a reason for that. The dnr would have to explain how bait doesn't spread disease in th U.P. but does in the lower. Fish limits are based on the body of water they are in. Every body of water is different. Thus they have different rules. Bait doesn't magically stop spreading disease once it crosses the bridge. Just like the marijuana bill. It was passed in the state, they can't just say marijuana is legal in these counties but not these other counties.


For many years there were several "No Hunting" on Sunday counties.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

DecoySlayer said:


> There were once counties with no Sunday hunting and dry counties


Those were laws passed by the county not state laws.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

JimP said:


> For many years there were several "No Hunting" on Sunday counties.


Those were county laws not state. The baiting ban is a state law.


----------



## ScipioCreekAssasin (Dec 21, 2017)

Interesting conversation between Jimmy of MOOD TV and the owner of Lucky Buck Mineral.






Thought I would share.


----------



## Ken (Dec 6, 2000)

$hitmer says she will veto it in the "current form" WTH is that supposed to mean? Maybe tack on a provision that makes baiting mandatory while hunting. Sounds like just about how screwed up the government works. It will bounce around, then they get about 2 months off for the holidays, then it will be out of focus once hunting season is over. So, don't count on it.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Ken said:


> $hitmer says she will veto it in the "current form" WTH is that supposed to mean? Maybe tack on a provision that makes baiting mandatory while hunting. Sounds like just about how screwed up the government works. It will bounce around, then they get about 2 months off for the holidays, then it will be out of focus once hunting season is over. So, don't count on it.


I think it was covered before. Bait tax to fix the damn roads.


----------



## Eric Bee (Sep 10, 2012)

Whitmer probably wants to add a 45 cent tax per bag to it


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

poz said:


> It's just a tool that is used, nothing else. Many people own and hunt 5 - 20 acre parcels of woods up north, bait is used to bring deer on their property. Or to bring deer to an area on state land.


I understand the reasons people feel they need to use a bait pile to kill deer. I was just wondering if any of you die hard baiters have found more success because of the bait ban.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

DecoySlayer said:


> There were once counties with no Sunday hunting and dry counties


Yep, when I was a kid couldn't hunt on Sunday in Branch County when most of the state could.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

multibeard said:


> You should know better that use a four letter word on here.
> 
> WORK and the government do not go together any way you look at it


Ye, unfortunate is with both of the parties!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

fishx65 said:


> I understand the reasons people feel they need to use a bait pile to kill deer. I was just wondering if any of you die hard baiters have found more success because of the bait ban.


Most have, Like I said before most guys I know that hunt the NLP and SLP. In the northern peninsula they will use bait, In the Southern peninsula they won't use bait. Most successful bait hunters are much wiser in the woods because they can actually find a place to put up bait pile where they can draw a mature buck out during daylight hours. So not only are they able to scout and find a mature buck but they are able to find a location for their bait and a tree stand that will make that buck feel comfortable to come out during daylight hours


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

poz said:


> That is different there is a reason for that. The dnr would have to explain how bait doesn't spread disease in th U.P. but does in the lower. Fish limits are based on the body of water they are in. Every body of water is different. Thus they have different rules. Bait doesn't magically stop spreading disease once it crosses the bridge. Just like the marijuana bill. It was passed in the state, they can't just say marijuana is legal in these counties but not these other counties.


Your logic doesnt hold water. 

We have had regions of bait ban for decades now. Even this new legislation that is overturning the bait ban creates regions where there will not be baiting. You still wont be able to bait in the areas where TB has been found.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

Dish7 said:


> Yep, when I was a kid couldn't hunt on Sunday in Branch County when most of the state could.


Monroe county uses to be the same


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

The Senate live site.

https://misenate.viebit.com/?folder=ALL


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

DirtySteve said:


> Your logic doesnt hold water.
> 
> We have had regions of bait ban for decades now. Even this new legislation that is overturning the bait ban creates regions where there will not be baiting. You still wont be able to bait in the areas where TB has been found.


 We did have regions with bait ban but there was a reason why those regions had it. Now the diener as bowed to special interest groups in the UP to allow beating up there when it's banned throughout the state. That's the different state you're not understanding. A good lawyer Will make the DNR explain why you have bathing in the UP and not in the LP. What's the Dean are gonna say that bait doesn't spread disease in the UP and only spreads it in The LP. That won't hold water with the judge Now if the UP didn't have any county's with chronic wasting disease then they would have a leg to stand on. But they can't say we only banded for disease purposes in 3 counties in the UP but bandit in the whole lower peninsula for disease purposes when only a few counties Have the disease in it.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

poz said:


> We did have regions with bait ban but there was a reason why those regions had it. Now the diener as bowed to special interest groups in the UP to allow beating up there when it's banned throughout the state. That's the different state you're not understanding. A good lawyer Will make the DNR explain why you have bathing in the UP and not in the LP. What's the Dean are gonna say that bait doesn't spread disease in the UP and only spreads it in The LP. That won't hold water with the judge Now if the UP didn't have any county's with chronic wasting disease then they would have a leg to stand on. But they can't say we only banded for disease purposes in 3 counties in the UP but bandit in the whole lower peninsula for disease purposes when only a few counties Have the disease in it.


A lawyer doesnt get to talk to the DNR when you go in front of a judge for a misdemeanor.

If anything you say is true i am pretty sure it would have happened by now. Lots of baiting tickets have been written. No lawyers are challenging the baiting laws.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

poz said:


> We did have regions with bait ban but there was a reason why those regions had it. Now the diener as bowed to special interest groups in the UP to allow beating up there when it's banned throughout the state. That's the different state you're not understanding. A good lawyer Will make the DNR explain why you have bathing in the UP and not in the LP. What's the Dean are gonna say that bait doesn't spread disease in the UP and only spreads it in The LP. That won't hold water with the judge Now if the UP didn't have any county's with chronic wasting disease then they would have a leg to stand on. But they can't say we only banded for disease purposes in 3 counties in the UP but bandit in the whole lower peninsula for disease purposes when only a few counties Have the disease in it.


You lost me a bathing in the Up. Next your going to say they have Dentists to


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

poz said:


> What's the Dean are gonna say that bait doesn't spread disease in the UP and only spreads it in The LP.


This Dean isn't saying anything. Oops, he just did. :evilsmile


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Dam talk to text


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

fishx65 said:


> I understand the reasons people feel they need to use a bait pile to kill deer. I was just wondering if any of you die hard baiters have found more success because of the bait ban.


No


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Chessieman said:


> The Senate live site.
> 
> https://misenate.viebit.com/?folder=ALL


Are they still in session?


----------



## NbyNW (Jun 30, 2012)

fishx65 said:


> I understand the reasons people feel they need to use a bait pile to kill deer. I was just wondering if any of you die hard baiters have found more success because of the bait ban.


I wrote this elsewhere already, but I baited last year at new 15 acre property and saw deer every morning, day, and night. No bait this year I am seeing one deer per four days on average. Big ag fields near my property are still loaded with deer, but rarely make it to my property.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

I dont know the odds on the ban being lifted. But there is a shat ton of bait being sold in the bTB zone.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

NbyNW said:


> I wrote this elsewhere already, but I baited last year at new 15 acre property and saw deer every morning, day, and night. No bait this year I am seeing one deer per four days on average. Big ag fields near my property are still loaded with deer, but rarely make it to my property.


Why is that? It's not just a lack of bait.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> Why is that? It's not just a lack of bait.


Correct. Not every parcel attracts deer. Work will need to be done.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

sureshot006 said:


> Correct. Not every parcel attracts deer. Work will need to be done.


That takes time and money that many don't have disposal forms of. The alternative for many is to throw in the towel. Add in the fact that lower Michigan has a significant number of small parcels and the problem of decreasing hunter numbers will continue.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

NbyNW said:


> I wrote this elsewhere already, but I baited last year at new 15 acre property and saw deer every morning, day, and night. No bait this year I am seeing one deer per four days on average. Big ag fields near my property are still loaded with deer, but rarely make it to my property.


So this is like putting a whale in a bath tub. Your land naturally can hold a couple deer. Ether buy more land or hunt stand land


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Correct. Not every parcel attracts deer. Work will need to be done.


Just a cheap chain saw can change it. Takes more energy crying on here that you cant bait.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> So this is like putting a whale in a bath tub. Your land naturally can hold a couple deer. Ether buy more land or hunt stand land


My wife watches that show. I think it's called 600 lb life


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> My wife watches that show. I think it's called 600 lb life


Lol, Does that keep her in shape?


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

This is where it stand as of today


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> It's worth buying a tag just for the one or 2 days of deer camp.


My camp is 13 miles from home, a good part of my trapline is there. I stay at my cabin a lot, kind of my man cave/ doghouse, no need for a deer tag trapping, base, fur and fishing is all I need. Been building a few bobcat cubbies for Dec.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

feedinggrounds said:


> My camp is 13 miles from home, a good part of my trapline is there. I stay at my cabin a lot, kind of my man cave/ doghouse, no need for a deer tag trapping, base, fur and fishing is all I need. Been building a few bobcat cubbies for Dec.


That would be awesome. Mine is 4 hrs drive


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

fishx65 said:


> I understand the reasons people feel they need to use a bait pile to kill deer. I was just wondering if any of you die hard baiters have found more success because of the bait ban.


Nope, but lots more deer under the wifes bird feeder complex.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> She doesnt need to watch it to stay in shape, I dont get it. Some women watch that crap. She watches that nasty cyst popping show, drug addicts and teen parents too. I suppose lots of people must or it wouldnt be on.


I bet old Jr. likes himself a thick girl...Just hits me as the type. Ok I suppose.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

NbyNW said:


> I wrote this elsewhere already, but I baited last year at new 15 acre property and saw deer every morning, day, and night. No bait this year I am seeing one deer per four days on average. Big ag fields near my property are still loaded with deer, but rarely make it to my property.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Try giving the deer something they can't get on the nearby ag land, like cover.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

feedinggrounds said:


> I bet old Jr. likes himself a thick girl...Just hits me as the type. Ok I suppose.


Girl? I had different suspicions with all the random gay references


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

bigbuck said:


> I agree the judge will only care that a violation occurred. However how probable is it that someone from the lower will file a discrimination suit against the state for allowing baiting in the UP but not the LP, siting they followed a management plan in one area but not the other.


Wouldn't it be like any other civil infraction and end up in front of a magistrate first? If the writing officer shows and the ticket is holds up you either pay normal fine, plea downwards or request a jury trial. If you pay up or plea down at this point, the system has loss money in wages and time.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> Girl? I had different suspicions with all the random gay references


To each their own, I suppose. A different world today.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Steve said:


> Try giving the deer something they can't get on the nearby ag land, like cover.


Or seek permission for the ag land.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

feedinggrounds said:


> To each their own, I suppose. A different world today.


"Not that there's anything wrong with that "


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

feedinggrounds said:


> I have not seen any in the court section of the local 3 page newspaper.


If you pay the fine you wouldnt go to court. Only if you challenged the ticket which would seem kinda pointless. If you lose you could pay court costs. If you were baiting i am not sure what basis you could use to fight it.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

feedinggrounds said:


> Wouldn't it be like any other civil infraction and end up in front of a magistrate first? If the writing officer shows and the ticket is holds up you either pay normal fine, plea downwards or request a jury trial. If you pay up or plea down at this point, the system has loss money in wages and time.


No baiting is not a civil infraction. It is a misdemeanor.


----------



## NbyNW (Jun 30, 2012)

jr28schalm said:


> So this is like putting a whale in a bath tub. Your land naturally can hold a couple deer. Ether buy more land or hunt stand land





jr28schalm said:


> Just a cheap chain saw can change it. Takes more energy crying on here that you cant bait.


In time I’ll improve it, only had it a year and getting the damn thing ready to move in on top of full time work, life, family, etc. took nine months! I’ve been running a chainsaw for 20 years, so trees will fall and wood will be hauled, plots will be planted, deer will be back.
Wish we could buy more, but we’re land locked. I hunt a ton of public land, upland with my dogs, put more miles on than most, but deer I’d like to hunt out back-for some reason it appeals to me.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

feedinggrounds said:


> I bet old Jr. likes himself a thick girl...Just hits me as the type. Ok I suppose.


Not so thick where I need to drive around and pick up roadies to feed them. No tagalongs for this guy they pay there way


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

cscott said:


> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(25....aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2019-HB-4687
> 
> I called. Going to full Senate this afternoon. They expect it to pass. Then to Govenor today or tomorrow. Nobody knows what she will do...she may want to raise gas 45 cents before she signs it.


Maybe our elected officials should work on getting a budget to the governor for signature instead of wasting their time on something that won’t get signed.


----------



## Perch.com (Feb 23, 2018)

Not going to happen. They are on a 3 week vacation for thanksgiving and hunting season. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

sureshot006 said:


> It's worth buying a tag just for the one or 2 days of deer camp.


I saw the biggest buck of my bow hunting life a few weeks ago. That experience was worth the price of combo tags. He never came in range but man what a beautiful buck.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Just passed in the Senate


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

poz said:


> Just passed in the Senate


Looks like the senate dumbed down the wording considerably. I would guess that would make it go back to the house of representatives?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

DirtySteve said:


> Looks like the senate dumbed down the wording considerably. I would guess that would make it go back to the house of representatives?


 From What I read a will go back to the house, They will vote on it again hopefully it gets more than 2/3 vote the governor's gonna have a hard time a vetoing it. If it goes to her a
And she vetos it,then I'll go back to both of them to see if it passes by a 2/3 vote and it automatically be put into law by overriding her veto.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

jr28schalm said:


> Not so thick where I need to drive around and pick up roadies to feed them. No tagalongs for this guy they pay there way


Someone has to watch traffic, and hold the ziplock open. Come on you know how its done. Them farmland does are a bit thicker than the jackpine girls...


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

bansheejoel said:


> Typical unethical baiting lowlifes


Silly Trophy guys, all they care about is antlers...Unethical lowlifes.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

DirtySteve said:


> No baiting is not a civil infraction. It is a misdemeanor.


Wasn't sure. Never had a wildlife ticket at all.


----------



## bansheejoel (Oct 15, 2009)

feedinggrounds said:


> Silly Trophy guys, all they care about is antlers...Unethical lowlifes.


OR conservation, not shooting anything that moves unlike.......


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

Bait or no bait letting politicians get there hands on this over the NRC is going to end up biting someone in the hunting community in the ass eventually. HUS be all over this. I don't give two craps if someone baits or doesn't but not having this fought at the NRC level is scary business!


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

If CWD is passed through fluid exchange and nose-to-nose contact, doesn't it make sense to not throw bait piles all over the woods???? I'm sure this takes place naturally but why increase the chances of transmission???


----------



## BigWoods Bob (Mar 15, 2007)

Trophy Specialist said:


> What laws do you break that you consider ethical? Are speeding, rolling stops and other often dangerous traffic violations ethical? How about some of the game law violations that are broke by tons of hunters like adherence to strict hunting hours, use of lights, transporting weapons, tagging game, cutting shooting lanes, and the list goes on and on? Even spitting, picking up a quarter and keeping it can be illegal. Taking a piss in the woods can be considered criminal sexual conduct. Lets face it, everybody breaks laws. The righteous indignation I see on here is often amazing.


Your reply (and your other comments in other threads) clearly shows what your feelings about baiting are....

Regardless of one's thoughts on baiting, the fact remains that it IS currently illegal. Your response of lumping it in with speeding, rolling stops, etc., is an attempt to legitimize those who make the choice to (illegally) give themselves an advantage (whether real or perceived), over fellow sportsmen, who choose to follow the law. 

If breaking the baiting law, is such a trivial offense, what do you (as an Outdoor Writer), think would happent to your writing career, if you were to be (hypothetically speaking-- no accusations) ticketed for illegally baiting? The hunting/outdoors industry has shown itself to be VERY unforgiving to individuals from within its ranks that break Game laws.

Full Disclaimer: I am NOT against baiting, and IF it were legal, I would have bait out on my property now, in preparation for firearms season. While I don't personally hunt over the bait, I think that it helps keep deer on my property, so if legal, I would be doing it. My issue with those who continue to bait, in defiance of the law, is they are CHEATERS, that are out to give themselves an advantage over those of us who despite the fact that we disagree with the current ban, still choose to follow the law-- Can't stand people who are cheaters... at anything!!

Sent from my SM-A505U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

fishx65 said:


> If CWD is passed through fluid exchange and nose-to-nose contact, doesn't it make sense to not throw bait piles all over the woods???? I'm sure this takes place naturally but why increase the chances of transmission???


Yep. That's called science.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

House isn’t back in session until December 3. Moot point.


----------



## bansheejoel (Oct 15, 2009)

SMITTY1233 said:


> Bait or no bait letting politicians get there hands on this over the NRC is going to end up biting someone in the hunting community in the ass eventually. HUS be all over this. I don't give two craps if someone baits or doesn't but not having this fought at the NRC level is scary business!


Definitely agree with this.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Maybe we can attach an amendment to revoke those baiting tickets, I will suggest that.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

SMITTY1233 said:


> Bait or no bait letting politicians get there hands on this over the NRC is going to end up biting someone in the hunting community in the ass eventually. HUS be all over this. I don't give two craps if someone baits or doesn't but not having this fought at the NRC level is scary business!


They refused to hold discussion on it. The shouldnt be able to blow off elected representatives.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> They refused to hold discussion on it. The shouldnt be able to blow off elected representatives.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


So when they refuse to hold discussion on outlawinf trapping, hounding etc the antis can run to politicians with unlimited deep pockets? Use your head. This is a slippery slope for all outdoorsmen in this state any belief otherwise is short sighted 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Maybe we can get statewide aprs the same way


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

SMITTY1233 said:


> So when they refuse to hold discussion on outlawinf trapping, hounding etc the antis can run to politicians with unlimited deep pockets? Use your head. This is a slippery slope for all outdoorsmen in this state any belief otherwise is short sighted
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


U can thank the special interest groups that got in bed with the NRC


----------



## BigWoods Bob (Mar 15, 2007)

SMITTY1233 said:


> So when they refuse to hold discussion on outlawinf trapping, hounding etc the antis can run to politicians with unlimited deep pockets? Use your head. This is a slippery slope for all outdoorsmen in this state any belief otherwise is short sighted
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agree 1000%. Eventhough I don't personally have a problem with baiting, I can see the big picture in this mess....and as you alluded to, it ain't pretty. Just ask fellow sportsmen in States like California, New Mexico, Colorado, just to name a few. Its a slippery slope, that WAY too many hunters apparently are all too eager to jump onto, while the anti's sit by silently licking their chops. Talk about "Short Sighted "!!! 

Sent from my SM-A505U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

I couldn’t care less if someone baits or doesn’t letting slimy grimy politicians get their hands back in the outdoorsmens cookie jar is a loss for us all! Wake up people! Nope got to get mine all anyone cares about what’s best for me no matter the cost! I’m talking about both sides of this fence! Absolutely astonishing to see!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

The revised bill that passed the senate has a 2 yr expiration date to the bill. Also says no baiting in counties where TB have been found. Previously it said "areas" TB has been found. 

Counties that TB has been found according to DNR website....

Montmorency, Alpena, Oscoda, Alcona, Antrim, Crawford, Emmet, Iosco, Mecosta, Osceola, Otsego, Presque Isle, and Roscommon.

That is a huge chunk of the nothern lower.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> U can thank the special interest groups that got in bed with the NRC


Exactly. And the MDNR for refusing to meet with our representatives.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Tom (mich) said:


> Has anyone considered that Swampbuck and his ilk are really anti hunters? His/her comments on many hunting subjects definitely leads me to believe they're anti hunting plants. When one starts applauding the fact that politicians have become involved in game laws, it's pretty clear to me.
> 
> Let's be clear, Swampbuck is anti hunting.


Hog wash. I don't agrees with his views, but he is not a anti hunter.


----------



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

brushbuster said:


> Hog wash. I don't agrees with his views, but he is not a anti hunter.


Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story. 

Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

brushbuster said:


> Hog wash. I don't agrees with his views, but he is not a anti hunter.


He might be anti challenge but not anti hunter


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> It was. So why the push for entire lower? Why not entire upper? As counties get added to disease zones they lose baiting. Pretty sure Saginaw co will be added to cwd zone.


Because there was no compliance in the lower by hunters. Blaiting ignoring the 2 gallon rule and ignoring restrictions in the disease zones drove the entire LP ban.

Upper peninsula is a completely different discusion. Disease is only a risk where there is deer density. Most of the lower peninsula has some sort of density across the region. Right now the upper peninsula has very little population density other than winter yards which tend to happen after deer season.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Tom (mich) said:


> Has anyone considered that Swampbuck and his ilk are really anti hunters? His/her comments on many hunting subjects definitely leads me to believe they're anti hunting plants. When one starts applauding the fact that politicians have become involved in game laws, it's pretty clear to me.
> 
> Let's be clear, Swampbuck is anti hunting.


My interest in this topic is almost nil but I am compelled to post when I read statements like the one above. To assert that Swampbuck is an anti-hunter is a ridiculous accusation. 

As an aside, I think there's a lot of hand wringing in this thread about legislative involvement that goes way beyond what is merited. Hunting proponents and opponents have always engaged with elected politicians as well as the un-elected politicians who comprise the NRC. Both are and always have been fully legitimate pursuits for proponents and opponents to pursue.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> No. The pro-apr convinced the nrc to ban bait for the entire lower. Thats where they Fd up. Should have just banned bait in disease zones but they got greedy.


So the Pro-APR special interest group is against using bait piles to kill deer? Is the Pro-Baiting special interest group against APRs???? I would think there's lots of Pro-APR hunters that like to kill their big bucks over bait piles.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

Tom (mich) said:


> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.
> 
> Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


A little louder for the folks in the BACK!!!!

READ IT AGAIN!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

November Sunrise said:


> My interest in this topic is almost nil but I am compelled to post when I read statements like the one above. To assert that Swampbuck is an anti-hunter is a ridiculous accusation.
> 
> As an aside, I think there's a lot of hand wringing in this thread about legislative involvement that goes way beyond what is merited. Hunting proponents and opponents have always engaged with elected politicians as well as the un-elected politicians who comprise the NRC. Both are and always have been fully legitimate pursuits for proponents and opponents to pursue.


I’m surprised to read this from you but when someone I really respect makes a contradictory statement to my stance I tend to listen. I can’t understand how bypassing the NRC on this could benefit any outdoorsmen in this state but maybe I’m missing something. I’m all ears if you can elaborate how that would possibly be true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Tom (mich) said:


> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.
> 
> Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


Swampy....Well , he's Swampy.
He's not me or I him so we may not agree on every tactic when we have different views on them.
So do we argue about what we disagree on? Or discuss what we do agree on?

Swampy watched the ship of former deer hunting as it was known to he and his ilk sail.
It's history is what it is and hunting has of course changed and evolved as ever.
My part of that ilk shared a prior hunting site and era.
That he and I agree on. So there is a smigin of common ground ,far removed over time and distance ,but understood.

I don't ask for his approval of how and what I hunt today.
No need to. Neither of us are standing on the others foot while hurling insult.

I do understand that when poo-poo-ed enough and told repeatedly that if you don't like what a group or groups is doing to get involved yourself and present a challenge ....,That there are folks who will pick up the gauntlet when it bugs them enough..

Legislative influence benefiting hunters? Absolutely.
Relating to legislature/legislative influence is how multiple regulations have been changed.
I know from the experience of watching correspondence , editing ,and putting my signature to some . 
And can still see the D.N.R. officer trotting alongside a disabled hunter in an electric chair trying to hand him an O.R.V. pamphlet while insisting the hunter had to have an O.R.V. sticker on public land...It's a motorized vehicle ,right? But , was it "right"?

One of multiple topics that changed ,how? Through whom and what process?
Guns on motorized vehicles must be unloaded and in a case or wrapper? Tell me how you would hunt grouse from an electric wheelchair. And what are the regulations today vs a decade ago. How did that get changed? By whom?
What is a P.M.D. and how and why did that definition come about?
What are the regulations surrounding them?

The D.N.R. means well. I believe that.
Do they knock themselves out peeking in dusky corners of minority regulations looking for challenges? I don't expect them to.
But do expect them to be clear about majority influences resulting from regulations.
Baiting is a majority influence , use it or not.
If making it illegal , then enforce it. And the D.N.R. has little incentive ,manpower ,or reward for chasing bait. Yes there is an obligation , but regulations and legislation should see (should have seen right out of the gate) enough fine funds recovered by the D.N.R. to make it worth the time and effort.
Is no baiting allowed enforceable? Is it a sound use of personnel for the cost?
I don't envy the D.N.R. over that issue. So why are they in that vulnerable and costly position?


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

RedM2 said:


> Considering that the NRC is supposed to make decisions based on science, how is it ok that a special interest group has any influence on them?
> 
> I suspect there are a few other things that could be banned using the standard the NRC identified to implement the baiting ban. The whole thing is a sham. I keep reading about the divide and loss of hunting privileges we may lose down the road by allowing the legislature to make decisions about hunting, but the irony of it all is that many of these same posters' words/actions create division and pushes people out of hunting which will hurt the future of hunting. You can read the division in this thread...


We learned when the voters in Michigan voted and passed the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Act back in 2014 that Social Science is a science and it appears they used social science with the APRs

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Excellent post Waif


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

DirtySteve said:


> Because there was no compliance in the lower by hunters. Blaiting ignoring the 2 gallon rule and ignoring restrictions in the disease zones drove the entire LP ban.
> 
> Upper peninsula is a completely different discusion. Disease is only a risk where there is deer density. Most of the lower peninsula has some sort of density across the region. Right now the upper peninsula has very little population density other than winter yards which tend to happen after deer season.


Cwd isnt density dependent, doesnt matter if theres 10 dpsm or 100 dpsm.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

fishx65 said:


> So the Pro-APR special interest group is against using bait piles to kill deer? Is the Pro-Baiting special interest group against APRs???? I would think there's lots of Pro-APR hunters that like to kill their big bucks over bait piles.


I cant speak for everyone but part of the pro-baiters law being pushed includes the removal of maprs in the cwd zone


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Josh R said:


> We learned when the voters in Michigan voted and passed the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Act back in 2014 that Social Science is a science and it appears they used social science with the APRs
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Don't take this as pro or con A.P.R..

Sound science was not defined when the act was on the ballot.
Social science was claimed as part of sound science after the vote.
Who first suggested it was ,and who declared social science as sound science?
Interesting way of "learning". (?)
I still regret my support of the act . Having not expected any contention about what constituted sound science when "we" were trying to ensure hunter interests were the subject. Vs tree huggers.
But had I voted against it? I'd have felt I was not supporting sensible game management ensuring hunting's future for hunting's sake. Like dove hunting.....Gag...That sure went sideways too.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.


 Unless the NRC/special interest group(s), get it wrong and the only way to control these wrong decisions and correct them is by legislative measures. I would imagine constituents were pretty loud for both the House and Senate to pass. Swampbuck anti-hunting? Lol....whoever made that accusation is a tool.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Waif said:


> Who first suggested it was ,and who declared social science as sound science?


When Rod Clute was the DNR Big Game Specialist he said "Sound Science" was 50% biological and 50% social. Hunters might want to believe sound science meant only biological science. But that is not how the DNR and NRC view it.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Even if these people get the baiting ban reversed isn't it still a good idea that we don't use bait to kill deer??? I would think that even a single bait pile adds to the possibility of CWD transmission. There's already enough natural food sources that congregate deer so why should we add to that????


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Bob S said:


> When Rod Clute was the DNR Big Game Specialist he said "Sound Science" was 50% biological and 50% social. Hunters might want to believe sound science meant only biological science. But that is not how the DNR and NRC view it.


And was Clute influenced by Dr. David Fulton of Minn.'s research?
Thee was a 2005(?) deer and turkey midwest study group.
I've got to run , but curious if those two crossed paths and shared data....
Much as Clute influenced definition , I doubt it was original thought by any means. (No offence Rod.)


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Tom (mich) said:


> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.
> 
> Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


I respectfully disagree.

It is a remedy. The NRC, DNR and certain special interests have steamrolled the deer regulations. Their behaviors drove it.

To blame Swampy is simply short sighted and characteristically unfair to him.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

motdean said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> It is a remedy. The NRC, DNR and certain special interests have steamrolled the deer regulations. Their behaviors drove it.
> 
> To blame Swampy is simply short sighted


Do you see this remedy as more important then the loop hole this could certainly open for HUS and other non hunting interest groups to have in getting legislation passed? I must be missing something here but IMO there is no remedy on any issue worth opening a loop hole for HUS or other non hunting special interest groups. Period end of story.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

SMITTY1233 said:


> Do you see this remedy as more important then the loop hole this could certainly open for HUS and other non hunting interest groups to have in getting legislation passed? I must be missing something here but IMO there is no remedy on any issue worth opening a loop hole for HUS or other non hunting special interest groups. Period end of story.


I am hopeful that I can answer it a little differently than what you are asking.
I see the proposed "remedy" of including the legislature as only a tool to get the interest and the attention of the NRC.

I am still hopeful that they can put their ego's aside and find a compromise that takes it out of the hands of the legislature.

I still wonder if some of the NRC wanted baiting in the U.P. and some wanted APR's in the CWD zone and they horse traded to get us to the current regulations. And that is 100% pure speculation.

I do not want the legislature involved.

I would also really like to see the rank and file MS members calling the NRC and pushing for this.


----------



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

motdean said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> It is a remedy. The NRC, DNR and certain special interests have steamrolled the deer regulations. Their behaviors drove it.
> 
> To blame Swampy is simply short sighted and characteristically unfair to him.


While I respect your opinion, I'd respectfully counter in turn that you're not seeing the big picture here. I'd like you to think of these recent events outside of the context of the great bait debate and tell me if you feel the same.

I'll reinforce my position for clarity - anyone who views this positively could not possibly be pro hunting. In fact, it's inconceivable.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

motdean said:


> I am hopeful that I can answer it a little differently than what you are asking.
> I see the proposed "remedy" of including the legislature as only a tool to get the interest and the attention of the NRC.
> 
> I am still hopeful that they can put their ego's aside and find a compromise that takes it out of the hands of the legislature.
> ...


That was explained pretty nicely. However the legislature is involved and one thing I know about politicians is once they get their hands into something the likelihood of them letting go is well unlikely. You want to talk about horse trading wait until they can trade something we love with a non hunting interest group for something they want in another area of politics. This is a dangerously slippery slope that all outdoors men should be very very concerned with!


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

SMITTY1233 said:


> That was explained pretty nicely. However the legislature is involved and one thing I know about politicians is once they get their hands into something the likelihood of them letting go is well unlikely. You want to talk about horse trading wait until they can trade something we love with a non hunting interest group for something they want in another area of politics. This is a dangerously slippery slope that all outdoors men should be very very concerned with!


Thank you.

I have suggested several times that people both for and against baiting should be calling and writing and putting pressure on the NRC to find a solution to get this out of the hands of the legislature.

...and if I could say, my idea of a compromise on baiting would be to continue to keep it out of any disease zone...bTB and CWD.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

I think we agree on most of this.... However one thing I can't get passed is letting politicians in on any issue: OBR, MAPR, Baiting or what have you is a slippery slippery slope. I can call the NRC and put pressure on them without having politicians involved in a broader form. I understand those feeling ignored by the NRC but to run to the politicians is making a deal with the devil I'm tell you it isn't smart on any level at all. Dangerous!

I like the way you are thinking of this. It might be all for show to make the NRC do something but we are tip toeing dangerously close to a cliff IMO

This isn't a baiting issue to me. Its a how policy is going to be made moving forward issue!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Whitetail Freak said:


> Nope, I’m going to go buy mineral today and get my pits back up and running. Full disease ahead!


So you showed your true colors, it's all about someone supposedly having a better advantage than you. You comment shows youhave no morals. It's all about competition to you. You logic. "Is people won't hunt my way so guess what, I won't hunt my way either. " sad that you let a group change your hunting standards. Thank god after 40 years of hunting I never did something out of spite that made me give up my morals. Sad that we have hunters that will give up their beliefs and morals out of spite and jealousy.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Tom (mich) said:


> While I respect your opinion, I'd respectfully counter in turn that you're not seeing the big picture here. I'd like you to think of these recent events outside of the context of the great bait debate and tell me if you feel the same.
> 
> I'll reinforce my position for clarity - anyone who views this positively could not possibly be pro hunting. In fact, it's inconceivable.


Let me be clear. I am not a huge fan of baiting. I am not at all a fan of having the legislature making the laws. But the threat of having them involved should drive a behavior change.

I don't mean to bash, but the NRC and DNR have lost their way.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

motdean said:


> Let me be clear. I am not a huge fan of baiting. I am not at all a fan of having the legislature making the laws. But the threat of having them involved should drive a behavior change.
> 
> I don't mean to bash, but the NRC and DNR have lost their way.


Have lost their way more then the down side of having Legislature change how policy is made? I don't see it. I just don't. No one is going to agree on everything the NRC and DNR does. NO one. not me not you but man going about this the way it is going is nuts for anyone that call themselves a hunter.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Tom (mich) said:


> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.
> 
> Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


When proposal g was passed


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

SMITTY1233 said:


> I think we agree on most of this.... However one thing I can't get passed is letting politicians in on any issue: OBR, MAPR, Baiting or what have you is a slippery slippery slope. I can call the NRC and put pressure on them without having politicians involved in a broader form. I understand those feeling ignored by the NRC but to run to the politicians is making a deal with the devil I'm tell you it isn't smart on any level at all. Dangerous!
> 
> I like the way you are thinking of this. It might be all for show to make the NRC do something but we are tip toeing dangerously close to a cliff IMO
> 
> This isn't a baiting issue to me. Its a how policy is going to be made moving forward issue!


Agreed.

The tipping point for me was when the NRC Chair asked what the risks of APR's in a disease zone were and the Director said something to the affect that it doesn't matter. ...and then in the same meeting, he said that the risk of baiting was so much that they would much rather lose hunters than allow baiting...and then they kept them in the U.P.

I just don't see the open and honest discussion.

That is what I want.


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

It'll never happen as long as special interest groups are involved. Someone will win someone will lose and we will all remain at odd's with each other depending on what side of the fence you sit on controversial issues such as baiting. We better step up and unite or we will wish we had someday!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

SMITTY1233 said:


> Do you see this remedy as more important then the loop hole this could certainly open for HUS and other non hunting interest groups to have in getting legislation passed? I must be missing something here but IMO there is no remedy on any issue worth opening a loop hole for HUS or other non hunting special interest groups. Period end of story.


Yes it was, someone was abusing powers to benefit certain groups. This was the only way to bring attention to the problem. The NRC DNR were asked to compromise, and they refused. They gambled on no one questioning them. They lost


----------



## Whitetail Freak (Nov 10, 2008)

poz said:


> So you showed your true colors, Sad that we have hunters that will give up their beliefs and morals out of spite and jealousy.


Exactly how I feel! I’m not the one trying to get baiting in a disease zone you poz! Just crazy isn’t it? 

You guys dumbed me enough today, I’m out.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Think we can get some of our anti-hunting legislators to reverse the decision to allow crossbows in the archery seasons???


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Whitetail Freak said:


> Exactly how I feel! I’m not the one trying to get baiting in a disease zone you poz! Just crazy isn’t it?
> 
> You guys dumbed me enough today, I’m out.


I am because how can baiting spread diseases in the lower peninsula and not in the upper peninsula. Everyone on here who is against baiting has not been able to answer that question. I don't think most of the guys on here would be as upset if it was a state wide ban. They would have went along with it. But the nrc dnr think hunters are dumb enough that they'll believe that bait only spreads disease in the lower peninsula. Is more about consistency in management and not letting special interest groups run our hunting decisions than about baiting


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

poz said:


> Is more about consistency in management and not letting special interest groups run our hunting decisions than about baiting


So you involve politicians? Struggle with your argument here.... I understand what you are saying and it sucks there seems to be no other avenues here for abuse of power by the DNR and NRC. As soon as a special interest group can give a politician something they want they owe them and if that is an anti hunting special interest group what do you think is going to happen? Dangerous


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

poz said:


> I am because how can baiting spread diseases in the lower peninsula and not in the upper peninsula. Everyone on here who is against baiting has not been able to answer that question. I don't think most of the guys on here would be as upset if it was a state wide ban. They would have went along with it. But the nrc dnr think hunters are dumb enough that they'll believe that bait only spreads disease in the lower peninsula. Is more about consistency in management and not letting special interest groups run our hunting decisions than about baiting


So why aren't we trying to get the DNR/NRC to ban baiting in the rest of the UP instead of trying to reverse the LP baiting ban???? I think this is about people that could care less if bait piles help spread CWD as long as it doesn't change the way they wait to kill deer over a pile of bait.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

fishx65 said:


> So why aren't we trying to get the DNR/NRC to ban baiting in the rest of the UP instead of trying to reverse the LP baiting ban???? I think this is about people that could care less if bait piles help spread CWD as long as it doesn't change the way they wait to kill deer over a pile of bait.


If u truly care about limiting the spread of cwd this bill also eleminates MAPRs in the cwd core zone. Just saying


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

SMITTY1233 said:


> So you involve politicians? Struggle with your argument here.... I understand what you are saying and it sucks there seems to be no other avenues here for abuse of power by the DNR and NRC. As soon as a special interest group can give a politician something they want they owe them and if that is an anti hunting special interest group what do you think is going to happen? Dangerous


What do you suggest to change it. We called the NRC DNR and they ignored us. They went last week and the NRC didn't even want to hear it. They left only one Avenue to fight it, gambling on no one going that way and someone did. They lost on their gamble.

They have the power to stop this right now by coming out and saying we are going to open baiting in non disease counties in the lower effective immediately or by saying we are banning baiting in the U.P. immediately. That takes it out of the hands of the legislature. But obviously the NRC DNR want it there.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

poz said:


> What do you suggest to change it. We called the NRC DNR and they ignored us. They went last week and the NRC didn't even want to hear it. They left only one Avenue to fight it, gambling on no one going that way and someone did. They lost on their gamble.
> 
> They have the power to stop this right now by coming out and saying we are going to open baiting in non disease counties in the lower effective immediately or by saying we are banning baiting in the U.P. immediately. That takes it out of the hands of the legislature. But obviously the NRC DNR want it there.


I believe its gone to far for compromise. No way would they settle with an entire lower & upper bait ban.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

fishx65 said:


> So why aren't we trying to get the DNR/NRC to ban baiting in the rest of the UP instead of trying to reverse the LP baiting ban???? I think this is about people that could care less if bait piles help spread CWD as long as it doesn't change the way they wait to kill deer over a pile of bait.


Because a special interest group lobbied the NRC to have baiting in the U.P. Also buy allowing baiting they admit that the risk isn't as high as they want you to believe. If it was they would never allow it. So the U.P. SIGs fought to have it and the L.P. SIGs fought to get rid of it. And the NRC tried to accompany both of them. That should show you it's not about disease, it's about special interest groups (SIGs)


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Tom (mich) said:


> Has anyone considered that Swampbuck and his ilk are really anti hunters? His/her comments on many hunting subjects definitely leads me to believe they're anti hunting plants. When one starts applauding the fact that politicians have become involved in game laws, it's pretty clear to me.
> 
> Let's be clear, Swampbuck is anti hunting.


Nope, I consider the anti baiters as anti hunters


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

The Wisconsin baiting map is hilarious!!! Why didn't they just ban baiting for whole state????
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/bait.html


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> If u truly care about limiting the spread of cwd this bill also eleminates MAPRs in the cwd core zone. Just saying


If it can slow the spread of CWD, I'm all for no baiting, no recreational feeding and no APRs. Can't figure out why someone, who loves our awesome sport, would even think about putting a pile of bait in the woods even if the ban gets reversed.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

fishx65 said:


> If it can slow the spread of CWD, I'm all for no baiting, no recreational feeding and no APRs. Can't figure out why someone, who loves our awesome sport, would even think about putting a pile of bait in the woods even if the ban gets reversed.


Not everyone loves our awesome sport as much as u. Lots of methods to kill deer that im sure some people would frown upon, like using snowfence to funnel deer


----------



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

Trophy Specialist said:


> Nope, I consider the anti baiters as anti hunters


Oh that makes perfect sense.:coco: That places you square in the category of outdoorsman who want game laws determined by politicians. Do you want commercial fishing in your home waters of Saginaw bay decided by politicians????

You're going to have to clarify that.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

SMITTY1233 said:


> So you involve politicians? Struggle with your argument here.... I understand what you are saying and it sucks there seems to be no other avenues here for abuse of power by the DNR and NRC. As soon as a special interest group can give a politician something they want they owe them and if that is an anti hunting special interest group what do you think is going to happen? Dangerous


When social science is accepted (and it is) by the state as a driver , then where does that leave the states hunters (a minority of the states population) when an anti-hunting special interest attacks hunting here?
Are those ant-hunting factions concerns going to be adressed to the D.N.R./N.R.C. , or the state?

Then there is federal law. (Note wolves).
I won't detail how anti- hunters have been a burr under the saddle of some agencies in the past (lest some one be encouraged) , but hunter/legislature relationships will (should such conflict occur again) want to be united through familiarity and background.
Otherwise , hunters will be sitting outside the issue(s) rather than involved with them.
Federal pressure can be lobbied. Should it , then does a state have the right of refusal? 
Would pushback be better when hunters support the states managers ,or if the states managers go it alone?

It's not a slippery slope as much as a house of cards. Those at the bottom need to be on secure footing , and in direct communication with those above them. And visa versa.
United we stand , divided we fall.
It's not all on hunters ,or all on hunter management.
But pissed on cards are not as supportive as those who understand what's goin on.


----------



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

poz said:


> When proposal g was passed


I'm going to accept that response as the joke I'm sure it was intended to be.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Tom (mich) said:


> Oh that makes perfect sense.:coco: That places you square in the category of outdoorsman who want game laws determined by politicians. Do you want commercial fishing in your home waters of Saginaw bay decided by politicians????
> 
> You're going to have to clarify that.


Great point, if the commercial fishermen lobby the NRC and ban non commercial fishing by boat in the all great lakes except superior. And the nrc passes that law for them. Thus making fishing from a boat illegal except in lake superior, what would do.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Even if the bill made it to the governor's desk tomorrow, she's not singing it. She's been on record saying she is opposed to the bill


----------



## SMITTY1233 (Dec 8, 2003)

johnIV said:


> Even if the bill made it to the governor's desk tomorrow, she's not singing it. She's been on record saying she is opposed to the bill


Having to have hope in that scares me just a little less then politicians being able to get involved and change policy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Tom (mich) said:


> Anyone who applauds legislative interference into game laws is anti-hunting. Period, end of story.
> 
> Tell me, when has legislative interference proven beneficial to hunters?


You have your opinion. The abuse of the spirit of prop G has caused this cut the baby in half attitude. I do think if this CWD happened 30 years or more ago, before QDMA, egos, and big antler shows. Back then we had 1 big buck night with Fred Trost. This could and would be handled more as a hunting brotherhood community problem. But a lot of names have been called, a lot of crappy do it our way attitudes have been given. Some very hard feelings exist, many long standing traditions are gone forever. I suspect your response will be harsh, so go ahead.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Waif said:


> Don't take this as pro or con A.P.R..
> 
> Sound science was not defined when the act was on the ballot.
> Social science was claimed as part of sound science after the vote.
> ...


Social science...was never on my radar in 1996.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

johnIV said:


> Even if the bill made it to the governor's desk tomorrow, she's not singing it. She's been on record saying she is opposed to the bill


It is not making it there tomorrow, politicians need a break from a few days worth a work

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

motdean said:


> ...and if I could say, my idea of a compromise on baiting would be to continue to keep it out of any disease zone...bTB and CWD.


So as the counties with positive tests of cwd keep going up you'll be ok with it? A couple each year possibly and soon all could have a positive test or a good majority

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

SMITTY1233 said:


> It'll never happen as long as special interest groups are involved. Someone will win someone will lose and we will all remain at odd's with each other depending on what side of the fence you sit on controversial issues such as baiting. We better step up and unite or we will wish we had someday!


I think it was too far gone, at least 5 years ago. Look back and think back, what prolific posting guys and groups are not posting much if at all anymore? Mission accomplished?


----------



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

feedinggrounds said:


> You have your opinion. The abuse of the spirit of prop G has caused this cut the baby in half attitude. I do think if this CWD happened 30 years or more ago, before QDMA, egos, and big antler shows. Back then we had 1 big buck night with Fred Trost. This could and would be handled more as a hunting brotherhood community problem. But a lot of names have been called, a lot of crappy do it our way attitudes have been given. Some very hard feelings exist, many long standing traditions are gone forever. I suspect your response will be harsh, so go ahead.


Not sure why you anticipated a harsh response. In fact, I agree with the spirit of your post.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Josh R said:


> It is not making it there tomorrow, politicians need a break from a few days worth a work
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


It Won't make it there before January but even if it did, Whitmer won't sign it


----------



## mattawanhunter (Oct 30, 2011)

Mine is 8hrs!
Man I am missing it about now, maybe next year.

Good luck all tomorrow, bait or no bait!





sureshot006 said:


> That would be awesome. Mine is 4 hrs drive


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

johnIV said:


> It Won't make it there before January but even if it did, Whitmer won't sign it


There's no point in signing it if it reaches her desk early December or whenever after thatn it won't take effect right away anyways. No baiting, imo and many others, will happen until the 2020 season. Too many people getting there underwear knotted up for immediate actions that won't happen IMO

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------

