DNR: Deer baiting has hit new high

Bob kellam Said:
DNR: Deer baiting has hit new high

There is no doubt that this year’s slew of baiting cases is the result of ethical hunters turning in illegal baiters. Though aerial surveillance is a big part of the DNR’s baiting enforcement, many of its best investigations start with tips from other hunters.

If you were baiting anywhere near Theif River, you deserve to be caught.  Non-stop airplanes and helicopters every weekend up that way since grouse opener should have been a clear clue they were coming.  One of my last trips up I passed 2 pickups so full of sugarbeets that they couldn't drive over 45MPH, and they weren't headed for the pilling station.

Throw another log on the fire Bob.  Keep the division between hunters and landowner going.  I see this happened in Minn.    

mauserG33-40 Said:
Throw another log on the fire Bob.  Keep the division between hunters and landowner going.  I see this happened in Minn.    

This isn't a landowner vs. freelance hunter deal.  There were plenty of freelance guys taking bait into public land spots they intended to hunt.  Mostly, this is about neighbors who already don't get along.  It starts when one guys shoots a good deer his neighbor's been watching, neighbor goes and pees by shooters stand every day before season then things get exponentially dumber from there.  Then what happens is a guy growing food plots turns in his neighbor who's just dumping corn or sugarbeets.  I spend 10-15 days/fall in N MN, have a few pards with cabins up there and the stuff that goes on over a deer is absolutely amazing.

If only they'd see the light and plant food plots.

Tim Sandstrom Said:
If only they'd see the light and plant food plots.

There are plenty of food plots in that area and farther east.  There are also many places where food plots aren't an option but a bait pile works real well.  That's just a small part of the issue though.

Like horsager said, anybody over there that gets caught deserves what they get.  The rules are pretty clear and enforcement has been very visible.

I like how the article refers to the non-baiters as the "ethical hunters".

pigsticker Said:
I like how the article refers to the non-baiters as the "ethical hunters".

In this case it fits.  The baiters are breaking existing game laws.  That automatically qualifies as unethical.

So, what's the difference between putting out a pile of bait, sitting next to a food plot, or sitting next to a corn field.  In all three instances you're using food to draw in the deer so you can shoot it.  Sorry, but I can't understand how you can say it's ethical to do one, but not the other.  It's so funny listening to people argue over this crap.   Who really cares?  There's too many deer out there.  They need x# shot.  Go have fun.  If we keep up these stupid rantings about my way's ethical and your way isn't in the end there'll be so few hunters left out there PETA will certainly outnumber us.  Quit worrying about what your neighbor does.  Hunt the way YOU want to and just have fun!!!

Farnorth Said:

pigsticker Said:
I like how the article refers to the non-baiters as the "ethical hunters".

In this case it fits.  The baiters are breaking existing game laws.  That automatically qualifies as unethical.

Good point!

gonefshn Said:
So, what's the difference between putting out a pile of bait, sitting next to a food plot, or sitting next to a corn field. 

The habitat and food provided by the food plot or corn field after season is over would be the biggest difference.  Even harvested there's usually plenty left behind.  In contrast once season is over and the corn pile isn't being replenished weekly, it's gone for good, until next year.

Bait, don't bait, I could really care less.  But, baiting with all of the very obvious and frequent DAYTIME surveilance that was going on pre-season is the equivilant of dropping the hammer on the gas pedal to get through a speed trap more quickly.

Gonefshn,
I respectfully disagree with your last sentence.
I love hunting and it is by far the funnest thing and most addictive hobby that I have. But When I see other "hunters" poaching and performing illegal activities, because that is the way THEY hunt, it does not make it ok, Period. The laws are there for a reason.
I saw a guy shoot a doe that had just jumped a state park boundary onto the road from his pickup, while sitting in the driveway. It was the landowners son. I would rather lose permission to hunt that land, than have some jacka$$ do something like that again, your damn right the game warden knows about it!

It is a crappy deal when people do this, get caught and we lose more strength by dropping our numbers as hunters. But if that keeps the woods safe and "ethical,"  I'll take my chances against PETA.

Just tryint to point out some of the hypocracy here.  So, according to the posts on here since it's illegal in MN it's unethical there.  But since it's legal in ND, it's ethical here. 

gonefshn Said:
Just tryint to point out some of the hypocracy here.  So, according to the posts on here since it's illegal in MN it's unethical there.  But since it's legal in ND, it's ethical here. 

Not mutually exclusive.

illegal acts are, by definition, unethical IMO.  Something that is legal might still be considered unethical by some.  So, when it comes to North Dakota and the baiting issue, make up your own mind regarding the ethics.  Most have.

What more could be done to discourage hunters from baiting?

One policy that has been floated is to make deer feeding and baiting illegal from Sept. 1 through the end of December. That change would require legislative approval.

“If you put on a feeding ban, it would put everyone on a level playing field,” Znajda said.

This just shows you that it's all about ethics. If they were so concerned with the disease aspect they would ban feeding all year!

Like I've always said, someone please explain to me how it's OK to hunt near an apple tree but it's unethical to throw out a few apples and hunt near them???

gonefshn Said:
Just tryint to point out some of the hypocracy here.  So, according to the posts on here since it's illegal in MN it's unethical there.  But since it's legal in ND, it's ethical here. 

Yes, it's quite confusing. I suppose the majority in MN have decided that it is illegal so in the majorities eyes it is unethical. I myself put down bait for deer. I don't consider myself an unethical hunter because ethics has a lot to do with moral beliefs of ones self. As for ND, the majority still are accepting of baiting so therefore the majority would considere it an ethical means of hunting.

When it all boils down, everyone has their own acceptable practices and what is considered to be ethical because of their own moral standards. I was simply observing that Farnorth had a great point in regards to MN stance on the issue.

Confused yet? I'm not trying to spin it, just trying to see if from both sides.

By virtue of legality in ND, baiting is a judgement call for each to make on his own.  By virtue of it's illegality in MN, baiting is breaking the law and therefore is unethical.

"One idea that has been floated has been to make deer feeding and baiting illegal from Sept. 1 through the end of December."

This statement proves that banning baiting is not about the prevention of disease outbreak or transference in Mn. Or for that matter here in ND. Deer will congregate the remaining 8 monthes and have the same risks that are being presented as the driving force behind banning baiting during this time as they will in the hunting season monthes. The disease issue is only being used as leverage to accomplish another agenda, plain and simple. If the disease issue is to be truly addressed, a complete and thourough ban of any risk activities needs to be in place the entire year regardless of who it affects. Food plots, pheasant feeders, G&F intercept feeding programs, ect...... Here in ND there was a meeting between the sponsor of the baiting bill, the G&F, other individuals and the NDSA where our concerns as well as those of the State Board of Animal Health and the State Vet were presented and discussed, and basically none of these science based requirements were met in an attempt to form a proactive effective approach to prevent a disease issue. Here in ND these groups of people seeking to ban everything lead by Mr. Kaseman and Mr. Monson are not honest enough to be up front in why they are doing what they are. If their attempts succeeds, hunting methods may change, but the disease risk will remain. This is not about disease, but once again about ethics, and opportunity. At least be honest enough to admit that.

GST, I think the idea behind the sept 1-Dec 31 ban is twofold.  First, I think there is some concern about opportunity for all.

2nd, and much more important however is that the ban on feeding and baiting would keep the deer more evenly distributed for a longer time each year, and some years they might not bunch up much at all.  I'm making an assumption that they think there is less chance for disease to spread if the deer are bunched up from Jan-Mar than if they are bunched up from Sept-Mar.  You know, 3mo of the yr vs. 7.  So the question then becomes is there more opportunity for disease to spread if the deer are essentially artificially bunched up for 7 (or more)mo/yr, or if they are bunched up only when they must be for survival.  I don't think anyone would argue that the deer are going to herd up just to what extent, for how long, and under what influence.

In the arguments presented during this debate this winter, the proponents of a ban in ND were argueing the disease prevention angle and were using scientific information from states such as Ws., Mi, and Mn.  If this information is based on thought processes such as banning baiting for 4 monthes and allowing it for 8 as a means to prevent disease, I really can't follow that logic.

If you want to ban baiting because you feel it's unethical or takes away opportunity OK it's been tried 3 times and didn't pass. The legs. smartly decided to take a cautious approach when "legislating" ethics. The old once you start, where do you stop question.
 
As to the disease angle you can't ban one method of hunting that some claim science has determined to be a risk factor(baiting), and allow another that the very same science has determined is a risk factor as well (food plots) when they both effectively are done for the same purpose to attract and hold and congregate deer to a smaller area for hunting. This hypocritical approach will do little to nothing to effectively prevent this disease issue from happening. The trouble is the "ethical" guys with the 1 or 2 acre foodplot they claim provides habitat as well as food thru out the winter along side a section of corn of sunflower residue don't want to accept the "science"  they themselves are using to attempt to ban baiting.