Jump to navigation
Hardwater, Whitesmokea and others that share your views.
NOTHING and I mean NOTHING attracts more animals to one spot than a BAIT PLOT or as you call them food plot.
Heck its like a 100 to 1 ratio and I'm not kidding one bit with the amount of deer I see at bait plots compared to a guy who baits. Its not even close!
If there ever was to be a disease outbreak it will be from these small unharvested bait plots where there are 300-400 deer in a 10-20 acre field! They are living in it 24-7 right now.
If you want to plant that stuff and let them eat it that's a food plot. But the minute you sit beside it with a weapon planning on killing something guess what..that's a bait plot.
Face it, the only reason you want baiting banned is just what the others on here have been saying.
You are land owners and want to bait them all on to your properties with your bait plots.
And you get ticked when ever someone takes a pail of snacks out beside your places and either them or their children harvest one of your deer plain and simple! I see it all the time around here.
The small town beside us has guys like you, they let corn stand all over the place and post it up nice and tight. Place looks like a zoo, but now that season is over and this hard winter has hit there are 2-3 times as many deer surrounding town. The G&F is here every day, they flew the area and say there are almost 800 deer within a mile of city limits! But back in November if you asked to even shoot a deer all you heard was NO.
I have all the respect in the world for those who plant trees and habitat for wildlife. But these food/bait plots are just smoke and mirrors and when these politicians meet in Bismarck I hope they can figure that out.
Just because you own land shouldn't mean you can bait everything in legally with your bait plots and the non land owner is supposed to put up with it! I say legalize baiting but put a limit on it of 5-10 gallons or something like that.I watched the G&F video and saw the photos that they've put out in their propaganda pamphlets and I've never seen baiting like that and it should be stopped.
But why make criminals out of folks and their kids when they've done nothing wrong? That's all we need is another way to drive folks away from our sport, every year the hunting community becomes less and less. I don't want this to turn into some European type hunting where only the rich land owners can hunt because they have the land and the game. Its bad enough around here already when about 5 families farm 75% of the land and its locked up tight.
And don't give me that lazy hunter line either because I put as much time in scouting as anyone does. And if I want myself and my children to have an ethical 15-20 yd shot that's what I'm going to do.I don't put out PILES of bait either, heck you can't even see it. I carry in about 3 gallons since I have to walk in about 1-2 miles most of the time.
Its easy to say hunt harder and blah blah blah. But when your hunting marginal land at best and wide open crp and plots land fields without a tree for miles like so many folks have to do. It is insanely more difficult to try and get a deer within range with a bow. And who has the time or money now days to be able to go out and sit 30 days or more hoping something might walk by. And then try telling your 10 yr old that this is what its all about. As you glass over to the next guys bait/food plot and see 75 deer eating uncut corn or flowers between two big tree rows with a big tripod shooting shack right next to it.
All banning will do is cause us to have even more deer and have folks just flinging arrows at 40-100 yds.
Like I said before if ever there was going to be a disease outbreak it will be now and it will be where all these deer are herded up in these bait plots.
If this wasn't a complex issue there would have been a bill passed long ago. And I am not trying to spin it one way or the other. I simply have an opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
"When we step into the outdoors, we have the privilege of standing in the presence of God through the power and majesty of His creation. That makes hunting more than a sport or a hobby. It's a calling to something greater. And that transforms the places that we stand into something more than a cropfield or a pasture or a mountain. It makes that place Hallowed Ground."
Hardwater - I agree with you 100%.
It is not complex. The issue is either a complete ban or to allow baiting.
Enforcement is not an issue - if you hunt over bait you are in violation. No different than poaching - not everyone gets caught and it does happen but that doesn't make it right to allow it.
Ethics are not part of the equation as that is personal.
Food plots/grain fields/ag spills or waste compared to bait is the dumbest arguement in the world.
Disease is just a no brainer and I can't imagine anyone would bring that into this thread.
Now you could say I do not think disease is a big enough risk, baiting works and the deer populations are too high (or at least were), it could reduce hunter numbers and the like. All of those could be used in support of allowing bait but the rest are just grasping at straws.
Again, I have hunted over bait and I like seeing the numbers of deer that just wouldn't be there without bait. That said, I prefer no bait. There are folks out there that will be almost guaranteed to go without an archery deer if baiting is banned. Those are the folks that I feel bad for.
I like you and all but I strictly remember you from 2007 going back and forth with me about the power of food/bait plots. If you don't believe me (which is obvious) take a minute and read the section in the Bait Study I posted way up at the top. Go read the power the NDGF gives credit toward foot plots. Can't dispute that.
Why wouldn't you bring disease into this thread when it's actually the ONLY reason to ban baiting? Where is anyone arguing against that? Even though we haven't had a deer to deer transmission ever recorded in ND.
Tim, I guess my perspective comes in large part from having watched this same thing play out in WI! The disease in question that started it was different and how the disease spreads is cloudy in regards to CWD which may have contributed to some of the back and forth that went on in that state.
The disease concern here is TB. We know how it spreads, we know the factors that can be done to limit the risk of spreading. We do not want to make a bird feeder in someones back yard an issue. Most cities have ordnances regarding keeping these areas clean already.
We do not want to make habitat development illegal because in reality habitat for wildlife reduces their need to mingle with cattle and they do not become programed to this for a food source.
Not complicated in any way shape or form. The current wording does all the things necessary to ensure that each one of these areas are dealt with in a reasonable and straight up manner.
Hunt, does not want to give up his dumping of 5 gals of apples or other stuff to stop an animal for a shot. I understand that, and understand that and in a perfect world where people are not looking for loop holes this would be fine.But that is not reality.
Yes I will agree that to some extent there can be a massaging of the wording to improve things, but having read what you posted earlier in the thread is over reaching and well beyond what is needed.
You are free to offer your opinions and input to the Leg it is what is great about this state because they are accessible to us. I am not saying you should not.
But the reality of this bill and the current wording is not complicated in any way shape or form. It is clean and simple and straight forward. The farmer is protected from cumbersome rules,the G&F still can do intercept feeding when needed or if they deem feeding to sustain animals in an emergency situation occurs.
On this issue one has to step back and look at the overall big picture. If we can by actions extend the time or stop the risk of TB entering into the cattle herds of this state the economic impact of that outweighs everything else. To burden down a bill with complex and splintered paths will result in either the bill not passing, or it being so watered down that it is ineffective in its intent to achieve its goal.
I hate to keep going back to the section line law, but it is really the same in that the simplicity of the law and its intent got lost by you in your efforts to mold things into a perfect setting. Your enthusiasm,ethics and concerns are admirable. But on this issue, I think you have over thought it completely and as a result have come to the conclusion it is much more complicated than it really is.
I have done the same thing on issues, and it is hard to turn it off sometimes. My wife advises me sometimes to step back and let the passion cool, then try to evaluate things without the emotion and compare the findings. More times than not I find that the solution best suited is the one with the least emotion applied to the solution.
So as I said to me there are two paths we take to protect the cattle industry of this state which economically outweighs the hunting side. We either undertake a complete removal of all deer in the state or we ban practices that increase the risks of disease transmission with no loop hole areas by allowing small quantities to be legal and do not make the implementation of it cumbersome for farmers and ranchers and enforcement.
In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!
I just received the first hearing on this bill will be February 12th. Just a little FYI to everyone.Tim Sandstrom
With all due respect it is silly for anyone (especially someone like you that I know is on top of the issues) to even consider saying the current bill meets the issues of disease. Sticking a "No Deer Allowed" sign next to a pheasant feeder isn't going to work. Furthermore, a sign with "No Diseased Deer Allowed" next to a supplemental feeding station isn't going to work either. We either write a bill that isn't hypocritical or we don't write one at all.
It is easy either it is 100% allowed or 100% banned. It is easy to enforce here in sd not allowed at all.
I went back and re-read your post HW.
You said: If we can by actions extend the time or stop the risk of TB entering into the cattle herds of this state the economic impact of that outweighs everything else.
Again, with all due respect to you and ESPECIALLY concerned ranching families, the unfortunate answer to this is the ranchers need to take precautions which will be burdensome in stopping deer to cattle transition. If this was practiced in the first place we wouldn't have TB. Am I mistaken that TB came from result of an infected cattle herd and it spread to the wildlife?
You said: To burden down a bill with complex and splintered paths will result in either the bill not passing, or it being so watered down that it is ineffective in its intent to achieve its goal.
Once again, with all due respect, the ONLY way to achieve your worry about disease is to 1) Ban all wildlife feeding 2) Ban all baiting of wildlife 3) Ban all supplemental or emergency feeding 4) Build regulations and requirements that wild and domesticated animals remain as such (separated).
That isn't a complex bill HW and it's even more complex than what I offered (my bill above didn't require regulations on ranchers). What is the matter? We don't want to take the necessary steps? Why?
Look, I don't want any of this to happen but I just can't accept the hurry-sum few that want to ram a very poorly written bill through the legislature with all the false blame on the hunter. That just isn't the case.
Tim, put a feeder out and have deer come to it and continue using the feeder under the way the law is written now. You will be cited! That is the point I am trying to make, you are complicating the issue by inclusion of assumptions.
Like I said Tim I watched this play out in WI and the more exclusions and definitions you attempt to add muddles the water.
Think how confused you where in understanding the "established trail" definition and now compound that with inclusions you are wanting to put in.
If you are placing artificially food out for wildlife to eat on and deer start using it, they you are violating the law,except for those currently excluded. Not complicated, nor unclear in any way shape or forum.
Come on HW. THERE ARE LOOP HOLES!
1) I place a pheasant feeder in a draw common for roosting pheasants. I move myself 200 yards to the east along a deer trail. Set my blind up and wait until a deer travels a commonly traveled corridor. This corridor so happens to lead to the feeder. I raise my bow or gun...twang or bang! I just shot a deer by using the tool of feed...or bait. And I did so indirectly. If you are saying that it was direct then my friend, you have a major issue of enforcement on your hands. What if I shoot a deer 400 yards down the trail that leads to a pheasant feeder? What if I didn't even know a landowner was feeding pheasants on adjacent land and I harvest a deer on a common travel corridor? Come on, I bet you my life Ladd Erickson would even have a hard time prosecuting someone under this bill's text!
2) Please read this slowly. The whole darn purpose of this bill was suppose to be about disease. Well, you just exposed yourself that it isn't! You are trying to tell me that a feeder for pheasants is going to be ignored by deer and is some how NOT going to have the threat of transmitting a disease? You seriously have some explaining to do.
And ha ha! You are wrong. I know what an established trail is. I also know what a section line is. I simply could not believe the NDGF would allow a person to hunt from a vehicle while driving down a barren established trail. Your attempt to discredit me is only showing the mud slinging. I take a shower you know. It won't stick.
It looks like your main concern is about the spread of disease from deer to cattle. So therefore to take all precautions we not only need to ban feeding and baiting of wildlife there needs to be a high fence bill written. The bill will be for cattle feed lots and feed storage areas so we cover all the bases to insure we DO NOT let deer infect the cattle or I mean the cattle infect the deer.
Tim, what you described is baiting and would not be a hard thing to prosecute. IF the trail leads to the feeder, how can you or anyone claim it is not baiting unless that feeder is in someones back yard and is primarily visited by song birds!!!!!!!
Now in regards to activity on someone else's land, you do not have implied knowledge of the activity on that land because it belongs to another person. Not hard once again to enforce and if deer are being baited on that property the landowner will be ticketed.
Like I said Tim, you are trying in a valiant attempt to make this a complex bill, it is not, and should not be!
If you want some protection for someone from being ticketed then I would not object to under the enforcement provisions that some form of wording be put in place that would protect an unsuspecting person from another's activity, but I do not think this is a good idea for two reasons. One it provides a legal loop hole for collusion to circumvent baiting rules.
If you look at the Fed Waterfowl baiting rules, you do not have to have knowledge that an area is baited to be found guilty of hunting a baited area. The reason for the wording in this manner is to remove collusion efforts.
Like I have said Tim all of these arguments have been raised in states like WI and MI for example and when you water them down or try and over define activity it creates more loop holes than it closes.
My point by the way with section line comment was to under score the point you are over thinking this. It was not meant as an attempt to sling any mud at you.
No Tim I am not saying that deer will ignore a pheasant feeder, but once deer start using that area, feeding would have to stop. There are many places where pheasants could be fed that deer would not even be in the same area. Our farm is a prime example we have birds in and around the farm site but no deer and have not had any sign of deer since Dec. A feeder for pheasants could easily be placed and not attract any deer.
By the way the pheasants are not being fed, but easily could without any problems and the current wording makes it possible and I see nothing wrong with that.
Maybe the key to this is getting a free permit to feed pheasants and part of getting the permit is a listing of the property description and it grants inspection of the site by G&F or agents they appoint. If deer become present at the site, then all feeding activity needs to end. Any other feeding then would be considered feeding or baiting of big game.
Or we could just restrict the bait pile to 50 pounds, 5 gallons, or however much and start busting the outfitters or landowners who break the rules. Pretty dang easy to see the difference from a 5 gallon bait site to one that uses truckloads!
My inlaws have a bird/squirrel feeder in their front yard. Well, guess what showed up the other day. Seven deer!! So according to the written bill, they are illegal. Kinda seems a little ridiculous doesn't it or am I missing something?
The bill as written says you cannot hunt OVER bait. I think you are the only one that reads it as "hunting over bait includes any trail, pathway, tree row, clearing or other travel corridor within [insert distance] of a mechanical feeder, gravity feeder or manual placement of feed."...this should be fun to define and regulate!
Hardwaterman, take a drive down to Van Hook and look at the feeding of pheasants right now. There is anywhere between 50 to 100 deer feeding among pheasant feed and wheat bales through any given day. You can't honestly try and tell me that pheasants go places deer do not. Geez, that probably is the biggest reach I have ever heard.
I can't wait for the game warden response when they have to stop by and inspect a permitted pheasant feeder's vicinity to see if deer tracks are around.
Cleeeaaaaarrrrrrrrllllllyyyyyy, disease is not the issue here. That cannot be refuted now.
I am posting the email address of the 4 sen's named asking you to voice your opinion. I personally hope baiting does not get banned. email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Here's my official stance:
Either Ban all baiting and feeding of WILDLIFE
Develop simple regulations on baiting such as:
- Bait piles cannot exceed five gallons at a time. - Bait “stations” cannot be closer than 440 yards to each other. - Hunters may not place bait within 440 yards of a feed lot... - …or baiting may not occur in where cattle are actively grazing. - Mechanical, electrical and gravity feeders are illegal. - Bait piles must be spread. They cannot exceed two inches in height (maybe make this stricter yet). - Landowners must grant permission for bait to be used on their property. - Maybe there should be a regulation to not allow hunters to hunt directly over bait piles? An idea would be 50 or 75 yards away.
Good Points. Do you have or know how to get a e-mail list of the law makers?
No Tim I did not say that the two species will not intermingle or be in the same area. However to be honest the intent of this bill is to stop the spread of disease. Any feeding that attracts and sustains deer in an area needs to be stopped. Yes I am aware that pheasants are being fed now. I am aware that some of these sites would not be able to exist if a baiting and feeding ban on big game is passed. I am also well aware that some feeding of pheasants and turkey can and will continue without being violation of the feeding ban as written.
You continue to want to paint this as nothing more than an ethics bill and it is not. When the testimony comes in on this, I am sure we will here from guys that oppose baiting on ethics alone and others who support it on ethics alone.
But what will drive the bus on this is the science that backs up baiting and feeding as significant to disease spreading especially disease such as TB.
The dollars of economic impact alone will gather significant attention to almost every legislator because other than a handful everyone has a cattle producer in his district.
So I will say once again the primary reason for this bill being put forward is disease. I never had said otherwise.
It will be up to someone to determine a reasonable distance as to where bait or food placement is not a factor. I am well aware of that, just like we established 440 yards from a building as proper. When that law was established the good old 30-06 was in existence as a common hunting caliber. Yet it has a lethal range that far exceeds the 1/4 mile distance that has to be observed. This will be no different.
Like I said send away your concerns it is your right and privilege as well. But as I said from what I know do not be surprised if they are not implemented or even considered when all is said and done. The tighter the restrictions the better on this from an implementation position and also enforcement. The track record of states that have followed this approach is far better than those who try and please everyone.
This is not a complex issue unless we make it one with quanity restrictions, exclusions many are wishing for etc...
Making a pheasant feeder deer proof was simple. Not even an agruement.
Would the cattlemen from every district rather have deer feeding with their cows or eating somewhere else? The deer don't know the differnce between a bait station and a cattle trough. If we take away one source of food (bait stations) the deer will spend more time at the other (trough)My wish is for common sense for all.
I respect you to the highest regard but the NDGF in their bait study says the feeding of wildlife needs to be banned or strongly supports it. That's why they support the planting of food plots. I have to assume you read it correct?
And now we have to put stipulations of deer proof feeders? I thought HW wanted this bill to be simple? Who is going to enforce that? And finally, you do have my email I'd like to see a photo of such a feeder.
This has all the contact information you will need: http://www.fishingbuddy.com/forums/topic.php?fid=669775&tid=33517&rid=
Tim - I don't dislike you I disagree with you. I do recall all of our prior discussion regarding food plots and bait - they are not the same no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig. I disagreed with Hardwater on the driving issue and I agreed with you. Now this issue I agree, mostly, with Hardwater. Nothing to do with like/dislike.
solocam - when I say you should not bring disease into the arguement I meant it in relation to whether bait could further increase the spread of disease for that is a fact. I guess I didn't say that very well. Later I stated that 'risk of spreading disease' could be part of the issue. Sorry for the confusion.
How in the heck can you not say a food plot offers more to the wildlife than a bait pile? Whatever, I'll write you off on the whole thing. Can't remember where you are from but you should take a spin south of Parshall, ND sometime. Don't worry, you won't be able to blink...you will have to watch the road so you don't hit a deer. Or next year I can take you around to a few bait plots I hunt. If the ban occurs there will probably be no doubt I'll plant my own bait plot so that will be an option for you to take a gander at as well.
Tim, it is a good thing the weekend is coming up. You need to get out of the office a bit and so do I! I do not know if you plan on being in Bismarck for the hearing, I am trying to work my schedule to attend. If you are we should have a cup of coffee(de-caff maybe) or a brew.
We agree on more things that we disagree on!
When you do the food plot. I can help. I am all the equipment if you need.