# BAITING BIG GAME/HOW THE LEGISLATURE FAILS YOU



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Guys, we need to help ourselves. The outfitters are giving us the stick again, and your contact on this bill is important. Read Curts note below and ask your 2 house members for a YES on HB-1039.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Wells:

The Baiting Issue - HB 1039

On Thursday, I attended the House Natural Resources Committee hearing on HB 1039, the bill directing the N.D. Game and Fish Department to regulate baiting. The result did nothing to ease my skepticism of the legislative process.

First, Rep. DeKrey amended his bill by adding language that would prohibit baiting. The wording was well done.

Roger Rostvet, Deputy Director of the Game and Fish Dept. then testified that their recommendation was for a total ban on baiting. They've done the studies, seen the problems and know where it is all headed, especially after the recent Minnesota TB situation where sharpshooters are attempting to kill every deer in a six-mile radius. Rostvet left no doubt what should be done.

Then, Dr. Beth Carlson of the State Veterinarian's Office stood up and testified that the potential for disease was too great and the health of both the deer herd and the state's livestock would be better served by a total ban on baiting. They supported the bill.

That was followed by the North Dakota Bowhunter's Association testifying in support of the Game and Fish Dept. and then Mike Donahue stood up and said the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was also in support of the bill.

Then several people, myself included, gave our testimony as to the problems caused by baiting. I told the committee that Michigan and Wisconsin have spent a combined $300 million dollars battling the problems created by baiting.

Then the opponents stood up. Most were outfitters and some essentially made our case for us. One guy said, "If disease ever shows up here we need to ban baiting right away, but for now it's okay!" Another said it was nothing but jealousy and another made the incredulous statement that baiting is probably why we don't have CWD yet! One outfitter, a young lady, proceeded to completely trash bowhunters (her only clients) saying they wound everything they shoot and they need baiting so they can get the deer close to their clients! I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why baiting should continue, considering all the problems its causing, and that didn't change after the testimony.

I thought it was a slam dunk but later in the afternoon the committee fought it out. They tried to insert DeKrey's amendment and it failed. They tried to install the Game and Fish intent and it failed. Finally, they voted in a deadlock of 7 to 7 for no recommendation! It's no wonder the public doesn't have faith in the legislative process. The evidence and testimony was overwhelming yet seven committee members chose to ignore reality and the experts.

Now it goes to the House floor in its original form, with no recommendation. If passed it will still allow Game and Fish to institute their recommendation which is based on a three-year study and consultation with a wide range of wildlife biologists.

If you're concerned with the integrity and future of deer hunting in North Dakota, and that concern outweighs your personal preference in this baiting issue, please contact your representatives and ask them to support HB 1039. It's the right thing to do.

Curt Wells


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

I would just like to point out a few falacies stated by Mr. Wells in his article against HB 1039. He has lost my respect as an outdoor writer by turning his view of the Natural Resources Committee hearing into a ill-prepared, lie ridden piece of literature that was just screaming for rebutle. I figured who better to write it then my brother, who was also at HNRC hearing and who by no means is a professional writer (like Mr. Wells "allegedly is"), yet somehow managed to write a quick letter that clearly indicates the lies that Curt has layed out to the viewing public.

A "NO VOTE" on HB 1039

"It is clear from personal observation at Thursday's hearing that the baiting topic is a very heated debate and the resulting; lack of recommendation from the Natural Resources Committee reflected the deadlock.

At the 11th hour, an Amendment was brought forth to change this bill from basically mandating the Game and Fish to develop rules, to a complete ban on baiting of big game entirely. This change was then backed by constituents that mainly made one of 3 arguments: Disease, Weed, and Ethical issues. It actually began to get a little monotonous as they continued to talk about the same issues, without any solid evidence stating that baiting was more than an ethical agenda.

Actually, during the supporter's discussion, one of the House Representatives stated that the percentage of "naturally occurring" food sources such as spilt grain by ag producers, cattle feeders, apple trees, and other areas where deer migrate towards food sources, far outweighs the amount of baiting that is done, leaving the disease issue as a mute point. To this argument the supporter had no substantial rebuttal.

The person that was claimed to be representing the views of ALL the members of the ND Bowhunters Association also fell short when he began to banter on baiting as unethical. To this another Representative asked him if any of his members hunted bear over bait, and when he stated "yes" the Representative stated "what's the difference". I would question whether ALL the members of the NDBA feel this way, or if he used this group to pronounce the views of a few.

The opposition group did an excellent job of sticking to the issues and showing the Committee that the issues that the supporting side brought forth were unsubstantiated. One individual countered the weed argument by pointed to tumble weeds that blow across the prairie spreading noxious weeds. Another opposer of the bill stated that if disease was truly an issue, why they were not picking up the dead deer along the roadways, to prevent further contamination of our herd.

A rancher testified that he had over 700 head of deer feeding out of his creep feeders for his calves. In calling the Game and Fish, they sent a guy out there, who wrapped his feeders with snow fence, to keep the deer and unfortunately his calves out of the feed. It is clear that deer conjugate in large numbers naturally during the winter and in far greater numbers than they do on a bait pile, leaving the spread of disease issue without merit.

Please contact your House Representatives on this issue and urge them to kill this bill before it affects the law abiding hunters of this state, based on an argument that seems to be rooted in ethics and nothing more."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Cranebuster, Here is Curts own words from another thread.



> Yes, I hunted deer in Saskatchewan over bait and wrote about it in Bowhunter Magazine. Now I have expereince with baiting so no one can tell me I've never tried it


As you said in the hearing it was ethics, like Lyle Hansen asked what is the difference between shooting a bear over bait. In Curts case its ok for him to shoot deer in Sask. but its not ok for someone from Sask to shoot deer over bait in ND.



> especially after the recent Minnesota TB situation where sharpshooters are attempting to kill every deer in a six-mile radius.


Here is another one in which Curt says Roger Rosrvet said this. Not true Curt brought this up. Curt also fails to mention that in the Suburbs of Mn where deer are a problem they also have sharpshooters hired. Guess what they are using bait to lure them in so they get a clean shot.

Dr. Beth Carlson spoke of the potential for disease, yet she left the room went down the hall and testified on SB2254. In this room she said disease is not a problem in ND. So much for her credibility

Mike Donahue passed out photographs of a case that Ladd Erickson knew about or is involved in. Seems Ladd was down showing the pictures which I got to see. It showed a little corn on the ground by a trailer house. These guys were violators of the law big time. They had lights set up and were shooting deer at night and got caught shooting 14 deer illegally. Again twist the truth its the only thing these guys know how to do.

Curt trashes the young lady who spoke against the bill. He however forgets to mention the the testimony of the outfitter who was employed by the Game and Fish for over 15 years and now retired. Curt fails to mention that he pointed out that before 1978 the game and fish did not feed deer. It was then that the NDWF and all the sportsman groups came in and demanded the feeding of deer. Feeding deer baiting whats the difference. Curt also fails to mention the only argument they had was ethics and noxious weeds.

[/quote]It's no wonder the public doesn't have faith in the legislative process. The evidence and testimony was overwhelming yet seven committee members chose to ignore reality and the experts. 


> Its funny thing Curt fails to realize the process does work. Actually I'm very surprised my feeling before the hearing was that it would receive a 10-4 do not pass.
> 
> Curt refers to the experts in which I'm sure he means the game and fish. Without the amendment the Game and Fish is not in favour of this bill. Curt then tell why are you still supporting it?


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Cranebuster,

I guess your brother and I were at different hearings. His assessment is obviously slanted in his direction and is 180 degrees from what I saw at the hearing.

Lies and fallacies? Well then, I guess the Game and Fish Dept. and the State Veterinarians Office was also spreading lies, even after Game and Fish completed a three-year study on baiting and its negative effects. I guess the experts should be ignored here, right?

Ask Wisconsin, Michigan and now Minnesota if the disease problem is moot. That is a head-in-the-sand approach.

Let's take a look at motivation here. If the integrity and the future of deer hunting in North Dakota is not my motivation, what could it possibly be? I do not own land and hunt mostly public land. What other reason could I have for working for a ban on baiting deer?

Now let's look at the motivation of those who scream for it to continue. They want to hunt in their own little world, over a pile of corn and care little for the consequences, regardless of how potentially dangerous they are. Outfitters care only about putting their clients in front of a deer. These are purely selfish motives and I still haven't heard a single legitmate reason why baiting should continue.

Call them lies, call them fallacies. I call them the cold hard facts.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Hire a guide...have him place you over a bait pile and then take your pick of the nicest deer in the area....now that's what call hunting!

Baiting should be not be allowed in ALL areas for all species.

Hunting is one thing....shooting is another...shooting over bait IS NOT HUNTING. Nothing against outfitters but DON"T ALLOW anyone to bait......PERIOD!!!!!!!


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

g/o,

Spoken like an outfitter with a severe case of tunnel vision.

I did not "fail to mention" those things you list. I didn't mention them because they are irrelevant. Let's go through the list......

You, like other pro-baiters, keep bringing up ethics for some reason. There must be a deep seated need to justify your actions. I have NEVER mentioned ethics in this debate. Others may have but not me because it just isn't necessary.

Yes, I've hunted in Saskatchewan over bait and I have hunted black bears over bait. You failed to mention I addressed that issue to the committee when Lyle Hanson asked about bear baiting. First, there are no bears in N.D. and no bear hunting. Baiting of deer and bears takes place in remote Canadian bush where both hunter and game densities are low. They are experiencing none of the problems we are in North Dakota. What happens in those areas is irrelevant to our situation.

I'm pretty sure Rostvet mentioned the Minnesota TB problem but what does it matter who brings it up? Are you suggesting that is a lie or the close proximity of the outbreak has no bearing on North Dakota? Again, head-in-the-sand. And what do sharpshooter tactics have to do with this subject? You're really reaching....

I don't have a clue what Dr. Carlson did when she left. All I know is how she testified on HB 1039. I realize you ARE an outfitter, but I'll go with the DOCTOR on this one. And she's right, there is no disease in N.D. today and unlike you I'm interested in keeping it that way.

I didn't see the photographs you mention and don't see the relevance to this debate. Again, you're reaching.

I have mentioned the testimony of Dave Jensen. He made our case for us by stating the first thing he does as an outfitter is lease up some land. Then he puts out corn and feeders. Then he puts out clients. His arguments were very weak and it came down to his claim this is all about jealousy. If this were about jealousy, why wouldn't I and the others who oppose baiting simply start hunting over piles of corn? Ridiculous.

You must not have been paying attention because the arguments against baiting were not confined to ethics and weeds. There were many other reasons mentioned which you "fail to mention." I've listed them so many times I'm not going to waste my time.

It's funny because I just heard there was a post on another site where someone claimed I had just bought some land and a neighbor was baiting the deer off my land. Just to set the record straight I do not own land and have never owned land. My motives are as stated above.

I still support HB 1039 in its original form because it directs the Game and Fish Dept. to regulate baiting. They are the ones that should be regulating method-of-take and I depend on them to make the right decision. That is what they get paid to do.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

I will reiterate to my reps that I support this bill.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Thank you Dak.

And North Dakota's deer hunters of the future thank you as well.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

OK, if I have a food plot and hunt thr trails leading to and from it is that baiting? If someone has a feed lot and I hunt the trails leading to and from it am I hunting over bait? If we use game trails to tell us where deer are going and comming from, we are useing bait wheather natural or plantted or set out to hunt our game. I would choose not to hunt over a feeder, because I have land and can have food plots to help deer over winter. This I do because I like to see deer in my area that I hunt. Yes I can keep deer on my land by providing feed for them. This is at my expence. Hunting over bait can be just a response to good scouting.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Curt, I really don't understand why you continue to bring up the problem in Minnesota! They do not allow baiting, and, according to your calculations should not have a disease problem right? That is your claim,

Baiting + Deer = Disease?

The fact of the matter is it is much more complicated than that. A law eliminating baiting is null and void without a complete ban on all feeding of wildlife. That includes bird feeders and winter feeding, including back yards. If they aren't going to make that kind of commitment on it then why take away a humane method of take without addressing the disease problem? If you are saying that herd health is your only motivation, then you cannont disagree with me on the above statement. I for one would, with conclusive evidence, be for a complete ban on all feeding if it meant helping out the deer herd. But until that evidence is brought forth, and that is written into the law (not a vague bill like is being pushed currently) I don't see a reason to back this bill.

I killed my first deer over a bait when I was 8 years old. I have no doubt in my mind that baiting led directly to my success. I had a clean shot, a close shot, and a humane shot, and I became hooked for life. I had an extremely low attention span, and I will honestly admit that if it weren't for baiting I would've had a hard time sitting in stand for more than an hour or so. You know as well as I that bowhunters need all the recruitment we can get, and if it's one thing that will help that out, I'm for it. You also know as well as me that we need to stick together, we have a lot bigger problems looming than this one, and until I see clean evidence that eliminating a LEGITIMATE (you said yourself that ethics wasn't a factor) method of take will help our herd in any way, I'm gonna stand against it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Whelan, As the bill reads now it will force the game and fish to adopt rules for baiting. When the amended version was in play food plots would not have been considered baiting, ot hunting the trails. Or hunting over ag stored products such as feed lots,bale pile etc.

Curt,

I see like always you have to use the outfitter trump card which plays well on this site. i happened to be proud of what I do for a living and I respect what you do also and would not stupe to your level.

Lets talk about the disease issues you are concerned about. First of all the deer in MN were infected from cattle are we to put 8' fences around are feedlots? How about CWD, how is it transmitted? Everything I've been able to read on it say that there is no concrete evidence on how its transmitted. Diseases do appear likely to occur where animals are crowded and congregate for food and water. Now I ask you a simple question how is baiting any different then deer in bale piles or like the thirty I saw this evening around grain bins? Take a drive tommorrow and look at how they are yarded up and tell me that is not considered crowding. Water source is also one of the concerns, yet when Lyle Hansen asked Roger if he were to put a water tank in the middle of the badlands if that would be baiting. Roger said no.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Just a side note, I have some neighbors that are super ****** about this bill and had what I thought was an interesting idea that really makes this baiting law look rediculous. They have land enrolled in P.L.O.T.S, and said that they would put big *** feeders in the middle of each quarter if it passes, now how would the G&F deal with that backlash? Anyone that hunted on it would be breaking the law. The landowner would be breaking no laws, the disease issue, (if it exists) would not be addressed, and it would allow him to get a payment for creating himself a little refuge. I just thought it was an interesting little twist to what will happen with a already poor idea! Also brings up another big *** hole they're gonna have to deal with; what entitles baiting. If someone walks that quarter for rifle deer, is that baiting? If someone puts a stand on a trail going to that feeder, is that baiting? If someone sneaks up a kills a buck in an adjacent rock pile that has corn in his stomach, is that baiting?

All in all seems like a really big pain in the a## enforcement wise, landowner-relationswise, and hunter to hunter relationswise.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Whelen35,

Food plots are not bait. Waterholes are not bait. Trails are not bait. This has been explained many times. The vast majority of states from the Mississippi west prohibit baiting and have clearly written laws that are being enforced with no problems. This is also NOT a property rights issue because the effects and influence of baiting transcends property lines.

cranebuster,

What is so difficult to understand about having an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in wild deer just across our border? What if it spreads to North Dakota? CWD has been found in every state and province on our perimeter and sooner or later it will be found in North Dakota. It doesn't matter that baiting is illegal in Minnesota. The disease is already there and it's a short jump to get here where baiting could accelerate the spread. I don't find that hard to understand.

I agree with your assessment of the dangers of feeding, which is different from baiting. Feeding is usually referred to as being "recreational." Wisconsin and Michigan are trying to ban both baiting and recreational feeding because of the problems caused. However, banning both baiting and feeding would be difficult in North Dakota at this time so we have to concentrate on baiting now. Remember, disease transmission is not the ONLY reason to ban baiting. It is simply one of many.

We just can't wait for disease to arrive and then start to worry about the problem. North Dakota cattlemen could lose their brucellosis-free status and by then it will be too late to ban baiting as far as they are concerned.

I never said ethics weren't a factor in this debate because they are for many people. I just said I don't get into arguing ethics because there are so many other reasons to ban baiting. Ethics are highly subjective and always open to debate so it's pointless to waste time on a battle that can't be won.

I've also never said this would be easy and painless. Many hunters have grown dependent on bait and to suddenly lose that option will undoubtedly make some people angry. This should have been done six years ago, before it blew up into the problem it is now. The longer we wait the more painful it will be. I still believe it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

g/o,

I don't have a problem with outfitters. I hunt with them all the time. There is a place for outfitters in North Dakota and I've said that many times. It's the part about not seeing the big picture that I was referring to.

Evidently you didn't see the recent study on chronic wasting disease. Saliva from infected deer was placed in the mouths of three healthy fawns and all three came down with CWD. This study was all over the Internet several weeks ago and I'm surprised you missed it. Must have been that narrow outlook I referred to. (remember, you started the attacks)

cranebuster,

Your last post isn't even worth a response. I've had enough for now.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

I never expected a response, it wasn't a philosophical post,nor one worth even debating about, just a small note I thought I'd throw in about how this is affecting the landowners, and landowner relations, both which I would call "legitimate reasons to keep baiting". I'm gonna go have a Bud Light and watch "Fast Times at Ridgmont High".


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I am married into a farm family. I live in a farming community. I primarily work for farmers. I hunt with farmers.Idont know of any farmers who bait. The statement that this bill would hurt landowner relations is bull.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I love the "I've got friends who are going to be mad" line. OK, let your narrow minded friends put feeders on their plots land. Who cares, if they are that anti hunter, they are involved in the program for one thing only, to cut the cost of seeding their already subsidized CRP land. If they are willing to put up feeders to make it illegal to hunt deer on that section, they don't care about hunting, they care about the money. Let them be booted from the program. Who cares. :sniper:


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

What was the amendment? Who on the NRC voted for the bill?


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Fireball, you, and a lot of the membership on this site, find it offensive that farmers use money as a motivation don't you? Think back over the past several business decisions you've made, have ANY of them been based on anything short of money? Farmers have NO obligation to you or me for that matter.

The scenario I wrote out was simply a sample as to the problems that this bill is going to cause. It will essentially create another big gray area just as the USFWS's interpretations of migratory waterfowl baiting. The only difference is that now rich landowners can plant Biologic in 2 acre chunks to shoot deer over rather than Milo in 2 acre "flooded" chunks to shoot ducks over. All the idealistic waterfowlers out there should be having deja vu right now.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Drakekiller, the amendment simply changed the wording from "Advising G&F to adopt rules regarding baiting", to a wording that essentially outlawed baiting altogether and stated as it would in the proclamation exactly how you couldn't do things. The bird issue was never really addressed. The amendment came very late, and the first time it was heard by anyone was when it was read at the hearing. It was a devious ploy to throw off opponents of the bill and eliminate G&F control over this subject.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know if it included birds or not, it was read quickly and then thrown out, so it is back to the old wording, which gives G&F full power in the matter.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

I am not trying to pick a side on here because I see pluses to both sides and I really feel that it needs to be researched more before our Legislature can make an educated decision.

A few things that I will adress though. In an earlier post Curt you commented that lures are not bait, I agree, BUT check out the Manitoba regs on baiting, they outlaw lures and urines as well. Their logic being that these products are produced by captively raised deer that originate in states that already have cases of CWD, and, as you stated, it is proven that urine and saliva are methods of transmittion of CWD. Will the use of lures and urines be the next target?

According to the study by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre based out of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, eliminating food plots should also be justified as it states that foriegn plant material cannot/should not be introduced, last time I checked, turnips, chicory, as well as some of the clovers used by producers of food plot seeds did not occur naturally in ND - so will we we now be introducing another invasive species into ND that ten years from now we will have no control over?

I feel that limiting the amount of bait put out at any one time WILL eliminate animal dependance on it as a sole source of food. Anyone with any wildlife biology backround knows that a deers digestive system cannot change from one source of food to another over night, it takes many days. Many deer have died with ample food to sustain them but did not have the time to adjust food sources before the damage was done.

Check out this study on baiting wildlife, done by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre in Saskatchewan. Don't just read the study, research the sources, than make an educated assessment of baiting.

http://www.gwf.org/Comprehensive_Report.pdf

IMO, I feel that if baiting is to be targeted, than make it across the board to include everything used to attract wildlife to a specific location.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

cranebuster,

DeKrey's amendment was not a devious ploy to take control away from the Game and Fish Dept. The Dept. had decided long before the hearing to recommend a total ban on baiting. They did an exhaustive study and their own baiting research committee recommended an end to baiting two years ago. The G&F Dept. long-term strategic plan also calls for an end to baiting. The original bill was very vague and gave the Dept. no direction so the amendment simply defined what the Dept. was going to do anyway so it was easier to deal with. I knew what the Dept. was going to do but I did not know the amendment was in the works.

Trapper62,

Yes, Manitoba did ban urine-based scents back during the first CWD scare but they are the only agency that took such a drastic measure. That is also why some scent companies have started manufacturing synthetic scents.

I don't really care what Canada thinks. We're talking about North Dakota and if you're familiar with some of the goofy things the left-wing governments of eastern Canada have come up with over the years you wouldn't take them seriously either. Nowhere in the U.S. is a food plot considered bait and bottled scents and lures are acceptable wherever baiting is prohibited. This is just a smoke screen pro-baiters keep bringing up, just like the property rights issue and enforcement. None of these are problems in the states around us and across the west that prohibit baiting, and I don't see them as problems here.

Limiting the amount of bait is unacceptable because it does not address the disease issue. At the hearing, Roger Rostvet, deputy director of the Game and Fish Dept. testified that in some studies the amount of bait that caused the most problems was five gallons. He did not explain why but I assume it's because it's enough bait to attract multiple deer but still keep them nose-to-nose, but that is speculation on my part.

I am not familiar with any laws regarding the planting of non-native plants and crops in North Dakota. I would imagine it is already illegal to plant noxious weeds. I don't see this as relevant.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone on here, just stating information gathered from reputable sources, but you sure seem to get worked up quick!

As you stated,



> I don't really care what Canada thinks. We're talking about North Dakota


Yes we are talking about ND so why keep bringing up neighboring states problems and cures. Last I checked Manitoba is just as close to us as any neighboring state and it does have identified cases of CWD. Also, if you don't take the Canadian study seriously than tell me why it is cited and referenced as a resource of relevant information in Michigan, Wisconsin and other Midwest states that ban baiting?

I never stated that food plots and lures are baits, I think I agreed with you on that one but I just stated a what if or what's next! But you did reference this exact point in your recent article on baiting. You stated that "I can't believe the agriculture regulators in this state have not voiced serious concerns over baiting because of the danger of weeds spreading, especially leafy spurge. How do we know that these plot seeds are weed free?

I also never stated that limited baiting would address the disease issue, I stated that it would decrease deer dependency on it, unlike placing tons of feed at a site and then cutting it off at a later date! You also stated this in your recent article in Dakota Country.

Where did I say that we had laws prohibiting the planting of non-native plants? It was also a what if question, I guess if nothing more than maybe trying to stimulate some thought!

Curt, I know that you, a respectable person with name recognition in the wildlife/outdoor communities will always have more influence than someone like myself. BUT it is because of nit-picky wording, spasmodic debates and the inability to look at things without blinders on (like the discussion we are currently having) that will cause this bill to fail!


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Trapper62,

I guess I have to keep explaining why I mention Minnesota. They are currently battling bovine tuberculosis, a disease that can spread to North Dakota. I would say that is relevant. It doesn't matter if it was caused by baiting, it is a threat to our state. I mention Wisconsin and Michigan because of the problems they are experiencing and because it shows where we are headed. I didn't mention Manitoba because baiting is illegal there. However, they do have CWD there, on game farms, and that illustrates how close we are to finding it.

You've read too much into my post. I didn't say you thought food plots or lures were bait. I didn't say that you said we had laws regarding planting of non-native plants. I didn't say YOU were bringing up the smoke screen, I said pro-baiters do that. I don't know whether you're a pro-baiter or not.

You brought up limiting the amount of bait and I simply gave my reply. I didn't tie it to dependency. That's a seperate issue and another reason to ban baiting.

That Canadian study is probably cited in Wisconsin and Michigan because they want to ban both baiting and feeding. We're only concerned about baiting right now. That's part of the reason their study doesn't matter here, but also because we know the problems we're having, we know the cause and we know the cure. I'm looking at the big picture here and certainly not wearing blinders. I apologize if I seem a little uppity but you have to realize I've had to explain these things countless times and I keep hearing the same arguments and still haven't heard a single valid reason to continue baiting.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

> I apologize if I seem a little uppity but you have to realize I've had to explain these things countless times and I keep hearing the same arguments and still haven't heard a single valid reason to continue baiting.


These are among a few that I read in BOWHUNTER magazine a while back, in an article authored by Curt Wells

1. "WITH A RED FOREHEAD, dark antlers, and crab-claw points at the tips of the main beams, the buck was unique. Considering the conditions we faced, we were lucky to get him, even if the method was not my first choice. I doubt we'd have got an opportunity at this buck without the bait."

2. "My Saskatchewan buck was a beautiful deer, and any buck taken legally is a worthy trophy."

3. "In these conditions I think we need to put you guys on a bait," Rob said. "I know you'd prefer not to hunt over bait, but baiting is legal here, and you should at least try it so you know what it's like."

*I must note on this last one, as it is a very good example of an outfitter using it as a tool to keep his clients (Curt in this case) in action when the going gets tough.

4. This one is my personal addition, I would really hate to have my kids grow up in a world where they would not have the opportunity to "try it so they know what it's like."


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

I am not bashing you with these quotes, rather using your words to answer your own question. I figure who better than a professional outdoor writer to illustrate my thoughts.

I too, feel that any legally taken buck is an excellent trophy, and your saskatchewan buck was no exception.

I feel that outfitters have an honest profession, and baiting is a tool that can effectively be used to make them successful at their profession (something we should all strive for).

I feel strongly that my kids should be able to use bait as a legal method of take, so they too will have at least tried it once.

I too feel that when times get tough, and conditions aren't optimum, baiting provides a great method to use when other methods fail. Hunting in the CRP and pasture plains of central North Dakota is no exception to this rule.

I'm really glad we agree on the above "valid" reasons for baiting :beer:


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

cranebuster,

If you want to cherry-pick quotes that serve you and leave out the one where I said I hadn't changed my mind about baiting and was still opposed to it IN NORTH DAKOTA, knock yourself out.

Why do you think I don't argue ethics? It's because baiting is currently legal and I don't blame hunters for doing it, especially those that bait in self-defense. The key, for the millionth time, is it shouldn't be a legal method of take, not because of ethics but because of the long list of problems we are having, problems that do not occur in Saskatchewan.

If you think those quotes, which are not all mine by the way, somehow validate baiting then reason and logic obviously isn't working. I'm getting the feeling you're either an outfitter or associated with one, or you're seriously addicted to baiting as a style of hunting. In either case, I'm not wasting anymore time debating you as it is pointless.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Deer herd reduction planned in bovine TB zone (2007-01-26) *

*Five wild deer harvested this fall in northwestern Minnesota near bovine tuberculosis (TB)- infected cattle operations tested presumptive positive for the disease, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). *

The DNR will contract with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sharpshooters and take additional actions for removal of deer potentially infected with the disease. The presumed positive deer from this year are in addition to two deer from the same area found positive for bovine TB during last year's testing. Final test results from 2006 are pending.

"The discovery of more bovine TB-infected cattle operations and deer in 2006 prompted this effort to protect the long-term health of the deer population," said Dr. Michelle Powell, DNR wildlife health program coordinator. "Temporarily reducing deer numbers in highly localized areas will minimize the chance that this disease will begin to spread through deer-to-deer or deer-to-livestock contact. The DNR is committed to working with livestock producers and the Minnesota Board of Animal Health to regain the state's bovine TB-free status."

*Bovine TB has been found in seven cattle operations in the area. All of the bovine TB positive deer have been located on or within a few miles of TB positive cattle farms near Skime, about 35 miles south of the Canadian border. *

Following an aerial survey next week to assess deer numbers and distribution, USDA Wildlife Services sharpshooters will begin to reduce deer numbers in a six-mile radius surrounding the farms where bovine TB was detected near Skime. USDA Wildlife Services employs teams of trained sharpshooters who are experienced and skilled in efficiently removing large numbers of deer for wildlife damage and health and safety reasons. These teams will take deer on public land and will also work with landowners to take deer on private land with the landowner's permission.

All deer taken will be tested for bovine TB. Meat from deer with no obvious bovine TB infection will be salvaged and released for human consumption. DNR will provide information and food safety guidelines for proper handling and cooking of venison.

"The DNR's effort to reduce the deer population in selected areas of northwest Minnesota is an important step in the process of eradicating bovine TB from the state," said Minnesota Board of Animal Health Executive Director and State Veterinarian Dr. Bill Hartmann, "With each TB-infected deer we remove and each herd we test, Minnesota moves closer to regaining its bovine-TB free status."

The DNR will also continue to issue shooting permits to interested landowners in the affected areas. Last year, landowners took 90 deer under shooting permits. After the sharp-shooting effort the DNR will consider additional management options, possibly in a broader area, including liberalized hunting seasons, special hunts, bonus permits or extended seasons.

"We recognize that this will likely have a temporary, negative affect on deer hunting in the immediate area and we regret any short-term impacts to local hunters," Powell said. "However, taking aggressive action before the disease begins to spread through the deer population ensures the long-term health of the deer herd and good deer hunting in the future. We expect deer numbers will quickly rebound after the completion of this effort."

The DNR will continue to monitor deer for TB in the area throughout the next several years by sampling hunter-harvested deer. Bovine TB is a bacterial disease that primarily affects cattle; however, other animals may become infected. It is known to occur in Michigan deer but does not persist in deer anywhere else in the United States. Cooking meat to an internal temperature of 165 degrees destroys the bacteria. When field dressing all game, the DNR recommends the use of gloves to prevent exposure to a number of diseases, including salmonella and E. coli.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

My guess is with or without this bill, the GNF will eventually ban baiting statewide. They do not need this bill to do it. They just don't want to look like the bad guy, but they will if they have to.

So to all you masterbaiters out there, enjoy it while you can!


----------



## Ithaca1 (Nov 24, 2003)

cranebuster said:


> I I had an extremely low attention span, and I will honestly admit that if it weren't for baiting I would've had a hard time sitting in stand for more than an hour or so.


Maybe you should quit bowhunting if you need to hunt over a baitpile to kill a deer. I think biology and historical facts have you beat. Baiting is not good because of the following reasons:
1. deer population's health-risk of many transferable diseases
2. If you need to hunt over a bait pile to kill a deer you are not much of a hunter
3. Leads to more guiding if baiting continues thousands of acres will be leased out so some outfitter jerk that does not even own ag land can profit from it.
4. Weed Infestation
5. Deer displacement-displacing deer out of their natural habitat. Also outfitters baiting deer off of others land to profit from the deer others have raised.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

Curt, thanks, I feel at least now my points of view were given some validity. Maybe I did read to much into the post you made. Thanks for the civil response!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

The arguments you guys keep bringing up is why the bill went as it did.
Like Curt says ethics or the noxious weed thing doesn't even come into play. Or the guides leasing land has nothing to do with the baiting issue.

Disease is the only issue that has any merit here. Take a look at the article Bob posted here and you will notice that the deer received the disease from eating with cattle. That is the question we ask and others, stopping baiting is only a band aid in ND. Unlike the states of Michigan which Curt refers to is 53% forest. Or Wisconsin which is 46% Forrest. ND is 1.5% Forrest. I asked this before and will ask again how is baiting going to any different then the deer eating in bale piles as they are now. How is it any different then the deer I saw Sat. night around a grain bin site where they had spilled a big pile of grain. In this state where we are so agriculture that we have piles of feed on every farm which the deer eat. None of these would be exempt or if we put out water tanks. That is the problem with this bill.


----------



## Ithaca1 (Nov 24, 2003)

Why is the Noxious weed concern not an issue? Maybe you should do some research or talk to your county weed officer or ND State Noxious Weed Specialists. I think you would change your opinion. Would you like someone to dump tons of screenings on your lawn?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Why would the noxious weed be a problem? You would be referring to screenings I take it. I've feeding screenings for 10 years and I have no problem. If you want to see noxious weeds take a drive in the country, look at the CRP and the USFW land and you will see a haven of weeds. Besides baiting is only allowed on private land.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

g/o,

My God, are you having problems with comprehension?

I never said weeds and outfitters leasing land weren't issues in this debate! They are HUGE issues. And for some, ethics are an issue.

Disease is NOT the only issue with merit. If you think so, this debate is a senseless waste of my time.

Your judgment is obviously as clouded as some of the others and you see only what you want to see. I'm done arguing with you as well.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

So Curt now that weeds are a problem would you care to elaborate on why? Also I would love to hear your argument why the leasing of private land is an issue? That would really be interesting, come on Curt convince me why? Just what is the main issue here?

Curt actually you are the one having problems comprehending.

Is it not legal to lease land in ND?
Is it not legal to be an outfitter in ND?
Is it not legal for me as a landowner to put grain on the ground?
Is it not legal for me to feed screenings?
Is it ethical for you to shoot a deer over bait in Sask. and not someone from Sask. shooting one here over bait?

Curt these are the questions the legislators are faced with not the he said she said crap you bring up because you don't like outfitters.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

> If you think those quotes, which are not all mine by the way, somehow validate baiting then reason and logic obviously isn't working.


It seems to me that they did a fine job of self validation in your article. Unless of course your are trying to say that you are for it in one circumstance but oppose it another. (Saskatchewan vs. North Dakota) You are honestly not going to tell me that disease and noxious weed issues stop at the Peace Gardens are you? What I am trying to illustrate is that the validation you gave for baiting in Saskatchewan are no different than in North Dakota, and the risks involved in baiting are no different either. You do realize that the line between Saskatchewan and North west North Dakota is imaginary don't you? Canadian deer, and especially moose move across these lines. I am not trying to say that Saskatchewan needs to outlaw baiting, just trying to point out the hypocrisy in your statements.

For the record I have no affiliation with any outfitter, nor have I ever worked for one. I will admit to being an avid baiter and can guarantee you I spend every bit as much time preparing for archery season in North Dakota as you, we just do it in different ways.


----------



## okie2007 (Feb 6, 2007)

Curt Wells said:


> g/o,
> 
> Spoken like an outfitter with a severe case of tunnel vision.
> 
> Yes, I've hunted in Saskatchewan over bait and I have hunted black bears over bait. You failed to mention I addressed that issue to the committee when Lyle Hanson asked about bear baiting. First, there are no bears in N.D. and no bear hunting. Baiting of deer and bears takes place in remote Canadian bush where both hunter and game densities are low. They are experiencing none of the problems we are in North Dakota. What happens in those areas is irrelevant to our situation.


It appears what Mr. Wells is saying is that baiting is OK as long as it is not in my backyard. Plus eliminating baiting in ND will help control the outfitters, whcih are also OK as long as they are not in his backyard either.

So it is OK to use bait and outfitters when one goes out of their home state buy it is not OK for that to be in state. Boy I bet this guy has a lot of credibility when he speaks at committee meetings.

Kind of like all the hunting and fishing ads on this site. They're OK and they just happen to be put on randomly by google. If they're so random why do you never see any for North Dakota but anywere else is find.

Can you say doublespeak!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Great first post, slam the website!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

anything untrue in his "first post"??

I guess 3269 more posts makes you more credible??

Some people get jumped for attacking the messenger instead 
of the message, but I guess it depends on something, number 
of posts or which side a person is on???

I'm really starting to hate legislative years.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

g/o said:


> Curt these are the questions the legislators are faced with not the he said she said crap you bring up because you don't like outfitters.


Curt posted earlier today:



Curt Wells said:


> I don't have a problem with outfitters. I hunt with them all the time. There is a place for outfitters in North Dakota and I've said that many times.


Round and round and round we go.


----------



## beaver/otter trapper (Feb 5, 2007)

i like bating and its only illegal if you get caught


----------

