# A Different Baiting Law?



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Lots of discussion on the baiting measure that just failed in the senate. So is there some compromise position? If so how to implement it? Would it work to sit all folks concerned down and hammer something out, then take it to the governor? After all he is the one that signs it.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick, great idea to start this topic discussion - I do have to say that I think this was one of the first times that I sat on the opposite side of the fence from you. The main reason why I testified against this bill was because of how it was written. While I commend Sen. Olafson for taking a stance on a very controversial topic, I got the feeling that he did not fully test the waters before he jumped in head first.

I think that some serious time and money needs to be invested IN the state to develop theories about what affect baiting may or may not have in the transfer of a disease. As was testified about several times - we only heard facts and figures from other states - other states that HAVE a disease problem.

Several cattle ranchers told me at the hearing that they would support a ban on baiting based on the scientific evidence (as Olafson asked) IF ND had a disease problem - we do not at this time. I'm not saying that it isn't going to happen, but it is most likely to start in the cattle community, not the deer herds. Firm up our boarders should be the battle cry.

One mistake that I think both Sen. Olafson and Sen. Tripplet made yesterday during the reading before the senate was they both fell in to the arguments that they asked the committee and senate NOT to consider. They said they were there to argue the science and almost in the same breath they started talking about ethics, sportsmanship and Sen. Tripplet herself chastised those who use bait to ensure a standing shot likening that method to just shooting at a target. With those statements come emotion, not science.

Studies need to be performed, data needs to be submitted and reviewed about what would logically occur IN OUR STATE when baiting is allowed to continue.

As the "science" stated in testimony, smaller bait piles are likely to cause more disease transfer than large/widespread bait piles - so, I doubt that is an answer - the 5 gallon amendment as it was dubbed.

But, I think we'd all agree that those who are brining in truck loads of bait are the ones "we" are out to stop.

Post up people - I know everyone has an opinion on this.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm not exactly sure how your bill reads but don't you think you'll have a lot more accidental spillings from common agricultural practices which is not considered baiting? Just a thought because where would the line be drawn.

Like oops I was hauling some corn from last year down a two track and some spilled right in front of a tree row.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

That was exactly what was brought up during testimony before the committee. Agricultural practices would need to be addressed in this "new" bill.

Along with population control methods and a slew of a million other things.

Another example of how SB2351 was too vague was what was considered hunting over bait? I have several old bales sitting out in my pastures - how close to these bales does a deer have to be before it's considered hunting over bait?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Pretty simple solution.

You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.

You could even go on to say that your particular bait pile cant be within X number of yards from another bait pile. You could even go on to say you cant bait before/after X date in the year.

Heck, you could also make a pile of grain over the "legal limit" thats in a field of LIKE CROP TYPE to be legal, or up to the discretion of law enforcement officials. You know, to cut down on "accidental spills" meant for bait, and to protect those against real "accidental spills".

Wow. Its just so crazy it might work.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

First let's get law implemented to regulate our borders so infected livestock is not allowed in. If don't, the same could happen here as MN. Dick, take a look here on what WI does some good info here.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/bait.pdf

Our door is always open


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> Pretty simple solution.
> 
> You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.
> 
> ...


I agree bbj - it was these kinds of parameters that Sen. Olafson did not include that got his bill voted down.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> Pretty simple solution.
> 
> You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.
> 
> ...


I think the items you posted here are good things to include but the people drafting the bill will have to spell it out very clearly. The only part I don't agree with is *"...discretion of law enforcement officials" *
Granted a lot of things are are up to their discretion anyways including really if they want to cite you for a violation or not. But, I hope they do not have any wording like that in a bill.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

If it can't be enforced it is a meaningless law. We already have plenty of those on the books now. And the risks of getting caught are so small and the likely penalty so small as to make it nonsensical if it can't be enforced.

To wait until there is a disease outbreak in the state before addressing the issue is reactive. And as with any disease issue the proactive approach is to take steps to prevent it from happening. And while the argument is made that baiting doesn't result in disease the fact is that if there is a disease outbreak it will get into wild game herds. At that point, the only option will be to eliminate those animals and nobody is going to care if the disease started in cattle or deer.

Disease is a primary concern in this issue, although there are other factors, thus a strategy should be developed to prevent the disease from getting here and being transmitted. If those of you who argue for baiting as no worse than spilling grain, leaving standing corn, food plots, etc are correct then indeed we should be examining all these pathways and addressing them at the same time. This is about assessment of risk and developing a risk management plan.

In my estimation the risks of continuing to allow baiting far outweigh any benefits. And unlike some of the other things people point to, e.g. hay bales left out, corn left standing, etc, baiting isn't a normal agricultural practice. But if accepted, normal agricultural practices are also potential pathways for disease these should also be addressed.

And before anyone accuses me of being overly righteous about this issue I will admit I have hunted over bait. About 15 years ago I bought a 50 lb bag of corn to use on land open to bow hunting within the city of Bismarck. Why? Because I believed it would increase my chances of getting deer to within longbow range. But after doing it that one time I decided it didn't constitute what I think of as fair chase. But again, that is my ethic and others are different.

I don't believe this can be discussed as an ethical issue because ethics are personal. It is about disease, commercialization of wildlife, perceptions among the non-hunting public and the image we want to portray as hunters.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good afternoon Dick,

I assume you have looked at this poll: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... highlight=

I think a vast majority of the people would get behind a new bill that allowed small bait stations of five gallons or less. Other things could be added also like in September, October, and November only. I also think we need to look at this realistically and if we get good raw data that suggests small bait piles in early season really are a risk then we get together and talk again. Perhaps baiting could be shut down in counties that border risk areas.

Many things we can do, and a majority of the people want to do something, and want to do it now.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

The livestock industry is extremely concerned with any threat of disease. An instance of TB does not threaten our recreation, it threatens our very livelihood! We are ALWAYS looking for better ways to prevent and protect from these threats. Perhaps the ND ranching community and the agencies and organizations at the forefront of our industry deserve some credit for the fact that the regulations we have put in place on ourselves is part of why there has been no disease issues in our deer herd when there has been all around us. There is legislation currently going thru this session that will help increase inforcement of the regulations we have regarding cattle comming into the state. Most livestock producers understand disease prevention requires many things to be successful, and so it is with disease prevention in the wildlife arena. Wether it be domestic or wild, overpopulation and over concentrations are the primary cause of most disease outbreaks. The disease MAY occur in a healthy herd, but large scale outbreaks are undeniably the result of overpopulation. It can not be disputed that in many areas of this state the population of deer has gotten out of control. The agency in charge of this has publically admitted this. Having said this, everyone has to accept the responsibility for this. The landowner that won't let anyone on, the G&F that won't work with that landowner to address these problems, and the sportsmen that only want a large population of game managed to provide their "quality hunting experience". There must be new ways implemented to effectively address these problems as a start to any comprehensive disease control program. The one comparison that can be made between ND and MN,MI,and Wi. is that like those states we are rapidly approaching the level where we have to many deer for the numbers of hunters to control, if we aren't already there. Like it or not the vast majority of "public" wildlife lives on "private" lands, and how the public choses to provide input in how this wildlife is managed and regulated on these lands is going to be directly tied to how the farmer or rancher responds. The average sportsman uses these resources for a handful of days they chose to go hunting while the farmer or rancher have no choice but to deal with them and the effects of how they are managed for 365 days a year. Pushing regulation after regulation based on personal ethics or beliefs down the throat of these people will accomplish nothing positive. Over the next two years hopefully people will take some time to think about how their actions will affect the entire hunting community. Sen. Tripletts comments should make each of us consider the fact there are far more people out there that do not understand hunting than there are that do. We can ill afford to be bickering amongst ourselves as hunters over these types of things.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Plainsman, I appoligize, I did not open the poll topic until now, and thus didn't know a discussion was already started. I don't think we want to look back or the same agruements will surface again. What can be done now for the future action? When does the governor sign the new proclamation? I ask because could this be implemented before 2 years pass again? If the principals met together, could they move it forward now?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't think we want to look back or the same agruements will surface again.


I guess I don't understand the comment about looking back. Since 80% of the people would support a ban on the large bait piles wouldn't it make since to do that as a step forward?

gst, I have not been interested enough to follow this whole thing. What do you support? I notice you worry about disease also, does that mean you want a total or partial ban? Glad to hear they are taking action against bringing in diseased livestock.

So Dick your concerned about disease with baiting, and gst is concerned with over population, and the farming industry is taking steps to keep infected livestock out, right so far? So then I assume everyone agrees that the large bait piles and over population are of great concern right?

It sounds like we need to support the ag industry in their efforts to keep out infected livestock, ban large bait piles, and shoot more does. Anyone disagree?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I have to ask, if the ban had passed, would you be looking for a compromise position? Yes or no? It's interesting how people's positions change. I have maintained that large yearound feeding operations do change natural deer movement and behavior and as such should not be allowed.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Sorry but I don't think putting a quantity on baiting is gonna do any good. It's gonna turn into an enforcement nightmare similar to the "FEDs" baited field concept for waterfowl.

I'm still gonna stand my ground that baiting just isn't necessary. In my nearly 35 years of deer hunting have NEVER seen the need. Even when deer populations were 1/2 to 1/3 of what they are now. There are a few ethical reason being thrown out there as a reason to have baiting but they don't really hold water. 15 years ago you never heard of any one baiting in ND except maybe the occasional salt block. If it was done no one ever talked about it (maybe because they were embarassed?) Is it a coincedence that baiting became popular about the same time as the commercialization of deer hunting made trophy hunting come to ND. I think not. It's not about better hunting it's about assuring success and it doesn't even do that. I can't count the number of guys that claim to bait because it's the best way to get closer to bigger deer then complain in the next breath because the big deer are too smart to come to the bait during shooting hours. So it works but it doesn't ???? It's an illusion many have suckered themselves into. TV hasn't helped. They show you a deer come in to bait then the hunter take a low percentage shot anyway. :eyeroll: Yep baiting sure made that more ethical.

I know guys have their reasons but the sport definately loses something in the end.

Rant Rant


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

drove by a 160 acre cornfield a few days ago,,,I stopped counting at around 250. If I plant a 5 acre Food Plot in some areas it will create neagative results to some, Farm Bureau members/supporters want what is good for the few that seem to know what is good for our whole group, some seem to think that they have the answer for problems for all. Some think we should shoot only primitive long bows, shoot only primitive muzzle stuffers, dont bait, no new technology. Thank God those people are dwindling!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

looking back = blame game, recriminations. If it is possible to move it forward it has to be positive. Won't fly otherwise, people will just dig in again.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Bustem36 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty simple solution.
> ...


I agree, im no law writer or lawyer, im sure those that know the ways of this sort of thing could write it up better, just throwing out some pretty simple solutions to a pretty simple "problem".


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Good to see.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good Morning Dick,

Personally I think it's time to be optimistic. There is always going to be some resistance to any bill, but coming right off a vote that turned down the last proposal we have 80% this morning in the poll supporting banning large bait piles.
I think all of us are a little skeptical when ever something new is happening. This may be something we take a step at a time and it may be something that requires only this first step. It would appear the vast majority of people are ready to do something, they were just unwilling take the big plunge. 
This isn't a time to regroup, it's time to strike while the iron is hot.

So gst, it sounds like you will be agreeable to something like this also. I think many who disagreed in the past should now stand shoulder to shoulder. The fight was fought, and today we bicker some. Tomorrow we should get together and take a step for the resource.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Sorry Dick, no compromise, period.

With all due respect, I believe Dick will use ths thread as a foundation for his next push on this, one of his personal vendettas. So being, I suggest caution in how you respond. Your written words here could well end up supporting his personal agenda in a meeting or legislative session down the road..


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

What I'm agreeable to is listening to what the people representing all of the people of the state of ND have said not once, not twice, but on three seperate ocassions. The states legislature reaching this conclusion no less than 3 times has had a little to do with their understanding that a ban by itself will do nothing to PREVENT disease. I am very willing to bet that if this had gone the other way NOT ONE SUPPORTER of SB2351 would be on here calling for compromise. Dick am I wrong? Quite hypocritical in my veiw. As a rancher I must reiterate unless the agency in charge of managing our states deer as well as the states "sportsmen" are willing to listen and work directly with the ranching community to address our concerns for a comprehensive, effective disease program, which they have stated they will not in very recent meetings regarding this bill and in posts on this site, the only thing any form of a ban will accomplish is making access that much more difficult, accomplishing nothing. People must realize that one of the reasons ND has not had a significant disease problem, while all other states surrounding us have, is largely due to the fairly effective measures the livestock community has used itself. Perhaps our voice should carry a little weight in determining this prevention program.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think 4-5 months of below freezing weather has an effect on disease also. I'm pretty sure if disease was going to happen it would be on full scale by now. How long will the the diseases we are concerned about live outside the body in below freezing temps?



> 15 years ago you never heard of any one baiting in ND except maybe the occasional salt block. If it was done no one ever talked about it (maybe because they were embarassed?)


Just look at the crowd that has shown up in the last 15 years and you should be able to figure out why the complaints started then. I think we agree the young ones are way more vocal than we used to be. They have went beyond respect for others ideas and property to some sort of hardcore sport of who can stand alone at the top. I think they were pampered to much as children and when they did something wrong the parents justified it so they would feel good for raising such little a-holes.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There are at least 2 consequenses of a disease outbreak, one for livestock and one for wildlife. Neither is good. We could agree on that?

A prohibition on baiting could slow the transfer of that disease. Can that be agreed to?

The sooner its done, the better off ND would be. The longer we wait the more risk involved. Agreed?

A ban would implemented in one of 2 ways. By direct action of state departments without sportsman input, or sportsmen would get proactive now and try to include some of their concerns in the ban. Agree on that?

Large scale baiting should be terminated. Agree on that?

The alternative seems to be to wait until the TB outbreak occurs beyond this one ranch in SW ND, which is where we are now.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The ban on baiting can written and put into effect by governor's proclamation right now. No need to wait 2 years. We know that.

We know who the principal supports of the ban are. NDGF, ND Agriculture Dept., ND Weed Control Assc., ND Stockman's Assc., ND Farmers Union, Wildlife Society, ND Wildlife Federation, REMF, and there were some other wildlife groups. We know that.

I wasn't at the hearing , so someone else from the opposition to the ban would have to identify the principals for the opposition. They could select several spokesmen. Can that be done? Could NDPGOA compile the list if they are willing?

The problem as I see it now is that Governor Hoven would be in a tough spot to sign a ban through proclamation, unless all of the above principals agreed. If NDGF asked for the ban on their own, by proclamation, how can Governor Hoven go against the intent of the legislature, who just killed the bill? (Unless the TB situation blows up.) I don't know, but I don't think he would.

But if the principals were in agreement, and then went to Governor Hoven, it might be possible. Heck, get a few of the legislators from both sides on this committee too.

The legislature would be off the hook. Governor Hoven would be off the hook. NDGF and the ND Ag Department would be off the hook. And the pro and con sportsmen couldn't ***** because they had input to some degree.

Everybody gets a little credit and a few rocks in their pudding. What would be the harm in trying?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Dick Monson said:


> There are at least 2 consequenses of a disease outbreak, one for livestock and one for wildlife. Neither is good. We could agree on that?
> 
> A prohibition on baiting could slow the transfer of that disease. Can that be agreed to?
> 
> ...


No we can't agree on that, and your trying to put your words in other's mouths/your spin on it, is why. What part of "no compromise" was not clear?...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

One more group that would certainly have to be represented would be the ND Bowhunters Assc. Any others?

The Governor's office has a representative or contact man, have him moderate the discussion. Would that work?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Hey Dick,

How about you start working on regulating livestock imports first!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Cass County Wildlife was neutral, United Sportsman opposed, Farm bureau opposed, NDPGOA opposed. Funny thing is we offered to negotiate before the hearing when the bill was first introduced. We were basically told where to go, funny how things change. We are still interested in a gallon-age law.

Also Sporting Chance, and Disabled Vetrans hunting group


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We are still interested in a gallon-age law.


Same here g/o, but how do we stop the guys from bickering. Sure they ruffled each others feathers, but are they willing to risk the resource, and livestock disease to get even with each other. :eyeroll:

Currently it would appear the vast majority favor keeping the small bait piles. The only thing in the way now is some mistrust, and some vindictiveness. I hope people are big enough to put that aside for something that is beneficial to most people sportsmen and ranchers.

gst, what is it you want support with? Also, does everything have to be lumped? Can we ban the large bait piles now that most agree to that and take up what you want as a separate issue? Give me your opinion please.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst said:


> Dick, I have to ask, if the ban had passed, would you be looking for a compromise position? Yes or no?


No answer with four posts after the question...........interesting.



NDTerminator said:


> Sorry Dick, no compromise, period.
> 
> With all due respect, I believe Dick will use ths thread as a foundation for his next push on this, one of his personal vendettas. So being, I suggest caution in how you respond. Your written words here could well end up supporting his personal agenda in a meeting or legislative session down the road..


 :beer: :thumb:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, You were not at the hearing,Dick wasn't either. Everyone who spoke in opposition opposed large bait piles. Before we even think about a baiting law we still need to get in place something to stop infected cattle from moving into our state, so we can avoid what happened in MN. Remember MN has a baiting law and the deer were infected by eating with the cattle. Deer are eating with cattle everyday here in the winter, think about it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

GO the ranching industry is right now putting legislation thru to increase surveliance and compliance with the regulations governing animals coming into our state as a means to address these concerns,
Plainsman, the thing about individual pieces of a puzzle, by themselves they are really only funny little shaped pieces of cardboard until they all come together at once. The ranching industry is waiting to see if the G&F and the "sportsmen" such as Dick and Ron have the "stones" as some on this site refer to in how they are going to deal with the over concentrations of deer we are dealing with in our operations right now. Hay yards protect feed, but do nothing to deal with the problem of overpopulation. Lets see what type of spin you guys can come up with to address this issue. Why is everyone all of a sudden having a hard time accepting the decision of the people we elected?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> gst wrote:
> Dick, I have to ask, if the ban had passed, would you be looking for a compromise position? Yes or no?
> 
> No answer with four posts after the question...........interesting.


Let me ask you one, no disrespect intended.

Did defeating the the baiting bill solve the disease question for either livestock or wildlife? I'm thinking the original problem is still there. Can we agree on that? So what is gained by leaving it unresolved? 
Take the pro side and the con side to an informal committee type setting where isn't any politics. Jim might be able to speak to the opposition side and see what could shake out. Visit with ND Bowhunters Assc. too, bowhunters having many concerns on volume.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I don't get to worked up over these things so no disrespect is taken or worried about. I have ALWAYS maintained that baiting is a transference issue not a causation issue so regardless of the result of the vote, by itself this bill did nothing to PREVENT disease. If we can agree on that great! Hopefully that answers your question better than you have mine.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

In answer to your question, no I would not have asked. I don't raise beef and I don't hunt deer. I'm a grain farmer and deer are like giant mice to me. If the deer evaporated overnight I'd be money ahead. And I hunt upland so my hunting isn't impacted either way. But wildlife and livestock both are assets to all of us. So I have an interest as should everybody else.

However, the probelm is not resolved with the defeat of the bill. We arfe just back to square one. You are a cattleman you say. Your industry faces some tough choices in these tough times.

Maybe Jim can check his contacts to see if anything can be resolved.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why is everyone all of a sudden having a hard time accepting the decision of the people we elected?


I don't have a hard time accepting it. It went the way I prefer. Now I see an opportunity to do it right.



> The ranching industry is waiting to see if the G&F and the "sportsmen" such as Dick and Ron have the "stones" as some on this site refer to in how they are going to deal with the over concentrations of deer we are dealing with in our operations right now.


Well the thing about puzzles is there has to be a first piece laid. Then your right they come together. Waiting to see what Dick and Ron do however, is simply holding the resource hostage. Both the baiting and your problem can be worked on at the same time, yours can be solved first, or the baiting can be solved first. I don't think it's good public relations to dump on the resource until you get your way. It certainly wouldn't be good public relations for me to say I will not help you until you help me. I say jump on the first opportunity.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, we don't face as tough times or choices as you make it out. Our industry has been very vigilant in dealing with our issues before they become problems. We have always had strict measures in place, more so than the surrounding states, and are in the process of putting additonal enforcement and survelience in place. We've delt with these issues successfully before. My purpose for starting on this site was to see if other sportsmen were concerned with the overpopulation problems enough to urge the agency in charge to do something more than what they have been about it to address this primary disease threat. This proved harder than I thought with some folks. 
Plainsman the ranching industry has been waiting for someone to lay this first piece of the puzzle in dealing with the overpopulation, concentration issues for several years and have been flatly refused so perhaps you can understand a little sceptisism in thinking if we lay the first piece of the puzzle others would follow. This was again backed up when the NDSA came out in support of this bill as a start but was told bluntly by the G&F they would not address our other concerns at a meeting held on this legislation. 
Dick I do admire your answering honestly that you would have been less magnanimus in victory. But your admission reinforces the fact that had you gotten what you wanted our industry would have then been left hanging. Hopefully someone steps up to address this problem. Calving has officially started so not much time for this sort of thing so addios.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Dick, we don't face as tough times or choices as you make it out.


gst, I simply meant with a drought going on is hard on livestock producers and so is a falling economy where people switch to less expensive meats. No slight intended.

Since the ND State Ag Department, Farmers Union, and ND Stockmen Association testified for the bill, possibly they prioritize the disease threat differently than some individuals.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

gst,

I am curious as to your thoughts on what the Game and Fish Department can do in addition to providing nearly unlimited antlerless tags in many units.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm an avid bowhunter and I'm totally against your position Dick. The manner in which you tried to force this down everyone's throats and totally disregarded anyone's view if they did not agree with you has insured that I & others who you alienated won't budge an inch.

And frankly, citing the NDBA's position on this has about the same relevence as citing say... the ND Curling Association's. It sounds impressive for those who don't know but in actuality NDBA speaks for a small fraction of ND bowhunters, and is primarly concerned with self perpetuation and promoting the views/desires of a very small core group. I quit paying dues to them years ago, when this became apparent...

People, this is just like dealing with gun control advocates. deafeat them, then they want to "compromise". Once you agree to compromise, they are not satisfied, but use that as a foothold to chip away until they get what they really want.

Don't be fooled by Dick's sudden desire to "compromise"...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Aythya You'll have to go back and read what I've already wrote. It says this is my 36th entry which is about 35 more than I ever intended when I first got on here. 
Dick you seem to like putting what ever spin on things it takes to get them to go your way. Have you considered getting in politics?????
It seems there is alot of rehashing the same old stuff on here.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Point being that sometime in the next 2 weeks we'll get the TB report on the cattle in SW ND that are being liquidated because the disease was found there.

Since the TB bacillus doesn't sleep or pay dues to any group that can tell it what to do, I think the cattlemen have more of a concern than hunters. And of course TB stands beside us on the other end of the state. Please understand that if the outbreak that is here now spreads, hunters only loose a few opportunities. But the cattle industry looses it's TB free status, which can drop the market price of beef for the whole state. And cost you a pile of tax money. But you knew that already.

It would seem that we could safegard hunting opportunities and protect stockmen at the same time. I think that is a win-win for all, and the cost of discussing it is like zero.

G/O will probaly check out his side for this meeting and let us know.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote from Dick Monson;



> People need to understand that wildlife law in North Dakota is as corrupt as Chicago politics. When a legislator stands to make money for himself with a law change, he should recuse himself. But this is good old North Dakota where our publicly owned wildlife is sold to the lowest bidder.


Way to go Dick that should really help our cause, do ever really wonder why you guy's are always losing?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Never be afraid of the truth. So, let us know when you're ready to get together.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I appreciate your "sudden" concern for the cattle industry. If you truly are worried and committed to protecting it, get the G&F to give us the tools to reduce some of the localized over concentrations of deer in our yards that are the greatest risk of disease transference from cattle to deer or vice versa. Get this done and the ranching industry might believe your scincerity about accomplishing something.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Just look at the crowd that has shown up in the last 15 years and you should be able to figure out why the complaints started then.


I'm not prepared to fault the "new" hunters. There are just as many "old" guys that have started doing it. Unfortunately greed has turned a "sport" into a multi billion dollar industry uke: and everyone want's their share. That share most often being recognition. The perception is if you don't harvest big bucks or multiple numbers of deer you are not much of a hunter. Baiting helps, or at least many think it does, accomplish that goal and they are gonna fight to hold on to that perceived advantage.

Disease is a big concern, particularly when populations are at the level they are. Often disease will run it's course in small populations just due to "space" between the animals but when population densities are high once disease gets a foothold it's gonna spread like wildfire. The worst part is that even if/ when such an occurance does happen unfortunately the "baiters" will find themselves with even more need to bait. I guess it's not enough that we have weapons that can shoot out to 500 yards and numerous other advantages over our game.

I know my viewpoint might be traditionalist but I don't want hunting to turn into a "privilage".


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Dick Monson said:


> So, let us know when you're ready to get together.


I notice you weren't so eager to compromise before your bill got shot down, again.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Pretty simple solution.
> 
> You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.
> 
> ...


 BBJ, changed your mind?

gst, the solution to your problem is so simple, but you don't like the color of the medicene, so don't hijack this thread with linkage. Start your own thread. Cyber space is cheap.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick I'm not really following your "simple solution" or "color of the medicine" or "highjacking this thread with linkage" comments????? Maybe you can be more specific? I'm kinda new to this thread deal , but I thought I was just responding to some points on this one, didn't know your rules were that I need to start a new one????? I'm having a hard time understanding where your almost rabid veiwpoint on this baiting issue is coming from. You aren't a rancher to be concerned with disease, you say you hunt upland, not deer, you said if the deer evaporated overnite you'd be money ahead, and you refer to them as giant mice, it seems you don't really have a dog in this hunt as they say. But yet you seem determined to push your agenda on the people that do, even after it has been made clear for the third time most people don't agree with it. Let me know what you get done with the G&F to start dealing with the ranchers concerns!!!


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

gst said:


> Dick I'm not really following your "simple solution" or "color of the medicine" or "highjacking this thread with linkage" comments????? Maybe you can be more specific? I'm kinda new to this thread deal , but I thought I was just responding to some points on this one, didn't know your rules were that I need to start a new one????? I'm having a hard time understanding where your almost rabid veiwpoint on this baiting issue is coming from. You aren't a rancher to be concerned with disease, you say you hunt upland, not deer, you said if the deer evaporated overnite you'd be money ahead, and you refer to them as giant mice, it seems you don't really have a dog in this hunt as they say. But yet you seem determined to push your agenda on the people that do, even after it has been made clear for the third time most people don't agree with it. Let me know what you get done with the G&F to start dealing with the ranchers concerns!!!


Very well said, GST... :beer:

This issue and game ranches are Dick's pet puppies. Do a search on his prior posts in regard to these issues, both here and in the Legislative Forum, to see how tolerant he is of the opposing viewpoint or how open he is when evidence is brought up that supports it.

I think your choice of "rabid" to describe his opposition is apt. Thus, this sudden desire to seek a compromise position & support from those in opposition to him is extremely suspect...

He made his bed, now he can lie in it...


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

One thing for sure though, if these guys put that energy into something we thought was viable we would be right there with them. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Both sides can whine forever, but that leaves the deer and the cattle unprotected. If both sides try chop the legs out from under each other nothing gets accomplished. I do think things need to get done for wildlife and ranchers. When are we going to stop downing each other and do something. We laugh at these crazy people in the middle east because they hold grudges for 2000 years. Reading this thread it looks like we are well on our way.

I need to check some other threads and I need to call some of my kids so I don't have time to go back through everything. Gst what is it that you want from the Game and Fish that would make you happy? To me it appears your want to hold any progress on this hostage until you get your way on something, but I don't know what that something is. If it is reasonable lets get with it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

gst, you may post anything you wish where you wish. I don't set the rules nor would I censor if I could. But I hope to stay on topic. My point is that threads on these forums get turned from the original intent and go south.

This topic was a possible baiting law that could be workable to all parties. That may not possible, events may have moved past that point already. But as information comes forward maybe it will be possible in the future.

Wildlife is a public natural resource, owned physical public property by law. How could any thinking person say *"they don't have a dog in this fight?"* The commercializers always try to segment their confiscation in small increments by species to seperate hunters. And it works. They count and depend on this tactic.

This session they have gone after the upland hunters with 3 bills. Next session the waterfowl hunters. Then big game, oops maybe that was last session. So ND hunters who think they don't have a dog in the fight, are blindsided to find support for *their* hunting opportunity shriveled when their turn comes infront of the chainsaw.

Shortly the results of the TB testing in SW ND will be known and courses of action beyond our control will be decided. Possibly baiting decisions can be reviewed at that time.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Baiting is always wrong, always unsportsmanlike, not considered fair chase, illegal for almost every other specie ( with good reason) and always the way of the market hunter.

Its the easy way, that the people stealing (selling) North Dakotas hunting heritage from future generations are very happy to promote with any excuse they can drum up. Make a profit and the hell with North dakotas kids...

Without guys Like Dick Monson you would all be looking over a 
"no tresspassing" sign like the rest of the country


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Bobm said:


> Baiting is always wrong, always unsportsmanlike, not considered fair chase, illegal for almost every other specie ( with good reason) and always the way of the market hunter.
> 
> Its the easy way, that the people stealing (selling) North Dakotas hunting heritage from future generations are very happy to promote with any excuse they can drum up. Make a profit and the hell with North dakotas kids...
> 
> ...


Bob, sure glad we have guys like you & Dick around watch out for the rest of us and tell what's right & wrong. Couldn't function without you... :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

YOU wish you could function without guys like Dick and I :lol: that would clear the WAY FOR every single north Dakotan TO pay the likes of ND hunter for the "Priviledge" of hunting

after all we all know we owe commercial hunters Like Nd for the "right" to hunt...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman I'll repeat myself again, for the last time! The ranching industry is taking the steps we need to protect our industry thru legislation designed to increase survelience and enforcement of a strict set of rules we already have in place. The NDSA placed the first piece of the puzzle by supporting SB2351 and the G&F flatly refused to work with them to give us the tools to reduce these localized overpopulations and overconcentrations that we have in our hay yards that we feel are the greatest threat of disease transference. WHY???????? Can you or Dick answer? As I have ALWAYS said , without effective tools to reduce population a ban on baiting of any sort does very little. After hearing the legislation speak on this issue for the 3rd time, I'm inclined to simply listen to them. 
Dick if my cattle get out and do damage as the owner I'm liable, if as you say "Wildlfie is a public natural resource,owned physical public property by law." who is liable for damage? Please let us know where to send the bill!!! From your comments here and the one on another thread about the TB case in the SW insinuating it might make it easier to pass a bill banning baiting, it almost seems as if you want something negative to happen so your ban on baiting can happen despite 3 clear messages sent already.
Bobm, I gotta tell you I've heard more landowners deciding to post their land because of people like Dick who want to shove their beliefs and agendas down everyones throat through more and more regulations. This mentality will do more to close land to the public in the future than anything else.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> G&F flatly refused to work with them to give us the tools to reduce these localized overpopulations


What tools are you talking about? Do you mean you want them to put up high fences? Do you want them to give out more doe permits? Do you want landowners to be given landowner permits? What tools are you talking about. Maybe the G&F should help, maybe they don't have the tools, I don't understand. 
I can see if you own land and hunt that you would want to get your deer first. Do you let other hunters in after that? There are many things I am just left guessing at, but I don't want to assume. Give me a chance to understand what your talking about.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I don't have that many posts, please take the time to reveiw!!!!!! You'll find I'm pretty consistant in my position.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

gst,

I have read your posts on this thread but to be honest I can't find anything that tells me what you would propose to G&F to deal with population control. I apologize if I missed it here, and maybe it is on another thread.

I see clearly that you want some addition measures but can't tell what specifics you propose.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Please click on my posts and read. I'm done repeating myself. After all this back and forth I'm content to work to protect and improve our ranching industry and spend the next 2 years enjoying the great hunting we have with friends and family until you guys feel it necessary to try to push this down our throats for the 4th time. Perhaps by then the legislature will tire of this continueing saga of imposing ones personal ethics onto someone else. Good Day!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, I don't know, I went back, but I can not identify a tool that you want. I see your angry with people who wanted this last bill past. I posted a couple of times that I would like to see small bait piles allowed. I started a thread to see how many others agree. I have not tried to push anything down your throat, only to understand what you want. We can do nothing together if we have no idea what you want.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, you're apparently not getting the obvious. The primary thing I have been suggesting for the I don't how manyeth time, ADDITIONAL EFFECTIVE POPULATION CONTROL METHODS ABOVE THE CURRENT METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIED AND FAILED TO REDUCE REGIONAL OVERPOPULATIONS THAT HAVE LED TO LOCALIZED OVERCONCENTRATIONS IN OUR HAY YARDS SUCH AS WE ARE SEEING IN EVEN GREATER DEGREES THIS WINTER WHICH THE CATTLE INDUSTRY BELIEVES IS THE GREATEST THREAT OF DISEASE RISK. THESE WOULD INCLUDE SUCH THINGS AS DEPREDATION TAGS OR ADDITIONAL LATE SEASON HUNTS TO REDUCE POPULATION. FENCES DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS NUMBERS! In regards to your assumption that I'm "angry with people who wanted this last bill past". you're simply mistaken. Annoyed yes, angry no. People who seem to think they know more and want to push their agendas or bans of one thing or another on others REPEATEDLY (3 times on this issue alone) tend to annoy me, but angry, not over something such as this. If you don't fall into this catagory great, I really don't have time to keep repeating what I've already said and it gets "annoying" doing so. I've got a houseful of kids that seem to pick up on what I say and mean better than some on here. I'm done.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I do have to apologize, I took my own advice and "clicked" on my posts and it only shows a portion of them. You'll just have to take the time to go back thru the baiting thread and the one Ron started to catch my points. Thanks


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

gst.. don't apologize I was able to follow your train of thought. This subject is like mercury, when we touch it it flies into many smaller pieces or just disappears for a while. You have repeatedly wrote, the measures currently being used to control whitetail deer population are not working. Isn't it weird that probably every person in the state knows that but it still doesn't change..hmmmm do we (G&F) like selling tons of licenses or what??

I have concluded it is the sportsmen themselves who will not humble themselves to ask permission to be on private property, it must be like giving the other team the ball or something like that in their minds. A hunter will proudly ask permission to invade another hunters territory, even dogs do that when they can.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob is right.....if baiting is so good to get them in close......why shouldn't we be allowed to throw some corn out when we but out our waterfowl decoys?Draw them in good close killing range.....isn't that why deer baiting is popular?

I don't see much difference in the 2.The only baiting I see as plauseable is for bears.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, ok, I found your post about free depredation permits to landowners. I would not be in favor of that. Maybe I have worked in law enforcement to long and have become over suspicious. These are the things I would worry about:
1 landowner charges and gets an income off a public resource.
2 landowner uses a barter system to trade free permits for favors or goods
3 landowner simply uses them for browny points in the community
4 it cheats the people who have purchased doe license and can't hunt the same property.
I could go on, but I see free permits to landowners as the public getting ripped off again.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Dick Monson said:


> > Pretty simple solution.
> >
> > You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.
> >
> ...


Absolutely not. I could have cared less what way this bill went as I dont bait. I only argue in here as I feel the main issue with this bill was jealousy and personal ethics. I also argue AGAINST the bill THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN as I feel it is wrong to punish everybody for the greed of a few (in reference to the big bait piles). 99% of the bait piles used, are small enough to fit in a 5-gallon bucket, I see NOTHING wrong with that. No different than a mock scrape or decoy in my opinion. But if you had your way, that would be illegal.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dean Hildenbrand was right when he said why the G&F wouldn't use depredation tags while he was at the helm. His reasoning: The sportsmen of ND wouldn't stand for it they think the landowner already gets to good of a deal with a "free"gratis tag. Stated at a G&F advisory meeting in Bottineau. Plainsman, if I understand correctly, you're a retired USFWS biologist, some folks think we should listen to the "experts" what would you purpose to deal with overpopulations and overconcentrations to address the concerns of the ranching industry. In response to your concerns:
1 You cannot sell a dep.tag
2.Whose going to trade anything for a $20 doe tag
3. We know who can best use these tags and the meat in our communitys
4. Not everyone GETS to hunt private land. At least this way some would.
So our providing habitat and crops that this overpopulation of deer (owned public property by law as Dick states,) eat and live on private lands year round and dealing with the damage they cause can all be covered with a "free" gratis tag worth $20? Sounds more like the landowner is the one "getting ripped off again"!!! Please share some of your ideas to deal with these problems.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

KEN W said:


> Bob is right.....if baiting is so good to get them in close......why shouldn't we be allowed to throw some corn out when we but out our waterfowl decoys?Draw them in good close killing range.....isn't that why deer baiting is popular?
> 
> I don't see much difference in the 2.The only baiting I see as plauseable is for bears.


Ken,

I agree that waterfowl baiting should be legal too. It's no different than the boys down south flooding fields. I don't see the difference in throwing a handfull of corn out in your decoys or hunting in a picked cornfield with waste on the ground. As long as you do not exceed your limit what's the harm?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, my majors were entomology and botany. I worked in wetland ecology. I'm not going to pretend I am a big game biologist. It's been to long since I studied any of that. I don't think biology is going to solve this problem anyway. It's going to be solved by herd reduction. That doesn't take a biologist to figure that out unless your a wacko job like PETA who wants to sterilize them. I would prefer we solve the problem with rifles.

I'll have to think about how that problem can be solved. However, if you don't let anyone one I would say the problem is yours. You will have to find people you trust to use the doe tags they have now.

I don't know it just appears you have a chip on your shoulder for the Game and Fish, and sportsmen. Maybe I am wrong, if so tell me so.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, No chip on the sholder for either the G&F or the sportsman. The G&F are an absolutely necessary agency that have the thankless duty of managing our states wildlife. Their job is to do their best to keep all wildlife populations at healthy manageable levels. I'm aware this isn't an easy proposition. But they have by their own admission failed to do so in regards to our deer herd. As I've said everyone has to set up and be a part of the solution of reducing numbers. This year we had over 35 deer shot off ours and a relatives land directly by ours by several different people to try and do our part. All I'm expecting is the G&F to step up and do theirs. As far as the sportsman, I consider myself one and as long as nobodys an a$$ demanding the "right to a quality hunting experience" I really don't have a problem with anyone. It seems like I'm kinda repeating myself over and over here and I'm sure some are getting as tired of it as I am so if you can't figure it out I'm not going to keep on. I'll just wait to hear yours and Dicks or anyone else solution!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, gst, that sounds good. I am happy you consider yourself a fellow sportsman, and I am happy you let others hunt your property. It sounds like you and others harvested a good number of deer off your property. I guess your still being over run the way it sounds. I'm not sure what the Game and Fish should do. I guess I will just wait and see what kind of ideas people have. If I can think of anything that hasn't already been posted I will post up.

Meanwhile I don't know why we can't go ahead on the things we agree on. Don't you think holding up a ban on the large bait piles punishes the resource for something you want out of a state agency? I have no problem with the small bait piles, but I have read some data that I am convinced proves the large bait piles are a health hazard to deer and in turn to your operation.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, So we should allow the state agency charged with the task of managing the states deer herd to continue to use the same ineffective methods without pushing for something new that addresses a major problem for both the deer and the ranching industry,overpopulation? But then we should circumvent the voice of the people, our state legislature, and disregard their decision on this particular legislation so another segment can be addressed. Like I've stated before, in trying to include more safeguards for our industry, our major concerns have been repeatedly dismissed by this agency and apparently many sportsmen. If people like yourself are this concerned perhaps you should be pressuring this agency rather than taking a "just wait and see" position that as you say"punishes the resource". Perhaps if people like you and Dick and Ron had spent as much time and effort to convince the G&F they should be working with the ranching industry to address these concerns as they did pushing for the bill as written, a total ban, we would maybe have some effective, comprehensive measures to put in place. I'm glad to hear you don't feel biology(science) will solve this problem, rather that herd (numbers) reduction will. Please relay those thoughts to the G&F!!!!!

.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

gst said:


> Perhaps if people like you and Dick and Ron had spent as much time and effort to convince the G&F they should be working with the ranching industry to address our concerns as you have pushing for the bill as written, a total ban, we would maybe have some effective, comprehensive measures to put in place.


I think Plainsman can be partially seperated off on this issue as I believe he would have supported an ammendment to this bill. Correct me if I'm wrong Plainsman!!

You are using a lot of Common Sense to your positions GST. Kudos to you!!!! :beer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Woodpecker, Thanks, I did edit my post while you were replying to get Plainsman off that hook.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think Plainsman can be partially seperated off on this issue as I believe he would have supported an ammendment to this bill. Correct me if I'm wrong Plainsman!!


Nope, your right. I guess I would have wrote the bill different to begin with. I have read a number of papers on disease. They addressed the disease issue with large bait piles, but I felt were insufficient on data of small bait piles. My personal observations make me doubt the small bait pile threat. 
It's hard to assess the situations with ranching sitting here at the keyboard. It sure would be fun to sit down with gst, g/o, Ron, and Dick. Many of us have the same goals, we just see different paths to the same destination.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> Pretty simple solution.
> 
> You allow bait of X amount or less legal, anything over X amount is illegal. Dont ask me how much, 5 gallons, 3 gallons, an ice cream pail full, I dont know, I dont care. Enforcement nightmare of course, but we already have plenty of those.
> 
> ...


Agree


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

gst.. they are working you so you get tired of the same ol BS over and over and quit posting. Don't let them stifle you. You have contributed greatly to this debate. Your common sense overwhelms theory.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Common sense? Jeez, think about it a little bit. If your water bucket is too heavy to carry would you ***** about it or pour some out? People need to take a little responsibility themselves.

So somebody has too many deer.......
They could put their land into PLOTS, get a payment, get rid of the deer.
Or they could post with WALKING HUNTERS WELCOME signs, and get rid of the deer. Or they could just not post it and ask deer hunters in. Or they could talk to thier neighbors and say we have too many deer and need to get some responsible hunters in to thin out deer. Or they could sign up with the NDGF program to direct hunters to their property.

Or they could do like the rancher at Hawksnest west of Carrington, who served free chile to deer hunters opening weekend if they hunted does on his land. Pretty simple to solve the problem but easier to woof at NDGF.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Dick Monson said:


> Or they could do like the rancher at Hawksnest west of Carrington, who served free chile to deer hunters opening weekend if they hunted does on his land. Pretty simple to solve the problem but easier to woof at NDGF.


He gave them a free country?! 

Where was I on that one?! :lol:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, we've been pouring water out of the bucket for the last several years. The only "b!tching" I've done on here started a month ago when you tried shoving your ethics down our throat for the 3rd time. The most deer we ever had in our yard was about 9 or 10 years ago when there was over 500 for a 6 month period during the winter. The G&F solution, sprinkle a little dried blood around and put up some flashing lights, and blow snow up over our bales! We decided that instead of relying on these innovative ideas, perhaps we were better off dealing with the problem ourselves. We went out the next several seasons and stoped many hunters,asked if they had doe tags, took them to our yard, walked our trees and had dozens of deer shot each year. We had friends and neighbors come in and fill tags sitting in our hay yards. This whole time we posted basically only the 1/2 section on which we live and run our cattle, less than 10% of the land we could have closed to public hunting. And very little, less than 5% of the other land around us was posted as well. After attending several G&F advisory meetings and getting nowhere with either this agency or any of the sportsman groups people there we decided to close our land to walk on hunters and try to deal with the issue ourselves. In the last 5 years while letting many people we know come in and continue to take literally dozens of deer off land around were we live each year, we have reduced numbers without the help of the agency in charge of managing the states deer while they have by their own admission failed to accomplish this themselves in many other areas of the state, one of which surrounds us. If you consider holding the agency charged with managing our states wildlife accountable for failing to do their job to the point disease issues are now becoming a concern woofing at the G&F, so be it, but please don't lecture me about taking a little responsibility when you have no idea of what has been done. Better yet, slow down and read what has been wrote, and you might realize what we have been trying to do ourselves. I have yet to hear you call for this agency or the sportsman groups to which you may belong to "take a little responsibility themselves". Dick, just curious, where are you on this initiated measure that is being talked about regarding the baiting issue?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Common sense? Jeez, think about it a little bit. If your water bucket is too heavy to carry would you b#tch about it or pour some out? People need to take a little responsibility themselves.


I wouldn't ***** about anything, I would just carry it a little slower then sell the extra water to the idiots who dumped theirs out. :lol:

But then literally I have walked many miles carrying full buckets.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> G&F flatly refused to work with them to give us the tools to reduce these localized overpopulations


Unfortunately the tool that would provide the most benefit is not under the control of the Game and Fish, but the landowner. That tool is access. Often the access problem isn't to the land where the problems acctually occur but those surrounding, support properties. Kind of like a neighbor throwing his garbage over the fence. While G&F are often able to work with individual landowners, "spot" access is not an effective or long term solution.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Some of you guys aren't getting the concept behind the depredation tag, You only get tags if you can show you have a problem. In the ranching community this is almost always when the deer move into our hay yards in large numbers. These deer may very well come from property where hunting is not allowed, but when they congregate in these areas where the depredation tag is given they are then able to be shot. This seems like a logical way to get those deer harvested. DEPREDATION TAGS ONLY WORK IF ACCESS IS ALLOWED. The landowner can't simply take his 20 tags, or what ever percentage of harvest is applicable, and go shoot deer, they have to be given to someone!!The areas that these deer typically congregate and do damage and have the greatest risk of disease transference are areas that are typically posted even if the rest of someones land is left open, such as home yards and areas surrounding where cattle winter. Most times access will not be given in these areas unless the landowner is very comfortable with who is going to be shooting here. Depredation tags are not "the answer" by themselves , but are only part of the solution. Implementing this program would show a willingness to work with the landowner for once. Are people really that worried about someone getting an opportunity to shoot some does that otherwise they might not get to? I really don't understand the opposition to trying a program such as this. No one is shooting anyones big buck!!! "Spot access" is a very effective and longterm solution to overpopulation problems when it is used in areas where deer are congregated each year and significant numbers are taken. If the sportsman is that unwilling to support attempts such as this to reduce pop. and disease risk in these areas, our back yards, they can hardly expect the rancher to welcome them with open arms come hunting season either.
Dick if your still out there do you care to comment on the initiative to ban baiting that the NDWF is pursueing?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Just talked to some ranching friends in different parts of the state. It appears that while testifying this winter themselves, bringing in "experts" to testify to the "science of disease" behind banning baiting, and spending thousands of dollars on pamphlets, the NDG&F has been "baiting" deer away from hay yards this winter with programs of "intercept feeding". Can anyone tell me why, if this action does pose the terrible disease risk that was portrayed by many with their "science", why would this agency continue to use this practice??? 
Dick, do you know if this will be addressed in the NDWF's proposed iniated measure to ban baiting? Is this the "different baiting law" that you are now backing? You used to reply quite readily to these discussions. It seems as if you are ducking out of any comment about this.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Shhhh GST, the initiated measure is supposed to be a secret. No need to worry though, here is how it will go down:

A handful of people will collect signatures at the sport shows. When they are falling short of signatures, they will then ask HSUS to help. Most of the signatures will be collected by one man, some by HSUS and Kermit D. Frog. It will then be turned in to the Secretary of State with 7 missing top pages. They will then say, "Due to our goof...." Too bad, so sad for Kermit, his signature never had a chance to be validated.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know LT I understand gst and Dick, and I don't support a ban on all baiting. However, you could talk me into it. It's evident your not smart enough to be quiet while your ahead. I think you will keep poking the dog oke: until he bites all your friends.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

How much damage can a "Cyber" poodle do? :bowdown:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

LT said:


> How much damage can a "Cyber" poodle do? :bowdown:


I'm guessing we will find out. Also, you just gave the :Cyber: poodle, whoever that is, a lot of sympathy.

Sorry gst, I didn't intend to do that. I thought I was giving good advise.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, not really sure what you are apologizing for unless your in support of these types of initiated measures. As yet, I've only heard rumors of this measure being floated around and was just trying to see if anyone knew any facts regarding it's authenticity. Dick started this thread with the title "a different baiting law", apparently there may be one being attempted and now he seems unwilling to respond as to wether he knows or supports anything behind this initiated attempt to do an end run around our leg. decision.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I couldn't answer before, my computer was going nuts and I kept getting a debug code.



> Plainsman, not really sure what you are apologizing for unless your in support of these types of initiated measures.


No I was not apologizing for that. I'm one of the guys sitting on the fence. I have not gone to the outlaw baiting side, and I am not on let all baiting continue side. I'm in the middle, but I am afraid that my opinions from the past may have sparked another to post remarks that rub sore spots and may make people take sides that are against your position. That is not smart at all, but I apologized for perhaps causing that self destructive post.

I at this point don't see a problem with small bait piles. I do believe in landowner rights. I see landowners wanting the Game and Fish to give them depredation tags as an end run. I don't know you, I trust you, but wanting those tags just sends up red flags for me. I think that distrust has come from the commercialization of wildlife. As an example when the high fence initiative was started many said we were HSUS members. Well, I know I was not, people can read my posts for four years and know that's not true, but the other side tried to claim that. For me trust is now a hard thing to give, since I know bending the truth some people have no problem with. Not even bending it 180 degrees is a problem for them. So when one of them comes on your side up comes another red flag. It's hard not to just go the other way and support the complete ban on bait, but I am stopped from doing that by wanting to do whats right.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman,

Sympathy&#8230; I think you mistake my disgust and disdain. The fact is that if there would not have been 7 missing top pages to the petition, your petition would have then went through a validation process by the SOS. That never happened due to the missing pages. How convenient. You see if they would have had a chance to validate those sigs, the truth would have come out that there were 1000s of sigs that could not be validated due to missing addresses, illegible names, and yes, Kermit and company.

Now I have heard that some of the same little group of people are trying to start yet another initiative. It disturbs me that people who are supposedly so ethical will do about anything to shove their ethics down everyone else's throats.

I don't believe Plainsman that you are really concerned about me alienating and turning people to the other side; more so about me revealing anything that happened with the Fair Chase Inititiative as you know I am not bending straight lines.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Not trying to duck anything, after all I use my real name. 
 
Just letting the stew cook awhile and see what floats to the top on a different baiting law. The idea of a baiting measure is old news. That's been kicked around every year since 2001 that I know of. Probably longer.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ya but I notice you aren't using your real location anymore!!! So you're saying for the last 8 years this issue has been bugging you guys?? Wow, you gotta let go man! The thing with cooking stew is you have to stir it up a little bit, so here goes! Are you aware that an individual from NDWF is meeting with different org. in regards to an initiated measure to ban baiting and do you support this kind of action to circumvent the legislatures decision ? A yes or no answer to these questions would be considered"Not trying to duck anything"!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Nope, changed it from Valley City to Rabid City (I appreciated NDT's complement).  But I think you knew that as you may have been on nodak before you were gst. As I said before many people have kicked around the idea of initiated measures on many issues for many years. And I wouldn't doubt that will continue as long as the NDGF is locked out of writing wildlife law.

Possibly when the legislation season is over the various groups, rather than individuals, will have a sit down on baiting. One can only hope.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Actually Dick I never have been "on " nodak before posting anything prior to my first post some 50 + ago. You really should give politics a try, you have the ability to not directly answer yes or no questions as well as any polititian around!!!


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick said,



> And I wouldn't doubt that will continue as long as the NDGF is locked out of writing wildlife law.
> 
> 
> > People need to know where this struggle is coming from.
> ...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Did you all catch that. "Our preference is to see authority with Game and Fish rather than the legislature." It is a power grab.


I agreed with DG, there is a power grab by a few in the legislature, and I hope to see them out there spawning fish. Preferably northerns.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Power grab by the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Hogwash! The Chapter's view on wildlife management is simply that it should be left to professionals not the legislature. Those professionals are the Game and Fish Department biologists not the elected politicians.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Removed


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG, I know the guy your talking about and I have not heard him ever use those words. You are either thinking of someone else or ?

It wouldn't surprise me if your all mixed up. He told me he talked to someone at one of the meetings that came up to him all ticked off calling him names because you or someone thought he was me. 

You should get your ducks in a row before beginning character assassination.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman,

Well, well. Approximately 12 minutes after DG's post you already have a story regarding what happened. Hmmm.

I was at that particular meeting, the Jamestown Public Forum last year when DG was handing out a piece of paper which stated: ""Neither 'property' nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a of set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the 'property'--economically as well as legally...But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched." Thomas Sowell

I talked about that in this thread: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... c&start=40

When DG handed the wildlife biologist the paper, the biologist threw it back him and responded in the manner above.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well, well. Approximately 12 minutes after DG's post you already have a story regarding what happened. Hmmm.


Actually I heard about it just two months ago. I suppose I would have heard sooner, but being retired I don't see those guys often.



> When DG handed the wildlife biologist the paper, the biologist threw it back him and responded in the manner above.


"the wildlife biologist"????? I noticed you didn't mention the same name. That biologist never would have said what DG said. No question what so ever about that. I know some that you could perhaps frusterate to that point, but not that guy. No way, no how. He and I disagree often, but he isn't the kind of guy you want everyone to think. No matter what you guys said to him that guy would never let you make him loose his cool. Period, end of story.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Believe what you want Plainsman


 I will because there is no doubt in my mind. I have frustrated this guy enough to make him pull his hair out, but he never swore at me.

Oh, by the way I don't think they should be writing wildlife law either. Biologist who work for the government are employees of the people. The people should make the decision. However, our political representatives don't really represent the people very well. They often represent those with the most money or influence. That's why I prefer decisions in the voting booth above all else.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> but he never swore at me.


Must be cuz you don't own any land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

LT said:


> > but he never swore at me.
> 
> 
> Must be cuz you don't own any land.


I'll bet you dimes to dollars I have frustrated him more than you ever have, landowner or not.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Yesterday March 4th,

Roger Kaseman showed up at the N.D. Stockmens Association meeting and asked them to get on board. He is going to start an initiative to ban baiting of big game. He said he is also going to approach Farmers Union.

Ballot Box Biology!!!


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

DG said:


> Roger Kaseman showed up at the N.D. Stockmens Association meeting and asked them to get on board. He is going to start an initiative to ban baiting of big game.


Pushing Righteous Initiatives Californian Style.................This thing has been voted down how many times?? Polls from Nodakoutdoors showed there was a majority supporting the use of bait. The most current poll shows only 38% support a total ban! That is the second poll that I am aware of on Nodak.

IMO, Roger, you need to knock off this garbage!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> Yesterday March 4th,
> 
> Roger Kaseman showed up at the N.D. Stockmens Association meeting and asked them to get on board. He is going to start an initiative to ban baiting of big game. He said he is also going to approach Farmers Union.
> 
> Ballot Box Biology!!!


So what does the stockman's association think of it?

I think those of us who want the big piles gone and keep the small bait piles had better get together before it all goes. Like woodpecker said look at the poll. Although those who want an outright ban are in the minority if you take the small bait piles out of the picture then a ban is in the majority. We either meet half way and present a strong front, or the total ban just may win. If you drowning LT and DG it's not time to reach for an anchor. 
We have been on opposite sides before. Because of that do you want to continue to piss and moan and loose in the end or do you want to get together with people who have their hand out and are willing to meet half way?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> If you drowning LT and DG it's not time to reach for an anchor.
> We have been on opposite sides before. Because of that do you want to continue to piss and moan and loose in the end or do you want to get together with people who have their hand out and are willing to meet half way?


Let the scare tactics begin. Do you really think that compromise will ever be enough?

As "straw man" Roger said with the last initiative, "THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE!"


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Getting rid of huge bait piles and accepting small bait piles is meeting halfway. So now we are to meet half of half way? :lol:


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

LT said:


> Do you really think that compromise will ever be enough?


 IMO there is some room for compromise!!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

There is room for compromise on all of these outdoor issues, but sometimes egos get in the way Woodpecker!! Unfortunately we are the ones that will pay for that. :eyeroll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

We need a fishing for suckers emoticon on here... :lol:


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

buckseye said:


> We need a fishing for suckers emoticon on here... :lol:


 :stirpot:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Read thru a copy of the initiated measure to ban baiting. It is referred to as SB 2351 morphed into an initiated measure. No mention of "compromise", apparrently no-one learned anything from the all or nothing stance of the original bill. It is still being pushed as a disease issue, "support this measure and there will be no disease" type of mentality. But yet they still leave in the allowance for the G&F to continue feeding big game as was in the original bill. I have a question for anyone to please answer, I'm not a scientist or biologist so maybe I'm just looking at this wrong. If the "science" that was presented and testified to, and the dire consequences of allowing baiting to continue are true if I am the one dumping out a pail of screenings, wouldn't logic conclude that ANYONE dumping out screenings(the G&F) would have the same dire consequences based on this very same science? But yet this was and will be allowed. If anyone can explain this please do. Somehow this strikes me as talking out both sides of your mouth. With the individuals pushing this measure it will be ran the same way the high fence initiative was and most likely face the same results, and will do nothing to improve access with landowners, but rather cause even more land to be closed. Perhaps the real sportsmen of ND should simply say enough is enough!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Maybe we need to get together and by Roger Kaseman a one way ticket back to California! :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst there is nothing keeping anyone on here from starting a different initiative. If people have a choice in November which one do you think they will choose? Your simply being the anchor here. You may survive, but you may cause worse than compromise to happen. That's no scare tactic, that's reality. You can stay on this form crying the sky is falling until next election a big chunk of sky hits you right between the eyes, or we can actually together do something. If you do nothing you have no right to complain. So what's our next move?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I'm surprised you consider one person an "anchor" I've simply asked some questions and posed some possible starts to a solution that our industry would like the G&F to address. Your refusal to consider the use of depredation tags as one tool to reduce pop. could be veiwed as somewhat of an anchor in itself in this wish to "compromise'. The G&F are aware of the cattle industries concerns and I would imagine sometime a conversation will be had there between the 2 orgs. and we will see if they are truly willing to listen to the needs of our industry and "compromise" to achieve something effective. Having seen and heard some of the people behind this measure and reading how it's written, I'm fairly confident that the people in this state after having their representatives vote this down on 3 seperate occasions,will not support this end run. Even if the proponents try going down the HSUS radical anti hunting path once again in an attempt to further an agenda.
If you care to address my question about the execption for what the G&F have been doing feeding deer this winter I'd like to hear someones theories.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you care to address my question about the execption for what the G&F have been doing feeding deer this winter I'd like to hear someones theories.


I don't talk about things that I don't know enough about. I know, I know, odd ball right? 

You know I shouldn't even get involved in this because I don't have a dog in the fight. If tags were given away to anyone I am ok with it, but I can see a little profit under the counter if they go to landowners. You know, the free oil change at the local co-op, a steak dinner etc. No tracks, just bartering. 
I don't like to see the kid who wants a little edge on his first deer, or the farm kid who wants to pick up around the bin and take it into the trees by his stand not have a chance to do that. You guys want more than you should have. I will not support a bill that bans all baiting, but since you guys don't want to cooperate I'm done. If they eat you at the elections to bad. I would have been willing to speak up in your behalf, but you really don't want to give an inch, so your on your own.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I guess even with all the talk of compromise, give and take, and laying the first piece of the puzzle you are still unwilling to practice what you preach. Give a look in the dictionary to the definition of compromise. Your paranoia that someone may take advantage of the system and get a free oil change overshadows the fact the vast majority of ranchers are strong community minded folks and will gladly GIVE these tags to the people in their community that would get the best use from them. If you are so far removed from these types of neighbors helping neighbors rural values that you are suspect of everyone, it's really to bad. After 40 or 50 some posts conversing with the same people I'm back to my original thought this thread has mostly been a waste of time. It's a tough one to admit, but I should have listened to the wife right off the bat when she told me some people just never get it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry, but I am out of patience myself. There is no relationship between over population and baiting. One is simply used to blackmail for the other. I tried, I'm done.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Roger K. said he was going to contact Farmers Union and ask them for support. This is from Farmers Unions PROGRAM OF POLICY and ACTION

No.7 FEDERAL AG POLICY
We urge Congress to establish a federal watch dog division that our FSA, NRCS, Fish and Wildlife must be held accountable for their actions in dealing with farmers and rural issues.

This is a good idea. They could start with the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. There seems to be a lot of anti-landowner sentiments coming from there.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No anti-landowner sentiment, just pro wildlife and habitat sentiment. So biologists like animals. If I went to a bar I would expect to find people who drink alcohol. I however would not jump to the conclusion that they didn't like Pepsi.
I can see where you might make that mistake though. After all this guy who you think you know who he is and where he works you thought was me when you met him in Jamestown. Don't you think it's a bad idea to badmouth someone you perhaps have never met and don't know?
My original intent on this thread was to support landowners, but since you don't want support as much as to complain I will let you just continue your tirade alone.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

You are so mixed up. I never responded to Glen. It was Gene G. of Medina who accussed Glen of being "the" plainsman.

Legally, there is nothing wrong with you federal employees serving as lobbyists, moderaters and even president of some conservation and wildlife clubs. But technically there is. An old rule of thumb applies here.

Public servants would do well to avoid impropriety, or the appearance of impropriety. It is a conflict of interest.

So your original intent on this threat was to support landowners? 
Everyone can smell what you are standing in. No one is buying.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So your original intent on this threat was to support landowners?
> Everyone can smell what you are standing in. No one is buying.


I don't care if anyone buys it or not. I had three specific landowners in mind. I hunt on their land. One is 70 years old can hardly walk, and shoots a bow from a pit blind he dug with his tractor. It's lined with marine plywood 4 ft X 5 ft X 7 ft with a spruce planted on each side of the front door. They are about ten feet high now and trimed to let him crawl into the blind. He puts out five gallons of screening about every four or five days. The ***** eat a lot more than the deer.

I know the fellow very well. Thought I would post another time just to expose your bs thinking DG.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Yeah if the young and healthy push us old cripples aside I suppose we'll let them fill their bellies before we put the big push back on them. :lol:

The old and weak always get pushed around in the animal world. I guess I thought we had more separation than this is showing. :sniper:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I have to say, after giving it some time I'm surprised no one has offered an explanation to the question why the "science" behind banning baiting because of disease only applys to hunters dumping out a pail of screenings and not the "agency" with the intercept feeding program. Like myself, I'm sure most people have tired of the baiting dispute, but I thought for sure the scientologists like Dick or Ron would be able to explain. If anyone has an update on Mr. Kaseman's iniated measure it would be interesting to hear. From what I read the so called "exemption" for handicapped hunters is a joke. No more than 2 gallons placed no earlier than 1 hour before sunrise, and required to be removed not later than 1 hour after sunset. Better start carrying a dust buster and a flashlight!!!


----------

