# The baiting issue poll



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

*Where do you stand on baiting*​
No baiting2638.24%Small bait piles only2638.24%Any size bait pile1116.18%Ban large bait piles and revisit issue34.41%Allow small piles in September and October22.94%


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We just had a bill to ban baiting defeated here in North Dakota. Given the choices in this poll what would you prefer?

Would you ban all baiting?
Would you ban large bait piles and allow small bait piles?
Would you allow any size bait pile?
Would you ban large bait piles and support revisiting the issue if science proves there is significant disease risk to our deer herds?

Since deer congregate more as the weather grows more harsh which may lead them to congregate at smaller bait piles would you ban large bait piles and allow small bait piles in September and October and revisit the issue if science proves there is significant disease risk to deer herds?


----------



## wolf (Jan 6, 2008)

Some think CWD was caused by bone marrow from sheep in mineral blocks and deer attractants mixed will salt sold at the local store.Baits not the whole problem just another issue that negatively impacts deer hunting.I put out bait to bring deer to me , I use a trailcam hooked up to a satalite to tell me when they come in I shoot a sniper rifle 700yds to kill the buck and so on.Wolf


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, are you from North Dakota, and if so what is your preference from the choices listed? I will clarify the original question.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

I put I would allow any size bait pile but I guess if science had hard proof evidence that this is more of a problem than say the deer congregating to a man made water hole, or normal contact with licking branches, and natural mineral sources. Because dozens of deer can use these on a daily bases.

I am from Minnesota and obviously can not bait here. I have however bow hunted ND for the past 7 or 8 years and have only shot one deer over a bait pile. The rest have been miles from any bait that I know of other wise they have been killed around agricultural crops.

From what I've noticed it seems to be the same deer visiting these site over and over. And even with bait out in the areas I hunt when the weather gets cold enough to yard the deer up they seem to go to their wintering areas. These areas where I hunt around seem to be next to cattle yards and they either feed of the cattles food or in a harvested field. They seem not to travel more than a mile from a centeral area all winter.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I am from ND and I would ban all baiting. In my opinion, if you are baiting you aren't hunting you are simply shooting. I have heard the arguments about baiting being no different than food plots, use of calls, etc. and don't buy them. I have also heard the argument that baiting isn't the cause of a disease outbreak, and that might even have validity. But I am against baiting because when the first outbreak of bovine TB or CWD or whatever hits, the response will be to just eliminate deer, elk, etc as has been done in other states. The response will be to kill all the deer in an infected area to try to protect livestock.

And what message is it sending that success is measured by getting something and that in order to up your chances for success you need bait. Maybe the often touted, "its about the hunt, not the kill" isn't really the case for many people.

I am disappointed this bill was defeated. Hats off to Senator Olafson for introducing it and to those who voted for it my thanks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the response, and I hope we get more. I'm not upset with any of the responses, I just want to know how most people think. Some things I am sure of:

1. No one wants the deer herd to be endangered.
2. Most people fear a toe hold by the anti-hunting crowd.
3. Most people don't like the huge bait piles.
4. Most people don't bait.
5. Many people are suspicious of anything new.

I actually hit the wrong poll question above myself.  I hit allow small bait piles, but my preference would be to ban the large ones, allow small ones in September and October, maybe November, but cut all baiting in December. Also, I would like to read some raw data without the statistics on a study of small bait piles. If before statistical manipulation they show a propensity to spread disease I would be willing to say ban baiting. I'm not at that point now, but I am at the point of ban the big piles. If people could compromise is there still time to introduce a new bill?

The poll numbers are small yet, but 80% would ban the large bait piles. That is a vast majority, and I think it would be passed by the legislature easily. Lets not lock ourselves into concrete. I would suggest getting together and supporting a new bill as soon as possible. Lets face it the large piles are by far more danger than the small so lets take a step as soon as we can to eliminate that threat.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I've said it before, but here goes again.

The anti-baiting argument will be relevant when deer stop naturally yarding up in the hundreds, and my neighbors stop leaving sections of chopped corn up & posting it tight during deer season...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Aythya said:


> In my opinion, if you are baiting you aren't hunting you are simply shooting.


In my opinion, if you are shooting big game with a scoped hi-power rifle you aren't hunting, you are simply shooting.

Sounds like a pretty stupid "holier than thou" argument doesnt it?


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

And you are welcome to your opinion. But the issue isn't about weapons of choice, it is about baiting. And it doesn't matter to me if you are using a spear as a weapon, if you are dumping bait in an effort to attract an animal, you can call it hunting but it isn't hunting to me. This argument is one of many rabbit trails supporters of baiting use to deflect the discussion from the real issues.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Aythya said:


> And you are welcome to your opinion. But the issue isn't about weapons of choice, it is about baiting. And it doesn't matter to me if you are using a spear as a weapon, if you are dumping bait in an effort to attract an animal, you can call it hunting but it isn't hunting to me. This argument is one of many rabbit trails supporters of baiting use to deflect the discussion from the real issues.


And that "issue" you speak of was also defeated by the 2007 legislature. And what, say you, is the real issues?


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

IMO - small-scale baiting during the deer bow season is acceptable.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

The issues are: disease; commercialization of wildlife; perceptions by the non-hunting public who may see baiting as unethical, unfair, unnecessary and not hunting; anti-hunting groups using it to further their agenda; the image we want to give others about hunting; negative impacts to deer, elk, etc if a disease outbreak does occur.

In my opinion, baiting is detrimental in so many ways to hunting and wildlife populations that it is time for this practice to disappear from ND.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Aythaya, are you a traditional archer? I hunt with a Toke Whip, and find that many of my fellow traditional archers knock everyone else's way of hunting. We need to stick together. Just curious.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Aythya - I'm with you.

If baiting deer is fine, why can't we bait waterfowl? The disease issue is irrelevant. There a lot more ducks than deer. There must be some ethical issue involved. Luckily there were Federal folks with some stones once upon a time, compared the the cowardly group in the ND legislature now.

Aythya - guessing from your ethics, you've seen a few seasons and taken a few deer...??

(Who will be the first moron to says "It's a Federal Law" and completely miss the @#$%^ point.)

M.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Plainsman,

I am a traditional archer. Started in the 60s with a recurve and used it until I went to a compound for a few years in the 80s. I found that a compound was just to much gadgetry for me so went to a longbow.

I am not knocking anyone's choice of weapons for hunting. I have run across a number of compound shooters who criticize stickbow shooters and vice versa. I don't care if someone hunts with a gun or bow. But I don't see the need for using bait and I think with all the factors involved it is just time to stop this practice.

And I certainly don't want to come across as judgmental in this discussion either. If that is the perception I gave in my post, I apologize. Until recently I was neutral on the use of bait, even used bait one winter myself. I just don't see anything good coming from the continued use of bait as a method of taking game in ND.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

I have to say Aythya, I believe you feel the way about baiting because you have never done it nor been around it.

I could care less if someone baits. I have used the tactic in the late season when my season didn't pan out like I wanted it and I had to curb some does.

Baiting studies have shown less deer killed over a bait pile then off one. You turn most of the deer nocturnal by doing it. Very very very very rarely will you ever kill a mature buck over bait. Most every time the bait pile is visited well well into the night.

That being sad, baiting was legalized in jersey years ago. I tried it, mostly to no avail. Mostly for more study than anything else. I'm not a traditional bowhunter(hope to one day soon) but I am a die hard bowhunter. Havent' killed an animal w/ a gun in years. Haven't even picked up a gun for deer in at least two years.

Baiting is not as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is. Put bait out and shoot deer all the time. Its just not that simple. While I will agree I think it gives hunting a bad rap, I'm certainly not against it for the animals sake... When i've hunted hard for a buck though and haven't shot the does I feel I need to and now its late, yea Ill revert to some corn to cut down on my time in the tree. Its usually the little ones that get stuck, but they taste better anyway...


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Impala,

Read my previous post. I have used bait. As I said, I used to be neutral on the issue but have changed my mind due to numerous factors. And I am not judging anyone who uses bait now or in the past. I just think it is time for this practice to be discontinued in ND. Too many negatives and so far I haven't seen any positives either for hunting or wildlife populations.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am a traditional archer. Started in the 60s with a recurve and used it until I went to a compound for a few years in the 80s. I found that a compound was just to much gadgetry for me so went to a longbow.


Yes, I shot my first deer with a fiberglass recurve that I paid $4 for. Big money for a kid then. Then I went compound, now I shoot compound, recurve, and longbow. I'll tell you what things have sure changed with the traditional equipment too. I can't believe a 50 lb longbow with a 500 gr arrow will kick out an arrow at about 180 fps. My son's 55 lb recurve does 198 fps. His recurve didn't cost quite as much as the Blackwidow, but it sure looks a heck of a lot nicer. He likes his Tolke longbow so well that he has his recurve up for sale now.

I tried baiting once, but I was so busy I never got to go back and see if anything ate it. I put out one of those two pound blocks of corn and sprayed it with a mixture I made myself. Oh, well, I guess I fed one deer anyway. I'm retired now and still can't find the time to try it. Mostly I am curious to see if it's as affective as those who have never tried it say it is. I have always suspected it's like the guys who hate crossbows. I have a friend who had a torn rotator cuff and had to shoot one. He worked hard to get back to his bow. He didn't like that crossbow at all. Heavy, takes time to load, and didn't shoot that much further than a good compound.

Anyway, it was fun to hear from someone with about the same history as myself. :thumb:

Last year I sponsored the bill to ban high fence hunts. I can't believe there are some people who supported high fence hunts and are against baiting. Wow, which is more unethical I thought was a no brainer. Oh well, I guess brains work different.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

Fenced hunts are crap. While I certainly would call it hunting if you had hundreds of thousands of acres fenced, it still isn't fun to know what you are hunting and just hoping you can find him on the track. I would never do it and am all for getting rid of any fenced hunting...

Far as the baiting for me goes, I'm with ya's. I could care less to see it stay or see it go... From what I've seen out here so far, why waste the time w/ bait. Just go hunt some hay bails once the snow hits. I never found it so easy to shoot a deer as i did the couple times I went out here and just put myself inbetween the deer and the hay bails...

But I really want to get a recurve... My problem w/ that is I haven't shot a buck for the wall yet. I've shot mature ones that I was after, but not much bone. I've put stupid time in trying to kill a wall hanger. For me, I'd like to have something big for my wall. I'm to scared to take out a recurve and give up my compound before I put a solid 130 on my wall...


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I don't think anyone should be baiting because it congrates the deer together and disease could happen and more traffic accident will happen in that area.

I would be for baiting, but some people had to abuse it and put out tons upon tons of bait a year and have ruined hunting for the other people around them and in certain area's deer and traffic collisionshave risen.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

MRN said:


> If baiting deer is fine, why can't we bait waterfowl?


Why cant I hunt waterfowl with a rifle?

Comparing apples and oranges here.



Aythya said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I am not knocking anyone's choice of weapons for hunting.


So imposing your ethics on others does have its limits? You wont knock the weapon, but youll knock some other "tools", which is exactly what bait is. Which, under 99% of its usage, is used in a VERY ethical fashion. :eyeroll: 
So I suppose a decoy would be unethical too? And how about man placed scents? Ooooo, them damn treestands are EXTREMELY unethical.

As for the disease argument, like NDTerminator has said in several posts, until deer stop yarding up naturally in winter, its a moot point. If disease gets in the state, it will spread regardless of bait.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I can't picture myself shooting an animal in a fenced enclosure for sport. However I'm not arrogant enough to push my veiws onto what someone else might do. If someone wants to sit over a small food plot with a high power rifle, BDC scope, and a laser rangefinder and harvest a buck fine, I say buck because very few people will put the time money and effort that a food plot requires in so they can shoot a doe, but I question their condemnation of someone using a small pile of bait to stop a deer for a shot with a bow. NEITHER of these practices are agricultural or "natural" and both are designed to improve the odds for the hunter. Challenging one persons ethics is a slippery slope once you start in regards to how the anti hunting community veiws our sport, Does anyone think the people that are appalled by shooting an animal in an enclosure or over a small pile of bait are any less upset by someone shooting a running deer in the guts with a rifle to die slowly somewhere? All you have to do is go to a 3D shoot and look at the difference in scores between "traditional" and compound and you can't help but believe there's a higher likelyhood of bad shots with traditional. I know, I know, it's all dependent on skill,practice ect....Should we ban traditional archery, of course not. So please be a little less judgemental of the different ways there are to hunt, as any disparaging comments or actions directed at hunting hurt us all.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

BBJ,

I said this isn't about ethics and it isn't. And I am not trying tell you what your ethical stance on any issue should or should not be. I am basing my position against baiting on the issues I have laid out. Baiting promotes further commercialization of wildlife, adds to disease risks, portrays hunting in a bad way, and send the wrong message on what hunting is to non-hunting publics. And this is not about what weapon anyone chooses to use. It is not germane to the topic.

So far all you can do is try to drag this into an ethics arena. But you have not given one, sound reason for continuing this practice. Deer yard as a natural behavior, baiting is in no way a natural behavior. Now who is comparing apples to oranges?

I will not change your mind and am not trying to do so. Likewise, you won't change my mind either. I am opposed to baiting.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Aythya said:


> Baiting promotes further commercialization of wildlife


Does it? Does johnny come lately carrying a couple gallons of corn into the woods commercialize hunting? Or is it the greedy landowner, or guide, thats carting thousands of pounds into the woods? But you don't care, punish them all the same, right? Hmmm, sounds alot like gun control.
If you feel baiting commercializes, than you had better be pushing for an abolishment of hunting shows and magazines as well. Both of which have contributed FAR more towards the commercialization of the sport than baiting.



> adds to disease risks


But will it add to it in a significant manner in ND? And please, dont compare MN and WI deer to ours, not the same beast. We know car crashes are the leading cause of death on our highways, does that mean we outlaw them? We know criminals sometimes use guns, does that mean we completely outlaw them?



> portrays hunting in a bad way, and send the wrong message on what hunting is to non-hunting publics.


Does it? Or does having fellow hunters spread the propaganda and paint baiting in a bad light (using tactics similar to the anti hunting crowd) do as much if not more harm?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Quick question Aythya, are you in ND?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Aythya said:


> The issues are: disease; commercialization of wildlife; perceptions by the non-hunting public who may see baiting as unethical, unfair, unnecessary and not hunting; *anti-hunting groups using it to further their agenda*; the image we want to give others about hunting; negative impacts to deer, elk, etc if a disease outbreak does occur.
> 
> In my opinion, baiting is detrimental in so many ways to hunting and wildlife populations that it is time for this practice to disappear from ND.


And you don't think, that just maybe, perhaps your are helping them to further their agenda? One step at a time.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Turn on any hunting show and count the ads for Biologic food plot seed, Antler King food plot seed, ect... and ask yourself if the food plot craze is not "commercializing wildlife" If you have never seen the numbers of deer that will congregate around these areas for a several month period as they are designed specifically to by having different plants growing at different stages all thru the year to "attract deer" you probably wouldn't understand how these could be considered a disease risk as well. The larger the food plot, the more deer it attracts. The agriculture industry is using these very same plants to fix nitrogen and improve soil health on a larger scale and in these fields there are hundreds of deer congregating for months at a time. After a ban on baiting,for all the reasons people list, what's the next logical step? My point once again is slamming hunting methods you may not personally agree with is sending a louder message to the nonhunting public than is the use of the actual method!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ND Native (Mar 12, 2004)

One problem is that not all baiting is the same. The 200# capicity feeder I use that has a spreader on the bottom ( you control how much is dispensed ) will never congregate deer like dumping large amounts of bait on the ground. And will there be a distinction between baiting when bowhunting and gun hunting? And how do you define what is baiting? Is an "accidental" corn spill in a convenient location during corn harvest considered baiting? How about leaving crops standing? Any disease issue that would happen in our area would come from the wintering area that is surrounded by extremely tight posted land. The only hunting pressure is from the farmer landowners. I have counted a herd of 150 deer one spring in that area. I have never shot a deer over a bait pile although I have used a feeder for 10 years. Most of the pictures we get on the trail cam are at night. The feeder is just a tool for us to find out what is in the area. And if you make the argument that baiting is unethical becaouse it makes hunting "easy" then where will this stop? How about decoys, calls, trail cameras, compound bows, treestands, camoflauge, GPS, scent killer, carbon suits, scents, etc.? There is no doubt that these tools have changed bowhunting. But just because you use any of these items does not mean you will harvest an animal or even be a good hunter. It seems the issue on baiting still has a lot of unanswered questions.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> MRN said:
> 
> 
> > If baiting deer is fine, why can't we bait waterfowl?
> ...


Are you serious? You can't compare baiting waterfowl to baiting deer because you use a scattergun on one and rifle on the other? That is beyond ridiculous.



gst said:


> I can't picture myself shooting an animal in a fenced enclosure for sport. However I'm not arrogant enough to push my veiws onto what someone else might do.
> {snip}
> Challenging one persons ethics is a slippery slope once you start in regards to how the anti hunting community veiws our sport,
> {snip}
> Should we ban traditional archery, of course not. So please be a little less judgemental of the different ways there are to hunt, as any disparaging comments or actions directed at hunting hurt us all.


What is it with this crowd and their fear of ethics??

Whether you realize it or not, you impose ethics on others all the time. When you participate in society, you endorse a set of ethics that is codified in laws that controls other folk's behavior and the choies that are available to them. You explicitly endorse those laws, those ethics forced on others, everytime you seek any protection under the law. Everytime you cast a vote you are endorsing one set of ethics over another - forcing ethics on someone else. (My ethics aren't to pay high taxes to bail out a bunch of wall streeet scammers...)

The worst situation is when sportsmen can't maintain high ethical standards within their own ranks - that's when PETA will make real inroads. If tranditional archery fails to make quick clean kills, perhaps they should be banned. Sportsmen should maintain the high ethical standard that animals not be subjected to needless suffering. If not, someone else will.

What is so sad is that folks have such a weak sense of what is right and wrong, and that so many people lack the stones to stand up and say baiting is wrong. It is seeking an unreasonable advantage. Period. A lot of folks in other states have the courage to say this (by forceing their no-baiting rules on others) - why not the people in North Dakota? If sportsmen do not stand up for high ethical standards, then we will all be dragged into the same gutter as those with the lowest standards.

M.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

MRN. The laws that govern our democratic form of society are primarily established by the legislature who is put in place by a majority of our vote. They then weigh the effects of proposed legislation and by their vote it is determined if it will become law. On THREE seperate ocassions over a 6 year time frame this proposed law has been voted down by a clear majority of our states law makers because it has failed to measure up to some individuals level of ethical injustice. I only started putting out small amounts of bait a couple of years ago when my young sons started bowhunting for the sole pupose of stopping and positioning a deer at a yardage they had become very proficient at. This has resulted in some very positive results for these young boys. Before anyone goes on about how this "ruins" them as "hunters" 2 of my sons know more about deer and deer behavior and hunting than most adults that pickup a gun once a year. As a result of the hours we put in trying to harvest the 1 or 2 deer they have picked out during countless hours scouting, and the interaction they have with many forms of wildlife, they have become hooked on the sport of hunting hopefully for life. How can someone question the "ethics" of this??????My sons and I also trap and snare furbearers, is this acceptable ethical behavior, I'm sure some think not, lets ban that. How many more examples do you need to prove a few persons "ethics" are a poor position to base fair legislation off of.Personally traditional archery is not for me, but I'll defend their right to pursue game in their chosen manner till the end. Groups like Peta make inroads when hunters themselves are so biased against one another because of their "holier than thou" ethics we can't stand united in the cause of protecting our sport. The example - joining with the HSUS to get a ban on high fence hunting because of these same holier than thou ethics!!!!!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst said:


> MRN. The laws that govern our democratic form of society are primarily established by the legislature who is put in place by a majority of our vote. They then weigh the effects of proposed legislation and by their vote it is determined if it will become law. On THREE seperate ocassions over a 6 year time frame this proposed law has been voted down by a clear majority of our states law makers because it has failed to measure up to some individuals level of ethical injustice.


 :thumb:

The "people" have spoken. Apparently not as "unethical" as the naysayers, would suppose. If you think its unethical, don't do it, pretty simple.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

bbj,

No I don't think that at all.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

MRN,



> The worst situation is when sportsmen can't maintain high ethical standards within their own ranks - that's when PETA will make real inroads.
> 
> 
> > Why do you guys always fail to mention Humane Society of the United States? Are you hiding something?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I voted for no baiting, period. In my opinion, it comes down to ethics. There was a time when folks could use live decoys and bow-mounted 8-gauges for ducks. Folks could also shoot coyotes out of planes or off snowmobiles, and folks could use dogs to run deer. Why aren't those practices legal anymore? The answer is because enough folks decided that they were unethical and gave the hunter an unfair advantage. In other words, they went against the concept of fair chase.

I have shot lots of deer with a bow without needing bait to do it. I have also lived in three other states where baiting is illegal, and nobody is confused over the difference between a food plot and a bait pile.

The disease arguments are compelling, but I still think that this comes down to ethics. I urge folks to get their butt out of their pickup, do some scouting, put in your time, and hunt.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy said:


> Folks could also shoot coyotes out of planes or off snowmobiles, and folks could use dogs to run deer. Why aren't those practices legal anymore?


These practices are still legal in some places.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> MRN,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When ever I hear that bit about HSUS I hear high fence hunt operation. They use it like a parent telling a kid the boogeyman will get them if they don't brush their teeth. I like it though, so keep it up. Soon it will grow old for everyone and no one will take it serious, finally.


----------



## marshman (Jul 8, 2005)

If people did their homework and followed deer patterns from month to month, find where their bedding and where their feeding etc...etc...etc.. do I need to go on for two pages? A person wouldn't need bait. I don't care if you use it or not, show me how good you are by not using it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

marshman said:


> I don't care if you use it or not, show me how good you are by not using it.


Why do people need to show YOU how good they are? Are you the "skill police"?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman said,



> When ever I hear that bit about HSUS I hear high fence hunt operation. They use it like a parent telling a kid the boogeyman will get them if they don't brush their teeth. I like it though, so keep it up. Soon it will grow old for everyone and no one will take it serious, finally.
> 
> 
> > Remember fair chase sponser lv2hnt? Dan always used the same signature tag line. "I am not a member of PETA or any anti-hunting organization but...
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If 95% of the people do not hunt and will determine the future of hunting, then 95% of the people who do not farm, will they determine the future of agriculture?


I think your right, and it is not paranoid to believe that. PETA and HSUS are radical with no idea of the natural world or farming. They knocked of the horses raised for estrogen production, and they will be after meat. It will just take brain washing of our children for another ten to fifteen years. Batten down the hatches boys it's going to be a rough ride.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

They have already effectively shut down horse slaughter in the US and with prop. 4 passing in Calif. have gained a foot in the door on other production ag industries. There is no doubt they are targeting hunting as well so we can ill afford to be alienating our fellow hunters with these ethics police attitudes that seem to be prevalent on here with some people and claiming one aspect of our sport is less ethical than another lest our own words end up being used against us. These people aren't content to ban the people baiting deer, raising animals in a high fence, or guiding or outfitting, they are after everyone that hunts period. We can ill afford people within our own sport "brainwashing" our kids about someone elses chosen method of hunting. After all the future of hunting lies in our youth!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, much of what you say, and the angle you take is true, yet we must keep our house in order also. Banning the big bait piles should be a no brainer. Keeping them only makes us a target. Once these anti-hunters get the data and the publications on baiting they can hold it up to the public and do a lot more damage to us than just the baiting issue. There was a time when hunters were more responsible. They outlawed spot lighting deer, they imposed limits on fish and waterfowl etc. What ever happened to that type of attitude?

I have been harsh on here at times trying to make landowners understand that they need us as much as we need them. Both of us are a minority, but together we can protect each other. So is there anything we can do to support you other than giving you free doe tags? If you want to hold the baiting issue hostage and refuse to take the first step maybe we can take a first step. I hope your other landowners are then honorable enough to take the next step with us. However, you must understand that just as much distrust has been generated by our opponents.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, You have to understand this isn't about what "I" want, it's about the concerns most people in the ranching industry have regarding deer populations and concentrations. Our industry has attempted to make the first step many times, the latest when they had a meeting with the G&F regarding this bill and were denied our requests. Even though once again this happened the NDSA came out in support of SB2351. Many in our industry felt this support was a mistake, but it was decided to do so as an attempt to work together to acheive the other goals we have as part of a comprehensive plan.Even after coming out in support, just like every other time we have approached the agency in charge of managing these very same deer that have become overpopulated in many areas we were once again shot down with our requests for more effective measures. We are not the ones holding hostage anything. The NDSA made our position public in testimony on this bill and no one, not the G&F or any sportsman org. came out in support of what we were trying to accomplish. Prior to this bill being defeated no one felt "compromise" with the ranching industry or anyone else was necessary, they just wanted our name on this bill to furher an agenda. Our industry is taking additional measures as we speak to further enhance the protection from a disease risk which end results not only protect our industry, but the hundreds of deer we find in our yards each winter and as such is protecting the hunting resource of the ND sportsman as well with these new and the current measures we have already had in place. It's time for people like yourself, Dick, Ron and these other "sportsman" to step up and convince the G&F and other "sportsmen" to work WITH our industry to reduce pop. and concentrations, rather than trying to regulate everything they want on this and other issues as well.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Quote "So is there anything we can do to support you other than giving you free doe tags?"

It seems from this statement you have already made your mind up this isn't going to be part of the "compromise". This is pretty much sums up what I've been saying about the unwillingness the ranching industry seems to experience more often than not. Good luck with your "compromise" or the initiated measure floating around as well. I'm done wasting my time.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

gst.. I'm pretty sure these guys want to stay in the dark on this subject.

Silly us thinking the government with all their experts and billions of dollars of surplus tax dollars could actually accomplish something... what fools they make of themselves!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, I'm just reluctant to give free tags to any one group. If they want to make tags cheaper I would shoot a dozen does and give meat to those I know could use it. You sound like someone I could trust with extra doe tags, but I don't trust every rancher to not sell or otherwise abuse the system. To me ranchers are like anyone else there is always a few that ruin it for the rest. I'm not holding sportsmen or anyone else up as better, just saying there are bad apples in every barrel.

Would you favor simply selling more doe license cheaper, or giving a doe license with a buck license, or something else?


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

What I don't get is there is a over population/problem with deer in many areas. They want does shot like Iowa does. Why not give a doe tag with a buck license. Then cut the price of the doe tags down.

Iowa which I know isn't ND raises its license like $100 but you get a free doe tag. UMMM I think I just bought a $100 doe tag.

NR tags are $200 plus a couple bucks why not throw a doe tag in then, with the purchase of the $200 tag NRs can then buy a certain number of doe tags for cheap not ($50 or more). I know a lot of guys that go out shoot a nice buck middle of the week they are hunting and would love to shoot a doe or two.

I know I would like to shoot some does while I'm out there for a little meat but can't.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman using the "few rotten apples" excuse to keep from having to compromise with something you may not like is a cop out. In every aspect in life there are a "few rotten apples". Using their actions to justify your position only proves an unwillingness to compromise which has become pretty standard. There's a handful of people doing large scale baiting, lets ban it all for everyone!!! Compromise requires BOTH give and take. The NDSA supported the bill (our give) what did they get in return. NOTHING. Only now after it was defeated are people thinking what can we do. Lets throw the compromise position out there, but give nothing on our end, and if that doesn't work we can always go back to the initiated measure!!!! Nice "compromise".


----------

