IBA supports feeding baiting bill

[Hardcorehunter]

Owning good gear makes one not old school when it comes to my feelings on eliminating cameras and bait/mineral sites in the woods? I have a heated tipi or a magnus rack chair, and I have gained unfair advantage and knowledge on what deer and what time deer move through my area? Please explain how. All one has to do is watch the Larry Zach bow kill this year, to prove my point. Not picking on him either, it was legal, it is just a fine example of how cameras, baiting(food plots) aid a hunter unfairly imo.

HA!!!! You of all people consider yourself old school? No offense, but you're not old school. You own more hunting equipment (and top end @ that) than anyone I know!

Oh, and I can tell you haven't ever used a trail camera, because if you did then you would realize that 99.9% of the time your 'trail camera scenario' that you posted about above doesn't play out. Iot seems I rarely ever see bucks that I have pictures of.

But yes, let the homeowner bait the deer. Take away from the hunter. Is this law in effect to eliminate the minimal amount of baiting that goes on by poachers? I think so. However, why punish me for what criminals do?

I'm glad we really think things through before acting........or wait, did we? No. Let's just push this recreational feeding bill through because Bonker says so. Oh yeh, we will catch more poachers that way AND stop the spread of disease (HA), because deer have no interaction with one another except when they are eating from a feed pile (not drinking from the same puddle, or breeding, or giving birth, or LIVING AND INTERACTING).

 

[magnus]

Owning good gear makes one not old school when it comes to my feelings on eliminating cameras and bait/mineral sites in the woods? I have a heated tipi or a magnus rack chair, and I have gained unfair advantage and knowledge on what deer and what time deer move through my area. All one has to do is watch the Larry Zach bow kill this year, to prove my point.

HUH??

 

[Shredder]

I'll take the next hit off that weed HCH....sounds like good stuff

 

[bowman]

This year one of my landowner's found a ground blind with a pile of corn on a railroad right of way bordering his property. He called the CO. I later talked to the CO and asked why the blind and corn were still there. I asked why he couldn't just take the blind and leave a note with name and number and tell the guy to call if he would like his blind back. The CO informed me that the burden of proof was on him to prove that the guy was doing something illegal. What if he is a photographer just taking pictures or a non-hunter taking his kid out to enjoy nature. Without a law banning bait he would have to catch the guy hunting there. This guy was likely getting dropped off and picked up as the landowner never saw a vehicle parked there yet the corn pile stayed fresh.

When I heard about this bill I thought about writing with my displeasure. The only problem was the only reasons that I could come up with were because I wanted to be able to put mineral or corn in front of my cams and because I liked to be able to put corn out in the back yard after the season closes so that I and my children could watch the deer. I had no scientific reason for being opposed to it other than what I wanted and I liked. I decided to remain neutral on the topic and let the experts do what was right.

I do not feel that bait piles or mineral sites compare to food plots that are much more spread out but I do fear that if this passes, plots will be next. If there is scientific data to warrant the concern and eventual ban then I will learn to live with it.

Maybe the IBA should have remained nuetral on this (as I did) or put out more info for the membership to voice their opinions. There are bigger battles to be faught than this one so the decision made by the IBA to support this will not determine wether or not I will support the IBA in the future. I am guessing that the scientific data was convincing enough to realize we didn't have much of an argument other than what we wanted or liked, who knows.

 

[Hardcorehunter]

HUH??

I guess if you use a Lone wolf and sticks, instead on just shimmying up and sitting on a limb, you are not old school.

 

[dedgeez]

I guess if you use a Lone wolf and sticks, instead on just shimmying up and sitting on a limb, you are not old school.

Nobody cares if you are old school or not! That has nothing to do with this thread. You are trying to justify that your way of hunting is superior because you do not choose to use trail cams. Who cares! Look at the big picture. If they said you cannot use your tent anymore because the material may cause damage to the ground where it is set up and then the deer may sleep there and get a rash and loose all their hair, I bet you would fight for that. Just stay on the topic :way:

 

[SaskGuy]

This year one of my landowner's found a ground blind with a pile of corn on a railroad right of way bordering his property. He called the CO. I later talked to the CO and asked why the blind and corn were still there. I asked why he couldn't just take the blind and leave a note with name and number and tell the guy to call if he would like his blind back. The CO informed me that the burden of proof was on him to prove that the guy was doing something illegal. What if he is a photographer just taking pictures or a non-hunter taking his kid out to enjoy nature. Without a law banning bait he would have to catch the guy hunting there. This guy was likely getting dropped off and picked up as the landowner never saw a vehicle parked there yet the corn pile stayed fresh.

This is a scenario very much like I imagined. With being able to bait for non hunting reasons but not for hunting reasons it appears as though it makes enforcement tough. To me it seems like it'd be much easier on CO's if you could do both, or neither.

 

[Hardcorehunter]

I'll take the next hit off that weed HCH....sounds like good stuff

I was told I cant be old school because I use good gear. I just passed it back to you already, quit bogarting.

 

[Shredder]

One more way the insurance company has to reduce the population....this stuff doesn't occur unless there is a bait pile there.....and these two are spreading brucellosis....

 

[risto2351]

This is a scenario very much like I imagined. With being able to bait for non hunting reasons but not for hunting reasons it appears as though it makes enforcement tough. To me it seems like it'd be much easier on CO's if you could do both, or neither.

Not picking on you Sask but why should we take away from those
that are doing things right?

Maybe a bit overboard but if we do not hunt and just keep buying the licenses it will also make it easier for them (CO's). Unless our deer heard is seriously at stake (CWD) what is the bottom line here?

I would think Suchy and Garner would have good reasons?

 

[180class]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Transmission and Development[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Brucella infections are usually transmitted by oral exposure, but susceptible animals can also be infected by contamination of the eyes, wounds and the genital tract. Males can transmit brucellosis during copulation, either by contaminated semen, or by genitals contaminated by an infected female.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Anyone have contact information for Primos or HS Strut? This just gave me my million dollar idea!

New for 2011 THE RUT RUBBER!
*Stop the spread of disease
*Ensure the health of your deer herd
​

 

[MK M GOBL]

This is a scenario very much like I imagined. With being able to bait for non hunting reasons but not for hunting reasons it appears as though it makes enforcement tough. To me it seems like it'd be much easier on CO's if you could do both, or neither.

This law wouldn't change a thing in the scenario you were refering to. You still have to catch a person and prove they put the corn there. As the story was told, they never saw a person there.

Adding more laws is rarely the answer. Its that kind or rational that people use to support stricter gun legislation.

 

[Crimson Arrows]

All one has to do is watch the Larry Zach bow kill this year, to prove my point. Not picking on him either, it was legal, it is just a fine example of how cameras, baiting(food plots) aid a hunter unfairly imo.

Seriously???? Somebody forgot to tell the deer on my farm.

 

[sureshot]

Huntyak, just admit it. Using trail cameras was the only reason you killed 'the halloween ghost.'

 

[loneranger]

I come from the state that started the big TB scare. N Mich,,which has very little cattle farming at all. Putting food out got to be a big business. It did get out of hand. Truck loads were put out. Lots of forest not much farming. TB has been up there for a 100 yrs. A friend of mine had a news paper article from the 1930s about it, and there were few deer there then. These diseases have always been around always will. A part of nature. They banned big piles, first. Little ones ok. Then mechanical spread feeders were alright. Then nothing was legal. At the same time unlimited doe tags were given and encouraged. Now my friends up there say you are lucky to see a deer. One article in a major paper, the DNR admitted, the major purpose of all this was to lower deer numbers. There is still TB up there. The cows are not all dead. The deer are hard to find, but not because of disease. There are many powers out there manipulating our little lives. You can trust them all, and swallow everything they tell you. I remain a sceptic. Brother Gov is telling us more and more how to live, on every level. The story about step by step, hunter against hunter was great, I thought.

 

[River1]

When I heard about this bill I thought about writing with my displeasure. The only problem was the only reasons that I could come up with were because I wanted to be able to put mineral or corn in front of my cams and because I liked to be able to put corn out in the back yard after the season closes so that I and my children could watch the deer. I had no scientific reason for being opposed to it other than what I wanted and I liked. I decided to remain neutral on the topic and let the experts do what was right.

:way:

I believe they are trying to do what they feel is best for our herd.

 

[Crimson Arrows]

Huntyak, just admit it. Using trail cameras was the only reason you killed 'the halloween ghost.'

Ha ha. True

In all seriousness, trail cams have given me a GREATER respect for mature whitetails and a better understanding of how TOUGH they are to kill. As an example, getting a bunch of pictures of a mature buck at 2 am, 3 am, 1 am etc, NEVER to be seen by the naked eye.

Without them, I would think, "huh, he just came by today, got lucky, who would have thought a buck like that was around here."

But, with trail cams, I KNOW they are there, which makes not seeing them that much more mysterious, and also helps me continue to work hard and pay for my farm, KNOWING they are there, growing and getting bigger.

I sincerely mean this when I say, TRAIL CAMS HAVE NEVER LED ME TO A BIG BUCK. Yes, they allowed me to know they were around and gave me INCENTIVE, but I haven't been fortunate enough to find one using a trail etc via a camera, then move in for the kill.

Neraly all have been killed on travel routes, natural funnels, where I can use the wind and get an edge on them.

But yes, I knew they were there, somewhere. I do undertand how some may feel its unfair but I promise MOST of the time, where you photo them and where you kill them aren't the same.

I often wont put them in areas I want to try to ambush one for fear of scent and putting them on guard.

BTW, Mr. Zach has killed more GIANTS than most of us will, combined, in a lifetime, and I would argue, quite a few before trail cams existed. :way:

 

[nannyslayer]

:way:

I believe they are trying to do what they feel is best for our herd.

You know, I had a long reply typed up, but deleted it. Congrats to the IBA board. Your getting what you want for "your" herd.

 

[SaskGuy]

Not picking on you Sask but why should we take away from those
that are doing things right?

I know you're not and I'm not taking sides at all just thinking out loud I guess. Heck I figure it'd be easier to lift the baiting for hunting ban then what is proposed but we all know the stink that'd create would be much worse than this proposal. LOL

It just seems to me like some people in power have decided that feeding and baiting are in direct contradiction of each other and one of the current regulations "has to go".

This is a scenario very much like I imagined. With being able to bait for non hunting reasons but not for hunting reasons it appears as though it makes enforcement tough. To me it seems like it'd be much easier on CO's if you could do both, or neither.
This law wouldn't change a thing in the scenario you were refering to. You still have to catch a person and prove they put the corn there. As the story was told, they never saw a person there.

But......allowing people to bait would reduce the need for the wasted time stakeout. I'm not saying allowing baiting is good or bad or such, just pointing out that it appears to be allowed, but not allowed. Maybe the people proposing the change sees removing the current allowance of feeding as the lesser of the 2 evils b/w it and baiting. For which circumstance would the resident cryout be worse, this or allowing baiting?

I'm pretty sure the disease argument is an attempt to sway uneducated public opinion, I'd say the issue is larger than cwd fears.

 

[teeroy]

with all this interest, the IBA better have more chairs for the next meeting, sounds like there will be some new people attending. i wasn't at the IBA meeting, and don't care much either way on this bill, other than to say the DNR and legislature have better things to spend time and money on.
BUT, i sincerely hope, that will all of this concern from people on here, that they are sending emails/calls to IBA board members (names are in the monthly bowhunter mag), your legislators, and DNR officials. complaining on this site, solves NOTHING.
go to a meeting, get involved