Michigan Votes Forum

Please do NOT let this bill pass!!!  It is a huge over-reaction to ONE imported deer in a confined area found with CWD!

This bill could severely impact our hunting season & tourism in Michigan!

I think this bill is OK and should pass. 

If it requires modification, perhaps there should be provision to allow for feeding yarded deer, under strict supervision and permitting by the DNR.

It is my opinion that deer baiting is an unsportsmanlike method of hunting that should not be condoned or encouraged by the state.

 so why did the D.N.R. condone bait piles before this case of C.W.D. showed up?

couldn't have been TOO unsportsmanlike...

 The bait ban in the LP was an overreaction on the part of the NRC and DNR based on a single deer, whose carcass has since been destroyed so no further tests can be done.  This is a travesty of justice and accountability.  The resultant loss of revenue to farmers, communities, and the large drop off in archery hunters and their success rates caused a huge loss of revenue for the state of Michigan.    The real reasons for the ban, other than a poorly written and outdated action plan, may never be known, but many of us suspect intrusion by anti-hunting organzations such as HSUS and PETA.

It is pretty ironic, however, that the ban is not in place in the UP, and hunters are free to bait there, in Mr. Lahti's district.  Anyone who cannot see the conflict of interest in this bill needs to be removed from office, Mr. Lahti included.

If this gets passed it can only be for one of teo reasons, or maybe both, it's either the natural stupidity thats prevelant in Lansing, or it's political, but either way, they don't belong running our natural resources.

 is it the job of the legislature to tell us when to, and when not to feed deer?

NO.

it might be the D.N.R.'S JOB... SO LET THEM DO IT. they don't need a law.

 The deer population in lower Michigan is huge, perhaps bigger than it has ever been.  Other than a few coyotes, humans are their only predators.  Deer cause crop damage, property damage and injury and loss of human life in vehicular accidents.  Baiting may make it easier to shoot them but plenty will survive.  I find it hard to distinguish the sportsman like difference between shooting deer drawn to an area by a pile of apples vs. the edge of a corn field.  Dead is dead.  Fortunately, they're tasty either way!

The ban on baiting put some people out of work because they were in the business of growing, packaging, distributing and selling deer bait.  Unfortunately, deer are more important to some people than people are.  Frankly, I have a business that benefits from a large deer population and if they banned deer hunting completely I would profit. 

 Most hunters, hunt state land. There's a referance to hunting the edge of corn fields instead of bait piles. When does the state plan to plant these cornfields for those of us that don't grow them. There's been a boycot from many hunters from the downstate area just because of the ban on baiting. Not being able to bait cuts the chances of harvesting a deer to a fraction of what it was. I'm sure the DNR has seen a reduction in licenses and harvesting numbers. That translates into a very high loss of income for the stores, restaurants, motels, bars and feed supliers in northern Michigan. If the heard is so large give the hunters the ability the harvest them in greater numbers. I say drop the ban in the areas that haven't shown disease in the deer herd.

 I agree.  The ban is unnecessary.

I see a compromise here between the science of being cautious, and the practicability of baiting to hunt. Why not limit baiting to a small amount to hunt over, like used to be the rule. The science says the danger of spreading disease, such as TB and CWD comes in deer's close contacts with each other, making it easier to pass these diseases. Huge bait piles, either for hunting or observation, force deer to congregate in large numbers, and have close physical contact. Small bait piles would be readily eaten up, giving hunters the chance to see deer, but not attracting too many.

This is how I have hunted for years, with relative success.

What's next?  A ban on fishing without worms?

You're going to have to ban apple orchards and acorn trees, too.  Deer are GOING to congregate!  How does anyone think we have so many deer?  They're gregarious, social creatures, just like rabbits!  It's not food plots that foster disease.  The elimination of them will force deer to concentrate in NATURAL food plots.  How do you think THAT is gonna work out?

The ban is not only unneccessary, but dangerous.

Huge bait piles are not the same as food plots or other areas like orchards or farm fields. The deer do not feed in direct physical contact.

 deer lick each other, especially during the rut. bucks lick does, does lick fawns, fawns feed from mothers, bucks occasionally lick fawns. diseases are most likely to spread through this licking, but we cannot do anything about it. we can do something about bait piles. if this C.W.D. becomes more prevalent, do you expect the D.N.R. to outlaw feed plots, orchards, and farm fields as well?

 what is the more huge bait pile? the fifty pounds of carrots in a woodlot, or the square miles of beets, corn, and soybeans?

One Deer inside a high-fence operation was purported to have CWD - no other deer (even inside that high-fence operation) were found to have CWD, even after much testing.  Response - ban all baiting.  Now "Extend ban...."  Sounds like the NRC has an adgenda that is something besides what they are telling us.  Are we,  the public,  subject to a conjob by the NRC?

I've known Mike Lahti since 1972.  He was/is a St. Farm Ins. agent in the western U.P. and so was my ex-idiot husband.  You might say I know Mike quite well, so well in fact that I can say with a great deal of certainty that Lahti is NOT a hunter and he's NOT into fishing. 

TPTB want the ban on 'deer feeding' extended, and Lahti obviously has no problem being their mouth piece. However, you can bet your best pair of hunting socks that the sportsmen and women he purportedly respresents in the Western Upper Peninsula and those others throughout the state that he doesn't 'represent' will not be pleased with this bill. 

Interestingly, concern over the bogus notion that banning deer feeding will prevent the spread of CWD is a non-issue when it comes to "recreational viewing".  It appears that with Lahti, promoting eco-tourism, as well as catering to the Quality Deer Management Association and its agenda, trumps the deer hunting industry that until a few years ago robustly 'stimulated' our local communities and the state.

It may come as a surprise to some sportsmen to know that the founder of the Quality Deer Management Association is the Nature Conservancy's Director for the ACE Basin project in South Carolina.  The Conservancy is a multi-billion dollar assested, non-government, tax-exempt eco-environmental conservation organization that is doing its best to remove the human footprint from a great deal of land all across the nation.

While claiming that the land it protects will be open to sportsmen forever, the Conservancy and its minions leave an important adjective out of that claim and it's the word "traditional".  Simply put, The Powers That Be want to make traditional sportsmen's time in the field as unenjoyable as they possibly can so as to drive more and more of us out of the state and federal game management equation.

This entire bill should be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

Well, now, if we really want to bring back “traditional” deer hunting methods, let’s lobby hard for running deer with dogs and going after them at night with jacklights.  Y’all remember the great sport that there stuff was, dontcha?

Baiting deer to bring them within popgun gallery range for your shooting pleasure has little or nothing to do with fair chase, and is unsportsmanlike.  On public land, bait piles are just another cause of unnecessary and unsportsmanlike interpersonal conflict between hunters. 

Those reasons alone are sufficient to support passage of this bill.

 so, sane...

how many deer did YOU get this year?

i didn't think so.

Crazy Cajun:

"Sane" may not even be a deer hunter, as none I know would consider running deer with dogs and/or "spotting" with lights after dark to harvest deer 'traditional'.

A friend once gave me some good advice.  He said, "Ignorance is temporary.  Stupid is forever.  Concentrate on the ignorant and don't waste time on the stupid."  Perhaps that would be applicable in this case.

 thank you...

i shall consider your advice.

but as i see it, sane is one of the few IGNORANT people who is ignorant by choice. this cannot be allowed to spread.

intentional ignorance for the sake of what seems to some like a religious goal, is to some the ultimate stupidity.

teach the ignorant. but never pity the intentionally stupid.

Cj Williams:

Crazy Cajun:

"Sane" may not even be a deer hunter, as none I know would consider running deer with dogs and/or "spotting" with lights after dark to harvest deer 'traditional'.

A friend once gave me some good advice.  He said, "Ignorance is temporary.  Stupid is forever.  Concentrate on the ignorant and don't waste time on the stupid."  Perhaps that would be applicable in this case.

Your ignorance of history and your sport's history is glaring.  Jacklighting deer was a common practice for 19th century recreational and market hunters.  Old literature is loaded with accounts of such exploits.  Running deer with dogs still is done in some parts of the United States.  Both are very much a part of the American hunting tradition, although in most cases hunters have outgrown them and demand they be outlawed.

You just dislike being challenged to examine the deplorable and unethical practice of baiting deer into your shooting gallery. It makes you squirm in discomfort.

If you want to make the argument that baiting deer is "traditional" you are on thin ice.  You can justify all kinds of crapola on that basis.  

More important, many traditional hunting practices were challenged and eventually abandoned as sportsmen in the late 1800s and early 1900s began to seriously ponder what really is meant by the ethic of "fair chase."  Educate yourself as a sportsman and become acquainted with organizations like the Boone & Crockett Club, which dates back to 1887, and learn about leaders of the sporting ethics movement like Theodore Roosevelt.  Otherwise, you are doomed to remain in the ranks of the slob hunter.

Remember your own admonition that "ignorance is temporary but stupid is forever."  Don't be a dimwit.  Educate yourself.

I think this bill should pass.  It will keep the debate over the ethics of deer baiting alive in Michigan.  Eventually it may lead to the end of that unethical practice, which would be a large step forward for deer hunters in the state.

 so, why does the state of michigan allow baiting in the first place, if, as you say it is so unethical?

food plots, spring and summer gardens, wheat and corn fields, not to mention sugar beet mounds are a favorite haunt of deer. so are flower gardens, lawns, and drainage ditches.

you speak of ethics in hunting.

do you hunt?

do you hunt with a rifle or a shotgun?

not very ethical of you to take unfair advantage of the poor deer like that.

do you still hunt or do you stalk?

not very ethical for you to set up a tree stand and lie in wait for a passing deer, and even less ethical to bust through the brush to flush them out, driving them ahead of you.

do you use camoflage?

not very ethical to take unfair advantage of a cervid's eyesight.

see... ethics are what you make of them.

deer can see you coming literally a mile away.

they can smell you from even farther.

the only advantage humans have is the small, hormone driven cervid brain that makes deer act predictably enough that we have even a slight chance of getting close enough to harvest them. other than that, they are ghosts.

For many years, I hunted while walking and/or sitting for long periods of time on a stump in good weather and bad.  I'd go into the woods long before the sun came up and walk out after dark. It was me who years ago took my only son out into the wilderness, sans bait bucket, for his successful first hunt because his dad preferred to hunt with his adult buddies at their multi-acre food plot.

It was also me who had time to acquaint my firstborn grandson with forest, field, lakes and streams and help him appreciate all that can be found there.  I captured those wonderful times, those memories, in an article titled 'Tribute To An Aspriing Sportsman', which can be read at this link:

 http://www.womenhunters.com/tribute-carole-williams.html

Now that walking for any distance is no longer an option, I feel neither unethical nor slobbish when spreading out a couple of heads of cabbage, a few carrots and some apples, and then sitting in a deer blind back behind my house all day long waiting for a buck to come along. Some days they do and most days they don't, and there's been times when one has come along and I'd just watch him eat his fill and move on.

Reading about the history of hunting, even as far back as Cro-Magnon man, doesn't necessarily make one a hunter, ethical or otherwise.  Venison harvested over a bait pile is just as tasty as that which isn't.

. 

 Now even throwing out the vegetable matter from the fridge drawer at my cabin into the woods, after nobody has been there for a month, is potentially a violation.  What a joke.

I agree wholeheartedly with you cj. There is nothing unethical about hunting over bait. Hunting is hunting. That involves doing what it takes, within the confines of safety rules and the rules we have agreed to for the sake of preserving our deer for all to enjoy.

I only support extending the bait ban if it can be shown scientifically that is what is needed to prevent the spread of CWD and TB. It is incumbant on the DNR to do that, to explain it to the public, and to not allow political considerations to enter into the equation.

Good hunting.

 i'd like to see the figures on how many deer are lost to c.w.d., tb. and other diseases compared to those lost to them jumping out in front of cars on dark highways.

i know one family who, combined, has hit more deer with their vehicles than they have harvested through hunting.

Cj Williams:

...

Now that walking for any distance is no longer an option, I feel neither unethical nor slobbish when spreading out a couple of heads of cabbage, a few carrots and some apples, and then sitting in a deer blind back behind my house all day long waiting for a buck to come along. Some days they do and most days they don't, and there's been times when one has come along and I'd just watch him eat his fill and move on. 

Every bait hunter I've ever met had a rationale for it.  Every rationale I've ever heard or read only satisfied an underdeveloped conscience; never have I heard or read a rationale that made bait hunting for deer  ethical or turned it into "fair chase" pursuit of the game.

Hunters do not legitimize their sport by promoting unethical practices.  In fact, they hurt their sport by creating negative images in the public eye.

Aside from the ethical dimension of it, bait hunting for deer also creates conflicts between hunters who hunt on public land.  This, also is bad for the sport.

I believe it is obvious we are some time away from seeing an end to bait hunting for deer in Michigan.  The hardened attitudes in favor of this unethical practice, and lack of mature critical thinking and self-examination expressed by those who support it tell us why.  

But I also think it is time to develop a higher ethical standard and new tradition.  If nothing else, passage of HB 4198 will help keep the debate over this unethical, harmful-to-hunting practice alive, which is a constructive thing for the future of sport hunting in this state.

 deer can run at over sixty miles an hour for over two miles.

how do you define 'FAIR CHASE'?

SaneMichigander:

 If nothing else, passage of HB 4198 will help keep the debate over this unethical, harmful-to-hunting practice alive, which is a constructive thing for the future of sport hunting in this state.

 

 The NRC/DNR doesn't report to the legislature.  This is nothing more than grandstanding on the part of Lahti, in order to attact more anti-hunters like InSaneMichigander to the issue.   Their agenda will obviously be to expand the definition of "bait" to include just about anything, even standing food sources and waterholes.  Beware of the logical fallicy that will be promoted in the name of "ethics".  Real hunters know to do the right thing when nobody is watching.  And they don't need to be regulated or told to do so.

 it might be different if this bill were about ethical hunting, but it isn't. it's about an over-reaction to a single imported deer with a disease that was never released to the wild.

nothing more.

we've had deer with tuberculosis for years, and nothing has been done about it.

what's the big rush now?  the governor feeling particularly ANTI-HUNTING today?

 Mr. or Ms. S. Michigandner:

One might suspect that, for whatever self-serving reason, you are one of those sorts who stalks forums such as these in search of an opportunity to do some human baiting of your own.  Others may choose to bicker back and forth with you, but, as for me, I've stuck a fork in you and found you way over done. Your bait pile no longer intrigues me.

Note to GHSA: You're absolutley correct.  Real hunters do know what's right to do and don't need to be regulated to do it.

Note to Crazy Cajun:  Along with real estate wheeler and dealer Lahti, Gov. Blow You Away has crawled between the sheets with the rabid eco-environmentalists. 

 you are right, but it's SO much fun to see the lengths they will go to try and prove themseves right.

You are confusing and mixing your standard of what YOU perceive as ethical hunting with the issue of this particular Bill, which is supposedly to stop the spread of a disease. if you want a Bill based on hunter ethics, then go through normal channels, but keep the politicians out of conservation.

Cj Williams:

 Mr. or Ms. S. Michigandner:

One might suspect that, for whatever self-serving reason, you are one of those sorts who stalks forums such as these in search of an opportunity to do some human baiting of your own.  Others may choose to bicker back and forth with you, but, as for me, I've stuck a fork in you and found you way over done. Your bait pile no longer intrigues me.

Note to GHSA: You're absolutley correct.  Real hunters do know what's right to do and don't need to be regulated to do it.

Note to Crazy Cajun:  Along with real estate wheeler and dealer Lahti, Gov. Blow You Away has crawled between the sheets with the rabid eco-environmentalists. 

No.  We simply have a different point of view of the matter of baiting deer to kill them in a shooting gallery setting.  That's all. It is you who started the personal attacks, quickly demonstrating how absolutely hollow your defense of deer baiting really is.

I don't believe hunting deer over bait piles is ethical.  I believe it harms the sport of hunting.  It is that simple.  

This reminds me a great deal of the debate over salmon and trout snagging in the 1970s.  Ethical fishermen of the era protested the practice of deliberately foul hooking fish that were concentrated in their spawning runs up Michigan streams.  The main argument in defense of the practice was that fish on their spawning runs could not otherwise be caught.  It was basically the slob fisherman's argument, in reality -- the argument of those who did not wish to develop real angling skills, but who simply wanted to "harvest" fish.  It took a while, but in the end we saw snagging outlawed.  Neither the Michigan fishery nor the sport of fishing in the state has suffered for that decision.  In fact, I believe that Michigan stream fishing is a far more rewarding pastime today than it was in the snagging days.

Eventually, hunting deer over bait piles will come to the same fate, I believe.  HB 4198 is a vehicle that will help keep the debate over deer baiting alive, which is why I support it.  I am merely stating my position and my case.  Perhaps you will fare better doing likewise rather than launching personal attacks at me and others who believe hunting deer over bait is neither "fair chase" nor ethical.

 "Fair Chase" is  another logical fallicy.  True fair chase would involve me running down a deer with just my pure unadulterated human superspeed and killing it with my bare hands, ripping out the still beating heart and taking a bite while roaring like a happy orangutan.

We wouldnt want that cjhsa, because that would bring PETA into it alongside of (in)Sane.

 so sane... why do you keep confusing a bill that attempts to eradicate C.W.D. with a bill about fair chase?

this bill has NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIR CHASE. it has to do with a disease that the state can only prove that one case exists in the state. and that deer died in captivity.

cjhsa:

 "Fair Chase" is  another logical fallicy.  True fair chase would involve me running down a deer with just my pure unadulterated human superspeed and killing it with my bare hands, ripping out the still beating heart and taking a bite while roaring like a happy orangutan.

Actually, "fair chase" is a label.  Obviously, deer hunters who use bait perceive what they are doing as "fair chase."  Otherwise they woild not try to wrap themselves in the "sportsman's" cloak.  But that doesn't mean the deer baiters have it right.

I happen to believe that baiting deer is not a "fair chase" method of hunting.  I believe it is unethical.

Here is an interesting comment in respect to the actual history of deer baiting in Michigan and other Great Lakes states:

"It appears that baiting of deer for hunting purposes has always been legal in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.  But, the prohibition on using bait for waterfowl and the use of salt for attracting deer may have contributed to the widespread belief that baiting of deer was illegal.  Despite this popular belief, a low level of baiting was known to exist in some northern areas of these states that had very low deer densities.  Growing awareness that baiting was legal led to a rather sudden and widespread increase in baiting during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

"Michigan harbinger: Michigan biologists were first to document the magnitude of baiting and reported findings at Great Lakes regional deer meetings.   A 1984 survey found that Michigan hunters had placed 3.3 million bushels of bait at a time when most hunters still believed that baiting was illegal (Langenau, et al. 1985).  Only 7 years later, this amount had increased to 13.1 million bushels (Mich. DNR 1992).   Anticipating ethical and ecological problems, biologists from Wisconsin and Minnesota, where baiting was not yet popular, were encouraged to consider prohibiting baiting as a proactive measure."

 

Source:  Excerpt from DEER BAITING AND FEEDING ISSUE Adapted from paper to Midwest & Northeast Deer Groups Meeting at Hillman, MI – 21Aug 2000, by Keith R. McCaffery

So, as we see, while deer baiting may have been going on in Michigan for a long time, it really is a fairly recent development on any scale.  To one degree or another, the growth of baiting seems to parallel the increasing commercialization of deer hunting (and other types of hunting).  This reflects my own understanding and experience of deer hunting in the state.  

I support passage of HB 4198 principally because it will help keep the debate over the ethical dimension of hunting deer in a shooting gallery setting over bait piles on the table.  It is an important debate that has a great deal to do with the long range future of sport hunting in Michigan and elsewhere.  

 you cannot discuss the ethics of hunting with an anti-hunter. they think that ALL hunting is unethical.

you also cannot change their minds about something they have never participated in, only read about.