Michigan Votes Forum

crazycajun:

 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.

Actually, if you read the text of this bill you will not find a single reference to chronic wasting disease.  All references are to attracting deer and elk with bait.

I support passage of this bill because it will help keep alive the very important question of hunting ethics as it pertains to the fairly recent explosion of using bait to attract deer into a shooting gallery situation.

So "Sane",

Then Indians who baited for hundred of years were unethical, a stick bow then must have been unethical, and even if an Indian jumped out of a tree with a spear or knife to stab their prey, that was unethical too, but you still don't get it, this Bill isnt about ethics, so unless you mention the purpose of this Bill which is the spread of disease, then that renders anything else you have to say here in this forum as   irrelivant, and not worth our time to respond.

 msmith:  All that gobbledygook you posted before made as much sense as (in)Sane...

msmith01:

So "Sane",

Then Indians who baited for hundred of years were unethical, a stick bow then must have been unethical, and even if an Indian jumped out of a tree with a spear or knife to stab their prey, that was unethical too, but you still don't get it, this Bill isnt about ethics, so unless you mention the purpose of this Bill which is the spread of disease, then that renders anything else you have to say here in this forum as   irrelivant, and not worth our time to respond.

Obviously, you have not actually read this bill.  The text only incidentally mentions control of disease.  Its focus is on the matter of baiting deer and elk.

I do not understand how one can discuss deer baiting without considering the ethical dimension of it.

As for the indians and their ancient hunting methods, well, let's look at what their wildlife harvest methods have wrought for Michigan sportsmen.  Are you at all familiar with the Great Lakes gill netting industry, and its effect on the sports fishery?  If not, you should become familiar with it.  It is instructive.

For Michigan sport hunters, the widespread baiting of deer is clearly a relatively recent phenomenon -- now only about 30-35 years old, in reality.  It is long past time to seriously reexamine the use of bait from an ethical and quality sport hunting experience perspective.  HB 4198 can help spur that debate, which is why I support its passage.

 Spin, spin, spin....

 so, hunting over a cornfield is a recent phenomenon?

hunting over a clover patch is a recent phenomenon?

i'm interested, sane, in what your opinion is of ethical hunting?

you still haven't defined FAIR CHASE. i'm not sure if you have any idea what it is.

the reason this bill is being put forward is, supposedly, to stop the spread of cervid wasting disease. as the d.n.r. supports hunting over bait piles, they obviously don't have a problem with the ethics of it.

The most ridiculous aspect of the argument over deer baiting is that research consistently reveals hunting over bait to be less successful than hunting following the no-bait ethic.

You would think, then, that real deer hunters would give up their bait piles.  Why don't they?

 please define 'traditional'.

please define FAIR CHASE.

and please tell us how many deer you harvest in a year?

 which traditional no bait ethic would that be?

the same no bait ethic that has deer hunters sitting at the edges of cornfields to harvest deer? george washington did that when he was a lad.

or maybe it's the ethic that has hunters in tree stands, with doe urine attractants draped from every available branch.

 Corn=alfalfa=carrots=compost=hostas=flowers=doe pee=acorns=waterhole=bedding area=does=BAIT.

Anyone who hunts, uses bait.  But many stick their head up their rear end and refuse to admit it.

There is significant difference between a bait pile and field crops, garden plots or orchards.  Those who see it all as one and the same thing have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to to admit it.

What I still cannot fathom is why people so adamantly defend the unethical practice of setting out bait for deer when research consistently demonstrates that no-bait hunters have a greater rate of success in filling their deer tags.  Can anyone explain that?

Perhaps the real dupes here are not the deer, but the hunters who delude themselves into thinking that spending good money on a bait pile paves their way to success.  Didn’t Benjamin Franklin tell us, “a fool and his money are soon parted”?

Once upon a time sportsmen policed themselves, and led the charge for regulating their activities.  The result has been preserved, improved and restored fish and game habitat and game populations, and continuing opportunity to participate in great outdoor pastimes.  Has that era come to an end, over a stupid pile of sugar beets or carrots?

The debate over deer baiting is worth carrying on, for the sake of the future of hunting itself.  HB 4198 should be passed by the legislature, if for no other reason than to keep that debate alive.

 HSUSmichigander... spin, spin, spin.....

SaneMichigander:

 

There is significant difference between a bait pile and field crops, garden plots or orchards.  Those who see it all as one and the same thing have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to to admit it.

<not to the deer, and therefore, not to the hunter.> 

What I still cannot fathom is why people so adamantly defend the unethical practice of setting out bait for deer when research consistently demonstrates that no-bait hunters have a greater rate of success in filling their deer tags.  Can anyone explain that?

 <just because you cannot fathom it means nothing. there are lots of things you cannot fathom. i'd like to see this research you speak about. i'll bet it comes from an anti-hunting source. most research is performed in the field. hunters use what works. they don't rely on research other than their own.>

Perhaps the real dupes here are not the deer, but the hunters who delude themselves into thinking that spending good money on a bait pile paves their way to success.  Didn’t Benjamin Franklin tell us, “a fool and his money are soon parted”?

<we're not talking about money. we're talking about rights.> 

Once upon a time sportsmen policed themselves, and led the charge for regulating their activities.  The result has been preserved, improved and restored fish and game habitat and game populations, and continuing opportunity to participate in great outdoor pastimes.  Has that era come to an end, over a stupid pile of sugar beets or carrots?

<sportsmen still do. and the era is still here, but it won't be if anti-hunters have their way.> 

The debate over deer baiting is worth carrying on, for the sake of the future of hunting itself.  HB 4198 should be passed by the legislature, if for no other reason than to keep that debate alive.

 <this law is not about debate. it's about bad science. it's also about anti-hunting gone amok.>

What science do you have that proves that this law is about bad science?

Could this be another socialist/anarchist, american/english misstatement of facts? Let's see the science, on both sides, before we make laws. Not some coffee shop talk, but science. That means peer reviewed science.

I really don't think this law is about anti-hunting crazy. You carry your ideology again to an extreme.

jmangan:

I really don't think this law is about anti-hunting crazy. You carry your ideology again to an extreme.

No he doesn't and yes it is about anti-hunting and anti-hunters.  Why do you think we have no dove hunt in Michigan when we have millions upon millions of doves?  Because the national anti-hunting organization HSUS got the hunt put on the ballot then spent $$$MILLIONS$$$ to defeat it.   The bait issue is just another nail in the coffin of hunting in the Michigan and eventually the USA.  The takeaways just keep coming, and you never get them back.

 let's see YOUR peer reviewed science that this original law banning feeding was necessary in the first place.

one deer, imported into a confined space, died of this disease. it was diagnosed. no other deer in the confined space has caught it. no deer outside this confined space has caught it. so show me the science that says we should even have the ban, much less continue it.

cjhsa:

No he doesn't and yes it is about anti-hunting and anti-hunters.  Why do you think we have no dove hunt in Michigan when we have millions upon millions of doves?  Because the national anti-hunting organization HSUS got the hunt put on the ballot then spent $$MILLIONS$$ to defeat it.   The bait issue is just another nail in the coffin of hunting in the Michigan and eventually the USA.  The takeaways just keep coming, and you never get them back.

And I will tell you this:  Mindless defense of the unethical practice of deer baiting is what will discredit hunting in the public eye a whole lot quicker and with more certainty than any anti-hunting organization's efforts will.  Today's hunters -- especially the most vocal and visible of them -- often are their own worst enemies.

I've been around long enough to recollect the intense 1970s battle over antlerless deer hunting as a Michigan herd management tool.  The memory remains vivid of a Natural Resources Commission meeting at which a person representing himself as an Upper Peninsula hunter addressed the Commission and warned that if doe hunting were permitted in the UP nobody with a doe strapped to his vehicle would make it back over The Bridge alive.  It was a disgusting moment that discredited hunters as being a bunch of uncivil Yahoos.  The outburst left even an avid hunter like myself wondering what kinds of nut cases we had running around in the woods during deer season.

(And, by the way, I supported and actively advocated having a dove hunting season in Michigan.  To me, it was a way of revitalizing the sport of upland bird hunting in the state.  I was saddened to see the experiment canceled so quickly.)  

The fact is, deer baiting on a widespread and intensive basis is a phenomenon that developed in Michigan only during the last 30 years or so.  It is perceived, by both hunters and the non-hunting public alike, as providing an advantage for those who hunt over bait. The further, and odd fact is, research actually shows deer baiting to yield lower hunter success rates than does non-bait hunting.  Hunters really should read the literature on this topic to better understand what they are discussing.  They might find it instructive.

You may not agree with my assessment that hunting deer over bait is unethical.  That's fine.  But do not label my belief as an anti-hunting stance.  To equate hunting itself with hunting over bait is absurd and destructive.  

Being cognizant of the fact that it only took Michigan deer hunters a decade or so to get thoroughly hooked on bait piles, I am optimistic that it would take little time and would entail little real adjustment to kick that habit and return to the older ethic that eschews baiting.  I believe passage of HB 4198 will serve the important purpose of keeping honest and informed discussion and examination of deer baiting alive and on the table, which, in turn will be good for hunting in the future.    

You like lots of rules and overregulation of society and hunters.  I do not.  I believe it is detrimental to the sport and eventually will cause the sport to die from lack of new blood.  Your wordy post reminds me of what I was taught as a child by my very wise parents.  "Those who talk the most know the least".

 i ask again...

if it's unethical to hunt over bait of any sort, why does the state, and the d.n.r. allow it?

what do you classify as bait, and what sort of attractant do you use?

doe urine? cervid estrus? rattling horns that bring bucks charging into your neck of the woods looking for a hormone fed fight?

please define for me what you would consider an ETHICAL hunt.

i'm yet to hear your answers...

cjhsa:

You like lots of rules and overregulation of society and hunters.  I do not.  I believe it is detrimental to the sport and eventually will cause the sport to die from lack of new blood.  Your wordy post reminds me of what I was taught as a child by my very wise parents.  "Those who talk the most know the least".

Explain to me how an end to deer baiting is detrimental to the sport and will cause it to "die from lack of new blood."

The sport did flourish, and found plenty of new blood before deer baiting became a commonplace practice in Michigan, did it not?  

 Uh, no.

http://blog.mlive.com/kalamazoo_gazette_extra/2007/09/hunting_2007_decline_in_hunter.html

Now go crawl back under your bridge.

You really should be careful about the articles you cite.  Your article actually makes a case for assertions that participation in hunting has declined during the deer baiting era. Remember, deer baiting as a widespread and common practice began in Michigan only about 30 years ago.

Also, your article cites both Montana and North Dakota as states that continue to buck the declining hunter participation trend.  Baiting is not permitted at all in Montana.  North Dakota does not permit baiting on State wildlife management, state school or state park lands.

To equate hunting with shooting deer over a bait pile is absurd.  That attitude and characterization also is destructive to the sport in general, and threatens the sport's future.

cjhsa:

 Uh, no.

http://blog.mlive.com/kalamazoo_gazette_extra/2007/09/hunting_2007_decline_in_hunter.html

Now go crawl back under your bridge.

 What's absurd is your inability to answer any of Cajun's questions and presenting yourself as a "hunter".

You're not.  You're an anti whether you know it or not.

cjhsa:

 What's absurd is your inability to answer any of Cajun's questions and presenting yourself as a "hunter".

You're not.  You're an anti whether you know it or not.

No, on both counts.

What is absurd is your attempt to dismiss my arguments as coming from an anti-hunter.  That, atop your mindless defense of baiting as a ethical, desirable method of hunting deer.

I support passage of HB 4198 because it keeps the issue of hunter ethics (in respect to baiting) on the table for discussion.  

SaneMichigander:

 

No, on both counts.

What is absurd is your attempt to dismiss my arguments as coming from an anti-hunter.   

 Thanks for admitting you are an anti.  Now, please take the advice I gave you earlier.

cjhsa:

 Thanks for admitting you are an anti.  Now, please take the advice I gave you earlier.

You are absolutely wrong about my being an anti-hunter.

On the other hand you have chosen to oppose renewal of legislation that only authorizes the DNR to take steps it deems necessary to manage the deer herd.  That suggests to me that you are the anti-hunting party here.  Real hunters do not object to management of the resource; in fact they endorse and promote it.

 considering there are more deer now than in 1776, and the herd is being managed by the hunters, not the d.n.r., and that this bill does nothing to 'manage the herd', that is definately a statement from an anti-hunter.

our deer population is at an excess. they are bordering on pest status. very similar to the situation that occurred in mississippi a few years ago.

there, the state wildlife management agencies gave out extra tags to cull does. the local people got rather tired of eating venison, as it was more common than chicken. so did the orphanages, senior citizen centers, and soup kitchens.

now, please answer the questions. IF you are not an anti-hunter.

crazycajun:

 our deer population is at an excess. they are bordering on pest status. 

Then tell us two things.

Why do you endorse artificially feeding an overpopulated game species that you claim threatens to become a pest?

Why do you endorse a hunting method (deer baiting) that research shows to be less effective than the alternative (non-bait hunting) when it comes to hunter success rates?

I suspect that you are not a hunter, and in fact must be an anti-hunter.

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

 our deer population is at an excess. they are bordering on pest status. 

Then tell us two things.

Why do you endorse artificially feeding an overpopulated game species that you claim threatens to become a pest?

<the same reason you put cheese and peanut butter in a mousetrap.>

Why do you endorse a hunting method (deer baiting) that research shows to be less effective than the alternative (non-bait hunting) when it comes to hunter success rates?

<show us the research. then tell us HOW YOU HUNT without an attractant. i've gladly answered YOUR questions, yet you are still too rude to answer mine. how boorish.>

I suspect that you are not a hunter, and in fact must be an anti-hunter.

<again, you are sadly mistaken. a common trait for you.>

 

 

 whoops... no answers...

welcome to the world of anti-hunters.

crazycajun:

 whoops... no answers...

welcome to the world of anti-hunters.

Good to see you 'fess up to having no answers and being antihunting and anti-hunter.  Confession is good for the soul.

 Two issues with S&M....

One:  You're not sane

Two:  You're not from Michigan

 i've got plenty of answers.

answer 1. you don't hunt.

answer 2. you oppose hunting on what you call ETHICAL grounds, although you have no idea what those ethical grounds are.

answer 3. you cannot answer questions for fear of being exposed as the leftist stooge that you are.

cjhsa:

 Two issues with S&M....

One:  You're not sane

Two:  You're not from Michigan

So far you are 100% wrong.  Don't give up your day job.

 oh... i don't know... he got the insane part 100% right.

i'll bet he's not that far off on the other part.

i'll even give a good reason why you can't answer my questions.

you don't KNOW the answer.

 Here's another way to look at the issue.

Who is affected the most by the bait ban?  It's those that simply cannot spend weeks prior to the season scouting public land, because they have a job, or are poor, etc.  Since minorities are overepresented amongst the poor, bait bans, and this  bill, are biased against the poor, and, racist in nature.

"(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the commission,

after consultation with the commission of agriculture, may issue in

the manner provided in section 40113a an order that prohibits all

deer and elk feeding in all or part of this state if the commission

considers the prohibition to be necessary to properly manage

wildlife populations or to control or eradicate disease."

This bill is about disease eradication. Whether you agree with the science or not, ethics of hunting, or fair chase has nothing to do with this bill. It is not anti-hunter.

jmangan:

"(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the commission,

 

after consultation with the commission of agriculture, may issue in

 

the manner provided in section 40113a an order that prohibits all

 

deer and elk feeding in all or part of this state if the commission

 

considers the prohibition to be necessary to properly manage

 

wildlife populations or to control or eradicate disease."

 

This bill is about disease eradication. Whether you agree with the science or not, ethics of hunting, or fair chase has nothing to do with this bill. It is not anti-hunter.

 so when the ONE deer that had the disease died, and we burned it's body, there was no longer a threat to the other deer population. so why is the ban being continued?

by the way. who was it that said that this bill should be passed because it 'promotes ethical hunting'?

and who was it that thinks that hunting over bait is unethical?

and who is it that STILL hasn't defined fair chase, or described which attractants he uses to hunt deer?

nor has he introduced us to the study that he promises opposes hunting over bait.

the state hasnt shown ONE CASE OF CERVID WASTING DISEASE in the deer herd in michigan, so why continue the ban?

I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to be one on this forum. But I have read that CWD is caused by a protein that can live in the ground for years. Deer only need to injest it from the ground years after the deer or animal that carried it put it there to get the disease. Once the disease becomes prevelant in a population, it is virtually impossible to eradicate.

I would much rather give up baiting than give up deer hunting, if that is our choice. If anyone posting here has science to repudiate the science of the DNR, please share it with us.

Some science on CWD: