Michigan Votes Forum

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?  

"(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:

jmangan:

Some science on CWD:

National News : Common Soil Mineral Degrades the Nearly Indestructible Prion

Date: January 14, 2009

Source: University of Wisconsin

Contacts: Terry Devitt

In the rogues' gallery of microscopic infectious agents, the prion is the toughest hombre in town. Warped pathogens that lack both DNA and RNA, prions are believed to cause such fatal brain ailments as chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and moose, mad cow disease in cattle, scrapie in sheep and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. In addition to being perhaps the weirdest infectious agent know to science, the prion is also the most durable. It resists almost every method of destruction from fire and ionizing radiation to chemical disinfectants and autoclaving, which reduce prion infectivity but fail to completely eliminate it. Now, however, a team of Wisconsin researchers has found that a common soil mineral, an oxidized from of manganese known as birnessite, can penetrate the prion's armor and degrade the protein. The new finding, which was reported earlier this month (Jan. 2) in the Journal of General Virology, is important because it may yield ways to decontaminate soil and other environments where prions reside. "Prions are resistant to many of the conventional means of inactivating pathogens," says Joel Pedersen, a UW-Madison environmental chemist and the senior author of the new study. For example, autoclaving, a standard method for sterilization in the laboratory, will reduce the concentration of prions in solution, but fails to eliminate them altogether, as it does for virtually all other types of pathogens. Because prions infect both wild and domesticated animals, the agent can contaminate barnyards and other areas where infected livestock are kept, as well as persist in natural environments where deer, elk and other animals can become infected by contact with contaminated soil. Other studies have shown that prions can survive in the soil for at least three years, and that soil is a plausible route of transmission for some animals, Pedersen says. "We know that environmental contamination occurs in deer and sheep at least," he notes. Prion reservoirs in the soil, Pedersen explains, are likely critical links in the chain of infection because the agent does not appear to depend on vectors — intermediate organisms like mosquitoes or ticks — to spread from animal to animal. That the birnessite family of minerals possessed the capacity to degrade prions was a surprise, Pedersen says. Manganese oxides like birnessite are commonly used in such things as batteries and are among the most potent oxidants occurring naturally in soils, capable of chemically transforming a substance by adding oxygen atoms and stripping away electrons. The mineral is most abundant in soils that are seasonally waterlogged or poorly drained. "A variety of manganese oxide minerals exist and one of the most common is birnessite. They are common in the sense that you find them in many soils, but in low concentrations," says Pedersen. "They are among the strongest oxidants in soil." The new study, which was led by Fabio Russo of the University of Naples and Christopher J. Johnson of UW-Madison, was conducted on prions in solution in the laboratory. The group's working hypothesis, according to Pedersen, is that the mineral oxidizes the prion, a chemical process that can be seen in things like iron oxidizing to form rust or how cut pears and apples turn brown when exposed to oxygen. The next step, Pedersen says, is to mix the mineral with contaminated soil to see if it has the same effect. If it does, birnessite may become a useful tool for cleaning up contaminated farmyards and other places where the prion may be concentrated in the soil. "I expect that its efficacy would be somewhat diminished in soil," says Pedersen. "It's something we'll explore." In addition to Pedersen, Russo and Christopher Johnson, co-authors of the new study include Chad J. Johnson of the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, and Judd Aiken and Debbie McKenzie of the University of Alberta. The work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Defense.

 

 

 so why are we not spreading this mineral around on our land instead of banning feeding?

THAT would seem logical, banning feeding does not.

now, i ask again, how many c.w.d. infected deer have you bagged?

I am pleased to see that someone (jmangan) has brought the actual science of disease transmission in the deer herd into this discussion, even though he disagrees with my concerns about bait hunting and hunting ethics.

Also duly noted is that wildlife management professionals in agencies like the Michigan DNR and hunting and naturalist organizations typically acknowledge, but then quickly and summarily dismiss the ethics question in cases like this.  They see it as being an issue that is intensely personal, and that will not readily (if at all) submit to empirical examination.  So they turn to science.

I submit that the use of science without consideration of ethical dimensions is unwholesomely sterile.  Both the wildlife manager and hunter (or fisherman) has an ethical obligation to identify and refrain from practices that harm or jeopardize the robustness of wild populations.  History does tell us that the “precautionary principle” is a wise approach to things.

Baiting deer on a widespread or common scale is a relatively recent development in the history of Michigan deer hunting (and in other states, as well).  It began to noticeably emerge as common practice in the 1980s and was booming in the 1990s.  That makes it a “tradition” only about 30-35 years.  The fact is, “traditions” (practices, really) come and go.  Deer baiting has come in a short time; it also can go in a short time without harming the quality of the sport of deer hunting.

Deer (and elk) baiting and feeding have been implicated as practices that introduce a high probability of potentially very destructive disease transmission among those animal populations.  Massive feeding is immediateloy harmful to deer and elk physical under many circumstances.  Baiting also is well known to alter deer and elk feeding habits, movement patterns and the like.  And it has been shown to not improve hunter success. 

In reality, there is nothing to recommend baiting as an ordinary practice in deer hunting.  That is why this legislation should pass.

 Today on my way to work I saw about 12 deer standing in misty field, in a group.  Soon you will see hundreds gathering in the same place every day, looking for what little food is left from last fall's harvest.

To those that might entertain the thoughts of the antis who post here, remember, be careful who you choose to lie down with.  The dogs will always seek the softest spot.

crazycajun:

 so why are we not spreading this mineral around on our land instead of banning feeding?

"I expect that its efficacy would be somewhat diminished in soil," says Pedersen. "It's something we'll explore."

That's how science is done.

crazycajun:

now, i ask again, how many c.w.d. infected deer have you bagged?

I hope none. That's what the DNR hopes to accomplish, and maintain.

 hopefully none?

only one way to be sure of that... that's to BAG NONE. do you know what to look for?

do you know the signs?

do you know how to find out if your deer has c.w.d.?

Did you even know what caused CWD before I told you?

 you haven't told me.

you haven't answered any questions.

you haven't bagged a deer in your life.

you wouldn't know a deer with c.w.d. if you hit it with your car.

even the d.n.r. admits to only being able to verify ONE case, and that case was never exposed to the wild herd. so why, scientifically, do you wish to continue the ban on feeding?

Your not paying attention crazy.

Maybe if you took notes it would help you retain your lessons.

 what lessons? your 'how to be an idiot' lessons? no thanks.

you have no answer for my question. i must take it that you don't know.

ignorance is not to be honored, or appreciated. but eradicated.

if the state legislators are not going to use COMMON SENSE in laws, but instead anti-hunting prejudice, then they need to stop writing laws and find another line of work.

crazycajun:

what lessons? your 'how to be an idiot' lessons? no thanks.

No, not those lessons. You've already had those, and passed that course with flying colors.

crazycajun:

if the state legislators are not going to use COMMON SENSE in laws, but instead anti-hunting prejudice, then they need to stop writing laws and find another line of work.

Exactly how is a piece of legislation that authorizes the professional biologists in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to take steps to protect the health of the state's deer herd reflect "anti-hunting prejudice"?  

The fact is, it does not. And anybody who makes that claim is not telling the truth.

 and you have no clue why we should continue with the deer feeding ban, other than anti-hunter leanings.

now. prove me wrong.

prove it isn't just part of the ANTI-HUNTER WISH LIST to continue this feeding ban.

You have made the accusations.  It stands to you to prove their validity.

Of course you can't prove the validity of your accusations, crazycajun, because your assertions are untrue.  You are a liar. 

 i have accused you and the anti-hunting legislature of using anti-hunting bias and not common sense or science in framing this bill.

that is my opinion. those are the facts as i see them.

prove me wrong.

of course you can't.

inconvenient, isn't it?

crazycajun:

 i have accused you and the anti-hunting legislature of using anti-hunting bias and not common sense or science in framing this bill.

And your accusation is false.  That makes you a liar, crazycajun.  Pure and simple.

 so, insane....

where is your PROOF that it is false.

anyone can SAY it's false.

PROVE IT.

step up to the plate...

crazycajun:

prove me wrong.

of course you can't.

inconvenient, isn't it?

No. I wouldn't say proving you wrong is inconvenient. I'd say it is quite easy, as it seems to happen on this forum quite often. What is inconvenient, no, what is tiresome, is your continual refusal to admit you are wrong, or provide any basis for your claims to being right.

 i'm NOT wrong till you PROVE me wrong.

step right up...

 Anyone who thinks the legislature and legislation can somehow solve a deer management issue, or any other issue for that matter, is a damn fool, or a tool

It's pretty clear there are some anti-hunting liars here, and the andoullie-dude ain't one of 'em.

crazycajun:

 i'm NOT wrong till you PROVE me wrong.

step right up...

i have accused you and the anti-hunting legislature of using anti-hunting bias and not common sense or science in framing this bill

I consider this an exercise in futility, but a teaching moment nonetheless.

I have proved the bill was written with consideration of disease being spread by showing you the bill itself. I have explained what CWD is and how it is spread by doing some research, and showing that here in this forum. You, or anyone else, may discount the facts and retain your own opinions based on your interpretation of the facts, and your preconceived notion that all of government is a conspiracy.That in no way makes you right, or me wrong. That shows a difference of opinion. Mine based on the information I have researched, you on your ideology and fear of government in general.

I don't believe this legislation "solves" anything, in and of itself.  It does, however, authorize competent professionals in the Department of Natural Resources to take steps they may deem necessary to protect the health and welfare of the Michigan deer herd.

Anyone who supports hunting would naturally support the protection of game populations from disease, would they not?   

Anyone who trusts the government now, especially with the kluster we have in Lansing, DC, Sacramento, Chicagoland, NY State, and elsewhere, is a fool, or more likely, a tool.

What is it, specifically, that you object to in this bill?

Do you believe that hunters should turn their backs on more than a century of their own proudest tradition and now should oppose all government agency management measures to protect the health of wild game populations?

 a hundred years ago, hunters were SELF MANAGING.

there are more deer today than there were in 1776. a testament to good PRIVATE MANAGEMENT.

YOU are suggesting we bow to the capricious wishes of the anti-hunting legislature, and i'm still waiting for you to prove it's a good idea. 

 i object specifically to stopping feeding based on ONE case of c.w.d. in a closed environment.

if you wish to stop feeding, say so, say why, and get the idea passed if you can.

i oppose to lying to the people of michigan.

i oppose the anti-hunters using this flimsy excuse as a tool to further their agenda.

now, either refute my objections with facts, or accept that they are true.

crazycajun:

 a hundred years ago, hunters were SELF MANAGING.

there are more deer today than there were in 1776. a testament to good PRIVATE MANAGEMENT.

Another rewrite of history by crazycajun.

The fact is, American hunters never were very good at self-managing, until some conscientious sportsmen hunters in the latter part of the 1800s became actively engaged in fish and game conservation efforts.  And then, they lobbied for laws to regulate the taking of game in order to protect game populations in the long run.  Eventually, it became an honored part of the sportsman's ethic to support such regulation.

The real deer population explosion is largely a 20th and 21st century phenomenon that has little to do with good private management of the herd.  It is a tribute, mainly, to good conservation laws that have regulated hunting to protect the robustness of the herd and ensure a long term opportunity for sportsmen to enjoy the hunt.  In the early 1900s the entire United States white tailed deer population was estimated at 500 thousand animals.  Today, Michigan's deer herd alone is well upwards of the 1.3 million animals the state’s professional game managers say is the optimum population.

SaneMichigander:

What is it, specifically, that you object to in this bill?

Do you believe that hunters should turn their backs on more than a century of their own proudest tradition and now should oppose all government agency management measures to protect the health of wild game populations?

 The bill is just more anti-hunting fodder promoted by our leftwing dingbats and unwritten by the anti-hunting HSUS.  At this point, yes, I do think we need to not only turn our backs on tradition, we need to dump the DNR, the NRC, Granmole, and every legislator that introduces legislation that doesn't remove 10x its weight in prior legislation.  The idiots finally realized there are way more idiots than people actually capable of accomplishing anything positive, and that they all get to vote.  The chimps are in charge of the zoo.

 more private management took place because of the Boone and Crockett record book than any government conservation effort.

now look who's re-writing history.

 now, why should we continue a useless program that won't save our deer from c.w.d.?

why should we continue a program because of ONE SINGLE DEER?

could it be that the legislature simply doesn't want the people to hunt?

you still haven't PROVEN ME WRONG.

when are you going to start?

how jennie-esque.

 so, insane.

what do you have against feeding deer?

should we bulldoze all things that deer eat?

there are those who feed deer for the sole enjoyment of watching God's creatures eat from their land in their sight. they don't hunt them, they don't eat them, they don't molest them. they just watch them.

they are deprived of the right to do that because of one deer who died in a pen, never seeing the wild herd of michigan.

tell me about the ethics that justifies this.

crazycajun:

 more private management took place because of the Boone and Crockett record book than any government conservation effort.

Actually, what you said, crazy, was this:

a hundred years ago, hunters were SELF MANAGING.

Which actually is not true.  

The Boone and Crockett Club was founded in 1887, by, among others, a prominent politician and sportsman named Theodore Roosevelt.  Like other sportsmen's groups, the club lobbied for enactment of regulations and laws that would protect game populations and game habitat.  The enactment and enforcement of those laws -- called for and supported by sportsmen -- is what led us to the abundance of deer we have in places like Michigan today.     

The success of this government-sportsmen cooperation is as good an example as you will get in how government and private citizens can work together to make things better.  

To turn away from that tradition among sportsmen because of non-specific beefs about "government in general" is self-defeating nonsense.   

 if it weren't for the Boone and Crockett record book, deer management would be about numbers to feed people, and not maintaining habitat to raise the healthiest animals possible.

we would be feeding deer on food plots, grouping them together as cattle to slaughter.

sportsmen ALONE did more than the government has once we quit seeing deer as simply a source of meat, but as a source of pride as well. more farmers kept food plots to raise trophy deer because they wanted a shot to read their names in the book, not because the government made them.

your view of history is twisted by the indoctrination center you attended, but will be rectified by the facts.

INDIVIDUALS gave their land WILLINGLY to the cause of conservation. all the government did was LIMIT THE NUMBERS OF DEER TAKEN IN A SEASON.

INDIVIDUALS raised crops to feed deer, brought out hay bales in winter to feed the herd, and maintained ponds and drinking water sources. all the government did was take money from hunters to pay for other programs until the late 1960's. after that HUNTERS DEMANDED ACCOUNTABILITY.

INDIVIDUALS did the dirty work maintaining and expanding the deer herd. all government did was write regulations and take the credit.

hunters understand and appreciate these efforts. liberals just take it for granted that the government will make everything better. it ain't so.