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    The real reasons for the ban, other than a poorly written and outdated action plan, may never be known, but many of us suspect intrusion by anti-hunting organzations such as HSUS and PETA.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.

 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.

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.