Big time baiting... should it be legal? And do you consider it hunting?

haven’t paid much attention to this thread but started reading it last night. A couple things stick out. Its pretty obvious Tryboy’s favorite hobby is arguing on the internet and watching him continue to try and argue with people who put him on ignore is pretty damn funny and pathetic at the same time.
 
hossblur said:
www.sltrib.com

Robert Kirby: Of mice and men and bait hunting

I killed six animals in the past two days. I lured them in with bait and then callously snuffed them out.
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com


www.sltrib.com

Baiting big game is legal in Utah — for now. But is it right?

Imagine ambling through Utah’s national forests and coming across piles of apples inexplicably scattered on the ground.
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com

www.sltrib.com

Robert Schmidt: Baiting animals is an affront to the sport of hunting

Hunting is a unique sport in that the “referee” is actually the hunter. Hunters, as arbitrators on what is right and wrong during the process of hunting, vary in how they interpret the rules of the hunt.
www.sltrib.com www.sltrib.com


apnews.com

Utah weighing whether to regulate baiting big game

Utah wildlife officials are considering whether hunters should be allowed to use bait to lure big game such as elk and deer.
apnews.com apnews.com


Want to reconsider that point about us hurting ourselves.?
Click to expand...

Also, NOPE!
I could dispute your posted items article by article (some of them just duplicated from different sources) and claim by claim, but I've been "interviewed" by reporters before when, as President of UWC, I was helping with the deer transplants on the Parowan Front physically and logistically (biweekly updates for 3 years). And every time I was interviewed, some SFW people had a "little discussion" with the reporter following my interview and my interviews never showed up in the articles and UWC was never mentioned and our side of the story was never told.

Your posted articles were written by people who have never baited interviewing other people who have never baited, but who want it banned based on their limited perception of what it is, who they think is doing it, how and why it's done. That's a very risky method of scientifically managing wildlife no matter what the issue is! But, then again, if we want something bad enough to post such "information", I guess actual experience, science, logic, and math don't matter!
 
Last edited:
Who said they baited.

I was responding to Bo "we only hurt yourself" BS.

Like it or not, articles written about baiting aren't aimed at hunters, they are aimed at non hunters.

Meaning guys who bait, drawing unwanted or unnecessary attention to ALL hunters for something a small minority do.

Like getting to answer for "Cecil the Lion", or some clown in Idaho wiping out a baboon family then posting the pics.

It's just another example of hunters shooting themselves un the foot PR wise.

Try to explain to a non hunter why there are videos of dudes face to face over a pile of apples. Or a truckload of them unloaded all over.

And yup. Like it or not, we hunt until THEY decide we don't
 
No people who don't want to hunt over bait and think they should legislate against other hunters don't have a valid opinion. ?
 
Grizz, Hoss I respect both of your opinions, I just don't agree with your reasoning behind them. Any form of hunting or weaponry can be considered distasteful, unfair, unsound management and articles can be dug up. You are presenting this as it is the solve all, and main reason the herds are hurting.

If you've never done it, you don't understand it and nothing that anybody can say will change your mind. This is nothing more than you don't agree with it, don't understand it, don't like it, so get rid of it. Which is fine you are entitled to your opinions and entitled to how you hunt. Nobody is forcing you to bait, you just don't like that other guys are doing it. If you put in the time, work and effort that it takes an average guy to do it, then I would respect your opinion and you would understand it a little more than you think you do.

Why would you want to do that though? As long as you are packing that thunderstick that can reach out and kill them you are considered a "hunter" and a publicly accepted one right? I highly doubt in the eyes of a Non-hunter they would think sniping an animal that has no idea or chance to use their natural defenses to get away is a more tasteful way to kill.

Why would you ever want to be face to face with a buck or bull? Sheesh why would anybody want an experience like that? We can shoot them from 3 ridges away with a rifle that's more sporting, fair,tasteful, and doesn't impact the health of the herd haha that sounds crazy even typing it!


My point being is baiting is nothing more than a tool that we can all currently use to harvest an animal if we choose. It hasn't increased success rates, it has maybe aided in killing some bigger deer by allowing a guy to be more selective. Guys were killing big deer in hay fields long before the apples arrived. You are pushing to get rid of it in the name of helping the herd, while wanting to keep and hunt with the most successful weapon. Even if you limit scopes, rangefinders etc. an open sight or fixed scope .270 has killed a lot more animals than apples have. If you can't see the logic there then we will have to agree to disagree.

Good luck in the draw and good luck this fall however you decide to hunt.
 
Last edited:
grizzly said:
So... people who don't like hunting over bait don't have a valid opinion, but those that rely on it have an opinion that counts?

Yeah, that seems about right ???
Click to expand...

grizzly said:
So... people who don't like hunting over bait don't have a valid opinion, but those that rely on it have an opinion that counts?

Yeah, that seems about right ???
Click to expand...

Of course those who don't like baiting can have a valid opinion. Just make sure it's "baiting" we're talking about! And, so far, all we've talked about or seen pictures of or argued about are some "piles" or "truckloads" of apples or corn or salt that some people are "feeding" deer! They are calling it "baiting" for purposes of keeping it legal and you are calling it "baiting" for purposes of banning it. You are both wrong! It's feeding not baiting and I don't like it anymore than you do!

When you go fishing with bait you're not allowed to throw bucketsful of shrimp, worms or Powerbait overboard and call it baiting. And if you saw someone doing it you wouldn't include it in your definition of "baiting" and want to ban all other forms of "baiting" because of it. Yet, that's exactly what you are doing here. You can pound that nail in with a sledgehammer of you want, but you'll end up with some collateral damage to the board.
 
elkfromabove said:
Of course those who don't like baiting can have a valid opinion. Just make sure it's "baiting" we're talking about! And, so far, all we've talked about or seen pictures of or argued about are some "piles" or "truckloads" of apples or corn or salt that some people are "feeding" deer! They are calling it "baiting" for purposes of keeping it legal and you are calling it "baiting" for purposes of banning it. You are both wrong! It's feeding not baiting and I don't like it anymore than you do!

When you go fishing with bait you're not allowed to throw bucketsful of shrimp, worms or Powerbait overboard and call it baiting. And if you saw someone doing it you wouldn't include it in your definition of "baiting" and want to ban all other forms of "baiting" because of it. Yet, that's exactly what you are doing here. You can pound that nail in with a sledgehammer of you want, but you'll end up with some collateral damage to the board.
Click to expand...


Here's a tip. I'd wait a bit if I was No and Elk before I ran out and stocked up on bait.

And when you see the guys stopping it, your "antis" ain't gonna fly.


It's not a cureall. But it will help. And the salt and Apple lobby has less influence than LR gun manufacturers. Or the cam companies.

It's not personal
 
grizzly said:
So... people who don't like hunting over bait don't have a valid opinion, but those that rely on it have an opinion that counts?

Yeah, that seems about right ???
Click to expand...
He was not referring to people who don't like bait hunting, he was referring to people who have never baited, and them not having as valid of opinion as somebody who has. You are still entitled to your opinion but if you had 2 or 3 years of experience with baiting, your opinion on the subject would be much more valid and would carry more weight with me (I'm betting you would find it's not quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is. And if not, I would have much more respect for your opinion.
For someone who has never tried bugling in an elk, it can sound pretty easy. Find a bull, blow on your bugle, he comes right in and you shoot him point blank. Those of us who have spent a lot of time calling elk have learned it's not quite that easy most of the time and we are going to have a hard time with that guy with zero experience telling us not to do it because it's not fair.
 
Zwickey said:
He was not referring to people who don't like bait hunting, he was referring to people who have never baited, and them not having as valid of opinion as somebody who has. You are still entitled to your opinion but if you had 2 or 3 years of experience with baiting, your opinion on the subject would be much more valid and would carry more weight with me (I'm betting you would find it's not quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is. And if not, I would have much more respect for your opinion.
For someone who has never tried bugling in an elk, it can sound pretty easy. Find a bull, blow on your bugle, he comes right in and you shoot him point blank. Those of us who have spent a lot of time calling elk have learned it's not quite that easy most of the time and we are going to have a hard time with that guy with zero experience telling us not to do it because it's not fair.
Click to expand...

"Its not that easy"

So you find an easy way=bait

You guys would have a sliver of credibility if you simply came in here and said

"It makes I much easier to suck in big bucks that might otherwise be mostly nocturnal.

I'd still oppose it, but at least your be honest.

Otherwise we are to believe its keeping deer off highway, it provides trace minerals, it introduces new people to hunting, it's not successful, it doesnt accomplish much.

Its all bullshit. Most of us have wandered onto "salt licks" We can see the tracks. We can see the trail cams.

I had a guy tell me where his was, and told me to feel free to pull his card. His cam 20 yrds away stayed blank. The one on the lick had animals continuously.

"Its legal, and it works"

Just be honest.

I'll be glad when it's gone this year.

But I realize some other "inventor" will comb the regs Try I g to find some other bright idea.
 
Tristate said:
How does bait make nocturnal bucks easier to kill? They just come to the bait in the dark.

I have bucks on camera every year that don't come during daylight or avoid bait altogether.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20200304-174921_Gallery.jpg

Must be some pretty good night vision used in this one Tri!?
 
Again with the "big bucks" I'm not jealous though blah blah blah. That's what it always boils down to, that's what it comes back to. "Ma he killed a bigger buck than me, why does my butthurt??? Its not fair, they cant do that Mom" If you come out and say it I'd give you a sliver of credit. Good to know you're pulling guys cards and screwin with their cameras too. Class act.
 
Last edited:
Bocephus said:
Again with the "big bucks" I'm not jealous though blah blah blah. That's what it always boils down to, that's what it comes back to. "Ma he killed a bigger buck than me, why does my butthurt??? Its not fair, they cant do that Mom" If you come out and say it I'd give you a sliver of credit. Good to know you're pulling guys cards and screwin with their cameras too. Class act.
Click to expand...
After that comment and unwarranted accusation, now I know you are delirious ?
 
hossblur said:
"Its not that easy"

So you find an easy way=bait


I have no idea how you got that from what I said but if you need me to be more clear as to what I meant, take the word "that" out of my quote.
The areas I have hunted deer with bait are wooded and you will never glass up a deer there and so yes the baiting gives me a far better chance, or really about my only chance other than pure luck. There aren't many bucks but some can be big. I have yet to kill a deer over bait. I have killed plenty of deer spot and stalk with a bow and I would say in the right glassable terrain it can be '"easier"than baiting (but not easy by any means). In good glassable areas I wouldn't bother with bait.
I have taken numerous deer, elk, bear, antelope, whitetail, caribou, an Alaskan Moose, cougar, several coues deer, turkeys and others all with a bow. Nothing guided and the past 24 years It's been 95% with a recurve bow. I know what has been challenging for me and really don't need anyone else to tell me.

I trained and ran my own lion hounds for 15 years and have listened to numerous fellow hunters say its to easy. I've killed most of my bears over bait and have heard numerous fellow hunters say its too easy. I use trail cameras and continually hear from other hunters how that makes it too easy. There was a thread on Coues Whitetail websight a couple years back, where a couple guys were arguing that tree stands should be outlawed in Arizona because it gave an unfair advantage. Then there is this thread. The one thing in common is that all of these guys that want these things outlawed have little to no experience with these activities and don't plan too. Therefore nobody else should be allowed.
 
Zwickey said:
hossblur said:
"Its not that easy"

So you find an easy way=bait


I have no idea how you got that from what I said but if you need me to be more clear as to what I meant, take the word "that" out of my quote.
The areas I have hunted deer with bait are wooded and you will never glass up a deer there and so yes the baiting gives me a far better chance, or really about my only chance other than pure luck. There aren't many bucks but some can be big. I have yet to kill a deer over bait. I have killed plenty of deer spot and stalk with a bow and I would say in the right glassable terrain it can be '"easier"than baiting (but not easy by any means). In good glassable areas I wouldn't bother with bait.
I have taken numerous deer, elk, bear, antelope, whitetail, caribou, an Alaskan Moose, cougar, several coues deer, turkeys and others all with a bow. Nothing guided and the past 24 years It's been 95% with a recurve bow. I know what has been challenging for me and really don't need anyone else to tell me.

I trained and ran my own lion hounds for 15 years and have listened to numerous fellow hunters say its to easy. I've killed most of my bears over bait and have heard numerous fellow hunters say its too easy. I use trail cameras and continually hear from other hunters how that makes it too easy. There was a thread on Coues Whitetail websight a couple years back, where a couple guys were arguing that tree stands should be outlawed in Arizona because it gave an unfair advantage. Then there is this thread. The one thing in common is that all of these guys that want these things outlawed have little to no experience with these activities and don't plan too. Therefore nobody else should be allowed.
Click to expand...

:cautious:

You're in for a pretty good shock when the vote comes in, might be hard to play that "I know more than they do" card.
 

Of everything the original poster mentioned in his opening post baiting has been beat to death. In my opinion it is the least effective method of killing compared to the others listed. If we are all being honest let's take a look at what our rifle hunts have become. I would say this is much more effective than a few piles of apples. To your point Hoss it doesn't sound like this Long Range craze is going away anytime soon, unless we can push it out. I would love to hear how you Long Range guys defend this style of hunting and how it is both beneficial to the resource and shines a positive light to the public non hunter eye. At the end we can compare the lists of pro's on con's. Fire away!
 
Bocephus said:

Of everything the original poster mentioned in his opening post baiting has been beat to death. In my opinion it is the least effective method of killing compared to the others listed. If we are all being honest let's take a look at what our rifle hunts have become. I would say this is much more effective than a few piles of apples. To your point Hoss it doesn't sound like this Long Range craze is going away anytime soon, unless we can push it out. I would love to hear how you Long Range guys defend this style of hunting and how it is both beneficial to the resource and shines a positive light to the public non hunter eye. At the end we can compare the lists of pro's on con's. Fire away!
Click to expand...
Had you been paying attention to this thread like you say you have, you'd have seen where multiple people in support of a baiting ban would also support restrictions on today's "advanced gadgetry" for ALL weaponry, including cameras and hand held devices such as FLIR.
 
Good Slam, nice way to start it off. So if I understand you correctly you have nothing to add as to how Long Range Hunting is beneficial to the resource or shining a positive light for the public non hunter? If that is the case will you sign a petition to ban it? I don't agree with it and think it is stupid. Granted I've never done it, but I don't like it, so I don't think you or anybody else should be able to do it.
 
Last edited:
Simple question.

Do the baiters here feel like there is plenty of deer?

If so, were that to change and you felt it was declining would you support restrictions on bait as well as other methods that make the job easier?

Bill
 
Bocephus said:
Good Slam, nice way to start it off. So if I understand you correctly you have nothing to add as to how Long Range Hunting is beneficial to the resource or shining a positive light for the public non hunter? If that is the case will you sign a petition to ban it? I don't agree with it and think it is stupid. Granted I've never done it, but I don't like it, so I don't think you or anybody else should be able to do it.
Click to expand...
I would be all over banning certain types of advanced gadgetry, absolutely.

Breaking that down per weapon is where the challenges will come, but yes.....I am very open to self policing and slowing down today's technology.
 
As slam said above anybody who has read and attempted to comprehend what hoss and slam and others are saying, you would see that most who are advocating a ban have openly said they dont feel the herd can continue to take the abuse and they are willing to give up their gadgets and advantages in order to preserve the resource and keep opportunity into the future.

NOT ONE PERSON has said that long range hunting isnt easier than standard firearms hunting like many baiters have tried to say it doesn't really help.

WE ALL know the reasons man has chosen easier ways to kill deer. We all recognize the things that give man a bigger advantage. The biggest difference is some are willing to give up some of those advantages to the benefit of something besides THEMSELVES and others are not.

Bill
 
huntindad4 said:
As slam said above anybody who has read and attempted to comprehend what hoss and slam and others are saying, you would see that most who are advocating a ban have openly said they dont feel the herd can continue to take the abuse and they are willing to give up their gadgets and advantages in order to preserve the resource and keep opportunity into the future.

NOT ONE PERSON has said that long range hunting isnt easier than standard firearms hunting like many baiters have tried to say it doesn't really help.

WE ALL know the reasons man has chosen easier ways to kill deer. We all recognize the things that give man a bigger advantage. The biggest difference is some are willing to give up some of those advantages to the benefit of something besides THEMSELVES and others are not.

Bill
Click to expand...
Well said....thank you Sir.
 
Do you think baiting just was invented a few years ago????

Some here talk about the herd can't take the "abuse". Baiting existed when the deer could take the abuse. then more and more technology shows up and the herds can't take the abuse??? But it doesn't make sense to limit the new technology. Nooooo. Let's label one of the oldest hunting strategies as not "fair" and outlaw it. Quite frankly, that's bull5h!t.
 
Tristate said:
Do you think baiting just was invented a few years ago????

Some here talk about the herd can't take the "abuse". Baiting existed when the deer could take the abuse. then more and more technology shows up and the herds can't take the abuse??? But it doesn't make sense to limit the new technology. Nooooo. Let's label one of the oldest hunting strategies as not "fair" and outlaw it. Quite frankly, that's bull5h!t.
Click to expand...
Do you even follow along, or just pick and choose what you want to read and then twist it into what you want to argue about?

This thread has zero bearing on what you do in Texas.
 
If sportsmen are going to put effort into banning something to make hunting more sporting, baiting is way down the list. Maybe baiting has no place in hunting, I don’t know, but IMO it’s something to address after many more impactful issues are addressed.
 
Founder said:
If sportsmen are going to put effort into banning something to make hunting more sporting, baiting is way down the list. Maybe baiting has no place in hunting, I don’t know, but IMO it’s something to address after many more impactful issues are addressed.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.
We know the baiting community is probably only 10% if that.
And as you just mentioned, as have many others throughout the life of this long thread, it is only one of the many pieces of the whole puzzle.

The fact that the Division, MDWG and RAC's are addressing it first is not because it's an easy way to kill deer, it brings other issues to light such as a highly potential way to spread CWD.
 
Letshunt said:
I remember as a kid hunting with my dad in the early 80s and through the 90s when mule deer hunting was at an incredible high. So many big bucks ended up living because we didn’t have range finders and we were always trying to be within that 300 yard mark. How many more deer would be alive if that was still the standard? I know a lot of people have beef with how the DWR manages things and I for one have a couple of “beefs” myself, but as a group we haven’t really done anything to police ourselves. We push the limits on everything we do and our big game animals are suffering for sure. This entire shift towards killing for “show” (social media status) versus family hunting and putting meat in the freezer has taken its toll on these animals and now we are reaping what we’ve sowed and now we don’t like it but there is no hunting movement to change things on our end. Sometimes it’s no fun to look inward at things that we need to change, but man I feel like it would be a great thing for hunting.
Click to expand...
There are still plenty of bucks out there to fill most peoples freezers. I wished people would worry less about how their neighbor is hunting and just worry about how they are going to get it done. Most of the successful people don't worry about what others around them are doing but use their actions to their favor.
Should someone dumping a truckload of apples out on public land be prohibited?
Probably.

Should someone get in trouble for tossing a pocket full of apples or placing a small mineral salt rock in front of a trail camera to get some pictures?
Absolutely not!
 
Founder said:
If sportsmen are going to put effort into banning something to make hunting more sporting, baiting is way down the list. Maybe baiting has no place in hunting, I don’t know, but IMO it’s something to address after many more impactful issues are addressed.
Click to expand...

I have never baited (not legal where I have hunted) but I think reality dictates you have to start somewhere. If all we do is say well christ baiting is WAY DOWN THE LIST or Judas long range hunting is WAY DOWN THE LIST the guess what gets picked....nothing.


YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!

Bill
 
Hey Ridge!

I Think as Long as You Only Dump a 1/2 Truckload of Apples in one Pile You'll be OK!




ridgetops said:
There are still plenty of bucks out there to fill most peoples freezers. I wished people would worry less about how their neighbor is hunting and just worry about how they are going to get it done. Most of the successful people don't worry about what others around them are doing but use their actions to their favor.
Should someone dumping a truckload of apples out on public land be prohibited?
Probably.

Should someone get in trouble for tossing a pocket full of apples or placing a small mineral salt rock in front of a trail camera to get some pictures?
Absolutely not!
Click to expand...
 
You Guys ever Read HELL-RIGHT?

Founder said:
If sportsmen are going to put effort into banning something to make hunting more sporting, baiting is way down the list. Maybe baiting has no place in hunting, I don’t know, but IMO it’s something to address after many more impactful issues are addressed.
Click to expand...
 
Just a Reminder:

The Changes are Many & Some of you will Think they are HARSH!

You're Right!

The Extended Archery Hunt will Come To an End & Now!

The Late Muzz Tags are Gone as Well!

For CFS We Don't have the Deer Numbers for these kinda BS Hunts for GAWDS Sakes!

Hunting Big Game Continuously & Overlapped From Mid-August through January/February with No Relaxation Time for the Deer Herd No Longer Happens!

Not Every TARD in this State Gets a Tag Every Year!

I Hate it as much as anybody,but the Inflation of Hunters outnumber the number of Harvest-able Deer we can Harvest each year!

It is Now a 50,000.00 Fine on the very first offense when you're caught Off-Roading Your F'N Wheelers & Side X Sides in Closed Areas/Primitive/Private Property without Permission!

On Your 2nd Offense 150,000.00 Fine,Confiscation of your Wheeler/Side X Side,Your Rig/Truck You Pulled it to the Mountain With & 1 Year in Jail and Your Hunting Rights are Revoked 50 States wide for Life!

Trespassers get the same Treatment as Listed above!

Poachers on the very first offense will be Fined 150,00.00,pay full replacement price of the Animal they Illegally took,All Hunting Gear/Vehicles Confiscated & Auctioned off with that Money going back to the DWR to Help Prosecute more Poachers & Fencing,Hunting Privileges Revoked forever in all 50 States with 2 Years of Free Meals down at the Local Jail Cell!

I'm Helping PUNK on this one:Baiting Deer/Big Game of any Kind Lands you a Free Stay with Bubba for 6 Months,You'll be Banned from all Hunting in all 50 States for Life along with a 25,000.00 Fine!

Wasting Deer/ Wildlife of any Kind will get You the Same Treatment as Listed above!

Deer Management Will be Based on Total Number of Deer & Not Buck to Doe Ratio's alone,Deer Counts will be Proven to the Best We can Count them,Not Guesstimated,Not Exaggerated And NOT Lied about Fake,Phony,F'N Elevated Numbers of Deer that Don't Exist!

When We Notice Deer Declining in Units below satisfactory numbers,there will be Tags/Permits Cut Immediately,not years down the road when it's too late!

There Are No More Antler-less/Doe Tags anywhere in the State,When Problems arise,The Does/Deer Will Be Captured & Moved!

Legal Archery Equipment will be Limited to Recurves Only!

Legal Muzzle-loaders will be Hawkins & Flintlocks only!

Legal Rifles will only Have Scopes with a Maximum Magnification of 4 Power!

Rangefinders are Not Legal & You Won't need them with the Down Grading of all Weaponry!

Trail Cams are Strictly Prohibited on all Public Ground & it is Legal for any Person to Tear them Down & Destroy them at any time!

Drones are legal for Target Practice year around!

Outfitters & Guides Can Not Surround/Herd or Camp on any Big Game Animals!

Camo Clothing of all Types is Prohibited so Dig Your Red F'N Shirts out!

Spotting Scopes of any kind/Size are prohibited from using during any Hunt,with the shorter Range Weaponry you won't need them!

No Units will be Mismanaged so Poorly that they have to be Closed!

There Will Be 5 Units around the State in a few places known as
Opportunist Units/Hunts,When They've Pounded These Out they can NOT start BAWLING wanting to Pound the other Units out!

All Units excluding the 5 Opportunist Units will have Antler Restrictions of 4 Point or better to be a legal Buck!

Anybody Shooting Sub 4 Point Bucks in a 4 Point or Better Unit will pay a 35,000.00 Fine on the 1st Offense,Lose their Hunting Rights for Life in all 50 States!

Any Hunter Entering Great Grandpa or Great Grandma/Etc in to the Draws just to Hunt on their Permits will be Fined 40,000.00 & Banned for Life of Hunting Privileges in all 50 States!

Paraplanes/Shoot-Planes are Outlawed during any Hunting Seasons and if Caught you'll Pay 25,000.00 & Confiscation of your Shoot-Plane!

Several Roads & Trails will Be Flat Ass Closed,You Get Caught You'll Pay Dearly,Get Your Boots Oiled up!

SpotLighting will Be Outlawed 1 Month Before Bow Season through January 31st in all Big Game Units/Areas,Break this Law & it'll Cost You 30,000.00 & Loss of Hunting Rights in all 50 States for Life!

Each Year We will do More Deer Fencing along Highways,It'll take several years,We should have been doing this 50 years ago!

No More Cow Killer Hunts Running From August Through Jan-Feb,Yes People this Adds Pressure on the Deer Herd They do not Need!

Managing for Strictly Money is Over with!

Nobody can Outguess Weather/Drought & Management will be Tweaked accordingly by the Year!(NOT By saying:Oh We've got a 5 Year Plan Locked in & We can't do anything!)

Forest Service/BLM/DWR will Start Enforcing Existing Rules & Laws before Making More which have only Hurt the Honest Sportsmen & they Do NOT Enforce them!

Radio's Used to Help Kill Deer will Land You a 30,000.00 Fine & Confiscation of all other Hunting Equipment on you at time of the Arrest!

The Dedicated Hunter Program will Continue,It Will Be Mandatory all Projects will be 'MULE DEER' Related & You have to put in your Hours,No More PAY for your Hours Type of BS unless an Emergency comes up!

All LE Buck & Bull Tags will Be Once in a F'N Lifetime!

I Could go on & on But I Won't!

Niller wanted 1 or maybe 3 Things I'd Do If I Could Change the Management for the Better!

Listed above is a Few!

There are Many,Many More that could be added to Help a Suffering Deer Herd!

This Ought to be enough though To PISS The Pope Off & Most other TARDS of this State!

If You Think the Past Deer Management Plans have Helped anything you are WRONG!

If You Think this Last WB Meeting & Changes will Save the Deer Herd You are WRONG!

So I'm gonna Name My Plan HELL-RIGHT,HELL-F'N-RIGHT!

Blast Away!
 
ridgetops said:
There are still plenty of bucks out there to fill most peoples freezers. I wished people would worry less about how their neighbor is hunting and just worry about how they are going to get it done. Most of the successful people don't worry about what others around them are doing but use their actions to their favor.
Should someone dumping a truckload of apples out on public land be prohibited?
Probably.

Should someone get in trouble for tossing a pocket full of apples or placing a small mineral salt rock in front of a trail camera to get some pictures?
Absolutely not!
Click to expand...

Ridgetops, I have followed your post both in this thread and many others and I highly respect your opinion and you as a hunter in general. I am impressed with you success repeatedly on public land.

That said, I think you as many others have a tendency to look in large part only inside your own bubble of the hunting world. As probably every person in this thread most likely is. I think it would benefit you and others to accept what some are saying as being THEIR truth from their experiences instead of assuming they just arent hunting hard enough or the right way to find the bucks that you are able to find.

Bill
 
huntindad4 said:
I have never baited (not legal where I have hunted) but I think reality dictates you have to start somewhere. If all we do is say well christ baiting is WAY DOWN THE LIST or Judas long range hunting is WAY DOWN THE LIST the guess what gets picked....nothing.


YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!

Bill
Click to expand...
I'm not into baiting for an easy hunt but I do use salt or other attractants to get good pictures of game with my cameras but that right there is my problem with this whole baiting debate. This baiting issue is just a check-off item. When it's banned, then move onto the next item until we have more restrictions than we know what to do with.
 
Both sides have valid points here. I don’t really care but would lean more towards unless you’re disabled then there is not much reason to need it. To be honest to Ridgetop’s point, I had no idea this was even a thing. I just go hunt deer and seem to be doing pretty decent. My only strong opinion is tristate should stop talking about Utah game laws.
 
Hey Bess, remember back in the day and not too long ago, chute planes were the "secret weapon" of the big boys so they could find and kill 20k deer down south and some popular names got in big trouble and laws changed....

Now they are grounded with semi loads of apples to get those checks cashed.

Nobody cares about the bigger picture, it's all about the now!
 
Yes PUNK!

I Remember it Well!

Kinda makes You Wonder what will be next?




slamdunk said:
Hey Bess, remember back in the day and not too long ago, chute planes were the "secret weapon" of the big boys so they could find and kill 20k deer down south and some popular names got in big trouble and laws changed....

Now they are grounded with semi loads of apples to get those checks cashed.

Nobody cares about the bigger picture, it's all about the now!
Click to expand...
 
Zwickey said:
You are still entitled to your opinion but if you had 2 or 3 years of experience with baiting, your opinion on the subject would be much more valid and would carry more weight with me (I'm betting you would find it's not quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is. And if not, I would have much more respect for your opinion.
Click to expand...

I've got a big plastic bin in my basement filled with old trail cameras and about 20 SD cards from putting out salt licks in my younger days. Then I decided it wasn't Fair Chase to use an animals natural craving for essential food and minerals to alter its natural behavior for the purpose of making my "hunt" easier. So I quit doing it and now choose to hunt via spot-and-stalk, primarily with a bow. I HAVE tried baiting and I put my money where my mouth is when I realized I was putting the "kill" above the "hunt"

Obviously there is a small group of people in one remaining Rocky Mountain state that still rely on baiting to hunt. Everybody else is doing just fine without it... and the baiters will too.

For those that say they use baiting to get closer to animals for the purpose of a more ethical shot, maybe just get better at stalking or be satisfied with lower success rates since nobody is making you shoot until you are as close as necessary to ensure a perfect shot... but the hunting is harder and the success more rewarding when it works out.
 
huntindad4 said:
Simple question.

Do the baiters here feel like there is plenty of deer?

If so, were that to change and you felt it was declining would you support restrictions on bait as well as other methods that make the job easier?

Bill
Click to expand...

I would support some RESTRICTIONS on baiting now! (locations, number of sites, type of bait, amount of bait, baiting fees, clean-up.) Most of the so-called baiting discussed on this thread is feeding and isn't biologically sound or necessary and I don't support that at all. But, having said that, I would not support a total ban anymore than I would support banning baiting for fish, bears or trapping. Those forms of baiting are allowed because they are regulated and monitored, and even you accept them. But, for some nefarious reasons, to most of you, ANY baiting of big game as you chose to define it, is unethical and needs to be banned regardless of how it's done. I don't, and wouldn't support that view!
 
I am not for baiting or against it, I just have not really thought about the issues of baiting.
I tried it one summer and fall about 20 years ago on a friends 500 acre Tamarisk filled river bottom. I tried it more out of curiosity than for hunting purposes and I had no success. Could of been how I went about it or it could of been the fact there was plenty of alfalfa fields around. I mostly
There is a case to be maid that it is too effective. But so is long range hunting.
What makes long range snipping of a buck from 500 yards anymore right than sticking a buck at 20 yards.
Guys trying to make one form or another of hunting illegal has probably been going on since hunting became a sport and was no longer essential for surviving.
I remember back in the 1980 and 90 hunters wanted making deer drives illegal. The ones that wanted that form of hunting illegal used some of the same argument's that is being used now, unethical, detrimental too the heard, unsafe for hunters and it encouraged party hunting.
Was these issues legitimate maybe, it is all debatable and a matter of perspective.
It keeps getting brought up that the image of baiting is negative in the eyes of the none hunters but in the same breath it is stated that you never see pictures of guys hunting over baits because hunters are not proud of hunting over bait.
Explain that oxymoron!
What is going on down on the Pausagaunt does not sound like a good situation I honestly had no idea of all the baiting going on down there. I was with a friend who rifle hunted the Pausagaunt a few years back and we did not run into any issues (baiting or guides) it might be more of an archery issue.
Should we have some regulation on baiting maybe but remember if you limit one form of hunting what stops others from limiting another form of hunting and those that might come after your form of hunting might not be other hunters it probably will be anti hunters.
Who is going to stand up for you.
Just goggle trophy hunting and see all the attacks on trophy hunting in Africa. I actually had a discussion with some fellow hunters and they were not too concern about the attacks on trophy hunting in Africa, the comment was "it dont concern me I will never go hunting in Africa"
Remember if you make one form of hunting illegal it will stay illegal.
 
grizzly said:
I've got a big plastic bin in my basement filled with old trail cameras and about 20 SD cards from putting out salt licks in my younger days. Then I decided it wasn't Fair Chase to use an animals natural craving for essential food and minerals to alter its natural behavior for the purpose of making my "hunt" easier. So I quit doing it and now choose to hunt via spot-and-stalk, primarily with a bow. I HAVE tried baiting and I put my money where my mouth is when I realized I was putting the "kill" above the "hunt"

Obviously there is a small group of people in one remaining Rocky Mountain state that still rely on baiting to hunt. Everybody else is doing just fine without it... and the baiters will too.

For those that say they use baiting to get closer to animals for the purpose of a more ethical shot, maybe just get better at stalking or be satisfied with lower success rates since nobody is making you shoot until you are as close as necessary to ensure a perfect shot... but the hunting is harder and the success more rewarding when it works out.
Click to expand...

Like has been stated on here before!
"Then "I" decided it wasn't Fair Chase...……. so "I" quit doing it.....
"Everybody else is doing fine without it... and the baiters will too."

In other words, because "I" don't think it's right, "I" don't want you doing it either so "I"m going to make it illegal and to h+!! with those of you who can't or have difficulty hunting without it. Besides, it's only a small group of people "I" need to worry about. And, "I'll get to sleep better at night knowing "I've saved the deer herds.

BTW: Merriam/Webster Dictionary:
Definition of pursue
transitive verb
1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill or defeat
2: to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish a goal

You may prefer to use your body doing #1, but I can't do that so I prefer to use my brain doing #2.
 
Last edited:
elkfromabove said:
Like has been stated on here before!
"Then "I" decided it wasn't Fair Chase...……. so "I" quit doing it.....
"Everybody else is doing fine without it... and the baiters will too."

In other words, because "I" don't think it's right, "I" don't want you doing it either so "I"m going to make it illegal and to h+!! with those of you who can't or have difficulty hunting without it. Besides, it's only a small group of people "I" need to worry about. And, "I'll get to sleep better at night knowing "I've saved the deer herds.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing either case but this is exactly how every issue ever is thought out.............laws exist because enough like minded people have the thought “I don’t agree with this”. Which becomes “we don’t agree with this” once like minded people talk. Just like you are seeing on both sides of the fence of this argument. You could flip your post around to being pro hunting with bait. “I agree with this”, because “it helps me kill game” even though many of my fellow sportsman think it’s unethical “I don’t care to hell with them and their ethics”......... just saying.
 
scopenstalk said:
I’m not arguing either case but this is exactly how every issue ever is thought out.............laws exist because enough like minded people have the thought “I don’t agree with this”. Which becomes “we don’t agree with this” once like minded people talk. Just like you are seeing on both sides of the fence of this argument. You could flip your post around to being pro hunting with bait. “I agree with this”, because “it helps me kill game” even though many of my fellow sportsman think it’s unethical “I don’t care to hell with them and their ethics”......... just saying.
Click to expand...

The difference being, I'm not trying to change the way they chose to hunt. I used to do it myself somewhat and I loved it. But I can't do it anymore and over the years I've had to find other ways to hunt. But now they are trying to make the way I now hunt illegal. The irony of it all is that if they are lucky and live long enough, they will end up still loving hunting, but will be unable to do it legally. What goes around, comes around!
 
elkfromabove said:
The difference being, I'm not trying to change the way they chose to hunt. I used to do it myself somewhat and I loved it. But I can't do it anymore and over the years I've had to find other ways to hunt. But now they are trying to make the way I now hunt illegal. The irony of it all is that if they are lucky and live long enough, they will end up still loving hunting, but will be unable to do it legally. What goes around, comes around!
Click to expand...
Read how many times you said “I” in your last post. You’re right that they want a law changed and you want it protected but the core of your previous argument just proves what I said before.........either way I hope you can continue hunting legally whatever form that takes. I’m not going to say you don’t have valid points about why you hunt the way you do either. I just didn’t accusing whoever it was of being self centered was a fair way to protect your hunting methods...... everyone is selfish to a point...... it’s human nature
 
any hunter who wants to take away a legal means of hunting even if its not something you do should quit hunting. unbelievable you are no better than a anti
 
Thank goodness there are hunters who are willing to put ethics into regulation to protect the sport and the wildlife!

If everybody demanded hunting be governed by the "you do it your way and I'll do it my way" theory... we'd have night hunting, year-long seasons, unlimited tags, paraplane aerial hunting, FLIR, herding with ATVs, poisoning, running game down with snowmobiles, party slaughters, trespassing, etc...

Some of us are willing to limit our own successes by not taking the easy way with hooking animals on false man-made food supplies for the purpose of shooting them from a lawn chair. Others just want to tag out in the most cost and time-effective way possible.

That's why the big boys with tens of thousands of dollars on the line do it that way. Not because of the ethics or the chase or the wildlife. But because it works.

Somehow the guys who insist on doing it say it doesn't really work, yet they demand it! The argument makes no sense.

And those that claim jealousy drives the anti-baiters are bassackwards and trying to make themselves feel better about their actions with no apparent concept for the actual impetus. Every one of us could dump apples if we wanted to. And some of us could call and buy a tag and book a baited hunt tomorrow if we wanted to. It's just not how we choose to do it. I could be on the Pauns this fall if I desired... I've certainly no reason to be jealous of something I despise.

PS. I sure hope none of the "you do it your way and I'll do it my way" crowd is advocating for Pro-Life legislation because virtually every argument made could be applied to a Pro-Choice position; the only difference is we're talking about protecting wildlife instead of protecting a fetus. Switch the discussion to one focused on those that can't speak for themselves to one on legislating ethics to one on historical availability to one on civil liberties to one on government overreach... I could go on and on.

If you're against governments legislating personal ethics into law, then at least be consistent. If you're okay with laws telling people what's allowed and what's not, then be consistent. And I know that's going to make EFA uncomfortable because he's said he's very Pro-Life (or anti-choice?) but one could argue that's just him trying to impose his beliefs and ethics on others. The comparison is apropos.
 
Last edited:
HUNTNNW said:
any hunter who wants to take away a legal means of hunting even if its not something you do should quit hunting. unbelievable you are no better than a anti
Click to expand...
There was a time when there were no game management laws at all. It's a good thing you weren't in charge back then or the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation wouldn't exist.

It is certainly appropriate for hunters to self-govern hunting regulations as wildlife dynamics, seasons, weapons, tactics, and habitat all change. To argue that whatever wildlife laws we had 50 years ago must always remain the same is foolish.
 
scopenstalk said:
Read how many times you said “I” in your last post. You’re right that they want a law changed and you want it protected but the core of your previous argument just proves what "I" said before.........either way "I" hope you can continue hunting legally whatever form that takes. "I'm" not going to say you don’t have valid points about why you hunt the way you do either. "I" just didn’t accusing whoever it was of being self centered was a fair way to protect your hunting methods...... everyone is selfish to a point...... it’s human nature
Click to expand...

Touche' :)

My point is that under the pro-baiting scenario, with the proper regulations, everyone still has a choice whether or not to bait, but under the banning scenario nobody has that choice and that will reduce the number of hunters who are able to continue. It may not effect some people now, but none of them are getting younger.
 
elkfromabove said:
I would support some RESTRICTIONS on baiting now! (locations, number of sites, type of bait, amount of bait, baiting fees, clean-up.) Most of the so-called baiting discussed on this thread is feeding and isn't biologically sound or necessary and I don't support that at all. But, having said that, I would not support a total ban anymore than I would support banning baiting for fish, bears or trapping. Those forms of baiting are allowed because they are regulated and monitored, and even you accept them. But, for some nefarious reasons, to most of you, ANY baiting of big game as you chose to define it, is unethical and needs to be banned regardless of how it's done. I don't, and wouldn't support that view!
Click to expand...


Comparing deer to fish or predators is too silly to even respond to
 
Bo.

If you are waiting for me to protest shutting down LR you could be waiting for a while.


But you asked.

PITTMAN TAX: LR means guns, and ammo, and all the related. That means $$$ back to the division.

Conservation partnerships:
The RMEF banquet I'm attending is sponsored in part by Remington. Leupold is a big partner in conservation work. Federal also. There is a lot of money from gun and optics that flow back.

There are 2 reasons LR is more beneficial directly to wildlife. Or did I miss the Apple tax for deer?

Further. It will be tougher from a tech and PR stance. That's no excuse not to, but as the lack of pics over apples shows, there isn't a lot of public support for baiting, so it's an easier target.

I shoot a Browning A bolt 30-06 that I got for Xmas in 1989. I put a 3x9 leuopold on it in 1990. Hardly an LR gun.

My son shoots a Roger American 7mm-08 with a 4x12 Bushnell Elite.
It's more accurate at 200 yrds than my 06.

My bro in law shoots a 700 rem 7mm with a Simmons 3x9. That gun is 30 years old. But much more accurate at 300 than either of us.

The point being. Do we stop calibers? 6.5 manbun was an LR gun before a hunting gun.

Scopes? Dial turets are becoming pretty common on hunting guns.

Computers? Wind meters? Ballistic calculators?

It's just a harder thing to do.

Personally I'd prefer a trail cam season next.

Kind of a "debt snowball" approach. Get the easiest first while you are looking at the harder things.

My list: in no order

Bait
Trail cam season
LR
2 ways
Muzzy regs like Colorado
Electronics on bows
 
hossblur said:
Comparing deer to fish or predators is too silly to even respond to
Click to expand...
Hoss I do not think EFA is comparing baiting of deer to baiting of fish or bears, he is just using baiting of bears as an example.
hossblur said:
Bo.

If you are waiting for me to protest shutting down LR you could be waiting for a while.


But you asked.

PITTMAN TAX: LR means guns, and ammo, and all the related. That means $$$ back to the division.

Conservation partnerships:
The RMEF banquet I'm attending is sponsored in part by Remington. Leupold is a big partner in conservation work. Federal also. There is a lot of money from gun and optics that flow back.

There are 2 reasons LR is more beneficial directly to wildlife. Or did I miss the Apple tax for deer?

Further. It will be tougher from a tech and PR stance. That's no excuse not to, but as the lack of pics over apples shows, there isn't a lot of public support for baiting, so it's an easier target.

I shoot a Browning A bolt 30-06 that I got for Xmas in 1989. I put a 3x9 leuopold on it in 1990. Hardly an LR gun.

My son shoots a Roger American 7mm-08 with a 4x12 Bushnell Elite.
It's more accurate at 200 yrds than my 06.

My bro in law shoots a 700 rem 7mm with a Simmons 3x9. That gun is 30 years old. But much more accurate at 300 than either of us.

The point being. Do we stop calibers? 6.5 manbun was an LR gun before a hunting gun.

Scopes? Dial turets are becoming pretty common on hunting guns.

Computers? Wind meters? Ballistic calculators?

It's just a harder thing to do.

Personally I'd prefer a trail cam season next.

Kind of a "debt snowball" approach. Get the easiest first while you are looking at the harder things.

My list: in no order

Bait
Trail cam season
LR
2 ways
Muzzy regs like Colorado
Electronics on bows
Click to expand...

Long range hunting is here to stay. If the rifle manufacturers are allowed to produce rifles and optic companies are allowed to produce long range scopes long range hunting will continue. Is Utah going to tell 100million companies they can not do buisness in Utah because long range hunting is illegal.
It would be law enforcement nightmare to try and regulate long range hunting in the field. Would we expect DWR Officers to inspect hunters rifle and scopes or what caliber they are using. Are you going to put limits on how far hunters can shoot. I personally do not think any of this is possible.
But the question is not if you can make long range hunting illegal or baiting illegal the question is if long range hunting is ethical way to hunt and baiting is not ethical.
There is individuals on this thread that compare baiting to aerial hunting or spotlighting and that is ludicrous. Individuals say baiting is nothing more than seating in a lawn chair relaxing again that is ludicrous. One individual wants to compare baiting to abortion rights and again ludicrous.
Grizz if you want to argue abortion is right or wrong let's take it to the political threads I am shore there is plenty of guys that would like to debate it there. That argument does not need to be in this thread.
Yes other states has made baiting illegal or put strong restrictions on the practice. But do you know there is a thing called the Constitution and in that Constitution it gives INDIVIDUAL STATE RIGHTS so if Utah decides it wants baiting to be legal and you do not like that then move to a state that has made baiting illegal.
I personally do not think baiting is anymore unethical or more ethical than long range hunting.
I also would not lose any sleep if the state of Utah decided either one illegal or bolth is illegal.
But I would lose sleep if you take away my individual rights or the individual rights as a state of Utah because California or Colorado or even Idaho makes it illegal.
Just one mans individual opinion.

Edit
Again I ask if you never see pictures of hunters by there apple pile with there trophy buck then how does the individuals that do not hunt no baiting is going on?
 
Last edited:
hossblur said:
Bo.

If you are waiting for me to protest shutting down LR you could be waiting for a while.


But you asked.

PITTMAN TAX: LR means guns, and ammo, and all the related. That means $$$ back to the division.

Conservation partnerships:
The RMEF banquet I'm attending is sponsored in part by Remington. Leupold is a big partner in conservation work. Federal also. There is a lot of money from gun and optics that flow back.

There are 2 reasons LR is more beneficial directly to wildlife. Or did I miss the Apple tax for deer?

Further. It will be tougher from a tech and PR stance. That's no excuse not to, but as the lack of pics over apples shows, there isn't a lot of public support for baiting, so it's an easier target.

I shoot a Browning A bolt 30-06 that I got for Xmas in 1989. I put a 3x9 leuopold on it in 1990. Hardly an LR gun.

My son shoots a Roger American 7mm-08 with a 4x12 Bushnell Elite.
It's more accurate at 200 yrds than my 06.

My bro in law shoots a 700 rem 7mm with a Simmons 3x9. That gun is 30 years old. But much more accurate at 300 than either of us.

The point being. Do we stop calibers? 6.5 manbun was an LR gun before a hunting gun.

Scopes? Dial turets are becoming pretty common on hunting guns.

Computers? Wind meters? Ballistic calculators?

It's just a harder thing to do.

Personally I'd prefer a trail cam season next.

Kind of a "debt snowball" approach. Get the easiest first while you are looking at the harder things.

My list: in no order

Bait
Trail cam season
LR
2 ways
Muzzy regs like Colorado
Electronics on bows
Click to expand...
Spot on.
How would you ever regulate "long range"?
I know guys who will take Hail Mary shots with a 30-06, but push a ban on a popular long range caliber by definition.
Built in rangefinder inside scope, ban it.
Tell me I can't hunt with a 6.5.....nope.
Define "long range hunting" and "hunting long range" and we'll talk.
 
elkfromabove said:
I would support some RESTRICTIONS on baiting now! (locations, number of sites, type of bait, amount of bait, baiting fees, clean-up.) Most of the so-called baiting discussed on this thread is feeding and isn't biologically sound or necessary and I don't support that at all. But, having said that, I would not support a total ban anymore than I would support banning baiting for fish, bears or trapping. Those forms of baiting are allowed because they are regulated and monitored, and even you accept them. But, for some nefarious reasons, to most of you, ANY baiting of big game as you chose to define it, is unethical and needs to be banned regardless of how it's done. I don't, and wouldn't support that view!
Click to expand...
How could you ever monitor this??
 
Slam, IMO that is an easy one to tackle. We did it for years with our muzzy's. Limit the optics you can put on your gun. The optics is what makes it LR. Limit it to a fixed power scope, no electronics, no turret BS. If you can't see them in your scope it's hard to hit them right? Doesn't matter what caliber. You can use your 6.5 still with a fixed 4-6x scope, keeps you in the same area code at least of the animal.

You will always have guys taking shots past their effective kill range, but that is where your self policing ethics should come into play.
 
Bocephus said:
Slam, IMO that is an easy one to tackle. We did it for years with our muzzy's. Limit the optics you can put on your gun. The optics is what makes it LR. Limit it to a fixed power scope, no electronics, no turret BS. If you can't see them in your scope it's hard to hit them right? Doesn't matter what caliber. You can use your 6.5 still with a fixed 4-6x scope, keeps you in the same area code at least of the animal.

You will always have guys taking shots past their effective kill range, but that is where your self policing ethics should come into play.
Click to expand...
I agree, that's really about all you can do in that area.
These 5 & 600 yard new muzzleloaders are a joke, and we have things like the "Total Archery Challenge" competition with targets exceeding 100 yards and Tech companies growing like wildfires.
 
grizzly said:
That's a prime example of hunters setting their own rules. I wouldn't support that provision though it could be discussed. It would also not be representative of other hunting regulations in the area, unlike a ban on baiting which would be typical for the area.

For example, Arizona considered a law banning cameras within 1/4 mile of a water source but eventually decided against it. Baiting is a reasonable conversation to have without people casting false dichotomies such as long range rifles and hunting over water.

It's okay to have a discussion as to whether baiting in Utah is really something we want to support statewide, knowing all the while there is a small number of people that depend on it.

Those who are so strong to support hunting big game over bait need to ask themselves why it's never bragged about or photographed, in fact it's avoided in the discussion of hunts. There are hundreds of stories of big game posted online every year and there are very few that show the apple piles in their Instagram stories. They also need to ask why all our surrounding states decided it was unethical. This isn't an attack on anybody, it's a discussion on who we are as hunters.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you why they don't post about it because people like you guys would roast them over it. Why would anyone subject themselves to that type of criticism?
 
8-11-3 Firearms Restrictions.
(A) No person shall hunt migratory birds with:

(1) A shotgun larger than ten (10) gauge.

(2) A shotgun capable of holding more than two (2) shells in the magazine.

(3) A shotgun using a plug of two (2) or more pieces.

(4) A rifle of any type.

(5) A shotgun with a barrel length less than eighteen (18) inches.

(6) A handgun of any type.

(7) Shot other than steel shot.

(Amended by PBP TC No. 2017-335, October 26, 2017)

Other than the steel shot amendment, these weapon restrictions have been in place since the Migratory Bird Treaty in 1918. The treaty also banned bait and many other hunting practices that were common at the time but were considered to be too effective.

All these restrictions for migratory birds have been in place throughout North America for more than a century. Exceptions have been made for overpopulated snow geese. I don't hear anybody complaining about the rather heavy handed restrictions on the hunting of migratory birds set in place in 1918. Those restrictions have kept the sporting tradition of hunting migratory birds little changed.

I don't like all the new technology being applied to big game hunting. I guess I'm officially a cranky old geezer now but I would like to see see technology for hunting regulated to go back to and freeze it at about 1980 levels. The reason is that I do believe in Fair Chase.

Baiting is less of an issue to me than technology but with the potential for disease transmission I think it should be banned as well.
 
ridgetops said:
I'll tell you why they don't post about it because people like you guys would roast them over it. Why would anyone subject themselves to that type of criticism?
Click to expand...


The same pros baiting pose with LR guns with hashtags.

The REAL truth is because dude sitting over a huge buck, Sitka gear and newest Hoyt, would not be nearly "as bad azz" if the pile of apples were under it.
 
hossblur said:
The same pros baiting pose with LR guns with hashtags.

The REAL truth is because dude sitting over a huge buck, Sitka gear and newest Hoyt, would not be nearly "as bad azz" if the pile of apples were under it.
Click to expand...
You've got a serious attitude problem and I'm sure I'm not the first to point it out. lol That kind of stuff, I just don't pay much attention to.
 
What's weird is I don't look at any hunting picture and analyze who does or doesn't look "bad azz".

I think Hossblur may being looking at pics for the wrong reasons.

Why do I envision him being the girl in school that always drew the devil horns and blacked out teeth on the other girls pics in the year book.
 
ridgetops said:
You've got a serious attitude problem and I'm sure I'm not the first to point it out. lol That kind of stuff, I just don't pay much attention to.


My "attitude" is just honesty.

Professionals, make money being effective and efficient. That's why they use bait. The guys that copy them do so because it's effective and efficient.

Yet, they don't show it. Why?

Because you know what it does. I know what it does.

Will the pros be as effective? Yup. As efficient? Probably not.

Will a "average Joe", no. They generally don't have the time or resources.

A gazillion posts on baiting. I still have not seen one pic by any of you defenders of your bait pile kill.

Actions always speak louder than words. You can keep saying it's no big deal, yet for some reason you don't publicize it.

The whitetail world isn't ashamed to show their feeders. Why are the mule deer guys?
Click to expand...
 
Cowkiller said:
8-11-3 Firearms Restrictions.
(A) No person shall hunt migratory birds with:

(1) A shotgun larger than ten (10) gauge.

(2) A shotgun capable of holding more than two (2) shells in the magazine.

(3) A shotgun using a plug of two (2) or more pieces.

(4) A rifle of any type.

(5) A shotgun with a barrel length less than eighteen (18) inches.

(6) A handgun of any type.

(7) Shot other than steel shot.

(Amended by PBP TC No. 2017-335, October 26, 2017)

Other than the steel shot amendment, these weapon restrictions have been in place since the Migratory Bird Treaty in 1918. The treaty also banned bait and many other hunting practices that were common at the time but were considered to be too effective.

All these restrictions for migratory birds have been in place throughout North America for more than a century. Exceptions have been made for overpopulated snow geese. I don't hear anybody complaining about the rather heavy handed restrictions on the hunting of migratory birds set in place in 1918. Those restrictions have kept the sporting tradition of hunting migratory birds little changed.

I don't like all the new technology being applied to big game hunting. I guess I'm officially a cranky old geezer now but I would like to see see technology for hunting regulated to go back to and freeze it at about 1980 levels. The reason is that I do believe in Fair Chase.

Baiting is less of an issue to me than technology but with the potential for disease transmission I think it should be banned as well.
Click to expand...
Things CAN be done to reduce hunter success so that more people can enjoy quality hunting. The big things are what need to change to have any real effect. I doubt anything will really change until we shoot out the herds to the point that people quit wanting to go, then Game and Fish agencies might get serious. Or, they'll just keep reducing opportunity to increase quality and charge 5 times as much for that opportunity.
 
Founder said:
Things CAN be done to reduce hunter success so that more people can enjoy quality hunting. The big things are what need to change to have any real effect. I doubt anything will really change until we shoot out the herds to the point that people quit wanting to go, then Game and Fish agencies might get serious. Or, they'll just keep reducing opportunity to increase quality and charge 5 times as much for that opportunity.
Click to expand...

Great post IMO.

Baiting has zero effect on my hunting. Not legal where I hunt. But I find it interesting the length people will go defend something that they claim has little effect on their results.

So much so it makes me cringe at the hell it will be to effect real restrictions such as on long range hunting...

Bill
 
Kinda Not Funny Ain't it?

Everybody Just Had to Have all this New Sshhiiit!

After Everybody Get's all their F'N GADGETRY!

And The Game Herds are Damn Near Shot out!

Then Everybody is gonna Argue over What Should be Banned!

The Mastur's Blame the Long Rangers!

The Long Rangers Blame the F'N Feather Flippers!

The Feather Flippers Blame the New SmokePolers!

Goes on & on & on & On!

HELL RIGHT Needs to Happen!
 
Yep, pretty simple really. Save the herd just shut hunting down completely. Why nickle and dime it. When that doesn't work nobody will be left to care.
It never surprises me how hunters are sometimes are their own worst enemy's.
 
middlefork said:
Yep, pretty simple really. Save the herd just shut hunting down completely. Why nickle and dime it. When that doesn't work nobody will be left to care.
It never surprises me how hunters are sometimes are their own worst enemy's.
Click to expand...
Like when hunters cling to baiting, a practice that hunters in every other surrounding state have deemed unethical and is so questioned by the non-hunting public, yet they insist on continuing to bait and thus provide the ammo that will be used against all hunters for years to come.
 
Let it go Grizz, you're going to be ok. Take a breath big fella, nobody is forcing you to pack apples. High blood pressure is not healthy for anyone.;)
 
I literally have never been questioned a single time by a non-hunter about baiting. I have never seen a single non hunting tv show, or any non hunting media source question the ethics of baiting.

I've seen them attack dog hunting. I've seen them attack suburban hunting. I've seen them question opening new seasons.

The most common problem I see non hunters questioning is whether we are killing endangered animals. The antihunters have been very effective at spreading lies to non hunters that we are hunting endangered animals.
 
grizzly said:
Thank goodness there are hunters who are willing to put ethics into regulation to protect the sport and the wildlife!

If everybody demanded hunting be governed by the "you do it your way and I'll do it my way" theory... we'd have night hunting, year-long seasons, unlimited tags, paraplane aerial hunting, FLIR, herding with ATVs, poisoning, running game down with snowmobiles, party slaughters, trespassing, etc...

Some of us are willing to limit our own successes by not taking the easy way with hooking animals on false man-made food supplies for the purpose of shooting them from a lawn chair. Others just want to tag out in the most cost and time-effective way possible.

That's why the big boys with tens of thousands of dollars on the line do it that way. Not because of the ethics or the chase or the wildlife. But because it works.

Somehow the guys who insist on doing it say it doesn't really work, yet they demand it! The argument makes no sense.

And those that claim jealousy drives the anti-baiters are bassackwards and trying to make themselves feel better about their actions with no apparent concept for the actual impetus. Every one of us could dump apples if we wanted to. And some of us could call and buy a tag and book a baited hunt tomorrow if we wanted to. It's just not how we choose to do it. I could be on the Pauns this fall if I desired... I've certainly no reason to be jealous of something I despise.

PS. I sure hope none of the "you do it your way and I'll do it my way" crowd is advocating for Pro-Life legislation because virtually every argument made could be applied to a Pro-Choice position; the only difference is we're talking about protecting wildlife instead of protecting a fetus. Switch the discussion to one focused on those that can't speak for themselves to one on legislating ethics to one on historical availability to one on civil liberties to one on government overreach... I could go on and on.

If you're against governments legislating personal ethics into law, then at least be consistent. If you're okay with laws telling people what's allowed and what's not, then be consistent. And I know that's going to make EFA uncomfortable because he's said he's very Pro-Life (or anti-choice?) but one could argue that's just him trying to impose his beliefs and ethics on others. The comparison is apropos.
Click to expand...
huntindad4 said:
Great post IMO.

Baiting has zero effect on my hunting. Not legal where I hunt. But I find it interesting the length people will go defend something that they claim has little effect on their results.

So much so it makes me cringe at the hell it will be to effect real restrictions such as on long range hunting...

Bill
Click to expand...

Or the length people will go get it banned when it has zero effect on their hunting! I don't know why you would cringe at the hell it will be to effect "real" restrictions. When you change the rules of the game, you also change how people play it.
grizzly said:
Like when hunters cling to baiting, a practice that hunters in every other surrounding state have deemed unethical and is so questioned by the non-hunting public, yet they insist on continuing to bait and thus provide the ammo that will be used against all hunters for years to come.
Click to expand...

It certainly would be interesting polling non-hunters with a list of dislikes about hunting, including baiting and trophy hunting on the list. Which one do you think would be on top?
 
Bocephus said:
Let it go Grizz, you're going to be ok. Take a breath big fella, nobody is forcing you to pack apples. High blood pressure is not healthy for anyone.;)
Click to expand...
Haha. I hope the wink was because that was TIC and you know we're all just having fun and you don't actually let anything get to you. Have a good one.
 
The Effects of Baiting on Deer Hunting in Wisconsin. Mark A. Toso June 2001

Hunter Success Rates

It is widely assumed that baiting increases a hunter’s chance of seeing and harvesting deer. In fact, 92% of Wisconsin hunters surveyed believe baiting increases a hunter’s chance of harvesting a deer (Petchenik 1993). Remarkably the percentage is the same for baiters and non-baiters. However, studies conducted in the Midwest do not support this perception. The 1993 WDNR survey found that 50% of hunters were successful with bait, while 54% were successful without bait. Michigan DNR surveys also repeatedly bear this out. A 1984 survey found that hunters who used bait were no more effective than those who did not (2.4 vs. 2.2 deer harvested per 100 hunting days, respectively), and a 1992 survey had similar results (3.8 vs. 3.1 deer harvested per 100 hunting days). A more recent 1999 Michigan DNR survey found that 44% were successful using bait, while 52% were successful without bait (Mich. DNR 1999). Clearly there is little distinction between baiting and non-baiting success rates when hunting in areas where baiting is practiced. What is not considered is if success rates would be higher overall without baiting.

Changes to Deer Movement Patterns

One behavior change frequently observed with deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity (Charles 1993). A study of captive deer in Michigan documented that a majority of feeding at supplemental food sources occurred at night, and daytime feeding was almost nonexistent (Ozoga and Verme 1982). In Texas, a controlled study of similar baited and non-baited hunting stands indicated the use of baited stands by deer became more nocturnal as the hunting season progressed (Wegner 1993). It was also noted that deer, especially mature bucks, learn quickly to avoid baited sites during daylight hours. Incidentally, most of the bucks (77%) harvested from baited stands were yearlings. A Mississippi study also reported that the daylight activity of bucks decreased as the number of bait sites increased (Wegner 1993).

Baiting and recreational feeding have even negated the usual effects of winter stress and mortality on deer in the northern forested region, thus compounding the population problem (Mytton 2001).

Conclusion

Despite the overwhelming perception, there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.

Baiting provides a concentrated source of food thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather. Baiting also causes hunters to see less deer and can explain why so many deer hunters question the WDNR deer population estimates.

References:

Charles, G. 1993. Baiting has made deer night feeders. Traverse City Record-Eagle, p. 7B.

Doenier, P. B., G. D. DelGiudice, and M. R. Riggs. 1997. Effects of winter supplemental

feeding on browse consumption by white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 25(2):235-243.

Halls, L. K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. 872 pp.

Kroll, J. C., and B. H. Koerth. Do your deer need supplemental feed? http://www.huntbigbucks.com. 4 pp.

Lenarz, M. Forest Wildlife Group Leader. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources. Pers. Com. May 2001.

Lyons, B. O. 2000. Avoiding and treating grain overload. Deer Lines & Antler Tines,

Off. Pub. of the Alberta Whitetail and Mule Deer Assoc., August 2000.

McCaffery, K. R. 2001. Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Research Deer Biologist. Pers. com. April 2001.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer baiting issues in Michigan. Wildlife division issue review paper 5. 12 pp.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer and elk feeding issues in Michigan.

Wildlife Division Briefing Paper. 9 pp.

Mytton, W., Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Chief Deer and Bear Ecologist. Pers. com. June 2001.

Ozoga, J. J., and L. J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a

supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(2):281-301.

Petchenik, J. 1993. Deer baiting in Wisconsin: A survey of Wisconsin deer hunters.

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

Schmitz, O. J. 1990. Management implications of foraging theory: evaluating deer supplemental feeding. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:522-532.

Sperling, D. L. 1999. The bait debate. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, December 1999.

Wegner, R. 1993. To bait or not to bait: the debate roars on. Deer and Deer Hunting. March 1993. p. 24-31.
 
elkfromabove said:
It certainly would be interesting polling non-hunters with a list of dislikes about hunting, including baiting and trophy hunting on the list. Which one do you think would be on top?
Click to expand...

Or we could avoid unnecessary practices that are largely condemned by hunters and non-hunters alike as unethical and not Fair Chase without trying to justify questionable acts by pointing to other unpopular acts.
 
February 2003
A Comprehensive Review of the Ecological and Human Social Effects of Artificial Feeding and Baiting of Wildlife

L. Dunkley M.R.L. Cattet

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=icwdmccwhcnews

Physical Condition and Reproductive Success

Artificial feeding programs in Canada and the United States have improved the nutritional status and reproductive success of ungulate populations (Robinette et al., 1973; Ozoga and Verme, 1982; Carpenter et al., 1984; Boutin, 1990).

Artificial feeding during winter increases the fecundity and fawn survival of whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Verme, 1965; Murphy and Coates, 1966; Ozoga and Verme, 1982).

Economics Providing food to wildlife can involve transactions of large sums of money and perhaps this as much as anything has encouraged continuation of artificial feeding and baiting. Although reported statistics are scattered and few, the following examples illustrate the scale of business (Fig. 9). In 1991, hunters in Michigan used over 13 million bushels of bait for deer, with a net value in excess of 50 million dollars ($U.S.) (Winterstein, 1992). In 1995, artificial feeding and baiting in Michigan generated a minimum value to farmers of about 15 million dollars ($U.S.) and two to three times that amount to retailers (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999 – see www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Issue_Reviews/99fe eding.pdf; Williamson, 2000). In 1993, approximately 13 million dollars ($CAN) was spent in Ontario for supplies and services associated with the spring and fall black bear hunting season, much of which is done over bait (Lamport, 1996). Outfitting (includes hunting, angling, and touring) is the largest single source of export dollars in the Saskatchewan tourism industry. The direct income from the industry is about 80 million dollars ($CAN) annually (Sask Net Work, 2003 – see http://www.sasknetwork.gov.sk.ca/pages/lmi/sectorstudies/inetsectors/Tourism/outfit _sp.htm)

In 1997, the cost of feeding bears to protect trees in western Washington was $300,000 ($U.S.) (Partridge, 2001).

Hunting over bait is presumed to be safer than other hunting techniques because it allows hunters to remain stationary near their bait pile instead of moving about and encountering other hunters. Hunters frequently have a clear line of sight to their bait
pile allowing them a better view of their target and reducing the chance of an accident (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1999; see
www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Issue_Reviews/99baiting.pdf).
 
Blacktail_Slayer said:
The Effects of Baiting on Deer Hunting in Wisconsin. Mark A. Toso June 2001

Hunter Success Rates

It is widely assumed that baiting increases a hunter’s chance of seeing and harvesting deer. In fact, 92% of Wisconsin hunters surveyed believe baiting increases a hunter’s chance of harvesting a deer (Petchenik 1993). Remarkably the percentage is the same for baiters and non-baiters. However, studies conducted in the Midwest do not support this perception. The 1993 WDNR survey found that 50% of hunters were successful with bait, while 54% were successful without bait. Michigan DNR surveys also repeatedly bear this out. A 1984 survey found that hunters who used bait were no more effective than those who did not (2.4 vs. 2.2 deer harvested per 100 hunting days, respectively), and a 1992 survey had similar results (3.8 vs. 3.1 deer harvested per 100 hunting days). A more recent 1999 Michigan DNR survey found that 44% were successful using bait, while 52% were successful without bait (Mich. DNR 1999). Clearly there is little distinction between baiting and non-baiting success rates when hunting in areas where baiting is practiced. What is not considered is if success rates would be higher overall without baiting.

Changes to Deer Movement Patterns

One behavior change frequently observed with deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity (Charles 1993). A study of captive deer in Michigan documented that a majority of feeding at supplemental food sources occurred at night, and daytime feeding was almost nonexistent (Ozoga and Verme 1982). In Texas, a controlled study of similar baited and non-baited hunting stands indicated the use of baited stands by deer became more nocturnal as the hunting season progressed (Wegner 1993). It was also noted that deer, especially mature bucks, learn quickly to avoid baited sites during daylight hours. Incidentally, most of the bucks (77%) harvested from baited stands were yearlings. A Mississippi study also reported that the daylight activity of bucks decreased as the number of bait sites increased (Wegner 1993).

Baiting and recreational feeding have even negated the usual effects of winter stress and mortality on deer in the northern forested region, thus compounding the population problem (Mytton 2001).

Conclusion

Despite the overwhelming perception, there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.

Baiting provides a concentrated source of food thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather. Baiting also causes hunters to see less deer and can explain why so many deer hunters question the WDNR deer population estimates.

References:

Charles, G. 1993. Baiting has made deer night feeders. Traverse City Record-Eagle, p. 7B.

Doenier, P. B., G. D. DelGiudice, and M. R. Riggs. 1997. Effects of winter supplemental

feeding on browse consumption by white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 25(2):235-243.

Halls, L. K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. 872 pp.

Kroll, J. C., and B. H. Koerth. Do your deer need supplemental feed? http://www.huntbigbucks.com. 4 pp.

Lenarz, M. Forest Wildlife Group Leader. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources. Pers. Com. May 2001.

Lyons, B. O. 2000. Avoiding and treating grain overload. Deer Lines & Antler Tines,

Off. Pub. of the Alberta Whitetail and Mule Deer Assoc., August 2000.

McCaffery, K. R. 2001. Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Research Deer Biologist. Pers. com. April 2001.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer baiting issues in Michigan. Wildlife division issue review paper 5. 12 pp.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer and elk feeding issues in Michigan.

Wildlife Division Briefing Paper. 9 pp.

Mytton, W., Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Chief Deer and Bear Ecologist. Pers. com. June 2001.

Ozoga, J. J., and L. J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a

supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(2):281-301.

Petchenik, J. 1993. Deer baiting in Wisconsin: A survey of Wisconsin deer hunters.

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

Schmitz, O. J. 1990. Management implications of foraging theory: evaluating deer supplemental feeding. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:522-532.

Sperling, D. L. 1999. The bait debate. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, December 1999.

Wegner, R. 1993. To bait or not to bait: the debate roars on. Deer and Deer Hunting. March 1993. p. 24-31.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that Blacktail. Facts and numbers don't lie or blow smoke. Thank you for sharing. My experience would fall right in line with this study.
 
Blacktail_Slayer said:
The Effects of Baiting on Deer Hunting in Wisconsin. Mark A. Toso June 2001

Hunter Success Rates

It is widely assumed that baiting increases a hunter’s chance of seeing and harvesting deer. In fact, 92% of Wisconsin hunters surveyed believe baiting increases a hunter’s chance of harvesting a deer (Petchenik 1993). Remarkably the percentage is the same for baiters and non-baiters. However, studies conducted in the Midwest do not support this perception. The 1993 WDNR survey found that 50% of hunters were successful with bait, while 54% were successful without bait. Michigan DNR surveys also repeatedly bear this out. A 1984 survey found that hunters who used bait were no more effective than those who did not (2.4 vs. 2.2 deer harvested per 100 hunting days, respectively), and a 1992 survey had similar results (3.8 vs. 3.1 deer harvested per 100 hunting days). A more recent 1999 Michigan DNR survey found that 44% were successful using bait, while 52% were successful without bait (Mich. DNR 1999). Clearly there is little distinction between baiting and non-baiting success rates when hunting in areas where baiting is practiced. What is not considered is if success rates would be higher overall without baiting.

Changes to Deer Movement Patterns

One behavior change frequently observed with deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity (Charles 1993). A study of captive deer in Michigan documented that a majority of feeding at supplemental food sources occurred at night, and daytime feeding was almost nonexistent (Ozoga and Verme 1982). In Texas, a controlled study of similar baited and non-baited hunting stands indicated the use of baited stands by deer became more nocturnal as the hunting season progressed (Wegner 1993). It was also noted that deer, especially mature bucks, learn quickly to avoid baited sites during daylight hours. Incidentally, most of the bucks (77%) harvested from baited stands were yearlings. A Mississippi study also reported that the daylight activity of bucks decreased as the number of bait sites increased (Wegner 1993).

Baiting and recreational feeding have even negated the usual effects of winter stress and mortality on deer in the northern forested region, thus compounding the population problem (Mytton 2001).

Conclusion

Despite the overwhelming perception, there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.

Baiting provides a concentrated source of food thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather. Baiting also causes hunters to see less deer and can explain why so many deer hunters question the WDNR deer population estimates.

References:

Charles, G. 1993. Baiting has made deer night feeders. Traverse City Record-Eagle, p. 7B.

Doenier, P. B., G. D. DelGiudice, and M. R. Riggs. 1997. Effects of winter supplemental

feeding on browse consumption by white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 25(2):235-243.

Halls, L. K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. 872 pp.

Kroll, J. C., and B. H. Koerth. Do your deer need supplemental feed? http://www.huntbigbucks.com. 4 pp.

Lenarz, M. Forest Wildlife Group Leader. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources. Pers. Com. May 2001.

Lyons, B. O. 2000. Avoiding and treating grain overload. Deer Lines & Antler Tines,

Off. Pub. of the Alberta Whitetail and Mule Deer Assoc., August 2000.

McCaffery, K. R. 2001. Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Research Deer Biologist. Pers. com. April 2001.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer baiting issues in Michigan. Wildlife division issue review paper 5. 12 pp.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer and elk feeding issues in Michigan.

Wildlife Division Briefing Paper. 9 pp.

Mytton, W., Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Chief Deer and Bear Ecologist. Pers. com. June 2001.

Ozoga, J. J., and L. J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a

supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(2):281-301.

Petchenik, J. 1993. Deer baiting in Wisconsin: A survey of Wisconsin deer hunters.

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

Schmitz, O. J. 1990. Management implications of foraging theory: evaluating deer supplemental feeding. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:522-532.

Sperling, D. L. 1999. The bait debate. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, December 1999.

Wegner, R. 1993. To bait or not to bait: the debate roars on. Deer and Deer Hunting. March 1993. p. 24-31.
Click to expand...


NATURAL RESOURCES
  1. DNR
  2. MANAGING YOUR RESOURCES
  3. RULES, LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT

Baiting and Feeding

  • BAIT
    Bait means a substance intended for consumption that is composed of grains, minerals (including salt and salt blocks), fruits, vegetables, hay or other food materials, which may lure, entice or attract deer or elk as an aid in hunting.
    FEED
    Feed means a substance intended for consumption that is composed of grains, minerals (including salt and salt blocks), fruits, vegetables, hay or other food materials, which may lure, entice or attract deer or elk for any reason other than hunting.
    BAITING AND FEEDING REGULATIONS
    Baiting and feeding are banned in the Lower Peninsula, and banned in the Upper Peninsula core CWD surveillance area. In areas where baiting is banned, scents placed to entice deer, whether composed of natural or synthetic materials, must be placed so that they are inaccessible for consumption by deer and placed in such a manner to prohibit any physical contact with deer. This does not apply to urine-based products bearing the Archery Trade Association (ATA) symbol on the bottle or packaging. Hunters can still use those urine-based products for mock scrapes, drag ropes, wicks, etc.

    Exception: Hunters with disabilities who meet specific requirements may use single-bite baits in the above counties during the Liberty and Independence Hunts only. Eligible hunters may begin baiting for the Liberty Hunt on September 9 this year, five days prior to when the season begins.

    Single-bite baits are defined as shelled corn, nuts, beet pulp, deer feed or pellets, or wheat or other grain.
    Bait volume at any hunting site cannot exceed two gallons. Bait dispersal must be over a minimum 10-foot by 10-foot area. Bait must be scattered directly on the ground. It can be scattered by any means, including mechanical spin-cast feeders, provided that the spin-cast feeder does not distribute more than the maximum volume allowed.

    To qualify, you must fit one of the following criteria:
    • Be a veteran who has been determined to have 100-percent disability or is rated as individually unemployable by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
    • Have been issued a permit by the DNR to hunt from a standing vehicle.
    • Have been issued a permit by the DNR to hunt using a laser-sighting device.
    • Be blind. Blind means an individual who has visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with correction or has a limitation of his or her field of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angular distance not greater than 20 degrees, as determined by the Commission for the Blind.
  • In the rest the Upper Peninsula where baiting is allowed, the following baiting regulations apply:
    • Baiting may occur only from Sept. 15 - Jan. 1 except that eligible hunters may begin baiting for the Liberty Hunt on September 9 this year, five days prior to when the season begins.
    • Bait volume at any hunting site cannot exceed two gallons. Bait dispersal must be over a minimum 10-foot by 10-foot area.
    • Bait must be scattered directly on the ground. It can be scattered by any means, including mechanical spin-cast feeders, provided that the spin-cast feeder does not distribute more than the maximum volume allowed.
    • To minimize exposure of deer to diseases that may be present, the DNR recommends not placing bait or feed repeatedly at the same point on the ground, and only baiting when actively hunting.


Seems Michigan DNR would disagree?

Even where it is permitted, it's limited to 2 gallons, and not to be continually placed in the same spot.

Not to mention your comparing 2 different species on completely opposite habitats.


Notice the Wisconsin references.

You know, where they are irradicating all older deer due to CWD transmission.

Why didn't you site Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Colorado? Same species, similar habitat?
 
Blacktail_Slayer said:
The Effects of Baiting on Deer Hunting in Wisconsin. Mark A. Toso June 2001

Hunter Success Rates

It is widely assumed that baiting increases a hunter’s chance of seeing and harvesting deer. In fact, 92% of Wisconsin hunters surveyed believe baiting increases a hunter’s chance of harvesting a deer (Petchenik 1993). Remarkably the percentage is the same for baiters and non-baiters. However, studies conducted in the Midwest do not support this perception. The 1993 WDNR survey found that 50% of hunters were successful with bait, while 54% were successful without bait. Michigan DNR surveys also repeatedly bear this out. A 1984 survey found that hunters who used bait were no more effective than those who did not (2.4 vs. 2.2 deer harvested per 100 hunting days, respectively), and a 1992 survey had similar results (3.8 vs. 3.1 deer harvested per 100 hunting days). A more recent 1999 Michigan DNR survey found that 44% were successful using bait, while 52% were successful without bait (Mich. DNR 1999). Clearly there is little distinction between baiting and non-baiting success rates when hunting in areas where baiting is practiced. What is not considered is if success rates would be higher overall without baiting.

Changes to Deer Movement Patterns

One behavior change frequently observed with deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity (Charles 1993). A study of captive deer in Michigan documented that a majority of feeding at supplemental food sources occurred at night, and daytime feeding was almost nonexistent (Ozoga and Verme 1982). In Texas, a controlled study of similar baited and non-baited hunting stands indicated the use of baited stands by deer became more nocturnal as the hunting season progressed (Wegner 1993). It was also noted that deer, especially mature bucks, learn quickly to avoid baited sites during daylight hours. Incidentally, most of the bucks (77%) harvested from baited stands were yearlings. A Mississippi study also reported that the daylight activity of bucks decreased as the number of bait sites increased (Wegner 1993).

Baiting and recreational feeding have even negated the usual effects of winter stress and mortality on deer in the northern forested region, thus compounding the population problem (Mytton 2001).

Conclusion

Despite the overwhelming perception, there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.

Baiting provides a concentrated source of food thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather. Baiting also causes hunters to see less deer and can explain why so many deer hunters question the WDNR deer population estimates.

References:

Charles, G. 1993. Baiting has made deer night feeders. Traverse City Record-Eagle, p. 7B.

Doenier, P. B., G. D. DelGiudice, and M. R. Riggs. 1997. Effects of winter supplemental

feeding on browse consumption by white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 25(2):235-243.

Halls, L. K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. 872 pp.

Kroll, J. C., and B. H. Koerth. Do your deer need supplemental feed? http://www.huntbigbucks.com. 4 pp.

Lenarz, M. Forest Wildlife Group Leader. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources. Pers. Com. May 2001.

Lyons, B. O. 2000. Avoiding and treating grain overload. Deer Lines & Antler Tines,

Off. Pub. of the Alberta Whitetail and Mule Deer Assoc., August 2000.

McCaffery, K. R. 2001. Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Research Deer Biologist. Pers. com. April 2001.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer baiting issues in Michigan. Wildlife division issue review paper 5. 12 pp.

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 1999. Deer and elk feeding issues in Michigan.

Wildlife Division Briefing Paper. 9 pp.

Mytton, W., Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Chief Deer and Bear Ecologist. Pers. com. June 2001.

Ozoga, J. J., and L. J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a

supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(2):281-301.

Petchenik, J. 1993. Deer baiting in Wisconsin: A survey of Wisconsin deer hunters.

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

Schmitz, O. J. 1990. Management implications of foraging theory: evaluating deer supplemental feeding. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:522-532.

Sperling, D. L. 1999. The bait debate. Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, December 1999.

Wegner, R. 1993. To bait or not to bait: the debate roars on. Deer and Deer Hunting. March 1993. p. 24-31.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20200304-174921_Gallery.jpg

This is not Wisconsin, these are not yearlings, this is not nocturnal activity.
 
The Great De-Bait: America, Deer Hunting, and the Camouflage of Anti/Pro-Baiting Regulations
COLE DEBLAEY
http://commons.lib.niu.edu/bitstream/handle/10843/17673/Vol7Iss2-The Great De-Bait-PDFA.pdf?sequence=1

“It is a curious thing that something as private, and at times solitary, as hunting attracts the attention of so many people with different points of view.”

1. Scenario One: As the sun sets over a quiet Texas sendero2 and the opening evening of rifle season comes to a close, an alarm sound breaks the silence. “Beep! Beep! Beep!” Hearing the dinner bell, a trophy buck and his many mistresses emerge from the foliage to feast upon corn that has been scattered about by a mechanical feed dispenser. Moments later, a hammer strikes a firing pin, and a single shot rings out from a hundred yards away. The trophy buck has shared in his ‘last supper’ so to speak. The hunter snaps a few photos with his buddies, telling them of his magnificent hunt and later sends the beautiful beast off to the taxidermist.

2. Scenario Two: In April, a farmer, who is an avid hunter, goes to his local outdoors supply company and purchases seeds that produce crops, also known as “food plots,” commonly used to attract deer. The next day, farmer tills the soil on his farm and plants the blend of non-naturally occurring crops. Months pass and the farmer watches his crops grow into a bountiful harvest. Several nights a week he sits and watches the local deer herd feast on the crop. Knowing the deer have taken kindly to the crop, and visit it frequently, he builds a deer stand that overlooks the food plot. As the opening evening of rifle season comes to a close, and the sun begins to set over a beautiful Wisconsin horizon, a trophy buck and his many mistresses loiter, feeding on what is left of the food plot. Moments later, a hammer strikes a firing pin, and a single shot rings out from a hundred yards away. The trophy buck has shared in his ‘last supper’ so to speak. Hunter snaps a few photos with his buddies, telling them of his magnificent hunt and later sends the beautiful beast off to the taxidermist.

3. Scenario Three: Farmer phones his friend hunter and tells him he will be harvesting his crops of corn and beans this week. Knowing this area will be a wildlife feeding haven post-harvest, hunter sits in a deer stand overlooking the recently harvested ground. As the opening evening of rifle season comes to a close, and the sun begins to set over a beautiful Virginia horizon, a trophy buck and his many mistresses loiter, feeding on the tailings left over from harvesting. Moments later, a hammer strikes a firing pin, and a single shot rings out from a hundred yards away. The trophy buck has shared in his ‘last supper’ so to speak. Hunter snaps a few photos with his buddies, telling them of his magnificent hunt and later sends the beautiful beast off to the taxidermist.

Scenario One is the common practice known today as baiting, in which the hunter uses a concentrated pile of food to attract a white-tailed deer to a particularized location. Scenario Two involves the practice of food plotting, in which a hunter plants a particular crop to attract a white-tailed deer to a particularized location. In Scenario Three, the hunter sits near an area in which food has recently become available to a white-tailed deer as a result of normal agricultural practices such as mowing or harvesting. From a bird’s eye view, one of these real-life scenarios seems different than the others and obscures the lines of what hunting really is in the eyes of both sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike. However, when viewed beneath the surface, hunting regulations, practices like those listed above, and tactics used within those enumerated practices across the United States are more alike than it may appear. The lines of what really is or is not hunting are more blurred than we as Americans would like to think.

WHAT IS BAITING?

The easiest way to discuss baiting is to begin by defining it. “Bait” or “baiting” are not defined in a legal dictionary, which is odd because legal repercussions follow from violations associated with these terms. However, the lack of a uniform definition makes sense, as each state is to define their own hunting terms and set its own regulations.

A NATION DIVIDED: THE HEART OF “THE GREAT DE-BAIT”

Big-game baiting is hunting’s civil war of the soul, a battle of ideas like few the sport has ever seen. Most debates in the hunting community deal with the mechanics of the sport, nuts-and-bolts issues such as season dates, equipment, and management strategies of wildlife agencies. This one is different. It questions the heart, soul, and motive of a hunter—and that inflames deep passions. The argument has been waged between brothers in the world’s oldest sport at hunting lodges, wildlife agencies, seats of government, and the ballot box. The heart of “the great de-bait” lies in the fact that pro/anti-baiting laws as applied to deer are not uniform across the United States. Some states prohibit all forms of baiting, some have an “anything goes” methodology.

Food plotting may be more accepted by American society and may eliminate many of the ethical and fair chase concerns of those attributed to baiting. As noted previously, in a Field and Stream Magazine survey, forty-eight percent of voters felt that baiting deer was fair chase hunting. In a follow-up survey, seventy-one percent of participants voted that hunting over even a small food plot, also known as a “hunting plot” or “kill plot,” was indeed fair chase hunting. That being said, it would appear that food plotting is more generally accepted than hunting over a bait pile. But once again, do results from a survey such as this one make sense logically? It is hard to fathom that there is an ethical difference between a concentrated pile of corn and a micro food plot consisting of standing corn, as the goal of each is to draw in the deer to a specific location in order to produce a lethal outcome. It is safe to assume the American public may think a planted food source is less unfair than an automated feeder, or a concentrated pile of food continuously replaced by a hunter. That being said, food plotting, as opposed to baiting, could continue to affirm American support for the sport of hunting, ensuring its existence for coming generations.
 
elkfromabove said:
Or the length people will go get it banned when it has zero effect on their hunting! I don't know why you would cringe at the hell it will be to effect "real" restrictions. When you change the rules of the game, you also change how people play it.


It certainly would be interesting polling non-hunters with a list of dislikes about hunting, including baiting and trophy hunting on the list. Which one do you think would be on top?
Click to expand...


I would love to see that poll.

Video a hunt over a pile of apples and a hunt on the mountain, spot and stalk for a trophy mule deer.

I would love to see that poll.

Also on the "cringe", all I meant is there is a small group of mule deer hunters who bait when compared to the groups that Long range hunt or use high tech muzzleloader and bows and rangefinder.

Therefore the group defending those things will be much larger and louder of the time comes that those changes are up for legislation.

Bill
 
Grizz you are worried about the image a handful of hunters and guides do in Utah.
I would dare to bet that if you took a poll of none hunters across America 80 percent would think baiting is the norm.
That is all you see if you watch the Outdoor channel. Look at Outdoor Life and Field and Stream that is what you see and Outdoor Life and Field and Stream is what moms see in Dentist and Doctors offices magazine rack.
Grizz you might want to check I do believe it is legal to bait in Arizona I looked throughout there proclamation and no where did it state it was illegal to hunt over baite and New Mexico the same. I might have missed it so correct me if I am wrong.
Most all states allow baiting on private property. Most of the guys on this thread have said they would support legal baiting on private land.

Why is it ethical to hunt over a baite on private land but not ethical on public?

Again someone tell me how anyone knows that in Utah deer are being shot over baite if everyone is so enbarresed about hunting over baite, so there has never been a picture that proves anyone has hunted over baite.
 
Founder said:
I can't believe that it can be OK with the National Forest Service or BLM that people are dumping truckloads of apples all over.
Click to expand...
Bingo.....but it IS happening.

And when we say truck loads, there are big truck loads sitting in Kanab brought in by certain "professionals" for the sole purpose of luring big bucks into their little honey holes off the beaten paths with clients sitting in blinds waiting for the right buck.

Sound exaggerated or absurd?
Well it certainly IS absurd, but it most certainly is not exaggerated.
 
slamdunk said:
Spot on.
How would you ever regulate "long range"?
I know guys who will take Hail Mary shots with a 30-06, but push a ban on a popular long range caliber by definition.
Built in rangefinder inside scope, ban it.
Tell me I can't hunt with a 6.5.....nope.
Define "long range hunting" and "hunting long range" and we'll talk.
Click to expand...
A way to ban long-range hunting is not to make any rifles illegal. The state just needs to ban any scope on a rifle during hunting season. Feel free to take your 1,000+ yard iron-sight shots.
 

Similar threads

shedneck
Thank You, Utah.
Replies
8
Views
1k
elkassassin
elkassassin
SatchSquatch
Big Billy Down
Replies
27
Views
1k
Snoopdogg
Snoopdogg
gr8fuldoug
For Sale GPO Centuri Riflescopes
Replies
0
Views
80
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_2993.JPG
20210612_130112.jpg
Dads deer 2.jpg
F1280CC8-92E3-4CBE-BE91-718E5EE22D1F.jpeg
20210730_221549.jpg
IMG_1237 2.JPG
IMG_1982.jpeg
20200131_221741.jpg
elk.jpg
6467E377-8F6D-4BD0-8B64-1AEA1C5AD548.jpeg
E00D82C9-B63F-4B40-866E-C445BB25C9E6.jpeg
A8178A5E-A97B-441C-8F82-48887C1FA3FD.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom