House Bill 1151- Prohibiting baiting bans

[guywhofishes]

I'll play that game. Show me definitive proof that the baiting regs are causing harm. Solid, science-backed numbers.

I've already stated my solution. A government hearing where G&F officials are forced to defend their position. A regulation is much easier overturned than a law.

It's like defining pornography exactly - it's hard to do in writing - but I know it when I see it.

OK - we have the hearing - and NDGF presents what we've already seen... the group think, herd reduction if it gets too bad, etc.

Then what?

 

[bravo]

The GnF is making the claim that putting out some corn to hunt deer is spreading CWD. It is up to them to prove that claim. Until then, putting corn out to hunt deer with is INNOCENT of spreading CWD until PROVEN GUILTY. The trouble is.......They can't prove it. I can PROVE that Wyoming's bait ban hasn't stopped or even limited the spread of CWD one damn bit. In the 38 years they've had it, and their bait ban, it's spreading by 1.1 million acres per year. Their own data on their own website. I can also PROVE that Wisconsin's bait ban as well as Minnesota's bait ban hasn't limited the spread of CWD for one damn bit either. Just look at their own data on their own websites. CWD is still spreading in both states in spite of the bans on baiting. I can also PROVE that baiting leads to more successful hunts. Especially for youth, limited mobility hunters, as well as others so to ban the practice WILL HARM HUNTERS by making them less successful. Is that definitive enough??

KDM I am on your side when it comes to baiting. Playing devils advocate, you can’t PROVE those bait bans did nothing to slow or limit the spread of CWD. Simply cannot be done. I agree that baiting ups your chance at a successful hunt and keeps youngsters engaged. But it’s not something you can prove with any kind of data either. Especially the 100% definitive, math-checks-out type that is demanded of the G&F. I respect you and the type of conservation minded sportsman you are KDM, I’m only argumentative because I hate to see ND go in the direction of other states where lobbying takes over hunting and fishing regs.

 

[bravo]

P

It's like defining pornography exactly - it's hard to do in writing - but I know it when I see it.

OK - we have the hearing - and NDGF presents what we've already seen... the group think, herd reduction if it gets too bad, etc.

Then what?

Lol. If it came to that, I think that would galvanize the masses for something like an initiated measure. Their job is to manage the herd health and population for us. I think if they simply became more transparent with their end goal, it would solve a lot of problems. Do they want to manage the spread, manage the population, eradicate the disease etc…

 

[guywhofishes]

I’m guessing bowhunter success went down in the ban units. Provable one would think. NDGF have the stats - no?

 

[wct12]

I’m guessing bowhunter success went down in the ban units. Provable one would think. NDGF have the stats - no?

A big portion in the drop of success in archery numbers from last year have to relate to EHD I would assume.. The game and fish doesn't post unit by unit success.. just state wide success and tag numbers. It's also a little harder to do as tags are statewide and could be used in my backward or the bad lands chasing mule deer.. I would definitely like to see the data on this though, along with the data on number of deer that were not recovered, or needed a dog for recovery versus previous years..

 

[Devildogg]

This is who will be hurt the most with a baiting ban. It will be more Xbox and less box blind.

 

[8andcounting]

This is who will be hurt the most with a baiting ban. It will be more Xbox and less box blind.

Yup - youngsters and maybe elderly or folks with impairments that just don’t have the time or means to get out many days . Open baiting back up please ….

 

[KDM]

KDM I am on your side when it comes to baiting. Playing devils advocate, you can’t PROVE those bait bans did nothing to slow or limit the spread of CWD. Simply cannot be done. I agree that baiting ups your chance at a successful hunt and keeps youngsters engaged. But it’s not something you can prove with any kind of data either. Especially the 100% definitive, math-checks-out type that is demanded of the G&F. I respect you and the type of conservation minded sportsman you are KDM, I’m only argumentative because I hate to see ND go in the direction of other states where lobbying takes over hunting and fishing regs.

There are instances where science and data are not needed to prove something. I don't need scientific data to prove to you that if you drop a penny it will fall to the ground. I don't need science and data to show that if I feed deer during winter, they will have a better chance of surviving until spring. It's self evident. Banning baiting has clearly been shown to miserably FAIL to curb the spread of CWD in numerous locations with varying environmental conditions. It's BEYOND science and data now. It has become self evident. Playing devils advocate won't change that. The GnF refuses to acknowledge that baiting bans have been COMPREHENSIVE FAILURES in every location they have been implemented to curb the spread of CWD and yet they insist they be implemented here in ND. Sportsmen have no other alternative than to clip their proverbial wings through legislation. So if you are actually against baseless regulations, I fail to see how playing devils advocate will help. Maybe ask the GnF why it had to come to this.

 

[wjschmaltz]

It's an internal sample. The data is taken from the tag on the deer. The sample ID is tied to the tag # so the sample can be tied back to the unit and hunter. That's how they contact folks who have had a positive sample. Think of it like if bodies were just piled up and you later came in to collect lung tissue samples for pneumonia sampling. No one in that pile was breathing in or out so an internal sample would not have cross contamination.

You guys are overthinking the shit out of this. The NDGF (all state game agencies) has a statutory requirement to manage within their ability. It's a simple two-tiered decision tree:

1. Is there an increased potential of CWD transfer from deer congregated at and sharing a bait pile?

2a: No - They have no grounds for a bait ban
2b: Yes - They are under statutory requirement to do what is within their power to contain disease.

It will now be on the state to prove that one simple question. I have not done enough research on the topic to know if that research exists. We will see if the NDGF has it in hand. I will wait until then. Another tier would be is there zoonotic potential? The potential is certainly there, which ties their hands further.

No other argument is relevant here. It's literally that simple. They are tied by law to do what they can. It doesn't matter if the farmer 200 yards away has a giant ass corn pile with 500 deer on it. It doesn't matter if the spread of CWD is the same in other states that have had bait bans and on paper a bait ban does virtually nothing to move the needle on slowing down CWD. Hell, it doesn't matter if you want to put a giant corn pile down for wildlife viewing and shoot deer on the way to it. All of that "common sense" thinking goes out the window when it involves statute. At the end of the day, the state needs to be able to cover their ass. Especially if they have data that tells them it's transferred this way (again, I don't know if this exists). If they do and they do nothing, they are going to have a bad day in court in 20 years when we have the first zoonotic transfer of CWD if they say "ya, we have the data showing how it transfers but we figured that baiting was just a small piece of a large pie so we did nothing." Then we'll all be bitching cuz someone just got a $200 million settlement with our tax money! Not to mention that it's then when the sharp shootings come to town to make sure no one else can eat a deer a sue the shit out of em. At the end of the day, they have to show they tried - quite literally legally they have to.

In case it hasn't been clear the previous two times, I honestly have not looked into any data on this subject in the last 10 years. I honestly have no dog in this fight. I am sitting on the sidelines watching how it all shakes out. I would prefer baiting be allowed. I've done it. I have friends and family that do it. I no longer use bait for deer hunting. Not because of ethics or disease, but because of effectiveness. I'm simply stating that because of the laws in place, I get their stance (for the third time, IF they can show data that congregated deer sharing food spreads the disease). And why the vast majority of arguments made here are null in regard to this particular topic.

 

[guywhofishes]

Why do the bait bans in 2B only apply in select scenarios - not all scenarios? Food plots definitely increase contact, but they’re legal. Explain please.

 

[guywhofishes]

If they’re tied to do something by law, why aren’t they taking action to limit all contact?

 

[Freedom]

Lots of typing again to say " I support them doing something for the sake of doing something"

Encourage all animals be tested before eating, discourage eating any positive animals. That's really all that's needed to cover their ass imo.

 

[8andcounting]

Why do the bait bans in 2B only apply in select scenarios - not all scenarios? Food plots definitely increase contact, but they’re legal. Explain please.

And , the biggest wtf , is why only banned for hunting purposes ??? Right now you could have 10,000 bushels of corn out it’s completely legal . Our G&F is a f’n joke

 

[Devildogg]

Everyone putting in the effort on here needs to direct that effort to a written message to the natural resources committee. We are preaching to the choir here. Come together and direct this towards our representatives.

 

[bravo]

Same reason game wardens don’t write parking tickets. Not their jurisdiction.

 

[Freedom]

Same reason game wardens don’t write parking tickets. Not their jurisdiction.

Other states seem to disagree. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/hunt/bait.html

 

[bravo]

Other states seem to disagree. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/hunt/bait.html

And other states ban baiting all together. Some ban rifle hunting. Some ban shooting spike bucks. So what?

 

[Allen]

Other states seem to disagree. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/hunt/bait.html

I believe that link clearly states the bait and feeding bans are being implemented by local ordinances, not the Wisconsin DNR.

 

[Freedom]

I believe that link clearly states the bait and feeding bans are being implemented by local ordinances, not the Wisconsin DNR.

I'm reading it as you must follow both. Local Ordinance can ban even if DNR does not

Regs seem to support that interpretation
https://p.widencdn.net/udj9a0/WM0456

 

[Freedom]

And other states ban baiting all together. Some ban rifle hunting. Some ban shooting spike bucks. So what?

It's evidence that it is in jurisdiction if they decide to enforce it. I'm completely against a bait ban but a half ban is complete nonsense and isn't supported by facts, one could attempt to argue a baiting and feeding ban is