House Bill 1151- Prohibiting baiting bans

[wct12]

Is there going to be a live link to watch tomorrow??

I thought I saw somewhere on the website it was streamed, but I could be incorrect about that also.

 

[db-2]

Best of luck for those there tomorrow. db

 

[Slappy]

https://video.ndlegis.gov/

Live viewing and recordings available at this link.

 

[Pigsticker]

This is the NDBA’s Vice President’s personal testimony, this is taken from the public domain. Notice he does include his “title” for the NDBA. So Nevin, tell us your opposition is about ethics but without actually saying it’s about ethics for you…

This is one of the guys who takes the liberty to make decisions for the NDBA’s 1,000+ members…all the while looking down his nose at the very people he is supposed to represent. He thinks he’s better than the members who use bait as an effective and ethical means to harvest deer. He couldn’t be more obvious with his statements.

Clearly he isn’t concerned with ederly or disadvantaged/disabled hunters and their means to propagate an effective hunting scenario by having the ability to use bait. And evidently if only more people like him were around to teach youth properly, then we wouldn’t need baiting as a tactic.

With representation like that, I am glad I have not given one red cent to this organization, and because of them repeatedly using and abusing membership numbers to support a baiting ban just to advance a few board members personal ethical beliefs, I never will.

To quote a friend:
“the arrogance of someone else trying to dictate what everyone else must take from the hunting experience shows without a doubt they do not understand hunting is a deeply personal individual experience”

 

[risingsun]

 

[guywhofishes]

This is the NDBA’s Vice President’s personal testimony, this is taken from the public domain. Notice he does include his “title” for the NDBA. So Nevin, tell us your opposition is about ethics but without actually saying it’s about ethics for you…

This is one of the guys who takes the liberty to make decisions for the NDBA’s 1,000+ members…all the while looking down his nose at the very people he is supposed to represent. He thinks he’s better than the members who use bait as an effective and ethical means to harvest deer. He couldn’t be more obvious with his statements.

Clearly he isn’t concerned with ederly or disadvantaged/disabled hunters and their means to propagate an effective hunting scenario by having the ability to use bait. And evidently if only more people like him were around to teach youth properly, then we wouldn’t need baiting as a tactic.

With representation like that, I am glad I have not given one red cent to this organization, and because of them repeatedly using and abusing membership numbers to support a baiting ban just to advance a few board members personal ethical beliefs, I never will.

To quote a friend:
“the arrogance of someone else trying to dictate what everyone else must take from the hunting experience shows without a doubt they do not understand hunting is a deeply personal individual experience”

Agreed. Doesn’t address the numerous negatives the bait ban produces, and acts as if the fantastic ban is saving a threatened resource when the science (deer population) actually says they’re not threatened.

Agreed- it’s all motivated by ethics / ignores the numerous hypocrisies in NDGF’s selective application of bait bans.

Disappointing.

 

[db-2]

Listen to part. Guy asked what happens when the neighbor dumps A HUGH PILE OF GRAIN NEXT TO THE FENCE WITH HIS HUGE DUMP TRUCK AND THE NEIGHBOR'S COWS COME, EAt AND DIE, AND THEN AT THE END OF DEER SEASON WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS HUGH PILE OF CORN. heard enough. db


Guy has no clue and then he's in our legislative making decision and laws.
Attach files

 

[db-2]

A remember one legislator who wanted to outlaw bows of certain length as one could shoot a deer in the ditch out of the vehicle. But then he was from Grand Forks. db

 

[deleted member]

solution to this ^^^ is a sunroof, pick up box or van door. no easier way to sneak up on ditch deer than with motor vehicle.

 

[wjschmaltz]

I believe the written testimony from Mr. Anderson and Mr. Banhson addressed many of the concerns voiced on this site. They directly confirmed what I assumed their stance has been and I have tried to explain. Unfortunately, it was met with mockery. I gave you the play cards and yet not a single person opposed addressed the NDGF counterpoint in the comments.

"Baiting restrictions are one of only a handful of very blunt tools we have to combat CWD. We make no claims that it will stop the disease in its tracks. We know that deer are social animals that yard up for portions of the year. There is some natural transmission that we have no control over. This winter is bad. But it didn’t start in August and run through the archery season. And we don’t have one like this every year. That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year."

"There have been a lot of claims about science and how evidence-based decisions are made. If I try to drive 150 mph from here to Fargo in a blizzard, I’m likely to get in an accident. There is no study documenting that, but we can make a strong inference based on our understanding of driving at high speeds or traveling in winter conditions. By that same token, we have several hundred research papers that shape our understanding of CWD and guide how best to address it."

"You’ll also see a list of over 250 references. None of these stand completely on their own, but rather, they build on each other. Each adds a small piece to our collective understanding of CWD. These represent ideas, observations, questions, or theories, that have been tested, scrutinized, proven, or in some cases disproven in a systematic way."

"In the most extreme situations, that cause of mortality can outpace the herd’s ability to compensate, meaning population declines. The tipping point at which these things will happen will vary. In some western herds, declines were documented at as low as 30% infection rates."

"Out on the landscape infected animals are more vulnerable to other causes of mortality but will succumb to the terminal stages of the disease if they live long enough. In free-ranging animals, the likelihood of surviving for one year is cut nearly in half, and virtually no animals survive past two years."

I read through most of the comments. I found it interesting that most "in favor" concentrated around "my" and "me". While most opposed concentrated on conserving a resource for the future for all to use. Obviously, that's not black and white as there were several well-worded in favor arguing from the side of youth and elderly.

I have no intention of reading the 250 documents referenced. I think it is clear CWD is transmitted through direct contact and saliva. I think the NDGF has made it clear they are fulfilling their constitutional obligation by controlling what they can while addressing the fact they cannot control other transmission vectors. I think it's very clear that CWD is 100% fatal within a couple of years based on captive studies and that it would be extremely unlikely to find an emaciated animal on the landscape because of the low prevalence rate at this time as well as environmental factors - dying of CWD doesn't mean starving to death in the vast majority of cases in the wild. Winters and predators will take out the weak animals long before you see a skin and bones deer walking around.

Most won't believe me since I was one of the few that was willing to question and challenge both sides, but I was very neutral on this prior to reading testimony because I don't believe NDGF did a sufficient job presenting their stance and I don't have the time to dig through the data myself. It's hard for me to personally object to their stance without looking at the 250 documents - something I don't intend to do. It's certainly not something a room full of politicians will do so my stance that they should not be involved is stronger than ever. Without each of them looking at all that data and forming an educated stance, they have no business being involved in this. If someone on that panel has looked at it and has an opinion to the contrary, I respect that and they should be given their time. I am all ears.

Questions remain and there is a lot to learn. Never stop asking questions and challenging the stance of any sort of professional. Unfortunately, after the last few years, we all kinda curl up where we hear things like "slow the spread until we can learn more" from a government agency. And that is what it seems NDGF's stance here is. But at the end of the day, unlike the last time we heard that, research is being provided. And game agencies are not the CDC. I've called all sorts of biologists in numerous states and every one of them has picked up the phone and answered any question I've ever had. Many have followed up with e-mail. The several that I personally know are probably in the top 5% of my friends when it comes to time in the field and passion for hunting and fishing.

Lastly, the takeaway that I've been trying to convey is best highlighted above in a quote by Mr. Banhson: "That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year." This is indeed the tragedy of commons. And it's the cornerstone of wildlife management.

 

[guywhofishes]

Their bans are selectively constructed/administered, they’ve submitted no proof that intervention is effective, nor whether it’s actually even necessary.

“We gotta do something, and goring the ox of the average hunter probably won’t help much, and we acknowledge some individuals are harmed by this law, but we gotta do something.” remains a shiite argument.

 

[Freedom]

I'll admit to only reading a bit more than half this time but looks like another lots of typing to say I support them doing something for the sake of doing something post

 

[guywhofishes]

I have trail cam photos of deer after deer after deer all licking/rubbing the same branches every time they walk by… for months. Outsiders show up occasionally and they do it too. Swapping molecules is how these deer communicate. It’s the local “who’s been where” column in the local rag.

Bait piles are insignificant.

 

[wct12]

I believe the written testimony from Mr. Anderson and Mr. Banhson addressed many of the concerns voiced on this site. They directly confirmed what I assumed their stance has been and I have tried to explain. Unfortunately, it was met with mockery. I gave you the play cards and yet not a single person opposed addressed the NDGF counterpoint in the comments.

"Baiting restrictions are one of only a handful of very blunt tools we have to combat CWD. We make no claims that it will stop the disease in its tracks. We know that deer are social animals that yard up for portions of the year. There is some natural transmission that we have no control over. This winter is bad. But it didn’t start in August and run through the archery season. And we don’t have one like this every year. That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year."

"There have been a lot of claims about science and how evidence-based decisions are made. If I try to drive 150 mph from here to Fargo in a blizzard, I’m likely to get in an accident. There is no study documenting that, but we can make a strong inference based on our understanding of driving at high speeds or traveling in winter conditions. By that same token, we have several hundred research papers that shape our understanding of CWD and guide how best to address it."

"You’ll also see a list of over 250 references. None of these stand completely on their own, but rather, they build on each other. Each adds a small piece to our collective understanding of CWD. These represent ideas, observations, questions, or theories, that have been tested, scrutinized, proven, or in some cases disproven in a systematic way."

"In the most extreme situations, that cause of mortality can outpace the herd’s ability to compensate, meaning population declines. The tipping point at which these things will happen will vary. In some western herds, declines were documented at as low as 30% infection rates."

"Out on the landscape infected animals are more vulnerable to other causes of mortality but will succumb to the terminal stages of the disease if they live long enough. In free-ranging animals, the likelihood of surviving for one year is cut nearly in half, and virtually no animals survive past two years."

I read through most of the comments. I found it interesting that most "in favor" concentrated around "my" and "me". While most opposed concentrated on conserving a resource for the future for all to use. Obviously, that's not black and white as there were several well-worded in favor arguing from the side of youth and elderly.

I have no intention of reading the 250 documents referenced. I think it is clear CWD is transmitted through direct contact and saliva. I think the NDGF has made it clear they are fulfilling their constitutional obligation by controlling what they can while addressing the fact they cannot control other transmission vectors. I think it's very clear that CWD is 100% fatal within a couple of years based on captive studies and that it would be extremely unlikely to find an emaciated animal on the landscape because of the low prevalence rate at this time as well as environmental factors - dying of CWD doesn't mean starving to death in the vast majority of cases in the wild. Winters and predators will take out the weak animals long before you see a skin and bones deer walking around.

Most won't believe me since I was one of the few that was willing to question and challenge both sides, but I was very neutral on this prior to reading testimony because I don't believe NDGF did a sufficient job presenting their stance and I don't have the time to dig through the data myself. It's hard for me to personally object to their stance without looking at the 250 documents - something I don't intend to do. It's certainly not something a room full of politicians will do so my stance that they should not be involved is stronger than ever. Without each of them looking at all that data and forming an educated stance, they have no business being involved in this. If someone on that panel has looked at it and has an opinion to the contrary, I respect that and they should be given their time. I am all ears.

Questions remain and there is a lot to learn. Never stop asking questions and challenging the stance of any sort of professional. Unfortunately, after the last few years, we all kinda curl up where we hear things like "slow the spread until we can learn more" from a government agency. And that is what it seems NDGF's stance here is. But at the end of the day, unlike the last time we heard that, research is being provided. And game agencies are not the CDC. I've called all sorts of biologists in numerous states and every one of them has picked up the phone and answered any question I've ever had. Many have followed up with e-mail. The several that I personally know are probably in the top 5% of my friends when it comes to time in the field and passion for hunting and fishing.

Lastly, the takeaway that I've been trying to convey is best highlighted above in a quote by Mr. Banhson: "That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year." This is indeed the tragedy of commons. And it's the cornerstone of wildlife management.

Due to time constraints during testimony I was unable to speak but mine is uploaded online, and I invite you to read it... I condensed it down to a few key bullet points that I would have liked to been able to read the committee, but it was unable to be so I will upload it here and would like to hear your responses to my questions in it.

Chairman Porter, Committee Members… My name is Wyatt Thompson. I will be talking about some data that the Game and Fish has been collecting from unit 3F2. CWD was first found in state in 2009 in 3F2, with the Game and Fish implementing a ban on hunting over bait through their 2010 CWD Proclamation, even after a bill to ban baiting introduced into the legislature in 2007 and 2009 was shot down.


70 positive CWD cases have been found in North Dakota in 13 years of testing. 48 of these cases have come from 3f2, or 68.6% of all positives. In the last 3 years of released data, 2019-2021, 34 of 52 positives have come from 3F2, or 65% of positives from that time frame, even though the baiting restriction had been in place for 9 years prior.


After running through those numbers and remembering a baiting restriction has been in place now for 12 years total in 3F2, has that restriction the Game and Fish implemented been effective at impacting spread beyond a normal, natural deer to deer interaction, especially after the drastic spike the last 3 years?


At a Minot CWD meeting this past year, the Game and Fish Department stated they are moving away from data collection in 3F2. This has been the data collection site in the state that could back up the science they want us to believe… That a baiting restriction slows the spread of CWD, yet they are moving away from data there, specifically after the huge leap in positives the last 3 years. Perhaps the data and science does NOT match the narrative and agenda.


I Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and will answer any questions to the best of my abilities that the committee might have.

 

[Mr. Pike]

You don't have to use bait to bow hunt deer. Try using a mock scrape or pattern their travel routes.

 

[Kurtr]

You don't have to use bait to bow hunt deer. Try using a mock scrape or pattern their travel routes.

You mean a mock scrape with scent? Isn’t scent a lure or what some would call bait?

 

[guywhofishes]

You mean a mock scrape with scent? Isn’t scent a lure or what some would call bait?

Green good, red bad, purple hypocritical.



It shall be unlawful for an individual to hunt big game over bait or place bait to attract big game for the purpose of hunting in deer hunting units 1, 2B, 3A1, 3A2, 3A3, 3A4, 3B1, 3C, 3D1, 3D2, 3E1, 3E2, 3F1, 3F2, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E and 4F. In addition, it shall be unlawful for an individual to hunt big game over bait or place bait on any North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Management Areas (WMA). As used herein, bait includes grain, seed, mineral, salt, fruit, vegetable nut, hay, any naturally derived scent or lure (e.g. urine), or natural or manufactured food placed by an individual. As used herein, baiting does not include agricultural practices; gardens; wildlife food plots; agricultural crops; livestock feeds; fruit or vegetables in their natural location, such as apples on or under an apple tree; or unharvested food or vegetables in a garden. This ban does not apply to wildlife management activities conducted by or under the direction of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

 

[jdinny]

You don't have to use bait to bow hunt deer. Try using a mock scrape or pattern their travel routes.

You mean like a travel route to an from a 1/2 acre food plot where the trees are knocked over and laid horizontally on purpose to encourage all animals to travel to said spot….. yeah totally different than baiting I see your point

 

[jdinny]

Might as well make hunting any food source illegal is that your suggestion ?

 

[jdinny]

Once again this is not a hunting issue at all straight up money and power issue. Never has a bag of corn been so controversial until money is involved