I am going to be testifying for this bill and I want to tell you why.
"Honestly, I'm not sure if baiting has an effect or not, but if things get bad, we need to say we did something.". That is a quote from a conversation I had with one of the game and fish people after an advisory board meeting.
Most of you guys know that I am heavily involved with a group called Prairie Grit Adaptive Sports. Our mission is to provide sporting experiences for people with physical and mental disabilities. My role specifically is within our hunting and fishing branch. Every year we provide a multitude of different hunts from antelope in Wyoming, bear in Manitoba and whitetail deer and turkey throughout North Dakota.
We rely heavily on the ability to bait for deer. In fact, we lost a great adaptive hunting spot last year due to one of our units being shut down.
I've seen so many people respond: "if you have to bait, you aren't a real hunter.". Well, in our case we can't necessarily spot and stalk with someone who cannot use their legs. We can't climb a tree with someone who has a degenerative neurologic disease. Do you know what it takes to go to the bathroom if you are in a wheelchair? I'll give you a small amount of insight, everything we do takes a significant amount of work and preparation. We cannot go to the deer, all we can do is try to get the deer to us. "You're not a real hunter" is an arrogant thing to say when we are all one accident or one diagnosis away from completely losing something that we not only love, but something that is a core part of who we are.
However, we are all sportsmen and we care about the deer herd. We have shown up and asked the questions. We've begged for proof that what they are saying is the truth, because the unintended consequence of "having to say we did something" is making archery hunting unaccessible to an entire group of people who we as outdoorsmen should be trying to include to the best of our ability. They won't answer. They cannot show evidence. And I am not willing to let a tool that we rely on for our group to be taken away so "in case" something happens, someone can cover their ass.
I've been to a meeting discussing this issue and the bill and have raised the question, "if the game and fish could show empirical evidence that baiting bans decrease the spread, or that baiting increases the spread, would we change our mind?" The answer has always been yes. All we are told is that we should "leave the biology to the biologists". Well, if they know so well they could easily put us in our place, correct? Prove it to us and we will let it be, otherwise I am going to fight for these guys.
