SB2137

[BrockW]

Just to correct my good friend, Trip. More of a PSA, if you will.

This isn’t a baiting bill.

Yea it is

All of this for a “disease” that has killed one(suspicious) deer in a half a century in ND.

CWD was first found in ND in 2009. So half century is most certainly not correct. But considering the level of research that has been done around disease pathogenesis, there is no doubt that more than 1 deer has died from CWD in ND. There is 2 more that were found in clinical end stages of the disease.

It’s a bill to undo restriction on hunting that science doesn’t support. In the context of cwd it’s purely illogical. There is zero evidence of cwd being spread by bait piles.

That’s not true. A number of research efforts have demonstrated that you can find infectious prions on mineral licks, in the soil around mineral licks, on feeders, and in bait piles.

They’ve also been able to demonstrate horizontal and environment transmission….repeatedly and in elk, whitetail, and mule deer.

Contagious disease spreads when animals are eating, pissing, and shitting in the same spot every day? Huh…sounds like a logical way for disease to spread to me.

. It is simply a “best management practice” idea being pushed down by AFWA and if one uses simple logic it makes zero sense to ban hunting over it unless you’re objective is control.

this one has always puzzled the conservation community and the GF. No one quite understands what the infatuation with AFWA is when it comes to the merry band of “CWD is a conspiracy” group. kind of entertaining to watch Dusty misquote the AFWA document. But outside of that….

Backcountry hunters and anglers………. Wonder why they want to be involved? Wouldn’t a sportsman group want more animals not less and to work on better access for hunters?

I always kind of enjoy these statements. It’s a form of flattery in my opinion. When someone makes an Ad hominem attack, it usually means their argument is shit.

But what’s funny about this is that I, representing North Dakota BHA, drafted a bill to try and put more pronghorn tags back in public hunters pockets (SB2155). Last session we advocated for increased funding for private land habitat and cow elk tags for landowners. We also opened up thousands of acres of state trust lands to hunters.

And yet somehow I’m simultaneously involved in a anti-hunting conspiracy…

Man, the mental masturbation some of the master baiters will go through…

 

[KDM]

Ah yes, tis the season for more "Us (hunters) against Them (landowners)" stupidity. Winter is the Hunter vs. Landowner and then again in the fall we get the Resident vs Non-resident, but I digress. I think all of these measures are anti-hunting. They do NOTHING to promote good hunter/landowner relations. Trying to take hunting opportunities from the landowner, trying to tell landowners what they can and can not do on their own land while simultaneously demanding they let complete strangers with guns wander all over their land enduring the ruts, garbage, and other dumbness people do HAS to be a pinnacle of STUPIDITY. All this will accomplish is to bring about the all land is posted scenario quicker. Which does the exact opposite of what hunters say they want. Maybe thats what the proponents of these measures really want in the end. Hunters need to understand that landowners don't owe you a place to hunt. They never did and they never will. Hunters will come out the loser if it ever comes to a head. I know this will piss off some people, but that's the reality of the situation. Carry On!!

Oh and CWD is still an non issue, however EHD is a true herd killer.

 

[bravo]

KDM, I respect the bell out of you. But this argument comes up every time, and I don’t know a single hunter who thinks they deserve or are owned private land access. Many are frustrated with shrinking opportunities, but i haven’t seen or heard anyone say landowners should be required to open their gates.

And you are right, the roots of this bill are anti-hunting. The folks who only see they’ll get to hunt over bait (sorry…supplemental feed) are missing that point.

 

[Trip McNeely]

KDM, I respect the bell out of you. But this argument comes up every time, and I don’t know a single hunter who thinks they deserve or are owned private land access. Many are frustrated with shrinking opportunities, but i haven’t seen or heard anyone say landowners should be required to open their gates.

And you are right, the roots of this bill are anti-hunting. The folks who only see they’ll get to hunt over bait (sorry…supplemental feed) are missing that point.

Wrong. It’s completely the opposite of what you just said. You are missing the point. It’s very peculiar you would call farmers/ ranchers/landowners and sportsman for this bill “anti-hunting”. Whether you are willing to accept it or not this state is over 90% privately owned. Being in opposition of this bill won’t get you any more access to hunting opportunities and I wish some of you smooth brains understood this. We sit here and complain about access and then people like you want to tell landowners what they can or cannot do on their own property when scientifically there is no evidence whatsoever that baiting spreads CWD. This isn’t a landowner/sportsman bill. Most sportsman i know are for this bill. Most landowners I know are for this bill. It seems to me those that dont want this bill are either with the government in Some capacity or are government boot lickers of sorts.

 

[KDM]

KDM, I respect the bell out of you. But this argument comes up every time, and I don’t know a single hunter who thinks they deserve or are owned private land access. Many are frustrated with shrinking opportunities, but i haven’t seen or heard anyone say landowners should be required to open their gates.

And you are right, the roots of this bill are anti-hunting. The folks who only see they’ll get to hunt over bait (sorry…supplemental feed) are missing that point.

I've dealt personally with a couple dozen hunters who felt the exact way I described. I know because I caught them trespassing and they told me as much. I know quite a few landowners that have dealt with the same situations on multiple occasions. I'm glad you don't know any hunters like that, but to say that doesn't suddenly make these bad interactions go away or my point moot. I'd like to see something that will directly improve hunter/landowner relations that will hopefully increase access, but the bills I see being brought foreword only increase that divide.