Targeted Removal

[Fritz the Cat]

You will have to play gotcha by yourself.

 

[bravo]

You will have to play gotcha by yourself.

I’m seriously trying to understand your post. Have a good day I guess.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Rumor control says there is a CWD positive deer harvested south of Fargo. If there is more info I'll post it and then do the bravo in 3....2....1 thingy

 

[bravo]

Feel free bud.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Rumor control says there is a CWD positive deer harvested south of Fargo. If there is more info I'll post it and then do the bravo in 3....2....1 thingy

It was on this site:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/285968231799620

A fellow posted on that page he earlier harvested a deer with a bow. He was notified by NDGF it was positive. He deleted the post.

 

[Average_NDA_Member]

good debate here fellas cept one thing bravo you believe in prions so thats a no go and fritz the cat you use the zuckerberg site n that aint gonna fly with me gonna do ya both a favor and declare myself the winner don't even get me started on sparkly boats

 

[wct12]

Well, the deer can't get in or out. They are in a preserve that provides food, water, shelter, and protection. Predators are voraciously controlled so there is little stress. Only certain animals of a certain size are allowed to be harvested. Even if they catch CWD, they'll live to be 4 years old and be big enough through selective breeding for large antlers. They are oftentimes as "wild" as Fritz's elk, so not indicative of how any population of wild animals can be managed. Lunk we can complain until we're blue in the face that deer hunting has gotten harder, but until there is a way to put more trees and grass on the landscape, nature is going to take the population down from time to time. We still have a lot of opportunities to take nice animals in the state. EHD, 8 months of winter, and lack of habitat isn't the game and fish's fault. Tell me your thoughts on what they should do. I am 100% for squeezing the vice on NDGF if they blatantly push their own ethics into regs. My stance is a cornpile has a negligible effect on the spread, but like ANS they do what is within their power to slow it. I won't defend their CWD push, but if you ask me not allowing baiting in certain counties is pretty low on my radar as far as things to be worried about (ND hunting wise). I can still grow a patch of corn and be perfectly legal. In essence, it would take a big amount of money and a change of mindset for ND to turn around and we will still probably never be a trophy destination. We all know that mid winter this place is a moonscape and land owner tendencies have changed compared to what it was 20 years ago.

The thing is Lunk, we don't all want the same thing. Fritz and the Farm bureau want the game and fish department gone. Read their policies and ask why any outdoorsman would consider them an ally. They don't want you on the dirt roads if you aren't farming or ranching. I have a FB neighbor that gives me problems because my land isn't in production even though noxious weeds are controlled. He just thinks that since its purely recreational he can tell me what to do and that is their mindset. They say they're on the hunter's side, but that's only now while its convenient. Talk to Daryl L, Gabe and his son, or the CWD FB page. The conversation will go from "it's about baiting, its about kids/handicapped opportunities, it's about nutrition, it's about government overreach, it's about landowner rights". In that order. Every time. They don't have a specific problem, or solution. It's just game and fish = bad, farmers and ranchers need to be in charge. NDFB have a plan of "death by a thousand paper cuts" through legislation until hunters and fishermen have no more interest in ND outdoors and they have control. They will control everything; tag allocation, access, you name it and I 100% guarantee you will see this coming down the pipe. In fact, I will bookmark this post and bring it back at the next biennium. Once we set the precedent that game and fish laws are legislated via emotional outrage, we will circle the drain.

Have you heard the term "useful idiots"? Where a cause is propagandized and the masses get so fired up about a single detail, they end up doing the dirty work for those behind the scenes to their own detriment? Strong case with CWD crowd.

Man… I haven’t posted on here (don’t think I’ve even been on here) in a few months and I still get a shout out... If you look at FB policies they are a grass rooted org and have actually supported quite a few sportsmens/right to hunt bills in the state (including the right to hunt amendment in to the state constitution which I think about everyone on here would agree was a positive).. Their policies are brought forward by members, and voted on a local level, than a state level by their members..

If you're talking about my old man and I on here you must be noticing stuff (or following) us on facebook as he is banned and I haven't commented or even been on this site in quite awhile (april maybe?).

As far as your key points behind our mention up there... Do youth and the handicap benefit from being able to hunt over bait? Absolutely. Do I care how you want to hunt (public vs private, bait vs no bait, rifle vs bow (i do give crossbow guys some grief from time to time))? Absolutely not. My opinion is that however a person wants to hunt, go ahead as long as it's legal. I really don't care how you do and think it' dumb for another hunter to look down on someone for wanting to enjoy the outdoors legally however they choose.

I invite you to show me 1 place where I have come out and said it's about landowner rights.. Because I've actually said that it's a pretty slippery slope to bring outdoor regulations in to just a private property argument (and actually supported amendments on to 1151 that would have "regulated" baiting on private property like setbacks and quantities) and so did my dad.

As far as nutrition goes.. the more equally balanced nutrionally and healthy an animal is, the lower the risk for disease.. this goes for all animals, and is actually something we focus on fairly heavily on the animal ag side of things on our ranch by using vitamin A & E shots and giving out minerals specific to things we need in our animal herd, and after seeing the advantages and overall herd health at home... I do think that nutrition can play a big part in an animals overall health.

One thing I have been fairly vocal on is my displeasure with the game and fish department, but it's on a multitude of fronts, and if you do happen to follow the CWD page on FB.. you'll notice me asking questions about a few topics and looking for answers at advisory board meetings (only our districts), not just one topic. Do I think that the director of the Game and Fish Department should be an appointed or an elected position.. It should be elected. Do I think that there should be a "checks and balances" for them besides basically the governor signing off on the proclamation? Absolutely. But that doesn't stem back to just the CWD/baiting bill by any means.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I do believe that most sportsman, land owners want what's best for north dakota wildlife. The issue again is the lack of research into cwd and less habitat that our wildlife need to handle those extreme conditions of North Dakota. We all should be focusing our energy on the ones who are in charge of managing our natural resources (wilderness) the game and fish and allocating funds that can be used to produce more habitat.
I admit I'm good at arm chairing it on a website and explaining the frustrations that everyone has debated on this site a thousand times. And their are those who do tirelessly push for sportsman rights against those who want to change the traditions that has made hunting possible when majority of the land in north dakota is private. I'm all for change if that is necessary but what is proposed by the government bodies to slow the down spreading of cwd is discouraging and that the money should be spent on better research. That's where we make progress for both sides of the issue when it comes to saving our north dakota wildlife.

 

[bravo]

As far as your key points behind our mention up there... Do youth and the handicap benefit from being able to hunt over bait? Absolutely. Do I care how you want to hunt (public vs private, bait vs no bait, rifle vs bow (i do give crossbow guys some grief from time to time))? Absolutely not. My opinion is that however a person wants to hunt, go ahead as long as it's legal. I really don't care how you do and think it' dumb for another hunter to look down on someone for wanting to enjoy the outdoors legally however they choose.

Agree.

I invite you to show me 1 place where I have come out and said it's about landowner rights.. Because I've actually said that it's a pretty slippery slope to bring outdoor regulations in to just a private property argument (and actually supported amendments on to 1151 that would have "regulated" baiting on private property like setbacks and quantities) and so did my dad.

I never specifically said you, but your cohorts bright it up multiple times in both written and spoken testimony.

As far as nutrition goes.. the more equally balanced nutrionally and healthy an animal is, the lower the risk for disease.. this goes for all animals, and is actually something we focus on fairly heavily on the animal ag side of things on our ranch by using vitamin A & E shots and giving out minerals specific to things we need in our animal herd, and after seeing the advantages and overall herd health at home... I do think that nutrition can play a big part in an animals overall health.

Of course nutrition is important. This looks like you are suggesting that we inoculate and feed wild animals. We all know habitat consists of food water and shelter. A deer’s diet is 50-60% browsing woody plants. Supplemental feed would not only be insanely expensive for the state but also wouldn’t have a huge effect per dollar in areas without water and shelter. If you truly believe nutrition is the answer with feeding you should actually be advocating for the game and fish to have a bigger budget, since not everyone can afford to leave crop in the field for deer. The problem with you and your father’s arguments is you keep referring to the deer on your land as the standard for the rest of the state. Yeah you can feed and keep a portion of a small herd alive, and good on you. I remember your dad thinking he had checkmated the game and fish because he pinpointed the day when the partridge paired up on your land where game and fish had a broader time range that applied to the whole state. This was the basis of his “they don’t listen to us” argument. This is not the case everywhere and stop expecting everyone to take your advice because it works on your acres. There’s a lot of pheasants in my back yard, why can’t I shoot five a day? Possibly because that isn’t the case elsewhere.

One thing I have been fairly vocal on is my displeasure with the game and fish department, but it's on a multitude of fronts, and if you do happen to follow the CWD page on FB.. you'll notice me asking questions about a few topics and looking for answers at advisory board meetings (only our districts), not just one topic. Do I think that the director of the Game and Fish Department should be an appointed or an elected position.. It should be elected. Do I think that there should be a "checks and balances" for them besides basically the governor signing off on the proclamation? Absolutely. But that doesn't stem back to just the CWD/baiting bill by any means.

I’d really like to hear a specific gripe you guys have with their policies, I am seriously open minded about it if I could just get something tangible. I have no affiliation and sincerely want to see us come together over common ground like we used to, but I have yet to hear an actual policy and solution.

As far as the elected position, I see it both ways. On some fronts it makes sense. However, whoever spends the most money get their guy elected, whether it’s big oil, big ag, animal rights, etc and that could spell the end of hunting as we know it in the state. I imagine you’d sing a different tune if the winner wasn’t someone picked by the ag groups. Bigger money gets its way, look at how quickly Montana is changing. Out of staters with deep pockets are pricing out small ranches and locking hunters out because they have the political capital to do so. I don’t have my head in the sand to think that won’t happen here.

 

[Average_NDA_Member]

though i told yall boys i had it handled

 

[wct12]

I do believe that most sportsman, land owners want what's best for north dakota wildlife. The issue again is the lack of research into cwd and less habitat that our wildlife need to handle those extreme conditions of North Dakota. We all should be focusing our energy on the ones who are in charge of managing our natural resources (wilderness) the game and fish and allocating funds that can be used to produce more habitat.
I admit I'm good at arm chairing it on a website and explaining the frustrations that everyone has debated on this site a thousand times. And their are those who do tirelessly push for sportsman rights against those who want to change the traditions that has made hunting possible when majority of the land in north dakota is private. I'm all for change if that is necessary but what is proposed by the government bodies to slow the down spreading of cwd is discouraging and that the money should be spent on better research. That's where we make progress for both sides of the issue when it comes to saving our north dakota wildlife.

One of my big topics of discussion and something i have a big gripe is something i did make a Facebook post about...

After last nights advisory board meeting, lets actually talk about "Protecting the Herd".. The number 1 detriment to the deer herd in North Dakota is harsh winters and the starvation it then causes. Casey Anderson and Scott Pederson both agreed with that.. So does this article from the G&F Website (look at those reductions in numbers in 2J1 and 2J2.)
https://gf.nd.gov/maga.../2023/jun/toll-of-a-tough-winter....
Instead of having to put quotes like this in articles
“We get a lot of help from people in the Department when it comes to aerial surveys, but it comes down to four big game biologists for the whole state of North Dakota trying to manage deer, trying to keep deer on the landscape to provide hunting opportunities,” he said. “And then you get a winter like this that comes along, and you come back into the Jamestown yard and see people unloading all these dead deer that they’ve picked up, and it’s just like ‘man alive.’”
Imagine if the Game and Fish actually cared about "Protecting the Herd" and Sportsmen's opportunities and implemented something like what Utah did last winter.
https://wildlife.utah.gov/.../1588-dwr-implements...
This is a direct quote from the article posted on the ND Game and Fish website
"Smith said what they observed from their aerial offices over 6-plus weeks of survey time was discouraging. For example, they saw a 51% decrease in white-tailed deer and an 84% decrease in mule deer in the Wing-Tuttle area (hunting units 2J1 and 2J2) from Jan. 10 to April 7."
2J1 and 2J2 have not had a single CWD positive and are not within 25 miles of a unit that has had a case so baiting is still allowed, and therefore would fall into the same criteria that Utah uses when it comes to where they can and cannot emergency feed deer due to CWD.
What would the opportunity for sportsmen look like, and how much of the herd would have been "protected" if the game and fish actually invested some dollars into something like emergency feeding that would actually "protect the herd" rather then spend it on billboards and vehicles wraps. It would probably look something like not having to reduce tags by 10,000 for this season.

North Dakota will never get back to the CRP numbers we had 20 years ago plus shelterbelts and old yards are getting ripped out all the time.. The game and fish has good intentions with the dollars they have allocated for habitat, but those dollars would be better suited to go somewhere like a supplemental feeding program like stated above if the habitat deal isn't attainable.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I think there should be a Bill drafted saying the Game and Fish has to feed them in the winter.

 

[lunkerslayer]

One of my big topics of discussion and something i have a big gripe is something i did make a Facebook post about...

After last nights advisory board meeting, lets actually talk about "Protecting the Herd".. The number 1 detriment to the deer herd in North Dakota is harsh winters and the starvation it then causes. Casey Anderson and Scott Pederson both agreed with that.. So does this article from the G&F Website (look at those reductions in numbers in 2J1 and 2J2.)
https://gf.nd.gov/maga.../2023/jun/toll-of-a-tough-winter....
Instead of having to put quotes like this in articles
“We get a lot of help from people in the Department when it comes to aerial surveys, but it comes down to four big game biologists for the whole state of North Dakota trying to manage deer, trying to keep deer on the landscape to provide hunting opportunities,” he said. “And then you get a winter like this that comes along, and you come back into the Jamestown yard and see people unloading all these dead deer that they’ve picked up, and it’s just like ‘man alive.’”
Imagine if the Game and Fish actually cared about "Protecting the Herd" and Sportsmen's opportunities and implemented something like what Utah did last winter.
https://wildlife.utah.gov/.../1588-dwr-implements...
This is a direct quote from the article posted on the ND Game and Fish website
"Smith said what they observed from their aerial offices over 6-plus weeks of survey time was discouraging. For example, they saw a 51% decrease in white-tailed deer and an 84% decrease in mule deer in the Wing-Tuttle area (hunting units 2J1 and 2J2) from Jan. 10 to April 7."
2J1 and 2J2 have not had a single CWD positive and are not within 25 miles of a unit that has had a case so baiting is still allowed, and therefore would fall into the same criteria that Utah uses when it comes to where they can and cannot emergency feed deer due to CWD.
What would the opportunity for sportsmen look like, and how much of the herd would have been "protected" if the game and fish actually invested some dollars into something like emergency feeding that would actually "protect the herd" rather then spend it on billboards and vehicles wraps. It would probably look something like not having to reduce tags by 10,000 for this season.

North Dakota will never get back to the CRP numbers we had 20 years ago plus shelterbelts and old yards are getting ripped out all the time.. The game and fish has good intentions with the dollars they have allocated for habitat, but those dollars would be better suited to go somewhere like a supplemental feeding program like stated above if the habitat deal isn't attainable.

Yes i agree that loss of habitat and food is challenging for all north dakota wildlife, but what gets thrown around and stops all meaningful discussions is the dreaded discussion on cwd. What the deal with that, how come more research isn't being done to find out indisputable evidence that all sportsman and land owners can get behind. Seriously what is the hold up here, we all want the same thing well atleast most of us on here do.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I think there should be a Bill drafted saying the Game and Fish has to feed them in the winter.

That's never going to fly especially when we don't know how prions are being able to pass from animal to animals

 

[bravo]

That's never going to fly especially when we don't know how prions are being able to pass from animal to animals

Spread of other diseases, predators, type of feed (drastic change in diet can also kill deer), who pays for it. Defined parameters as far as distance from roads, how cold or how much snow there needs to be, best choice of locations. Lots of legal liabilities.

All reasons why we shouldn’t legislate game laws based on emotion.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Spread of other diseases, predators, type of feed (drastic change in diet can also kill deer), who pays for it. Defined parameters as far as distance from roads, how cold or how much snow there needs to be, best choice of locations. Lots of legal liabilities.

All reasons why we shouldn’t legislate game laws based on emotion.

Well north dakota has in the past fed wildlife deer during extreme winters before im talking 30+ years ago when we had all kinds of habitat. Again we are talking about a plan that's going to be costly for someone to pay for, but it's still not worth the fight if we cant get the data that will give us the absolute scientific gospel on prion transfer from animal to animal. We need to find neutral ground in this problem and throwing out solutions that aren't going to be supported by both sides is basically a PR solution.

 

[wct12]

"Of course nutrition is important. This looks like you are suggesting that we inoculate and feed wild animals. We all know habitat consists of food water and shelter. A deer’s diet is 50-60% browsing woody plants. Supplemental feed would not only be insanely expensive for the state but also wouldn’t have a huge effect per dollar in areas without water and shelter. If you truly believe nutrition is the answer with feeding you should actually be advocating for the game and fish to have a bigger budget, since not everyone can afford to leave crop in the field for deer. The problem with you and your father’s arguments is you keep referring to the deer on your land as the standard for the rest of the state. Yeah you can feed and keep a portion of a small herd alive, and good on you. I remember your dad thinking he had checkmated the game and fish because he pinpointed the day when the partridge paired up on your land where game and fish had a broader time range that applied to the whole state. This was the basis of his “they don’t listen to us” argument. This is not the case everywhere and stop expecting everyone to take your advice because it works on your acres. There’s a lot of pheasants in my back yard, why can’t I shoot five a day? Possibly because that isn’t the case elsewhere."

Lots of states feed wildlife to help with harsh winters and i think that a lot of sportsmen and wildlife orgs would hop behind this also given the opportunity or the tools to do it.. I think the ND Game and Fish doesn't need a bigger budget, they need a better allocation of funds.

My dad used that "checkmate" to prove that just because he doesn't have an PhD in wildlife management, the game and fish taking input from people and actually using it instead of holding their nose up because they have an education on it and a book said it's this date but people in the habitats saw it on this date probably have a good idea on it also even without a college education on it. That's his point on that one I'm guessing.

And hey perfect! we agree on that last part about pheasants, my dad included! That the private property argument is a slippery slope point that we've use also.

 

[wct12]

Yes i agree that loss of habitat and food is challenging for all north dakota wildlife, but what gets thrown around and stops all meaningful discussions is the dreaded discussion on cwd. What the deal with that, how come more research isn't being done to find out indisputable evidence that all sportsman and land owners can get behind. Seriously what is the hold up here, we all want the same thing well atleast most of us on here do.

I've always said that when you can find that and show it to me without a possibly, a maybe or a could be.. I will change my stance on it. But for now there has been a line drawn on possibilities and maybes and that's where the round and round comes from.

 

[wct12]

Spread of other diseases, predators, type of feed (drastic change in diet can also kill deer), who pays for it. Defined parameters as far as distance from roads, how cold or how much snow there needs to be, best choice of locations. Lots of legal liabilities.

All reasons why we shouldn’t legislate game laws based on emotion.

The game and fish funds food plots and intercept feeding programs which both still congregate deer. Using 2-3 food sources (straight corn excluded or minimal due to acidosis). If the game and fish came out and said "we're going to fund part of this but want help, the sportsmen that are already trying to do this would love to hop on and help, and then the game and fish could release an article saying that we helped try to alleviate this winter kill vs writing an article about how they helped pick up dead deer.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I've always said that when you can find that and show it to me without a possibly, a maybe or a could be.. I will change my stance on it. But for now there has been a line drawn on possibilities and maybes and that's where the round and round comes from.

I'm not sure prions are transferred from animal to animal yet, especially when scientists can produce the effects in a controlled environment without dramatically increasing the sample to infect another deer. I'm not sure what the research was trying to accomplish by producing a study like that, that's junk science pay for by special interests groups to produce an outcome that only benefits those who are after a specific agenda. The other issue is nothing has been done since the study was completed in 2017, atleast that was the last article that we have posted here. When I asked Bravo and fritz to share some links with me, perhaps you have something that has been published recently.