Politicians making wildlife management decisions will be the quickest way for us to lose hunting opportunities. Over the long run it will result in many more losses than wins.
If you are not comfortable baiting.... do not bait.
It has absolutely nothing to do with hunters wanting to bait. Or listening to some cute sound bite from your friendly legislature about how they are just trying to look out for some down state hunter that hunts Up North but due to his hectic schedule can only hunt one Saturday a month from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and if he doesn't have a big "ol pile of carrots and sugar beets he will never ever see a deer.
This is all about the farmers bitching, pissing, and moaning to the Michigan Farm Bureau about lost sales on carrots and sugar beets to the party stores and sporting goods shops and the party stores and sporting goods shops bitching, pissing and moaning to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce about lost sales on carrots and sugar beets to the hunter that lives down state.
As far as JL comments on the extension of the DNR being MUCC and QDMA. I agree that the DNR/NRC gets a lot of input from the MUCC and QDMA, but from my perspective, the MUCC does have a huge influence along with insurance companies. If QDMA had as much influence as the MUCC I would be in a 4 on a side unit this year living in the thumb.
The thing with MUCC and QDMA is they do not represent alot of folks and unfortunately they have the DNR's ear....often.
They make laws based on good old boy networks.... and ignore the recommendations of the DNR deer biologist.
Someone please explain to me how baiting is illegal in the Lower Peninsula......
Yet it is legal in the Upper Peninsula. There is CWD present in both peninsulas. If baiting is bad for deer in the lower,,,, Then it’s bad for deer in the upper.
If the NRC thinks it’s OK to have baiting legal in the Upper.... then why not in the Lower.... at least be consistent for Pete’s sake.
I talked on the phone to a DNR deer biologist up there. She said they recommended to continue to allow does during bow season.
I’ve never seen anyone study a topo map and spend several days scouring an area for deer sign in order to figure out where to dump a bait pile.
And I’ve never seen a tree bear a second crop when the first one was gone.
Nor have I ever seen a deer stop, sniff and bolt the other way because carrots and sugar beets aren’t in season for 2 more weeks.
I always thought that Hunting was supposed to be About cultivating the skills necessary to be able to spend enough time in the right places doing the right things to be able to make a clean kill with one’s weapon of choice while the animal is doing what it would ordinarily be doing if there were no humans anywhere in the vicinity.
Most “hunting” these days seems to be about manipulating the environment as much as possible in order to assure that the animals will be where we want them to be when we want them to be there so as to make killing them as easy as possible.
May as well go to the city park with a loaf of bread and a shotgun and call it Duck Hunting.
OK, it’s not THAT bad, but to a lot of non-hunters, it doesn’t look a whole lot better, and we really do need to be a bit more concerned with the Optics of the whole thing. And the Science. And the Wildlife Management.
In some places (like private land around here) people just want the deer GONE. They don’t give a rat’s ass how you do it. Most non-hunters, though, seem to have a lot more respect for making it as Fair Chase as possible...
Seems like most people here can hear a POV that differs from their own without being so threatened as to have to try and turn it around and make it about The Other Guy’s insecurities.
The point is, there is a whole, wide spectrum of hunting methods; what’s Legal is Legal, but it’s a load of crap to insist that what any one hunter does has zero impact on anyone else. You can’t put out bait to draw animals in from the surrounding area without drawing animals OFF OF adjacent properties, can you?
Out here, that’s kind of necessary because the people who are open to having someone hunt their property aren’t always the people with a parcel that lends itself to being hunted. And we do have a herd density issue here; if you can get access to a big enough parcel to find travel corridors, you’d be pretty crazy to waste your time and money baiting a place where the deer will turn up anyway, wouldn’t you?
But if you’re on a small property, you might well need to persuade them to change their route to where you have a reasonable chance at dropping them on the same parcel that you’re permitted to hunt.
Not the ideal situation, but no formal definition of hunting contemplates the Hunter being limited to suburban-scale properties.
And yeah, just in case you hadn’t picked up on it yet, I DO have a sense of humor, and not above prickling people with it.
Where I’m “hunting” right now in northern B.C. , I have my own issues. Not great deer numbers and the population is very much at peril if winter conditions are bad. Add slow recovery rates, coyote predation and last winter a cougar plague. I put in quite a bit of time, effort and money to feed “my” little herd. Hauling hay by hand to bedding areas for thermal protection. Dragging feed through deep snow.
And yup, sometimes somebody kills a good buck at night on the road, that I might have got a crack at. But I don’t let that spoil my time in the woods.
I’m sorry you don’t see me as a hunter. But I can’t change that, so I’ll just sit here and enjoy my time , my way and be happy that I can.
Does hunting bear over a failure pile make you look weak ??? God forbid I mention hound hunting bears....
I see you have an antelope picture..... Can you give us your views of hunting antelope over a water hole ?????
But there are unique situations and there is Policy. In a state with concerns about CWD, it’s asinine to permit baiting, unless it’s being done specifically to drive down the deer density and no deer walks away from the pile.
That’s where the whole thing gets screwy. If you’re after a deer of a particular size, then presumably you’re after the “challenge” of taking a mature deer.... but if it’s “challenge” you’re after, why would you be hunting a spot where you’ve manipulated the environment for the express purpose of making it easier to kill a deer??? Why would you choose a compound over a stickbow or a crossbow over a compound or a firearm over a crossbow?
What’s great about hunting is that (within reason) you can make it about as easy or as difficult as appeals to you, but the laws really do need to be set up for the Common Good...
It’s legal in the U.P., and there is CWD in both peninsulas.....
So apparently the Michigan DNR can’t decide if they agree with you......
FWIW, I don’t like food plots any more than I like baiting, and for that exact reason.
But food plots don’t concentrate the animals in the same, nose-to-nose fashion that a pile does. And most food plots are at least big enough that you can’t cover the whole thing with a bow.
As I said before, there’s a spectrum.... Find your place on it and enjoy it in good health, eh?
What % let-off are you shooting???
Oh and I agree with P&Y that canned high fence hunts are not really hunting.... I feel no need to defend such activities that don’t even require the purchase of a hunting license.
Maybe you fit in better on your new CF where you can post your vulgar racial jokes at will....
GOOD LORD TAKE A CHILL PILL.
NONE of this is important enough to get triggered. Lol!
I bet given the chance you would sit over bait to kill every wolf and/or coyote! Kind of the same thing don't you think
As I said. None of this is worth a trigger. Just opinions. Nothing more or less.
No worries. Carry on
An interesting note is that the Michigan DNR participates in extensive supplemental feeding of the deer in the winter near the deer yards. Literally hundreds upon hundreds of deer who are all yarded up in tight quarters in cedar swamps come running out into the road right behind the trucks that are dumping corn to help them survive the winter........
If baiting for deer is bad where CWD is present.... then winter supplemental feeding surely must be too.
Then those same guys might choose to hunt turkeys with a shotgun......... hmmm
We all make our own choices.......
I hunt primarily on private land, and some years I have been the only one with permission to be there. Even in those years, there was often a pumpkin or two or a few ears of corn not far from the fence line. Probably just someone else who wanted to "observe" some deer.
I've worn out several pairs of boots when younger and in my prime, but in today's age of smaller huntable acreages available, more posted and "don't even ask" adjacent neighbors, and more public land pressure, along with a hunter population that is increasingly feeling its age, I think that baiting should be reconsidered here as well.
Reality has changed since I was a kid on the farm and could pretty much walk all day and never get off either our small farm or one of our neighboring places where I knew I was welcome.
If some deer are lured off that posted property across the fence from the forty that i have permission on, and one or two end up in my freezer, is that so bad? Would the rest of the hunters still walking around in the public land trying to find a deer that hasn't been pressured into becoming nocturnal or a good tree for a stand that doesn't already have one in it really be better off if I was still walking around in that woods too?
The bait hunter is sitting in one spot like you've probably wished a dozen or so other hunters were also doing within the last few seasons. And he's statistically less likely to take a nice buck, which tend to be too cautious to visit feeders during daylight, than to settle for a tasty doe. The biggest deterrent to most people to keep hunting or start hunting is the lack of a place to do it that's not overcrowded already or unavailable due to landowners that don't allow it. Anything that makes hunting smaller plots more viable and reduces the need for hunters to wander around disturbing others should be welcomed.
And any unenforceable laws that are actually just hindrances on the legal participants in an activity should be re-thought, and considered to be bad legislation.
That depends - ENTIRELY and quite literally - on which side of the fence you’re on.
My house is in the western UP..... I personally do not bait, but I can hunt every day, for me to get a deer is no big deal, and I get plenty of venison out of Wisconsin, not to worry about it......
MI is not going to ban baiting in the UP,,,, its not going to happen.... I have no problem with baiting, as long as you follow the rules................. The joke is I can put out all the food plots I want, but the QDMA crowd believes the old guy down the road, should not be able to put out some apples.................... give me a break
MI currently as gone along with the QDMA gang, and in the CWD zone, are going with antler point restrictions, trying to incur, hunters not to shoot younger bucks, but to kill older does................ I have followed QDMA rules for a long time, but unlike most members I believe in killing does, and they may talk a good game, but they do not.
My opinion of CWD is you should be killing more bucks, but what do I know.................
I have lived my life from Colorado, to South Dakota to Wis to the UP,,,,,,, for those who hate to bait, it all depends on the environment..... again I do not bait, but have no issues with it................
I just returned from a trip to land I am involved in , in SW Wis, some of the most prime buck hunting areas in the country..... In the last week I saw 19 bucks, and passed on 7, since I am looking for something special.........THE WHOLE AREA OF QDMA THAT WE ARE INVLOVED IN, IS FOOD PLOTS, MANAGED LAND, AND DO NOT STEP ON OUR PROPERTY LINES................................. the same people I talked to down there hate baiting, but no nothing of what they are talking about.......
again I have land in SW Wisconsin, and in South Dakota and in the UP, so I think I know a little something
good luck to all this fall
And in the same way, a food plot is an attractant placed to kill an animal.
And actually, if you hunt crop edges or trails leading specifically to man made food sources, you're stretching pretty far.
If your argument is that baiting spreads CWD, then baiting deer in areas that don't have CWD should be ok since baiting itself does not cause the disease. Correct?
And why do deer in fields that touch noses not transfer the disease just as readily? There is a virtual "chain" of deer interconnected all across every landscape and no deer is isolated from the rest. If they feed where other deer feed, they are exposed. Be it bait piles, food plots, fields or bush. I just think many people let their own biases rationalize their outlooks. If you've always thought that baiting was bad, you'll quickly jump on the "it spreads CWD" bandwagon without much intentional thought. We all champion whatever aligns with our own thoughts.
If indeed the disease lasts forever, then it doesn't matter if you wipe out every deer in a state, wait five years and then restock with clean animals. They will just become reinfected. You also don't know if there are deer developing resistance to the disease and you may be killing those deer that could pass that resistance onto their offspring.
Nature has its own way of dealing with over populations and it's own way of restoring them. The preservationists fall into the trap of wanting everything to stay the same as when they experienced it. Look at feral horses. In no way are they natural to their now homes, but don't tell that to a "wild' horse lover. We are much the same and figure it should never change in our lifetime and when nature decides otherwise, we decide to override her.
Mother nature has no heart. She has neither love nor malice for flora or fauna. And "balance" is measured over hundreds or thousands of years, not a hunters lifetime.
We humans are a vain lot. We accredit ourselves with more more power than we really swing. But we fool ourselves into thinking we're doing something by pissing on a house fire.
Well said and that applies to lots of other subjects as well
IMO that is a great way to frame one of the issues regarding bait piles, bait plots, private land and public land. That statement seems to have eluded the Michigan DNR/NRC.
Never, nor would I. Again, that's not my definition of fair chase hunting, but I fully acknowledge that others have a different definition.
My place is loaded with turkeys. They learned long ago that my horses make a mess when they feed, so there's always an ample supply of grain on the ground around my barn for the turkeys to feed on. As many as 40-50 birds will show like clock work at morning and evening feeding times. They pay no attention to me while I'm feeding the horses.
Hunting any wild game that has been conditioned to come to bait piles would be the same as hunting turkeys at my barn for me. No challenge, no sport, and no satisfaction.
Getting a little Biblical here, I do believe animals were created by God and gifted to us for our use. So, any way that is legal and reduces the suffering of a target animal to a minimum is justified, even if some do not want to call it hunting.
So here’s a philosophical point to ponder....
Let’s accept 320’s statement at face value. Seems to me that those deer would be far more likely to jump the string and be hit poorly, resulting in a much higher loss/wounding rate than would occur if they were in a more natural setting, just doing what they do. Everybody says “Never shoot at a deer that’s on high alert” and that’s damn good advice, but if just being around a bait pile PUTS them on Code Red status, then you basically have NO ethical shot opportunity over bait, right??
This reminds me of the “research” that Adrian Benke did to prove that the POD was really NECESSARY in order to make Bowhunting a responsible method of take.
The deer I have killed without bait have all been 20-30 yards.....
And how many of those bitching have, and promote, open hunting on their unposted land?
I always find this argument rather comical. Personally, I couldn't care less where they will be be feeding, I'm only concerned about where they enter and exit. Unless maybe you are hunting with a rifle, who hunts an entire food plot or an entire ag field? Of course it is unknown where a particular deer is going to feed while there, but it's not hard to figure out where deer tend to enter and exit those plots based on wind and other conditions.
Some of the easiest hunting I have ever done, by far, is hunting small woodlots between ag fields. Talk about conditioned animals. Stevie Wonder could pattern those deer.
At least Stevie would have to get out and actually scout the area, pick an ambush spot, then determine how and when to hunt it. That's a little different than being dropped off at a baited stand and waiting for the livestock to appear.
But I recognize that every hunter has different motivations.
I’ve drawn about 5 bear tags between myself and my buddy on the property.... and killed one bear over bait....... Yet another unfair and unethical advantage that bear bait has brought us....
I've always respected your views and values, tho they may differ slightly from mine. This subject is no different. There's no right or wrong answer here. Everyone has to draw their own line, somewhere, on what lengths they'll take to kill wild animals, and what satisfaction they derive from it.
The notion that if you don't agree with the bait ban you must not care about deer is akin to saying that if you don't agree with a gun ban, you must not care about children, or if you don't agree with a ban on fossil fuels, you must not care about the planet.
As is often the case factions have no problem manipulating "science" in an attempt to achieve a specific, often selfish outcome.
My answer is because it's more challenging and ultimately more rewarding than rifle hunting. Baiting goes against the grain of why I bow hunt. It has nothing to do with CWD for me.
If I’m paying the big bucks to go on a guided hunt.... It has been with a rifle every time.... Boubound can attest to that.... I shared a camp with him in Newfoundland. He was bowhunting and I was rifle hunting for caribou. Moose and elk and bear too.... I have taken with rifle.
So basically.... I bow hunt for deer in Michigan. I believe that crossbows should not be legal during bow season except for the handicap guys..... So I stick to my beliefs and continue to use my compound while my buddies have switched to crossbows........
I own several recurves...... at one time about 15 or so of them.... all Grayling Bears. I’ve hunted deer with my Fred Bear Takedown and missed a few deer.... hunted bear with it but didn’t see a bear that year. I haven’t hunted with it in a while because putting some venison in the freezer is more important to me than doing it the hard way. Maybe some day I’ll try again.
I’m just a hunter who has hanged out on the Bowsite for about 25 years. Met a lot of good folks over on the Michigan Forums and shared campfires with them at Benefit 4 Kids events,,,before all the bickering over baiting and crossbows turned that forum into a ghost town. Shame.
Of course they were Big Bear.
Ironically, some of the same folks who fancy themselves "habitat managers" have no problem utilizing various other methods such as mineral licks, mock scrapes, food plots, and other various methods that encourage nose, urine, and saliva contact between multiple deer.
Why would a guy choose to hunt with a compound bow over a traditional bow ??
Why would a guy choose to hunt with a shotgun for turkeys..... or for that matter,,, Rabbits or squirrels or grouse or any other critters.... instead of a traditional bow ??
There may come a time when I use my boom sticks, again, dunno. But I’ll never hunt over bait. I just don’t need to kill that badly.
I bow hunt only with a recurve and have for decades. That's the particular "challenge" I choose. I don't necessarily do it for the "challenge" but because it's what I find fun. I like shooting a traditional bow without sights more than I like shooting a compound with them. I hunt for enjoyment, not for any other reason. I don't need to prove my skills or my woodsmanship to anyone. Why would I care what anyone else thinks. My venison tastes the same as anyone else's.
Having said that, I had no problem using bait on my property when the natural food sources were not producing or done producing. I have stands set up to hunt my apple trees and my white oak. In the years that there are no acorns or apples, I had no problem whatsoever hanging a feeder to supplement what wasn't produced naturally or was done producing naturally.
Some would have you believe that when I hunt those sources when they are producing, that's somehow different (both in terms of the health of the deer and in regard to "challenge") than when I hunt the same areas when there is a feeder present, or apples that I placed myself. Same spots, same stands, same everything...except for how the food got there. Apparently if the deer come there to eat acorns, it's healthy and if they come to the exact same spot to eat corn, it's not. Or apparently, if the deer come to eat the apples that fall from my trees, that's healthy but if they come to the exact same spot to eat apples that I put there, it's not.
Years ago I remember reading an article from a high profile traditional bow hunter about how baiting for bears was unethical and a scourge on the hunting community, and should be banned. Soon after that, the same person wrote an article about how he found an elk carcass that had been being visited by bears, set up on that carcass and proceeded to take a bear when it came in to feed.
Interesting to say the least.
In addition to what I said in my last post, some would suggest that you just need to find a better place to hunt. What they fail to realize is that the enjoyment for many is to own, and hunt their own little slice of heaven...even if it doesn't happen to be the best habitat. My cabin and property is surrounded by thousands of acres of public federal land, much of which is infinitely better habitat than what I own. Even so, I CHOOSE to hunt my own land, because that's where I find the most enjoyment. Heck, I could shoot a deer out my back door at home but I just don't need to kill that badly.
I purchased my little slice of heaven in the U.P. and at the time it was pretty much all I could afford........ The deer hunting is terrible there,,, And the DNR made it ten times worse by outlawing the harvest of any does there. Period.
But I wouldn’t trade my memories there for anything.... Killing a bear on my own property is an especially fond memory.....
Having said that, I haven't killed a deer in 6 years. Not because of lack of opportunities. In fact, I could have killed a mature 2x3 mulie that walked under my stand about an hour ago. It's because I've set a high bar on the caliber of buck that I'll kill, and I'm OK with eating tag soup if I don't get a crack at a buck that meets those standards. I just enjoy the chess match, even if I lose more often than not.
They support habitat improvement, both monetarily and through free consultations.
Talking with MDC personnel through the years I have been informed they do this for a multitude of reasons including hunter image to the non-hunting public, attempt at disease control, positive impact on a multitude of species including non-target animals, reducing hunter conflicts on both private and public land, etc.
I like their approach, but I believe MO is the only state with an 1/8 cent sales tax that directly supports wildlife conservation. Their citizens overwhelming support it each time it has been voted on.
5 deer have been taken so far this season on my farm. Two by my good bear hunting buddy, Stan, who uses a crossbow due to shoulder injury and he is 63. His first deer this season, a mature doe, came from a ladder stand we set during turkey season over a white oak patch that produces every year, at ten yards. His second deer, a mature buck this past Saturday, came off of a ladder stand on the edge of a 7 acre, 1/2 mile long winding food plot from a distance of 7 yards. The location is a popular point of entry for rutting bucks every year. That stand was also placed during turkey season. First time I have ever placed permanent stands.
My 2 anterless, first one came on the opener on a ground blind that was by my pond and where white oaks frequently drop early each year. Second one came out of a brand new stump blind, placed two weeks earlier, with my wife sitting next to me as she witnessed for the first time as I harvested a deer with a bow. I used two feeding doe decoys which brought the deer in, and now they do not fall for that set-up, They learn.
My buck also came this past Saturday. After hanging a stand in the woods in the morning in a solid travel corridor, and not observing anything, I set a new stand (XOP and sticks) for an afternoon hunt where I had been observing deer enter the far end of my plot. I had never hunted here, they had to travel from the woods through about 60 yards of CRP to enter the plot. I figured they were using this approach, one I had never observed before, because of adjusting to pressure. I witnessed 3 bucks chasing at least two does and was blest to harvest a 7 pointer that field dressed 220 lbs.
Point being, hunting food plots or bait piles, the deer adjust to pressure and successful hunters adjust to their adjustments. Now, a guy using a timed feeder is different than a bait pile that can be approached after dark, IMHO.
The notion/belief that because a feeder goes off at a certain time, that is also the time it is visited by wildlife shows a complete lack of understanding of how they work...or don’t work.
Glad you got over not responding to me directly:-)
We had an electric timer feeder at our home property for 5-7 years, give or take. I grew tired of battery replacement, and replacing the motor one time that I went to a Boss gravity feeder. We saw more deer during the daylight with the timed feeder because it was set to go off when we usually sat out on our screened in porch in the evenings. 98 out of 100 pictures of deer on the Boss Feeder are at night. Maybe deer react differently in MI than KS? Maybe I am ridiculous for drawing a conclusion from observations without using an algorithm?
Here are recent pictures of deer using my home property at night, two nice bucks NEVER observed during the day.
OTH, I regularly have pictures during the day of deer who feel comfortable using the habitat I improved, especially since we take great care to not educate them as to our patterns. Maybe I know more about feeders than you do habitat improvements? Maybe folks with a different opinion are not being ridiculous, they just draw from a different set of experiences?
The date is wrong on the second picture, the function does not work any more. This picture is from less than 5 weeks ago when I first sat the Stump 4 blind you see in the back ground.
I happen to have a pic of this little guy on my phone, but it illustrates my point quite nicely. The feeder shown here was set to go off one time a day at 4 PM for 10 seconds (that equates to a little over one pound of corn, spread over a 20 foot circle).
Apparently this guy didn't get the "when to visit a feeder" memo because he visited the site a full 15 hours from the last time it went off.
This silly notion that deer only visit a feeder when it goes off, and you can set your watch by them is well, just silly. That may be true for domesticated birds, who have little to no other food source, but it sure as heck isn't true for wild, big woods deer.
Better to disagree passionately than that nobody cares.
But I agree with Matt that each hunter must decide for himself. I use a compound. I wounded and did not recover the only deer I shot with my Martin recurve. I love to shoot it, just not proficient enough no matter how much I practice, to be ethical IMO. And aesthetically, it is a much more beautiful bow than any compound I have ever owned. (But then I like wood rifles stocks better than synthetics.)
But, given your situation, property that is next to thousands of acres of good hunting, I would forgo the feeder and find them. My buck Saturday is a perfect example to me. Playing the chess game with them, and instead of sitting in a physically comfortable blind or pre-set stand, I hung a stand based off of recent observations. Taking a deer like that brings me a ton of satisfaction, and in fact for some reason tastes even better:-)
Each location we took a deer is the only time, and the first time, that location was hunted. So I agree with you that deer pattern us, and that is why I have always hung a stand every hunt until the last two. I still do it at least 50% of the time, but age is catching up to me, and the fact that the kill is just not as important any more...as long as I have enough venison to last until the next hunting season.
To each his own, and unless there is a compelling reason such as herd health concerns backed by proven science, the government should stay out of it IMHO.
I have seen deer literally running to a timed feeder when it went off, however. Pavlov would have been proud.
BTW, my "domesticated" birds have plenty of other food sources. They just prefer the easy pickings around my barn at feeding times. And when they get 50 yards away from my barn, they are just as alert and spooky as any other wild turkeys.
Not to mention a complete lack of comprehension skills.
"You mean like my turkeys, Kevin? You can set your watch by when they come to my barn at feeding times. They pick the ground clean, then leave, not to return until the next feeding time. Surely you've seen videos of deer literally running to timed feeders the moment they go off, haven't you?
"Point being, hunting food plots or bait piles, the deer adjust to pressure and successful hunters adjust to their adjustments. Now, a guy using a timed feeder is different than a bait pile that can be approached after dark..."
Speaking of comprehension skills...apparently the concept of wild game becoming conditioned to come to man-placed bait piles at times and in places they wouldn't normally be looking for food is hard for some to grasp. Equally hard, apparently, is the fact that baiting deer significantly improves the odds of seeing and killing deer no matter where you hunt. Do you honestly think Pat would have his impressive wall of Kansas "trophies" if his outfitter didn't bait?
Look, I've stated several times that it's an individual's choice to bait or not, assuming its legal. I'm glad Colorado doesn't allow it. I've hunted Kansas a bunch and never baited there either. That's my choice.
Like I said, this is getting silly.
Every man made food source conditions deer Einstein, and they all improve a hunter's odds of seeing and taking a deer. It doesn't matter if its a feeder, a food plot, a fruit tree or an ag field. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that in H for W has deer stands on the edge and literally in the middle of his man made food sources. Do you think they would be there if he didn't plant that field just for that purpose?
Give us a break.
When you find yourself in a hole GG, it's usually a good idea to stop digging.
Stating my observations were Robin and I saw more deer during daylight hours when we used a timed feeder over a multi-year period as compared to what we observed now using a gravity feeder is the same as claiming deer always come to the sound of a feeder some how makes either of us in possession of reading comprehension deficiencies? OK, LOL!
Matt, you are correct about a feeder not being the same as a plot or ag field IMO. The clover observed in the picture above is 4 acres of the 7 discussed. It would take a lot of blinds/stands to cover that 4 acres with the same density as Kevin's feeder that throws 20'. The distance from the Stump to the Hay Bale is well in excess of 100 yards, well beyond my archery abilities on a live animal. And notice, the deer have multiple choices, planted corn, edge habitat, acorns, clover etc. Those pictures were used intentionally.
Kevin, if there is no advantage to a timed feeder, why use it? Does it go off after dark, or a short time after you enter your stand? BTW, the clover is there 24/7, the deer have it available whether anyone is hunting or not. I am not stupid, nor lacking in reading comprehension skills. There is a big difference IMHO as to what you do versus my approach. I still believe you have every right to take your approach.
One last honest question, does your approach benefit more or less wildlife than the target animals you seek versus habitat improvements. For example, do bees or hummingbirds visit your corn pile/broadcast regularly?
It is admirable that you have been proficient for decades with traditional equipment. I tip my hat to you. Peace!
If food plots weren't designed to up the odds for seeing and killing deer, I wonder what the blinds in this picture are for?
With all the crap that's being strewn around here, maybe those are out houses,... or hummingbird blinds.
Talk about moving the goal posts! Where did I ever say I don't use blinds or stands with man made habitat manipulations? Stands are used in TSI areas, edge layered areas, blinds in CRP etc...
Yet you want to have us believe this is the same as hunting over a feeder. Sure.
Unless you can shoot your bow accurately across a one acre food plot, it certainly is different than hunting over a bait pile. But I wouldn't hunt a one acre food plot either
I've killed exactly one buck off of a 6 acre clover plot that was planted specifically for the deer. Nothing about that kill felt right to me, so I've never done it since. Even trail cameras seem a bit like cheating to me, so I don't use those either.
And again, that's just my definition of fair chase hunting. I fully recognize that you may have a different definition.
But I’ll bet you that 9 out of 10 food plots just like the one in Kevin’s picture are in fact gun hunted at some point. The person or people who did the work to put the plot in as well as the blinds.... are going to kill some deer there. Period. Or else they won’t be putting that same effort in next year. Owning something like what is in Kevin’s picture is way more of a sure bet to kill a deer than hunting bait in my 20 acres in the U.P. of Michigan.
Owning something like in Kevin’s picture takes lots of time and lots of money.
Just stating facts, please don't take this wrong...
I killed 5 deer last year, all with bow. I think you said that is what you killed in the last ten years on your place?
That is the lowest number I have taken in one year, by far, over more than the last 20 years. I don't gun hunt, not that I am against it at all. I just don't need to, and find no enjoyment from it. Like my approach on Saturday, I have enough confidence I can find them.
My habitat allows me to see, and sure, pattern more game. It is always more fun to see it. But, maybe 6 deer for me in the 13 seasons I have owned the farm have come off the plots. The vast majority are me moving around in the timber, based on wind, thermals, rut stage etc. Most of my deer in the last 20 came from property I did not own and was not allowed to leave stands up. Nor was it managed. All timber drainages into a creek with some agriculture. I lost that property 2 years ago. The hunters now use corn piles, and have less success. Not bragging, just facts.
Our differences may be due to where we hunt. The vast majority of my bow kills have been on the ground in spot and stalk situations. There's nothing quite like crawling thru hundreds of yards of knee-high cover to kill a buck I've had my eyes on for several weeks, if not years. I do use stands and blinds when conditions aren't conducive to spot and stalk, but I don't enjoy it as much.
If I lived in Michigan, I may have a different opinion on bait piles and small kill plots. I'm just happy I've never had to resort to that to kill animals.
This Friday I hope to see one wandering through my property in southern Michigan inside of about 75 yards so I can put some venison in the freezer with a shotgun.
Good luck Friday! MO rifle season begins Saturday and I will bow hunt wearing orange. Like you, I just enjoy hunting.
Caught them in Florida, Texas, Mexico and South America
Years ago I went on the Tarpon quest. Was going to catch the new world record. DID NOT. LMAO!
caught some good ones but nothing close to a record. Texas 201 lbs. Florida 195 lbs México ??? Not sure. 91 inches 49 inch girth. South America maybe 150 lbs
Good times. Still fish for them here but quest is over. Off to something new
When can we fish together? LOL.
Kevin's "logic" falls apart when he will not answer when his feeder goes off. We all know it is not at night. Good grief is right, LOL.
Again though, I don't care what a guy legally uses to bring venison home.
At least we know Kevin is equally likable when discussing hunting topics as he is when talking politics.
I still live in the city.... and spend weekends out at our new house which is only about an hour from Detroit. When my wife and I retire,, We’re moving out there for good and selling the house in the city.
Good on you BB!
There is much more to life than shooting deer of any kind. It is obvious that to some, "tradition" and "home" are infinitely more important than finding or building better deer hunting property.
I have hunted what many would consider to be some of the best deer producing habitat in the nation and I can say, without equivocation, that I would not trade any of it with the opportunity to sit in a stand, overlooking our own marginal deer hunting habitat (with the aid of a feeder if need be) with this young lady.
Peace everyone and enjoy the rest of the season. Winter has come early. 6 degrees here overnight and about 8 inches of snow on the ground. We usually don’t have much snow before Christmas.
"At least we know Kevin is equally likable when discussing hunting topics as he is when talking politics. "
Kevin is a smart guy who no doubt has his share of friends, and like many probably has a different approach in person than he does on the www. He just can't help taking his veiled shots at folks who disagree with him, like he has done in his last two posts. I assume all of us put family before everything else in life, except for God. But we come here to discuss our passions that relate to hunting. Maybe a good suggestion is to make less assumptions about people, and let's all follow Chris's lead and be able to disagree, agreeably.
Now you're just being silly and ridiculous, Einstein.
Notice the animals feeding during the daylight in these pictures, and notice the deer are always visiting at night because they know the food will still be there. Again, I have no problem with legal approaches to hunting, but to say a timed feeder is the same as a food plot is just silly and ridiculous, and you don't have to be an Einstein to know the difference, just a person with some integrity.
It's always refreshing to see people posting their honest opinions instead of attacking straw men.
Good luck to you and your wife.
You kill 5 deer a year or so.... right ?? To me it makes ZERO difference if those deer become dead over your feeders that you have out,, Or not. Peace; And keep up the great habitat work..!!
Pretty simple really
The State of Kansas says it’s hunting and require you to buy a deer license to do so........ And Pope and Young says it’s fair chase....... Pretty simple.
However, let's assume the same hawk inadvertently consumed some of the corn, crapped it out, and a corn stalk grew where it landed. If the hawk then proceeded to kill an animal near the corn stalk that he planted, that would fall under the definition "habitat improvement" and would be considered fair chase hunting.
I explain it as bucks doing many stupid things during the rut. How many bucks are never seen during the day until this time of the year? Probably most. Again, I don't have a problem with it where it is legal. The buck's on Pat's properties hunted are probably not using the corn as a food source as much as they are coming in searching for a hot scent from the does that used it. If they use it as a food source outside of the rut, given normal hunting pressure, I bet they came after daylight.
Kevin, LOL. Please explain the straw man argument you always refer to when your logic doesn't work. Hunting one stalk is not habitat improvement. Doing what I did, hanging a stand in a new area based on recent observed deer activity and taking into account wind and thermals before hanging said stand is much, much different than having pre-set stands sitting around a timed feeder for use under varying wind conditions. I was at least 100 yards away from any habitat improvement, in an area I had never hung a stand before.
But if you keep repeating things enough, you might even believe them just like you saying I obviously bought my property to farm it.
Chris, I don't have any problem with any legal approach to bringing game home, NONE. But let's be honest, the trad guys have the right to point out my compound is not nearly as difficult as what they do, and timed feeders are not the same as a diverse approach to habitat management over a fairly large piece of land. I know you get this, Kevin does not, or not honest enough to admit it.
Legal, do it. But let's just be honest enough to ask how the non-hunting public perceives different approaches. Is it easier to justify habitat improvements to them than bait piles, and bait piles easier to justify than timed feeders, trad equipment over non-trad, etc. I remember when I hunted MI, tree stands were not legal as they were seen as not being fair and/or too dangerous. To think we do not need to take into account what 80% of the general public perceives of our passion would be both foolish and silly, and hopefully us non-Einsteins recognize this :)
Question, when farmers leave some grain unharvested for wildlife's benefit, what do we call this? I ask because I will save much money taking this approach now that my property is farmed as opposed to installing food plots sometimes. BTW, my property became more attractive to farm due to my rebuilding the soil from native grasses, green manuring, intense rotations, and adding fertilizers (including micro nutrients) and lime as part of my habitat improvements. I know some, maybe just Kevin, would have us believe that sprinkling corn during hunting season is just as beneficial:)
As I said before, as long as you're willing to play their game, some here will be more than willing to move the goal posts. It's what they do. They think people aren't smart enough to notice.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of hunters who are doing habitat improvements are doing them in order to increase the odds of hunting success. The same is true for hunters who use bait. In that particular way, the goal of each is the same.
That is not to say that a feeder is the same as a food plot. To my knowledge, nobody here has said any such thing. They are both tools used in the process of hunting deer. It's like suggesting that because someone uses a gun to hunt deer, and they also use a bow to hunt deer, they must think guns and bows are the same.
Implying that someone thinks they are is really only one of three things. Stupidity, a straw man argument, or an outright lie.
People can make their own choices as to which one to applies to whom.
Answer this for me...... Why are whitetail deer so sacred that they bring about so much emotions among hunters as to the “Proper way” to pursue them ????
Why have I never once seen a thread about pronghorns and hunting them in a 100 degree dessert over a tiny water hole ?? (Questioning the ethics of it)
What makes deer so sacred ?? If deer managers say that X amount of deer need to be killed to control disease..... Then why is anyone up in arms about a method that they say is easier to kill a deer....?? (If I make it anymore difficult to kill a deer on my U.P. property,,, Maybe my kill will be reduced from 2 deer in the last 10 years to one ??).....
I can take a stab at that one BB. Because no other animal in America holds the same "value" (both monetarily and in terms of ego) as a whitetail buck with large antlers. In my opinion, much of this animosity about methods, borders, antler point restrictions, what constitutes a "shooter" buck, etc., etc., etc., all stem from some hunter's desire to grow, attract, and protect bucks (antlers) until such time they feel they are worthy of "harvesting."
Some people just can't get over the fact that even after thousands and thousands, and thousands of dollars worth of "habitat improvements," some lowlife slob with a $10 bag of corn just might lure that buck away and shoot him before someone else gets the chance, or before they feel that particular buck was worthy of being shot.
Now the beautiful, majestic mule deer....
Chris, Thanks for your kind words, the respect is mutual. To answer your question, for me this was/is not about what manner we should pursue whitetails, or any other quarry. This goes back to the CF, and Kevin trying to say there is no difference in habitat management and bait. Talk about moving the goal posts, he tried to remove the posts from the stadium on his last explanation with this;
"They are both tools used in the process of hunting deer."
That is technically true just as saying hunting out of a helicopter is another tool to bring game down. Ridiculous and silly, isn't it?
I could care less about antler size. I can care less if a neighbor shoots a deer over corn, or apples, carrots etc. If he shoots a giant I will congratulate him the same as if he shot a button buck. My point, habitat management is better for natural resources of a much broader diversity than just the deer Kevin tries to draw in. Again, go ahead and do it, just don't pretend you are doing much benefit to anything other than harvesting a specific resource.
A couple of questions for you...which is better for the natural resources we profess to love, a timed spin feeder throwing out a small amount of bait during a few months of hunting season, or habitat improvements that affect a much broader array of wildlife and are there 24/7/365?
Second question, why if habitat management is solely about bringing deer/turkey into range, performed by LOs in states like KS where baiting is legal. Why do they just not bait? OTH, is there any other purpose for baiting besides hunting and viewing? Throw out helping herds winter by now we all realize this creates as many problems as it solves. Habitat management increases the carrying capacity, again, for numerous species not just target animals.
Remember, I had a company that charged for habitat services. A good portion of my clients did not hunt. My college does a lot of educational collaboration with other natural resource minded entities in this state. I am the only hunter I know of sharing the common interest with the rest of my colleagues.
Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe Kevin doesn't have a clue to what he is talking about, so he attacks everyone to justify his own approach? I admit I am still learning, but am convinced habitat management is better for the resource and also better for hunter image.
I put in 6 bait plots this year. One is maybe 1/2 acre, three maybe 1/4 acre and two adjoining ones maybe 1/8 acre each. The owner thumped a decent little 7pt off of one on the opener. I had the deer conditioned to visit the bait plots and many of the deer visited more than one plot on the property (<400ac). I guess the point I'm making is regardless of the size of the bait plot or the other food source one is hunting....my view is one is hunting a food source that deer are conditioned to use. Hunters take advantage of that conditioning.
BB makes a great point above about the lack of outrage hunting goats over water holes.....or as I noticed in Montana this year....alfalfa fields. Seen quite a few outfitters with pop-ups in the alfalfa field in their front yard/ranch.
This will disappoint you...Robin and I like venison more than beef. I really love summer sausage. Good Lord willing, and I live to a ripe old age, if all I can do is hunt deer with a crossbow over a bait pile, I will do it and have no remorse. That's why I am not critical of how anyone legally hunts. I will justify it by saying it is better than purchasing store bought beef killed shortly after being taken from a feedlot, LOL.
Worth repeating ^^^.
Improving hundreds of acres of habitat for the benefit of the wildlife, hunters, and how we are perceived is vastly different from selfishly hunting conditioned deer over a bait pile.
A multi-acre food plot Matt referred to is not the same as the bait plots you are hunting over,
No disappointment here, brother. My only hope is you continue to improve our wildlife's habitat, and hunter's images in general, while enjoying the venison.
But average Joe hunter doesn’t have hundreds of acres. Average Joe Hunter can’t afford Frank’s tractor...... let alone hundreds of acres of ground or tens of thousands of dollars a year to improve the habitat.
Frank. How much do you spend a year on habitat improvements ??
The extent of my habitat improvements have been buying a couple of bags of rye or clover or throw and grow mix and a couple of gallons of round up and a bag of fertilizer........ That’s about all I can justify to my wife spending on habitat improvements......
What anyone spends to kill animals is irrelevant in my opinion. It's what they give back to the animals they kill that matters. Frank does more than most, IMO.
I get what you are saying BB, but I would respectfully suggest that there are a lot of average joe hunters that could indeed afford such things, it's simply a matter of those things or activities not being a priority. I love to deer hunt and have just about zero interest in farming for them.
Sport hunting as a long, rich history here in Michigan and it has only been in the last couple decades that farming for "quality" deer has become popular. Don't let anyone attempt to suggest to you that in order to give back to the resource, you must or should do anything other than participate by buying your license and taking a deer. The simple act of killing a deer, by any legal means, gives back to the resource greatly. Any wildlife biologist worth his salt will tell you that one thing, in and of itself is one of the most important things we as hunters can do for the benefit of the resource.
Chris, in the mature forests you talk of, a chain saw and some fuel and oil is all it would cost you. Some TSI, edge layering with hinge cutting and you would make significant progress.
I agree with Kevin about the license revenue, and I will add PR excise taxes, are critical for conservation. The biologists I talk and work with will also say habitat loss is the biggest threat to species survival. They have never encouraged me to bait more, but have always encouraged habitat projects. Go figure...
We can argue this until the deer come, but the bigger point is that plots are probably a small component of overall habitat management, if at all.
Good post timex and I agree. I've never judged anyone for partaking in whatever legal hunting method that makes them happy, or for that matter any method that they feel improves their odds of being "successful" (however they personally define that term). Whether that happens to be by utilizing a feeder, planting a food plot or "2 or 3 planter widths of corn along a creek bottom & leave it till mid December then beat it." I just like people to be honest about their motivations.
Ironically, I haven't taken a deer with my bow since 2016. Not because I haven't had the opportunity, because I've had many. I've had literally dozens of shot opportunities on legal deer, and have chosen not to take them. The notion that the only reason someone would utilize a feeder is because they are desperate to shoot a deer is patently ridiculous.
Honest answer...... To kill giant deer.
Unfortunately, the monetization of big bucks has completely changed the deer hunting landscape and culture in this country...and not necessarily for the good of hunters or the resource itself.
Please quit using one high profile person to draw the conclusion that all habitat managers share the same goal. We don't.
Please also realize whatever our goals are, including just to attract more deer even, there are spillover benefits to numerous other species that piled or broadcasted bait does not accomplish.
Again, I have no problem with how anyone legally hunts. But since we talk of being honest, let's be completely honest and realize hunter image is impacted by our choices.
Will you please answer why you have not taken any deer when you had the opportunity? Were you waiting for the "right" deer, possibly a mature buck?
But you MUST realize that the movement towards QDMA and food plots and hinge cutting are MAINLY geared towards ONE THING and one thing only.... to grow big bucks......
We’ve had the QDMA folks cramming antler point restrictions down our throats here in Michigan for a decade..... How dare anyone shoot a yearling 4 pointer when they spent all that money to grow big bucks...... We should all “Let them go and let them grow”..... So that no one is allowed to shoot one of “Their” bucks off property that adjoins theirs.
They don’t want people to draw any of their deer off their mega money properties.......
Frank,,,, You are an anomaly in the QDMA world.... Millions of hunters across America are watching Lee Lakosky on T.V., and trying to emulate what he is doing...... albeit probably on a smaller scale because Lakosky is rich.
You're absolutely correct BB. Just as all people who utilize feeders don't share the same goal. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of both do what they do in order to increase their odds of success (however they personally define that term.) I know I do, and have no problem admitting that.
In my opinion, it's sad that some simply cannot or will not bring themselves to admit that simple truth.
We may be getting some where besides helping increase popcorn sales:)
You are not after big antlers, neither am I. Based on Kevin's responses I will interpret he is going after at least something special if he has passed on numerous opportunities.
To me, it sounds like you are both upset with the folks who believe in QDMA practices? Especially for what is going on in your state of MI?
It sounds like some in both campers, baiters and QDMA, want the same thing-special bucks. And it seems that, from my perspective any way, that for the moment QDMA subscribers may have more influence with regards to the decision makers in your state? And maybe you think it is about money? Possibly, but maybe QDMA principles such as managing the herd's age structure has a major impact on herd dynamics and herd health? And, the state's DNR knows this and is trying to move the hunter mentality away from what it was when I lived there, that every guy just wanted to kill horn so 80% of the bucks killed were yearlings?
I guess you need to convince the decision makers your approach is better. Good luck with that, and I support a government that does things biologically and financially sound at the same time.
I am no longer a QDMA member as it became about money instead of the resource to me long time ago. But I think their principles are biologically sound and should be embraced by the hunting community, for the most part.
Kevin, some cannot just admit the simple truth that baiting may not be what is best for the resource and may negatively impact hunter image, and by extension the support hunters currently receive from the majority of the non-hunting public. Up above you were quick to point out how some missed hunting with family or did not understand the importance of that. Certainly I know you were not talking about me as I posted how I purchased a blind that my wife and I sat in and she witnessed me harvest a deer for the first time. She has been back 2 additional times, no animals taken but several deer/turkey and other wildlife was observed. We shared lunch in the blind and she will be back. Best time I have ever enjoyed was hunting with her next to me. She has been in a pop-up when I have taken turkey, but did not want to witness the death of a deer. We were not blest to have kids of our own, but several first deer/turkey fell on my property to family members, including several nephews. Special times for sure, none over bait, all on habitat managed property. During the slow times I bent their ears as much as possible about conservation principles. I just sent two nephews a boat load of hunting gear I no longer use. Feed the dream baby! And that dream is to hunt for food, not antlers.
Maybe all of us ought to be less judgmental about the motivations of others. I asked about yours, I did not assume.
I was fortunate 2 weeks ago to harvest a buck in MO that field dressed slightly over 220lbs. I bet it tastes as good as those 150lb Michigan bucks:)
The invite is still extended. I have a month off over the Holidays. It will be a little tough to get within bow range since rifle season will be over as well as the extended doe firearms season, and especially since we cannot use bait, but I guarantee you will see deer.
^^^Perhaps the truest words on this thread.
If I killed the world record buck over a bait pile, I wouldn't consider it a success. If I scouted, patterned, hunted, and killed the same buck that was hitting a large food source that I created for the benefit of all the wildlife, I would feel successful. If I killed the same buck in a true wilderness absent of any man-made habitat advantages, I would be overjoyed.
The NRC is in deep with the rich hunting club landowners.....QDMA guys........
If the NRC And QDMA are serious about wanting more and bigger bucks........ Then let them start by asking for the buck limit in the State of Michigan to be limited to one buck only for all weapons combined......
But those selfish bastards won’t do that. They want their cake and eat it too.... Hell... they want everyone else’s cake too...... They want all the bucks left alone until they deem that they are ready to shoot on their big properties..... and they want all the bowhunters to leave all the does alone in the U.P. so they can have more deer. Of course the only ones they want shot are 5 year old bucks......and older. Disregard the fact that as John Ozoga says......”You can’t stockpile deer in the U.P.” Leaving more does alive just means more starve in the yards in winter.........
Frank. I truly believe that you do habitat improvements for the right reasons....... But I also truly believe that the vast majority of guys that are implementing QDMA practices are doing it to kill big bucks.... Or at least to attract and hold deer to kill. That’s the only reason that I have planted any food plots..... although I suck at it.
Thank you so much for the invite.
As far as hunter image...?? They have been baiting deer in Texas since the beginning of time...... Why don’t you hear about it ?? Why isn’t it an issue there ?? I don’t hear the general public outcry about it...
One of the largest bucks I ever shot was with a compound in 1998. It was also the last time I ever picked up that or any other compound. It had just lost it's luster for me. I no longer found any personal satisfaction in it. I have hunted with a recurve, without sights, ever since. I would much rather shoot a basket rack six point or a doe at 8 yards with my recurve (even with the aid of a feeder) than a P&Y buck with a compound at 40 yards on the edge of a bean field. To each their own.
My goal next year is to take a deer...any legal deer...with a vintage kit that I just finished putting together. Everything in this kit happens to have been available from the Bear catalog in the year of my birth. I've been working on it for over a year now.
A dual shelf Bear Alaskan, Easton XX75 shafts (in Autumn Orange) with vintage Bear Razorheads, a vintage Kwikee "suicide" Kwiver, vintage Kwikee string silencers and a B50 Dacron string.
Can't wait to give it a shot. If baiting is legal again in Michigan I'll hang my feeders in the spots that need it and not in the spots that don't. If I take a deer at any one of them, I'll be equally proud of the accomplishment.
So the NRC and DNR can’t decide if baiting is such a bad thing that it should be banned.
Why is it still legal in the U.P. ?? Maybe they’re really not as worried about baiting as they say.....
Good luck Kevin, but be careful with that “suicide quiver”..... ;-)
That's because Texas has been the laughing stock of the hunting community for years. I think the term "canned hunt" originated in Texas. I wouldn't think you'd want Michigan to have that same reputation.
An associate of mine goes to Saskatchewan every few years and has taken some real monsters up there. This is the one he took on his last trip. They all hunt over bait up there.
They must be the laughing stock of the hunting community too.
Thanks BB. The "extreme" danger aspect is what makes it so exciting. :)
In all seriousness, we hunted with those quivers all the time back in the day. It's all we had. Spent a lot of my youth walking through the woods with exposed broadheads and never had a mishap.
But then again, we used to hunt from a 2X6 wedged between the trunks of a tree back then too. I shot my first buck ever that way.
Somehow we managed to stay alive, shoot deer, and we didn't even have QDMA or habitat managers.
I have fond memories of hunting out of a "crotch board" stand in Upper Michigan, over a giant pile of apples that us kids spent all summer picking up off the ground from a local orchard. Thankful for those early days where bait allowed a young 10 year old to see/shoot at deer with my bow, it lit the fire that burns today. Now I am old enough to make my own choices and hunt how I'd like to, which is nice.
I didn't have to pick up apples. My "crotch board" was IN the apple tree. I shot that buck from about 6 feet as he walked directly under me.
I remember it like it was yesterday. I was shooting a 45# Bear Super Mag 48, Easton Game Getters with Satellite 3 blade heads.
Wish I still had that bow...not so much the Satellite broadheads.
Zero deer seen for me again this evening.......
If I’m not mistaken, I think he told me it was a combination of alfalfa and peas.
It’s no different than the public “Image” of baiting for bears....... I’ve had several non hunters express negative views of hunting bears over piles of donuts. I have and will continue to defend that practice.
Up until fairly recently as Nick can attest to; hunters didn’t hunt brown bears over bait.... now it is becoming common practice and is a good tool for brown bear management.......
Honestly,,,, I feel that hunters who don’t like baiting for deer use the “Hunter image” argument more than any non hunters I’ve ever talked to....
"Hunters, Lawmakers React to Bill that could Extend Firearm Deer Season 10 days"
One can only wonder if this is just the start of what could be filed in the "unintended consequences" file.
At the end of the day wildlife managers tasked with the responsibility of managing deer populations are going to keep adding or extending seasons and methods in an attempt to attract hunters and reach their population goals. The consequences of not doing so could be devastating not only to the deer themselves but to their habitat and private property.
Some have argued that by banning bait, there will be substantially less hunters and substantially less harvested deer. I have no idea if this will gain traction but if this ends up being the case, what does that mean in terms of disease transmission and habitat destruction?
In an attempt to increase harvest, I wonder how bow hunters will react to the loss of what many see 10 of the best days of the bow hunting season to firearm hunters?
The new bill would extend the GUN SEASON from what it is now...... November 15- December 1st............. To November 5th to December 1st.
So...... What used to be part of bow season.....(The Rut)... November 5th-15th....... would now be open to gun hunters........
But let’s outlaw baiting because it’s too easy to kill a deer..........
So they are obviously saying that more deer need to be killed.... not enough are being harvested.........
Hunters tend to romanticize these things but in order to keep deer populations at a healthy level, we need to remove (kill) 1/3 to 1/2 of the herd every year. Even with the use of bait, many areas of the state have been unable or unwilling to kill enough deer deer to reach that goal. If the powers that be eliminate one of the most utilized methods of harvesting (killing) deer, something is going to have to make up the difference.
It will be interesting to see what the harvest numbers end up being this year.
My office is across the street from a feed store and I can tell you that based on my casual observation, beet/corn/carrot sales are still pretty brisk.
MI probably has a hunter recruitment problem more than too little baiting in the LP. KS has 26,000 less resident license sales than just 20 years or so ago.
Tough for me to take some of what is said above seriously at times. My four deer killed this year were at distances, in order taken, 7 yards, 9 yards, 12 yards and 25 yards. Been a long time since I used that second pin on a live animal, and it was only possible because it was post leaf drop. Forty yards ain't happening here.
Tough also to believe habitat guys in any large number complain someone else shot their deer. Only ones that would either have a good size chunk of land, or don't know squat about size of home ranges.
Chris, I think most know that bears in timber would be tough to hunt without bait as their home range size and patterns are much different than whitetail. Out west is a different story. JMHO.
EDIT: And baiting bears is necessary to keep the population in check, not so with deer in low density areas.
"Senate votes 21-14 to repeal deer feeding and baiting ban November 14, 2019
The Michigan Senate this week approved legislation, 21-14, to repeal the Lower Peninsula’s feeding and baiting ban, enacted by the Natural Resources Commission in 2018.
Before the bill can be approved or vetoed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, it must return to the House for a final vote to accept the Senate’s amended language. Specifically, House Bill 4687 sponsored by Rep. Michele Hoitenga (R-Manton) will allow feeding and baiting of free-ranging elk and deer in the state for two years after the law takes effect.
“We remain opposed to the legislation based on our members’ longstanding wildlife management policy,” said Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) legislative counsel Andrew Vermeesch. “The Department of Natural Resources is also opposed. While we expect the House will approve the Senate’s changes, it’s likely the Governor will veto the bill if it makes it to her desk.”
The House version was amended to restrict individuals from baiting more than five gallons at a site. The Senate expanded on that concept to include limiting both baiting and feeding to five gallons as well as requiring the bait to be spread over 400 square feet.
Additionally, the Senate adopted an amendment prohibiting feeding and baiting in any county or deer management unit where the state has entered a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Agriculture requiring the limitation or banning of baiting or feeding.
The House amendment prohibiting antler point restrictions in areas with confirmed chronic wasting disease remains in the bill. Summarizing farmers’ concerns with the legislation, Vermeesch explained that artificial baiting and feeding increases unnatural concentration of the deer herd.
“It brings together deer that would likely not cross paths otherwise,” he said. “It also increases the likelihood of contaminated fluids being passed from one animal to another when they eat off the same pile.
“These man-made conditions contribute to an increase in prevalence for both bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease.” "
I spent about 2 years in lower Michigan for work about 10 years ago. I stayed in a fairly rural area near Diamond Lake. I would see a few deer on occasion, but the place wasn't overrun with deer by any means. Has something changed since then?
From the article:
"A Michigan Technological University analysis shows the number of firearm deer-hunting licenses sold in Michigan has dropped by about 21% over 20 years to about 621,000 in 2017. The report estimates that number will drop to nearly 392,500 by 2035."
Considering that it was almost 800,000 in 1998, this is extremely alarming. It remains to be seen what impact a bait ban has on this number...as well as actual success numbers of the hunters that remain. If Michigan thought it was difficult getting hunters to kill enough deer in order to keep them at healthy levels, this could get very interesting.
Here’s what’s happening in CT..... Total permits issued are at a 20-year low, but “Archery” permits hit a record high in ‘17.
The numbers I quoted are overall licenses for all seasons. The problem in Michigan is that we have a system where deer tags can be used in multiple seasons so there really aren't archery tags and firearm tags.
Overall deer harvest in 1998 was just shy of 600,000 deer.
Overall deer harvest in 2018 was about 367,000.
At the end of the day, when it comes to population control, habitat destruction and disease transmission, it really doesn't matter what weapon killed a deer. If you aren't killing enough, you're going to have issues.
Just to keep things in perspective, we kill more whitetail deer with vehicles in MI, than some states have total.
So the question for you is… What is driving the decline in your harvest total?
Has the hunting become much more difficult? Are there that many fewer hunters out there, and not many feel the need to fill more than one tag? Is the overall population finally coming down to target levels?
It’s going to become very interesting to see how this whole thing plays out… is it going to get to where if I am a landowner and I hunt (or allow others to hunt) deer on my property but my neighbor doesn’t, can I sue my neighbor for harboring nuisance animals on their property because the deer come on to my place and wreck my landscaping at night? What about the people who do habitat improvements and put in food plots to increase the population on their own property and just aren’t removing enough deer every year?
We all know that the deer don’t belong to the landowner, but at what point can the state declare that landowners have an obligation to assist the state in reaching the management goals?
To answer your question, (and this is only my opinion) I think reduction of hunters is probably number one, and how deer are dispersed is another. A reduction in deer per square mile doesn't correlate to an even reduction over an entire DMU. All the deer will still tend to congregate to the best habitat.
The problem in MI, is that in some DMUs, deer density is close to 60 deer per square mile where as other DMU's it can be as low as 15. Densities can even vary greatly within DMU's where in some spots it can approach 80-100 per square mile and in some areas it can be a virtual deer wasteland.
Yes, habitat has a lot to do with it but where you have massive tracts of federal or state land, it is what it is.
That's why it's always funny when someone from southern MI ag land simply cannot understand why anyone in the big woods of Northern MI can even comprehend why anyone would use bait.
You just described the entire state of CT. “Massive tracts” of public land would be a tremendous blessing, because let’s face it - no matter what the statistics say, there are always animals to be found once you get a quarter or a half mile from the nearest road.
Here, all of our public land is so small and so hammered that the hunter density in our first shotgun season is capped by lottery at one gun per 20 acres... unless it’s one per 10. I can’t recall off-hand, but it’s not appetizing.
Not surprising to find out that that season has seen the greatest decline in permits issued, followed by public ML, with its stellar, 4% success rate.
Guys with crossbows don’t need shotguns or muzzleloaders or the tags that go with them, and why wait ‘til Nov 19th for shotgun if you can hunt can hunt crossgun starting 9/15??
So CT has a special crossbow season starting 9/15
True enough, however being able to pattern those deer like some are accustomed to is an entirely different story...especially when food sources are sporadic at best.
I've hunted ag land in west central Illinois where I saw more bucks in a single morning sit than I see in two entire seasons where I hunt.
What ever happened to taking pride in being able to figure out where the deer move within an area and being sneaky enough to get a clean shot at one?
I don’t mind looking at them, but when I see a “monster” buck and come to find out it was taken from a “managed” or otherwise minimally-hunted area and it was taken over (or in close proximity to) a bait pile.... I just can’t see it as much of a “hunting accomplishment”. It’s like fishing a recently stocked pond; yeah, it’s fun to catch a nice fish, but.....
Just not what speaks to me about the whole deal.
Yep. It’s called “Archery Season” and runs 4 1/2 months instead of the 10 days or so that you get for shotgun or ML. Plus Archery includes Sunday hunting on private land and 1 permit covers both public and private, unlike firearms, which are either-or.
The drop in deer license sales I believe has more to do with better access to better hunting out of state. Most hunters I talk with daily that used to hunt in MI exclusively, now travel out of state. A few of us still buy 1 tag, and will hunt a few days in MI. Others quit hunting in MI all together.
^X2.....My neighbor didn't even buy any Michigan tags this year. He is giving up on MI. This year he hunted ND, IL and KS. Luckily I have private land to do bait plots on. I drew a public land doe tag....if I didn't draw that I wouldn't even bother with public land in the NW lower. Still negotiating with mama to leave MI and move out west....less people, alot of public land and way better hunting opportunities.
For 15 plus years I filled all 6 tags allowed in some KS units, only 1 could be a buck. I was told I was one of maybe 6 guys who did this. I still can if I had to, but 5 years post back surgery and age makes it very unattractive to do any more. Most guys just want to fill that buck tag, and some then want to complain it's the elimination of baiting. Hunter numbers were going down long before baiting changes were enacted.
Yesterday during MO rifle season I hunted the down wind side of a bedding area. Watched an unidentified deer enter, and a minute later 12-15 doe/fawn boiled out. 35 yards, moving at a fast walk. No shot with a bow, but with rifle I could have filled both tags. I am part of the problem as well!
I have one guy I allow to hunt frequently when I am there. He abides by the low impact approach and comes several times a year from another state to help burn NG, put together and hang stands, perform general maintenance work, etc. Stan is a rarity! And we have success because of how we treat the property.
While I agree that there are a lot of people that hunt out of state in addition to hunting our home state of MI, I'm not sure the number of those that choose to completely forego one for the other is that significant. Certainly not 200,000 of them over the last 2 decades.
We (hunters) are quick to blame "the d**n DNR" for mismanaging the deer herd when in actuality, it is hunters that are in control. The DNR issues the tags, but we pull the trigger or drop the string. How often don't we hear people complain that they aren't seeing any deer, then go on to say "I hunted hard all season and only saw one doe...so I shot her." Duh, do you think that will help things improve for next year?
I've always felt hunters are the first line managers for their own areas. If you're not seeing enough deer, stop shooting them...especially does. Every time you shoot a doe, you are in effect shooting three deer. You're killing her, and the two fawns she is likely to drop in the spring. On the other hand, if you're seeing too many does compared to bucks...shoot some does.
Not every legal deer you see has to be taken, just because you hold the tags for them. Granted, when you hunt public land, or small parcels of private land that are surrounded by public land, you never really know what happens to the deer you let pass. They may be killed later that day...or not. At least I know that if I'm not seeing many deer and I let the does I see pass, they have a chance to survive and reproduce. If I kill them, they have no chance whatsoever, pretty much guaranteeing that my deer sightings are going to suck the following year also.
I've killed more than my share of deer in my lifetime, I don't need to shoot every one I see (even if I attracted them to my stand with a feeder) especially if I think the population in my area is too low.
On the regulation side....the DNR sets regs that IMO discourages many public land hunters. That argument is beating the dead horse.
However I will say the late season bow hunts are fantastic in that when the real snow hits....most hunters stop hunting. I always have the woods to myself where I hunt because I'm willing to drive my 4WD back into the hunting areas. I think deep snow intimidates some folks with 4WD who only use their 4WD's to go out to eat, shopping or they're driveway queens. I always used bait for those snow hunts. It's fun just to watch the animals come by and film them from the treestand. If I'm going to burn a tag on a doe bow, it will be a big doe. My oldest one I've gotten so far has been 9 yrs old. Got a 8yr and 7 yr the last couple of December hunts. I don't know if I'll do the late bow season this year. I never set up a stand or blind.
In the same way I have to shake my head at hunters that will put down and even attack another legal method of hunting without ever having tried it. If you’ve tried it and have an opinion that is one thing. But to stick your nose in the air and attack a hunting method without ever having tried it is just vain in my opinion.
FYI, I have tried it, especially when I was new to bow hunting. Given the properties I have been fortunate to have access to, and the deer densities present, I did not think it met fair chase in spirit. But, still OK with it where legal if used to bring meat home as the main purpose and not for trophy hunting.
Many people tend to base their opinions on whatever it is they experience in their own back yard (or back 40, as it were).
Many people who hunt larger tracts of low pressure private land can't fathom what it's like to hunt heavily pressured public land.
Many people who hunt areas with very high deer density simply can't understand what it's like to hunt an area where deer sightings for a season don't equal what they see in a single sit.
Many people who are accustomed to traveling to different areas in order to hunt the best opportunities simply cannot understand why someone would choose to hunt their traditional haunts, even if they provide minimal opportunity.
Many people who enjoy "farming" ( I use that term cautiously as some people seem to be offended by it) as part of their overall strategy to attract deer to their hunting areas simply cannot understand those who would use a feeder to achieve the same end.
On a personal note, my good friend who lives across the street simply cannot understand why I would drive to my cabin to hunt where deer densities are low, when I could hunt the small woodlots within and surrounding the golf course we live on, where ample amounts of deer tend to travel the same routes every day in order to feed on the residents' ornamentals.
Many people are simply unable or unwilling to accept the fact that their chosen hunting experience may or may not be the same as someone else's.
Gosh, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are well aware that I hunted Manistee National Forest when I lived in MI, as well as hunting the lower peninsula farming area around Battle Creek. I can speak directly to the differences. I wish I still lived there, the hunting was more exciting for me.
What you don't seem to be able to understand is that guys like me who do have all the experience you claim everyone who is critical of baiting must lack, believe an individual who has access to thousands of acres of better quality habitat than their own ought to go find the deer. That's what some of us think, it is an opinion, just like yours. I, probably many, accept that you don't agree.
And maybe you ought to come out and see what habitat work is all about. You seem sensitive when you are criticized but never pass an opportunity to criticize others who don't agree with you. I bet you wouldn't last a full day, what I do is not akin to driving my leisure boat around drinking some adult beverages with clients. And unlike your urban golf course hunting area, my farm is surrounded by heavy firearms pressure that started November 15th and between late anterless and alternate weapons the pressure will continue to be intense. I have hunted low pressure urban areas, they account for 3 triple and one quadruple on deer. And I was successful in MI.
Look, I put my doe decoy out at my feeder right at dark last night in honor of your posts above. See how it attracted a nice buck which tried to mount it. Put a decoy at your feeder and then claim you decoyed it in and no one will give you grief.
We all have much to be thankful for, including the ability to hunt wherever and however we happen to enjoy it most, as long as we stay within the law.
CWD no doubt.
Feeders are known to create it where none existed you know.
They've also been known to stunt antler growth, cause a bucks ears to droop, cause cervid insomnia and significantly shorten the rut.
Evil machines for sure.
We are being respectful and having a little fun. You had to love the doe decoy idea? She looks well fed!
Many probably look at other states, a barometer for what may happen in their own maybe?
The three of us use to debate ad nauseum on the CF. If memory serves me correctly, human behavior, especially that of our politicians, seemed to be of keen interest at times. I see the debate about hunting methods used no differently. It should not be a sacred cow topic, especially since we continue to dedicate a chapter in Hunter Education to Ethics. Debate and disagreement are OK in my book, in fact they both show others outside of hunting that we care and take killing animals seriously. Trump just signed legislation that makes animal cruelty a federal crime. Will this effect us in any way down the road?
Have to disagree with you on that one. Ethics at a minimum adheres to law, minimum being the emphasis.
If you started preaching that trapping is no longer really necessary or ethical..... Again..... I would take my kid and leave.
Here's how I would respond... Never did it, let's ask someone who has. Then I would ask about traps and are some considered more humane, and what about their effectiveness. I would also ask for the instructor to expand on the necessity of predator control.
Now back to baiting deer. In those low density areas you guys talk about, why bait if you already think numbers are low? And, does feeding have an impact on deer survival after the feeding ends in these areas devoid of natural food?
What if someone said it appears that it’s too easy for you to kill deer with a compound bow.... maybe you should only hunt with a recurve or a longbow......
Frank..... The simple answer to your question of “Why bait ?”........
Is......... Because I want to. Because that’s how I enjoy hunting..... Because it’s legal in the U.P.
There are a lot of things we can do, but maybe should not. ? We should be OK asking tough questions.
I have never and will never run deer with dogs...... But I support the guys who do in States like Virginia where it is legal.
I have never and will never hunt brown bear over bait.... simply because I cannot afford to at this point in my life..... But I support those who do so 110%..........
I support ALL forms of legal trapping. I support ALL forms of legal hunting......
And I don’t give a rats behind what anyone says about the image of hunting deer over bait or hunting brown bears over bait or black bears over bait or with hounds.......
They don’t get to take one damned bit of any of it from us without a fight from me.
You CHOOSE to hunt with a compound bow because you can effectively humanely kill deer at greater distances than that........
It’s OK. I choose to hunt with a compound bow too. I also choose to hunt with rifles and shotguns and muzzleloaders.......
I already said I support it where legal, numerous times. But just like you won't use dogs or other methods, we all have biases.
The reason I am terrible at trad is a cross eye dominance problem. Recently found out there is a tumor in my normally dominant eye. I am not switching to shooting left handed at this stage. I would actually qualify for a crossbow under the old rules.
But, all of you have a great Thanksgiving and hope you get a good deer, turkey and bear! Even using bait, honestly.
I’d gladly join those guys in a day of hunting their way with dogs for deer........
Peace and Happy Thanksgiving !!
What I find interesting when discussions like this come up is how some people are virtually incapable of seeing the arrogance and hypocrisy in some of what they say.
Take for example statements like the following:
Bait is nothing but a crutch for people who can't kill a deer any other way.
I'd never shoot a deer over bait, I just don't need to kill a deer that bad.
If I had to use a feeder to kill a deer, I'd give up hunting.
Bow hunting over bait isn't even a challenge. Why bother bow hunting at all?
These are not direct quotes, but we've all seen statements like them...including on this thread.
Think for a moment if someone who chooses to use traditional archery equipment, were to say the same things, with some minor changes.
Bait A compound is nothing but a crutch for people who can't kill a deer any other way.
I'd never shoot a deer
over bait with a crossbow, I just don't need to kill a deer that bad.
If I had to use a
feeder compound with a sight and a release to kill a deer, I'd give up hunting.
over bait with a tricked out compound isn't even a challenge. Why bother bow hunting at all?
Many people would consider the latter to be an arrogant jackass...
...and they'd be right.
Guys against baiting don't care if you are using a spear or rifle. It's not the weapon, but the unnatural behavior the practice causes.
Kevin, I remember you prided yourself on not calling people names. I guess indirect barbs are something else? Seems you are a pro at baiting, for deer and other species;-)
Seriously, enjoy that turkey today that no doubt has a slight corn taste to it.
Happy Thanksgiving All!! Maybe we can stop swinging purses long enough to take in all we truly have, and be thankful for it.
Like I said, some people are "incapable of seeing the arrogance and hypocrisy in some of what they say."
Happy thanksgiving to you too. We do indeed have much to be thankful for.
You are right, an acre of planted stuff is not much habitat work. And it's dishonest to imply I ever said it was, or that is my approach.
But it's not unnatural. When it's all consumed the deer don't come back, you are not programming them as you do when replenishing bait. The one acre is treated by deer just like any other growing natural food source that they will use based on preference.
No one is programming the deer like Kevin's above that in his own admission came back 15 hours after the last spin.
I am thankful my friends are more knowledgeable and honest than you guys;-)
After several hard freezes, clover plots get little to no use this time of the year. Corn or other bait is used this time of the year because it is attractive.
Do you think deer that live in the wild and count on their instincts for survival wait for spring for that clover to green up or do they find another food source.
Did that clover build Nitrogen in the ground that reduces the need for fertilizers that with run-off cause some environmental concerns.
John, you are smart enough to know there is a huge difference. Everyone can see the questions not answered, like when does the timer go off. There is a reason people bait instead of doing comprehensive habitat work. It is easier and cheaper.
25 years ago I built a plot on property I was given permission to do so. I also had a gravity feeder there. I found, and killed a nice buck, who would bed consistently within viewing range of the feeder. I witnessed him run does off (post rut, deep winter). He no doubt was protecting the food. After harvesting him, does regularly visited. I have heard of similar behavior others witnessed. Hard for a deer to defend an entire plot.
Let's just be honest, they are not the same thing. And I don't care how a deer is legally harvested. When and if I get old enough to hunt with that crossbow over bait, the wildlife will lose because I will no longer have the ability to give back.
Some folks are givers, some are takers. Takers exhibit the same behavior whether it's hunting or paying for college.
Habitat work is the best, we do a lot of it, select logging etc, leaving good cover, edge cover,,,,,, but bottom line, good food plots suck in deer from a long ways,,,,,
Habitat work is not baiting, BUT when you add in the plots, well than you can not dismiss the guy down the road, that wants to put out some apples,,,,,,,,,,,,
As usual, what some people want you to believe is simply not accurate. Just a bunch of word salad. Depending on the crop, a food plot might attract deer through an entire growing season which might last months. When it's completely consumed, no longer growing, or the deer aren't interested any longer, the deer will move on to other food sources.
Here in MI, even when legal, bait could only be placed for 2-3 months out of the year. As long as it's being replenished, the deer will visit. When it stops being replenished, the deer move on to other food sources. In most hunting situations, that could be as short as a couple weeks, a month or in some cases an entire deer season.
In terms of attracting deer, that is different how?
Hunters who utilize bait for attracting deer have no problem telling you why they do it. Some "habitat managers" will give you every reason under the sun for doing what they do other than the main one, attracting deer.
Some people are honest, some people aren't.
But food plots are attractive right in the middle of archery season. Whether you set up on the edge like most TV hunters, or 100-150 yards back on a trail leading to it, it's still using the food plot (and the deer's conditioning) to your hunting advantage.
"Do you think deer that live in the wild and count on their instincts for survival wait for spring for that clover to green up or do they find another food source."
"There is a reason people bait instead of doing comprehensive habitat work. It is easier and cheaper."
Or maybe time constraints, or size of property, $$, lack of interest in owning maintaining farm equipment.....
"Some folks are givers, some are takers. Takers exhibit the same behavior whether it's hunting or paying for college."
Really, Frank? No, really? So since I do not do habitat management, I'm a taker? Hmmmph.....learn something everyday.
So those that do not have the resources, albeit time, money or available property, OR the inclination, are takers? Wow.....talk about arrogance. And in the next breath, they'll be bitchin' about why hunter recruitment is on the decline. Y'all continue with the verbal masturbation.
That's the abject arrogance I was referring to earlier Bowbender.
As I said before, any actual wildlife biologist worth his salt will tell you the single most important way for any hunter to give back to the resource is to purchase tags and participate in any legal form of hunting.
And you are right, this holier than thou, I'm a better representative of the sport that you, will eventually ruin it all together.
Society has arrogant elitists too. Those who just think they are smarter than the rest. We see it with hunters, politicians, educators, etc.. They live their lives in a bubble thinking they just know better, and anyone outside the bubble who doesn't agree is just too stupid to understand.
I think what Frank won’t allow himself to believe is that the VAST MAJORITY of hunters who dabble in food plots are doing it for one reason only.... That is to attract deer to their property with visions of the food plots providing deer for them to kill.
Frank scoffed when I mentioned Lee Lakosky. The guys that I know that plant food plots... including myself.... have visions of doing exactly what Lee is doing... yet on a much smaller scale......
And come gun season.... The vast majority of food plots might as well be a bait pile.... because any deer in a plot is in range of a scoped rifle or shotgun...... None of my friends bowhunt exclusively...... and none of them would frown upon shooting a deer with a rifle over a food plot...... including myself.....
One acre of turnips or one bag of sugar beets...... They both serve the same purpose to me.....
Any food plots that I have ever attempted have been more along the lines of a quarter acre..... You could classify them as “Kill Plots”..... That I could basically set up on with a bow and any deer in it would be within bow range.....
It's really as simple as this.
Not all people who use feeders and "bait" that attract deer want to shoot them. Not all people who do habitat improvements that attract deer want to shoot them.
However, virtually all hunters who do either, do so with one predominating reason in mind.
It's beyond me why some can't just bring themselves to admit that. (actually it isn't, but that's a discussion for a different day)
From the guy who has indirectly called anyone who disagrees with him "silly", "ridiculous", "Einstein", "arrogant jackass", "elitist", etc.... on this thread alone. I do love irony.
Again, bait if you want, if it's legal. But don't expect me to understand the appeal, and don't try to equate it with hunting other man-made food sources.
To all of you, please read and try to comprehend, something Kevin thinks anyone who disagrees with him has a problem with. I have repeatedly said plots are only part of habitat management, if at all. No Kevin, Biologists I know and work with would tell you license revenue in most states is not enough, hence the drive for NR money. What they would tell you is that habitat loss is our biggest challenge, and that what I do is even too little as habitat, due to a variety of reasons has/is becoming too fragmented. We need more guys working together to coordinate their efforts or species will become genetically isolated and then the real losses begin. But you are either too ignorant or dishonest, I believe both, to even acknowledge the facts. One of the positive actions I believe QDMA undertakes is encouraging LOs to work together.
The rest of you must be smoking some good stuff. I have taken more deer with bow than anyone I know. I am sure there are many here who top my numbers, but I have enough experience with plots, broadcasted bait and gravity fed to know they are not even in the same ball park. Give the BS a rest. If they were, bear outfitters in Canada could and probably would use plots instead of bait but we all know their noses would just have them come out in a safe area of the plot. And, why do these same outfitters have to keep rotating sites? To keep them fresh or bear will learn which sites to use after dark. Same for deer.
This is a perfect example of Kevin's dishonesty;
"However, virtually all hunters who do either, do so with one predominating reason in mind. "
In this post he now emphasizes HUNTERS because I corrected him above when he assumed anyone doing habitat improvements does it to kill stuff. I had numerous clients, some too old to hunt, that just liked to watch animals interact. You are right Kevin, some day another discussion will have to take place on you moving goal posts but being blind to yourself doing it. Isn't that arrogance?
Guys, bird feeders are a great example. Look at birds squabble, and bluejays dominating etc. Then look at a field of forbs, edge habitat etc. and witness the ability of that habitat to allow multiple species to interact with more calm. Biologists I talk with encourage people to not use feeders and create artificial dependence on a food source. What happens when the caregiver moves, dies etc. Habitat like TSI or edge continues on for a number of years. Deer are mainly browsers, I believe forbs are their main diet most of the year? If plots of clover were so easy, I would have killed a lot more deer off of mine. Look at the picture of the haybale blind. No deer came near it when a hunter occupied it. Their noses told them to stay away and they had plenty of access to food because of the size of the plot.
Another dishonest behavior of Kevin's, he never has answered when his feeder goes off. I have yet to set the timer on any food plot. Next question Kevin, how many times do you hang a stand for a hunt versus going to pre-hung stands around your feeder or approach to it? Deer adjust to pressure on plots just like they do agriculture fields. I have to move, so your guys' crap about them being the same is both silly and ridiculous as well as dishonest.
And Kevin's response will be to use someone who posts an agreement with him to further attack yet not respond to when his feeder goes off. Why is that besides the dishonesty? Because a timed feeder is both cheap to use, minimum material, and is more effective at bringing in deer during daylight. And these deer are used as live decoys for the big boy Kevin is really after. I don't have a problem with it, but if you feel just buying a tag is enough, yes, you are a self centered individual in my book. I have read numerous threads here such as the one where sheep water systems have been donated and installed by many volunteers. After reading those I always feel I need to do more. I am inspired from people who give, not those who try to sell what Kevin does.
And Chris, I ask that you quit talking money. Yes, I have two tractors and a very small cabin with outside plumbing. I don't have a boat, or a carbon bow, or..... I drive a 2011 Tundra with 180K miles on it. I have a better wardrobe of hunting camo than I do regular clothes. We all spend our money on our interests. I am a middle class guy, from working class roots. The most effective habitat I have done is TSI, edge and planting trees/shrubs that were donated to me by nurseries supporting habitat projects, with a shovel. Hardly expensive to do, more an issue with time.
In conclusion, and for clarity...Habitat projects of which plots are or should only be a small part should be encouraged, and coordinated across geography whenever possible. This approach is much better for the resource than baiting exclusively, and most biologists would support it. Further, I have no issue with anyone baiting where legal, but it is not the same as habitat management.
Oh, and when the LO harvested him, I congratulated him and never thought he shot my deer. I was hopeful he spread his genetics around. I find my attitude is very similar to other habitat managers, not the behavior Kevin accuses us of. Maybe Kevin you just hang around toxic people?
FYI, deer I have observed lately, the does are back together and I am seeing most in pastures, not harvested ag fields. No doubt grass is a small part of their diet, but I am willing to bet they are eating winter forbs that come up in the pastures.
My biggest habitat project this year is not plots. Our 40 acres of native grass is mature now after 12 years. Because of a serecia out break, I had to spray the field the last two years with a selective herbicide, unfortunately it indiscriminately eliminates all broadleaf forbs. So after burning in March, I will pull my very heavy 12'X8' drag harrow over the entire 40 acres in an attempt to disturb the seed bed enough to encourage the re-emergence of valuable forbs. I guess it will be one big food plot, hopefully. I will have to observe how the wildlife adjusts to using different areas of the 40 acres as no doubt the response will not be a homogenous one across all 40 acres, hmmm, a little different than sitting some stands around the same timed feeder I think?
But for every “habitat manager” that does what you do without the intent to hunt that habitat... There are thousands of guys just like me who are planting food plots with the hopes of drawing in deer to hunt them....
So planting food plots is not a big part of habitat management..... so now we’re getting somewhere..... Planting food plots then... is part of hunting.....
The recommendations of the forester to improve my deer habitat was to clear cut the entire property. It is aspen forest at the end of its life cycle.... aspen needs to be cut down and the stumps left in place to regenerate.....
I don’t know of too many landowners that own 20 acres or less that are willing to clear cut their entire woods...
First, thanks for being reasonable and a willingness to see the difference. Yes, there are many who do plots for a variety of reasons. It is how I started my journey, and plots are an exciting and natural way to introduce folks further into conservation issues. what I have witnessed is what happened to me is common, folks start with plots and as they seek to gain new knowledge they are exposed to other habitat practices and a good many continue on down the road.
Without viewing your land, maybe modify the recommendation. Start with 5 acres, maybe in the interior, and cut most of it. Ask if you can cut some during the winter and then some after leaf out after there is room to fell them. Make a mess, create a bedding area. Find what mast producing trees, if any, will grow in that zone. Plant some in the mix. Diversification is the key, right?
Ask if you can do 5 acres every 5 years. New regenerative growth works wonders down here. We had a neighbor ten years or so ago who clear cut 10 acres. After 2-3 years the biologist told me the place was loaded with deer and accounted for some LOs seeing less on their adjoining lands.
Chris, part of my reason for plots is to add to the hunting experience. But if they are outlawed, I would still do all of the other habitat and leave some crops standing. I already said I am leaning that way just because of age and cost efficiencies. But I do not bother with small hunting plots. I try to have food, cover, water and space arranged that deer feel comfortable using my place year around. I try to attract and keep does and know that strategy if successful will usually provide an opportunity for a buck or two.
Can I ask you a couple questions now? MO allows plots but not bait. I believe other states do as well. I also believe there are some that do not allow either. I do not believe there is a state that allows baiting but not plots. Honestly, why do you think that is?
You are correct BB, and make no mistake...so is he.
Like I said before, unless these are hummingbird blinds, the pictures posted prove that his "habitat improvements" are, at least in part, done for the purpose of attracting deer in order to hunt them. Nothing wrong with that. This is after all a hunting forum. It's not a hummingbird forum, not a native grasses forum, not a butterfly habitat forum, it's a hunting forum. He just thinks you're too stupid to notice.
He also expects you to believe that I never stated when my feeder was set to go off. Little does he know, I volunteered that exact information weeks ago. Not only the exact time it was set to go off, but the exact time it was set to run, and the amount of corn it would broadcast.
Frank conflates my refusal to respond to him directly, regardless of how he attempts to goad me into it, with a refusal to honestly answer questions. This dishonestly is part and parcel why I refuse to engage with him directly. He knows better, but again he relies on most people in this forum not knowing our history, and the precise reason why I haven't responded directly to him in over a year, and never will again.
He'll keep trying, he'll keep tossing the word salad, and the people that know the truth will just keep passing the bowl.
If baiting deer is bad where there is CWD.... Then so are small kill plots. Then so is your feeder Frank. Actually your gravity feeder is worse than a spin feeder for nose to nose contact........ And it would also be bad to leave up a few rows of corn for the deer.......
If you’re going to outlaw one of the above practices.... Then all of them should be outlawed.......
Yet the Michigan NRC can’t even decide if baiting should be outlawed..... Since it’s still legal in the U.P.
""But for every “habitat manager” that does what you do without the intent to hunt that habitat... There are thousands of guys just like me who are planting food plots with the hopes of drawing in deer to hunt them.... "
You are correct BB, and make no mistake...so is he. "
I posted this BEFORE you posted that;
"Chris, part of my reason for plots is to add to the hunting experience. But if they are outlawed, I would still do all of the other habitat and leave some crops standing."
That's what honesty looks like, keep trying Kevin.
I'm not sure why some of their decisions would surprise you. The NRC is primarily a political body.
Seriously? What the hell have you been doing for well over 200 posts on this thread, then? The fact that you don't address Frank, or answer his direct questions, doesn't mean you haven't engaged with him directly. You just choose to do it in a snarky less personal way. You're a fool if you think we don't see that.
Our farm is in Carroll county, MO. Carroll was removed from the CWD watch zone this year, and we are back to abiding by APRs again in this zone. Plots are legal, bait is not. Here in MO, probably has more to do with perception of fairness than anything else. And all of the biologists I have ever talked with encourage habitat management. Since 1991 MO has published a 90 page (updated 3 times) 'Wildlife Management for MO Landowners'. It can be ordered off of their web site.
The introduction says this;
"Private LOs are the key to conservation..."
Lots of information on many topics, including plots. No mention of failure piles. The reason is simply one is biologically sound for a multitude of reasons, the other is not. We can assign blame all we want to the influencers at certain meetings, but the facts are simply you can justify with sound science why you want to encourage habitat practices that benefit a variety of wildlife. There is no publication from MO touting benefits of baiting.
I ask that you order a copy. Read it. Listen to the logic of a comprehensive plan. First published in 1991! That in itself says something. This is well before the debates going on in your state. This is just one publication of literally thousands of pages I have read that moved my thinking. Unlike what I am accused of by Kevin, economics supports scientific reasoning. I researched from those who are considered experts, I saw the merit and logic in what they said. I found no argument against their beliefs that held water. I recognized I did not know enough, I began a journey I am still on.
Yesterday a friend and former consultant to my company sent his Holiday wishes and to let me know he is coming from Oregon next season to hunt my farm with me. He is ABD with a Master's in Wildlife Science. We laugh at those who believe plotting is the same as bait piles.
I give the same challenge to Kevin, but know he is too arrogant to think he needs any more information on the topic.
FYI, MO also offers a forestry management publication which taught me a lot, yet is probably near useless for up north. Great resources though. The first one gives some great advice on soil management and fertility, and if I remember correctly this was a challenge for you.
I will post this from my computer, then use my phone to post pictures of the manual.
Thinking about this, MI outlawed baiting in lower MI. You must be talking the shotgun zone because Kevin's property is in the rifle zone.
The shotgun zone is the agriculture area. Kevin said how easy it was to pattern deer in the ag areas. Why is bait needed then?
Just seems like people are talking out of both sides of their mouth
I guess the rhetorical thought would be if bait plots are that beneficial, why are they not allowed on public land year round like on private land? (There's a few answers to that)
What I do claim is that you are willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars a year on your hobby of habitat improvements...........
I am not...........
You know who else spends big money on food plots ??? Pat Lefemine......... The same guy that just killed a dandy buck in Kansas over a pile of corn.....
It’s all good.........
Yep, and the answers are so obvious, the question really isn't worth asking, IMO
You have plots and bait on your place. If baits are illegal in Carrol county how does that work?
Curious how that reconciles with:
"We can argue this until the deer come, but the bigger point is that plots are probably a small component of overall habitat management, if at all. "
I'm not conflating baiting with habitat management. Not in the least. But it does appear that food plots a legal means to condition deer to feed where they normally would not. It's meant to attract and hold deer either for viewing or killing.
And just so we are clear. If I owned the 1,000 acre farm that I deer hunt on, yes, I would being doing habitat improvements. I would seek advice on best practice. What and when to plant. Small food plots back in the woods. Whatever. And I would do it with the intent of benefiting the wildlife AND improving the hunting. And I'd make NO apologies for the the latter.
Yep, because his baited hunts in Kansas helps pay the bills for his food plots. The same plots that he complained about not having any mature bucks hitting this year, because his neighbors shoot anything that is brown, any way they can, presumably. Funny that.
It was mentioned here, "what are you guys smoking" Obviously not what you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Keep telling your self your not baiting with food plots what a joke
that is my last comment
We live on three acres in KS. Bait is allowed in KS, that’s where the Boss feeder is located. I also have about .67 acres of soybeans near that feeder.
We only have plots on the MO farm. Hope that clarifies?
I will keep telling myself it is not more baiting than hunting superior producing habitat like white oaks or persimmons etc. The goal is to use plots and other habitat to provide a key ingredient of habitat year round, not just drop bait during hunting season. Obviously most game departments view it the same way I do. What a joke is right that one thinks they know more than the professionals. Plots should be used when native fauna does not deliver quality food year round. Performing any habitat work by your definition would qualify as baiting then.
We live on three acres in KS. Bait is allowed in KS, that’s where the Boss feeder is located. I also have about .67 acres of soybeans near that feeder.
We only have plots on the MO farm. Hope that clarifies?
Very good observation.
To that point, it’s a straw man argument to suggest that anyone here has ever said, or even suggested, that baiting is as beneficial to wildlife as habitat improvements. I haven’t seen anyone suggest any such thing, and I would challenge anyone to provide an example of anyone making such a claim on this thread. I know I never have, yet I’ve been accused of it numerous times.
Unfortunately, this type of intellectual dishonesty seems to be the only currency some people know how to trade in.
I agree you didn't say exactly what your last post states. But Matt's response to this post certainly proves multiple people interpreted your comments here and in the past that way.
Now before you try and squirm again, go back and read how you accused others of saying deer come immediately to a timed feeder going off, when actually no one said any such thing.
That's dishonesty Kevin. And the arrogant part is you thinking you are smarter than everyone else and can get away with it. What we have just witnessed is a familiar pattern of yours when you get boxed into a ridiculous position and try to save face by saying you never said EXACTLY what you are accused of. Not going to work, you need better bait.
Exactly! That's how habitat management, including plots, differs from baiting. It is a win-win, for hunter and wildlife. It is giving back while taking. People and the public recognize it, and that is why it is encouraged.
Back to the money part...
Yes I do spend thousands each year, but here is the rest of the story...
We receive a check for $3806 every October for the 40 acres enrolled in CRP. Robin and I agreed that we would put all of this back into conservation as long as we could afford to do so. It does not take from the household budget.
We have done other projects, one paying $6000. This all went back into the land. We would not be doing this otherwise.
The publication I posted mentions resources and contacts that might help you as well. Obviously things vary in different areas.
Our land is enrolled in a CRP program designed to benefit quail, something I don't hunt. Hmmm...
Now that our land is being farmed, 10 acres, again Good Lord willing, we will put our share of revenue back into the land as well. We had a plan because we are average folks with average resources. Yes, conservation is a major interest we support, but like everyone else we must sacrifice and find ways to accomplish our goals.
The most recent tractor purchase was ONLY done because after back surgery I was told no more tractor work or I would need fusions. The tractor has an air ride seat which allows me to continue on. We will not be replacing my vehicle any time soon because of this.
Some guys don’t care to partake in habitat management at all though..... They simply go out into the woods and put up a treestand or a ground blind and hunt....... no habitat improvements....... no bait.....
And then there’s those who like to put out a dozen sugar beets or 2 gallons of corn....... and hunt...........
It’s ALL GOOD......!!!!!!!
I’m not spending thousands of dollars a year..... I’m not buying a tractor,,, Let alone 2.... I’m not gonna go without having a new car to further my hobby..... I’m not gonna spend hundreds if not thousands of hours on habitat improvements.......
You will. I get it. It is your passion........
But it’s not the passion of the overwhelming majority of legal hunters across the nation..... Yes,,,, A lot of hunters are dabbling in food plots...... For one reason...... to help them kill deer.......
I agree with just about everything you said. Some guys fish, bowl, drink, etc. I Do habitat projects. Notice, I always call it habitat.
Yes you have acknowledged it is good for the wildlife, right from the start, just as I said I don't care how anyone hunts legally. Neither of us have changed positions. True honesty!
I never cared about new vehicles, so it is no sacrifice. I keep Robin in a new one for safety, but could care less for myself.
FYI, as each weekend nears, I find myself getting more excited in anticipation of undertaking habitat work than I do hunting any more.
But it would break my heart to do it...... I fully understand that there will be 10 foot high aspen sucklings everywhere in 5 years.... But there wouldn’t be a tree big enough to hang a tree stand on in my lifetime....... The property is beautiful the way it is now and was all I could afford....my little piece of heaven.....
A neighboring property was clear cut about 7 years ago. It’s devastating to look at for a few years and drastically changes the scenery. My tiny cabin tucked in the woods would instantly stand out like a sore thumb in the middle of a clear cut....
Can anyone give an example of someone suggesting that a feeder or a bait pile is "just as beneficial" to wildlife as habitat improvements?
I can cite examples where I've personally said they aren't the same, but I'd really like to see where someone has suggested that they are.
The only thing I ask is that you use direct quotes, not what you think someone else has said, or what you would like people to think was said.
I'll be glad to start. This is what I've said.
"At the end of the day, the vast majority of hunters who are doing habitat improvements are doing them in order to increase the odds of hunting success. The same is true for hunters who use bait. In that particular way, the goal of each is the same.
That is not to say that a feeder is the same as a food plot. To my knowledge, nobody here has said any such thing. They are both tools used in the process of hunting deer. It's like suggesting that because someone uses a gun to hunt deer, and they also use a bow to hunt deer, they must think guns and bows are the same.
Implying that someone thinks they are is really only one of three things. Stupidity, a straw man argument, or an outright lie."
Like you did when you accused others of saying deer come running in to a feeder going off?
Lol Kevin. You really are too much. Like a little kid demanding certain rules be followed while exempting yourself. Ok King Kevin, lolololol! And lmao as well. I thought you were supposed to be bright. Lol!!!!
"I have seen deer literally running to a timed feeder when it went off..." -Grey Ghost, 12-Nov-19
Just direct quotes please.
Try being honest for once. When you accused us both of this and used my quote, it said nothing of the sort. You did not post it a second time for a reason.
You like to parse words when it helps your argument, such as "...in this particular way they are the same...". Nice try, but only the truth will set you free...try it.
The above is my exact quote Kevin used to claim I said deer immediately respond to a timed feeder.
Now square that up with;
"The only thing I ask is that you use direct quotes, not what you think someone else has said, or what you would like people to think was said."
"Good grief, this is getting ridiculous. I have literally thousands of trail cam pictures of deer visiting a feeder well after dark. The notion/belief that because a feeder goes off at a certain time, that is also the time it is visited by wildlife shows a complete lack of understanding of how they work...or don’t work." -KPC, 12-Nov-19
"This silly notion that deer only visit a feeder when it goes off, and you can set your watch by them is well, just silly. That may be true for domesticated birds, who have little to no other food source, but it sure as heck isn't true for wild, big woods deer. " - KPC, 12-Nov-19
It takes a true narcissist (or just plain paranoia) to assume that every post is about them, when they are obviously, and demonstrably in response to multiple posters.
And the challenge still remains. Can anyone post a quote where anyone has suggested that a feeder or a bait pile is "just as beneficial" to wildlife as habitat improvements?
"You mean like my turkeys, Kevin? You can set your watch by when they come to my barn at feeding times. They pick the ground clean, then leave, not to return until the next feeding time. Surely you've seen videos of deer literally running to timed feeders the moment they go off, haven't you?
"Point being, hunting food plots or bait piles, the deer adjust to pressure and successful hunters adjust to their adjustments. Now, a guy using a timed feeder is different than a bait pile that can be approached after dark..."
The above is your full response to Matt's response that you quoted first. The last paragraph is you taking my quote, not Matt's, to use as an example of people saying timed feeders bring deer running.
One of two things going on here Kevin, you are either simply a liar or you are starting to have memory problems.
Personally, I think it is an integrity issue because as Matt pointed out, you are responding to me directly. Turn off the backhoe, man up and apologize for an accusation that has been proven false beyond reasonable doubt!
Lack of integrity? Outright lies? Dementia?
You be the judge.
I realize that some are desperately trying to change the focus, but the challenge is still open. Can anyone post a direct quote where anyone has suggested that a feeder or a bait pile is "just as beneficial" to wildlife as habitat improvements?
Yes to all of that. That is your exact post, a little less than half way up. Kevin, please seek help. This is the post Matt told you to close your bold text on.
Yes, you are trying to change the focus. It is apparent you have a set of standards for yourself, and another for others. My post was a direct copy and paste.
Show me where I said deer only visit feeders when they go off. The comments of mine that you quoted don't say that. What they do say is the truth. I have seen deer and other wildlife become so conditioned to certain feeding times that they literally come running at those times. That doesn't mean they don't visit bait sites at other times. It just means they learn when the prime times are, and when the pickings are most plentiful.
When I was outfitting, a landowner on an adjacent property to one of our leases was anti-hunting. On a daily basis, we watched her illegally feeding and watering deer in her back yard. I've seen cattle that were less conditioned than those deer. The deer rarely left her 40 acre parcel, often spending entire days laying around on her lawn waiting for the next feeding time. She got a visit from the game warden on our request, and suddenly our lease next door became much more productive.
Imagine if every anti-hunter realized they could basically domesticate entire herds of deer and keep them away from properties that were hunted, just like the lady above. It wouldn't be too difficult to do out here in the west. That's another reason why I'm thankful that baiting is illegal in Colorado.
Point being, hunting food plots or bait piles, the deer adjust to pressure and successful hunters adjust to their adjustments. Now, a guy using a timed feeder is different than a bait pile that can be approached after dark, IMHO.
Kevin, Immediately after the above post"
The notion/belief that because a feeder goes off at a certain time, that is also the time it is visited by wildlife shows a complete lack of understanding of how they work...or don’t work.
Matt responding to Kevin, AFTER Kevin's post"
You mean like my turkeys, Kevin? You can set your watch by when they come to my barn at feeding times. They pick the ground clean, then leave, not to return until the next feeding time. Surely you've seen videos of deer literally running to timed feeders the moment they go off, haven't you? If not, I guess you've never spent much time in Texas.
Kevin responding again"
This silly notion that deer only visit a feeder when it goes off, and you can set your watch by them is well, just silly. That may be true for domesticated birds, who have little to no other food source, but it sure as heck isn't true for wild, big woods deer.
I fail to see where anyone claimed deer only visit feeders right after they go off. Sounds like a straw man argument to me. But maybe I'm just being "silly" and "ridiculous".
Kevin's response, putting exactly what Matt said above in bold, as well as what I said.
"I fail to see where anyone claimed deer only visit feeders right after they go off. Sounds like a straw man argument to me. But maybe I'm just being "silly" and "ridiculous"."
Not to mention a complete lack of comprehension skills. "You mean like my turkeys, Kevin? You can set your watch by when they come to my barn at feeding times. They pick the ground clean, then leave, not to return until the next feeding time. Surely you've seen videos of deer literally running to timed feeders the moment they go off, haven't you? I have seen deer literally running to a timed feeder when it went off, however. Pavlov would have been proud. "Point being, hunting food plots or bait piles, the deer adjust to pressure and successful hunters adjust to their adjustments. Now, a guy using a timed feeder is different than a bait pile that can be approached after dark..." KPC
So yes, you be the judge. Kevin if you are having dementia, that is a serious challenge and I will pray for you. I don't think it is that, I believe it is one of integrity. If you are going to deny the total post, then you should have deleted it before saying it is not yours.
Kevin's reading comprehension skills are superior to yours, remember?
Interesting observation with your neighbor "programming" the deer. I have never seen them behave that way with comprehensive habitat management practices. But, habitat is exactly like bait in the PARTICULAR way they attract deer during hunting season. I need to remember that.
The ONLY thing within the yellow box that is attributable to me is the following:
"Not to mention a complete lack of comprehension skills."
All the rest are statements made by other posters. That is why I not only put them in quotation marks, but I also put them in bold text. One would think that would be enough but apparently we need a braille option also.
So now we know it is a lack of integrity. Please put the goal posts back.
You're right Ambush, this ridiculousness has gone on long enough.
But please, don't get people started on PM's. I've experienced that with one poster in particular over on the Community Forum and let's just say it got pretty darn creepy.
It would appear that nobody is going to take me up on my challenge of posting a quote where anyone has suggested that a feeder or a bait pile is "just as beneficial" to wildlife as habitat improvements, so unless something new comes up on the MI baiting regs, I guess I'm out.
Be careful of what you wish for, baiters. Liberals are masters at turning the tables on us.
Good time for you to bow out. I remember our private exchange, and it was creepy in that it was the same vein as here. You had another integrity issue. It seems to be your way of life.
Imagine if the owner of the big fir ridge was a similar dickhead. And both dickheads fed the deer year-round. How do you think that would impact your hunting?
I may be exaggerating the threat to hunters a bit, but not much. Here in Colorado rural areas are no longer a haven for conservatives and hunters. In fact, we recently had a lesbian couple buy and move into a large ranch near us. They are nice enough folks, and they are surprisingly good at managing their ranch. But, when I ask them about their thoughts on hunting, I immediately saw their demeanors change. Our otherwise cordial meeting quickly ended after that.
Bill passed both the House and Senate (with modifications) and is waiting for Governor's decision.
Michigan Senate changes, OKs bill to lift deer-baiting ban
By: Associated Press LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan’s ban on using bait to hunt deer would end for at least two years under legislation that advanced further in the Legislature on Wednesday, but Gov. Gretchen Whitmer remains opposed to signing it.
The Republican-led Senate voted 21-14, mostly on party lines, after making some changes to the bill a week after it cleared the GOP-controlled House.
Baiting deer and elk is prohibited throughout the entire Lower Peninsula and parts of the Upper Peninsula under a ban that was initially approved by the state Natural Resources Commission in 2018 to combat the spread of chronic wasting disease. The state Department of Natural Resources says baiting and feeding that concentrates animals beyond their normal movement patterns increases the likelihood of disease transmission.
“I don’t see any problem with baiting whatsoever,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey of Clarklake, likening it to putting a worm on a hook to fish. “There’s plenty of room to challenge the so-called sound science.”
The Senate changed the measure, which would limit the amount of bait at each hunting site to 5 gallons, to specify that it would have to be spread over at least 400 square feet and to ensure that each piece of bait is no bigger than a sugar beet.
Senators also added provisions to allow baiting for just two years unless the Legislature revisits the issue and to keep the ban intact in areas where the state and federal government have agreed to limit or prohibit baiting and feeding. It may mean that the ban would continue in parts of Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency and Oscoda counties that are dealing with bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern Lower Peninsula.
One of those politicians must have read one of my posts suggesting the size of the bait pile needs to be increased from 100sqft (10' x' 10') if they honestly wanted to spread the deer out.
Hopefully someone next year will report back on the impact this has on license sales and harvests.
I’m m thinking it might be a bargaining chip for an ultimate “compromise.”
In my opinion, if they are truly concerned about potential disease transmission, they would limit bait to anything that is consumable in one bite and limit feeders to the broadcast type so as to prevent multiple deer from sticking their noses in the same shoot over and over again.
This would help to prevent more than one animal feeding off the same item, reducing saliva contact.
That is of course if they are TRULY concerned about bait’s role in potential disease transmission.
There must be some sort of compromise that could satisfy those who wish to bait and those who are concerned about certain practices impact on potential disease transmission.
(a) Uses no more than 5 gallons of bait spread over at least 400 square feet at each baiting site.
(b) Uses bait that is no larger than a sugar beet.
(c) Uses no more than 1 baiting site per hunting site.
My question is, what is considered a "hunting site"? Is that the entire boundary of property being hunted, or is that each individual stand or blind?
Comparing one 400 square foot site to guys planting a quarter acre kill plot which is nearly 11,000 square feet, not really a comparison when discussing health issues.
Good one. LMAO!!
I love it when they use native Americans to promote stewardship of land and resources. What a crock of dung
BTW. excellent job of baiting to revive the thread. Worked like a job and two of the critters responded as planned. Well played , very well played
For those of us that actually hunt in Michigan, the topic is quite relevant.
Why it so interesting to others is beyond me, but to each their own. It’s a free world.
I even wonder why it it a topic at all. We have had baiting in my part of the world forever Non issue as far as I am concerned
We basically have NO CWD and what we do have was brought in from another state. And has been contained. Only have two areas. The one that was brought in and in far west Texas on the New Mexico border where it has been forever. Mule deer area No game ranches just naturally occurring like anthrax
You can't "actually hunt" over a pile of bait...it's an oxymoron...heavy on the moron.
Yes, Kevin is very proficient at baiting. Some may even say he's a master baiter.
EDIT:. Smile at both Kyle and Matt. You were set up for those perfectly. Who is baiting who, lol.
There is a certain segment of the hunting community in MI that has been against baiting for as long as it's been legal. Many people believe they are more than happy to use CWD as a convenient (and very scary) "scientific" reason to eliminate the practice.
I don't claim to know all the science behind it all but I do have over 4 decades of experience in hunting and observing deer behavior and much of the "science" behind the ban simply doesn't pass the common sense test.
Why don’t you go over on Pat’s thread where he killed a big buck in your home state.....
And spout off with your stupid master baiter remarks.......
And see how much longer you remain on the Bowsite........
And its only reward is that it's easy
Or be a jackass.
I am asking sincerely...
If I read this correctly, it will mostly affect the southern UP where shotgun season takes place. I lived in MI and so I still find it interesting.
The shotgun area is agriculture dominant. On this thread I read where it is very easy to pattern deer in ag areas. So, is the baiting desired because folks are limited in land access so they are trying to make their small parcel attractive? If so, I fail to see how common baiting will yield results after a short time.
Pat's hunts in KS I believe occur on larger tracts with limited access, which helps explain why baiting works there.
If this is freedom from government regulation, I support it. Even ignoring any CWD concerns, which I believe draw extreme reactions by game departments usually, the herd's behavior and health are possibly negatively impacted?
I didn’t call you a name..... I agreed with you that we have choices...
I thought the same thing. That's like saying "...no bigger than a pumpkin".
Baiting is “Desired” because it has been legal forever here... and recently outlawed.... Largely in part due to jackasses with their “master baiter” comments..... They used CWD to forward their agenda and get their way....... But wait.... There’s CWD in the U.P. too.... yet baiting remains legal there.....
Just looking for some fairness and consistency.......
Imagine if this thread were about outlawing running deer with dogs in Virginia..... What type of reaction would you expect from hunters that have been hunting deer with dogs for generations ???
Number of posts. 440
Opinions on baiting changed. 0
Entertainment value. PRICELESS
Like this, only there’s FIVE people!
Where do you draw the line on legal/illegal methods of hunting? What's your opinion on using aircrafts or drones to locate game? How about using radios or cell phones to relay info about the location of game? Spotlighting? All of those practices were legal at one time.
And then take into consideration what is currently legal....... not what was legal in 1970.......
Blend those 2 together..... and there’s my line..... That’s what I’ll fight for........
You will advocate outlawing some of them.....
Damn right I will advocate outlawing hunting methods that I don't think should be practiced. Just like a few of the methods that I asked for your opinion on earlier, and you failed to answer. I've never advocated outlawing baiting.
I actually think baiting is an effect way to manage overpopulated herds, if that's what's needed. I honestly don't know if that's what's needed in Michigan. My brief 2 years in Southern Michigan didn't suggest it was.
I do know that baiting isn't necessary to manage our herds in Colorado. Nor is it necessary in Kansas, where many of you glorify the expensive, outfitted, and canned hunts of "celebrity" hunters who commercialize and profit from them, while ruining it for most average Joe hunters in those areas.
From a purely personal and subjective perspective, I would never enjoy killing animals over a bait pile. That's not hunting to me. But, as I've said many times, I fully recognize that others have a different definition.
I believe what Matt is referring to is since KS has been well publicized as a go to state for big bucks, much of the land has been leased up. This has reduced opportunities via lost access for numerous residents.
A handshake and respect is all that was needed before bow season became popular via less demanding methods like compounds.
Chris, lots of things change always have always will. Just look urban policing. Some is negative and some not so much
One thing about it the old way of deer hunting is gone but I'm pretty sure that's not necessarily a bad thing
The desire for big bucks has forced antler point restrictions upon the average joe hunters in Michigan....
Wait, what? I thought you said money, greed, and ego was behind the animosity towards baiting, or was that Kevin? Yet, you still pine to hunt properties that were created from money, greed, and ego? How do you resolve that?
Why do you think you cannot knock on doors and get permission to hunt anymore?
If I had millions of dollars to burn like Lee.... I’d probably do the same thing he does with farming for deer.....
The problem that I have always had with QDMA is not what they do on their own land..... It’s what they force upon public land hunters...(And landowners who don’t subscribe to QDMA)...... They push for antler point restrictions to be mandatory here in Michigan.... so the public land hunters are forced by law to “let them go and let them grow “........
I’d probably never be asked to return to Lee’s place if I was invited there...... After I shot one of his “Up and comers”........ ha....
As passed by the Michigan Senate:
Chris, have to agree with Matt on this. I was OK with your position before, but now it just seems that you want to shoot big bucks and not only do not want to make any personal sacrifices to do so, but are openly critical of others who do. Lee pursued his dream and made a lot of sacrifices to do so. Not my cup of tea, but his approach is something to respect.
Where does your bowhunting association stand on this? If they agree with you, are you a member and as a group are you working to have the same political impact the QDMA supporters apparently have?
FYI, as said above, my area of MO is back to APRs. I support them only because it helps to educate some hunters about the importance of herd/age structure and the impact on herd health, rut activity etc. No perfect approach to this, so I will go along with APRs.
When we first purchased our farm, I was allowed a big discount on tags as a non-resident LO, They changed this maybe 5 years ago, and we had to start paying full price. Next year they are going back to discounts for us. The state sent a letter explaining that many of the non-resident LOs perform habitat work that others benefit from, and should be recognized for that. I bet MY neighbors are OK with it.
Glad to see you participated in the ethics discussion. I have fence sitters because of my quality habitat. Glad to see you do not subscribe to that practice, but you see these ethics discussions are not black and white. Your son would miss out on a valuable education if you left the class;-)
I don’t have a problem with Lee Lakosky. Really.... I don’t......
But don’t extend your desire to grow big bucks to everyone else......
If you want to improve the buck to doe ratio and age structure of bucks in Michigan..... Then reduce the legal limit from 2 bucks per hunter to 1 buck per hunter per year.......... I would be perfectly fine with that.......
Then a lot of the “Big buck hunters” would voluntarily pass on younger bucks... so they can continue their quest for a bigger buck.........
As it is now.... Hunters shoot the first legal buck they see and then hunt for their big buck.
In areas with antler point restrictions.... Hunters are forced to shoot bucks with 3 or 4 points on one side..... So the year and a half old bucks with the best genes are shot while the spikes are off limits.... what sense does that make ????
One buck per year,,, All weapons combined. Any buck. Let the hunter decide what buck he wants to shoot.
As to the ethics question..... Fence sitting in Michigan becomes a LEGAL problem when a fence sitter shoots a deer and it runs onto property where there is no permission to go to get the deer. You cannot trespass to recover a deer here. So by fence sitting..... you are essentially planning on breaking the law if the deer runs into the neighbors property....
No, ethics are not black and white. But in any class you teach on ethics...... I would expect that you mention that there are ethical considerations in certain areas..... without injecting your own personal opinions on the matter.
MO just went from three bucks (2 bow, 1 rifle) to two all weapons combined. One might be better, but I bet it would have an adverse impact on license sales. Game departments have to be realistic.
I’m telling you. I am not the one fixated on antlers. One buck tag a year works for me..... and improves the buck to doe ratio and age structure that all the QDM guys are crying about all the time...... I don’t hear them asking for one buck only......
JTV said that Indiana has gone to one buck only..... I think it’s high time for Michigan to do so too.
In MO, archery closes during rifle, peak rut, and the only way to keep hunting is to purchase the rifle tag. I am sure tag sales would drop if they did it like KS. MO's herd probably can handle two anyway.
I’m not sure how they consistently get big bucks into bait in Kansas..... Probably on huge tracts of land where there is very little hunting pressure....
A one buck system is fair for everyone..... The average Joe who doesn’t care about antlers can shoot a year and a half old buck if he wants to and has an opportunity........ And the QDM folks will get their way with an improved age class of bucks because the big buck hunters will pass on bucks as described above....
You are correct, not a huge impact. I think BB is also correct though in that a one buck rule might make people more selective on the buck they do harvest.
Ironically (or not) one of the stated goals of antler point restrictions is to put significantly more pressure on the antlerless population, which will increase the number of mature bucks but decrease overall deer numbers.
Pretty simple, really. The big bucks follow does to the bait, primarily during the rut. Just like Pat's buck this year.
As to your question about how far from my barn would I consider shooting a turkey. Their comfort zone seems to be about 50 yards. Once they get further away than that, they act just like any other wild turkeys. But I won't hunt them anywhere near my barn. Combined with my neighbor's ranch that I can hunt, I've got over 1000 acres to chase them around on, so I'm usually at least 1/2 mile from my barn, or more.
Michigan would do much better if baiting was only allowed for a couple of weeks, and that would meet most management objectives.
If someone set up within calling distance of those roosted birds.... say 300 yards from their roost.... They are taking advantage of the fact that a hundred birds are roosted close to your barn for one reason only.... to come in and feed...right ? Their comfort zone of 50 yards doesn’t address the fact that a hundred birds wouldn’t be congregated around your barn if it wasn’t for the feed.
In many cases, you are correct. However, is areas that experience low hunting pressure, during the rut, or in late season when other food sources are scarce, it's not uncommon.
Interesting enough, many of the "experts" will tell you that a good way to find the bucks during the rut is to hunt the areas the does frequent. Eventually the bucks will follow. Deer hunting 101, right? If you want to locate the bucks post rut, or in late season (especially in northern states), locate the best food sources where the remaining bucks will be feeding to replenish reserves that were depleted during the rut. Deer hunting 102, right? Hunting a bait site or a food plot is not a lot different in these respects.
The problem with a lot of bait sites (or food plots) is that they get burned out before any decent bucks come calling.
Sounds to me like at least some hunters that utilize bait might understand deer behavior a little bit more then they are given credit for.
Only me and one good friend hunt the turkeys on my place, so I can't really answer your question. BTW, the usual number of birds is closer to 30, not 100, although I do have video of close to 100 that showed up a few winters ago. Also, they don't all roost on my property, and certainly not in just one area. They come from all directions on and off my property. I also believe the birds would be here regardless of whether they fed at my barn or not. Their population has exploded around here over the last 20 years since I've been here.
One other thought about the impact of a OBR....once someone pops their buck, they will quit hunting. That means they will not be spending any more money on collateral things if they were still hunting. That trickles down to the businesses that would lose out on the money....gas, food, equipment, etc.
Revenue (or loss thereof) has always been and will always be a major consideration when it comes to wildlife policy. It would be nice if it didn't have to be that way, but it does...and that's not necessarily a bad thing. As with any business, if you offer a "product" that people like, you retain/gain customers. If customers don't like the product you are offering, you lose customers.
The way I see it, you have basically two different types deer hunters (customers). You have the hard core, year around, QDMA, habitat manager, deer hunting is life, only interested in taking mature deer type of customer. On the other hand you have the casual, couple months out of the year, deer hunting is just another recreational endeavor, any legal deer is a good deer type of customer.
That's not to say that both camps don't enjoy taking big bucks. They do. It's just that one camp is willing to do anything they can possibly do to make that happen, and the other camp basically says if one comes along, great...if not, that's ok too.
At the end of the day, the DNR has the challenge of threading the needle that keeps both these camps happy, keeps the resource healthy, keeps the habitat healthy. and keeps the non hunting public happy by keeping property damage at an acceptable level.
On top of all that, there is the whole private land hunter vs public land hunter challenges and you can see they are often in a no win situation.
Both camps have to realize that in order for it all to work, there has to be compromise between the two factions.
More seriously, I believe the Michigan DNR/NRC issues are near and dear to alot of the residents. This particular baiting topic (plots-n-piles) affects alot of folks outside of Michigan too. The post activity here indicates the passions and frustrations....and diverse viewpoints. Some of the points brought up are pretty good and I'm not above stealing some for a well-crafted email/letter to the DNR/NRC to help express a future viewpoint.
"Michigan's Republican-led Legislature has given final approval to a bill that would lift a state ban on using bait to hunt deer, but it faces a veto from Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Baiting deer and elk is prohibited throughout the entire Lower Peninsula and parts of the Upper Peninsula under a bat that was initially approved by the state Natural Resources Commission in 2018.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources says baiting and feeding that concentrates animals beyond their normal movement patterns increases the likelihood of disease transmission.
Republicans disagree and say the ban is driving hunters away, hurting efforts to control deer overpopulation.
The legislature won final House passage Tuesday.
Whitmer says the baiting ban should stay intact to continue curbing diseases."
On a separate note, am I the only one finds the partisan divide on this issue interesting?
Age of thread in days. 28
Number of posts. 510
Opinions on baiting changed. STILL 0
Entertainment value. WANING
Hoyt shooters are significantly less likely to utilize failure piles, mainly because they are superior hunters.
When I see a discussion that doesn't interest me, or that I think is foolish, I don't bother to post.
But hey, to each their own.
IMO this question depends on what you believe hunting is. Feeding your neighborhood pets....be it deer, birds, squirrels, ducks, cats, dogs, etc is just that....feeding the animals. As far as hunting over an artificial food source.....that is an encompassing description. Artificial would of course not only include piles-n-plots but also ag, water tanks, blocks, etc. Non-artificial would be what you naturally find in woods/fields. All do the same thing though...attract and congregate the deer. Maybe another way to frame it....is hunting congregated deer real hunting?
Again JL, you bring up a very interesting point. In the woods I hunt, which is primarily lowland, hemlock, cedar, aspen and a scattering of hardwoods, I have yet to run across a naturally occurring brassica, soybean, oat, sugar beet, or turnip plot. Yet apparently we are supposed to believe that these are they type "natural food sources" that real hunters hunt.
If that is your view,,, Then it is the same for baiting bear. You cannot explain to a non hunter that baiting is necessary for bear management but not for deer..... Any non hunter who doesn’t like baiting doesn’t like it period. I’ve gotten way more negative comments from non hunters about bear hunting over a pile of donuts than using corn for deer..... The non hunters will not change their mind about either practice if they don’t like it.......
So if you want deer baiting outlawed across the country.... You should be prepared to throw bear baiting under the bus too. You can say I’m comparing apples to oranges all you want..... But to a non hunter,,, It’s the same ethically........
I will continue to defend all legal methods of hunting and trapping.......
Should we simply outlaw them everywhere across the board... because they aren’t legal everywhere ??? Should we give in and give them up because of non hunters who might have a negative view of them ??
Don't you know that human manipulated crops like that are exactly the same as an electric spin feeder that goes off shortly after climbing into your stand?
Which states or provinces allow baiting but not plots?
What is the science behind the deer baiting, feeding ban?
"By Rick Charmoli Cadillac News Dec 5, 2019 Updated 2 hrs ago
CADILLAC — On Tuesday, the Michigan Legislature sent a bill to the desk of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her signature.
While that in itself is not unique, the bill that was forwarded Tuesday is something that has many Michiganders wondering, especially those who enjoy hunting deer.
Rep. Michele Hoitenga, R-Manton, spearheaded the efforts to restore the practice of baiting and feeding deer in Michigan and the fruits of that labor now sit on the desk of the governor. The plan would end the ban issued by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission last year amid concerns about the spread of chronic wasting disease.
Hoitenga said the baiting and feeding ban puts unnecessary restrictions on Michigan hunters with little evidence it will prevent the spread of disease. Her plan, House Bill 4687, would allow people to engage in baiting during open seasons on deer and elk in Michigan.
“The NRC banned baiting, but that didn’t eliminate the natural instinct of deer to herd for warmth and food,‘ Hoitenga said. “The baiting ban is hurting the situation by driving people away from the sport. Hunting prevents overpopulation — and that is key to preventing the spread of disease.‘
In September, Ted Nugent was in the state capitol to speak in support of legislation sponsored by Hoitenga in front of the House Committee on Government Operations.
During the hour-long committee meeting, Nugent spoke about how he is approached every day of his life by Michigan families who want to talk about hunting and the great outdoors. He said during the last couple of years those same people have expressed “heartbreak‘ and “anger‘ because the regulations in Michigan are pushing them out of the sport of deer hunting.
Hoitenga said the decrease in hunting license sales will hurt Michigan’s conservation efforts, as well as the rural and Northern Michigan communities that receive an economic boost from hunting activity.
Last year, hunting and fishing license sales made up 20% of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ entire annual budget, equal to $83.5 million. These funds were used to aid the recovery of endangered and threatened species, including restoring thousands of acres of habitat and wetlands.
Hoitenga said she is opposed to the ban because she doesn’t feel it is based on sound science but that shouldn’t be misconstrued as her being anti-DNR. She said the DNR does good things and they are a needed part of conservation in the state. Her opinion is the ban is based on “flawed research.‘
Despite making it to the governor’s desk, the feeling is Whitmer will likely not sign it and instead veto the legislation.
BACKGROUND ON THE BAN
In August 2018, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission released its new regulations designed to combat the spread of chronic wasting disease.
For those who don’t know, CWD attacks the central nervous system of infected animals, resulting in emaciation, abnormal behavior and loss of bodily functions. There is no recovery, and the disease always results in the death of the animal.
To date, there have been no reported cases of CWD infection in humans. However, as a precaution, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend that infected animals not be consumed as food by either humans or domestic animals.
These new regulations include a statewide ban on the use of all-natural cervid urine-based lures and attractants, except for lures that are approved by the Archery Trade Association. Also included is an immediate ban on baiting and feeding in the 16-county area identified as the CWD Management Zone. This area includes Calhoun, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ionia, Isabella, Jackson, Kent, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Ottawa, and Shiawassee counties.
The ban on baiting and feeding in the Lower Peninsula became effective on Jan. 31. There is an exception to this ban for hunters with disabilities who meet specific requirements. The start date on this regulation also was intended to allow bait producers and retailers time to adjust to the new rule.
This, however, isn’t the first time a ban was put into place in recent history.
In 2008, a baiting ban in the Lower Peninsula was initiated in response to positive chronic wasting disease test results from a single deer from a privately owned facility in Kent County. In 2008, a 3-year-old doe tested positive for CWD, but officials were uncertain how the animal contracted the disease.
The Natural Resource Commission voted in 2011 to temporarily lift the ban until the NRC decision in August 2018.
THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE BAN
Chad Stewart is a biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. In particular, Stewart is a deer, elk and moose management specialist. To say he is in tune with the hooved and antlered animals of the state would be an understatement.
When looking at the baiting ban and why it was enacted there are several things to consider. This includes how CWD is spread, how it ended up in Michigan, how deer move and why the ban is in the Lower Peninsula and not the Upper Peninsula.
HOW CWD IS SPREAD
Stewart said CWD is a transmissible disease and is caused by infectious prions. Prion diseases or transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals, according to the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are distinguished by long incubation periods, characteristic spongiform changes associated with neuronal loss, and a failure to induce an inflammatory response.
The CDC also said the causative agents of TSEs are believed to be prions. The term “prions‘ refers to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible and can induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the brain. The functions of these normal prion proteins are still not completely understood, according to the CDC.
The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal, according to the CDC.
“It (prions) is different than a virus or bacteria. It is not a living organism. It can’t be killed,‘ Stewart said. “It can be ‘deactivated’ but it is extremely difficult. It is not something you can freeze out, flood out or heat it out unless it is extreme heat.‘
When looking at CWD, Stewart said studies have shown it is like Scrapie, which is the sheep equivalent of CWD. Like Scrapie, CWD is infectious over time and doesn’t become inactive over time once it is in the environment, according to Stewart.
The CWD prions are expelled through the deer’s saliva, urine, and feces, but Stewart said the concentration of the prions is different between them. Of course, deer to deer contact is one way the disease is spread, but Stewart said it also is important to understand how it can impact the environment.
“It is easy for people to assume that once it is there you can’t get rid of it. That is true, but the time in the environment is important,‘ he said. “Go to areas that have had the disease for decades, like in Wisconsin or Wyoming. The environment is saturated (with prions).‘
Stewart said it is not like a virus or bacteria that splits off and spreads. If people are putting out material like scented products or food that have the prions, humans can contribute to the accumulation in the environment.
If the disease is on the landscape for a short amount of time, the infected animal or animals can be removed. The prions that are in the environment will remain, but the spreading of the disease has been stopped. Although there is no guarantee another deer won’t pick it up, the possibility is smaller than in an area that has had it for decades. For that reason, early detection of CWD is crucial.
HOW DID CWD COME TO MICHIGAN?
Stewart said when it comes to how CWD came to Michigan, it is unknown. He said it was introduced years before the DNR found it. Naturally, CWD will spread slowly on the landscape, but due to human interaction it spread quicker, Stewart said. He also said it is likely that CWD was introduced to Michigan by humans.
The actual cause, however, will probably never be known, Stewart said.
DEER MOVEMENT AND THE SPREAD OF CWD
Stewart said he believes when looking at why the baiting ban is happening you have to first understand that deer are social animals. He also said a lot of times when talking with people or looking at comments online some people like to over generalize what the baiting ban is meant to do.
It is not about stopping a person from putting corn or apples out so they can sit over the pile and shoot a deer. Baiting is the repetitive placement of food in an area where food is not normally found. When a hunter baits they are altering the movement so the deer will go there often in an attempt to make their hunt more successful, Stewart said.
Hunters rarely shoot a deer over a bait pile the first time they put it out. The deer have to find the corn or apples and then the hunter replaces it. Once the deer realizes there is a food source there, it will alter its behavior and spend more time at the bait site, he said. There also are research articles that show deer will shift centers of activity when the bait is on the ground.
“We acknowledge deer are social animals and they interact regardless of baiting. But when you put bait on the ground you are drawing in multiple social groups together. If not at the same time, over time because of the prions in the environment,‘ he said. “If one of the animals in a social group has (CWD) the likelihood of spreading it to a second or third social group is higher. That is the science behind (the ban).‘
To explain it differently, Stewart used the analogy of a family of four.
If a member of the family gets the flu, Stewart said the likelihood of another family member getting it is higher. There are things the family members can do to try and protect against getting the flu such as not drinking from the same cup or eating off the same plate, which limits contact, he said.
At the same time, when a family member has the flu they are not hosting parties and inviting other families over. The chances of someone from outside the family getting the flu would be higher.
“You are not bringing in more people and doing the same sort of thing you always did when someone has the flu. Furthermore, (other families) wouldn’t want to come. That is where the baiting or feeding ban comes in. That is the common sense approach behind it.‘
WHAT IF THE BAN IS LIFTED BY THE GOVERNOR
Although Stewart said he has heard Gov. Whitmer will likely not sign the legislation that lifts the baiting and feeding ban in the Lower Peninsula if she does he has no control over that.
"Honestly with my job I can only worry about what the recommendations are. Control is out of my hands when it comes to the NRC and state government," he said. "If that is the direction it happens then we will adjust the best we can. We stand behind our actions."
Currently, he also said he doesn't see the DNR seeking to recommend to the NRC to lift the ban that is in place. That could change depending on future DNR directors, but right now he doesn't see that change coming under the current leadership.
"We understand social issues. People have business set around it and people like to use this technique, but we feel this is in the best interest and health of the deer herd," Stewart said.
I think the main problem with banning bait while allowing plots intended to attract deer is that you alienate hunters that do not have land or long term leases on land. And keep in mind that there are for more in the latter category. If you did a poll, I think you'd find those for and against baiting would line up with landowners/leasee's and public land hunters. Owners against baiting and public hunters for. And then the extreme where landowners would ban bating only on public.
So baiting is banned. The guy that has land goes along his merry way, plotting and shooting deer and the world is good. The guy that doesn't have land and because of work and family only has a few days per season, weekends or maybe one week that he can take for himself. He goes and sits in a tree where he used to sometimes get a deer, but now without the five gallons of corn, he sees nothing. So guess what? he loses interest and figures fishing and golf are more fun. That means he doesn't take his kids or neighbor kids anymore either.
"Ahh, my woods are peaceful without those baiters on the public next me.", says the landowner sitting over his plot.
Sure is. And the balance of non-hunter to hunter just became more uneven. Good for you for today. Not so much for "..the future of hunting" tomorrow.
Try putting yourself in the other guys shoes and sincerely try making his case.
Those opposed to baiting, piles or broadcasted, most likely agree exactly with this. Baiting is putting food repetitively where it does not normally exist! BINGO!!
OK, I ask you also try and put yourself in someone else's shoes.
It is a free country. With few exceptions, anyone can go and make the necessary sacrifices to purchase land. Some have made the sacrifice, others are not willing to and come up with excuses like deer hunting is just a part time recreational activity. And these same people will just as quickly point out how the young generation wants every thing handed to them, and pronto. Time for them to do something foreign to them, look in the mirror.
So, let's encourage more stewardship of our resources, and not just be self centered about our approach.
Amazing to me, some against baiting will use the above post to point out how reducing deer numbers is useful in slowing the spread of CWD, and that justifies baiting. While at the same time they tell us of all the deer they passed on shooting. What double talk, and only idiots will buy that line of dung.
"Alberta does not allow baiting or deer plotting. "
That wasn't my question. Who allows baiting but not plots? The answer is insightful, simply because the experts recognize the difference.
"Ahh, my woods are peaceful without those baiters on the public next me.", says the landowner sitting over his plot."
I agree Ambush.
It should be noted, he sits over a plot that was created (as was stated in the article) "in an area where food is not normally found. When a hunter baits they are altering the movement so the deer will go there often in an attempt to make their hunt more successful..."
One has to be blind (or dishonest) not to see the correlation between the two practices.
Placed bait has to be continually replaced. Let's be honest, you are trying to be dishonest by saying they are the same, or just plain...
Keep trying to justify being a lazy self centered taker...
Managed habitat has food year round. Do you bait year round Kevin? Another perfect example of your dishonesty.
I agree with you Missouribreaks.
That's why I suggested earlier that there must be some sort of compromise that could make both sides happy...or equally unhappy as it were.
As you may know, here in MI, the DNR publishes population goals for each DMU. Last I knew, the DMU where I hunt was actually under the DNR's stated population goal.
It's up to hunters, as the first line deer managers, to know what is going on in the areas where you hunt. Michigan has DMU's that are currently at double their population goals (or more) and DMU's that are significantly under their population goals. Even within DMUs, there is often massive differences between the two.
Those of us who actually understand this, and don't see Michigan's many DMUs as some sort of monolithic unit, also understand why someone's personal harvest choices might differ based on local factors.
Refer to the pictures above of my clover field you posted twice at least. Here is the same field in the winter. This is what I see meets the definition of "food normally found there". It is 24/7/365, not just when a feeder runs during X months and throws a limited amount of corn. I think most folks of average IQ would agree one meets the definition and one doesn't.
This is post season, and if all the pictures of the entire plot were collaged together, there were over 40 deer. only a few of those are resident deer,
Ok, over and out on this one too. Anyone has a burning desire to challenge or chastise me can do so through PM’s. Cheers and happy hunting.
Do you have any idea how arrogant and insulting that is Frank ?? Anyone who doesn’t do what you do is lazy and self centered..... ???
Frank. People have lives. People have kids. People have a hell of a lot more important things going on in life than deer hunting. If you want to make habitat improvements your life’s work......cool. But to call everyone else who doesn’t do what you do lazy and self centered really reflects bad on you.
Don't you just love it when the very proof someone posts to support their argument actually proves to undermine it.
"Do you have any idea how arrogant and insulting that is..."
This is a little off subject but along those same lines, did anyone happen to see the impeachment hearings yesterday with the 4 "distinguished law professors?"
Every time I heard 3 of the four "distinguished law professors" speak, I couldn't help but think of this very discussion. This is not to make this topic political in any way shape or form, but only to illustrate that there is a certain segment of the population that simply thinks they are smarter than everyone else. They just think they know more than the average uneducated rube and that they need to protect the unwashed masses from themselves.
I suspect our Governor will veto the bill BB, and as is often the case we won't really know the ramifications, positive or negative, until years down the road. Also, as is often the case, the unintended consequences will be blamed on someone else. The Governor will be gone, the NRC will have turned over, and the average Joe hunter (as well as the resource itself) will ultimately bear the brunt of their decisions.
Those comments were not aimed at everyone. They were aimed at a couple guys here. One, who has property and knows what he can do to attract wildlife, but doesn't do it.
Another, who has land that borders public where there is better habitat.
Both of you want me to accept baiting, though I feel it tarnishes hunter image and hurts the future of hunting. So yes, I believe you both are behaving in a self centered fashion. Your behaviors threaten my enjoyment in my view. What else do you want me to call it?
Again, where are the criticisms of an invidual who has been just as demeaning, but you agree with? That also says something Chris.
I don't think I am smarter than anyone. You have proven I am more honest, which is not difficult to do unfortunately.
Talk about moving goal posts....
You equate plots to placed bait as not normally occurring, so they are the same. Yet my field above was in farm production for at least 100 years before I owned it. So, it existed as a food source before the deer made a come back in this area. I have transformed it into a superior food source, unlike the 2 gallons MB wants to recognize as giving.
Yet on this very thread you stated you used your feeders when other food supplies were missing.
Really, they both meet not naturally occurring in your mind?
Good grief! You just can't make this stuff up. Enlarge your circle from the small group that are your partners in business that you also recreate and go to Church with. The group think you are exposing yourself to has convinced you that anyone with a different opinion must think too highly of themselves. It's actually normal.
Again, photos that have been posted on this thread show multiple species benefiting from a feeder, not just deer.
Having said that, it should be reiterated that nobody to my knowledge has ever suggested that a feeder or a bait site is the same as a food plot or an ag field. However, it has been said that for the vast majority of those utilizing either, the "goal" is the same. There is a huge difference between the two statements. Anyone with an ounce of honesty or the reading comprehension of a 5th grader would know this.
That's why I said much earlier in the thread that hunters use bows to hunt deer and hunters use guns to hunt deer. The goal of each is the same in that they are both weapons used to kill deer. That's not to say that a bow is the same as a gun.
It just goes to show that while some people pat each other on the back in the halls of academia, in the real world they aren't nearly as sharp as they tell each other they are.
John, Don't you know that human manipulated crops like that are exactly the same as an electric spin feeder that goes off shortly after climbing into your stand?
How about the private land average Joe hunter, who has lost access to properties because outfitters realized they could legally bait big bucks for profit, instead of practicing habitat improvements on the vast properties they have leased up? Do you have any sympathy for those hunters who believe the baiting outfitters have caused the decline in their hunting opportunities?
Let's take Cimarron River Outfitters in KS for example. You may have heard the name before. Their website claims they control over 25,000 acres of land in south central Kansas. To my knowledge they don't do any habitat improvements on those lands. They do, however, utilize baiting extensively to draw in big bucks for their clients. Their 5-day bow hunts for deer cost $3000, with an additional $1000 harvest fee. Do you think the average Joe, who used to be able to hunt some of those properties, might have a valid reason to oppose Cimarron and their hunting methods?
If his farm produces soybeans or corn, should he give those away to people who knock on his door and ask?
I own a business and I don't give away my goods or services, why should a farmer be expected give away his?
Like it or not, trophy deer have become a commodity. Like all commodities, they are worth what someone is willing to pay for them based on supply and demand.
We are reaping what we've sown (no farm pun intended) in the unintended consequences department.
You have to know that was baiting, I mean sarcasm?
Regarding the comparison of that deer plot of mine to a spin feeder... Can you guys try and be consistent and honest, please?
At least two of you, I believe all three, on this thread alone directly or implied the argument about CWD being at greater risk because of baiting and bringing deer in close proximity was debunked with comments such as deer are social animals, they lick each other, they herd up etc, etc.
Now it is OK to criticize a plot for exactly what you said did NOT occur. Real honest men!
I have night photos with as many deer during the winter. I have day photos. I have winter/summer photos. I know Kevin cannot see the difference in defining a plot that has physical evidence of deer visiting 24/7/365 versus a spin feeder with a timer used only during daylight hours of hunting season, again right after the hunter enters their stand, but certainly you still have a modicum of honesty to say one is where deer can normally expect to find food and the other is not outside of a narrowly defined time period on a calendar, both in weeks and daylight hours.
In honor of my farm being in MO, show me you still have the ability to use normal logic, which means you don't interpret things as Kevin does one way when it works to his advantage, and another way when it doesn't.
Must be a bunch of liberals living in KS then because I have heard this numerous times. And, if you had read the KS forum over the last several years, you would have seen this ad nauseum. Really, the loss of access is what finally tripped me to make a land purchase to guarantee I would have a place to hunt.
I think Matt is correct on this, but I will admit that I agree with Kevin that LOs have the right to use their land to make a profit. The increase in popularity of bow hunting stimulated the demand for access, and our system was sure to generate ideas on how to make more money from it. I still contend we are already witnessing the peak of the popularity in decline as boomers exit the activity in groves, and the remaining hoard moves on to the next popular activity, maybe band mitten;-)
"That is how my private land radish plots look. Congregated deer that could be spread out and feeding where recreational feeders and bait hunters would be located. "
You do know deer need green browse for their dietary tracts, correct? There is a reason so many deer showed up here...ag and natural sources were not providing what was needed in those conditions. Another benefit of habitat management is it can increase carrying capacity, a homogenous bait site, less so and only temporary.
EDIT: AND THE DEER HAVE LEARNED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THEY CAN EAT QUALITY FOOD THAT IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR SURVIVAL.
You need to get out of your Michigan bubble more often. Most outfitters in the west lease ranch lands, not farms. The wildlife compete with cattle for available food sources. When I was outfitting, only a tiny fraction of our leases had croplands. It was mostly rolling hills of native grasslands with sparse timbered areas. Not only did we supplement the ranchers income with our leases, we also decreased the deer and elk's impact on their cattle operations. It was a win/win for everybody, except the local average Joe hunter who lost hunting opportunities due to our leases. My partner and I were despised by those hunters, as well as by friends and family of the landowner's who could no longer hunt those properties. It was the worst career choice I ever made.
Again, how do you resolve claiming money, greed, and ego have caused the animosity towards baiting, at the expense of the average Joe hunter, yet you seem to shrug off the fact that far more average Joe hunters have lost opportunities due to the money, greed, and ego of outfitters and their clients?
Worth repeating, again and again until it sinks in. Matt, thanks for posting your ACTUAL experience instead of an uniformed opinion.
Your photo proves that food plots congregate deer as much or more than 2 gallons of bait on the ground........
Now I am of the opinion that neither bait nor food plots.... are going to cause deer to interact any more than they do naturally....... and our DNR can’t decide if bait is too risky to keep allowing it..... apparently it’s OK in the U.P.
The point is..... if baiting is too risky in spreading disease... So are food plots. Your picture proves that.
The image issue is a load of bull sh— that guys that hate baiting for deer throw in to bolster their argument........ Magically..... Baiting for bears is not an image problem for them..... and hunting antelope or mule deer or elk over a water tank or water hole is not an image problem in their eyes. What a hypocritical load of crap.
As Matt pointed out, baiting bears is necessary to keep the population under control. And they are much, much more difficult to pattern than deer.
Like plots that have been established year round over the long haul, water tanks/holes, ponds whatever are there normally and do NOT change animal behavior. When one baits during a limited time period, and a limited amount of food, animal behavior is changed. As Kevin's article above states, deer will move into areas they are not normally at. Kevin said when the apples, mast etc runs out, that is when he baits. By his own admission then the deer would not be there. That is changing animal behavior.
You can use any words you want, and no doubt Kevin will try, but baiting changes behavior and the others, done properly, do not. And the goal of habitat managers I have talked with is to have the animals year round. If talking plots, that is why there are annuals and there are perennials.
Gosh, how many threads are about habitat? We even have an entire Forum here dedicated to it. How many about baiting? How much is there to learn about baiting? Really? The more I read these responses the more I realize we are our own worst enemies...and that is not because we are critical of each other.
The resentment lies in the change. Adults here had places to hunt for a handshake and the offer to help fix fence or haul some hay over the summer. That wasn't long ago. Leasing is a recent phenomenon here and it actually took hunting land away from people (even family lands). I think it would be much different if leasing had always been the norm, but it hasn't. The change made if feel like something was taken. I know I feel that way about health care. It was employer paid for much of my early working career. When Obamacare took a significant part of my paycheck I had resentment. Someday that "change" will be long gone and the cost of health insurance will be the norm. Resentment will fade then. For those of you who come from states where leasing and clubs have always been the norm it might be hard to understand how a lot of KS folk feel about leasing, but it's real.
Just to be clear, I'm not ranting on NR hunters. I've met many who are great people and their hard earned money can be spent any way they choose. I just don't like a situation that outprices kids from hunting or outdoor recreation in general. I know the answer is simple; make more money. Doesn't make it possible for these kids though.
Regardless.... The image issue has nothing to do with the ban in Michigan.
“Baiting Bears is necessary to keep the population under control”.........
Once again..... What the heck does that have to do with the “Image” of the practice to the non hunting public ???????????
“Deer do not need to be baited to have success “...........
Ummmm.... Frank. Hunters don’t need to sit over water holes to have success on antelope.... mule deer and elk.......... But you have no problem with that.
First of all the notion that just because a feeder goes off at a specific time of day, deer don't visit that site around the clock is absolutely false. As I've said before, I have literally thousands of trail cam pics that show deer visiting this and other feeder sites over the years around the clock. The ones shown here are just one example, of multiple deer visiting this sight all hours of day, even though the feeder goes off one time per day, spreading only a pound or so of corn.
We've chosen to use spin feeders for a couple reasons. Economy of scent distribution is one. 30 lbs of corn in my feeder will last about 3 weeks, whereas 30 lbs of corn in a gravity feeder will be consumed in about 2 or 3 days, requiring 8 or 10 times the human scent left at the site.
In addition to that, gravity feeders are illegal here in MI. They are considerably more risky if disease is present because they encourage multiple deer to stick their noses in them and that increases the possibility of disease transmission. If a person is truly concerned about the possibility disease transmission, why would they use one of the most dangerous methods of feeding deer.
Lastly, the theory that plots (which we all know congregate deer) are better, or more closely mimic natural food sources because they provide a year round food, than a feeder (which also congregates deer) and only provides a limited amount of food for a limited amount of time doesn't really hold water either.
My oak or apple trees don't provide food all year around. They provide limited amounts of food for a limited amount of time. Once its all consumed, that's all there is. Just like a feeder that only operates for a couple months out of a year. My feeder directly mimics other natural food sources like oaks and apples.
Lastly, when we are asked to think about a specific outfitter scenario in Kansas, and we respond about farmers leasing land in mid-west farm states like Kansas, the goal posts are conveniently moved yet again to include western ranch states.
26 out of 50 states have outlawed hunting deer over bait. There doesn't seem to be any regional correlation. Adjacent states with similar herds and habitat have differing regulations. And it doesn't appear to be political, either, since red and blue states both have banned the practice. So, in your opinion, why have over half the states outlawed hunting deer over bait?
That does not just border ignorant and moronic but is ignorant and moronic. Some years mast crops fail, completely. Your feeder does not fail if you set it up each year.
Good grief Kevin, your statements keeping getting more ridiculous.
Your thirty pound feeder throwing so little I bet has nothing to do with scent control. You are cheap. Get a bigger feeder. Another dumb position on your part.
Because they had to scout to find which waterholes are being used like I did when I antelope hunted. It took some walking to accomplish. They don't use every source of water, and the water source can change in an instant. They don't change their behavior to go to that water source, they do change their behavior to go to a spin feeder throwing minimal amounts of corn during hunting season only.
Kevin's pictures could be deer using the area after mast has fallen, how do we know. You can actually tell in my pictures what's being eaten. From my view, I don't believe much of what he says as he moves the goal posts constantly and posts stuff he then denies. Good grief!
Jason said exactly what Matt's experience was. The only goal posts that moved were between your ears Kevin.
"So, in your opinion, why have over half the states outlawed hunting deer over bait? "
My opinion is that most wildlife biologists think the practice hurts wildlife more than helps it, and is not good for hunter image as well as not meeting the definition of fair chase. These states are trying to be proactive.
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
Look at the dates on the pictures. They are all within a few days in November. Where are the summer, late winter pictures that "mimic" what occurs on comprehensively managed habitat? Kevin probably ought to talk with one of those lawyers he mocked and discuss his need for better evidence to support his views. LMAO!
Please don't turn into a fricking liberal. I figured you were one of our last great hopes
Feeding deer is illegal here in the L.P. By your logic.... You shouldn’t wait until it’s illegal where you live.... You should stop feeding the deer.
"Who allows baiting but not plots?"
I will answer; Not one state bans plots, but over half ban baiting. Hmmm...
Let me answer that for you. CWD...........
Your food plots and gravity feeder congregate deer Frank.
Spell it out with me...........
There is 2/3 an acre of beans with rye grain right next to the feeder. Which do you think they are using now?
I love to see the squirrels, and honestly the crows. We had nary one squirrel in our entire neighborhood of 400 acres because there were only 3 oaks in the community prior to us building there 17 years ago. Between several habitat projects such as the NG installed on neighbors, at least one hundred oaks planted, some producing in as little as five years (gobbler sawtooth oaks), several hundred if not thousands of acorns planted, etc. the habitat is being transformed. I used the feeder to keep some pressure off of a small food plot until it has enough chance to get established.
Neighbor appreciates the feeder because my habitat attracts deer and his bird feeder was being pounded. If he gets rid of the feeder and doesn't complain about my habitat projects drawing too many deer, the feeder will go. But, if you want to make an agreement that we both quit doing feeders or bait piles, you are on. I will pay for my neighbor's bird seed, but the deer will still utilize that. He will still be upset, I will let him know you are to blame;-)
Do you think that is different than hunting in the UP with bait at a time there is little if any other food? Did you read the articles? What are your thoughts about the point that non-hunters will judge us? My neighbors like that I give back year round. They love seeing the deer, we all watch my two bluebird houses each year, and right now we have a big rub on our last remaining evergreen tree that borders the food plot. I'd say my practices are helping hunter image.
What are the other 6 reasons? Oh, you didn't read them right? Why challenge what you believe? What is the other disease there is evidence of that can be spread by deer?
I do not see any compelling evidence for banning baiting because of CWD or any other reason. I have stated several times on this thread alone the government should remain out of it. I have also stated that we hunters ought to be proactive.
I am not hypocritical, but you are being disingenuous because you know that I have already said these things. Chris, the deer congregating lasted a few days until the sugar bulbs were completely consumed. Much fewer numbers returned until green-up to consume rye grain, winter peas and for some reason, clover roots. that article talks about all of the stuff you learn from managing habitat, unlike baiting.
I know you won't take me up on this, but I will come up with three Stihl chain saws over either Spring Break in mid-March or summer, and be glad to help start the project we discussed. Let me know.
Jeff posted what Kevin said. I fail to see how it was taken out of context. What does political ideology have to do with any of this?
Why did you not question Kevin's comments about Matt's post? The double standards on display here I have rarely witnessed!
Of course it is. However, he's not the only one that cherry picks certain things, takes them out of context and erects straw men to argue against.
The difference between JTV and the others is that I honestly think he actually believes that's what was said. The others know what was said, but misrepresent it thinking that nobody is smart enough to notice.
I could be wrong though, maybe I'm giving the others too much credit.
So you agree then,,, That the Michigan DNR had no compelling evidence to support why they banned baiting. Good. We finally agree. I’m out.
I do think there are several reasons that we should voluntarily not bait, but do support improving habitat.
I will let Kevin get his last shot in, it will be more of the same no doubt.
I will be hunting on my farm this weekend, bait free;-)
Now, apparently even my trail cam pictures are wrong.
They are just so much more intelligent than all of us.
I encourage you to privately contact the President of P&Y, and get his thoughts on bow hunting deer over bait. I did, and his thoughts encouraged me. Lets us all know your impressions.
I stopped basing my choices on what others thought in about 8th grade.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I will hunt in any way I find enjoyable, within the law.
I love your last statement about contacting pope and young about baiting. Did you ask them about high fences also? If you did and if they were honest they would have told you that sone whitetail deer in their record book came from under high fence. I know because some of my clients put them there.
Things change. One of the most wonderful things in life. Keeps it all fresh
I thought you said to start where P&Y and B&C stands on baiting deer.. and that's what you'd fight for. I took your advice and now know where the Pres of P&Y stands, and I will fight for his views and values, will you?
Quiver licking, Matt ....???
How many acres do you cultivate?
And a high fence enclosure brought the first CWD infected deer to Michigan.....
All is well, thank you.
RK, PM sent to answer your question, I hope.
Kevin, still in 8th grade I see. For not caring what people think, you sure responded to every criticism;-) I just wanted to get this to 600!
BTW, can you direct me to those apple trees that mimic your feeders, you know, the ones that perpetually drop apples throughout the entire deer season. I bet them would fool the deer, never running out of apples;-)
Chris, start a thread on high fence operations, I will share my opinion as I did here.
BTW, I asked my classes today what they thought about baiting, and asked if it was alright that the deer I shot that their summer sausage was made out of was taken over a bait pile. I will tell you what they said... ah, never mind, this has gone on long enough.
Hope all of your hunting dreams come true!
You took it out of context also
You and JTV are The consummate liberals these days It's not what is said it's what's you want to make it what they said So special
You post a silly picture in order to get a specific point across.
I post a silly picture to get a specific point across.
That is different how?
FTFY......... and btw, if you DO posit that to your class, present it in a manner that is NOT what you do, but the vast majority of those that utilize food plots do. Make sure you inform them as you did us, that food plots are inconsequential to habitat management.
"Pat should be so proud by allowing the same CF klan to continue with their BS way's on the Big Game Forum, same as they did on the CF ... waaaay past time for this thread to go to the crap can"
Really? No, Really? You type that with a straight face? Pot, kettle.
Try reading the MO pamphlet I suggested. Food plots are a small part of the strategy. Habitat is king.
Why not just frame the question truthfully?
What do you think about manipulating deer behavior in order to aid in hunting them, and does it bother you that the summer sausage you are eating was made from deer who were taken in that way?
How educators frame these types of questions is part and parcel of the difference between education and indoctrination. Unfortunately, students are often to naïve to recognize the difference.
Ask your class what they think of shooting an elk that is drinking out of a water tank.
JTV. The king of stupid memes.
"Try reading the MO pamphlet I suggested. Food plots are a small part of the strategy. Habitat is king."
Your words, from 200 or 300 posts ago, stated that food plots are an insignificant part, if at all, of habitat management. So, if they are insignificant why plant them? I know why. You know why. We all know why. To attract deer to view and or kill. Period.
We talk about the perception of baiting and how distasteful the general public finds it. I wonder what their perception is of the Lakosky's, Drury's, Kisky's and the rest of the plot hunters, who basically farm trophy deer. All their efforts, in the end, are to shoot big ass buck, to keep $$ rolling in. Here in PA, the vast majority of negative comments focus on killing an animal just for antlers. To them, baiting or planting food plots (with inconsequential habitat benefit) to shoot deer over, is one and the same.
Since you were not there, you will have to take my word for it. But it was presented "fair and balanced". I recognize the privilege I have received, and do not squander it.
They, like every state, recognize the difference between baiting and habitat improvements. Their honesty, free from an agenda, is greater than what we have witnessed here.
Kevin, typical accusation towards educators that we have heard from you. It's akin to me saying cops are all racist, the recent stories prove it.
Chris, a shot at JTV but not Kevin for using memes. A little biased? If I did that as an educator I would rightly be called out for it. Again, double standards. Kevin can only accuse of indoctrination for something he wasn't there for but ignores what's right under his nose. Blanket accusations towards an entire group is simply a display of ignorance.
I don't care how you legally hunt. I think our behavior does affect public opinion. I encourage habitat improvements. Mine are too tiny to mean anything, as pointed out in a PM. I agree, but tens of thousands of folks performing micro habitat projects can and will make a difference.
Thanks for the tone change. My point about the MO publication is that plots are not a major component. My own opinion is that it is much easier to encourage them. As said before, once people are involved a progression of other projects takes off. I believe that is what is happening here, encourage anything to get people started.
I do not get reimbursed for plots. As we speak I am submitting another request for cost share on TSI. As I look back on what the state has worked with me on, it's everything but plots. We are in an ag area. I stand by my exact words. Thanks.
Everyone knows that. Same with bait. So, to that extent, they are the same as a bait pile or a feeder.
The problem is, some people are so invested (both literally and figuratively) in a particular narrative that they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics, taking other's statements out of context, and displays of intellectual dishonesty in order to support it. Everyone sees that too.
Make no mistake, people are entitled to their opinions about whether they like bait, or plots or if they think they are detrimental in terms of disease transmission, non-hunter perceptions and population control. And a legitimate case can be made either way on all those things. However, to deny that the underlying goal of each is the same is just silly.
Other times I have spot and stalked deer and elk all day, tracked deer in snow and even stood on a logging road once while the drivers pushed deer my way, I had a Hawken with me that day. Broke down cedar limbs in a UP swamp to attract some late season hungry deer. I sat on a man made small reservoir waiting for an antelope to give into his thirst. Plugged a few Canadian black bears eating placed beaver carcasses with my selfbow and cedars, actually quite a few, about 20. Some from natural balsam ground blinds near the artificially placed bear baits.
In fact, all of my bow and arrow shooting, killing, and bear and deer harvesting was with osage or yew selfbows and cedar arrows of my crafting. I shoot " instinctively " too, not that it matters but for me this shooting style does require hours and years of practice and patience, AND getting very close. No scope to dial in. I am limited with my weapons and abilities.
Sorry,... I just learned I was not actually hunting most of the time, just killing and harvesting the past 55 years? What a reckless, shameful machine I have become.... hunting artificial and grown food sources with my selfbow and cedars.
Sounds pretty darn familiar. Other than the fact that I use a recurve instead of a selfbow (I know, that's not hunting, that's just killing...lol), I've done everything you describe. I can add a few more. I've used calls, rattling antlers and even mock scrapes to attract deer too. One of the first deer I ever shot was a spot and stalk situation.
I'm actually quite depressed now knowing that for the last 40+ years I haven't been hunting either.
You were one of the biggest offenders, Jeff. Anytime someone disagreed with you, they were subject to your juvenile name calling. Take your self righteous indignation with you.
"Hey, if I were to tell that these hot sticks were made from a deer that was shot over bait, would that bother you?"
He said, and I quote:
"Hell no, the only thing that would bother me is if you stopped sharing them. As a matter of fact, I'd like 'em even better if you made 'em out of the d**n deer that keep eating my Holly bushes! "
But, your sample size of one non-hunter is no more compelling than my wife's reaction to deer baiting, which was 180* different.
So far 100% of those polled don't give a d**n how the deer was killed.
""Hell no, the only thing that would bother me is if you stopped sharing them. As a matter of fact, I'd like 'em even better if you made 'em out of the d**n deer that keep eating my Holly bushes! "
Think this guy is a little biased against deer and that might influence his position? LOL! But he also asked his wife? Biased?
But I was capable of indoctrinating nearly 200 students, who mostly don't agree with baiting, a third of those to include no plots.
Good grief, you just can't make this stuff up. LOL!!
Probably. When I posed the question to her, I didn't specify what species, I just said "big game". I went on to explain to her that my opinion wasn't quite as negative as hers. I told her there are circumstances when baiting is necessary, IMO, to effectively manage populations of certain species. I used bears as an example, explaining that in certain areas baiting was the only practical way to keep their populations in check. She said, "but you've never baited for bears." I said, that's correct, nor will I, because I don't consider it fair chase and I wouldn't get any satisfaction from it. Her response was "Good". And that was the end of the conversation.
This is how the conversation went.
As with any poll, much would depend on who you ask, where you ask it, and how you ask the question.
Even the question above could be construed as biased in that "bait pile" conjures up certain feelings.
I suspect you would get completely different results just by wording the question differently.
"Do you think hunting deer over a bait pile is ethical?"
"Do you think hunting deer over an artificial food source is ethical?"
"Do you think hunting deer over a man made food source is ethical?"
In my opinion, anti-hunters don't like any hunting at all, and most non-hunters don't really care except that however you do it, the kill itself should be as quick and humane as possible.
Now, along those same lines of public perception, how do you think non-hunters would react to the following question.
Do you think killing deer based solely on the size of their antlers is ethical?
That's because those are 3 entirely different questions, Kevin. Accurately calling a bait pile by its true name is not biased. What is biased is trying to disguise a bait pile by calling it something else.
But keep parsing words. When you start doing that, I know your argument is running out of steam.
How about if I hunt within bow range of my transparent apple trees that are dropping apples, that's "natural food source." If I pick those exact same apples up and toss them 50 yards over to the tree line, now it's a "bait pile?"
Is that parsing words too?
How about my next question seeing that you seem to be so concerned about non-hunter perceptions.
"Do you think the non hunting public would think killing deer based solely on antler size is ethical?"
Is that parsing words too?
Is that parsing words?
Yes. Both confine bait within a lethal area for a bow hunter.
Anyone know where the thread I started about bait vs plots went? I was on the road and out of town the last 12brs and can't seem to find it. Would like to see what some of the posts on it were...
And here I thought these were natural food sources but apparently they’re “bait piles” too.
I’ll be darned. Thank you for the clarification.
Now, on the subject of perceptions, how do you think non-hunters feel about people who kill bucks based solely on antler size? Do you think they would consider that ethical?
Twenty eight degrees, getting ready to head out myself.
Jason, don't know what happened to your thread, but it had some good comments.
Last night I saw there as a duplicate thread to the one you created. Showed only one post, but when you clicked on it, all responses were there. Maybe it was a cleanup that went south. Or, hard to imagine, someone crossed the line. Maybe a mod could pop in or PM you?
Congrats on the doe! I'm waiting for our late season flintlock to start the day after Christmas.
The general public hates trophy hunting. There is a trend from the non-hunting public towards feeling that an animal should never "be killed". We currently are justifying it with the fact that we eat them, but soon that won't be enough for most. Just look at the fur and trapping industry, new predator hunting laws in liberal states, the protection of wolves, and the disdain for African hunting and shipping of trophy animals. Many traditions and opportunities have been lost in a very short amount of time.
I teach a dissection class. Biological companies get euthanized cats, preserve them, inject them with latex (veins/arteries/portal system) and sell them for education. Over the last 3 years it's become very difficult to buy cats for dissection. You can guess as to why, but I've talked with reps and there is no shortage of cats being euthanized...
I've said it before; changing our hunting laws/regulations to appease someone else's feelings/emotions instead of sound management will not end well for us. Sometimes it's best to just "look away if you don't like it". I feel the world need more of that than less of it, but the trend is definitely shifting towards change being sought based on emotions rather than sound policy and data. It's completely appropriate now to expect someone else to adjust due to you being triggered. Not that I advocate posting silly pics on social media, I think we should be smart about the image we project and the group should be somewhat self regulatory. But to give up practices that are not detrimental to management so that an outsider (who doesn't have to know about it anyway) isn't offended is sketchy.
I saw the same thing Bowbender saw. When I saw it on the main page, it only showed that it had 2 responses, but when you clicked on it had 50 or 60.
Once again, Kevin moves the goal posts. Those trees are natural food sources. They may have been planted by man, but they grow and and shed their food based on nature's time line. A bait pile is created based on a man-made time-line. Whether the bait pile is dumped out of a bag, or out of a machine, matters not to me. The end results are the same...a pile of bait on the ground that nature had nothing to do with.
You're welcome in advance for the clarification.
I tend to agree with you Cat, that's why I brought it up. I'm not surprised that the question has been ignored, but your honest response is appreciated.
Many who are anti-baiting like to use the public perception of non-hunters that baiting is unethical and distasteful as a reason to not allow it. Even so, many of the same people don't seem to have any problem with something else that most non-hunters think is unethical or distasteful. As a matter of fact they've lobbied, and have been successful in actually making it illegal in many areas to kill a buck with antlers that don't meet a certain size requirement.
Make no mistake, I have no problem whatsoever with a hunter basing his or her harvest decisions on whatever criteria he chooses, but to claim that public perception of non-hunters is why they are against baiting is more than a little hypocritical in my opinion.
Are you saying that nature had nothing to do with the growing of corn, sugar beets or apples?
How about if I engage in the practice of fertilizing my white oaks to increase acorn production, spraying and trimming my apple trees for the same reason. Nature?
Or how about like a friend of mine does. Planting an eighth of an acre of sugar beets or turnips in the middle of his aspen flat? How much does nature have to do with that? He put it there, and he hunts over it.
"Both confine bait within a lethal area for a bow hunter.”
Or maybe it's just the proximity of a hunter to the food source that's offensive to you? If I set up a feeder but hunt the trails that lead to it, or the pinch points around it, as long as I'm not within lethal bow range of the food source, would that be ok?
This man-made/nature thing gets so confusing.
what's fine for one is darn near a crime for others
Kind of like someone said about pornography...hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
I bet most of the Midwest hunters I know would love to have your situation...own private property surrounded by thousands of acres of better quality habitat public land. I bet most would go find the deer.
In a situation like yours, I don't support baiting. Go ahead and insult me all you want. I will gladly trade situations, and I would not bait. But that's just me.
Go ahead and distract now with other information not pertinent.
A "food plot" is created based on a man-made time-line. Whether the "food plot" is dumped out of a bag, or out of a machine, matters not to me. The end results are the same...a "food plot" that nature had nothing to do with."
Look at how many food plots are grown for early season, mid, and late season hunting. We have "Bio-Logic grow big antler mix", all kinds off engineered products meant to attract deer and grow big antlers. I suspect if the general non-hunting public knew what the vast majority of food plots were used for, they would find it as distasteful as dumping a bucket of apples or corn on the ground.
And just so we're clear, I'll repeat what I said earlier. If I owned the 1,000 acre farm I hunt on, I would be putting in food plots along with other habitat improvements. 'Cause I like watching wildlife. Like shooting deer and turkeys as well.
I don't bait. First, the part of the state I'm in doesn't allow it. Second, just not my thing, nor is sitting a field edge. The property I hunt has about 200 acres of crops. Usually corn, soybeans and winter wheat. Every year guys set up all along those edges. Me? I'm 1/2 mile back on the ridges and oak flats where the deer tend to congregate before heading to the fields at dark. A couple of my locations are in the middle of oaks flats that sound like its raining when the wind blows. The one spot we found last year has produced three buck and three doe, all on these oak flats/ridges. Add in tons of pawpaws (yes deer eat them) maple trees, honeysuckle, and some others, there's no need to hunt the fields.
Any food source that requires nature's help to grow and bear food is not a bait pile, IMO. Whether it's cultivated and planted by man, or not, nature still plays a role in whether it produces food. A bait pile requires no help from nature to become a food source. It just requires a bag of feed that was grown somewhere else, and dumped on the ground.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Read what I posted carefully. A bait pile doesn't become a food source by growing in the spot where it is dumped. Not sure why that is so confusing.
Some of you are Liberals for sure,....you vote for the AOC crowd I bet.
Perfect explanation. Honest and half way intelligent folks would agree with you.
I have had numerous plots fail due to weather. How often does that happen with a pile placed properly?
Thank you for the clarification. That describes anything I have ever or will ever use (if it ever becomes legal again) to attract deer to my property for the purpose of hunting them.
I am glad we are finally on the same page. It truly makes me feel good knowing I have your approval to use natures creation in my feeder.
"KPC......As explained to me by a Indiana CO. and as I used to explain to students in my Hunter Ed classes, apples when dropped by a tree on its own or wind, etc. are legal to hunt over, if one would shake that tree/branch to deposit them to the ground, that is baiting and illegal in Indiana......."
You might want to talk to another CO.
Indiana regs state the following:
"It is illegal to use bait, salt, snares, dogs or other domesticated animals to take deer. Bait is considered any product that is transported into a hunting area and placed there for animal consumption. Baits can be in the form of salt, mineral blocks, prepared solid or liquid, or piles of apples or other food that is intended for the animal to eat. An area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait and any affected soil"
The mental gymnastics required by some to differentiate between made food source is getting rather comical.
Have we really gotten to a point where we are discussing the difference between wind making an apple fall to the ground and a hunter making an apple fall to the ground?
In the words of another uber-intellectual...
The limits to which some will try to draw parallels between a bait pile and a food source that is consumed where it grows astounds me
I'm confused as always. Are the Indiana hunting regulations that Kevin wrote WRONG??
Why would they print something so intentionally wrong?
Based on those regulations, I would love for a conservation officer to accuse me of a game violation because he/she determined that I knocked the apples down instead of the wind. And furthermore, I would relish the thought of him/her trying to explain to a Judge how shaking an apple tree would be "considered any product that is transported into a hunting area and placed there for animal consumption.
I'd like my chances on that one.
Lastly, this thread is about Michigan regulations. To that end, harvest numbers in many parts of Michigan are not where the DNR would like them to be, haven't been for a number of years, and have been declining.
It remains to be seen how a baiting ban will affect those numbers. Time will tell.
I thought the numbers were dropping before then?
To muddy it up for you plot-n-pile hair splitters......if I was to go to Kevin's hunting grounds and see all of the apples from the low hanging limbs were gone, would I be baiting if I pulled and tied down some of the high limbs with apples to within reach of the deer?
My neighbor 5 doors down is a CO. Next time she brings her daughters around selling stuff for the girl scouts, I'll ask her.
I can tell what she'll say though.
"Lemme guess, you've been on the hunting forums again, haven't you?"
After we get done laughing about that, I'll tell her the one about deer starving to death in the LP because hunters using bait caused them not to yard up in the winter. She'll get a good laugh out of that one too.
Who was the guy on here that demanded we used the exact same words? Help me, I forget.
The action comes with average U.P. snow depths measured across the region nearly double that of a 15-year average for late February and March.
Feeding deer large quantities of food to supplement natural winter food resources – termed “supplemental feeding” – is allowed by permit in the northern U.P. counties beginning in January each year.
This type of feeding differs from “recreational feeding,” which is limited daily to 2 gallons of feed, placed within sight of a home or camp. Recreational feeding is allowed year-round across the U.P.
In southern U.P. counties – which typically exhibit milder winter weather conditions – free permits are issued for supplemental feeding dependent on weather conditions.
“The DNR uses total accumulated snow as an index of the severity of the winter,” said Terry Minzey, DNR U.P. regional wildlife supervisor. “In typical winters, impacts to the deer herd in the southern part of the region, based on snow accumulation measurements, can be forecasted by mid-January.”
Map of Upper Peninsula chronic wasting disease surveillance areas.Minzey said when conditions suggest the potential exists for significant winter deer mortality, regulated supplemental feeding is authorized by the DNR. This winter, the early part of the winter was fairly moderate, but conditions deteriorated in February.
Therefore, supplemental feeding permits are being issued in the southern U.P., except within chronic wasting disease core and expanded surveillance zones set up last October, after a doe tested positive for the disease in Dickinson County’s Waucedah Township.
As of March 4, there have been 56 days this winter with greater than a foot of snow accumulated on the ground in the U.P.
“We are monitoring deer in select areas,” said Chad Stewart, DNR deer, elk and moose management specialist. “At this time, most of the deer across the U.P. seem to be in fair shape.”
More snow is forecast for the region this weekend as temperatures warm, with the potential for rain and snow next week. Weather forecasters are predicting the snow pack to last on the ground into April, with temperatures trending in long-term forecasts to remain below average.
Stewart said peak winter mortality typically happens from late March through early May, and the factor most often attributed to high winter deer mortality is the length of the season.
“Though the intensity of a winter can play an important role in deer survival, the length of winter before spring green-up is often the most critical factor,” Stewart said. “At this point, it is too soon to know whether this winter will have a high negative impact on the deer herd.”
The DNR will continue to monitor the situation.
“Some deer have already succumbed to the winter; this is not uncommon and occurs every year,” Stewart said. “The DNR has more than 250 animals collared presently in the U.P., so if a large deer mortality event does occur, we will have an understanding of the magnitude.”
Stewart said it is important to remember the deer herd in the U.P. can suffer losses naturally with extreme winter conditions. Difficult winters have negatively impacted herd numbers previously – notably during the mid-1990s – and are expected to impact herd numbers in the future.
A lack of available high-quality deer wintering habitat remains a factor limiting the deer herd in the U.P.
“Extreme winter conditions can highlight just exactly how important our deer wintering complexes are in aiding survival of the U.P. deer herd,” Minzey said. “The department has recognized the importance of this habitat and is working collaboratively with sportsmen’s groups, private landowners and others on identifying, creating and managing this habitat to help mitigate the impacts of severe winters.”
Supplemental deer feeding permits are available by contacting DNR offices located in Baraga, Marquette, Crystal Falls, Escanaba, Newberry, Sault Ste. Marie and Shingleton (Cusino).
For more information on chronic wasting disease in Michigan, visit Michigan.gov/CWD. Find out more about white-tailed deer and deer hunting at Michigan.gov/Deer."
Here is something else you can add to the "muddy it up" file.
While reading the above on the MI DNR website, The underlined portion actually came as a surprise to me.
Were you aware that recreation feeding is allowed year round in the UP?
So not only is baiting still allowed, permits are being issued to feed the deer that yard up due to severe weather conditions, but year round recreation feeding doesn't seem to be much of a concern either.
As is often the case, (and as we have discussed many times in the past) I think there is much more at play when it comes to setting regulations than just a concerns about disease transmission.
Ironically, and along those same lines, many biologists country wide agree that in areas where CWD is present, Antler Point Restrictions also pose increased disease transmission risks and should not be implemented and suspended where present. Yet here in MI, those concerns are apparently being ignored.
Is it just a coincidence that that powerful groups in Michigan that fought so hard and so long for Antler Point Restrictions are the exact same groups that have fought so hard and so long for a ban on baiting?
Knowing the full history of these things in MI leads many to question these decisions. Questions that hunters from other states would have little to no knowledge of.
Wouldn’t it have even more of an effect than baiting deer.... Which for the most part would be done by the end of November ?
And supplemental deer feeding permits ??? You mean permits to congregate great numbers of deer around huge bait pile way bigger than 2 gallons ??? Issued by the DNR ???
Hold on a second.... I thought baiting is bad.... I don’t get it ???? :-)
Let me see if I have this correct. MI has too many deer, and too few hunters to keep populations in check. Yet, they issue year- around permits to feed deer in order to increase winter survival rates? What sense does that make?
I also read that experimental antler point restrictions were implemented in select counties in MI back in the 90's with excellent results. But they left the decision to maintain those programs up to the voting public, so they were abandoned. Wow.
Good luck, fellas.
“Extreme winter conditions can highlight just exactly how important our deer wintering complexes are in aiding survival of the U.P. deer herd,” Minzey said. “The department has recognized the importance of this habitat and is working collaboratively with sportsmen’s groups, private landowners and others on identifying, creating and managing this habitat to help mitigate the impacts of severe winters.”
This was very interesting to me. I said this on the other thread.
Guys from other states may understand more than some in MI realize. Chain saw anyone?
They want everyone to let “Their” deer go and let them grow into big bucks.......
They are practicing 1980’s mentality of shooting only bucks.....
I agree with you, yet, we always want to blame someone else.
Supplemental feeding is not a long term fix. Only habitat improvement is. Yet we have guys who refuse to do this but will blame others for the problem. IMHO.
Honestly, I am not trying to fight. The paragraphs on habitat from Kevin's post were the most important in my view.
No problem Missouribreaks.
I've had people tell me I'm just a "traditionalist" and "stuck in the past," and to a certain extent that might be true. In my opinion, and as you can see by many of the posts on this thread, deer hunting is slowly morphing into something that many of us don't even recognize.
Do we really want deer hunting to become an activity reserved only for the "hard core deer hunters," "habitat managers" and those willing to "sacrifice" large amounts of time, effort, and financial resources in order to attract, grow, and protect deer.
Now, before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, make NO mistake about this.
I have nothing against hunters who choose to do those things. NOTHING.
I admire anyone who puts that much time, effort and financial resources into their passion.
What I have a problem with, and what I truly believe will be the ultimate demise of deer hunting, is the notion that the "everyman deer hunter," the average Joe that just wants to take part in an age old pastime, have the opportunity to shoot any legal deer he chooses to, is no longer welcome, or no longer has a voice.
The notion that unless one is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars for land and equipment, hundreds of hours of their valuable time in order to become farmers, habitat managers, and experts in animal husbandry, herd dynamics, and all things QDMA, he is not welcome show up at camp, fellowship with friends and family, and do what the game departments really want which is buy a tag or two and fill them.
It definitely sounds like the NRC lets private interests and politics dictate wildlife policy. That's sad.
I'm also not sure why habitat improvements would be encouraged, if deer populations are already too high. That seems counter-productive to me, just like feeding does.
Somebody with the expertise and authority to dictate sound wildlife goals and policies needs to make those decisions in MI. Allowing private interests, or the general public, or politicians, to dictate those policies is woefully stupid, IMO.
What some people keep failing to realize is that in MI, there are HUGE differences in deer populations based on region (shotgun zone - LP, rifle zone - LP, Upper Peninsula), as well as individual DMUs, and even within individual DMUs.
Overall, the DNR believes that MI has too many deer, but those deer are not dispersed evenly throughout the state...not even close.
So yes, it's easy to not understand how those things can be an issue, because with all due respect you don't understand how those things can be an issue.
Unlike a state like Iowa (that keeps being referenced) Michigan is not comprised of predominantly one time of habitat, and the public/private land patterns are nowhere close to being the same.
I could clear cut my entire property...... and improve the habitat for deer and grouse......
Or leave it the way it is.... and benefit shade loving animals like bears.......
That’s the beauty of it. It’s my land.
To improve the deer habitat in the U.P. ,,, You can start at the eastern end of the U.P. and don’t quit until you cut down every last tree in the U.P.,,,,,
The loggers are probably the best thing for deer habitat.
There still is plenty of room for average Joe, he just has to adapt. I grew up in the concrete jungle. I adapted and according to some here I am not that bright so if I can do it, most can. Someone else said this early on and I agree with them.
The guy who shoots what he wants is always welcome on my farm as long as he practices low impact hunting. No size restrictions other than the state's.
Matt, that habitat in the UP must be improved just for the numbers they have today. We probably all have a long term challenge in getting to correct harvest numbers due to demographics.
I appreciate the tone guys. I recognize I am not in MI, but being this was started on the national forum and it is of interest to me, I threw my hat in. Thanks.
From a distance, it's easy to say state A has "X" amount of private land and so does State B, so what's the big deal?
However when you take a closer look, when state A is overwhelmingly comprised of large tracts of contiguous farm land and state B overwhelmingly comprised of small tracts of non-farm land, or even larger tracts of forest land, one can then see that not even all "private" and is created equal.
Private land patterns can and often do make all the difference, like how large are the parcels and how many of those parcels are bordered by public land?
Take our personal situation. We own 40 acres that is surrounded on all 4 sides by massive (for our area) tracts of federal forest land which is heavily hunted. Even if we turned our entire 40 acres into nothing but a food plot (which is not even possible because of the type of land it is) it would be a complete waste of time, effort, and finances in terms of improving my personal deer hunting.
Instead, I accept my little postage stamp for exactly what it is, plant some things where I can that might attract deer (if the bears don't destroy them), hang a feeder where and when needed (if legal) and enjoy my time hunting there.
I suspect BB and JL will tell you almost exactly the same story, as will thousands upon thousands of other average Joe hunters in MI.
Back to the NRC.....they are regular folks but it seems some come into the job with an agenda. When you have special interest groups with the same agenda politicking those same commissioners....well, bad or damaging regs is what happens.
Kevin...have you thought about trying to get on the NRC? I would like to see Jim S. go for it.
I have some great memories from my little slice of heaven... including killing a bear on my own property with my good buddy up there with me.... I don’t need to improve the hunting there to enjoy my place. It’s mine.... and that’s enough for me.
Do you think that's a unique situation to Michigan only? I can't think of a state with more diverse habitat and wild game populations than my state. From the eastern plains to the front range to the Rocky Mountains to the western slope, Colorado is like 4 different states bundled in one. Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, etc..all have similar challenges. Our wildlife management isn't perfect by any means, but it seems a far cry better than MI's.
I do truly hope your DNR figures it out.
Years ago Colorado was suffering from a different problem than MI. We were facing a severe decline in our Mule deer populations. Our wildlife managers made the decision to go to a state-wide limited draw system for all deer in all units. It was an extremely controversial and unpopular decision at the time. Now, I think most Colorado deer hunters would agree it was the best decision they could have made.
My point is, sometimes the most unpopular regulations turn out to be the best ones.
Of course not, but comparing Michigan to Iowa, like you seem to want to do, is not even like comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to socket wrenches.
I would have no problem with a one buck rule, even after being one that has taken two bucks in one year, on multiple occasions, on the combo-tag.
Having said that, Michigan has always been a more of a "maximum opportunity" state than a "maximum trophy buck" state (for lack of better terms). Over the counter buck tags (both resident and non-resident), liberal either sex rules for bow hunters and, lengthy seasons is not necessarily conducive to growing big bucks.
Granted, in a perfect world it would be great to have both, but I would without question choose "maximum opportunity" if I could only have one.
Not a chance, for a variety of reasons...including the fact that I don't think I'm qualified. It's not enough to simply want to advance a pet project, it has to be more than that in my opinion.
I would wholeheartedly support Jim though.
There are special permit areas in KS where the hunter is required to kill a doe first, before taking one buck, all under one tag fee. Something similar sounds like it may work in certain areas of MI.
I could see where EAB might work in the shotgun zone where populations are high and much of the land is private.
In the rifle zone, where much more of the land is public, you run the real risk of decimating populations on public land and doing very little to lower populations on the larger tracts of private land.
Managing DMU by DMU would be the best approach, but you and I both know MI doesn't have the resources to do that...especially in the era of CWD where so many of the available resources go in that direction.
I didn't suggest it would work for the whole state, only certain areas. I don't think MI is ever going to get anywhere with their antiquated broad-brushed approach.
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
Visited the QDMA site today since I had not been there in forever. Here is a copy of what appears to be the standard letter they use to state their position on baiting. A quick perusal of the site showed this letter sent to multiple states considering baiting law changes. This is just for information only.
This got me thinking though...Maybe there is a point to us folks outside of MI not really knowing what is going on, but what about those inside MI who support the QDMA's position?
Also, I thought I read somewhere above that doe harvests were not supported, that the QDMA guys only want big bucks. That is not true according to their site, so if there is a bunch of MI QDMA guys run amok, maybe the national office ought to be notified? I did say "if", so I am not accusing anyone, please understand.
I think your view may have some merit. I have actually given this some thought. Should we also then eliminate agriculture fields because deer congregate there? Where does it end. I admit I am biased but I see a big difference in size of even a .25 acre "kill" plot versus a pile or small electric feeder. Again, I admit my bias.
Predators, would they have an easier time attacking animals at a bait site or a larger plot? What about the public's perception, many said this was not an issue but QDMA refer to several surveys that say otherwise.
FYI, on state land here there are crops in areas, and I remember one near Battle Creek that I hunted that had some back in '81-83. I don't know if it is still common there? This was before QDMA, so I have to think biologists supported it back then and still do today? Does that make sense?
EDIT; had to change the years, LOL. Forgot when I lived there.
This has been mentioned many times on this forum. By the way, I am a private land owner, and bait plotter.
Again, I agree about their motivations. But if bait plots mainly draw animals after dark, does that argument still work? As posted previously, my plot has animals in it at home, nary a visit by deer on the feeder. Plots work better IMHO.
But, I don't want to rehash it all. One argument was that us out of staters did not know enough, yet some in staters have the same views.
I would also say whatever we think of QDMA today, it's origins probably were what a group of folks thought was best for conservation. Their goal probably had them look at the science, not the emotions. I could be wrong, I understand.
I agree. This position letter is much ado about nothing in that it's not really a surprise that QDMA would take a position on baiting that supports their own efforts and those of their 60,000 members.
It sounds very official and scientific, but lets take a deeper look at each bullet point.
• Baiting has the potential to accelerate transmission of diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD) and bovine tuberculosis (TB) should they ever be discovered in Alabama.
**As does food plotting, and any other activity that encourages animal to animal contact.
• Numerous national surveys confirm that the vast majority of the hunting and non-hunting public objects to hunting over bait.
**As does killing bucks based solely on antler size. Much of the hunting and non-hunting public abhors what they consider to be “trophy hunting.”
• Legalization of baiting has been shown to create both “offensive” and “defensive” baiting situations among neighboring hunters, thus increasing conflicts.
**As does any foot source constructed by humans and attracts deer from neighboring properties. Plot vs plot. Bait vs plot. Bait vs bait.
• Baiting can alter deer behavior patterns, increasing movement and feeding activity at night rather than during the day. Research has clearly shown that deer harvest does not increase with legalized baiting.
**As does any man made food source as well has hunter pressure. When deer detect pressure in or around a food source, movements at that food source become increasingly more nocturnal.
• Experience in other states suggests a 4- to 8-fold increase in the amount of artificial food on the landscape following legalization of baiting.
**Anything humans do to increase food supply for deer increases food on the landscape. The term “artificial” is meaningless in that corn is corn, apples are apples, sugar beets are sugar beets, carrots are carrots, peas are peas and hay is hay. Moving them from one spot to another doesn’t magically make them “artificial.”
• Evidence confirms that predators key in on feed sites to ambush deer – thus increasing deer mortality rates.
**Predators key in on ALL food and watering sources looking to ambush prey.
• Baiting has been shown to increase reproduction/spread of nuisance animals such as feral hogs and raccoons.
** As does the increase of any food source intended for consumption by wild animals.
OK, that's one side of the argument. The other side lists the pros. Now, let's say I am the dumbest and most ill-informed guy here. But here's where I just can't get my head wrapped around your view. I think the experts, the biologists, are trained to think scientifically. So, they compare the pros and cons, at least logic tells us they would. And the pros outweigh the cons in every state in their view, as plots are allowed every where. OTH, 50% of states outlaw baiting.
I also have a difficult time accepting the QDMA guys have that much clout, regardless of their motivations. There are 60K members nationwide, probably close to or above 1 million hunters in MI alone?
I ask we try not to move the goal posts. I accepted my opinion should not matter since I am not living in MI, or at least in recent history. So, again what about the guys who do live there that don't hold your view? I think I am logical, I am trying to look at the facts, where exactly are the facts I have laid out wrong? Thanks.
I can't say for sure. I do know that the QDMA proponents along with the APR proponents (often times one in the same) are very well organized, and well funded, and they have the ears of the NRC.
Unfortunately, those on the other side...not so much.
I can say that at least in my opinion, if this was all truly based on "science," why would they follow the "science" for the LP and not follow the "science" for the UP? If the NRC wants Michigan's deer hunters to believe it is about "science", they need to be consistent. In this case, they've undercut their own credibility by not doing so.
This leads most thinking people to conclude that there is more at play here than just "science." At least those that are actually familiar with what has transpired here in the state of MI over the last number of years.
Like I said, I might be the dumbest guy here...
If this were just about rack size, and food was all it took, wouldn't these same guys practicing QDMA just spend all of their money to have the best bait piles? They would still attract most of the deer, and it would cost them a lot less. Maybe they are dumber than me even? LOL!
Maybe there is more at play. Maybe the guys who want things to remain the way they are use rack size to attack the QDMA folks just like the QDMA folks use disease as an attack?
I am on the outside, but have a small connection with limited experience. I try to learn as much as possible. Here's were I am at, and remember I own a small property with about zero chance of growing and keeping a buck to maturity that I will harvest.
Hunters and non-hunters alike probably believe in a healthy herd. Most would probably agree a healthy herd means balanced gender ratios, proper age structure, numbers within the carrying capacity of the habitat, disease free, not a nuisance, etc. Practitioners of QDMA, according to their site, work to achieve these goals. They believe the 5 ingredients of habitat are all important, they don't believe in neighbors competing with each other to get the biggest buck, but in forming cooperatives. They believe in aggressive doe harvests where needed. And yes, they believe a healthy herd will be reflected by high fawn recruitment, high survival rates and also heavier bodies and skeletal structure including racks amongst other things. Now, you tell this to the decision makers, to look at the pros and cons, and to me this is what is at play. Not back deal, smoke filled room agreements. This really is a no-brainer IMHO to any thinking person.
QDMA members probably also realize if any of this is to get done, it probably won't happen via government with limited budgets and competing constituencies. It has to happen via those private markets others said are much more efficient.
You guys have forced me to think, thank you! I need to re-join the QDMA. Again, I have no reason to look at anything other than where I believe the logic and science take me. I personally will most likely never benefit from my efforts by shooting a buck on my property that comes with bragging rights and the front cover of a glossy magazine. This is just truly what I believe. I will always support your right to hunt whatever legal way the state confers including a crossbow over a bait pile as large as a small home, at night with a spot light and red-dot scope if allowed. At the same time, my hope is more of us will eventually see the QDMA as a more sound approach that benefits hunters and wildlife while protecting our passion and having the public believe we are solid conservationists necessary for a balanced eco-system.
Agreed, except the baiters can also do food plots. Maybe this is the state's goal?
And before you bring up not everyone can afford it etc, that is why QDMA encourages cooperatives. I know a guy who has equipment and does work for adjacent LOs, and takes it out on trade for labor. A really great guy;-) Bartering is still alive in our country!
I honestly think we have made some progress. We are coming to a close, and I believe on very cordial terms. I thank you!
No, I will not say anything about the public land guy. Remember though, I grew up in the city with zero access to any land, especially before I drove. Therein lies the rub for me. Many guys here complain about the way things used to be, with crossing a neighbor's fence without needing to ask, or just a hand shake and some labor maybe. Being from the city, that didn't work too well. But those same LOs liked what was in our wallets. Now from my perspective, the playing field was leveled. Not so much for those who lost access. The ones who lost out blamed the guys paying money, when in reality they should be blaming their neighbors.
Now, I own land and am trying to do right by it and the other resources. And, we still get criticized. Maybe Kevin has it right? Don't worry about what others think?
I will still try and do what I think is best, and I know all of you will is well. Maybe over time what each of us thinks is best will shift a little towards the other position, and we will have compromise and harmony. We can hope anyway! Thanks.
In my opinion, it's not just a private land/public land thing. In many cases, private land owners simply don't have any desire to become loggers, habitat managers, or quality deer managers (whatever that means).
I just don't happen to think that a person should have to do those things just to be able to attract a few deer to his property, if needed, in order to hunt them.
To each their own and call me selfish if you wish, but around here summer is to short as it is. I want to spend mine boating, not farming.
That’s exactly what the big clubs in “Club Country” used to do. They would have entire semi truck loads of sugar beets delivered to their clubs.
When The DNR placed limits on how much bait you can use.... Is about the same time that food plotting started to become popular......
They haven't released the name of the guy but I heard through the grapevine (my accountant's hairdresser's husband's cousin who knows a guy that talked to a guy that owns the local co-op) that the guy was a militant habitat manager.
Sounds plausible to me...I mean who else do you know that owns a backpack sprayer?
Actually, the suspect was caught and charged for illegally hunting over bait, according to JTV's article. Clearly not a QDMA guy.
A good way to buy less Christmas gifts is to bring up politics at the Thanksgiving dinner!
I know of quite a few "habitat managers" and "QDMA types" that use feeders, mineral licks. etc.
Heck, I know a few that have even posted on this thread that do both. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive by any means.
If a "habitat manager" makes habitat improvements and still utilizes a feeder and or supplements, what does that say about the confidence they have in the efficacy of the improvements they've made?
Sugar beet crush ????
Just can't make this stuff up.
Mine is not bait, I don't hunt over it. That makes it supplemental feed, it complements the adjacent wildlife food plot.
Trying to be more precise with my terms, as was asked of me.
I support how you legally hunt!
Same here BB. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise, I know I haven't. I've always supported both.
What I do find kind of interesting (hypocritical) though is that one can use "artificial" food to supplement habitat improvements, but somehow we are supposed to believe that used alone, and called bait (same thing, just different name) they are of no benefit, and even harmful, to wildlife.
In terms of mental gymnastics, that is one heck of a routine on the balance beam.
Maybe I should start calling my broadcast feeder a 400 square foot "no-till corn plot." Then I'll be a generous giver instead of a selfish taker.
Plenty of name calling and hypocrisy on both sides.
Kevin, I can't help that you would rather play word games than learn the difference between the two activities.
Chris, it is just my opinion that those of us who have been blest to own private land, AND have the means to be better stewards of the wildlife, are a bit self-centered if all they want to do is bait a public resource. Just my opinion, but I am convinced the science and majority of scientists think the cost/benefit analysis of baiting versus habitat clearly favors one activity over the other. Even the DNR communication that Kevin thought supported his views clearly portrays supplemental feeding as a stop gap, temporary measure and habitat improvement as the long term fix. What else can I say? We will continue to disagree, and some will use the disagreement to just take shots at another as an attempt to skew the facts their way.
I would have the same opinion of myself if I did not TRY and manage better for the resource. And I accept Chris that disagreement with my view comes from your honest perspective. We just disagree, and I am OK with that. We disagreed in the past about something even more important, and we have been able to continue cordial and respectful dialogue. I think both of us will continue on the same path. Thanks.
I was somewhat surprised to hear Mr. Stewart emphatically state the following:
“Our department has never said that by banning baiting and feeding, it will reduce or eliminate CWD in the landscape.”
(1:03 of audio at link)
This was the full quote. Not just the part that supports a certain position. Read the entire article.