Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Michigan Whitetail Deer Hunting' started by BigGriz, Mar 10, 2011.
LOL. The pot calling the kettle black? Gimme a break.
And I WISH i was going fishing
I have to agree with you . Their job is extremely tough and their decision is going to drasticaly effect a few things. I would be totaly against lifting the ban if we go back to the way it use to be and i would be for the lifting ot the ban if it points us in a forward direction. Lots to consider on how baiting will effect the areas with low densities. How long will hunters continue to hunt if more and more deer are drawn in and killed when there is very few to begin with. How long will hunters hunt without bait. How many hunters will hunt elsewhere. how do you enforce the limits. How severe of a fine gets incorporated. Should a one buck rule or apr be inplaced to protect some of the young bucks. The list goes on and on.If you sit down and think about all the ramifications there is a bunch to consider.
The man who asked that if they reinstate baiting in the LP they reinstate it in the entire LP, including the TB zone was way off base.
I know, right?
One of my idea's and others have mentioned this as well, I think the state should be divided into zones, 3 or 4,, maybe even 5 and manage them accordingly,, for both public and private land. The difference in hunting public vs. private land is drastic,, in all areas of the state. IMO, this MUST be addressed in this whole situation.
I actually think that's part of the latest Deer Management plan put out by the DNR last year.
Break up the state into regional areas and manage accordingly. This would eliminate current DMU's though and it seems that more people want smaller DMU's, not larger.
My confidence in the baiting ban being lifted changed into hopeful optimism of it's continuance after watching some of the meeting yesterday. I didn't see a single pro-baiter put baiting in a positive light as they spoke yesterday, just the opposite.
Which is a shame for them. This might have been the time where they'd of been further ahead if they just kept their mouths shut.
Honestly,, I don't think it even matters.
I believe a decision has already been made (on the baiting anyway, they're gonna bring it back in some form),,, and these meetings, polls, tally's that the members were keeping will just be used to deflect critisism(sp?) down the road when the announcement is made "official".
That's the way I'm seeing anyway. I could be wrong,, who knows.
Agreed. I've been telling people that baiting will be back, banned in the TB area, Kent County, and all counties bordering Kent County.
There won't be any changes in the CWD response plan except maybe a provision for wild vs fenced. The 50mile rule will remain in effect, should a deer in the wild in MI be found to have cwd then baiting will be banned forever. Fenced, chances are they'll do a repeat of what he just had.
They'll be able to use the last three years of banned baiting and increased testing to prove that the current response plan is effective. Which I feel it is.
Mind you, 90% or more of those who want baiting allowed are from Zone2. Keeping the bait ban in effect in those counties I mentioned won't see much outcry.
Sounds about right.
I believe he said something to the effect that "we call killing over bait shooting, not hunting."
monies collected from the courts for violations goe to the court, township and/or county. They will never earmark those funds to another entity. It's found money for them, the same way a traffic tic is "found money".
That said, you are still onto a good idea. The DNR should benefit from the baiting platform. Currently, they are diverting resources to enforcement--again, with no offsetting revenues. These are monies that could be better spent elsewhere.
Illegal baiting is still going to go on regardless of whatever policy comes out of the NRC. That being the case, the way to leverage an already bad situation is simply to make it more expensive for people who bait. After all, they are breaking the law, mind you. So, I say, tax bait at retail and earmark the tax revenues solely to the DNR. Call it a sin tax, because the only one paying the tax are the sinners!
I do take exception to your last statement however. If the NRC and politicians are excluded from the decision making process, who the heck do you say should make the decisions? Should these be put on a ballot on an election day? Should the shooting range ladies be in charge?
The meeting started promptly at 8:30 with six NRC members (Hurly Coleman being absent) and twenty DNR staff including soon-to-be Director Rodney Stokes, (it was his birthday). There were only seven members of the public in attendance at 8:30 with two more coming in by 9:00. The NRC policy committee on wildlife and fisheries had presentations by Russ Mason, Adam Bump, Brent Rudolph and Todd Grischke and ended at 9:34.
The public discussion on the Lower Peninsula deer baiting and feeding ban began at 10:00 with Dr. Schmidts discussion of the benefits vs. risk of baiting and feeding deer. On a map of North Americas sixty States and Provinces, only seven have total bans, twelve have restrictions and 41 have NO restrictions on baiting and feeding of deer. His slides were filled with scientific language like , MAY lead to, POSSIBLY lead to, PROBABILITY and CHANCE.
At 10:30 the public comment period began and at that time there were ninety-five people in the room including the NRC commissioners and DNR staff. There were 27 people who took the mike. One, Dave Wheeler from Lucky Buck Minerals, took a neutral stance on lifting the ban while promoting his products. (Interestingly, in the afternoon session he changed his position to support lifting the ban. I think his hypocracy was pointed out to him during the lunch break.)
There were twenty six speakers who took a position for or against lifting the ban. Eighteen speakers were for lifting the ban while eight spoke against lifting the ban. Ernie Birchmier from the Farm Bureau spoke twice against lifting the ban but I only counted him once. There were two speakers against lifting the ban who I thought to be arrogant and condescending with their comments, putting down those who support lifting the ban. Both meetings were for the most part civil and respectful. The NRC commissioners listened respectfully and attentively. I did feel sorry for Commissioner Matonich as he had a bad cold and coughed a lot, toward the microphone, oops.
At the public comment session at 4:30 PM only five speakers spoke on the baiting issue. Two of the five had spoken in the morning session so I did NOT count them again. Jim Sweeney (MunsterInd)did a great job explaining his position. I believe he earned the respect of the commissioners with his well thought out presentation as he was ask several questions after he concluded. I wish he had spoken in the morning session and been on TV, he is such a handsome guy. This brought the total to twenty one speakers for lifting the ban and eight speakers against lifting the ban.
Below is MY opinion;
I was disappointed that of all the speakers not one mentioned single bite or one bite baits. If the ban is to be lifted I believe the single bite rule would go a long way to ease the commissioners fear of contributing to the spread of disease. This could be achieved by spread grains or pellets AND by chopping up carrots, apples or sugar beets into 1x1 squares. This would avoid many animals feeding on the same piece of food. I also believe the commissioners are looking for a reason to reverse the ban but need ideas like this one to make an educated decision so lets help them out. Two gallon, maybe five gallon limits with single bite baits, spread out 10x10 along with increasing the penalties for non-compliance.
If you were there why didn't you "help them out"?
If it's that good of an idea, why didn't "Handsome Jim" bring it up?
Thanks in advance,
I literally busted out laughin' when he got up there and started speaking...
I want the ban to remain in place!! Except for these specially designed mineral supplements, that I sell.
(I'm paraphrasing, obviously)