Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
The state wildlife agencies?
All Things Habitat - Lets talk.....
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Is baiting counterproductive to gov't harvest objectives?
- Thread starter SD51555
- Start date
The state wildlife agencies?
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
Maybe it's always been this way but it sure seems like the wildlife commissioners in many of the states I pay attention to are becoming more and more political pawns than wildlife managers. Wack job governors in WA and CO are putting anti hunting advocates in commissioner seats. That's why WA lost their spring bear season despite the biologists supporting it. MT is stacking the commission with outfitter and rancher advocates at the cost of hunting for the common man.
Last edited:
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
It's bad enough when legislatures are making hunting/fishing laws based on which lobbyists scratch their backs.. Ideally the people making decisions for your wildlife agency would have the interest of the resource at heart rather than politics.
drycreek
5 year old buck +
Baiting has been legal in Texas ever since I’ve been alive. We have more deer now than ever, even with a five deer per season limit (if you hunt in the right places). I can kill three in my area, but never do. My feeder throws about 4/5 seconds twice a day from the middle of September until spring green up. I can’t see that amount of corn impacting the deer in either direction. The main attraction at my hunting places are the food plots When it gets cold, (by Texas standards), they will hang around the feeders a little longer, but many times I’ve seen them quit the feeder with corn on the ground to browse in the food plot, but after season, when natural browse is getting tough to find, I think it helps them to make it until spring, as does the plot. I can always tell when they are making on natural browse because my wheat starts growing taller overnight !
Last edited:
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
The husband of the Colorado governor (that’s right) was very influential in the wolf deal. He is a big anti hunting nut job.
b116757
5 year old buck +
I’m 100% certain my life would be better with no alphabet soup agencies of any kind.
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
So politicians responsible for game laws and sheriffs responsible for enforcement or just no game laws and enforcement? I'm open to reconsidering but have a hard time seeing how that works out well for wildlife.
In instances where the deer population is high, baiting / feeding only makes it worse, IMO. But in areas with low population for the habitat, B/F probably helps increase it.
In both cases it creates an artificially high(er) carrying capacity and probably contributes to boom/bust cycles.
The problem is, all of us have a different definition of high and low. People management is tough at best.
I personally also believe B/ F sites are prime for spreading diseases in the herd because deer aren’t meant to come back to the exact same spot to eat hundreds of times. They walk and browse in the wild……they don’t stand in one spot and eat off the ground where every other deer in the area did the same.
In both cases it creates an artificially high(er) carrying capacity and probably contributes to boom/bust cycles.
The problem is, all of us have a different definition of high and low. People management is tough at best.
I personally also believe B/ F sites are prime for spreading diseases in the herd because deer aren’t meant to come back to the exact same spot to eat hundreds of times. They walk and browse in the wild……they don’t stand in one spot and eat off the ground where every other deer in the area did the same.
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
I've not heard/considered the angle of being better off without a wildlife agency so trying to understand what a better alternative would be.
I think we ask elected officials to make a huge number of decisions on a breadth of issues that next to nobody has the knowledge or ability to be informed on. Just because it's their job doesn't mean it can/will get done well. I'd rather our wildlife decisions be made by wildlife professionals with social impacts taken into account rather than partisan rhetoric and having the most "convincing" lobbyists. It seems like we have had a pretty good track record in many places where wildlife agencies have been able to make a lot of decisions with some independence from politics but that seems to be trending the wrong direction. Hunters/Anglers have enjoyed the bulk of influence in wildlife agencies tasked with managing the entirety of a state's flora/fauna and unfortunately now politics seem to be pulling influence from hunters/anglers to animal rights activists (lefties) and commercial interests (righties).
Let me preface my comments by saying I am a trained wildlife biologist and worked for the Federal Govt in some form of Natural Resources for 34 years - so I do understand a lot how govt works.
That said, I do my share of complaining about decisions made by our game and fish department. Since I practiced in the Natural Resource field for many years, I feel I am qualified to say biologists tend to be condescending. To be fair, it is probably earned. I lived in small town USA. I had a good friend who was a state game and fish biologist. Both of us wore uniforms to work - but even when out of uniform, on our own time - when we were out of the house, we would commonly be approached by private citizens and questioned - or blamed - for things totally out of our control, and maybe even out of the state we lived in. After years of that, it can be easy to become hardened to the public.
I have experienced it myself - and probably been guilty of it. I one time was communicating with our state g&f about the lack of deer in my specific area and - in my opinion - a need for regulation change. They told me I wasnt seeing deer because it was too hot, or there were too many acorns, or the rut had not started - a plethora of explanations - from their office 200 miles away. I guess I bitched enough to where the state head deer biologist, assistant deer bio, and area bio all came to visit. It was a great meeting. We traveled my property, looked at browsing pressure, and talked for several hours. Bottomline from them - my deer density was low, but they couldnt manage every little corner of the county.
I think, we as land owners, often think what we see on our land is what everyone see’s - and that is most likely not the case. The land owner makes management decisions based on our narrow view of our own property. The state agency does not have that luxury. I might not like deer dogging - a lot of folks do. I might not want bait legalized, but a hunter on a 1000 acre timber company lease that has all been cut in the last ten years may never be able to see a deer without using bait to get them out of a thicket. The state agency has to take in all these considerations.
Biologists can look just at biological statistics - fawn recruitment, deer density, buck:doe ratios, age structure, browse pressure, etc. Our commissioners have to take into account all the biological data, and also consider the wants and desires of the users, user density, public vs private, financial concerns, manpower - a virtual universe of other concerns outside biological data. I have watched the videos and read the minutes of our commissioners meetings - and as a guess, I would say two thirds of their decisions are non-biological related.
All that said, being both a trained wildlife manager, and having worked in upper level natural resource management - I see the commissioners as a necessary component to making the bulk of a state’s game and fish decisions.
That said, I do my share of complaining about decisions made by our game and fish department. Since I practiced in the Natural Resource field for many years, I feel I am qualified to say biologists tend to be condescending. To be fair, it is probably earned. I lived in small town USA. I had a good friend who was a state game and fish biologist. Both of us wore uniforms to work - but even when out of uniform, on our own time - when we were out of the house, we would commonly be approached by private citizens and questioned - or blamed - for things totally out of our control, and maybe even out of the state we lived in. After years of that, it can be easy to become hardened to the public.
I have experienced it myself - and probably been guilty of it. I one time was communicating with our state g&f about the lack of deer in my specific area and - in my opinion - a need for regulation change. They told me I wasnt seeing deer because it was too hot, or there were too many acorns, or the rut had not started - a plethora of explanations - from their office 200 miles away. I guess I bitched enough to where the state head deer biologist, assistant deer bio, and area bio all came to visit. It was a great meeting. We traveled my property, looked at browsing pressure, and talked for several hours. Bottomline from them - my deer density was low, but they couldnt manage every little corner of the county.
I think, we as land owners, often think what we see on our land is what everyone see’s - and that is most likely not the case. The land owner makes management decisions based on our narrow view of our own property. The state agency does not have that luxury. I might not like deer dogging - a lot of folks do. I might not want bait legalized, but a hunter on a 1000 acre timber company lease that has all been cut in the last ten years may never be able to see a deer without using bait to get them out of a thicket. The state agency has to take in all these considerations.
Biologists can look just at biological statistics - fawn recruitment, deer density, buck:doe ratios, age structure, browse pressure, etc. Our commissioners have to take into account all the biological data, and also consider the wants and desires of the users, user density, public vs private, financial concerns, manpower - a virtual universe of other concerns outside biological data. I have watched the videos and read the minutes of our commissioners meetings - and as a guess, I would say two thirds of their decisions are non-biological related.
All that said, being both a trained wildlife manager, and having worked in upper level natural resource management - I see the commissioners as a necessary component to making the bulk of a state’s game and fish decisions.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I see both sides of the baiting argument. My conclusion is that sometimes it's fine, but under some circumstances it's not appropriate. If I was making the rules, it would generally be allowed in agriculture, urban, and suburban landscapes. But I would set aside some large wilderness areas where baiting and feeding wildlife of any kind was forbidden. I think this is a good solution that would offer a variety of opportunities for all types of hunters while excluding as few as possible.
I would ban all use of dogs for hunting deer, as I don't think it's ethical. Tracking dead or wounded deer with a dog on a leash would be allowed and encouraged.
I would ban all use of dogs for hunting deer, as I don't think it's ethical. Tracking dead or wounded deer with a dog on a leash would be allowed and encouraged.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
If we are decided ethics then bait should be off the table just as running dogs
In our state, where baiting is a way of life, baiting is not allowed on public lands. No USFS, not on USFWS, or USCEC, or state owned. A lot of land is closed to baiting - Just as half the state is closed to deer dogging.
Just curious - do you find rabbit, bear, or pheasant hunting with dogs ethical?
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I disagree, and I don't see the logic behind that statement.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
It depends on the type of dog and the type of hunting. Generally, I can't find any fault with pointers or setters. I don't think coursing is ethical. I don't think it's ethical to hunt bears with bay dogs. I'm undecided on tracking dogs on a leash for hunting bears.
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
It's a funny thing defining what is ethical and what isn't. Personally i'm not a fan of dogging and baiting deer and can take a stance against it without bringing the E word into it.
I don't think legalizing baiting would do much to help the population in N. MN because hardly anybody would feed outside hunting season. There's also the issue of concentrating deer to get hammered by wolves and having deer get habituated to bait to where they struggle to get by if that bait source disappears. I'm pretty sure feeding was legal up in Itasca county where my family's land until a couple years ago. I don't think it was heavily utilized in many areas.
I don't think legalizing baiting would do much to help the population in N. MN because hardly anybody would feed outside hunting season. There's also the issue of concentrating deer to get hammered by wolves and having deer get habituated to bait to where they struggle to get by if that bait source disappears. I'm pretty sure feeding was legal up in Itasca county where my family's land until a couple years ago. I don't think it was heavily utilized in many areas.
Last edited:
Let me go on record as saying I emphatically wish baiting was outlawed during deer season, but supplemental feeding allowed outside of deer season. Of course, all this hinges on food plots being legal. My own selfish desires.
Below is a picture including the area where I was in a hunting lease for bear. The openings you see are mostly new to a few year old clearcuts. The darker green is pine plantations which are usually cut at about 24 years. 99% of mast producing hardwood has been removed. Clearing or maintaining a clearing - as for a food plot is not permitted. Some timber companies do not allow planting at all. By far the majority of this ground - 100,000’s of thousands of acres in this picture alone are almost impenetrable - and for sure - so thick hunting is not even a thought “in the woods”. Most deer are killed as they cross a road or enter a 1 yr old - or less - clearcut.
Deer dogging has been practiced in these areas for years - baiting is a much newer practice. The point being - if you shut down deer dogs and baiting - there would be so many deer they would be the size of a black lab, not to mention, you probably could not drive through the area without hitting one. And, it would become a breeding nest of CWD.
So the question becomes - without baiting and or deer dogging - how do you harvest enough deer to keep the area from becoming over populated? While I am against baiting, I am not against deer dogging - by itself. But deer dogging almost always brings problems with it - in the form of the dogs getting off the lease onto a lease where they dont approve of dogging. Deer dogging used to be the main form of deer hunting in this area forty years and before. We rabbit hunt, bear hunt, bird hunt with dogs. What makes hunting a deer with a dog unethical?
These are questions a commissioner, but not a biologist, probably needs to answer. How to get enough deer killed to satisfy the biologists, without allowing baiting or dogging - and pleasing a majority of hunters?
No easy answers.
Below is a picture including the area where I was in a hunting lease for bear. The openings you see are mostly new to a few year old clearcuts. The darker green is pine plantations which are usually cut at about 24 years. 99% of mast producing hardwood has been removed. Clearing or maintaining a clearing - as for a food plot is not permitted. Some timber companies do not allow planting at all. By far the majority of this ground - 100,000’s of thousands of acres in this picture alone are almost impenetrable - and for sure - so thick hunting is not even a thought “in the woods”. Most deer are killed as they cross a road or enter a 1 yr old - or less - clearcut.
Deer dogging has been practiced in these areas for years - baiting is a much newer practice. The point being - if you shut down deer dogs and baiting - there would be so many deer they would be the size of a black lab, not to mention, you probably could not drive through the area without hitting one. And, it would become a breeding nest of CWD.
So the question becomes - without baiting and or deer dogging - how do you harvest enough deer to keep the area from becoming over populated? While I am against baiting, I am not against deer dogging - by itself. But deer dogging almost always brings problems with it - in the form of the dogs getting off the lease onto a lease where they dont approve of dogging. Deer dogging used to be the main form of deer hunting in this area forty years and before. We rabbit hunt, bear hunt, bird hunt with dogs. What makes hunting a deer with a dog unethical?
These are questions a commissioner, but not a biologist, probably needs to answer. How to get enough deer killed to satisfy the biologists, without allowing baiting or dogging - and pleasing a majority of hunters?
No easy answers.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that baiting could be considered unethical from an objective point of view.
Releasing dogs to chase after deer causes unnecessary distress to the animals, and is therefor unethical. This is before you consider the ethical questions of having dogs running across private property against the wishes of the property owners.
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
So in that case, are human deer drives also unethical?
