Is baiting counterproductive to gov't harvest objectives?

[Telemark]

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.

View attachment 55049

To the first point, traditions are not inherently ethical. Slavery is a good example.

To your second point, you made it quite clear that the way they manage the land is what's causing the problem. So to answer your question, they should manage their land differently if they want to shoot more deer.

Your assertion that it would necessarily become a hotbed for CWD and tiny deer is a false premise and calls for speculation. I have not seen any convincing evidence that this would necessarily be the case or that it is even likely. I also have not seen convincing evidence that small body size is inherently problematic for deer. In fact animals small for their species tend to live longer.

 

[Telemark]

So in that case, are human deer drives also unethical?

Based on what I have resd, it is not, especially if the drivers are rather loud. It doesn't seem that humans can move fast enough to really distress a deer. If you move quietly, you might startle a deer, but they generally run off and calm right down. If you move loudly, they tend to stay far ahead of the drivers and move more slowly and purposefully away from the source of the noise.

 

[SwampCat]

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.

I am not questioning the ethics of anyone’s opinion. I have my own opinions also. Just to show the difficult decisions game and fish Departments have to make - a lot which are outside of a biological answer. I know folks who would quit deer hunting if dogs were not allowed. Their dads did it and so did their grand dads. It was the normal way to hunt. From a strictly biological point of view - it can be an effective way to kill deer in areas of low visibility - and a good method to harvest enough deer to prevent overpopulation. The commissioner hears the biologist request to kill so many deer to prevent over population. The commissioner has to decide how to do it, knowing there are large numbers of dog hunters who have historically hunted the area, large numbers of hunters who dont want a deer dog crossing into their lease. The commissioners also know baiting will help hunters kill more deer - but not everyone agrees with baiting. What our game and fish did - they allow dogging - and granted there are arguments between leases - but they also gave half the season to still hunters and half to dog hunters. Baiting is allowed on private land, but not public. These decisions were probably not best answered by a biologist. It is for sure a juggling act.

I remember a time when I worked for the feds on a public reservoir. We had deep cold water fishes like stripers, upper layer warm water species, trout in the cold tail water, and native cool water fish like smallmouth further downstream. We thought we had the perfect plan to give something to everyone and patted ourselves on the back before the public meeting. Nobody, not one member of public was satisfied - they all thought they werent getting enough and the other special interest groups were getting too much. We left that meeting with our tails between our legs.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

I’ve tracked hundreds of deer off lead and the idea that we should have to do it “on lead” is one that I see as an emotional decision not rooted in the reality of the situation…….99% of all the deer we recover are mortally wounded in some form or fashion and all a lead does is make it more difficult and less efficient at recovering these deer.

 

[Telemark]

We thought we had the perfect plan to give something to everyone and patted ourselves on the back before the public meeting. Nobody, not one member of public was satisfied - they all thought they werent getting enough and the other special interest groups were getting too much. We left that meeting with our tails between our legs.

Objectively, you did a good job. Who cares what a bunch of selfish pricks want?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I disagree, and I don't see the logic behind that statement.

That’s fine. I think baiting is every bit as unethical as being chased by a dog. It’s taking candy from a baby. But ethics are to each their own.

 

[Telemark]

I’ve tracked hundreds of deer off lead and the idea that we should have to do it “on lead” is one that I see as an emotional decision not rooted in the reality of the situation…….99% of all the deer we recover are mortally wounded in some form or fashion and all a lead does is make it more difficult and less efficient at recovering these deer.

I've tracked deer on a lead, and it did make it more difficult than if the dog had been off lead. The point of having the lead is to prevent people hunting with loose dogs and pretending like they are tracking a wounded deer. I suppose it could be reasonable to have a certification program for dogs who can prove themselves to be uninterested in live animals and stay focused on tracking the wounded deer, especially smaller dogs that can't run very fast.

 

[Telemark]

That’s fine. I think baiting is every bit as unethical as being chased by a dog. It’s taking candy from a baby. But ethics are to each their own.

It's ot unethical to make it easier to kill an animal if your goal is to kill an animal for food. There's a strong argument that making it easier to kill your quarry is MORE ethical, as it increases the odds of making a clean kill. The argument against dogs has to do with causing unnecessary distress to the deer, not making the hunt less challenging for the hunter.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

It's ot unethical to make it easier to kill an animal if your goal is to kill an animal for food. There's a strong argument that making it easier to kill your quarry is MORE ethical, as it increases the odds of making a clean kill. The argument against dogs has to do with causing unnecessary distress to the deer, not making the hunt less challenging for the hunter.

If you goal is to kill an animal for food and not distress them let’s shoot them at night with infrared. They won’t know what hit them.

I respect your opinion though and I have mine as well. There’s no scenario where taking a deer with his head in a feeder is ethical to ME.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

I've tracked deer on a lead, and it did make it more difficult than if the dog had been off lead. The point of having the lead is to prevent people hunting with loose dogs and pretending like they are tracking a wounded deer. I suppose it could be reasonable to have a certification program for dogs who can prove themselves to be uninterested in live animals and stay focused on tracking the wounded deer, especially smaller dogs that can't run very fast.

Folks arent doing that though…….You’re inventing a problem where there isnt one. The only real issue down here is a political one where dog hunters try to draw an equivalency with tracking and use that as justification for allowing dog running. They arent the same though. I know exactly what goes on with trackers and we’re simply running salvage missions aimed at recovering specific wounded individuals.

 

[SwampCat]

If you goal is to kill an animal for food and not distress them let’s shoot them at night with infrared. They won’t know what hit them.

I respect your opinion though and I have mine as well. There’s no scenario where taking a deer with his head in a feeder is ethical to ME.

This is a great discussion. I bait, as do most folks I know. I have killed one deer over bait in my 53 years of deer hunting - not that it means anything.I have killed over 100 not over bait

If baiting were required to get the deer out of the thickets, to kill enough deer to meet biologist harvest goals - would you still be against baiting?

 

[Telemark]

If you goal is to kill an animal for food and not distress them let’s shoot them at night with infrared. They won’t know what hit them.

I respect your opinion though and I have mine as well. There’s no scenario where taking a deer with his head in a feeder is ethical to ME.

I do shoot deer at night with infra red. You're right, they never know what hit them. I don't have any problem with night scopes, thermals, or even spotlights from an ethical standpoint. I wouldn't exactly call it hunting, but we have a quota of wild deer to kill on some farmland, and we use whatever legal means we can to get them in the freezer as quickly and cleanly as possible.

What do you find unethical about deer feeders?

 

[Telemark]

Folks arent doing that though…….You’re inventing a problem where there isnt one. The only real issue down here is a political one where dog hunters try to draw an equivalency with tracking and use that as justification for allowing dog running. They arent the same though. I know exactly what goes on with trackers and we’re simply running salvage missions aimed at recovering specific wounded individuals.

I've already stated that I'm in favor of using dogs to track dead or wounded animals, and I know they can be trained to do the job properly without a lead. By your own admission, the guys hunting with dogs equate it to tracking with dogs.

Folks arent doing that though

Aren't doing what?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

This is a great discussion. I bait, as do most folks I know. I have killed one deer over bait in my 53 years of deer hunting - not that it means anything.I have killed over 100 not over bait

If baiting were required to get the deer out of the thickets, to kill enough deer to meet biologist harvest goals - would you still be against baiting?

Yes. But look I may not be rational in my approach. My ethics are not everyone else’s, I realize that. I wouldn’t shoot a 200” deer eating a pile of corn…and not only is it legal where I hunt it’s in the Bible of Kentucky Hunting. My personal belief is if there are so many deer to where we need to harvest a bunch than hunting thick stuff wouldn’t matter. You will still see them. If they are holed up in thick stuff and never being seen then it doesn’t sound like the population is out of whack.
I hunted thick nasty pine timber company crap in southwest Georgia for 10 years plus. There were entire weekends I wouldn’t see a deer. Never once did I think I needed to lower the bar to make it easier. Instead I thought, I damn sure better get better at hunting or this will be tough. It was motivation. I studied topo maps and aerial photos and put boots on the ground in the off-season. I didnt get to a clearing a fill a feeder 2 weeks before the season. To each their own I reckon.
But we are probably talking two different things. Harvest goals v hunter ethics. I agree with the folks that say bait probably artificially inflated carrying capacity anyway. It’s not addressing the problem it’s creating the problem. What’s the carrying capacity of South Texas without a corn feeder? Or even Weyerhaeuser land in the Deep South? It’s horrible. But feed and you can hold a lot more animals.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I do shoot deer at night with infra red. You're right, they never know what hit them. I don't have any problem with night scopes, thermals, or even spotlights from an ethical standpoint. I wouldn't exactly call it hunting, but we have a quota of wild deer to kill on some farmland, and we use whatever legal means we can to get them in the freezer as quickly and cleanly as possible.

What do you find unethical about deer feeders?

Man I have already derailed this thread! I can go way into my beliefs and somewhat did on the response to swamp cat but maybe in another thread. i am HUGE on hunting an animal on his terms. Especially a mature buck.
I know my opinion is not popular or even “nice” and that’s fine with me. It’s a hill I don’t mind dying on.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

By your own admission, the guys hunting with dogs equate it to tracking with dogs.




Aren't doing what?

No, I said they “try to” simply for the purpose of trying to advance their cause on the political stage. The reality of the two is not the same and any reasonable person would see it that way.



People arent dog running and pretending their tracking deer. You’re inventing that problem where there isnt one occurring…..at least not in my part of the world.

 

[Telemark]

People arent dog running and pretending their tracking deer. You’re inventing that problem where there isnt one occurring…..at least not in my part of the world.

Fair enough. If I were king, no leashes necessary for tracking wounded or dead deer in your part of the world, unless it becomes a problem.

 

[Mtyhunter]

This got kinda deep pretty quick, but it's cool that everyone is respectful of opinions/beliefs...
Like swampcat, I've taken 90% of my deer over no bait. I don't use feeders, (PITA) but I am guilty of buying a bag every now and then, hauling it over my shoulder 3-400 yds, and sprinkling most of it on the ground around my cameras, what's left in a shooting lane or two. Being an older dude, you know I'm not doing that every time i go out, too damn physical and I hate going into my hunting areas unless I'm hunting.
Some would argue that putting in food plots, water holes, crops, hinge cuts, etc are the same thing as baiting, and perhaps they shouldn't be hunted over either. I don't know the right answer, but it seems the dividing line may be due to sweat equity. I agree there's no comparison to the great habitat management you all do as compared to a guy who only hauls hundreds of pounds of corn to a feeder during the season.
Dogs for deer hunting is a weird topic for me, and I don't understand the allure. I know its tradition in a lot of areas, but to me, that would be like chasing one down with my 4 wheeler. Not fair chase.
Dogs for waterfowl, game birds, rabbits, even hogs, of course I support that. Tracking dogs, on a leash, makes no sense to me. I guess 1 bad apple at one time has spoiled the bunch. I know noone can see the invisible halo over their heads, but the guys/girls I've been around doing the tracking are great ppl who have no interest in violating any law. Watching dogs work is more enjoyable to me than the actual harvest.
I know I'm all over the board, but that's my .02 worth!

 

[SwampCat]

Yes. But look I may not be rational in my approach. My ethics are not everyone else’s, I realize that. I wouldn’t shoot a 200” deer eating a pile of corn…and not only is it legal where I hunt it’s in the Bible of Kentucky Hunting. My personal belief is if there are so many deer to where we need to harvest a bunch than hunting thick stuff wouldn’t matter. You will still see them. If they are holed up in thick stuff and never being seen then it doesn’t sound like the population is out of whack.
I hunted thick nasty pine timber company crap in southwest Georgia for 10 years plus. There were entire weekends I wouldn’t see a deer. Never once did I think I needed to lower the bar to make it easier. Instead I thought, I damn sure better get better at hunting or this will be tough. It was motivation. I studied topo maps and aerial photos and put boots on the ground in the off-season. I didnt get to a clearing a fill a feeder 2 weeks before the season. To each their own I reckon.
But we are probably talking two different things. Harvest goals v hunter ethics. I agree with the folks that say bait probably artificially inflated carrying capacity anyway. It’s not addressing the problem it’s creating the problem. What’s the carrying capacity of South Texas without a corn feeder? Or even Weyerhaeuser land in the Deep South? It’s horrible. But feed and you can hold a lot more animals.

You have to compound our regulations here with a 3 pt rule on one side - a rule I love, by the way. The problem with it - on these commercial timberland leases - it is difficult to determine if you are looking at a legal deer when one walks across a fifteen foot wide road, 100 yards away. Does it have enough points? Dont think about KY - think about an area were the average 5 yr old buck is around 105”. Is it a doe or a nubbin head - nubbin heads count as a buck - so most folks are hesitant shooting an antlerless deer. Bow hunting is extremely difficult, where you have 1000 acres of lease and ten acres of hardwood and no acorn crop that year.

I have seen our hunting almost 45 years ago. No baiting and lots of does - because of restrictive antlerless harvest regulations. I have seen our local herd dwindle to nothing - literally a ten day camera survey on 350 acres turning up 4 adult does. This after baiting became entrenched.

Fortunately, my land is not commercial timberland. But I have hunted commercial timberland - and it is decidedly more difficult if you dont bait - which I never did on commercial land - than hunting private land with hardwood and food plots. The most difficult hunting I have ever experienced was in Goergia in the early 70’s - no baiting was allowed. We hunted every weekend of the season - maybe six weeks - and then antlerless season at Christmas - and were lucky to see three or four deer the whole time.

In my opinion, deer density is strictly about regulations. Many poeple bait with corn, but most only do it for two months. Most folks recognize corn does not provide much nutrition - especially over two months.

Again, this is not so much about individual ethics and selfishness - as it is to illustrate the difficulties our game and fish departments have in regulating our wildlife resources. But of course, individual ethics and selfishness is what makes setting these regulations so difficult.

 

[Turkish]

the public.

You mean taxpayers? Your employer?

Sorry. Couldn’t resist. I give the same reminder to many civil servant friends and family members. They roll their eyes, too, but they know I’m right. :)