Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
Funny how he referenced the wildlife agency “wanting control” of the wildlife as the nefarious part. How ironic.
Kansas lawmakers threaten wildlife department funding
- Thread starter Catscratch
- Start date
sandbur
5 year old buck +
I would like clarification on the No trail cam use on public land in Minnesota. I have never heard of it and suspect it is common for many bear hunters.
We do have state forests, state WMA’s, county lands,federal lands, many of which will now become tribal. This ban is clear as mud!
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
Ha, good luck finding all the answers in one place!
Only DNR regs i recall is that they can't be left overnight on WMA's, WPAs, or NWR. Otherwise the related regulations are up to each individual land agency and can be specific to the specific parcel/area. USFS has no regulations against trail cams but an individual national forest may. There was no regs against them in the limited national forests i've looked into in MN. My understanding on County managed tax forfeit lands (which there is a lot of surrounding my parent's land) is it's up to the individual county to create the regs on that. Then there's the corp timber lands which allow public hunting - I don't recall but at least the blandin lands might not allow leaving cams?
Turkey Creek
5 year old buck +
This is one of those times I would like to express my true feelings on the issue, but as a business owner in the wildlife world I can't afford to be as direct as I would like.
I agree that the state legislators threatening the Game and Fish with budget cuts is absolute BS! Regardless of your thought on the issue you have a agency in place that for all intensive purposes I believe acts in the best interest of the hunters and wildlife they purse. Without the sale of hunting and fishing permits that agency would not be able to exist. Yes, there are times biologists don't have any common sense and/ or are fresh out of college. You have 2 state senators that benefit from the current system. One of them owns Ravenwood Hunting, I can guarantee they dump out truck loads of corn to capitalize on the hunters that pay them $1,000 for a 3 day hunt. So a state legislator with absolutely no training as a wildlife biologist thinks he knows more than the biologists that work for the state. We had the same issue when I lived in Nebraska. One state legislators who is well known for basically holding the legislature hostage decided he didnt like the idea of hunting Mountain Lions. Threatened to filibuster the Game and Parks budget unless they gave him what he wanted.
The biggest proponents against the idea of a baiting ban are only doing so for strictly financial reasons, direct loss of income to them. The arguments that they have come up with are absolute BS none of them hold water if you look at the facts. There are a number of states that kill big bucks that do not allow baiting.
I agree that the state legislators threatening the Game and Fish with budget cuts is absolute BS! Regardless of your thought on the issue you have a agency in place that for all intensive purposes I believe acts in the best interest of the hunters and wildlife they purse. Without the sale of hunting and fishing permits that agency would not be able to exist. Yes, there are times biologists don't have any common sense and/ or are fresh out of college. You have 2 state senators that benefit from the current system. One of them owns Ravenwood Hunting, I can guarantee they dump out truck loads of corn to capitalize on the hunters that pay them $1,000 for a 3 day hunt. So a state legislator with absolutely no training as a wildlife biologist thinks he knows more than the biologists that work for the state. We had the same issue when I lived in Nebraska. One state legislators who is well known for basically holding the legislature hostage decided he didnt like the idea of hunting Mountain Lions. Threatened to filibuster the Game and Parks budget unless they gave him what he wanted.
The biggest proponents against the idea of a baiting ban are only doing so for strictly financial reasons, direct loss of income to them. The arguments that they have come up with are absolute BS none of them hold water if you look at the facts. There are a number of states that kill big bucks that do not allow baiting.
Last edited:
Wind Gypsy
5 year old buck +
*$3000 for a 3 day hunt if I read the article right. $1000 per day with a min of 3 days.
Turkey Creek
5 year old buck +
That could be true. I read the article on-line last night published by a local news source. I could have read it wrong. My point remains the same..... those in favor of continuing baiting are only doing so as a means to put more $$$ in their pockets.
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
I think WMA's is no cameras at all, and on USFW properties you can technically put them up, but they cannot be left overnight. State forests you can leave them up for up to 14 days. I have written state and federal agencies in MN and have received conflicting information, so there is that. If you search for an answer online, you are left to forums like this one for an unofficial response.
b116757
5 year old buck +
I make a great deal of $$$ leasing out hunting land in Kansas. As far as baiting I could probably take it or leave it, in fact on my properties given my wildlife plantings I would command an even higher premium on leases if it was stopped most people however wouldn’t be able to say that. As far as CWD I’m not entirely sure the science is settled that it would even make a difference stopping the practice of baiting and if it does then should food plots of any size not intended for actual harvest also be banned? The entire CWD argument on the part of Game and Fish could just as easily be an anti hunter tactic used for political purposes as the Kansas politician argument is for financial ones. And finally I’m pretty sure the entire department of Wildlife and parks could go away and I’d never notice so reducing funding doesn’t really sound that bad to me regardless of the CWD spat they are currently having.
Gravel Road
5 year old buck +
I haven't had a lot of interaction with Wildlife and Parks, but the ones I have had are positive. They are way understaffed on officers and most have to cover multiple counties. The one time I saw a poacher shoot a deer, it took over an hour for him to respond due to being several counties away. He did find the guy and ticket him. The local fish biologist is awesome and really knows his stuff. We've had a few discussions on stocking rates and why they choose the species of fish to stock. We watched him shocking fish and it was amazing what came out of the water!
In a lot of cwd areas, deer decline because of the relaxed restrictions to reduce the density. Have to kill them to save them is how a lot of states operate.
b116757
5 year old buck +
Do you have firsthand knowledge of this or is this antidotal?
Gravel Road
5 year old buck +
$98M for an entire state sounds ok to me. Think about how much that is per county and relates to all things, not just deer hunting.
b116757
5 year old buck +
I did that’s why I generously left $38.9 million in their budget. As I said before it could go to zero and I wouldn’t notice the difference but I was giving a bloated bureaucracy the benefit of the doubt. But all of this is simply me rambling. The bloated bureaucracy is not going away and a 1 million dollar hair cut is laughable to them.
Last edited:
No - I know someone who lives in a cwd area and he claims to have gone from hunting 4 yr old bucks - or older - to hunting any buck. His area used to be a four deer area that allowed the harvest of two bucks of the four deer, at least 3 pt on one side, button bucks counted as one of the two bucks. When cwd was detected, they did away with the 3 pt antler restriction, upped the total to five deer, and counted button bucks as does - so you could kill five button bucks in one year.
Supposedly, since the theory is that the bucks tend to spread the disease more because of their larger home range - it slows the spread if you lower the deer density - and bucks in particular. The state still allows baiting during season - believing that will contribute to more deer being killed. They banned supplemental feeding - outside of season. I live in an area a couple of counties removed from the cwd zones. Our hunting is as good as I have ever seen it - largely as a result of the 3 pt antler restriction. I dread the day cwd is found here and we lose the 3 pt rule. The guy in the cwd zone said he lost all he had worked for when the regulations were relaxed.
Maybe someone from northern Illinois will chime in.
Bill
Administrator
My county was designated a CWD zone several years ago. I can’t speak for the county but it has had zero impact on the deer herd in my neighborhood. They removed the antler point restrictions to encourage killing young bucks. Too late, the culture is such that shooting a spike or even a basket rack is frowned on. CWD be damned.
They found a + deer right up the road. MO sets up a boundary and try’s to convince landowners to “let” them bring in sharp shooters. If landowners say no, they ask the neighbors.
This neighbor said not happening. I’ve yet to see or get a trail cam pic of a deer that I think has it over many years. I’ve seen sick deer but that could be from any number of things.
I believe we’re in a warming trend in the country. I think man made climate change and CWD killing all the deer is nonsense.
In the early 80’s I read in hunting magazines CWD In Colorado’s deer herd was going to wipe out all deer in a matter of years. “and” at the same time scientists said we would all be living in an ice age by now.
All I know is It’s pretty warm and I’m still hunting deer.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Have a buddy in ground zero of cwd in Wisconsin. Zero impact. His hunting is better than mine and they got rid of baiting. Wins all around