Brock, let me also say how glad I am you are willing to have respectful conversations about this. I feel like no one can disagree on anything without resorting to name calling and yelling. You're a good dude and I'm glad you care so much about wildlife and the outdoors that you make sure your opinion is heard.
ND HB 1151
- Thread starter brocksw
- Start date
- Status
BuzzH
Well-known member
First off, whatever N. Dakota decides it should be up the hunters there.
My only comment is that I've grown tired of constantly using youth and disabled hunters as pawns to protect things like baiting, transferable tags, etc.
It's not that I don't support giving both a leg up, and I gave an AZ rifle bull tag that I drew to AZ hunt of a lifetime to a kid with a serious medical condition.
But, in a majority of cases, these decisions are made out as if disabled hunters are going to toss in the towel if they don't have the ability to bait. I don't believe that's true at all. The youth and disabled hunters that I've helped, seem to me like the very people that are the most happy just being out enjoying the outdoors. They aren't hung up on killing anything. I think a bunch of lazy hunters are going to be the ones doing all the complaining if baiting is banned there. Its a threat to their style of hunting over a corn pile. There is no concern for how that could impact deer herds, only worried about their ability to run a bullet or arrow through a deer.
But, its not my State and its up to the residents to decide what to do. It would be nice if those voicing support would just admit they like baiting and leave youth and disabled hunters out of the argument. Its lame.
My only comment is that I've grown tired of constantly using youth and disabled hunters as pawns to protect things like baiting, transferable tags, etc.
It's not that I don't support giving both a leg up, and I gave an AZ rifle bull tag that I drew to AZ hunt of a lifetime to a kid with a serious medical condition.
But, in a majority of cases, these decisions are made out as if disabled hunters are going to toss in the towel if they don't have the ability to bait. I don't believe that's true at all. The youth and disabled hunters that I've helped, seem to me like the very people that are the most happy just being out enjoying the outdoors. They aren't hung up on killing anything. I think a bunch of lazy hunters are going to be the ones doing all the complaining if baiting is banned there. Its a threat to their style of hunting over a corn pile. There is no concern for how that could impact deer herds, only worried about their ability to run a bullet or arrow through a deer.
But, its not my State and its up to the residents to decide what to do. It would be nice if those voicing support would just admit they like baiting and leave youth and disabled hunters out of the argument. Its lame.
BlakeA
Well-known member
@NPO_Aaron let's remove the CWD/science/data issues that you have. Do you feel that baiting is fair chase given our season structure (4+ month long season that goes well into extreme cold and winter post rut), technology (2023 bows and archery equipment, cellular trail cameras, range finders, etc) and stand setups (heated stands/blinds etc.) Now you add bait at their weakest moments and you don't even have to hunt you just have to sit on an iphone and watch a show until they "come in". Also, comparing acorns to a feeder is ridiculous. Do acorns trickle down a tree when a timer goes off?
As for youth, it blows my mind how many people argue that baiting "gets youth in the field", "keeps them interested", "allows them to harvest when they go out because they only have so many days to hunt" etc. How about teaching them about the specie and having them work and earn a shot opportunity through learning and failures? Although, it's very typical for this era of entitled hunters to expect to need a just show up, wait, kill, and go home experience.
They need to just stop including CWD as the reason to ban it and just call a spade a spade. It's purely lazy and it is not fair chase. It's turned archery deer hunting into a layup and completely removed the essence of truly hunting and honing your skills as a hunter/outdoorsman. I feel sad for kids starting out shooting deer over bait. They are missing out on the best part. The learning and failures associated with fair chase hunting.
As for youth, it blows my mind how many people argue that baiting "gets youth in the field", "keeps them interested", "allows them to harvest when they go out because they only have so many days to hunt" etc. How about teaching them about the specie and having them work and earn a shot opportunity through learning and failures? Although, it's very typical for this era of entitled hunters to expect to need a just show up, wait, kill, and go home experience.
They need to just stop including CWD as the reason to ban it and just call a spade a spade. It's purely lazy and it is not fair chase. It's turned archery deer hunting into a layup and completely removed the essence of truly hunting and honing your skills as a hunter/outdoorsman. I feel sad for kids starting out shooting deer over bait. They are missing out on the best part. The learning and failures associated with fair chase hunting.
BlakeA
Well-known member
Bingo.
brocksw
Well-known member
Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response Aaron. I could not agree with you more, sportsmen need to be able to talk things out. After all, we're all on the same team for the most part (there's crazies in every social group though right?). But I'm extremely glad I get an opportunity to do so with you. I've always found you to be articulate and thoughtful, I have a lot of respect for that and what you do through prairie grit.
I'm going to try, for my own feeble mind, to break things out in my responses. If you feel as if I'm avoiding something, please address that, but know it is not my intent. If there is science out there, or solutions out there that are real and legitimate, I want to know about them. I would rather be wrong in my assumptions that there isnt, and learn about a solution, then be right and still be where we currently are.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1890/ES14-00013.1?download=true
This has been consistent with other researchers I've talked to that have told me the exact same in regards to deer. I've also talked to researchers who've injected CWD infected brain matter, orally ingested ground up CWD infected feces, ingesting saliva, and time after time whether its forced feeding of infectious material, injected material, or simply living where previously infected animals live, the overwhelming majority of animals become infected with CWD and every single animal that is infected with CWD dies. Every single one. Dr. Kreeger stated that clinical stage CWD is one of the toughest things he's ever watched, and he's also a deer hunter.
Anecdotal for sure, but compelling nonetheless. Saskatchewan remains the only open landscape where baiting has been allowed to go unregulated in the face of CWD. Directly from Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, 2022.
They climbed to the highest prevalency rates reported globally, and they did it faster than any other place on the continent.
Now is that proof? I find it extremely hard to ignore and quite compelling.
I'm going to try, for my own feeble mind, to break things out in my responses. If you feel as if I'm avoiding something, please address that, but know it is not my intent. If there is science out there, or solutions out there that are real and legitimate, I want to know about them. I would rather be wrong in my assumptions that there isnt, and learn about a solution, then be right and still be where we currently are.
First off, I noticed a lot of people attacking the word "may" or "suggests" or "potentially" within the scientific studies. My response to that is that every trained scientist that I know of speaks in that manner because they know science is ever evolving and the body of knowledge is constantly growing. So many times, scientists may feel 99% confident in something they say, but they understand something may change. Dr. Mike Chamberlain of Georgia was recently on a "wired to hunt" podcast discussing his work with CWD. He discusses this exact concept and talks about the fact that he's published studies that have disproved previous work that he's done. Nothing in regards to CWD, but he just uses that example to highlight the concept I'm talking about.
Are you familiar with the studies performed by Dr. Terry Kreeger? I can even put you in contact with him if you'd like to speak to him directly. I've talked to him over the phone multiple times and exchanged many emails with him over the last couple months. He's retired now, but has a fairly impressive body of work as a veterinarian for the Wyoming Game and Fish, among other agencies and institutions. The study I link below, and I'm trying to summarize as short and concise as I can, is a study that involves his work with elk genetics as it relates to CWD. For this study they have a research facility that they perform CWD research in. In this study, and I'm quoting Dr. Kreeger here, "all the test elk came from Jackson Hole; a CWD-free area at the time. All the pens, into which the disease-free elk were placed, had CWD-infected elk in them at one time or another. Thus, our research facility was considered a CWD-contaminated site. Also, these pens were double fenced, eliminating any outside contact with an infected animal. All the 39 elk eventually died with the one LL elk living several years after the deaths of the 38 others. Thus, this study provided prima facie evidence that something in the pens (i.e., feed/water/soil) was responsible for infecting at least one animal." So here we have direct evidence that a cervid does not need to be "injected" with 50ml of saliva. Simply putting them in the pens, eating out of the same dish and drinking out of the same water tank, living on the same condensed piece of ground, infected these elk and ultimately killed all of them (one phenotype survived longer but still died).
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1890/ES14-00013.1?download=true
This has been consistent with other researchers I've talked to that have told me the exact same in regards to deer. I've also talked to researchers who've injected CWD infected brain matter, orally ingested ground up CWD infected feces, ingesting saliva, and time after time whether its forced feeding of infectious material, injected material, or simply living where previously infected animals live, the overwhelming majority of animals become infected with CWD and every single animal that is infected with CWD dies. Every single one. Dr. Kreeger stated that clinical stage CWD is one of the toughest things he's ever watched, and he's also a deer hunter.
I am not aware of any science that shows different outcomes than what I explain above. If you have some, I would be extremely curious to know what that is. As would every single Game and Fish agency with CWD in their state. Please, share.
Here is where the rub is. So, there's a couple different variables to consider here. First off, a study specifically examining the effects of baiting on CWD transmission does not exist that I'm aware. Not from the NDGF, not from any agency or any university. There is a couple reasons for that. First, the image below. Which state would submit their public deer herd to such a study? Knowing once the experiment is complete, regardless of the results, they now have let a 100% fatal infection run free for a decade or more and they may never be able to get rid of it.
Anecdotal for sure, but compelling nonetheless. Saskatchewan remains the only open landscape where baiting has been allowed to go unregulated in the face of CWD. Directly from Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, 2022.
They climbed to the highest prevalency rates reported globally, and they did it faster than any other place on the continent.
Now is that proof? I find it extremely hard to ignore and quite compelling.
brocksw
Well-known member
Let's also talk about inference. There are studies that, with very high confidence, have tied deer baiting to TB outbreaks (Garner 2001, Palmer 2001, 2004). They were able to determine that the baiting and feeding of deer was directly related to the rise in TB infections, and when they banned baiting and feeding, the TB prevalance rates started to slowly go down. Now, TB is different, and from everything I've read about CWD, we would not anticipate a lowering of prevalence by stopping baiting. Instead, we're trying to "slow the spread". That's the entire point of all of these changes in management because of CWD. It's to buy time until we find a solution. Buy time and keep as many deer and landscapes CWD free as we can. So that way, when or if a solution does come along, we have some clean deer stock and clean landscape to work with.
Here's another laterally transmissible (deer to deer) disease, brucellosis. Which brings us to another example, this time in Wyoming. Straight from the Wyoming Game and Fish website.
"The Game and Fish Department tests elk for brucellosis at many of its feedgrounds. It also gathers blood samples from hunter-killed elk, which are thought not to winter regularly on feedgrounds. Seroprevalence data collected from 12 feedgrounds where elk have been vaccinated averaged 23.6% (range: 13-30%); the average seroprevalence of elk from the unvaccinated Dell Creek feedground has been 32%. The seroprevalence of elk not frequenting feedgrounds has averaged 2.3%. These data support the contention that feedgrounds increase the probability of disease transmission."
Again, brucellosis is "laterally transmissible". So, just like in humans, we know that laterally transmissible diseases in wildlife spread from one animal to the next. This is how wildlife professionals use "inference" when a study may not be feasible. In other words, they review the body of work that has been done with other laterally transmissible diseases for those species, they review the fact that we can infect deer with CWD in a variety of ways, including saliva and including just making them eat and drink out of the same feeder and tank that infected animals have. With that information, they conclude that one of the things we could do to help slow the spread is to stop promoting or promulgating practices that increase the likelihood of face to face contact, ingesting infectious material, or being in close contact with infected animals for periods of time that are longer than naturally occurring seasonal periods.
Now think about that. Most of the spring, summer, and early fall, you're not seeing big groups of deer. They are largely in small family groups, small bachelor groups, and there are really no large concentrations of deer at all during those months. Even if baiting doesn't draw an abundance of deer to your bait pile at the same time in August, you're still providing a central location that they will all come into contact with. So if someone is baiting from September through November, that's an additional 3 months of increased contact or indirect contact, on top of the normal/natural winter behavior which we cannot prevent. There are some winters where that 3 extra months is doubling the length of close contact gatherings. Many people bait into the summer months. Again, just continuing to add to that exposure risk during a time of year when they may not have ever come into contact with that many deer otherwise.
Below is a study done on TB. Here they have telemetry data from collared deer that shows how bait piles on the landscape change deer behavior and bring them into close contact with other deer more often. This is hundreds of hours of physical observations and telemetry data.
digitalcommons.unl.edu
Here's another laterally transmissible (deer to deer) disease, brucellosis. Which brings us to another example, this time in Wyoming. Straight from the Wyoming Game and Fish website.
"The Game and Fish Department tests elk for brucellosis at many of its feedgrounds. It also gathers blood samples from hunter-killed elk, which are thought not to winter regularly on feedgrounds. Seroprevalence data collected from 12 feedgrounds where elk have been vaccinated averaged 23.6% (range: 13-30%); the average seroprevalence of elk from the unvaccinated Dell Creek feedground has been 32%. The seroprevalence of elk not frequenting feedgrounds has averaged 2.3%. These data support the contention that feedgrounds increase the probability of disease transmission."
Again, brucellosis is "laterally transmissible". So, just like in humans, we know that laterally transmissible diseases in wildlife spread from one animal to the next. This is how wildlife professionals use "inference" when a study may not be feasible. In other words, they review the body of work that has been done with other laterally transmissible diseases for those species, they review the fact that we can infect deer with CWD in a variety of ways, including saliva and including just making them eat and drink out of the same feeder and tank that infected animals have. With that information, they conclude that one of the things we could do to help slow the spread is to stop promoting or promulgating practices that increase the likelihood of face to face contact, ingesting infectious material, or being in close contact with infected animals for periods of time that are longer than naturally occurring seasonal periods.
Now think about that. Most of the spring, summer, and early fall, you're not seeing big groups of deer. They are largely in small family groups, small bachelor groups, and there are really no large concentrations of deer at all during those months. Even if baiting doesn't draw an abundance of deer to your bait pile at the same time in August, you're still providing a central location that they will all come into contact with. So if someone is baiting from September through November, that's an additional 3 months of increased contact or indirect contact, on top of the normal/natural winter behavior which we cannot prevent. There are some winters where that 3 extra months is doubling the length of close contact gatherings. Many people bait into the summer months. Again, just continuing to add to that exposure risk during a time of year when they may not have ever come into contact with that many deer otherwise.
Below is a study done on TB. Here they have telemetry data from collared deer that shows how bait piles on the landscape change deer behavior and bring them into close contact with other deer more often. This is hundreds of hours of physical observations and telemetry data.
Movement Patterns and Behavior at Winter-Feeding and Fall Baiting Stations in a Population of White-Tailed Deer Infected with Bovine Tuberculosis in the Northeastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan
In 1994 bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) was discovered in a single free ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in northeastern Michigan (Deer Management Unit 452 @MU 452)). By the end of the 2000 hunting season, 325+ deer within the DMU 452 had been detected with M. bovis...
Hey Buzz. I want to make it clear that I am not using disabled hunters as pawns, I am trying to protect something that we rely on to hunt with our guys and girls. I spend between 30-50 days a year helping people with disabilities hunt. I'm not saying that from a "look at the nice stuff I do", It's that it is a very big part of my life. I'm not throwing around hypothetical situations that might happen, I've slowly watched the places we've put accessible blinds lose all their deer to neighbors plots. So yes, I'm going to take about how regulations hinder people with disabilities because that is part of my daily life.
brocksw
Well-known member
I am especially interested in the below image. No one from the supporter side of this bill seems to be able to produce any evidence whatsoever that there is any legitimate science that "shows different results". It has been hashed out on this forum many times, even before this bill. No one can produce any "science" to justify their claims. Either they know it isn't legitimate or they are trying to hide it. How many people who truly have the truth are afraid to talk about it and share it with interested stakeholders?
Blake, I like your conviction man. Here's my thoughts on ethics. I don't bait, but I used to. Personally I enjoy how I hunt currently more. I'm not going to trash on someone who does bait though, to each their own. I am not talking for everyone, I'm talking for a select group of individuals who can't do things the same way I can. All I've been trying to do is show people what effects bait bans have on certain groups. If there was a consensus that baiting causes an increase in the spread of cwd I would want it to go away, even though it really makes a difficult situation more so.
Personal opinions on ethics aside, if you were someone who couldn't do what we can do, whose real only shot to experience being close to game and having the chance to harvest something relied on your ability to bring a deer to you, would you feel it fair that your ability to use bait to hunt is illegal, but feeding/baiting for any other reason is ok?
Personal opinions on ethics aside, if you were someone who couldn't do what we can do, whose real only shot to experience being close to game and having the chance to harvest something relied on your ability to bring a deer to you, would you feel it fair that your ability to use bait to hunt is illegal, but feeding/baiting for any other reason is ok?
Brock, you have a good point. When I look at information I am backing my opinion on it seems I am doing the exact same thing I'm frustrated at anti baiting side for. I am disregarding the "mays" and accepting the "may nots". There are no conclusive studies this way or that and that leads both sides to rely on speculation and that is frustrating. I am going to continue studying what's out there so that I can make the best, most informed decision possible.
A big hang up for me is, If the game and fish has the information necessary to ban baiting, why hasn't action been done to stop feeding all together? The contradiction of one instance being ok and another not is hard to accept.
BuzzH
Well-known member
If nobody could bait, there would still be deer using your areas where the people with disabilities could have a reasonable chance at them.
Good work helping out the way you do.
brocksw
Well-known member
I don't understand the full history here, but the Game and fish does not currently have regulatory authority of "wildlife feeding", only the "means of take".
In my opinion, I think they are a little uncertain about what kind of can of worms that will open. Personally, I think there is a great fear within that agency that if they don't tread very carefully, we are going to end up like many other states and have fish and game commissions running the show.
Check out how that's working for MT, WA, NM. Basically turns wildlife management into a political game over night and it isn't very often sportsmen win. Look around this forum, it's heavily discussed. People don't understand how lucky we are to not have to be subject to the political will and infuence of a game commission.
Not good for regular Joe's like you and I, not good for publicly owned wildlife, not good for equal and fair distribution of tags, not good for science based management, not good If you're against privatization and commercialization of wildlife.
Putting a political body in charge of a bunch of scientists and our wildlife is a fox guarding the hen house.
That's why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is so important. Science based management done by wildlife professionals. Look at the enormous wealth of wildlife we have now because of the wildlife professionals work. We nearly extirpated everything off the face of the continent a 100 years ago. Not even exaggerating in the slightest. Everyone stopped and decided there needs to be regulation, that conservation of these resources is important and we must have trained professionals, not red necks who think they know best because that's what they see on their tiny sliver of ground.
Brock, I just read through your previous replies and they make sense. I'd love to make a big thought out post, but honestly I'm feeling pretty conflicted right now. I appreciate you going through all the effort to put that all together.
This topic gets so one side vs the other and I'm trying to not fall into "talking points" from either side. You have definitely made it clear that I have some thinking to do on the subject.
This topic gets so one side vs the other and I'm trying to not fall into "talking points" from either side. You have definitely made it clear that I have some thinking to do on the subject.
Djfan
Well-known member
How many deer are killed on the roads in ND every year?
brocksw
Well-known member
Hearing date scheduled for HB 1151 scheduled for 1/20 9:00 am
rjthehunter
Well-known member
I thought ND was on the verge of a feeding ban to try and stop the spread of CWD like MN has done in most of the state. How could they push for allowing baiting!
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Most of the state does ….
brocksw
Well-known member
I have asked, and I have yet to be provided with a single scientific study related to CWD or disease transmission. But Ted Nugent is speaking on a radio show with them on Monday....
- Status
