ND HB 1151

Status
Not open for further replies.
NDGuy said:
Here’s a snip of one opinion

“You are aware that the GnF gets federal funding for each positive CWD case they find?

I’d like to believe that this is non-political, but so long as the Game and Fish is getting funding from a national bill set on standards that is a one size fits all scenario from a lopsided, money seeking bio group (AFWA), I’m not buying it.

It has everything to do with monetizing wildlife at the administrative level while punishing the very people that are there to utilize and help manage the resource. Talk about typical government overreach.

It literally boils down to the states you mentioned…MT, WY, MN, WI, Sask have had bait bans in place forever it seems which have not been proven to slow the spread of CWD one bit. In fact, CWD positive cases have marched across these states with an effective bait ban, so why try to inhibit it and take a tool away from hunters. Sure, lots of deer get killed without the use of the tool, but lets think beyond ourselves. There are large groups of users that are severely impacted by a ban. Elderly, wheelchair bound, vets, youth…its easy to argue that as a “real hunter” who needs baiting and you as a “real hunter” don’t need bait to effectively harvest a deer. While for a lot of us that is true, there are a lot that a pile of grain can and will make the difference for a clean and effective kill, or at least provide the opportunity to do so. I don’t think its fair to consider anyone who might need to utilize a pile of bait any less of a hunter than myself, especially if they have a handicap that might limit their ability to effectively harvest a deer without the use of such a tool. I’m glad that this is something that up until now that we have had an option to use, but slowly that right is being eroded away due to an agenda.

There is plenty of data in our state to even show that baiting is not a detrimental factor. 3F2 has had the longest running bait ban in the state, and yet positive cases are found year after year. Interesting fact is that these are cases within the majority of the mule deer species, AND mule deer hardly ever relate or pattern to bait. We have all sorts of data that argues that baiting is not harmful and can actually help isolate groups of deer and keep them localized. This is such a deep topic and I could go on and on…its important to go listen to the testimony at the hearing. I am confident that the information presented there will shed more light onto the situation that science simply does not support a ban of baiting. The game and fish cannot even site a source that definitively says so. All they can say is that CWD is spread through saliva and feces, but cannot provide data of infection rate, mortality time frame after exposure or infection, transmission rate, etc. Heck, they still promote their own interceptive feeding program and the promotion of food plots by providing funding to farmers to set aside acreage and plant them.

And I’m going to say this, the deers best chance is exposure and developing resistance through evolution. We know that CWD can live on the landscape for an indefinite amount of time. With its prominence, a cervids best chance is to contract it and allow evolution to develop a natural resistance to it through generational resistance, and not the prescribed AFWA method of wiping out family groups and herds of deer by sharpshooters. This is not the way of natural biologic evolution to developing resistance to any disease throughout the history of our earth.”
Click to expand...
Where was this?
 
Quite a stark contrast between the discussion on here and the discussion on North Dakota forums. Seems like all the supporters on those other forums just want to argue that baiting doesn’t increase the spread of CWD. They would rather say that than, “Hunting is harder for me if I can’t use bait.”
 
Last edited:
bigsky2 said:
Quite a start contrast between the discussion on here and the discussion on North Dakota forums. Seems like all the supporters on those other forums just want to argue that baiting doesn’t increase the spread of CWD. They would rather say that than, “Hunting is harder for me if I can’t use bait.”
Click to expand...
I can understand their frustration. It is difficult to change long used practices. But the resource must come first.
 
I've heard that proponents of this bill are claiming that the ND game and fish receives federal funding for every positive CWD test. This is false.

Early on, from around 2004 through maybe 2011 (ish), there was funding allocated to states, via USDA (who received funding from Congress).
Many states used this to help defray the cost of surveillance/monitoring/sampling, but this was never on a per positive basis, and was not enough to cover the total cost of cwd surveillance.

After Congress stopped providing that support to states, nearly all of states' surveillance efforts came from state-based funding. And a few states essentially quit doing surveillance as they could not afford it.

A few years ago, Congress started providing limited funding to USDA, for cwd, through the annual appropriations process. It runs through the cervid health program line.

This is currently the main funding available to states (there are always other minor pools of funding available to researchers).Those funds are competitive (based on project proposals submitted to USDA), mostly research-oriented, and there are splits between captive and wild, and a chunk for tribes.
Some of the states use funds awarded for surveillance activities, but the efforts are framed within science guidelines (e.g., improving efficacy of sampling, etc.)
USDA also uses some of those funds for indemnification of captive facilities to compensate the owner for depopulating their positive facility.

So, no, not based on any sort of reimbursement per positive.
 
brocksw said:
I've heard that proponents of this bill are claiming that the ND game and fish receives federal funding for every positive CWD test. This is false.

Early on, from around 2004 through maybe 2011 (ish), there was funding allocated to states, via USDA (who received funding from Congress).
Many states used this to help defray the cost of surveillance/monitoring/sampling, but this was never on a per positive basis, and was not enough to cover the total cost of cwd surveillance.

After Congress stopped providing that support to states, nearly all of states' surveillance efforts came from state-based funding. And a few states essentially quit doing surveillance as they could not afford it.

A few years ago, Congress started providing limited funding to USDA, for cwd, through the annual appropriations process. It runs through the cervid health program line.

This is currently the main funding available to states (there are always other minor pools of funding available to researchers).Those funds are competitive (based on project proposals submitted to USDA), mostly research-oriented, and there are splits between captive and wild, and a chunk for tribes.
Some of the states use funds awarded for surveillance activities, but the efforts are framed within science guidelines (e.g., improving efficacy of sampling, etc.)
USDA also uses some of those funds for indemnification of captive facilities to compensate the owner for depopulating their positive facility.

So, no, not based on any sort of reimbursement per positive.
Click to expand...
But Ted Nugent said it's true
 
NPO_Aaron said:
We've made our position clear, show us evidence that baiting causes an increase in the spread of CWD that is greater than that of natural spread and we are on board.
Click to expand...
Literally impossible. Even measuring rate of spread is difficult, measuring the rate of change in the spread based on some factor like proximity to a pile of corn is ridiculous. Ridiculous mostly because any test that confirms CWD has to be done on a dead deer.

The recommendation comes from the best known science on a new disease. You want measurable certainty. You won't get it because it's not possible. But I suspect that the person who came up with the position knew that.
 
Flipped around, can evidence be presented that shows baiting does not increase the spread of CWD?
 
MNElkNut said:
Flipped around, can evidence be presented that shows baiting does not increase the spread of CWD?
Click to expand...
This is what has put me in a "neutral" position. I cannot find an answer yes or no, so I feel as if I should keep my opinion as that. Inconclusive. There is a whole lot of maybes on both sides. I don't like to make decisions based on "maybe".
 
Ted Nugent appears to me as a person who can say pure BS and sound convincing while doing it.

We have now entered a world where a faction of the population believes that every scientist, biologist, or government employee has some hidden agenda and doesn't know what they are talking about.

I am not completely against baiting but I hate the idea of it on public land. I also don't like the idea of not allowing the Game and Fish to regulate it in any way.
 
Baiting or no baiting. My opinions are not terribly important. What I do NOT agree with is legislative (Or other branches of govt) overriding the biology subject matter experts. The G&F is in place for this purpose and tasked with this responsibility. (You don't have to agree with everything they do. That is why they have regional citizen advisory meetings around the state so you can offer up your ideas/thoughts) That is the big picture. If legislature is allowed to override the staff biologists on this topic, what is the next topic "I" don't agree with that I want to legislate into the books? I am not in favor of setting a precedent for this process.
 
First you get cut off then they cut the mic. sheesh. I'm not optimistic 1175 will get anywhere. And the ammendment is garbage. But the discussion should bring some big question marks in years to come on how the trust operates these leases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
OPPOSE BLM land Transfer in ND!
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
scrotcaster
S
B
Baiting Bill (1151) is Senate side
6 7 8
Replies
146
Views
12K
8andcounting
8andcounting
B
Oklahoma HB 3462 is now law
Replies
3
Views
718
WildWill
WildWill
brockel
Boykin or cocker spaniel breeder around MT,ND,SD,WY
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Camillelynn
C
HUNT7503
Looking for info on ND units 4A, 4B, 4C, and some 3B2
Replies
10
Views
811
ismith
ismith

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,029,010
Members
36,276
Latest member
Eller fam

Share this page

Back
Top