to bait or not to bait., that is the question? BEAR`St

[Ithaca 37]

Greenhorn, "It's nice when they aren't pulled away from where they would traditionally spend thier time to visit somebody's pile of garbage, donuts, dogfood, or meat tallow. Just my opinion.."

That's my opinion too. I really enjoy hunting them over natural bait---the kind ya don't have to carry in on your back.

Finding the right food at the right time and hunting it is all part of the full hunting experience that presents the most interesting challenge (for me, anyway). Really no different than hunting where the deer or elk are feeding.

There are places with so much cover and so much food that it's tough to hunt them successfully, but that's just part of the fun.

Baiting is a real good management tool, though.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-02-2003 21:53: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Tom]

I was going by what I read the US Supreme Court has said, sort of the law of the land, not the words of some double barrelled asshole.

The states manage the wildlife, they don't own it.

I heard about a guy who hit a deer and the police wouldn't let him take the deer, because it belonged to the state (they said). The guy said, if that deer belongs to the state, I want the state to fix my bumper and fender that their deer just messed up. He stuck to his argument and the police settled with him and gave him the deer, then it was his deer, they say.

 

[cjcj]

very good logic TOM, then if i hit an elk, and it`s in an area where other people have hit elk, then that would show a pattern of neglegants by the state, so i could SUE the state for damages, personnel injury,etc. SEE why i hate LAWYER`S sometimes they can make sense out of bullshit!

 

[Ten Bears]

TOM, I think your story is BS, just my opinion. What Supreme Court ruling was that?

I don't hunt over bait, but I like the option being there.

CJCJ, if you hit a cow on open range, who's at fault? In Idaho, you are, not the cow farmer (just a little more trivial information).

IT, I think this is the source you were looking for about ownership. If not I'll provided it from myself anyways.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 36-103. WILDLIFE PROPERTY OF STATE -- PRESERVATION. (a) Wildlife Policy.
All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the
state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of
Idaho. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=360010003.K
State Law TOM.

 

[cjcj]

hey ten it would be my fault, if i hit that cow, but i was just making the point that some a-hole lawyer would find a way to twist shit to sue and make some cash! same as illegal`s dieing in the desert or fat asses chomping on burger`s the lawyer`s are the problem here. as long as we have class action asshole`s nobody will take responcability for their own action`s.

 

[Tom]

The US Supreme Court is above the state law, any state. Some state laws, like the one quoted, use the word, ownership, but the US Supreme Court has said several times its a meaningless use of the word. You own them, I own them, we all own them, no one owns them, in effect. The states manage them, that's it. We've had discussions with posts with the references to specific cases where they say this in past years. Here's a report that talks about it that I found in a quick search,

http://www.aceweb.org/ACE_CD/data/24_entry.pdf

On page 3 it talks about who owns wildlife. The US Supreme Court has said that wildlife is reduced to ownership, when a hunter legally tags it. Before that, everyone "owns" it and the states manage the wildlife, they don't own it.

Like all states have to follow the federal migratory bird regs. No state does anything on the migratory stuff without following the federal law for their management. Despite what some old state code says, no state owns migratory birds to do with as they please, they all follow the federal law.

A lawyer didn't have anything to do with that story I told. The guy just complained to the policeman enough that the guy got to take the deer. Here, like a lot of places, we can't public road hunt with a vehicle or a gun. Accidents are investigated to determine if they are actually a road hunt and we're not expected to be able to keep the animal, even in an accident. That guy in the story, just was lucky, he got to keep the deer he hit. He made an entertaining argument to the policeman to get it.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-05-2003 09:14: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Please make all checks payable to the "United States Fish and Game Department" to cover your license fees for elk in Colorado, pronghorn in Wyoming, and dalls sheep in Alaska now that Tom has "proven" that the states no longer own the game.

 

[Tom]

I thought the wildlife belonged to us all, from the beginning till now in the US. We all own the wildlife, its like no one owns the wildlife. Until we legally tag it, then that individual owns it.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, the states own the game...

The States set the laws, the states set the seasons, the states levy fines, the states provide law enforcement, the states acquire lands for wildlife, etc. etc. etc.

Are you really that dense?

If the States didnt own the game, the Feds would surely step in and try to control it.

What the Supreme Court has done is uphold the states rights to control wild game within its boundaries, thusly giving the states de facto ownership of the game...its really not that freaking complicated.

Why is it a big deal to you that the Feds own the game and not the states? Whats the motive?

 

[cjcj]

the states must own the game, that`s why they sell ,give, raffle them tag`s. and they get and keep the money.

 

[Ten Bears]

TOM, you are both correct and incorrect in a sense. The states do have ownership of "nonmigratory, nonthreatened, non endangered" species that reside within the state, but not in the sense of "private property". The states have ownership of those animals not exclusively controled by the fed, and don't have the liability of paying auto repair bills. That's what it says.

 

[Erik in AK]

If I may redirect back to is baiting ethical/whay are the anti's so against it.

I happen to hunt bears over bait for the same reasons mentioned earlier ie easier to discriminate between sows/boars etc. but I also like to stalk them. Another reason to hunt over bait is simply to see bears. For me to spot/stalk bears would involve a minimum 200 mile road trip and a near-epic major expedition which I can only afford to do once a year, and which is reserved for september when I can take a variety of animals in the course of one hunt. Baiting gives bear hunters here a chance to hunt somewhat economically in the spring.
I try to keep my site neat, clearly marked and well away from areas popular with people for any other reason so as not to be the cause of a man-bear incident.

As far as why the anti's seem to focus on baiting...Its a matter of PR. TV and video promote the false impression that hunting bears over bait or dogs is easy and therefore somehow dishonorable.
Baiting, like using hounds, is easy to attack due to the nature of the video clip. They always show the "money shot" and since the Anti's are promoting their own biased agenda they always seem to show the video of the guy who doesn't kill cleanly(which can happen to the best shots). They show the 15 second clip of the "defenseless" bear up the tree or "unaware" at the bait. They don't show the hours and hours of prep work or the dozen times the guy lets bears walk because they're sows or too small. They never show the houndsman breaking off the chase farther away from the bear that when he started.

Since most people don't hunt at all and even fewer hunt bears by any method its easy for the Anti's to rally support amongst Joe Voter by playing the emotion card and painting bear baiters as akin to poachers.

 

[cjcj]

right on eric! every clip from peta, and other anti`s group`s that`ive seen show`s an animal with 7-8 arrow`s sticking out of it`s non-vital`s screaming and dieing a slow death,like that`s the typical hunt.

 

[Tom]

Buzz, why do you think it is a big deal?

The feds don't own the game either, we all own the game, which is why its like no one owns the game. Its part of the American heritage of hunting, so in that sense, its a distinction from the King's etc. who owned the game in the feudal days. What the US Supreme court said, is that its pretty meaningless to talk about the states owning the game. They manage it, hence the tag fees and all. Its important to give the native game its own wildlife status and realize its not "reduced to ownership" until we legally tag it. Its the concept of being a steward of the animals rather than being able to do whatever you want with them. It seems like it gives more respect to the animals, making that distinction, plus, its what the US Supreme court said. If I knew how search posts from a year ago, we could find the post with the cases where they talked about it.

I don't know much about bear baiting, but here we supplemental feed, even the deer at a lot of places. Some are on timers, some are just feed available at any time they want it, depending on how much people can spend. We have about 4 million whitetails in this state and they inhabit every available acre of habitat in the state and the supplemental feeding helps that in a big way. Apparently, Idaho, with all the methods of bear management they have, does well with the bear population management and allows many different types of hunting for them as well, that sounds great to me.

That's a good story on bear management to me.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom said, "Its the concept of being a steward of the animals rather than being able to do whatever you want with them. It seems like it gives more respect to the animals"

Wow, so you shouldnt be in favor of game farms then, they dont show the animal any respect and absolutely do whatever they want with them. Perhaps the law should be expanded so the States also owns and controls all those exotic mutant farm animals in Texas.

I mean it would assure the "wildlife" more respect and no individual could control what happens to them.

 

[Tom]

Buzz, they follow the state's management guidelines, they take good care of them, assuming they are in a state that knows how to do that.

 

[Tom]

Ten Bears, here's the quote I remembered from a year or two ago. Its from 436 U.S. 371 and comments on the McCready doctrine, "a state owns the wildlife" as a fiction that has died and it sights many cases contributing to the death of this fiction.
******************************************
The third possible justification for Montana's licensing scheme, the doctrine of McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 (1877), is actually no justification at all, but simply an assertion that a State "owns" the wildlife within its borders in trust for its citizens and may therefore do with it what it pleases. See Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). The lingering death of the McCready doctrine as applied to a State's wildlife, begun with the thrust of Mr. Justice Holmes' blade in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 434 (1920) ("[t]o put the claim of the State upon title is to lean upon a slender reed") and aided by increasingly deep twists of the knife in Foster Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1, 11 -14 (1928); Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S., at 402 ; Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 421 (1948); and Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 545 -546 (1976), finally became a reality in Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284, where MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, speaking for the Court, observed:


"A State does not stand in the same position as the owner of a private game preserve and it is pure fantasy to talk of `owning' wild fish, birds, or animals. Neither the States nor the Federal Government, any more than a hopeful fisherman or hunter, has title to these creatures until they are reduced to possession by skillful capture. . . . The `ownership' language of cases such as those cited by appellant must be understood as no more than a 19th-century legal fiction expressing `the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource.' Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S., at 402 . . . . Under modern analysis, the question is simply whether the State has exercised its police power in conformity with the federal laws and Constitution." [436 U.S. 371, 406]

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, having read all that...

Your case of the states not owning the wildlife is about as thin as a professors necktie.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-30-2003 19:10: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Tom]

Then neckties went out a while back too, is that what you mean?