Baiting: A possible solution?

[JimmyHoffa]

The solution to baiting is simple.

Only Masters should be allowed to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder how WDFW would run that?  Some courses, volunteer projects and a test?

[fair-chase]

Before I post any suggestions for rule changes, I would like to cast my vote for no change at this time. I think it is important to vioce this as we all know that WDFW reads these threads. Admittedly I am cynical of WDFW and fear that this thread (without dissent) would later be shoved back in our faces to say that they have widespread hunter support for restrictions on baiting. I don't bait and have no intention of doing so in the future, but I hate to see restrictions needlessly placed on fellow sportsman. Therefore, I vote a resounding NO to any change first. If change is absolutely mandatory, then and only then will my following suggestions apply.


With that out of the way...

LATEST REVISION (after more input from forum members)
Baiting Restrictions
 - Bait placed on public land cannot be visible from less than 400 yards of an open public road
 - Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
 - Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed any calendar day
 * 8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = one bale 16"x18"x48"

Bearpaw, you must have an oddball baler to get them that long and narrow. Tell the truth now, are you still using steel wire to wrap those bales??? 
2 string = 14" x 18" x 36" = 9,072cu.in. = 39.27gallons
3 string = 16" x 24" x 48" = 18,432cu.in. = 79.79gallons

I would rewrite the previous suggestions as follows...

-Bait sites limited to 40 gallons at any given time.
This should appease those who use automatic feeders as well as those who use bales. 40 gallons is an easy enough measurement for enforcement to calculate. Works out to a full 2 string bale, half a 3 string bale, or 8 five gallon buckets. Simple. It also keeps the dump trucks of apples from being dropped. Restocking in 40 gallon increments may be doable for some of the outfitters in question, but it will also take a considerable amount of time and manpower versus the previous method of dumping by the truckload.
-Each individual/business allowed one bait site per square mile.
Per person and per square mile allows small landowners to bait even within close distance to neighbors. Even neighbors who are also baiting. While still keeping the larger tracts free from over use.
-Bait can be no closer than 100ft from any natural stream, river, or pond.
Keyword being natural. We don't need the WDFW checking every bird feeder, pool, or man-made wallow for spilled bait. 100ft is a  fairly standard easement for forestry work, so it seems to fit here as well.



"Visible from a public road" does not sit well with me. Far too many ways for that to be interpreted. There could be instances where you could see the bait by stopping and peering through the bushes, but nobody driving the speed limit on that road would be the wiser. Does that qualify as visible? What if I drive to a lookout and see a bait site in the valley 2 miles away? Does that qualify as visible?

I also don't agree with restrictions that use hours or the calendar day. I believe that going by total amount on the ground is a better system. What if it takes someone several trips to their site to stock it? What if they only get to their bait site once a week or month and want to make several trips? As long as they don't exceed the maximum allowable feed (i.e. 40gal.), why do we care how many times it takes them to drop it off?

[Elkstuffer]

There were no facts presented at the meeting. One guy was upset that his neighbors/friends were pulling deer off of his property, another that considered it an eye sore and one more that just didn't agree with the practice. That is why a couple of the commissioners, one being from the "problem" area of Omak, chose to shelf this until there is some biological facts presented to WDFW.

[Brad Harshman]

There were no facts presented at the meeting. One guy was upset that his neighbors/friends were pulling deer off of his property, another that considered it an eye sore and one more that just didn't agree with the practice. That is why a couple of the commissioners, one being from the "problem" area of Omak, chose to shelf this until there is some biological facts presented to WDFW.

Elkstuffer - remember there was a presentation.  WDFW Staff presented facts about the surveys.  But then there was testimony given by the public.  These we're anecdotal, opinions, for the most part.  People describing how the migration route has changed, about the deep trails in the snow leading to bait piles, how hunters success rate is down, except those being guided and hunting over these excessive bait piles.  There was also the professional biologist that gave factual informaion about the negative affects of apples calling them "snicker bars."  He was not a WDFW biologists though.
There was also testimony from the older lady who has been serving on the Game Management Advisory Council.  She was awesome. She described the GMAC l lengthy debates on this topic and how they voted 17-0 in favor of no change to baiting laws.  She also offered up that hunting guides are not regulated and that this is some thing the Commission should look into.
Sorry if what I had posted earlier was misleading as factual wildlife survey results, if there is a such thing

[idahohuntr]

There was also testimony from the older lady who has been serving on the Game Management Advisory Council.  She was awesome. She described the GMAC l lengthy debates on this topic and how they voted 17-0 in favor of no change to baiting laws.  She also offered up that hunting guides are not regulated and that this is some thing the Commission should look into.

Yes she is 

I believe facts are definitely lacking in this debate when it comes to effects of baiting...WDFW has described it as a social issue...not a biological issue.  They have no indication of biological problems. 

We are coming up with a bunch of good ideas on potential rule changes that will address the folks causing the bulk of the problem...I have to wonder if another approach might address the concerns but not result in additional rules...should hunters contact these guides/outfitters that are the primary cause of this latest uproar and ask them to modify their practices?  Or is it a bunch of people, and not just a few outfitters in N-C Wa? 

I

[JimmyHoffa]

I was wondering that too---an approach outside of baiting that would still address the issue.  The only things that really come to mind are changing up the permits/seasons for that area or creating a 'Deer Area' down where the private is and excluding it from the season. 

[bearpaw]

I received a phone call this afternoon and we discussed this issue!

As I suspected, most of the problems of concern are occurring on private land, mostly on the east side but also on the west side of the state. The primary concern is limiting the quantity of bait on the ground. It is a concern that 8 cf of bait per day would accumulate if someone dumped that quantity every day. There are many ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to limiting bait quantity.

WDFW has proposed two 5 gallon buckets as a maximum. That could prohibit barrel feeders that have a timer which only put down a small amount each day. 10 gallons of hay isn't much hay. There are many variables: Deer normally tear apart a bale and eat the leafy portions leaving all the stems! How can hay be measured after it has been broken apart and rained on? How does a hunter or warden measure loose bait to know if a bait is compliant? Should hay be measured differently than other baits? Some people might avoid quantity limits by placing multiple baits close together. But many hunters like to have more than one bait so they have hunting options.

There is no doubt that we are likely going to see limitations on bait quantity. With that in mind I'm going to change the direction of this conversation to concentrate on the quantity issue. What rules will work best for limiting the total quantity of bait on the ground?

A STARTING POINT

The following limitations apply to hunting with the aid of bait
 - No more than ___ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
 - No more than a total of ___ gallons of all other consumable materials can be available for consumption at a bait site
 - No hunter, group, or business can place more than one bait per each ___ acres of private land
 - No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than ___ from another bait they placed on public land

That gets the conversation going in the direction of limiting quantity, let's hear your thoughts?

[lokidog]

That's funny BP, that list looks almost identical to one I posted....

Many people disagreed with your proposed 1/4 mile visibility limit, and most, that said something, did not agree with 400 yards either.  You seemed against a possible list with no distance from a public road restriction, that was what I meant by not listening to the input.

Still not sure how __ acres of private land would translate to putting bait on two or more smaller adjacent private lots for those of us that don't have the luxury of lots of acreage to hunt.

[jrebel]

As far as barrel feeders with timers......If it is in a barrel and being dispensed over a period of time, does it really mean it is "available" for consumption.  It would be nice if there was wording that defines "Available."  Maybe "Available" could be defined as amount of food readily available for consumption at any one given time.  Food in the barrel is not readily available to game until it is dispensed on the ground.

Just a thought.

[CementFinisher]

I think the wording of having an amount at the site rather than a per day would address wdfw concerns a little better. id support 50 gallons. as far as hay weight I don't think would work well due to fresh hay out of the field can vary so much wether it was grown in a low spot or a high and dry area of the field. perhaps 5'x5'x2'. Dale you having so much access to private lands what acrage per site would you recommend? I don't hunt over bait but love it for trail cameras. its a shame that some people have taken it to a point where so many others now want to reduce methods and opportunities of others. Seems to be a discrepancy as to whether or not the wdfw is set on a change or possibly leaving it as is. Dale is the person you spoke with an employee of wdfw?

[CementFinisher]

Good point jrebel

[bearpaw]

Bearpaw, you must have an oddball baler to get them that long and narrow. Tell the truth now, are you still using steel wire to wrap those bales??? 
2 string = 14" x 18" x 36" = 9,072cu.in. = 39.27gallons
3 string = 16" x 24" x 48" = 18,432cu.in. = 79.79gallons

I rarely use hay, I think it makes too big of mess, I do have bait sites where we put out about 1/4 to 1/2 gallon of grain per day. I'm fine with their proposed 10 gallons per day, I would much rather plant food plots in the spring and see them grow then spend my time scouting and hunting rather than running baits anyway. The main reason I run baits is that it gives my hunters who want to hunt bait a better shot opportunity and we see fewer wounded animals. I actually have my highest success rates by spotting and stalking in Montana where bait is not even legal.

I looked up various bale sizes on google and it said that is a larger sized small bale. They sell 100-120 pound bales to hunters at the local feed store so that seemed like a good size to consider. I was trying to help out the conversation. Other people like to use hay so lets figure something out that works for them.

[bobcat]

Sundance,

I'm pretty sure the department does not have the money nor the manpower to do the type of studies that you would like to see. All they will do is look at harvest reports to determine whether the deer population is up or down.

[CementFinisher]

sundance it sounds as though the problem is with hunter public perception and not neccesarily a biological one. i don't agree that we should be making management decisions off societal views, but if its going to be changed we should at least get our say in there. maybe hold our hand until it is clear that it will change

[bearpaw]

That's funny BP, that list looks almost identical to one I posted....

Many people disagreed with your proposed 1/4 mile visibility limit, and most, that said something, did not agree with 400 yards either.  You seemed against a possible list with no distance from a public road restriction, that was what I meant by not listening to the input.

Still not sure how __ acres of private land would translate to putting bait on two or more smaller adjacent private lots for those of us that don't have the luxury of lots of acreage to hunt.

I'm happy that you are happy! 

I like to think of myself as a problem solver rather than a complainer. I was under the impression that visibility mattered. I learned that it is a concern but not the major concern. The main concern is limiting the amount of bait on the ground. So let's find some acceptable guidelines to do that!

So how does this affect my deer squirrel and songbird feeders? Still the same limitations?

I think it would apply if you hunt deer and elk over them. Otherwise why worry?