Baiting: A possible solution?

[Britt-dog]

     I was in attendance at Saturdays meeting, I did not speak, but I did accompany someone who did. I also spoke to two of the commissioners, the new department director, and Mr. Ware. I let them all know my pro baiting views. After listening to the various speakers I am convinced this is an issue based entirely on a pissing match involving a small group of people in the Okanagan. If it were not for a few guide services and their detractors, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and yours and my hunting methods would continue unchanged. This is a small localized issue that will affect everyone in the state.
     I could write for an hour why I think any changes to the rules are unnecessary, but I won't. I will simply say that any of your proposals are entirely unenforceable, and would lead to much finger pointing, accusations and  wasted time for our wardens. How many fellow hunters would be turning in every bait they were aware of, looking for points? we should not be capitulating to any regulation until it is forced upon us. Volume, distance, frequency, or sight limits will just be the beginning of the end. This debate has just started, we should all be fighting for no change.

[idahohuntr]

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.

Barrel feeders dispensing feed a little at a time are not the problem, so we should make sure rules don't restrict them.  Even under WDFW's 10 gallon limit I presumed as long as 10+ gallons was not available to the animal at any one time you would be fine with filling your 40 or 50 gallon feeders.

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 _50__ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
 - No more than a total of _50__ 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 _individual parcel OR 20__ acres of private land, whichever is less
 - No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than _1/2 mile__ from another bait they placed on public land

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

The quantity needs to be high enough that it exceeds most commercially available feeders and what most people could carry on a pack...but low enough that a truck load of apples is clearly outside the bounds. This makes it so their is less concern with hair splitting (do you have 8 gallons or 11 gallons of bait) and doesn't make the average guy suffer or change his ways because of the practices of a few.

The trickiest part is how do you stop the "me and 37 of my cousins each put our xx gallons of bait right next to each other".

[lokidog]

The one bait per 20 acres seems low to me.  Growing up, we had a 40 acre parcel and I can think of 4 to 6 places that we could have put bait that would not have interfered with each other (this was also a flat square 40), at least three could have been hunted at the same time w/o interference.   

[bearpaw]

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?

I spoke to someone who definitely knows the details. Not going to say much more about who it was.

I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. 

[bearpaw]

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.

Barrel feeders dispensing feed a little at a time are not the problem, so we should make sure rules don't restrict them.  Even under WDFW's 10 gallon limit I presumed as long as 10+ gallons was not available to the animal at any one time you would be fine with filling your 40 or 50 gallon feeders.

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 _50__ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
 - No more than a total of _50__ 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 _individual parcel OR 20__ acres of private land, whichever is less
 - No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than _1/2 mile__ from another bait they placed on public land

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

The quantity needs to be high enough that it exceeds most commercially available feeders and what most people could carry on a pack...but low enough that a truck load of apples is clearly outside the bounds. This makes it so their is less concern with hair splitting (do you have 8 gallons or 11 gallons of bait) and doesn't make the average guy suffer or change his ways because of the practices of a few.

The trickiest part is how do you stop the "me and 37 of my cousins each put our xx gallons of bait right next to each other".

  I'm not sure you can prevent guys from exploiting shady gray areas. Probably if rules stop the large piles that's going to solve the biggest concerns.

[Brad Harshman]

I hate to use a cliché but Im trying to think outside of the box here.  The issue isnt Tom, Dick, and Harry's normal baiting routine, it's Bill Gates' baiting routine.  The guy doing it on a huge scale for profit. And this is the line in the sand.  If the commercial outfitters want to put out ungodly amounts of half rotten apples on private land than let's let them.  But not without a fee, a charge, or mitigation for the impacts.  Let's figure out what the biological impacts are, and if they bait with sub par foods, for that time of year, than they pay more, or they have to feed higher quality food else where; some type of off-set for thier impacts.  I don't know I'm rambling here so feel free to pick this apart.  But I don't agree with limiting any of the Joe Shmoes opportunity to bait.  Besides, think about, does small scale baiting hurt or benefit the animals as whole?  Sure, you pluck one from the group, but how many other critters large and small benefitted from baits and salts.  When its small scale, it's self mitigating really.
Just my humble thoughts here.

[lokidog]

I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. 

OMG!  One per 100 acres?  Here I thought you didn't personally have issues with baiting.   

[bearpaw]

I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. 

OMG!  One per 100 acres?  Here I thought you didn't personally have issues with baiting.   

I was asked my opinion so I replied, I'm sure you did the same. I really don't care if you want to place baits 10 feet apart, as far as I'm concerned we don't need any rules for baiting, but that doesn't appear to be what others think who are anxious to limit each others hunting methods. Just glad I don't work for WDFW. 

[Curly]

I am really pleased that the gmac folks are in 100% agreement on the issue. That should really help the commission decide on the no change option.

[grundy53]

I am really pleased that the gmac folks are in 100% agreement on the issue. That should really help the commission decide on the no change option.

Hopefully

[vandeman17]

  Now that is funny right there!

[Wenatcheejay]

Isn't making concessions a solution Looking for a problem? Once limits are imposed an outright ban will be next.  I don't bother with bait but I support those who do 100%.

No limits, no bans.

[bobcat]

It seems to me there WILL BE an outright ban, unless some other option can be agreed upon that restricts baiting in some way.

[Wenatcheejay]

A lot of people ignore 594.

[Wenatcheejay]

I am just tired of negotiations that are preconceived to have only one outcome. Why negotiate drinking poison when the debate is if it will be taken from the right hand or the left? We already know this manufactured issue was decided beforehand. Why pretend otherwise?