Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 02:44:28 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 29, 2014, 02:50:04 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 02:55:59 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 29, 2014, 02:58:37 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 29, 2014, 02:59:02 PM
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 03:00:38 PM
Post by: wannabhntr on October 29, 2014, 03:07:30 PM
It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.Way to support your fellow hunters and the methods they choose. Didn't you agree and give a big thumbs up in "change to spring bear bunting" thread? No different really. Spring bear has a pretty good success rate without allowing baiting.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 29, 2014, 03:11:28 PM
It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.Way to support your fellow hunters and the methods they choose. Didn't you agree and give a big thumbs up in "change to spring bear bunting" thread? No different really. Spring bear has a pretty good success rate without allowing baiting.
:yeah: but don't let it get to you because we all know that real hunting is whatever he defines it as.
Post by: grundy53 on October 29, 2014, 03:12:28 PM
The sad part of this one is that it was hunters vs. hunters. At least when bear baiting was banned we could blame it on anti-hunters.I agree. Pretty sad.
Post by: bobcat on October 29, 2014, 03:17:24 PM
Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2014, 03:19:09 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 03:20:28 PM
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
Post by: JBG on October 29, 2014, 03:23:37 PM
LOL, you guys make it sound like hunting will never be the same without baiting if WDFW chooses to make some changes. I never heard of anybody baiting deer or elk 20 years ago. :dunno:
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
ITS LEGAL TO BAIT DEER?????????
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 03:25:44 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
LOL, you guys make it sound like hunting will never be the same without baiting if WDFW chooses to make some changes. I never heard of anybody baiting deer or elk 20 years ago. :dunno:
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
My beef with the restriction isn't the actual baiting, its that they just keep taking away options and methods of hunting while I continue to pay more and more in license, tags, fees etc each year. Strictly principle for me.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 29, 2014, 03:26:47 PM
No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. :bash:I think the WDFW is pretty intent on banning lead in the near future too.
Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 29, 2014, 03:27:28 PM
LOL, you guys make it sound like hunting will never be the same without baiting if WDFW chooses to make some changes. I never heard of anybody baiting deer or elk 20 years ago. :dunno:
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
My beef with the restriction isn't the actual baiting, its that they just keep taking away options and methods of hunting while I continue to pay more and more in license, tags, fees etc each year. Strictly principle for me.
People are just sick of getting yanked around.
This is just another example of how hunting in this state is going down the drain.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 03:28:20 PM
It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.
Have you sat next to corn or any other feed while shooting ducks?
Post by: bobcat on October 29, 2014, 03:28:59 PM
Are you thinking public land versus private? Or maybe outfitters versus do it yourselfers?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 29, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
:yeah: They keep taking away options. Eventually they'll find something 'important' to each and everyone.LOL, you guys make it sound like hunting will never be the same without baiting if WDFW chooses to make some changes. I never heard of anybody baiting deer or elk 20 years ago. :dunno:
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
My beef with the restriction isn't the actual baiting, its that they just keep taking away options and methods of hunting while I continue to pay more and more in license, tags, fees etc each year. Strictly principle for me.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 29, 2014, 03:31:03 PM
What modifications can be made? It seems to me it's all or nothing. Baiting is either legal, or not, just like with bears.Probably muley vs whitetail/blacktail, but the others you mention too.
Are you thinking public land versus private? Or maybe outfitters versus do it yourselfers?
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 03:36:38 PM
User groups didn't fight amongst each other as much 20 years ago either. I think the reason is pretty simple; most of us had no f'ing clue what the other was doing. Now we all (think) we know each other before we even meet. In most cases we never do meet. Instantly opinions are formed with very little evidence other than a profile picture or glory shot. I believe this leads to jealousy and resentment amongst our hunting community.
I guess if baiting deer had an adverse affect on the deer themselves or another user group I would be less upset. This has NOTHING to do with any of that and everything to do with one person telling another person what they should or shouldn't do in a matter that poses no harm to them.
Post by: RadSav on October 29, 2014, 03:38:09 PM
Hunters turning on hunters is a load of Horse Pucky!!! Stand strong and together or stand weak and divided.
Facebook :pee:
Post by: grundy53 on October 29, 2014, 03:44:59 PM
My way is the only way...just get used to it!! Yep, sounds like narcissism isn't just for politicians anymore ;) Next on the block...no shooting animals within 1/4 mile of a vehicle (insert sarcasm font). Anything that makes me feel morally superior to others, that's what the state should do. Screw the old guys, screw the disabled, screw the youth...it's all about my value system and nothing else matters!Well said!
Hunters turning on hunters is a load of Horse Pucky!!! Stand strong and together or stand weak and divided.
Facebook :pee:
Post by: archery288 on October 29, 2014, 03:45:04 PM
Post by: X-Force on October 29, 2014, 03:52:16 PM
I have never hunted over bait and almost without exception put on 5-15 miles a day when in the woods. I still want people who hunt small parcels, have limited mobility or just plain want to sit over a hay bale to have the opportunity to harvest animals legally.
If baiting deer or elk becomes illegal; are food plots going to be illegal? Is hunting near a salt lick (many of those on public land for cows)? What about man made water sources?
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 03:53:46 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.I think those of that are HONEST and have been baiting deer for a long time would agree on that.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 04:00:23 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.I think those of that are HONEST and have been baiting deer for a long time would agree on that.
100% agree. It is the farthest thing from a slam dunk!
Post by: 7mag. on October 29, 2014, 04:24:43 PM
The Facebook is to blame for some of this in my opinion. Not the Facebook specifically but social media in general. The more we are connected the more we butt into other people's business. The baiting of deer has been legal for a long long time. The fact that you never knew about it doesn't change that it was happening.
User groups didn't fight amongst each other as much 20 years ago either. I think the reason is pretty simple; most of us had no f'ing clue what the other was doing. Now we all (think) we know each other before we even meet. In most cases we never do meet. Instantly opinions are formed with very little evidence other than a profile picture or glory shot. I believe this leads to jealousy and resentment amongst our hunting community.
I guess if baiting deer had an adverse affect on the deer themselves or another user group I would be less upset. This has NOTHING to do with any of that and everything to do with one person telling another person what they should or shouldn't do in a matter that poses no harm to them.
Well said, and I agree 100%. The hunting in this state gets worse every year. It's really sad that we have to pay so much for the limited opportunity we get. We have ourselves to blame. Unfortunately, those of us that want to be left alone, have the quietest voice, while those that want to change every one else seems to have the loudest.
Post by: go4itlab on October 29, 2014, 04:28:11 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 29, 2014, 04:30:06 PM
Are they also going to ban hunting over food plots? Or just baiting?
My friend in Pennsylvania has a farm and a few food plots. Baiting is illegal but hunting over food plots is not.
They consider that "habitat improvement" and not baiting. He has to pull any baits 30 days before season. Scents are legal, mock scrapes, etc, just no actual bait piles. He uses a lot of mock scrape drips this time of year in front of his dozen or so trail cameras.
Post by: Todd_ID on October 29, 2014, 04:47:23 PM
Post by: wannabhntr on October 29, 2014, 04:51:08 PM
be curiouse to see if it did go thru how many of the bottom dwellers on here start turning in people in search of there 10 pts?........ like others have for baiting bears.Bottom dwellers?? Really? I have two feeders set up right now that my kids hunt over. I don't want to see WDFW ban baiting anymore than the next guy. That being said, if they made it illegal tomorrow the feeders would come down. For you to refer to law abiding ethical hunters as bottom feeders paints a nice picture of who you are. Hopefully the anti's that keep an eye on this forum aren't as ignorant as you and understand that not all hunters have your morals and integrity. Or lack there of.........
Post by: chester on October 29, 2014, 05:20:31 PM
Not the people baiting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: gonehuntin68 on October 29, 2014, 05:23:22 PM
Post by: JBG on October 29, 2014, 05:24:33 PM
It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.
Have you sat next to corn or any other feed while shooting ducks?
Well yea but I didnt take the corn out there in a wheel barrow. Hunting on a crop that hasnt been illegally downed is the same as hunting a water source or naturally existing food source.
Now that being said I really dont care how you want to harvest your deer. But lets be honest its nothing like hunting a corn pond or open water source during a freeze up. Good luck and I hope WDFW doesn't take that technique away. However if they do maybe view it as a chance to use what nature has provided and become even more connected to your quarry and nature itself. Lots of people in lots of places even Washington are able to harvest deer without the aid of bait.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 29, 2014, 05:25:59 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 05:26:30 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 29, 2014, 05:26:41 PM
It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.Way to support your fellow hunters and the methods they choose. Didn't you agree and give a big thumbs up in "change to spring bear bunting" thread? No different really. Spring bear has a pretty good success rate without allowing baiting.
A depradation hunt vs. general season baiting when one is trying to curb the bears from peeling trees. I have been drawn and hunted the spring season and ran across 50+ freshly peeled trees. I saw first hand all the damage they did. I took many pictures of them as well. This would be a good application for bait use. It's a select few that are involved in this hunt.
I have also witnessed first hand what bait has done for deer and elk hunting. I have seen huge bait piles and baited areas where you would see the animals pile off one property to head to another to hit the bait. Unless you yourself bait, the deer that reside on one piece of property will head to the next to be harvested. If you try to pattern animals through frequent scouting, setting up bait locations will shift those patterns.
People think they own these animals when they come onto there property in many cases.
Case note, we ran into this in eastern Wash. Had a nice mule deer come out of a private piece. It had gone about 70 yards onto DNR land. We were on the hill about 230 yards up and my buddy dropped it. As we were heading down, we saw several guys cross the fence and grab the deer and drag it back onto the private property. The argument ensued. They had been feeding it and it was so and so's deer and they were going to shoot it. Bad experience with people that bait deer and elk. If you run into a baited location on public land, the individuals who are baiting think they own the game hitting there bait piles. I wish it wasn't the case , but it is. I just don't support it.
Same goes for waterfowl, those that plant there land with 100's of acres of corn, millet, barley, etc. shift the flyway and remove equal access to those birds. You have scab lands around Moses lake that have been planted, flooded, etc that pull the birds from the potholes. You will have 14k- 40k birds sitting on some of these baited locations for a select few. If they were not allowed to bait, there location may be as good as the next location. With the only exception being the amount of hunting pressure.
Post by: Jellymon on October 29, 2014, 05:30:56 PM
They are gonna ban elk calling too. Can't use calls anymore.
Don't forget the bathroom permit you're going to need if you gotta go in the woods. All the proceeds will go to unnecessary crap in Bellevue.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 29, 2014, 05:32:43 PM
Are they also going to ban hunting over food plots? Or just baiting?:yike: Man just imagine if that happened back east ..that would just kill the T.V hunting industry and then I would love to see how many BIG Deer they can kill :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2014, 05:37:19 PM
In the proposed alternatives WDFW put out on this topic it included banning baiting for outfitters only, banning all baiting (including food plots), banning baiting but allowing food plots, and maybe a few other alternatives...just curious if they went nuclear (everything)...or if it was one of the milder alternatives?Are they also going to ban hunting over food plots? Or just baiting?
My friend in Pennsylvania has a farm and a few food plots. Baiting is illegal but hunting over food plots is not.
They consider that "habitat improvement" and not baiting. He has to pull any baits 30 days before season. Scents are legal, mock scrapes, etc, just no actual bait piles. He uses a lot of mock scrape drips this time of year in front of his dozen or so trail cameras.
Post by: wannabhntr on October 29, 2014, 05:38:42 PM
I think he was referring to the people trying to get 10 PTs on anything and everything they can.I know.
Not the people baiting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on October 29, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
Naturally existing corn? ....It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.
Have you sat next to corn or any other feed while shooting ducks?
Well yea but I didnt take the corn out there in a wheel barrow. Hunting on a crop that hasnt been illegally downed is the same as hunting a water source or naturally existing food source.
Now that being said I really dont care how you want to harvest your deer. But lets be honest its nothing like hunting a corn pond or open water source during a freeze up. Good luck and I hope WDFW doesn't take that technique away. However if they do maybe view it as a chance to use what nature has provided and become even more connected to your quarry and nature itself. Lots of people in lots of places even Washington are able to harvest deer without the aid of bait.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 05:45:12 PM
Naturally existing corn? ....It wouldn't be a bad thing. People would have to actually hunt again vs. sitting on a bait pile waiting until they get hungry.
Have you sat next to corn or any other feed while shooting ducks?
Well yea but I didnt take the corn out there in a wheel barrow. Hunting on a crop that hasnt been illegally downed is the same as hunting a water source or naturally existing food source.
Now that being said I really dont care how you want to harvest your deer. But lets be honest its nothing like hunting a corn pond or open water source during a freeze up. Good luck and I hope WDFW doesn't take that technique away. However if they do maybe view it as a chance to use what nature has provided and become even more connected to your quarry and nature itself. Lots of people in lots of places even Washington are able to harvest deer without the aid of bait.
:yeah:
Post by: PolarBear on October 29, 2014, 05:46:43 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 29, 2014, 05:52:38 PM
In the proposed alternatives WDFW put out on this topic it included banning baiting for outfitters only, banning all baiting (including food plots), banning baiting but allowing food plots, and maybe a few other alternatives...just curious if they went nuclear (everything)...or if it was one of the milder alternatives?Are they also going to ban hunting over food plots? Or just baiting?
My friend in Pennsylvania has a farm and a few food plots. Baiting is illegal but hunting over food plots is not.
They consider that "habitat improvement" and not baiting. He has to pull any baits 30 days before season. Scents are legal, mock scrapes, etc, just no actual bait piles. He uses a lot of mock scrape drips this time of year in front of his dozen or so trail cameras.
Did they offer a biological reason why it was necessary to ban baiting?
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 05:55:50 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 29, 2014, 05:59:34 PM
Next will be banning trail cameras like Montana.
Surprised they haven't already. They banned battery operated decoys for waterfowl as they were worried the harvest would go up. I am sure the harvest of deer and elk have gone up with the use of trail cams or at least more people killing the trophy genetics out of the gene pool as they are able to determine a pattern to the trophy deer and elk. As technology and science advances, people start using these new devises to there benefit.
We see it with very fast bows that are very accurate, in-line muzzle loaders that are accurate way past our eye sight, range finders and long range optics. I guess there has to be some sort of balance, love it or hate it. You want to maintain and keep the sport in hunting not just the guarantee of a harvest because you are afforded all these new technological advances. Deer and elk haven't changed, possibly smarter and fewer in some locations. Get out there and hunt them like the generations before you have. :tup:
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 06:16:20 PM
Any of you saying you have "first hand knowledge" of how baiting is detrimental to deer and elk care to elaborate?
[/quot
Sure. I have hunted the same area all my life. November archery season is always a treat. Chase a big buck blow the stock go find another all day long. The past Three to five years people have been baiting noticably more. Every truck that rolls threw town has a bin of apples in it. You cant drive in the hills without seeing bait piles from the road in november some even stock pile literally hundreds of bins of apples. No joke. Iam framiliar with the land ownwers that bait and the landowners that allow baiting and the land that the outfitters are leasing to bait. Anyy given dan in november you can go and waych the deer flood into huge piles of apples. Not just oneor two deer either. What does this do to the yearlings that know nothing other then when they are hungary they goteat an apple. Joe blow kills his deer and3 or 4 friends kill there deer off the same pile. Now its the end of november and the bad weather hits and joey isnt dumping any more apples. Every apple dumped has a sticker on it from there wherehouse. Are deer supposed to eay stickers? I dont know? Doesnt sound healthy to me. Buck numbers are way down. There are two major mule deer baiting outfitters in the area. Each outfitter successfully tags out each client every late archery season. Sounds great right? Well if each outfitter has 25 clients thats 50 mature bucks out of a not nearly big enough area. And that doesnt include every other DIY *censored* in the county.
Post by: RadSav on October 29, 2014, 06:29:47 PM
Any of you saying you have "first hand knowledge" of how baiting is detrimental to deer and elk care to elaborate?
Sure. I have hunted the same area all my life. November archery season is always a treat. Chase a big buck blow the stock go find another all day long. The past Three to five years people have been baiting noticably more. Every truck that rolls threw town has a bin of apples in it. You cant drive in the hills without seeing bait piles from the road in november some even stock pile literally hundreds of bins of apples. No joke. Iam framiliar with the land ownwers that bait and the landowners that allow baiting and the land that the outfitters are leasing to bait. Anyy given dan in november you can go and waych the deer flood into huge piles of apples. Not just oneor two deer either. What does this do to the yearlings that know nothing other then when they are hungary they goteat an apple. Joe blow kills his deer and3 or 4 friends kill there deer off the same pile. Now its the end of november and the bad weather hits and joey isnt dumping any more apples. Every apple dumped has a sticker on it from there wherehouse. Are deer supposed to eay stickers? I dont know? Doesnt sound healthy to me. Buck numbers are way down. There are two major mule deer baiting outfitters in the area. Each outfitter successfully tags out each client every late archery season. Sounds great right? Well if each outfitter has 25 clients thats 50 mature bucks out of a not nearly big enough area. And that doesnt include every other DIY *censored* in the county.
Where are you hunting that an Outfitter has 100% success on mature bucks during archery season and each hunter gets two buck tags?
Post by: zike on October 29, 2014, 06:36:05 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 06:37:03 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 06:37:35 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Ah Zike strikes again on the bait bashing
Post by: mtman on October 29, 2014, 06:52:55 PM
Post by: zike on October 29, 2014, 06:53:58 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Ah Zike strikes again on the bait bashing
You bet and and a master baiter like you is working hard defending baiting.
If it is banned it will level the playing field, between the baiters and the nonbaiters, which in MHO is good.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 06:57:29 PM
I have never killed an animal over bait actually but nice try. I would bring up the fact that I would run circles around you in the hills and I know plenty of people who would agree. Aren't you disabled? What if they took away all disabled permits to level the playing field?Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Ah Zike strikes again on the bait bashing
You bet and and a master baiter like you is working hard defending baiting.
If it is banned it will level the playing field, between the baiters and the nonbaiters, which in MHO is good.
Post by: RadSav on October 29, 2014, 07:13:21 PM
2 major outfitters and each outfitter takes 25 deer that adds up to 50 where i come from.
Not sure how I missed that sentence. My apologies!
Still interested where there are outfitters that are 100% in filling 25 - 50 late season archery tags with all mature bucks.
Post by: stinkbait on October 29, 2014, 07:29:59 PM
Post by: stinkbait on October 29, 2014, 07:32:12 PM
Post by: stinkbait on October 29, 2014, 07:35:19 PM
Post by: stinkbait on October 29, 2014, 07:38:23 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 07:58:21 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
Any of you saying you have "first hand knowledge" of how baiting is detrimental to deer and elk care to elaborate?
H
Yes I do have first hand knowledge. Look up several posts I've made on the issue in previous topics. I'm not explaining them again, because it's pointless. Those who know the things I do and have witnessed this have an affect on our wild game, know. If WDFW would make some modifications, the whole baiting scheme wouldn't be as big of deal to many. Leaving it wide open hurts certain herds, and that's a fact.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 08:01:26 PM
Post by: westsidehntr on October 29, 2014, 08:03:16 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Ah Zike strikes again on the bait bashing
You bet and and a master baiter like you is working hard defending baiting.
If it is banned it will level the playing field, between the baiters and the nonbaiters, which in MHO is good.
Since when is it a competition? What playing field are you trying to level? Can't we all just hunt and enjoy it? Does it affect your hunting if someone else has a bait pile? Or does it bother you that someone is trying to up his odds and you aren't? I don't understand?
Post by: bobcat on October 29, 2014, 08:05:27 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 08:08:51 PM
Post by: kentrek on October 29, 2014, 08:09:42 PM
2 major outfitters and each outfitter takes 25 deer that adds up to 50 where i come from.
Not sure how I missed that sentence. My apologies!
Still interested where there are outfitters that are 100% in filling 25 - 50 late season archery tags with all mature bucks.
:yeah:
Post by: billythekidrock on October 29, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 08:10:55 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 08:14:08 PM
Re: I hate to open this can again but.....2 major outfitters and each outfitter takes 25 deer that adds up to 50 where i come from.
Not sure how I missed that sentence. My apologies!
Still interested where there are outfitters that are 100% in filling 25 - 50 late season archery tags with all mature bucks.
:yeah:
« Reply #62 on: Today at 07:58:21 PM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Iam not going to throw out outfitters names. If you look at washington outfitters and the gmus that are open in nov it wont be hard to figure out. One even claims to "specialize" in late season mule deer. And maybe mot all are mature....but they arnt all pisscutters
Modify message
Post by: westsidehntr on October 29, 2014, 08:15:59 PM
Yes it does effect my hunting!
To your earlier point that it's bad for deer because they won't know what to eat when the apples are gone is IMHO absurd. You think they will just starve to death because the apples are gone? No they will go back to what they ate before the apples were there. And the yearlings will learn from the older ones.
Post by: HunterStrait on October 29, 2014, 08:22:23 PM
Do they count too?
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 08:26:35 PM
what about salt licks?
Do they count too?
Only if yer feeding a few hundreddeer a day with it! :chuckle:
Post by: CoryTDF on October 29, 2014, 08:27:21 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 29, 2014, 08:38:39 PM
This will limit or eliminate some hunters. I think it is a crappy deal. Very selfish of others to take away an option for others.
Where you have total influence of a state resource at your hands? What happened to free chase. They heard up like cattle and come to the bait like a crack head looking for a fix. One can pull most the surrounding state resources to a specific location, whether private land or an undisclosed location. If it is private land, it maintains optimal harvest for a select few. It makes for a very uneven playing field, if you own land and can't maintain the animals on it, enhance it. Don't pile up the bait as it no longer is hunting it becomes harvesting.
As hunters, can you not put in the boot work, scouting, glassing the hills in order to harvest an animal? I know many that do this and are great hunters. The way the generations before us did. Or is that not functional for a ground blind with a cooler in it? It's not selfish, it's FAIR chase for a state resource plain and simple. Due to the internet age, you just see a lot more trying it out. I have a buddy that argues about this every time I see him. He now has 20 nice bulls under his belt and everyone has been shot in the same location. The salt hole is about 4' deep now. He will give me crap for posting this, but it just goes to show what bait can do for an individual. I usually see the bull he shoots before he shoots it thanks to his trail camera. He knows the times they come in, etc.
Post by: kentrek on October 29, 2014, 08:39:33 PM
If a method of hunting is killing too many critters in an area than wa should restrict tag numbers
Post by: MeatMaster on October 29, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
LOL, you guys make it sound like hunting will never be the same without baiting if WDFW chooses to make some changes. I never heard of anybody baiting deer or elk 20 years ago. :dunno:
Also, you're telling me I can't choose to have any say on an issue and I should just make a decision based on how certain others feel? Get real. Yay or nay on supporting baiting, there needs to be some modifications regardless, IN MY OPINION.
:yeah:
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 08:45:31 PM
Yes it does effect my hunting!
To your earlier point that it's bad for deer because they won't know what to eat when the apples are gone is IMHO absurd. You think they will just starve to death because the apples are gone? No they will go back to what they ate before the apples were there. And the yearlings will learn from the older ones.
Before you go poking fingers, you should research how many complaints orchardists file from deer damage during the winter. Surprisingly enough, many that have filed complaints have actually allowed hunting over apples on their property. Isn't that calling the kettle black?? :dunno:
Post by: Stalker on October 29, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
Gotta love hunters here in WA; we are our own worst enemy as we cannot come together on any issue of substance and take a unified stand on important matters and have a singular voice when speaking to WDFW. Don't know how many times someone has mentioned a boycott for a couple of years and remove the $$$ we spend on licenses so our voices may once again be heard and the response is always "not me I only have so many hunting seasons and opportunities" etc..... The whole baiting issue to me is a non-issue as I truly do not believe the impact on herds throughout the state are that dramatic or it would have been banned years a go. I would bet that this is an issue being submitted for consideration based on a few individuals and their way is the most sporting.
The endangered species in WA is the hunter and we are to blind to see our own demise....... Divide and conquer is alive and well..... twocents:
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 08:53:33 PM
Never sat over a bait site so I have no idea how productive it would be. With that said I would bet money that there are more animals that fall to the lure of artificial calls. Maybe DFW should consider banning calls. Only calling that could be done is what one could generate with their own vocal cords.... I know a few folks that can pull that off just fine.
Gotta love hunters here in WA; we are our own worst enemy as we cannot come together on any issue of substance and take a unified stand on important matters and have a singular voice when speaking to WDFW. Don't know how many times someone has mentioned a boycott for a couple of years and remove the $$$ we spend on licenses so our voices may once again be heard and the response is always "not me I only have so many hunting seasons and opportunities" etc..... The whole baiting issue to me is a non-issue as I truly do not believe the impact on herds throughout the state are that dramatic or it would have been banned years a go. I would bet that this is an issue being submitted for consideration based on a few individuals and their way is the most sporting.
The endangered species in WA is the hunter and we are to blind to see our own demise....... Divide and conquer is alive and well..... twocents:
Yea i love hunting and dont think there will be much to hunt if baiting is allowed as if is now!
Post by: Turner89 on October 29, 2014, 08:59:17 PM
Never sat over a bait site so I have no idea how productive it would be. With that said I would bet money that there are more animals that fall to the lure of artificial calls. Maybe DFW should consider banning calls. Only calling that could be done is what one could generate with their own vocal cords.... I know a few folks that can pull that off just fine.:yeah:
Gotta love hunters here in WA; we are our own worst enemy as we cannot come together on any issue of substance and take a unified stand on important matters and have a singular voice when speaking to WDFW. Don't know how many times someone has mentioned a boycott for a couple of years and remove the $$$ we spend on licenses so our voices may once again be heard and the response is always "not me I only have so many hunting seasons and opportunities" etc..... The whole baiting issue to me is a non-issue as I truly do not believe the impact on herds throughout the state are that dramatic or it would have been banned years a go. I would bet that this is an issue being submitted for consideration based on a few individuals and their way is the most sporting.
The endangered species in WA is the hunter and we are to blind to see our own demise....... Divide and conquer is alive and well..... twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:02:00 PM
Post by: mustanggt on October 29, 2014, 09:02:11 PM
Post by: lokidog on October 29, 2014, 09:02:43 PM
How stupid does that sound? All of you "hunters" in favor of this ban need to take a deep down look at yourselves. You are IDIOTS! Simply one more step toward banning hunting altogether, after all the wolves can manage the wildlife just fine without us. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:06:13 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 29, 2014, 09:07:06 PM
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 09:07:49 PM
Rules were originally intended to be used to stop harmful activities of one kind or another. Why do we insist on creating more and more rules all the time that serve no practical purpose? It's particularly ridiculous when it's a group like ours that is constantly fighting for our very existence. I thought the church was the only organization that shot their wounded. Who has the energy to fight the opposition when you have used it all simply trying to survive amongst your own?
Mark my words......more than one of you will be crying the blues and trying to garner support from this same group for something you believe to be an infringement of your rights. I hope you are confronted by the same ignorant and shallow minded crowd of thinkers I am seeing on this post.
Post by: lokidog on October 29, 2014, 09:09:33 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
Post by: billythekidrock on October 29, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
I think we need to ban lead bullets, screw all of you who have it too easy using them. Real hunters only use bows for hunting, and only bows they've made themselves. We need to ban anything other than black powder and roundballs for muzzleloaders as well.
How stupid does that sound? All of you "hunters" in favor of this ban need to take a deep down look at yourselves. You are IDIOTS! Simply one more step toward banning hunting altogether, after all the wolves can manage the wildlife just fine without us. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: billythekidrock on October 29, 2014, 09:14:58 PM
I've seen throughout my life that once something is taken or given away it's almost impossible to get back. Incrementalism has gotten us to where we are politically and economically. Hunting over bait may not be your cup of tea but it may be the only way some people can get out into the woods and enjoy the same thing you do, that is, hunt deer. You want to give away what may be the only way a disabled kid can enjoy what you do and that is hunt deer. We need to protect the rights and privileges that we still have and not let anyone erode them. Today may be baiting deer(unfair), tomorrow may be no tree stands or ground blinds(unfair). We've seen what banning generations long practices of hound hunting bear and mt. lion has done on ungulate populations. Coyotes were controlled the same way. Instead of getting in giant pissing contests how about we try to join forces and protect what we have and maybe get back what we've lost.
This is the bigger concern.
Post by: archery288 on October 29, 2014, 09:17:21 PM
That being said, I can understand why some people don't bait because maybe they can't afford it. I can assure you, if baiting becomes illegal, the number of whitetail deer harvested in Eastern, WA during late archery will drop dramatically. It's tough enough to take a whitetail with a bow, and anyone who's hunted them with a bow in late season knows how skittish they are. They will spook at the smallest noise which you yourself can barely hear, and they are going 90 in no-time. I've blown opportunities on bucks just trying to draw my bow back, and they heard something and spooked. It's not a slam dunk by any means, so those who say it is, I feel like you haven't tried it. Or maybe you're not hunting whitetails.
As mentioned before in this post, trail cameras do help give you an idea of what type of animals are in the area. There is a plus side to that. Most guys that go out in the woods would shoot the first legal buck, or smaller 2 / 3 pt buck they see. Maybe they don't care about shooting a big buck, great, that's their choice and I support them 100% in that. By using cameras and locating a bigger buck, you can let those smaller bucks walk if they come in, therefore allowing them to get bigger. Almost every person who uses a trail camera has some sort of "bait" out in front of it to attract the animals.
We each have our own methods of hunting and the type of hunting we enjoy. Yes, we all view this topic extremely different. However, as hunters, unfortunately we are being outnumbered by anti's as each day passes. We need to stand together and support our rights to hunt in general, otherwise NONE of us will be hunting if we keep arguing back and forth and getting privileges taken away. Hunt how you feel is ethical, and do what makes you happy, it's all about being in the woods and having a good time at the end of the day.
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 09:21:55 PM
When I read the stories about the baiting that happens on the east side, I have to say I'd be in favor of banning that. But I'm not sure it's a problem here on the west side, and it's a method that allows small, private parcels to be hunted when there really is no other way. If they could somehow ban the baiting practices that are detrimental to deer or elk populations, and not ban it where it's not hurting anything, I would support that.
[/quote
You have read stories....are all stories true? Has a hunter ever embellished a story? I hate it when crap like this gets circulated. How the hell would baiting on the East Side be any different than the West Side? Is the West side the only part of the state that has small tracts of land to hunt? Come on man!!!!!
Post by: Stickerbush on October 29, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
For the record I have hunted over bait, still hard! No easy harvest, no harvest at all yet hunting over bait
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 09:23:52 PM
Id be willing to bet that NE WA late archery deer will lose half the licenses sold within 2 years and those hunters will migrate to modern and some to muzzy. Ive already talked to a few that will quit bowhunting if it goes thru and go back to rifle. I personally dont care, I ve had far better success with calls in the rut than bait.
Trails cams will never outright be banned EVER....maybe during hunting season like MT.
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 09:26:19 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:27:32 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:29:34 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
Post by: Seabass on October 29, 2014, 09:30:26 PM
Thers no law sayin you cant rub penut butter all over yer ba!!$ and invite yer nieghbors dog over for a snack either......but i dont see many guys jumpin up and runnin to the store for a jar of jiffy. But if the game dept said you cant you all would prob throw a fit!
Simply ignorant
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:32:34 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
Honest question but what central wa post rut mule deer hunts are you talking about? Permit hunts?
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:35:43 PM
What I find interesting is the guys who are against baiting have never hunted over bait but say how easy it is. Then you have the guys that have baited saying that it's not.... Seems like a trend and pretty easy who's word should be believed :dunno:
You crack me up. Always having something to say, yet other than being a forum regular, have nothing zero knowledge of what's going on other than trying to be involved. Keep on posting, but try to have some knowledge when you get in a debate that's obviously over your head. :twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:39:17 PM
What I find interesting is the guys who are against baiting have never hunted over bait but say how easy it is. Then you have the guys that have baited saying that it's not.... Seems like a trend and pretty easy who's word should be believed :dunno:
You crack me up. Always having something to say, yet other than being a forum regular, have nothing zero knowledge of what's going on other than trying to be involved. Keep on posting, but try to have some knowledge when you get in a debate that's obviously over your head. :twocents:
No knowledge huh? Go ahead and tell yourself that all mighty one. You know all and everyone else here should bow down to your feet. :bash: what in my post even remotely makes you draw a conclusion like that?
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:39:32 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
Honest question but what central wa post rut mule deer hunts are you talking about? Permit hunts?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. No clue, yet making previous assumptions.
Post by: WARHORSE on October 29, 2014, 09:40:37 PM
Thers no law sayin you cant rub penut butter all over yer ba!!$ and invite yer nieghbors dog over for a snack either......but i dont see many guys jumpin up and runnin to the store for a jar of jiffy. But if the game dept said you cant you all would prob throw a fit!
Simply ignorant
Simply honest
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:41:01 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
Honest question but what central wa post rut mule deer hunts are you talking about? Permit hunts?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. No clue, yet making previous assumptions.
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
Honest question but what central wa post rut mule deer hunts are you talking about? Permit hunts?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. No clue, yet making previous assumptions.
So asking what you are referring to means I have no knowledge. Wow, that's deep man. You spout off your feelings like its gospel and anyone who opposes doesn't know anything and is wrong. Yep makes perfect sense to me
Post by: MtnMuley on October 29, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
I'm just shocked they didn't come up with something like a point/application system for an E/W baiting permit where folks buy applications or points for $10/piece so that we can have a crack at one of the $200/piece baiting permits of which only 5,000 are available :chuckle: :yike:
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 09:54:38 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 09:55:54 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:57:19 PM
Read into it how ever you'd like. I could care less. I talk facts about things I'm serious towards regardless who I offend. :hello:
That is fine but to question another hunters knowledge because he has different opinions is a little off base. I am done with this thread and will continue to say that if actual biologists say that baiting is a detriment to the herds then I have no issues with it being banned but until then, why any hunter would want to take away hunting methods from others because they don't like it is beyond me
Post by: vandeman17 on October 29, 2014, 09:58:42 PM
What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
That was all I was asking but I guess since I couldn't read his mind I havr no knowledge :o
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 29, 2014, 10:06:19 PM
why any hunter would want to take away hunting methods from others because they don't like it is beyond me
This is the root of the problem that others don't have the cajones to answer.
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 10:12:03 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 29, 2014, 10:14:26 PM
This will limit or eliminate some hunters. I think it is a crappy deal. Very selfish of others to take away an option for others.
Where you have total influence of a state resource at your hands? What happened to free chase. They heard up like cattle and come to the bait like a crack head looking for a fix. One can pull most the surrounding state resources to a specific location, whether private land or an undisclosed location. If it is private land, it maintains optimal harvest for a select few. It makes for a very uneven playing field, if you own land and can't maintain the animals on it, enhance it. Don't pile up the bait as it no longer is hunting it becomes harvesting.
As hunters, can you not put in the boot work, scouting, glassing the hills in order to harvest an animal? I know many that do this and are great hunters. The way the generations before us did. Or is that not functional for a ground blind with a cooler in it? It's not selfish, it's FAIR chase for a state resource plain and simple. Due to the internet age, you just see a lot more trying it out. I have a buddy that argues about this every time I see him. He now has 20 nice bulls under his belt and everyone has been shot in the same location. The salt hole is about 4' deep now. He will give me crap for posting this, but it just goes to show what bait can do for an individual. I usually see the bull he shoots before he shoots it thanks to his trail camera. He knows the times they come in, etc.
I would be curious to know your stance on Calls and decoys for waterfowl.
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 10:17:04 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 29, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
Jeez, loki, I never thought I was an "idiot" because I cared about our herd health before I cared about filling my tag. I'm sorry.
You said it I guess. Give me any example of how the "herd health" is being damaged by baiting!
As I've stated in many of previous posts, the north central Washington mule deer herds are being slammed by baiting during open seasons post rut when the mature bucks are very susceptible of being lured in by a dump truck load of bait. If that's okay with you then fine. It's not okay by me.
So It's ok to take away many hunters preferred hunting method because of a few bad apples? Seams like a slippery slope to me. EVERY hunting method has a few bad apples.
Post by: smalldog on October 29, 2014, 10:22:24 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on October 29, 2014, 10:22:56 PM
This will limit or eliminate some hunters. I think it is a crappy deal. Very selfish of others to take away an option for others.
Where you have total influence of a state resource at your hands? What happened to free chase. They heard up like cattle and come to the bait like a crack head looking for a fix. One can pull most the surrounding state resources to a specific location, whether private land or an undisclosed location. If it is private land, it maintains optimal harvest for a select few. It makes for a very uneven playing field, if you own land and can't maintain the animals on it, enhance it. Don't pile up the bait as it no longer is hunting it becomes harvesting.
As hunters, can you not put in the boot work, scouting, glassing the hills in order to harvest an animal? I know many that do this and are great hunters. The way the generations before us did. Or is that not functional for a ground blind with a cooler in it? It's not selfish, it's FAIR chase for a state resource plain and simple. Due to the internet age, you just see a lot more trying it out. I have a buddy that argues about this every time I see him. He now has 20 nice bulls under his belt and everyone has been shot in the same location. The salt hole is about 4' deep now. He will give me crap for posting this, but it just goes to show what bait can do for an individual. I usually see the bull he shoots before he shoots it thanks to his trail camera. He knows the times they come in, etc.
I would be curious to know your stance on Calls and decoys for waterfowl.
Ya h2ofowlr lost all acknowledgment from me, these type of guys are a cancer to the hunting community. The dude should get over himself....
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 29, 2014, 10:29:11 PM
This will limit or eliminate some hunters. I think it is a crappy deal. Very selfish of others to take away an option for others.
Where you have total influence of a state resource at your hands? What happened to free chase. They heard up like cattle and come to the bait like a crack head looking for a fix. One can pull most the surrounding state resources to a specific location, whether private land or an undisclosed location. If it is private land, it maintains optimal harvest for a select few. It makes for a very uneven playing field, if you own land and can't maintain the animals on it, enhance it. Don't pile up the bait as it no longer is hunting it becomes harvesting.
As hunters, can you not put in the boot work, scouting, glassing the hills in order to harvest an animal? I know many that do this and are great hunters. The way the generations before us did. Or is that not functional for a ground blind with a cooler in it? It's not selfish, it's FAIR chase for a state resource plain and simple. Due to the internet age, you just see a lot more trying it out. I have a buddy that argues about this every time I see him. He now has 20 nice bulls under his belt and everyone has been shot in the same location. The salt hole is about 4' deep now. He will give me crap for posting this, but it just goes to show what bait can do for an individual. I usually see the bull he shoots before he shoots it thanks to his trail camera. He knows the times they come in, etc.
I would be curious to know your stance on Calls and decoys for waterfowl.
Ya h2ofowlr lost all acknowledgment from me, these type of guys are a cancer to the hunting community. The dude should get over himself....
Because I have an opinion? Interesting. A cancer because I don't agree with it based off of what I have personally witnessed. I spend a lot of time in the woods and hunting and because of the idiots I have ran into that I have a strong opinion about it. Not stuck on myself, but thanks for calling me out Houndhunter.
I guess I have to ask what have you done for hunting Houndhunter? Besides I didn't know I was a blip on your screen. I will keep fighting for your hunting rights and sending letters and meeting with buddies higher up. I am not going to make a case of support or against baiting outside this forum. I just felt I would express my view, like many enjoy doing.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 29, 2014, 10:29:59 PM
Post by: MuleySniper on October 29, 2014, 10:32:53 PM
Funny how hunters are their own worse enemies....
Post by: jnevs23 on October 29, 2014, 11:03:09 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 29, 2014, 11:16:08 PM
Post by: RadSav on October 29, 2014, 11:27:41 PM
What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
Thank you for that clarification. Surprised with a success rate like that on mature bucks I'd never heard of them. Figured the poster must have been talking about another state. Just wanted to better understand. Appreciated!
Post by: jnevs23 on October 29, 2014, 11:33:42 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2014, 11:47:03 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 29, 2014, 11:48:24 PM
This is nothing more than another loss of opportunity, less deer in people's freezers. WDFW is getting very good at dividing and conquering hunters.
Pit one group of hunters against another group of hunters and let them squabble like hens fighting over a piece of bacon, then use that as an excuse to peck away at various forms of hunting.
Wake up and see what's going on folks, and quit trying to peel away other hunters' opportunity because it doesn't fit your model of what hunting is.
:twocents:
Post by: huntingbaldguy on October 30, 2014, 12:26:46 AM
Post by: DeerHarvester on October 30, 2014, 03:56:10 AM
Thers no law sayin you cant rub penut butter all over yer ba!!$ and invite yer nieghbors dog over for a snack either......but i dont see many guys jumpin up and runnin to the store for a jar of jiffy. But if the game dept said you cant you all would prob throw a fit!
Hahahah this is a great thread. Keep it coming boyz.
WARHORSE can I have your autograph? Haven't I seen you on T.V. Also do you perfer chunky or regular Jiffy?
Post by: DeerHarvester on October 30, 2014, 04:15:50 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 04:49:15 AM
Just think about all the fire victims we could feed with the dump truck of apples being used to feed deer.
Not sure if you're being serious or detracting from the actual conversation. People bait with apples that are unfit for human consumption and alfalfa.
Additionally, you can probably count the "dump trucks" of apples on one hand because while it's easy to single out a few outfitters, you are mainly limiting guys like this
Love hearing how baiting is "lazy" hunting. I spend my summers carrying 60#-90# bins of apples/corn/pumpkins/alfalfa/ whatever I can scavenge up and down hills, running cams and scouting trying to locate mature bucks. The guys I know that use baiting as a hunting technique hunt harder than the vast majority of guys out there. I also don't understand how having year round salt blocks available and supplemented food sources are detrimental to the herd. I've put out thousands of pounds of feed and shot 2 deer over bait. Pretty sure I've done more to help the local deer herd than hurt it
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 05:35:00 AM
Love hearing how baiting is "lazy" hunting. I spend my summers carrying 60#-90# bins of apples/corn/pumpkins/alfalfa/ whatever I can scavenge up and down hills, running cams and scouting trying to locate mature bucks. The guys I know that use baiting as a hunting technique hunt harder than the vast majority of guys out there. I also don't understand how having year round salt blocks available and supplemented food sources are detrimental to the herd. I've put out thousands of pounds of feed and shot 2 deer over bait. Pretty sure I've done more to help the local deer herd than hurt it(http://)
Said I was done with this thread but I guess it's like the "crack" that we bait hunters put out and I just can't avoid it :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 05:52:07 AM
What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
Thank you for that clarification. Surprised with a success rate like that on mature bucks I'd never heard of them. Figured the poster must have been talking about another state. Just wanted to better understand. Appreciated!
A lot more than just that. Several other open GMU's. It's not just the outfitters those of us that are concerned about, it's all the others that feel it necessary to drive off roads tipping over bins is apples and leaving behind the thousands of apple brand stickers that litter the landscape. To make the accusations that those of us that are concerned are jealous of the success is comical, yet understandable. There are a bunch of those who are jealous for the wrong reasons though and have started the practices themselves: go to any extreme to kill a trophy regardless of what they leave behind or trash. Kill off a high percentage of the migrated in mature bucks and look what it does to the herd health and quality......sure seems to be a lot of posts the last few years about seeing less bucks hanging in camps all around this region. Coincidence in certain areas rather than the poor season dates and predation, I think so. I also think it's too bad for the vast majority of guys who enjoy the baiting style are being affected by a select few that have taken what could be a great hunting strategy to a whole other detrimental level. As I'll say again, a few simple modifications to the rule is all that I feel is necessary, not a complete ban by any means.
Post by: Alchase on October 30, 2014, 07:48:33 AM
What is the reasoning or justification for the ban?
Another concern is how the ban (if implemented) is worded.
The consequences of the trapping ban went way to far because of the wording in the bill. Moles? Seriously?
Can you imagine if they worded a bating ban ruling like the worded the trapping bill?
We would not be able to hunt anywhere near winter feeding grounds, alfalfa fields, or CRP land?
Post by: UptheCreek on October 30, 2014, 08:01:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2014, 08:24:04 AM
Post by: TommyH on October 30, 2014, 08:54:38 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 30, 2014, 09:08:48 AM
What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
Thank you for that clarification. Surprised with a success rate like that on mature bucks I'd never heard of them. Figured the poster must have been talking about another state. Just wanted to better understand. Appreciated!
If one outfitter is driving a ban on baiting with unscrupulous baiting then that needs looked at as a single issue, if we see any action though it'll most likely be a statewide ban.
I wasn't familiar with that issue.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 09:11:52 AM
What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
Thank you for that clarification. Surprised with a success rate like that on mature bucks I'd never heard of them. Figured the poster must have been talking about another state. Just wanted to better understand. Appreciated!
If one outfitter is driving a ban on baiting with unscrupulous baiting then that needs looked at as a single issue, if we see any action though it'll most likely be a statewide ban.
I wasn't familiar with that issue.
Me either and I agree. If there are stats and studies that show that baiting at certain times or in certain areas has a negative impact on herd health I am all for it. A statewide ban just feels like it is being done because some hunters don't agree with it rather then on science.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 30, 2014, 09:16:45 AM
A voice of reason. Yes, lets identify what the issues are and find solutions to some of these very legitimate concerns without a complete ban. Hunters have always regulated themselves and so I see no reason we couldn't increase regulation/oversight of baiting. Right now its a free for all and some issues may be cropping up...the solution is not a ban...common sense regulation would work well. :twocents:What they are referring to is the late archery mule deer hunt in 209 and 215 in Nov...there is a outfitter that baits them and does well..there has been several hunting shows filmed there
Thank you for that clarification. Surprised with a success rate like that on mature bucks I'd never heard of them. Figured the poster must have been talking about another state. Just wanted to better understand. Appreciated!
A lot more than just that. Several other open GMU's. It's not just the outfitters those of us that are concerned about, it's all the others that feel it necessary to drive off roads tipping over bins is apples and leaving behind the thousands of apple brand stickers that litter the landscape. To make the accusations that those of us that are concerned are jealous of the success is comical, yet understandable. There are a bunch of those who are jealous for the wrong reasons though and have started the practices themselves: go to any extreme to kill a trophy regardless of what they leave behind or trash. Kill off a high percentage of the migrated in mature bucks and look what it does to the herd health and quality......sure seems to be a lot of posts the last few years about seeing less bucks hanging in camps all around this region. Coincidence in certain areas rather than the poor season dates and predation, I think so. I also think it's too bad for the vast majority of guys who enjoy the baiting style are being affected by a select few that have taken what could be a great hunting strategy to a whole other detrimental level. As I'll say again, a few simple modifications to the rule is all that I feel is necessary, not a complete ban by any means.
Those that are in the know...can you shed any more light on what you heard from wdfw...is it a complete ban or one of the milder alternatives being selected???
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 09:20:57 AM
I know the origin of this whole problem, and yes it is outfitters at the base of the problem.......but the originating persons and their professional capacity is the root cause. Thats all Ill say.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 30, 2014, 09:34:49 AM
Don't like it? Don't do it. But please don't hamstring managers trying to direct harvest to areas with the most conflicts between big game and property owners.
Post by: Alchase on October 30, 2014, 09:41:18 AM
At the previous Colville wolf meeting, wdfw stated if there is a decline in deer harvest numbers for 3 consecutive years, then they would launch a scientific study to determine the cause.
It would seem to me if there was a "decline in deer harvest numbers for 3 consecutive years" there is no justification for a ban on baiting, that only leaves their reasoning as Political?
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 09:46:24 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 09:47:42 AM
Baiting is a very good management tool to harvest animals in suburban or subdivided areas where properties are small, homes are plentiful, and there may only be one safe direction or location in which an animal can be safely shot. My not be your cup of tea, but out on the National Forest and vast timber company lands is not where the greatest need for harvest exists. I'd far rather suburban deer and elk be harvested safely over bait than hunted free range in a less safe manner, much less relying on vehicle collisions and suburban cougars and coyotes for control.
Don't like it? Don't do it. But please don't hamstring managers trying to direct harvest to areas with the most conflicts between big game and property owners.
Other benefits I see in baiting are that it allows the hunter to establish what is in the area he is hunting so that he/she can potentially pass on immature animals, letting them grow up. Also, one of the major reasons I bait, especially for whitetails is not to attract them, but to try and get them to stop long enough to present and clean and ethical shot. In many of my good whitetail spots in the NE corner, it is thick and nasty with few shooting lanes, especially with a bow.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 10:02:52 AM
First, there is no confirmation that baiting will be banned or restricted. Until a formal proposal is presented and enacted, it’s speculation at this time.
The argument “hunters are our own worst enemy” seems to be the position held by both sides in this argument. Those opposed to baiting imply that allowing it to remain legal hurts the image of hunting, while those who support it believe that all legal hunting methods should be supported by all hunters.
My unfounded suspicion is that that arguments put forth to WDFW by those opposed to baiting were (a) greater in number, and (b) better constructed than those in favor of allowing it to remain legal. Lots of members on here posted about why baiting should remain legal, but very few probably took the time to compose well-written letters to WDFW in favor of keeping it legal. :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 10:08:43 AM
On another note, deer drives are very popular in states that allow party hunting..........great way to fill a bunch of tags.
I prefer to target animals that have no clue I exist...........not necessarily over bait, but some times...........like when its foggy. In no way do I support a baiting ban because a couple professionals favorite spot has been ruined by what is being done on private property.
And in response to Bob33, I would agree with that if wdfw otherwise displayed fair and scientific approaches to ALL issues that come up..........scientific being most important.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 10:08:43 AM
My thoughts follow.
First, there is no confirmation that baiting will be banned or restricted. Until a formal proposal is presented and enacted, it’s speculation at this time.
The argument “hunters are our own worst enemy” seems to be the position held by both sides in this argument. Those opposed to baiting imply that allowing it to remain legal hurts the image of hunting, while those who support it believe that all legal hunting methods should be supported by all hunters.
My unfounded suspicion is that that arguments put forth to WDFW by those opposed to baiting were (a) greater in number, and (b) better constructed than those in favor of allowing it to remain legal. Lots of members on here posted about why baiting should remain legal, but very few probably took the time to compose well-written letters to WDFW in favor of keeping it legal. :twocents:
My gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal? When was the last time something was taken away and given back? No matter how hard you fight, all they want to do is continue to take take take but never restore or add options. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that they have made legal recently is lighted nocks. Wooptie doo.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 10:29:58 AM
My gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal?I think you know the answer to that? Hunters are less than five percent of our population, and a divided group at that. The antis are often better organized and willing to fight for their cause.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 10:39:53 AM
I am just not convinced that the anti's would be behind this because I don't think the majority know about it. I think it is coming from inside the hunting community, of which it is those that don't agree with it or don't think it is ethical. I could be completely wrong but that is just my thought at this time. I guess only time will tellMy gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal?I think you know the answer to that? Hunters are less than five percent of our population, and a divided group at that. The antis are often better organized and willing to fight for their cause.
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 10:44:32 AM
AND.....if thats not the case, Ill be pleasantly surprised. Shocked, actually.
Post by: curlewkiller on October 30, 2014, 10:53:49 AM
No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. :bash:
Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 10:57:17 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 11:03:32 AM
My sister in law is one of those granola munching hippies who does a ton of cross country hiking. She supports hunting but has conplained to me on numerous times about coming across baiting sites and the mess that some of them leave. Also, certain types of hay can introduce non native or invasive weeds pr plant seeds. I know that when I was doing a lot of back country hunting we could only pack in certified weed free hay for our horses.
I could support having restrictions on type of bait used depending on locations and all that. Again, if the limitations and restrictions enacted were strictly to aid in herd health and environmental concerns then let's set defined regulations and stand by them
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 11:08:54 AM
My sister in law is one of those granola munching hippies who does a ton of cross country hiking. She supports hunting but has conplained to me on numerous times about coming across baiting sites and the mess that some of them leave. Also, certain types of hay can introduce non native or invasive weeds pr plant seeds. I know that when I was doing a lot of back country hunting we could only pack in certified weed free hay for our horses.
I could support having restrictions on type of bait used depending on locations and all that. Again, if the limitations and restrictions enacted were strictly to aid in herd health and environmental concerns then let's set defined regulations and stand by them
With out an independent scientific study, you'd be at their mercy..........besides, it has nothing to do with herd health and enviro issues................neither did banning bear baiting.
My money says wdfw has already had a meeting to discuss how much citation revenue they can generate from a baiting ban..................
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2014, 11:10:38 AM
I am no I594, but where do you read this ins the proposal?No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. :bash:
Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.
The wording seems to contradict itself. In section iv it says "...under the direct supervision and control of an adult.". But then in section V, it says ...if they hold the correct licenses, etc. It also says they can only possess the firearm in the place where the hunting is legal, so I wouldn't be able to give it to them at home or somewhere else to practice with it unless at an established range.
Under the exceptions:
"...(iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or"
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 30, 2014, 11:16:35 AM
Devil in the details....and the court interpretation. Like Boldt.... (just example--not thread jack :sry:)I am no I594, but where do you read this ins the proposal?No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. :bash:
Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.
The wording seems to contradict itself. In section iv it says "...under the direct supervision and control of an adult.". But then in section V, it says ...if they hold the correct licenses, etc. It also says they can only possess the firearm in the place where the hunting is legal, so I wouldn't be able to give it to them at home or somewhere else to practice with it unless at an established range.
Under the exceptions:
"...(iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or"
I guess while it is being figured out and if you want to play the safe side, you could get a kid an inline muzzy w/209 and a scope for the modern season.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2014, 11:16:43 AM
v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.
Yes, that's how I read it. It took me twenty times or so to get there, though.
Post by: curlewkiller on October 30, 2014, 11:20:37 AM
edit: I have license and hunter's safety card and my son does as well....My 30-30 will not be licensed.
v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
So my son who is 15 could hunt by himself on our property with our family's 30-30? I am sorry I am not a lawyer.... :bash:I believe so.v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2014, 11:29:10 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 30, 2014, 11:40:07 AM
The way I read it is a person under 18 has to be under the direct control and supervision of an adult. So, for example, I couldn't put my older daughter in a ground blind and sit in another ground blind 200 yards away with my younger daughter.
If memory serves there is (or used to be) a clause for hunting one's own property.
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 11:46:15 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
The way I read it is a person under 18 has to be under the direct control and supervision of an adult. So, for example, I couldn't put my older daughter in a ground blind and sit in another ground blind 200 yards away with my younger daughter.
If memory serves there is (or used to be) a clause for hunting one's own property.
The verbiage is above. under eighteen needs no adult if they have all the correct licenses.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 11:57:40 AM
The way I read it is a person under 18 has to be under the direct control and supervision of an adult. So, for example, I couldn't put my older daughter in a ground blind and sit in another ground blind 200 yards away with my younger daughter.That's exemption clause "iv". Exemption clause "v" is as follows, which does not require supervision while hunting.
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2014, 12:01:31 PM
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 12:05:13 PM
Thanks for clarifying that. So the only issue would be how a person under 18 could legally get from home to their hunting location.That could be a sticky issue if the law is enforced literally. If taken literally, the person would need to be only in locations in which hunting is legal, at that time. For example, if you "transferred" a gun to your child and he wants to hunt near Yakima by driving over highway 410, he would drive through Mt. Rainier National Park which does not allow hunting. If you wanted to "transfer" the gun to him the day before the season started, that too would be illegal.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 30, 2014, 12:06:22 PM
While I would 100% support efforts to impose some common sense rules/restrictions on baiting IF the rumors are true about a complete ban, I also would not be opposed to throwing mud on a decision to ban baiting by painting WDFW as an agency that engages in discriminatory practices.
If folks have any images of these disadvantaged user groups using this method (sitting in a blind over bait or something)...maybe start saving them to a convenient location. IF wdfw proposes a ban, start flooding the commissioners with pictures of disabled vets, seniors, younger children etc. sitting in those hunting blinds. Maybe start asking these commissioners why they hate children, seniors, and disabled people? If WDFW wants to make a poor decision then I see no reason to not sling mud all over them and the commissioners if they go forward with a complete ban. :twocents:
Post by: stinkbait on October 30, 2014, 12:46:18 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 30, 2014, 12:57:56 PM
That is one of the things I think should be negotiated, but I doubt we will be afforded any further input.
Post by: curlewkiller on October 30, 2014, 01:20:28 PM
Thanks for clarifying that. So the only issue would be how a person under 18 could legally get from home to their hunting location.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 01:23:23 PM
Is using scents ,non scents, also considered baiting?It is for bears in Washington.
Yes, it is "non scents".
Post by: stinkbait on October 30, 2014, 01:27:36 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 01:31:10 PM
Post by: elk247 on October 30, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Post by: drk9988 on October 30, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
Make all your comments here where it might actually help..
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 01:48:57 PM
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 01:53:31 PM
The disabled, elderly and youth hunters are such a tiny, minuscule portion of those who are baiting. We are going to wind up like Maine and have to get special permits for certain user groups to use bait. I can see them changing it to bait only for the disabled but probably not for those over 65 or youth.They could adopt a program where only qualified individuals can bait. Perhaps only those who are masters at it.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 01:53:43 PM
The disabled, elderly and youth hunters are such a tiny, minuscule portion of those who are baiting. We are going to wind up like Maine and have to get special permits for certain user groups to use bait. I can see them changing it to bait only for the disabled but probably not for those over 65 or youth.
Do you think this is an ethics issue or a herd health issue?
Post by: h20hunter on October 30, 2014, 01:57:42 PM
The disabled, elderly and youth hunters are such a tiny, minuscule portion of those who are baiting. We are going to wind up like Maine and have to get special permits for certain user groups to use bait. I can see them changing it to bait only for the disabled but probably not for those over 65 or youth.They could adopt a program where only qualified individuals can bait. Perhaps only those who are masters at it.
I've got a tshirt that proclaims my prowess.....however, it is fishing related. I'll need a second tshirt for hunting. Off to Walmart I go.
Post by: jackelope on October 30, 2014, 02:00:09 PM
Is using scents ,non scents, also considered baiting?It is for bears in Washington.
Yes, it is "non scents".
That makes no sense.
Post by: Bob33 on October 30, 2014, 02:01:40 PM
Nonsense.Is using scents ,non scents, also considered baiting?It is for bears in Washington.
Yes, it is "non scents".
That makes no sense.
Post by: h20hunter on October 30, 2014, 02:09:28 PM
Post by: Derailed on October 30, 2014, 02:12:29 PM
Show me some unbiased scientific evidence that it is harmful to the health of the herd and I might be persuaded to change my mind
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
I personally think that it is all of the above. I have talked to several wildlife biologists who are also hunters about the whole baiting debate. From their stand point, it is a heard health and environmental issue. They stated that their concerns are the introduction of feed and chemicals/additives that the animals are not accustomed to, the introduction of invasive and noxious weeds that can be transferred through hay, the redirecting/concentrating of wildlife during certain times of the year, the creation of dependance on supplemental feeding and the ending of that feeding usually during the most critical time of the year, elevated harvest levels and so on. There are also a lot of hunters, like myself, who HATE the practice of baiting, however I would never vote or rally against it simply because I disagree. Some folks have too much intolerance in them and want to ban every single thing that they find distasteful wether it winds up biting them in the but or not. Our state is becoming more and more liberally biased by the second which leads to more and stricter restrictions on outdoor activities such as hunting and shooting. Many of the folks on the far left loathe guns and hunting and will do anything to eliminate it. This baiting thing could possibly be another way for them to take one more chunk out of us.The disabled, elderly and youth hunters are such a tiny, minuscule portion of those who are baiting. We are going to wind up like Maine and have to get special permits for certain user groups to use bait. I can see them changing it to bait only for the disabled but probably not for those over 65 or youth.
Do you think this is an ethics issue or a herd health issue?
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2014, 02:25:48 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 02:26:04 PM
Think this might be the final straw for me, I might be done with hunting washington state after this season. My money will now go to Alaska and Idaho.
Right there with ya. Already started building points in Montana, Oregon and Wyoming. I will only bird hunt here and all big game will be elsewhere.
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 02:30:28 PM
Post by: CoryTDF on October 30, 2014, 02:40:01 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 02:43:17 PM
Post by: Stalker on October 30, 2014, 02:52:16 PM
I personally think that it is all of the above. I have talked to several wildlife biologists who are also hunters about the whole baiting debate. From their stand point, it is a heard health and environmental issue. They stated that their concerns are the introduction of feed and chemicals/additives that the animals are not accustomed to, the introduction of invasive and noxious weeds that can be transferred through hay, the redirecting/concentrating of wildlife during certain times of the year, the creation of dependance on supplemental feeding and the ending of that feeding usually during the most critical time of the year, elevated harvest levels and so on. There are also a lot of hunters, like myself, who HATE the practice of baiting, however I would never vote or rally against it simply because I disagree. Some folks have too much intolerance in them and want to ban every single thing that they find distasteful wether it winds up biting them in the but or not. Our state is becoming more and more liberally biased by the second which leads to more and stricter restrictions on outdoor activities such as hunting and shooting. Many of the folks on the far left loathe guns and hunting and will do anything to eliminate it. This baiting thing could possibly be another way for them to take one more chunk out of us.The disabled, elderly and youth hunters are such a tiny, minuscule portion of those who are baiting. We are going to wind up like Maine and have to get special permits for certain user groups to use bait. I can see them changing it to bait only for the disabled but probably not for those over 65 or youth.
Do you think this is an ethics issue or a herd health issue?
PB, I would submit that the points made above are not founded concerns but more pre-scripted points that will be used to sell the decision to the hunting community. I say this because I believe that if these were true concerns the DFW would have had ample time to conduct the necessary field studies to be able to present empirical data to justify such a ban; after all baiting is not a method employed recently. I believe that if the data to support such a ban were presented most of the community would support such motion.
Not that I don't trust DFW to be forthcoming to the community.......... Oh who am I trying to kid, I have zero faith in DFW to do what is in the best interest of game animals and those of us who pay their bills. Just MO....
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 03:01:56 PM
Nonsense.Is using scents ,non scents, also considered baiting?It is for bears in Washington.
Yes, it is "non scents".
That makes no sense.
:chuckle:
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 03:18:46 PM
I disagree. One of the biologists that I have debated this issue with, i have peronally known and fished with for over 20 years. He works with several Western states mainly with large predator issues but has a huge interest in all big game. The other biologist I have known for 10 years. These are not simply "talking points" they are real concerns. I tend to belive what real, working biologist have to say over someone on the internet who makes unfounded assumptions
Post by: Stalker on October 30, 2014, 03:49:09 PM
Stalker.
I disagree. One of the biologists that I have debated this issue with, i have peronally known and fished with for over 20 years. He works with several Western states mainly with large predator issues but has a huge interest in all big game. The other biologist I have known for 10 years. These are not simply "talking points" they are real concerns. I tend to belive what real, working biologist have to say over someone on the internet who makes unfounded assumptions
Pardon my unfounded assumptions but if these gentlemen have a true concern then my next question would be how could a department of professional biologists and their superiors be so derelict in their duties as to allow such deep concerns to go unaddressed for such a long period. Am I saying that a complete task force should have been manned up a thrown at the problem while other areas are neglected, no. But surely a small amount of time, effort and funding could have been put towards this. At least if some semblance of effort were put into researching this issue then such a proposal would be so much easier to sell to your customers........... :dunno:
Post by: zike on October 30, 2014, 03:52:38 PM
Post by: PolarBear on October 30, 2014, 04:16:53 PM
Priorities and budget. Up until recently baiting has been on the back burner. 10 years ago where was not much of it going on and there were far more important issues to deal with. Within the past few years the use of baiting has skyrocketed, therefore creating more of a concern. Issues such as Wolves have taken center stage as far as priorities. The whole issue of baiting (as Zike stated) has been debated and studied to death.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 04:25:04 PM
The biggest cities tend to ban handguns too. Good enough for us too then eh? I don't even bait...
The baiting ban should reduce the harvest, when all you whiners quit hunting in the state. Maybe wdfw decided they didn't need a study, because 38 other states already have a full or partail ban on baiting. And its been debated and studied to death. :chuckle:
By the way, thanks for insulting people.
Post by: coyotestalker22250 on October 30, 2014, 04:39:06 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 04:41:02 PM
whether you agree or not we're all in this together and we need each other for support!
Nobody who supports the ban on baiting will address this. It's been posted many times in this thread and others but they stay away from it.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 04:50:20 PM
"Pardon my unfounded assumptions but if these gentlemen have a true concern then my next question would be how could a department of professional biologists and their superiors be so derelict in their duties as to allow such deep concerns to go unaddressed for such a long period."
You have no clue how mismanaged and neglected our ungulate herd here in Okanogan County is. If those of you thinking that the biologists have a true idea of the mule deer herd in this region, you're very mistaken. At one point in a recent meeting, the area WDFW bio's stated that there were about 35,000 mule deer in the western part of Okanogan county, of which 15,000 would be affected by the recent Carlton Complex wildfire. This number was questioned right off the bat, and after both bio's looked at one another they said it's probably closer to 8,000. I was stunned. How could you change from 15,000 to 8,000 within a minute after being questioned? The doe permits they issued were based of a percentage of the 15,000 number! How could you explain that? I was completely dumbfounded to hear that in front of a public audience. This is just one example of why ZERO local hunters I know trust or respect them one bit when it comes our local herd health. We need a change here in a big way as far as bio's go. The bio's here spend so little time in the field studying the ungulate herd that I've never personally seen one in the field ever. I see each of the local 4 or 5 wardens several times each year. This a huge problem here. These guys basically set our seasons based off of what they think, yet when questioned face to face, rarely provide any knowledge of the subject on hand. Why do think there's several comments of multiple posts each year slamming the bio's up here? It's a serious issue here, that's not improving. For those to think they should have legitimate stances on the ungulate populations here because they are the bio's, you're dead wrong. It's disgusting, sad, and ridiculous, yet very true.
Post by: tgomez on October 30, 2014, 05:16:31 PM
Post by: Stalker on October 30, 2014, 05:30:08 PM
PB, Appreciate your response to my last post and I have already sent an email to DFW requesting any study data that they have done in this state and their findings on the impact to herds by region.
As I stated in my earlier post I have not hunted over bait and do not see it in my immediate future. My position, like others on here, is driven by DFWs apparent policy that we will just remove any tactic that may be controversial without any real discussion or exchange with we the hunters who pay the bill. Do I think they need to dialogue with us on every topic, no as their job would never get done. However on something like this that has been going on for decades with no observable harm to the herds by the average hunter then yes I do believe they should roll out the information wagon and lay all of their findings out for us to digest. We still may not like their end decision but at least we will be well informed about why we are disgruntled.
So I do not see my posts or others as whining just discussions, kind of what I thought forms were meant to encourage.
Post by: DeerHarvester on October 30, 2014, 05:31:07 PM
Stalker:
"Pardon my unfounded assumptions but if these gentlemen have a true concern then my next question would be how could a department of professional biologists and their superiors be so derelict in their duties as to allow such deep concerns to go unaddressed for such a long period."
You have no clue how mismanaged and neglected our ungulate herd here in Okanogan County is. If those of you thinking that the biologists have a true idea of the mule deer herd in this region, you're very mistaken. At one point in a recent meeting, the area WDFW bio's stated that there were about 35,000 mule deer in the western part of Okanogan county, of which 15,000 would be affected by the recent Carlton Complex wildfire. This number was questioned right off the bat, and after both bio's looked at one another they said it's probably closer to 8,000. I was stunned. How could you change from 15,000 to 8,000 within a minute after being questioned? The doe permits they issued were based of a percentage of the 15,000 number! How could you explain that? I was completely dumbfounded to hear that in front of a public audience. This is just one example of why ZERO local hunters I know trust or respect them one bit when it comes our local herd health. We need a change here in a big way as far as bio's go. The bio's here spend so little time in the field studying the ungulate herd that I've never personally seen one in the field ever. I see each of the local 4 or 5 wardens several times each year. This a huge problem here. These guys basically set our seasons based off of what they think, yet when questioned face to face, rarely provide any knowledge of the subject on hand. Why do think there's several comments of multiple posts each year slamming the bio's up here? It's a serious issue here, that's not improving. For those to think they should have legitimate stances on the ungulate populations here because they are the bio's, you're dead wrong. It's disgusting, sad, and ridiculous, yet very true.
So true.
Post by: RadSav on October 30, 2014, 05:33:03 PM
I have hunted deer over bait twice; Once in Washington and once in Texas. Never killed a deer on any of those hunts. Most exciting part of it was watching the turkeys attack the deer for dibs on the fresh bait - that was sort of cool. So baiting will not effect my hunting or my style of hunting in any way. But, I sure hate the idea of hunters losing rights to hunt as they wish. And this state has so few outfitters I have a hard time believing they have much effect on herds as a whole. As with most things in politics, I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.
Post by: drk9988 on October 30, 2014, 06:01:43 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 06:23:47 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
Post by: RadSav on October 30, 2014, 06:39:51 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
Not exactly sure what my shoes have to do with anything, but you are right that I am not seeing a problem here. I look at harvest rates, deer numbers and deer quality harvests and don't see where baiting is a big enough issue to have had an effect. So many other things such as predation, open range bovine, weather and fire seem to effect as much if not more. And the whole sticky label thing that gets pooped out and passed by the deer...I've never seen a label in poo or in the woods. And spending as much time as I have in the woods I expect that isn't as big a huge environmental disaster as it is portrayed. Could it effect one property owner along side another? Well, perhaps! But, as a statewide issue? I doubt it has much of an effect on the price of my shoes either way!
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 06:40:47 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
So...bingo...make baiting illegal for the whole d@mn state. I'm not saying that the NCW Mule Deer herd doesn't deserve your representation but that's not how we should fix problems in 2-3 GMUs.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 06:59:56 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
So...bingo...make baiting illegal for the whole d@mn state. I'm not saying that the NCW Mule Deer herd doesn't deserve your representation but that's not how we should fix problems in 2-3 GMUs.
I never said baiting should be banned as a whole. I have zero problem with 90% of it if it's the way you choose to hunt. I could really care less. Once again, when it has had a very negative affect in a few certain areas, I will fully support an adaption to the rule.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 30, 2014, 07:05:39 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
So...bingo...make baiting illegal for the whole d@mn state. I'm not saying that the NCW Mule Deer herd doesn't deserve your representation but that's not how we should fix problems in 2-3 GMUs.
I never said baiting should be banned as a whole. I have zero problem with 90% of it if it's the way you choose to hunt. I could really care less. Once again, when it has had a very negative affect in a few certain areas, I will fully support an adaption to the rule.
100% agree with you. :tup:
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 07:12:33 PM
I will say that it doesn't matter much because I have an "inkling" that it will be a blanket-ban if anything.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 07:13:12 PM
"Not exactly sure what my shoes have to do with anything, but you are right that I am not seeing a problem here. I look at harvest rates, deer numbers and deer quality harvests and don't see where baiting is a big enough issue to have had an effect. So many other things such as predation, open range bovine, weather and fire seem to effect as much if not more. And the whole sticky label thing that gets pooped out and passed by the deer...I've never seen a label in poo or in the woods. And spending as much time as I have in the woods I expect that isn't as big a huge environmental disaster as it is portrayed. Could it effect one property owner along side another? Well, perhaps! But, as a statewide issue? I doubt it has much of an effect on the price of my shoes either way!"
If reading the harvest reports is your source of knowledge on the subject, then that's sad. Since you've spent so much time in the woods, tell us what you've noticed in Okanogan County during the November hunts? Actually, have you ever even hunted here? Also, you might be cute with words, but since when has a fire, weather, open bovine, or predation been able to selectively target mature bucks in the times when they are most susceptible?
Post by: elk247 on October 30, 2014, 07:42:27 PM
Post by: lokidog on October 30, 2014, 07:48:46 PM
Like I said, I see (or have heard) deer herds are hurting in the eastern part of the state, therefore I THINK ALL DEER HUNTING IN EASTERN WASHINGTON SHOULD BE PERMIT ONLY, ESPECIALLY IN OKANAGON COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do all of you eastside hunters supporting baiting bans like that idea?
Post by: Seabass on October 30, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
I brought it up because PRESSURE TO IMPLEMENT THIS BAN CAME FROM HUNTERS!!
This one isn't coming from the anti's! The groundswell of this movement is from hunters and mostly a particular user group! I'm not going to name any names because I hate this sort of class warfare where we pit ourselves against one another.
The pressure on WDFW didn't come form liberals or lefties or coasties or any other slang term for a group you don't like. It started with your fellow hunters! That's the part that is the most depressing to me.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 07:57:39 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on October 30, 2014, 07:59:43 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
Not exactly sure what my shoes have to do with anything, but you are right that I am not seeing a problem here. I look at harvest rates, deer numbers and deer quality harvests and don't see where baiting is a big enough issue to have had an effect. So many other things such as predation, open range bovine, weather and fire seem to effect as much if not more. And the whole sticky label thing that gets pooped out and passed by the deer...I've never seen a label in poo or in the woods. And spending as much time as I have in the woods I expect that isn't as big a huge environmental disaster as it is portrayed. Could it effect one property owner along side another? Well, perhaps! But, as a statewide issue? I doubt it has much of an effect on the price of my shoes either way!
I have seen piles of crap with apple stickers in it! I have hunted over bait i have killed deer over bait! Not my thing! I know first hand what baiting is all about, what it intails and how it effects the deer, Unlike u You i wouldnt pop off about somthing i havnt seen first hand. If i knew nothing about the issue i would keep my mouth shut.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 08:04:59 PM
MnM, where is your evidence? Empirical data? Studies? If you don't like it in your area, get the county or city or whatever you live in to do something. Why condone something that will effect the entire state?
Like I said, I see (or have heard) deer herds are hurting in the eastern part of the state, therefore I THINK ALL DEER HUNTING IN EASTERN WASHINGTON SHOULD BE PERMIT ONLY, ESPECIALLY IN OKANAGON COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do all of you eastside hunters supporting baiting bans like that idea?
My evidence lies in the thousands of hours I spend in the hills here and what I see and know first hand, not what I've "heard". Apparently you've missed my point yet another time, as I nor anyone I know, condone any ban affecting the entire state. Lastly your permit only to hunt the eastside would surely get my vote if it helped rebuild our deer herds.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 08:11:23 PM
Some of you guys are missing the main point. I didn't bring this back up to start another poop storm over a topic that has been discussed to exhaustion.
I brought it up because PRESSURE TO IMPLEMENT THIS BAN CAME FROM HUNTERS!!
This one isn't coming from the anti's! The groundswell of this movement is from hunters and mostly a particular user group! I'm not going to name any names because I hate this sort of class warfare where we pit ourselves against one another.
The pressure on WDFW didn't come form liberals or lefties or coasties or any other slang term for a group you don't like. It started with your fellow hunters! That's the part that is the most depressing to me.
Please explain what you mean by its being brought on by a certain user group. I honestly have no idea whom you could mean. All I've done is merely respond my thoughts like many of you did to the game departments thoughts and comments section on some proposals. Some on here apparently think I've made a decision for WDFW strictly on my comments. I sure wish they'd actually listen to me, because we'd have a new bio starting tomorrow.
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 08:22:13 PM
I think there are much more important things to address than these minor issues that lead to loss of personal freedoms.It's obviously not as important to you as it is me. When I watch something that is very important to me get abused thus creating negative affects on the herd as a whole, it becomes my number one concern. I don't feel you're seeing true problem here, but merely standing up for the majority in your shoes.
Not exactly sure what my shoes have to do with anything, but you are right that I am not seeing a problem here. I look at harvest rates, deer numbers and deer quality harvests and don't see where baiting is a big enough issue to have had an effect. So many other things such as predation, open range bovine, weather and fire seem to effect as much if not more. And the whole sticky label thing that gets pooped out and passed by the deer...I've never seen a label in poo or in the woods. And spending as much time as I have in the woods I expect that isn't as big a huge environmental disaster as it is portrayed. Could it effect one property owner along side another? Well, perhaps! But, as a statewide issue? I doubt it has much of an effect on the price of my shoes either way!
I have seen piles of crap with apple stickers in it! I have hunted over bait i have killed deer over bait! Not my thing! I know first hand what baiting is all about, what it intails and how it effects the deer, Unlike u You i wouldnt pop off about somthing i havnt seen first hand. If i knew nothing about the issue i would keep my mouth shut.
If you're looking for somebody to throw down with, RadSav isn't the right guy. He has a nice way of turning animosity into light-hearted disagreement. You have a nice way of word-vomiting about a volatile topic.
Go ahead and keep making a WARHORSE's *censored* out of yourself though.
What does it intail? (sic)
How does it effect (affect) the deer? Other than when overused by a couple of outfitters.
(please avoid the use of profanity or intended profanity)
Post by: RadSav on October 30, 2014, 08:25:13 PM
Unlike u You i wouldnt pop off about somthing i havnt seen first hand. If i knew nothing about the issue i would keep my mouth shut.
And yet you know next to nothing about me and choose to voice an attack. How is that not popping off or keeping your mouth shut about something you do not know first hand?
Post by: DeerHarvester on October 30, 2014, 08:25:26 PM
MnM, where is your evidence? Empirical data? Studies? If you don't like it in your area, get the county or city or whatever you live in to do something. Why condone something that will effect the entire state?
Like I said, I see (or have heard) deer herds are hurting in the eastern part of the state, therefore I THINK ALL DEER HUNTING IN EASTERN WASHINGTON SHOULD BE PERMIT ONLY, ESPECIALLY IN OKANAGON COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do all of you eastside hunters supporting baiting bans like that idea?
My evidence lies in the thousands of hours I spend in the hills here and what I see and know first hand, not what I've "heard". Apparently you've missed my point yet another time, as I nor anyone I know, condone any ban affecting the entire state. Lastly your permit only to hunt the eastside would surely get my vote if it helped rebuild our deer herds.
I too would support a permit only hunt in central Washington. It would give the heard a fighting chance.
As Mntmuley posted several times. Most of us have no issue with the majority of baiting practices. I Fully support a land owner who wants to throw some bait out and hunt over it. But there needs to be some regulation on a select few in this area. It maybe just as simple as saying no to commercial guides, or a size restriction on bait sites.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 30, 2014, 08:27:54 PM
MnM, where is your evidence? Empirical data? Studies? If you don't like it in your area, get the county or city or whatever you live in to do something. Why condone something that will effect the entire state?
Like I said, I see (or have heard) deer herds are hurting in the eastern part of the state, therefore I THINK ALL DEER HUNTING IN EASTERN WASHINGTON SHOULD BE PERMIT ONLY, ESPECIALLY IN OKANAGON COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do all of you eastside hunters supporting baiting bans like that idea?
My evidence lies in the thousands of hours I spend in the hills here and what I see and know first hand, not what I've "heard". Apparently you've missed my point yet another time, as I nor anyone I know, condone any ban affecting the entire state. Lastly your permit only to hunt the eastside would surely get my vote if it helped rebuild our deer herds.
I too would support a permit only hunt in central Washington. It would give the heard a fighting chance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
That makes sense but it's a moot point because that isn't on the docket :dunno:
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 08:33:37 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on October 30, 2014, 08:34:54 PM
Elk baiting was opposed by 68% of the responders and 14% supported elk baiting.
It was the DFW that asked the survey questions. It seems obvious to me that they are in favor of the ban by the way the questions were asked.
I do not see a valid "game management" reason to institute a ban. What will it accomplish? I think it will appease a bunch of short sighted, whiny, envious, self absorbed people that want to make everyone else do it like they do it.
Why does it bother anyone else if I kill my deer over bait? Baiting can be a very effective way to fill a tag. I think it is kind of like making a choice to hunt with traditional archery equipment vs a compound bow. It is simply a different method. The only reason I can think of that my hunting method would bother another hunter is that he is a envious of my success and wants me to join him eating tag soup.
Post by: billythekidrock on October 30, 2014, 08:39:18 PM
The WDFW site says the survey showed that 59 % of of the people who answered the survey strongly oppose deer baiting. 20% had no strong opinion, and 21% support baiting deer.
Elk baiting was opposed by 68% of the responders and 14% supported elk baiting.
It was the DFW that asked the survey questions. It seems obvious to me that they are in favor of the ban by the way the questions were asked.
I do not see a valid "game management" reason to institute a ban. What will it accomplish? I think it will appease a bunch of short sighted, whiny, envious, self absorbed people that want to make everyone else do it like they do it.
Why does it bother anyone else if I kill my deer over bait? Baiting can be a very effective way to fill a tag. I think it is kind of like making a choice to hunt with traditional archery equipment vs a compound bow. It is simply a different method. The only reason I can think of that my hunting method would bother another hunter is that he is a envious of my success and wants me to join him eating tag soup.
You can take college courses on survey making and WDFW know exactly what questions or options to give the answers they want.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 30, 2014, 08:44:50 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on October 30, 2014, 08:47:31 PM
Lucky1, I feel that there are definitely people out there that are those types of people that are envious, but that's not true with many. Of the people I know that have a problem with certain situations of baiting, being envious or wanting others to do it their way is absolutely not a factor. Watching our local herd get dismantled and and go further into the hole is what bothers us. We want our future generations to have the opportunities we have by hunting a valuable resource.
So reduce tags. Just because a method is successful doesn't meant it should be taken away.
Post by: Lucky1 on October 30, 2014, 09:12:32 PM
Lucky1, I feel that there are definitely people out there that are those types of people that are envious, but that's not true with many. Of the people I know that have a problem with certain situations of baiting, being envious or wanting others to do it their way is absolutely not a factor. Watching our local herd get dismantled and and go further into the hole is what bothers us. We want our future generations to have the opportunities we have by hunting a valuable resource.
So reduce tags. Just because a method is successful doesn't meant it should be taken away.
MtnMuley, does the DFW know that your local herd is dwindling? If it really is, they should regulate the hunting in that area to let the herd build. A blanket ban on baiting will not help to keep the population down in the Battleground unit where I hunt. The rules here are set to reduce the deer and elk populations. I too, want the future of hunting to be preserved. I think that what is being dismantled is the sport of hunting, one method at a time.
Billy, the DFW probably does not want to reduce the amount of tags sold, because they think they would lose revenue. The reality of it is they will lose revenue as they lose hunters who will buy their tags.
I think they are more interested in managing hunters than they are in managing game populations.
I really believe that some in the DFW are indoctrinated liberals who would just as soon manage the game without the help of hunters.
Post by: WARHORSE on October 30, 2014, 09:14:09 PM
Unlike u You i wouldnt pop off about somthing i havnt seen first hand. If i knew nothing about the issue i would keep my mouth shut.
And yet you know next to nothing about me and choose to voice an attack. How is that not popping off or keeping your mouth shut about something you do not know first hand?
sorry if i hurt yer feelings lil fella. Not my intention. Iam just saying people who have not seen the before and after of baiting in certian areas wouldnt know what iam talking about. Iam not worried about filling my tag, being jealous of baters whatever you alls arguement is. I am concerned for the future of the herd! I want my kids to be able to enjoy the mule deer as i have.
Post by: RadSav on October 30, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
sorry if i hurt yer feelings lil fella. Not my intention.
:chuckle: :chuckle: Not sure anyone has called me a lil' fella since before my accident. Fat *censored* I have heard more than once since then ;)
I am reminded of a line from the movie Quigley Down Under where Tom Selleck's character says, "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."
Post by: KFhunter on October 30, 2014, 09:41:04 PM
I'm on the limit take, not method bandwagon. How ever if this outfitter is abusing the baiting and damaging the herd that needs to be looked at. Obviously they don't have enough ethics to self regulate, probably they shouldn't be able to provide guide service.
Which speaks to another issue, should WA impose stricter regulations and licensing on guide services? That would give them a much bigger hammer to threaten an unscrupulous guide that's tossing apples by the dump truck load.
Post by: jnevs23 on October 30, 2014, 10:07:54 PM
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 03:35:53 AM
So reduce tags. Just because a method is successful doesn't meant it should be taken away.
That's it right there! If the nine day season isn't controlling harvest numbers then limiting hunters "In that GMU" is the next step. Voting to eliminate all baiting in the state because you can not get the state to single out your neighbors doesn't make any sense.
And just for clarification;
Before moving to Vancouver 90+% of my deer hunting time in this state was spent in Okanogan and Chelan Counties. So I do know it quite well. Just in case someone else was wondering if I have ever stepped foot in those GMU's :rolleyes: If I had to guess probably 18 to 20 of my WA muledeer came from one of those five late season GMU's. All archery. I don't think I have ever killed a muledeer with a rifle. So maybe you can flip me crap about that :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 31, 2014, 04:14:51 AM
So reduce tags. Just because a method is successful doesn't meant it should be taken away.
That's it right there! If the nine day season isn't controlling harvest numbers then limiting hunters "In that GMU" is the next step. Voting to eliminate all baiting in the state because you can not get the state to single out your neighbors doesn't make any sense.
And just for clarification;
Before moving to Vancouver 90+% of my deer hunting time in this state was spent in Okanogan and Chelan Counties. So I do know it quite well. Just in case someone else was wondering if I have ever stepped foot in those GMU's :rolleyes: If I had to guess probably 18 to 20 of my WA muledeer came from one of those five late season GMU's. All archery. I don't think I have ever killed a muledeer with a rifle. So maybe you can flip me crap about that :chuckle:
Right but where do you LIVE?
:chuckle:
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 04:22:04 AM
Right but where do you LIVE?
11505 Ne Fourth Plain Rd, Vancouver, WA 98662
That is a Sportsman's Warehouse, but if you ask the angry squaw she will tell you that is where I live :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 31, 2014, 04:29:03 AM
Rad, this would be a good question to pose to someone (who's hunted guided trips regularly) like you.
Other than some of the hokey-pokey outfitters with small leases, do any of the famed guides actually bait for elk or deer?
Post by: WARHORSE on October 31, 2014, 05:02:12 AM
So reduce tags. Just because a method is successful doesn't meant it should be taken away.
That's it right there! If the nine day season isn't controlling harvest numbers then limiting hunters "In that GMU" is the next step. Voting to eliminate all baiting in the state because you can not get the state to single out your neighbors doesn't make any sense.
And just for clarification;
Before moving to Vancouver 90+% of my deer hunting time in this state was spent in Okanogan and Chelan Counties. So I do know it quite well. Just in case someone else was wondering if I have ever stepped foot in those GMU's :rolleyes: If I had to guess probably 18 to 20 of my WA muledeer came from one of those five late season GMU's. All archery. I don't think I have ever killed a muledeer with a rifle. So maybe you can flip me crap about that :chuckle:
so you know what it used to be like! well its not the same. must be that dern ebola!
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 05:12:41 AM
Good one :roll eyes:
Rad, this would be a good question to pose to someone (who's hunted guided trips regularly) like you.
Other than some of the hokey-pokey outfitters with small leases, do any of the famed guides actually bait for elk or deer?
I actually hate using guides. But so often the only way to get access, tags or hunt up north you have to use a guide or outfitter.
I actually do not know any muledeer or elk guides that use bait. I hear of the odd guy once in a while, but I don't think any of the real top level guides would do much of that. Now whitetail and swine outfitters are a completely different story. I've worked with a number of outfits that use bait for whitetail and hogs. I've never shot anything using that method, but I have sat in a good number of blinds and photographed a ton of critters at bait. And of course almost all of our problem bear removal was done with the aide of bait.
The first few years after we started this company we sponsored a few disabled vets and "Make a Wish" children on baited hunts down south. The letter responses from hunters really changed my opinion of hunting deer over bait. We even had a blind fella shoot a deer in Texas with his bow!! He practiced with a friend who would tap on his shoulders, head and back until he was on target. Would have been very difficult if not impossible for him to be successful had it not been for the use of bait. That guy called me on the phone to thank us and try to tell his story. I felt bad that I could only understand about every third word because he was crying so hard. I'd sure hate to take away opportunities like that just to keep my neighbor from shooting some of my deer.
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 05:20:07 AM
so you know what it used to be like! well its not the same. must be that dern ebola!
I was there two years ago and spent a good amount of time. As I understand that was the peak of the rebound before last years crash in numbers. We saw some good bucks, but none we wanted enough to pull the trigger. Was good to be back there and refresh the memories. I will be back again next year. Hoping to make it an every other year get away now that my brother is coming to work for us.
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 06:05:16 AM
so you know what it used to be like! well its not the same. must be that dern ebola!
Sorry, going to go WAY off topic in hopes of lightening the mood here. You mentioning that dern ebola made me think of this funny article that came across the wire last week.
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/-fear-bola-hits-epidemic-proportions-in-the-us/191506/ (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/-fear-bola-hits-epidemic-proportions-in-the-us/191506/)
Post by: PA BEN on October 31, 2014, 07:10:06 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 31, 2014, 07:11:43 AM
•The majority of deer hunters (59%) oppose hunting deer over bait (mostly strong opposition), and another 20% give a neutral answer. At the other end, 21% support the practice.
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2014, 07:38:58 AM
I believe this is one of the outfitters that uses bait for their late season archery hunts.
Post by: Curly on October 31, 2014, 08:06:28 AM
Not sure if this has been posted yet but this is from WDFW's public opinion survey for the 2015-2021 Game Management Plan Development Process
•The majority of deer hunters (59%) oppose hunting deer over bait (mostly strong opposition), and another 20% give a neutral answer. At the other end, 21% support the practice.
I wonder about that survey. I wonder if the people answering the question are saying they wish baiting to be illegal or if they are just answering how they personally feel about baiting. Lots of people probably would not wish to bait deer, but a lot of those same people may be okay with others doing it.
If trapping were still legal, they would probably have a survey about trapping asking some questions and it may show a large percentage of people not wanting to trap. Then they would justify taking away trapping. I am certain that if the voter initiative in 1996 hadn't banned trapping, WDFW would have taken it away by now. :bash:
It is just stupid to manage wildlife based on public opinion surveys. Almost as stupid as having voter initiatives to determine how to manage wildlife. WDFW really should have some studies to support any bans.......not just some surveys.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 31, 2014, 04:41:16 PM
Not sure if this has been posted yet but this is from WDFW's public opinion survey for the 2015-2021 Game Management Plan Development Process
•The majority of deer hunters (59%) oppose hunting deer over bait (mostly strong opposition), and another 20% give a neutral answer. At the other end, 21% support the practice.
I wonder about that survey. I wonder if the people answering the question are saying they wish baiting to be illegal or if they are just answering how they personally feel about baiting. Lots of people probably would not wish to bait deer, but a lot of those same people may be okay with others doing it.
If trapping were still legal, they would probably have a survey about trapping asking some questions and it may show a large percentage of people not wanting to trap. Then they would justify taking away trapping. I am certain that if the voter initiative in 1996 hadn't banned trapping, WDFW would have taken it away by now. :bash:
It is just stupid to manage wildlife based on public opinion surveys. Almost as stupid as having voter initiatives to determine how to manage wildlife. WDFW really should have some studies to support any bans.......not just some surveys.
Those losers did exactly what I thought they would.. They combined the options that were against baiting in some way... If you were one of the people who wanted to bait yourself but wanted to restrict outfitters you can thank yourself because they used that against us.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 31, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 31, 2014, 07:01:33 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 31, 2014, 07:10:45 PM
Baiting has its place on the list of strategies. Too bad wdfw is so easily influenced by people who either dont hunt at all, or dont like the way others may or may not hunt.
Id rather stumble into a bait sight than a gaggle of hunters doing a drive.......................
Post by: RadSav on October 31, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
Post by: BluMtHunter on October 31, 2014, 07:55:57 PM
this new law may very well be the end of us spending fall afternoons hunting deer ever again. its very sad to me that some hunters just cant mind there own business if they dont like to hunt over bait then dont, i am not a big fan of these long range rifles and scopes the are capable of killing deer and elk at almost unbelievable range but hunters that choose to have that right, IF WE KEEP BITCHING AMONGST OURSELVES WE WILL ALL LOSE IN THE LONG RUN. the opportunities i have had with the young , old, and disabled may be over, SAD , VERY SAD.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 31, 2014, 08:20:26 PM
I am assuming if they can remove it like this after well over a decade of putting it up for removal then we could also put it up to be added again every time this comes around too? I am assuming we could next time just have them to put it one of two ways... allow baiting or don't allow baiting?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 31, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 31, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
i have been baiting deer for over 20 yrs, it is in fact a lot of work, i have had the privilege to take many young first time hunters out and watch them shoot there first deer, many of them would of had to wait a few years to hunt not being quit ready to walk around the woods with a firearm . then we have the disabled hunters, my own wife is one i originally built my stand for her after a second back surgery left her unable to walk around well enough to hunt,:yeah:
this new law may very well be the end of us spending fall afternoons hunting deer ever again. its very sad to me that some hunters just cant mind there own business if they dont like to hunt over bait then dont, i am not a big fan of these long range rifles and scopes the are capable of killing deer and elk at almost unbelievable range but hunters that choose to have that right, IF WE KEEP BITCHING AMONGST OURSELVES WE WILL ALL LOSE IN THE LONG RUN. the opportunities i have had with the young , old, and disabled may be over, SAD , VERY SAD.
Post by: HunterDan03 on October 31, 2014, 09:00:44 PM
Well said Seabass. It's a shame if they take away baiting... I can tell you first hand that if you bait, it doesn't make it easier to kill a big mature animal.+
I gotta ask, if it isn't easier to kill a an animal.
Why do it the extra work and the expense of baiting and your odds of harvest is no better, I call BS, no one in there right mind would do it if it didn't raise their odds.
I'll be happy to see if it makes it better for the non-baiters. The animals won't be hanging around some LAH food pile.
Every year I put bait piles in front of my cameras, get pics of awesome bucks every year and have yet harvested a one of those animals. I go the extra mile and expense to get an inventory of the bucks that are in the area each year. Just because there's a pile of food out there does not make it easier to kill that animal. The bait and camera more just let's me know that there is or isn't a mature animal I need to put my efforts to for the season.
Post by: Lucky1 on October 31, 2014, 11:21:23 PM
So does anyone know the process from here... It that it... is it done? They dilute the answers to make it seem like only a small group would vote to keep baiting and now it's removed? Or is there more to this process?
I am assuming if they can remove it like this after well over a decade of putting it up for removal then we could also put it up to be added again every time this comes around too? I am assuming we could next time just have them to put it one of two ways... allow baiting or don't allow baiting?
There is still an opportunity to comment on the issue until November 17 I believe. Go to the WDFW site and comment through their contact us option.
Post by: buckfvr on November 01, 2014, 09:35:04 AM