Here It Comes!

Elkfromabove, you said ;

?I have yet to see ANY of you make a legitimate biological, financial, legal or logistical case for banning bait?

You don't have to look hard to find plenty of studies to show the harm that baiting does to deer.

Many of the bans and restrictions against baiting that are in place now are actually in place because of devastating disease that was being transmitted unnaturally at deer baiting sites.

Predators are very quick to figure out how to manipulate a baiting site.

If you can't see the harm in it you must know of some benefit to the deer herd that comes from baiting??
 
I don't know your political persuasion, nor do I care. I just know your efforts to ban baiting will have the same results as the animal rights groups want, but will not give you the results you think it will. And your efforts to ban it are divisive as evidenced by this thread. You're willing to throw some hunters under the bus for no other reason than you don't like how other hunters prefer to hunt. I have yet to see ANY of you make a legitimate biological, financial, legal or logistical case for banning bait. It's all been social and emotional and that's a scary way to manage wildlife and hunting


TO START.

$fw cost this state 150,000 deer hunters. No "anti" group has come close. And last i checked, THE DON was leading Mitt around the state, and sits on Trumps "hunter" board.

2nd. How does feeding deer apples HELP the herd?

But you correct. There are a few more things that we need to get control of. Baiting and Thermal are pretty low hanging fruit.

Electronics are going to have to happen also.

But you eat an elephant one bite at a time, something is the first bite.

Last. Your so "worried" about the antis. This ain't being pushed by antis. In fact it's coming through orgs as well. The biggest push back is by guides who are trying to maximize profit(shortest hunt time, biggest animal, smallest output). Utah has for too long been a guides dreamland(CWMU, expo tags, conservation tags, very little regulation on methods of take).

Fact is, guys like DC have simply exposed the dirty little secret the pros use, and now we all can see it.

Banning bait will not lead to one lost hunter. There may be some guides sweating, but that's all.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-19 AT 01:57PM (MST)[p]Hoss you are going too be waiting a long time baiting with apple's not my thing. But I am getting better equipped and practicing for long range shooting and I have stated in other threads I do believe long range snipping of deer is much more destructive of quality of mature bucks than baiting.
My whole point is be careful at attacking one guys passion because someone is probably going to attack yours and it is not as likely the one you attacked is going to stand up for yours.
We will all lose if we continue to be divided. Case in point the left wing agenda there is not enough conservatives anymore too stand and make a good fight against the left wing agenda.
 
"We will all lose if we continue to be divided"

So we on the more conservative side are supposed to wave the white flag against any and all tactics and future technology so guys on the left can have "free (will)" everything?

As mentioned several times already....there is a legitimate reason every state surrounding us has tighter rules and regs.

"Long range sniping"
This argument better be for ALL weapons.
There isn't a single weapon manufacturer that doesn't have "farther and faster" in their R&D as their #1 priority.
Why?
Because we WILL buy it and they profit big time off our greed to become better killers.

Explain how you are going to regulate the hunter who sees a big buck out at 700 yards and he's launching 130 grain 270 slugs at it?

"Can't hit it if you don't try!"

And the one's comparing hunting alfalfa fields to a 200 pound pile of apples dumped on the ground in the Paunsagunt desert country for three months prior to hunting season is a completely ridiculous argument.
 
>
>And the one's comparing hunting alfalfa
>fields to a 200 pound
>pile of apples dumped on
>the ground in the Paunsagunt
>desert country for three months
>prior to hunting season is
>a completely ridiculous argument.

So is the argument saying that baiting should be legal just because people shooting long-range is unethical too. I can come up with a million wrong ways to do something, not one of them justifies another wrong way and makes it right.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

Ask yourself if you agree with the following statement...

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
69666screenshot20191013164032gallery.jpg

Does this make Utah a smarter state than all others surrounding us?

1 right, 4 wrong?
Vise versa?
 
Slam I am not saying you but others on this site post comments on this thread and other threads basically call the guys that bait cheaters and even compared them to criminal activity. Comments like them is what divides us.
I have no problems with discussing topics on new high tech equipment or different hunting tactics but we do need to remember everyone has different opinions we need to respect that. Because I have posted some comments supporting guys having the right to bait, hoss wanted me to post my pictures of my bucks I had shot over apple piles and hoss knows I have posted on other threads that I do not bait
I am all in favor of DWR having a meeting too discuss and try and figure out the baiting issue but let's not demonize the ones that do it.
slam I only pointed out about long range shooting as a point of my own need too increase my odds on being successful in taking of higher quality of bucks even thoe I know in the long run it might hurt my hunting opportunities. This year was the first year since I was 14 that I did not have a Utah deer permit and I am 49.
I can't explain how you regulate long range snipping men have been stretching the limit of there weapons since the invention of weapons. I understand where do you draw the line what is too far of a shot. But the same with artifical bait is a water guzzler out in the dessert that has had no water holes for centuries artifical bait because it is not natural for that area.
I do not mean any disrespect to you slam or hoss or grizz or any others on this site that is against baiting but I also think these guys that like too bait should deserve the same respect.
 
The Sale Of Apples will be up 2,000% in TARDville in 2020!










I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Slam, am I supposed to applaud Nevada for banning baiting bears? One of my biggest passions, I'm supposed to applaud that I can't bait there now?

Am I supposed to be glad that rights get stripped away?

If I am, California called, they need all their ?hunter eco warriors? back.

The baiting ban leads to other bans. Look no further than California. But these things are just past the bridge of all of your noses.
 
And the majority isn't always right. Be careful with that majority ##### there slam.

So because 4 states around us ban it, we need to do the same? Get real. Colorado doesn't even have a spring bear hunt. Guess that makes them right and us wrong.

Comrade Colorado wants to limit magazine capabilities. Guess they're right and Utah is wrong.

Majority rules doesn't apply here and the majority isn't always right.

The majority of the population doesn't hunt. By your logic, we should all stop hunting too.
 
Notdonhunting
No disrespect taken Sir and I respect your views and input.

I have my fair share of long range rifles equipped with $2500 tactical scopes and I enjoy stretching MY limits on the range, but not on game.
Heck, I hunt deer with a 338 Lapua and Nightforce scope.
Why? Because I love the setup and I trust it.

I was with a guy last week in Wyoming on a deer hunt who shoots a 338 Lapua.
I spotted a great buck at 1200 yards and he wanted to "try" from there....I immediately said "No, it'snot worth it, but if you get down through that wash undetected and up on that knob you'll be about 300-400".
So I do not condone long shots "just because", either.

To be quite honest, it's not the average Joe hunter using bait that bothers me personally, it's the Outfitters whom profits tens of thousands of dollars on OUR public lands game animals.

How many posts do we see about Outfitters using dozens of spotters, radios, countless trail camera's, road blockage, etc, etc, but it's perfectly ok to dump apples on public land premium LE units to derail natural feeding habits for the sole reason to put a $20k hunter on a book head buck, time after time?

This topic is obviously already in the hands of the Division of wildlife if KSL news is doing a story on it drawing public awareness and comments from it.

As stated multiple times by myself and others, this isn't meant to punish anyone, it's meant to tilt the scale of what is not only more "fair chase", but what is more "fair" to the guy who has applied for 20 years of his life to draw a good tag.

Having to deal with dozens of spotters with technological advanced optics watching trophy bucks 24/7 is bad enough, but dealing with hidden piles of apples throughout a unit on top of it tilts that scale to an almost impossible situation for the "little guy".

IMO, Utah is completely out of control with hunting (and shed hunting for that matter) by whatever it is that drives people to take whatever means they can to be better than the next guy. And other states laugh at us for it and hate seeing our license plates on their soil knowing we are bringing our ways to them (look at how neighboring states had to follow suit with shed gathering seasons).

I have many nonresident contacts, and it really does get tiresome trying to explain why we do what we do.
The only answer I have for them is "Money from success".

For what it's worth, I have absolutely zero personal issues with anyone on this MM site. And even if we get heated at times, I have full respect for everyone and their views.
 
Dc.....easy there, I have never said anything about baiting bears and I fully support it and the logic behind it 100%.
 
>Elkfromabove, you said ;
>
>?I have yet to see ANY
>of you make a legitimate
>biological, financial, legal or logistical
>case for banning bait?
>
>You don't have to look hard
>to find plenty of studies
>to show the harm that
>baiting does to deer.
>
>Many of the bans and restrictions
>against baiting that are in
>place now are actually in
>place because of devastating disease
>that was being transmitted unnaturally
>at deer baiting sites.
>
>Predators are very quick to figure
>out how to manipulate a
>baiting site.
>
>If you can't see the harm
>in it you must know
>of some benefit to the
>deer herd that comes from
>baiting??

Sure, I can find many studies that show winter FEEDING deer can be harmful, but FEEDING deer in the winter when there is little or no other forage available is a far cry from placing a few apples or salt at a waterhole or on a well used trail that the deer are ALREADY using during the hunts which happen in the late summer and fall when there is plenty of natural feed around.

I have one site, a guzzler, where I can see the deer and elk come in for about 50 yards and guess what they are doing? They are FEEDING on the brush, forbs and sedges surrounding the guzzler! It's only when they get to within 10 yards of the guzzler that they may pay attention to the 20 t0 25 apples I've spread out or to the one salt brick I've placed behind a tree, if they do at all. Those apples don't always attract them to the guzzler. In fact, it's usually the other way around and sometimes I don't use bait at my blind sites, but I still see the same number of deer, elk or antelope that I see when I do use it. So, why do I bait? -1) It can bring the animals into the water even when it's raining or snowing. Yes, it sometimes works that way.
-2) It holds them long enough for me to get a close, clear, broadside, standing, level archery shot at a relaxed animal.
-3) It also allows me to choose the one I want out of the crowd.
-4) It helps to separate them in the 10 to 15 yard stretch where I drop those 20 to 25 apples.
-5) It allows me to tell my family exactly where I am in case of an emergency, mine or theirs.
-6) It allows me to make a spontaneous quick trip knowing I have a good chance at seeing something.
-7) It allows me to spend time with family and friends in a relaxed hunting experience while teaching them a few things about hunting.

Also, regarding predators, I'm baiting sites that the deer are ALREADY using, so there isn't likely to be any increase in predators at those sites. And if there were, the predators, especially coyotes, would more likely be there for the rodents that feed on the apples, than for the deer. In fact, I have never seen a coyote or cougar at the guzzler nor have I seen any sign of them being there, ie: no tracks in the soft dirt, no scat, no drag marks, no carcasses, no blood and no howls or yowls.

And, yes, I can see some benefits to the herds from baiting, but only if it is regulated.
-1) Sufficiently scattered bait sites in places the deer are ALREADY using will tend to continue scattering the deer, not concentrate them.
-2) Properly prepared deer baits and mineralized salt blocks can help to improve the deer's nutritional needs.
-3) Bait sites on public lands can help keep the deer and elk more on public lands instead of private lands where they can become nuisance deer and/or problematic and/or inaccessible.
-4) Bait sites can allow the DWR to issue more tags in areas that have a high concentration of private lands. (See Above)
-5) Bait sites can help control over objective deer populations and buck to doe ratios by raising the success rates of hunts in those areas.
-6) Bait sites can help the DWR capture deer for studies.
-7) bait site fees will increase DWR revenue.
-8) Bait sites can recruit new hunters and keep the less active hunters in the sport.

The TOTAL BANNING of baiting isn't a reasonable answer to address the issues at hand. REGULATING BAITING per my post 85 is or can be!

And as for the loss of hunters due to banning bait, I suspect there will be more than you think, because, like me, many are not so disappointed in the fact that you're trying to ban baiting as much as they are in the fact that you WOULD try doing it. The thought process that brought you here is much more troubling than the act because I know it won't end here. You're not telling me you want to ban baiting, you're telling me you don't want me to hunt the way I like to hunt even though it's legal and ethical to me and has no impact whatsoever on the way you choose to hunt.

Will I quit? That'll be up to my 3 grandsons and an older friend who hunted with me this year and the Wildlife Board. If my grandsons and/or friend approach me next year, I'll gladly go regardless of what the WB does. But if I'm not approached by my family or friends and the WB keeps making hunting more difficult, all bets are off. I've had too many things happen in the last 10 years to want to risk any repeats of most of them and the total banning of baiting will put hunting further down on my list of priorities. How far? I guess we'll see what happens.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-19 AT 07:14AM (MST)[p]I remember the first "hunting show" I saw as a kid. Sitting in a "blind", in a mowed shooting range, next to a corn shooter.

Since, I have watched others, mostly all whitetail, complete with food plots, bait, etc, etc.

My question is the same.

IS THIS HUNTING OR AGRICULTURE?

What separates what baiters do from what any rancher does?

When we kill cows we toss a little grain, cow comes in, pop them in the head. Same with the sheep we've had.

It never donned on me to throw on the Sitka to do either.

If your "passion" is picking apples, then you should try a hobby farm.

The "passion" is about the same cancer that has infected the DWR/WB for years. INCHES.

But we aren't talking FOUNDER backpacking in to find INCHES. We ain't talking even getting lucky. We ain't talking about places with good genetics/habitat.

We are talking the same "find an easy way" passion that the AI money hunter has.

Biggest buck for the least effort.

Let's stop with the "rights" b.s.. Stop with the "48lbs up a mtn" b.s..

You bait deer to cut out the work(and some luck) that killing big deer consistently takes.

The guides don't bait out of "passion". They bait because it's the easiest way to get their clients on big deer.

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON for baiting deer.

It ain't about nothing more than INCHES as easy as possible.

We can't debate or discuss when everyone knows exactly why bait is used, yet some want to muddy the water with "Californians" or "libs" or "antis", "yeah but...."

None of that has anything to do with the point. The simple point being that hunting should stil involve HUNTING.

And notice, we haven't even got much into CWD. Which is why those other "pink, lib, anti, treehugging" states are also stopping the practice. Seems they dont think INCHES is worth wiping out their herds.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Since humans turned our world inside out it really is just agriculture, as evidenced by which department ?manages? most of my favorite public lands.

These very same ethical discussions are going on in every board room across the country. They are uncomfortable and essential.

Bluehair
Splitting my time time between the winter and summer range......
May you live long enough to cash in those preference points. Amen
 
Hoss have you seen what the liberal news media ( sorry cant call them liberal on this site) is calling CWD now, Zombie Deer and how this could transmit to humans that hunt them. Really I am not making that up I have seen it on many news feeds on Google and it is always coming from a leftist publications ( sorry again can not refer to leftist) what is the reason to call them zombie deer.
There has never been a documented case of CWD transmitted to humans why does the liberal media (sorry) try to sell while hunting deer could get zombie deer disease. And yes the lebrial media (sorry) has quotes from the CDC.
That is the kind of hysteria the liberal media is trying to create.
What does this have too do with baiting. It has everything too do with baiting it is another form of anti propaganda, I am not saying you are using it that way or any other person on this site but you can guarantee the anti hunting agenda will and does.
 
>Hoss have you seen what the
>liberal news media (
>sorry cant call them liberal
>on this site) is calling
>CWD now, Zombie Deer and
>how this could transmit to
>humans that hunt them. Really
>I am not making that
>up I have seen it
>on many news feeds on
>Google and it is always
>coming from a leftist publications
>( sorry again can not
>refer to leftist) what is
>the reason to call them
>zombie deer.
>There has never been a documented
>case of CWD transmitted to
>humans why does the liberal
>media (sorry) try to sell
>while hunting deer could get
>zombie deer disease. And yes
>the lebrial media (sorry) has
>quotes from the CDC.
>That is the kind of hysteria
>the liberal media is trying
>to create.
>What does this have too do
>with baiting. It has everything
>too do with baiting it
>is another form of anti
>propaganda, I am not saying
>you are using it that
>way or any other person
>on this site but you
>can guarantee the anti hunting
>agenda will and does.


Well, this is embarrassing for you since it's the entire point of your post... www.foxnews.com/science/zombie-deer-trying-to-take-over-nevada.amp

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

Ask yourself if you agree with the following statement...

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
So grizz how does that discredit my whole point because it is on Fox news? Are you saying Fox news doesn't have liberal agenda stories?
My point why is the liberal media calling it ZOMBIE DEER.
Are the deer eating each other?
Are the deer already dead and walking around losing roten body parts?
Answer the question why they call it Zombie Deer
 
>So grizz how does that discredit
>my whole point because it
>is on Fox news? Are
>you saying Fox news doesn't
>have liberal agenda stories?
>My point why is the liberal
>media calling it ZOMBIE DEER.
>
>Are the deer eating each other?
>
>Are the deer already dead and
>walking around losing roten body
>parts?
>Answer the question why they call
>it Zombie Deer

Because you said FIVE times in one post that it is a "liberal" story used by anti-hunters as "propaganda". You even stated, "it is always coming from a leftist publication" which was so easily disproved.

There isn't a single state game agency that recommends eating the meat of affected animals, because, though human transmission has never been proved, it has also never been disproved. There is plenty of advice from wildlife biologists that baiting wildlife and concentrating herds has an increasing effect on the spread of CWD. Even if your point is that CWD can't be spread to humans, we know it can be spread to other animals and thus these concentrating activities should be avoided. We also know the cattle variant, BSE, can be spread to humans. My neighbor died of the human version of CWD, known as CJD, and it is terrible. Her version was likely sporadic, and not variant, but we don't know.

So far there seems to be this hilarious connection to those that want to shoot deer over a pile of Red Delicious somehow believing the whole world is out to get them. I say this based on the constant attacks against "liberals" as if "they" have some connection to baiting deer in Utah. Do all deer baiters believe in the Deep State and Agenda 21 or is it just a coincidence?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

Ask yourself if you agree with the following statement...

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Due to Chronic Wasting Disease, I am in total favor of baiting bans. I also had no problem with hunters hunting over bait piles but feel the ban will be long overdue for mule deer.
 
DC

You might want tobbacktrack a smidge. There are questions being raised about the increases in Alzheimer's and a possible link.

You would have no public land. Not North American Model. No hunting if the REPUBLICANS would have won in their war with Roosevelt. The "conservative" king Lee is still pushing it. The most "conservative" state in the country is all in to sell off land.

Trump was a registered Democrat most of his life. As was Reagan.

The "lib" thing is just propaganda. And instead of a thoughtful discussion, you heard the dog whistle so f em. You'll show those libs. You'll destroy hunting from within to prove those flamers can't do so from outside.

We are nowhere near a majority. We sacrificed that at the altar of "inches" long ago. As such our "f em" is meaningless.

Not with the Park City crowd, but with folks like my mom, who grew up in rural Sanpete, married a hunter, has 2 hunting boys, and 3 hunting grandsons. When she reads about dudes baiting, and can't grasp it, WE ALREADY LOST.

OUR ACTIONS HAD CONSEQUENCES. When he sold off 150,000 of our fellow hunters so we could "save mule deer", we also sold off all their families who might understand what we do and why.

It don't matter chit, what you think. Your a minority(the majority of hunters are opposed), in a minority.

And honestly. I'm sick of defending the sliver of our crowd who are too thick headed to understand the reality of the world we live in TODAY.

You want to push the limits of what the hunting public view as ethical, or you want to be cute with your loopholes, your hurting US. And there ain't enough of "US" left with an appetite to cover your foolishness anymore.

Baiting is unethical because the public at large views it that way. We should spend zero of our public good will, our public "capital" fighting for something because "we all gotta stick together"

You didn't "stick together" when You decided to give us a black eye.

DC. It ain't about you. It is about the high volume guys. And everyone of us here could name 4 of them off the top of our heads. And none if those 4 'pros" would give you the time of day.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss, you're a clown. I have no interest in any discussion with you. Sanpete this, dad hunts that, dad hunts this, it all has nothing to do with this. If you somehow believe that banning baiting puts you in anyone?s good graces as far as the anti hunting agenda goes, then you're as clueless as you are about growing and maintaining your business.

You don't know half of what you think you do. You don't know half of what you spew about people on this site. You don't know a fraction of a percent about how I do things or why. Nor do I owe you an explanation.

The bottom line is simple. Yes you are a closet liberal. You can't come out and say it because you don't have any balls. You want to take away from other people for your own self gratification or self validation.

You want to blame everyone and everything. You want to lay the blame for everything at the feet of money (probably because you have none).

You want to blame business, blame organizations, blame blame blame and then talk about how your dad took you to work, you're construction trash, you play with mud and blah blah blah. And you're watching mud dry, and that concrete contractors hold trowels backwards. Did I get it all?

Taking away baiting won't change your shitty hunting for yourself one bit. Taking away baiting won't gain you a damn thing. Except for the fact that you saved peta a lot of money and time, so they can shortcut to the next item.

You can't see past your own nose. But guess what partner? You ain?t as special as you think. So cram it all up your know nothing, upity ass cowgirl.
 
And a lot of the public views banging them up with rifles at far far distances as unethical
Too. Be careful which wagons you hitch up
To. And again, if it's about ?fairness?, drop the rifle and pick up a bow. Again, I don't begrudge rifle hunting. But my God, if you really want to talk about it being a detriment to the resource, then drop the gun.

And the argument about chronic wasting and EHD spreading because of baiting.....look at the states with those problems. It really isn't prevalent in the state?s that allow it. But it is in the states that don't.
 
>Hoss, you're a clown. I have
>no interest in any discussion
>with you. Sanpete this, dad
>hunts that, dad hunts this,
>it all has nothing to
>do with this. If you
>somehow believe that banning baiting
>puts you in anyone?s good
>graces as far as the
>anti hunting agenda goes, then
>you're as clueless as you
>are about growing and maintaining
>your business.
>
>You don't know half of what
>you think you do. You
>don't know half of what
>you spew about people on
>this site. You don't know
>a fraction of a percent
>about how I do things
>or why. Nor do I
>owe you an explanation.
>
>The bottom line is simple. Yes
>you are a closet liberal.
>You can't come out and
>say it because you don't
>have any balls. You want
>to take away from other
>people for your own self
>gratification or self validation.
>
>You want to blame everyone and
>everything. You want to lay
>the blame for everything at
>the feet of money (probably
>because you have none).
>
>You want to blame business, blame
>organizations, blame blame blame and
>then talk about how your
>dad took you to work,
>you're construction trash, you play
>with mud and blah blah
>blah. And you're watching mud
>dry, and that concrete contractors
>hold trowels backwards. Did I
>get it all?
>
>Taking away baiting won't change your
>shitty hunting for yourself one
>bit. Taking away baiting won't
>gain you a damn thing.
>Except for the fact that
>you saved peta a lot
>of money and time, so
>they can shortcut to the
>next item.
>
>You can't see past your own
>nose. But guess what partner?
>You ain?t as special as
>you think. So cram it
>all up your know nothing,
>upity ass cowgirl.


Hell. Here I thought the RACs were discussing baiting.

"I, I, I, me, me, me"

Guess what. Stucco guys hold their towels wrong too (oh ya, i said it. Should we meet after school on the playground?)

DC. No one cares about you. NO ONE. Your little bait pile is of no consequence. The 1 deer you kill over it DID NOT MATTER. It doesn't care how many forms you own, walls you pour, inches your diesel is lifted, zeros in your bank account.

THIS ISNT ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY.

It's about the heritage of hunting. Which is dying.

You high rolling and big timing ain't stopping one "PETA" member from doing anything other than using you as the poster boy for their campaign.

YOU HAVE ZERO RIGHTS TO HUNT. The Wildlife is OWNED by the citizens. ALL OF THEM. And when THEY decide it's over, ITS OVER. The publuc don't like baiting. The majority of hunters dont either.

I'm sure calling them libs, bedwetters, commies, sissies will change all that. Keep it up




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
And....

None of DC baddest man on the planet addresses CWD.

If you look at what they are doing in Wisconsin, it's sucks.

They aren't managing for "quality" any longer. They are mass killing. And Wisconsin had deer to start with. It's no secret Utah is struggling now. From a simple conservation aspect, we are playing with fire to start with. Concentrating deer is just splashing that with gas.


It sucks. It sucks we have to deal with negative PR. It sucks we have to worry about losing hunting all together because of perceptions and attitudes of non hunters. It sucks a disease might end it for us. IT ALL SUCKS.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Dcon I've realized arguing with these guys is a waste of breath I get a more logical conversation from my 4 year old. See ya on Bowsite
 
I think the hunting community sometimes gives itself a bad image. in the old days hunting was something viewed as done with your family, minimal equipment, nothing left to waste, etc. now it's more like geared up like a solder for war, all about the size of horns, money's no object, more of a competition. I realize those are two extremes but if you weren't a hunter and you viewed some of the shows on tv or social media, it's easy to see how our sport can have a negative view. I think the non hunting public view hunting as a bunch of rich guys playing or red neck murders who are out to just kill. here in NM they banned coyote calling contests. now we all know the need to keep predators in check, but because pictures are being posted on social media of piles of dead coyotes, etc, the only thing the media/public see are "killers for sport". now i'm not opposed to bating. to me it's not much different than sitting by a water tank. but if we want to protect our sport, we do bare the responsibility to protect it's image. i'm just not sure if "fare chase" applies anymore.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-24-19 AT 10:03AM (MST)[p]RF, you finished with, "i'm just not sure if 'fare chase' applies anymore."

I don't know if that was a pun or not, but I'm damn certain that in Utah, "Fare Chase" hunting is alive and well. It's "Fair Chase" hunting that is being threatened by those trying to monetize wildlife for their own personal financial gain.

Grizzly
 
"It's "Fair Chase" hunting that is being threatened by those trying to monetize wildlife for their own personal financial gain."

What if someone is trying to monetize wildlife to improve and protect the wildlife?
 
>"It's "Fair Chase" hunting that is
>being threatened by those trying
>to monetize wildlife for their
>own personal financial gain."
>
>What if someone is trying to
>monetize wildlife to improve and
>protect the wildlife?

:Yawn:
 
Take away long range hunting and the long range hunter will complain, why?

Because it is more effective.

Take compounds away and make bow hunters use recurve and compound hunters will complain, why?

Because it is more effective.

Take baiting away from bait hunters and bait hunters will complain, why?

IDK, certainly not because it is more effective.....

LMAO

Bill

People who work for a living are quickly being
overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.
 
>Take away long range hunting and
>the long range hunter will
>complain, why?
>
>Because it is more effective.
>
>Take compounds away and make bow
>hunters use recurve and compound
>hunters will complain, why?
>
>Because it is more effective.
>
>Take baiting away from bait hunters
>and bait hunters will complain,
>why?
>
>IDK, certainly not because it is
>more effective.....
>
>LMAO
>
>Bill
>
>People who work for a living
>are quickly being
>overwhelmed by people who vote for
>a living.

On the other hand, if you leave long range shooting, those who don't like others doing it will complain.

Leave compound bows and those who don't like others using them will complain.

Allow baiting and those who don't like others using baits will complain.

The "my way is the ONLY way" attitude is what is driving these total banning proposals and is based solely on human emotions and, in spite of what some may claim, it has NOTHING to do with managing wildlife using biology or economics or logistics or legality. It's social management and that's a very risky way to manage wildlife.
 
Fair enough...

See my post #40.

Sounds like what people want. Do it your way no holds barred....

Bill

People who work for a living are quickly being
overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.
 
Someone PLEASE explain how you make "long range hunting" illegal?

What, you cannot have a certain caliber or scopes with turrets?
No shots taken further than 500 yards?

What are we saying here exactly?
A guy with a 300 RUM and Nightforce scope is illegal but the guy lobbing the same exact projectile from his 30-06 and "straight 6" at 600 is totally legal?

C'mon guys, really?

This post is about baiting, period.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-27-19 AT 05:00PM (MST)[p]>Someone PLEASE explain how you make
>"long range hunting" illegal?
>
>What, you cannot have a certain
>caliber or scopes with turrets?
>
>No shots taken further than 500
>yards?
>
>What are we saying here exactly?
>
>A guy with a 300 RUM
>and Nightforce scope is illegal
>but the guy lobbing the
>same exact projectile from his
>30-06 and "straight 6" at
>600 is totally legal?
>
>C'mon guys, really?
>
>This post is about baiting, period.
>

And will someone PLEASE explain how you can make all baiting illegal?

How do you deal with private property rights? Grazing rights on federal property? Utah state property? Tribal lands? CWMU's? Walk-in Access areas? Corn/alfalfa fields? Orchards? Gardens? Legal livestock salts & supplements? Manmade water sources? Depredation situations? Hunting leased property? Private hunting clubs? Etc.,etc.?

You certainly have your work cut out for you if you think passing a total ban on baiting will change how Wade Heaton (Your post #130) chooses to hunt. And all it will do is make it harder for older, less able, less healthy, busy hunters to go and enjoy hunting.

Reasonably regulated baiting? Useful!
Total ban on baiting? Useless!
 
Like I mentioned before there is a total ban already in Utah on baiting turkeys or migratory birds. Ag fields and water sources are not baiting. I don't have a dog in this fight but to say it's not possible to enforce a ban on baiting is ridiculous.
 
>Like I mentioned before there is
>a total ban already in
>Utah on baiting turkeys or
>migratory birds. Ag fields
>and water sources are not
>baiting. I don't have
>a dog in this fight
>but to say it's not
>possible to enforce a ban
>on baiting is ridiculous.


Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! No Kidding!

It's sad when somebody's justification for baiting is to point at other questionable behavior (long range animal shooting, etc...) or to say baiting couldn't be stopped anyway (How's the 'War On Drugs' going? Fraud? Illegal Immigration? Etc...? Should we just legalize everything that is hard to enforce?)

Baiting is already illegal for certain species in Utah. (Didn't one prominent Utah outfitter lose his license over baiting turkeys? So obviously they do enforce it.) Many other states successfully ban baiting too.

From Utah Waterfowl:

Baiting is an illegal activity that involves
the spreading of shelled, shucked or unshucked
grain, feed or salt to lure, attract or entice birds
to an area for the purposes of hunting them.
You may not hunt waterfowl, snipe or coots
by baiting, and you may not hunt in an area
where you reasonably should have known that
the area is or has been baited.

An area is considered to be baited for
10 days after the bait has been completely
removed from the area.

You may not take waterfowl or coots on or
over lands or areas where grain or other feed
has been distributed or scattered as the result
of the manipulation of an agricultural crop or
other feed on the land where grown. However,
you may take snipe on or over these areas.

Nothing in this guidebook prohibits you
from harvesting waterfowl or coots on land
with residual crops or feed left as a result of
normal agricultural practices.

From Utah Turkey:

Baiting is an illegal activity that involves
the spreading of shelled, shucked or unshucked
grain, feed or salt to lure, attract or entice birds
to an area for the purposes of hunting them.
You may not hunt upland game or wild turkey
by baiting, and you may not hunt in an area
where you reasonably should have known that
the area is or has been baited.

For example, a farmer working his land
after harvesting a crop does not render his
field ?baited? ? so long as the post-harvest
manipulation of the farmer?s field is a normal
agricultural process

From Idaho:

It is unlawful to hunt any game animal/bird by means of baiting with the exception of applicable rules for the black bear baiting permit and gray wolf trapping (see black bear and wolf sections). Bait is defined as any substance including grain, salt in any form (liquid or solid), or any other substance placed to attract game animals/birds, except synthetic liquid scent for deer and elk.

From Colorado:

It is unlawful to use dogs or bait to hunt bears, deer, elk, pronghorn, or moose. Bait means to put, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter salt, minerals, grain, animal parts, or other food so as to constitute a lure, attraction, or enticement for big game on or over any area where hunters are attempting to take big game.

From Nevada:

A person may not bait big game mammals for the purpose of hunting; or knowingly hunt big game mammals that were baited by another person.

Bait means the intentional placing, exposing, depositing, disturbing or scattering of salt, minerals, grain or any other food material, whether natural or manufactured, that could attract, entice or lure wildlife to an area.

From Wyoming:

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regulations/Regulation-PDFs/REGULATIONS_CH63

(Basically, baiting is banned except on private land where the Commission has determined conditions exist that specifically limit the taking of big game. They may issue a baiting permit, but it is for private land only, cannot be used for commercial purposes (guiding), WGFD must personally inspect property and bait site, etc... The intent here was a few urban areas where the whitetail population couldn't be adequately controlled via ordinary hunting seasons)

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

Ask yourself if you agree with the following statement...

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>You certainly have your work cut
>out for you if you
>think passing a total ban
>on baiting will change how
>Wade Heaton
>chooses to hunt.

Are you saying Wade Heaton would violate an anti-baiting law and hunt his clients over bait? That is a helluva thing to say about somebody. I would NEVER make a statement like that about somebody. Plus, I'm sure he knows of another outfitter that lost his license over baiting turkeys and doesn't want to follow suit.

PS. If you really think this is about CWMU's, Walk-In Access, Corn fields, Orchards and Gardens, etc, as you state... then you really need to educate yourself on existing baiting ordinances and how they apply to artificially placed food sources and those in existence for normal agricultural activities. I posted some verbiage for you in #142. You may want to do some reading before you make arguments that are so totally baseless and false!
 
>>You certainly have your work cut
>>out for you if you
>>think passing a total ban
>>on baiting will change how
>>Wade Heaton
>>chooses to hunt.
>
>Are you saying Wade Heaton would
>violate an anti-baiting law and
>hunt his clients over bait?

>That is a helluva thing
>to say about somebody. I
>would NEVER make a statement
>like that about somebody. Plus,
>I'm sure he knows of
>another outfitter that lost his
>license over baiting turkeys and
>doesn't want to follow suit.
>
>

I'll ask you again to please stop trying to put words in my mouth! No, I am NOT saying Wade Heaton would violate an anti-baiting law. I said you would have your work cut out for you by trying to come up with and passing an anti-baiting law that would legally prevent him from hunting his clients over "bait" as you would like to describe it.

The Heaton Livestock Company owned by Vard Heaton is an historical working livestock ranch and, as such, they manage their ranch primarily for cattle including developed water sources, salt blocks, mineral and nutritional supplements, cattle friendly crops, grazing rotations, etc. It is also part of the Alton CWMU which is operated by Wade Heaton and, as such, is expected to also manage the ranch for wildlife (primarily mule deer) per the CWMU program, including water sources, deer friendly forage, sufficient summer and winter ranges, cover, predator control, deer friendly fencing, fawning areas, etc. The deer tags Wade receives is to help compensate the ranch for the deer management expenses which also includes Wade's income. I don't know the exact business arrangements, but to expect Vard and Wade to run totally separate business operations per some socially generated hunting law is impractical and expensive and goes against the spirit and purpose of the CWMU program.

No, I don't believe Wade (or any other CWMU operator) would violate a hunting law, but I'm pretty sure they would not be supportive to passing this one. Indeed, you have your work cut out for you!


>
>PS. If you really think this
>is about CWMU's, Walk-In Access,
>Corn fields, Orchards and Gardens,
>etc, as you state... then
>you really need to educate
>yourself on existing baiting ordinances
>and how they apply to
>artificially placed food sources and
>those in existence for normal
>agricultural activities. I posted some
>verbiage for you in #142.
>You may want to do
>some reading before you make
>arguments that are so totally
>baseless and false!
>
>

(I'll finish my reply in the morning)
 
Christmas gift ideas.

73836img0182.jpg


Bluehair
Splitting my time time between the winter and summer range......
May you live long enough to cash in those preference points. Amen
 
Like Homer said...tough to police the end of long range shooting or baiting for that matter. You just have to hope that some day people want to stop the things that may be a bit too far on the scale of ethical hunting.

Before I get accused of attacking others methods. I have a tack driving 300 weatherby that I have used to kill out to 700 yards. I would probably consider baiting if it were legal where I hunt. I have a bow that I can consistently keep my hunting arrows inside a 4 to 6 inch circle out to 100 yards and probably beyond although I wont shoot at game that is not already wounded past 50 or 60 yards depending on the situation. But there comes a point when the animals we are hunting deserve a chance to recover as a herd. We will all have to give something up. If not just to preserve the species a bit then for the future of hunting mule deer.

Or as I said above, if nobody wants to be limited in how they hunt and it's all about managing the herd for a certain havest number and giving opportunity for all hunters to hunt how they want....

So why not just petition fish and game agencies to apply a quota to each unit for each species. Open the season August 20 and close it when the quota is filled. Hunt any weapon any way you want....as long as it doesn't endanger anyones life or directly and intentionally interfere with another person's hunt. Bait em, shoot, em at night, from the pickup or whatever you want. It's about management of the herd....and according to some it's our individual right to hunt how you want.

Bill

People who work for a living are quickly being
overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-19 AT 09:04AM (MST)[p]>
10565screenshot20191023232236facebook.jpg

>Nuff said....

And Wade is also known to drive 55 mph in a 55 mph zone, but won't return calls or emails to explain those actions!

Nuff said....
 
So a guy who manages a large hunting preserve that baits to make hunting easier for clients who pay big money to kill big critters also serves on the wildlife board that allows baiting.

Got it.

You're right, nuff said.

Bill

People who work for a living are quickly being
overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-19 AT 11:31AM (MST)[p]FYI, the KSL video was discussed here when it was first released. Here is the link with some more input from the time...

https://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-...hread&om=7992&forum=DCForumID6&archive=yes#20

I don't know what came of this, if anything, or whether action was even warranted, but the available information is enough to give me concern. The monetization of wildlife is a horrible part of our sport.

Grizzly
 
>>Like I mentioned before there is
>>a total ban already in
>>Utah on baiting turkeys or
>>migratory birds. Ag fields
>>and water sources are not
>>baiting. I don't have
>>a dog in this fight
>>but to say it's not
>>possible to enforce a ban
>>on baiting is ridiculous.
>
>
>Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! No Kidding!
>
>It's sad when somebody's justification for
>baiting is to point at
>other questionable behavior (long range
>animal shooting, etc...) or to
>say baiting couldn't be stopped
>anyway (How's the 'War On
>Drugs' going? Fraud? Illegal Immigration?
>Etc...? Should we just legalize
>everything that is hard to
>enforce?)
>
>Baiting is already illegal for certain
>species in Utah. (Didn't one
>prominent Utah outfitter lose his
>license over baiting turkeys? So
>obviously they do enforce it.)
>Many other states successfully ban
>baiting too.
>
>From Utah Waterfowl:
>
>Baiting is an illegal activity that
>involves
>the spreading of shelled, shucked or
>unshucked
>grain, feed or salt to lure,
>attract or entice birds
>to an area for the purposes
>of hunting them.
>You may not hunt waterfowl, snipe
>or coots
>by baiting, and you may not
>hunt in an area
>where you reasonably should have known
>that
>the area is or has been
>baited.
>
>An area is considered to be
>baited for
>10 days after the bait has
>been completely
>removed from the area.
>
>You may not take waterfowl or
>coots on or
>over lands or areas where grain
>or other feed
>has been distributed or scattered as
>the result
>of the manipulation of an agricultural
>crop or
>other feed on the land where
>grown. However,
>you may take snipe on or
>over these areas.
>
>Nothing in this guidebook prohibits you
>
>from harvesting waterfowl or coots on
>land
>with residual crops or feed left
>as a result of
>normal agricultural practices.
>
>From Utah Turkey:
>
>Baiting is an illegal activity that
>involves
>the spreading of shelled, shucked or
>unshucked
>grain, feed or salt to lure,
>attract or entice birds
>to an area for the purposes
>of hunting them.
>You may not hunt upland game
>or wild turkey
>by baiting, and you may not
>hunt in an area
>where you reasonably should have known
>that
>the area is or has been
>baited.
>
>For example, a farmer working his
>land
>after harvesting a crop does not
>render his
>field ?baited? ? so long as
>the post-harvest
>manipulation of the farmer?s field is
>a normal
>agricultural process
>
>From Idaho:
>
>It is unlawful to hunt any
>game animal/bird by means of
>baiting with the exception of
>applicable rules for the black
>bear baiting permit and gray
>wolf trapping (see black bear
>and wolf sections). Bait is
>defined as any substance including
>grain, salt in any form
>(liquid or solid), or any
>other substance placed to attract
>game animals/birds, except synthetic liquid
>scent for deer and elk.
>
>
>From Colorado:
>
>It is unlawful to use dogs
>or bait to hunt bears,
>deer, elk, pronghorn, or moose.
>Bait means to put, expose,
>deposit, distribute, or scatter salt,
>minerals, grain, animal parts, or
>other food so as to
>constitute a lure, attraction, or
>enticement for big game on
>or over any area where
>hunters are attempting to take
>big game.
>
>From Nevada:
>
>A person may not bait big
>game mammals for the purpose
>of hunting; or knowingly hunt
>big game mammals that were
>baited by another person.
>
>Bait means the intentional placing, exposing,
>depositing, disturbing or scattering of
>salt, minerals, grain or any
>other food material, whether natural
>or manufactured, that could attract,
>entice or lure wildlife to
>an area.
>
>From Wyoming:
>
>https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regulations/Regulation-PDFs/REGULATIONS_CH63
>
>(Basically, baiting is banned except on
>private land where the Commission
>has determined conditions exist that
>specifically limit the taking of
>big game. They may issue
>a baiting permit, but it
>is for private land only,
>cannot be used for commercial
>purposes (guiding), WGFD must personally
>inspect property and bait site,
>etc... The intent here was
>a few urban areas where
>the whitetail population couldn't be
>adequately controlled via ordinary hunting
>seasons)
>
>Grizzly
>


In fact, I did read (and print) those rules you posted before I made my statements, plus I read and printed some you misread, mis-interpreted, misquoted, didn't finish, didn't research or didn't include.

From Utah - Both of the Utah rules you quoted have provisions for hunting over fields where residual crops or feed are left as a result of normal agricultural practices.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Idaho - Idaho Big Game 2019 & 2020 Seasons & Rules Brochure:
"It Is Unlawful To:
To (sic) hunt any game animal/bird by means of baiting with the exception of applicable rules for the black bear baiting permit and gray wolf trapping (see black bear and wolf sections). Bait is defined as any substance including grain, salt in any form (liquid or solid) or any other substance PLACED TO ATTRACT GAME ANIMALS/BIRDS except synthetic scent for deer and elk."

- Idaho Fish & Game Frequently Asked Questions, Page 9:
"Q - Is it legal for someone to plant a plot of land with the intent to hunt over it?
A - Hunters can hunt over agricultural crops as long as the growing process allows normal agricultural guidelines that are recommended by county extension agents."
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Colorado - 2019 COLORADO BIG GAME HUNTING LAWS BROCHURE:
"IT IS ALSO AGAINST THE LAW TO: 24. Hunt big game over bait, whether or not the person hunting personally placed the bait. Bait means to put, expose, distribute or scatter salt, minerals, grain, animal parts or other food as an attraction for big game. SALT OR MINERAL BLOCKS USED FOR NORMAL AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES ARE NOT CONSIDERED BAIT. Scent sticks that smell like food are illegal for bears.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Nevada - Nevada Administrative Code NAC 503.149:
"1. A person shall not:
(a) Bait big game mammals for the purpose of hunting; or
(b) Knowingly hunt big game mammals that were baited by another person.
2. For the purposes of this section, "bait" means the intentional placing, exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of salt, minerals, grain or any other food material, whether natural or manufactured, that could attract, entice or lure wildlife to an area for the purposes of hunting. THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(a) ANY INCIDENTAL ATTRACTING OR FEEDING OF WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL OR LIVESTOCK PRACTICE; OR
(b) PLANTING CROPS AND LEAVING THOSE CROPS STANDING AS FOOD PLOTS FOR WILDLIFE."
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Wyoming - Your description is correct, but since there is no printed information I could find about whether or not normal agriculture and livestock practices were considered bait or baiting, I called the Wyoming Game and Fish Headquarters and received this information which is that CROP FIELDS ARE NOT CONSIDERED BAIT so hunting on them is allowed. However, salt and nutritional blocks could be used primarily for baiting so a hunter would probably have to contact the Department for a baiting permit.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

Now, some you didn't list!

From Arizona - 2019-2020 Arizona Hunting Regulations Booklet, Page 126:
"R12-4-303 Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition:
(A)(7) A person shall not use edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game. The use of edible or ingestible substances it aid in taking big game is unlawful when:
(a) A person places edible or ingestible substances for the purpose of attracting or taking big game, or
(b) A person knowingly takes big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances placed for the purpose of attracting wildlife to a specific location.
(A)(9) For the purposes of subsection (A)(7), edible or ingestible substances DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(a) WATER
(b) SALT
(c) SALT-BASED MATERIALS PRODUCED AND MANUFACTURED FOR THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.
(d) NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS PRODUCED AND MANUFACTURED FOR THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY AND PLACED DURING THE COURSE OF LIVESTOCK OR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

I've got too many to quote, so I'll just summarize. If you want the full quote, you can just look it up and print it like I did.

From California - California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Pages 17 & 18:
- Game birds and mammals may not be taken within 400 yards of a baited area.
- Game birds and mammals may be taken over crop fields.
- Game birds and mammals my be taken over lands where grain, salt or other feed has been distributed or scattered as a result of normal agricultural operations.
- Game birds and mammals may be taken on wildlife food plots.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From North Dakota - 2019 Deer Hunting Guide:
- Baiting is allowed on 19 of the 38 units and on part of 2 others.
- Baiting is NOT allowed on 7 units and part of 2 others. It is also NOT allowed on US Fish & Wildlife Refuges, State Public lands, waterfowl production areas and Forest Service Grasslands.
- Baiting does not include water, food plots, standing crops or livestock feeds in standard (agricultural) practices.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From South Dakota - 2019 Big Game Regulations Brochure:
- Bait stations may not be established or used for hunting.
- Bait station restrictions do NOT APPLY to foods that have not been placed or gathered by an individual and result from normal farming, wildlife food plantings, forest management, orchards or similar land management activities.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Texas - Several sources:
- Baiting is illegal on most public property.
- Baiting is legal on private property.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Utah - DWR Regulations:
- Baiting of big game is not mentioned and is legal statewide.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Oregon - 2019 Oregon Big Game Hunting Regulations:
- Baiting of big game is not mentioned and is legal statewide.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

From Washington - 2019 Washington State Big Game Hunting Pamphlet:
- Baiting is allowed as long as it is less than 10 gallons and is more than 200 yards away from any known bait site.
- Bait does NOT INCLUDE salt or minerals or feeding during common agricultural practices.
- Bait does NOT INCLUDE food from undisturbed wild, volunteer or planted vegetation including fruit trees, orchards, vineyards and food plots.
Point - That's not a TOTAL ban on baiting.

As near as I can tell, the states of Montana, Nebraska and New Mexico do not have written provisions for hunting on lands where agricultural or livestock activity takes place so I will try to contact them by phone tomorrow and further update this post. But, so far, I haven't found any western state that TOTALLY bans hunting on all lands that have some form of food substance identified as "bait". There's always "loopholes" in your project.
 
I did a search of this thread. NOBODY CALLED FOR A "TOTAL" BAN ON BAITING AS YOU KEEP CLAIMING!!!

YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE TO MENTION THE TERM in Post 85 and then again twice in 112 and again in 136 and again in 140.

Cowkiller then mentioned a "total ban" on waterfowl and turkeys in 141.

You then used the term 14 times in 153.

Amongst those erroneous claims of yours you tried to pretend that baiting bans had something to do with CWMU's, alfalfa, and people's gardens.... which people told you over and over were not considered baiting if it was for "normal agricultural process" but you kept repeating it regardless, and now are claiming people wanted a TOTAL ban when that was never discussed except by you. You even CAPITALIZED it 14 times in one post for effect.
 
>EFA, are you okay with that
>happened here or is it
>like driving the speed limit
>too?
>
>https://www.ksl.com/article/84064/video-raises-ethical-questions-about-hunting
>
>As the article states, Heaton "vigorously
>denies allegations of trapping, which
>would be a third degree
>felony. He says the videotape,
>which someone mailed to KSL
>anonymously, is misleading. But he
>admits what happened was bad
>and should never happen again."
>
>
>Grizzly

I guess you can't help being a lawyer with your either/or questions, but I'm not suckered in by them.

Trapping and shooting trapped protected wildlife is illegal in Utah and Wade said it was bad, which it is. Plus, we don't know whether or not this incident happened as presented by the tape, nor whether or not Wade was personally involved. But that's one isolated incident.

However, baiting is a separate issue and, like driving 55 mph in a 55 mph zone, is NOT illegal in Utah. So, do you expect Wade to also say it's bad in an unethical effort to make your baiting case? Are you still trying to discredit someone by bringing up a separate isolated incident in order to make your baiting case? Or do you have some other reason for bringing up the KSL reported incident?

That KSL reported incident has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether baiting is deemed ethical or not. That's just a personal opinion and you have yours, I have mine, and Wade has his. But I notice, of the 3 of us, you're the only one trying to force your opinion down the throats of the other 2.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-19 AT 10:23PM (MST)[p]>So a guy who manages a
>large hunting preserve that baits
>to make hunting easier for
>clients who pay big money
>to kill big critters also
>serves on the wildlife board
>that allows baiting.
>
>Got it.
>
>You're right, nuff said.
>
>Bill
>

Yep, it's the same wildlife board that allows YOU to bait in order to make it easier to kill big critters! And you don't even have to pay big money to do it!

And, FWIW, the DWR are the ones who have allowed baiting all this time because it has never been a serious biological issue nor a social issue until someone decided they didn't like it and didn't want anyone else to do it. And, apparently, it still isn't a serious biological issue or they wouldn't have taken a survey simply about it being ethical. This is nothing more than a battle of opinions and no matter who wins or loses, nothing will change biologically.
 
>I did a search of this
>thread. NOBODY CALLED FOR A
>"TOTAL" BAN ON BAITING AS
>YOU KEEP CLAIMING!!!
>
>YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE TO
>MENTION THE TERM in Post
>85 and then again twice
>in 112 and again in
>136 and again in 140.
>
>
>Cowkiller then mentioned a "total ban"
>on waterfowl and turkeys in
>141.
>
>You then used the term 14
>times in 153.
>
>Amongst those erroneous claims of yours
>you tried to pretend that
>baiting bans had something to
>do with CWMU's, alfalfa, and
>people's gardens.... which people told
>you over and over were
>not considered baiting if it
>was for "normal agricultural process"
>but you kept repeating it
>regardless, and now are claiming
>people wanted a TOTAL ban
>when that was never discussed
>except by you. You even
>CAPITALIZED it 14 times in
>one post for effect.

Thanks for the clarification! I'm glad to hear I was wrong, which means I don't have to make those phone calls tomorrow and I can still hunt most of the water holes I'm now hunting and Wade can still make a living guiding hunters and I don't have to worry about you guys being misunderstood. And I don't have to make a trip to Salt Lake to oppose your proposal. That's a big relief!
 

Similar threads

elkassassin
WILL YOU??? HAVE YOU??? WILL YOU NOT??? SELF REGULATE???
Replies
74
Views
2k
wstrntines
wstrntines
Homer
Woolly Mammoth hunt?…..bizarro world….
Replies
15
Views
802
Sierra
Sierra
gr8fuldoug
The Wait Is Over
Replies
0
Views
191
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20230122_165420_Gallery.jpg
sunset.jpg
CB5AF686-8F67-46A5-940F-946044641FEB.jpeg
29FE5F2C-C9BF-47C1-A1DC-C7C1A9637E17.jpeg
IMG_3580.JPG
615246A0-F643-49F1-BD53-C48FA93A9E54.jpeg
Heavy Buck!!
100_1460.JPG
Alberta Stud
1.jpg
E69D65C7-0053-47DE-AAF4-DC345EF2FBBB.jpeg
Huge Muley
Back
Top Bottom