What is Baiting to you?

[killinstuff]

I think Dave19113 just baited all of you guys

[xtrema312]

Originally posted by Mojostick:
Many northern Michigan deer hunters are hunting  poor deer habitat and don't even realize it. They hunt wide open, mature woods where you can see 200 yards because every twig was eaten and few grow because there's no sunlight.

The reality is, without bait, the deer don't want to visit those said properties. And this is maybe 40-60% of northern Michigan.

Less bait and more chain saws?  Less tree hugging and more tree cutting.

[Steve Kendrot]

If there's no difference between flinging corn kernals from a feeder at timed intervals and hunting a natural food source or even a food plot, then there is no difference between hunting with a recurve, or a compound or a rifle for that matter. Baiting produces a conditions response in animals, where food plots and naturally available foods do not. Baiting forces animal behaviors to change, and natural and planted foods force hunters to understand animal behavior. The latter is a more pure activity in my book, regardless of legality. Sure, there are cases where baiting is the most effective way to get game in range, but call a spade a spade. It ain't hunting to me. Here in Maryland you can bait on private land but not on public land. So what's that mean? I hunt some private land surrounded by people that bait and the deer turn nocturnal and are nearly impossible to hunt. Baiting spawns an "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality and pretty soon everyone is baiting and you can't find a place to hunt deer that aren't impacted by it. Its like second hand smoke in my opinion. You may not like it, but its forced on you by those that do it. I think it should be illegal. Especially when you consider the disease transmission and ecological damages caused by concentrated deer.

[dave19113]

Originally posted by killinstuff:
I think Dave19113 just baited all of you guys

Naaaaaaa.... I just wanted to hear different opinions..... I didnt think I was gonna get this much feedback.. but I do like to read about it all....

All and all though, thats what is great about America and being an American.... freedom of choice and opinion...

[jacobsladder]

remove baiting , treestands, and firearms and we'll all become better hunters.

[Mojostick]

Xtrema,

The chainsaw is not only the best tool for deer management in northern Michigan, it's the best tool for grouse management, rabbit management, woodcock management, bear management and turkey management too.

The sad fact is, many Michigan deer hunters actually decry clearcuts because they only see the short term. They send angry emails about how "their public ground" was "destroyed" by clearcuts. The truth is, clearcuts in northern Michigan are the best thing that could ever happen to that ground.

Red squirrels and owls love old growth forests. Deer, not so much.

It's always been my contention that the Sierra Club's law suit war against aspen cutting in Michigan had nothing to do with the actual cutting of aspen, but it was the ultimate anti-hunting tool.

Michigan has lost something like 30-40% of it's aspen forest over the last 40 years due to lack of proper timber management.

The less habitat you have for game animals, the less need for hunting as a mangement tool. And the less interest from the masses. So the anti's don't have to fight against "hunting" per se, but their better battle is to fight clear cuts and big timbering.

Their plan is to simply slowly eliminate the habitat that game animals live in. Notice the groups totally against proper timber management and who instead fight for old growth forests  which assures few game animals.

If you want to lower game animal numbers, then fight for old growth forests. This is the anti's new strategy, and frankly, it's an effective one, since many hunters themselves buy into it because they don't understand the need/benefit of clearcuts either.

Baiting isn't the answer, wholesale habitat improvement management matched with proper tag  regulations to keep herd numbers in check is. The problem is, the former takes little effort, the latter takes lots of effort.

[red hill]

I agree jacobsladder.  But "when in Rome..."

Here in AR it is legal to bait.  On our lease we bait, plant food plots, use mineral supplements, and experiment with other methods of attracting deer.  

Southern AR is heavily hunted and space is at a premium.  If you don't own land, you pretty much have to lease. Hunting is a tremendous expense without baiting.

During my 50 years the herd in AR has gone quite a bit.  We have gone from possibly being lucky enough to see 1 deer during a 1 week season to seeing 30 deer during a morning hunt while enjoying our much expanded season.  

I feel the morality of baiting is a personal choice. I bait but most of my hunting is not done over the bait.  I would much rather "hunt" an individual buck, decipher his patterns and anticipate his next move.  But conditions here make that difficult.  

My biggest limitation on hunting is time.  I can't take a vacation during the season.  My wife and I are limited to weekends and holidays.  By the second weekend of our season the deer have been over-exposed to hunting pressure by hunters fortunate enough to have time off from work.

Be your own judge.  I find that I am harder on myself than others may be.

[Kurt Miller]

I was actually thinking about posting this very question myself after reading an older post by someone who would not hunt over a water hole but would hunt the trail leading to it.  This raised a very similar question in my mind.  As we have seen in the last 8 pages, everyone has their own opinions, experiences, and personal limits.  Most importantly, I think as long as someone is hunting hard, proficient with their weapon of choice, taking ethical shots while abiding by the regulations in their area, who are we to judge.  Not everyone is driven by the same desire or needs, nor has the same time available or even skills as others so they do what they can.  We must keep our hunting heritage alive.  Staying true to your heart is important, but we must take care not condemn others as long as they are legally and ethically pursuing game. We cannot afford to become our own worst enemies and let our internal differences be perceived by the non hunters and anti hunters as a sign hunting is wrong because "even the hunters can't justify it" (or certain aspects of it).

[TNstickn]

Baiting to me is putting out a pile of corn and waitin for the deer to run to it like a dog bowl. That seems to be what people round these parts get caught doin.

[ChuckC]

Tell me please why you think coming to a pile of corn is a (unnatural) learned response but coming to a corn field is "natural".  Why is it that a deer running in to a pile of corn is like coming in to a dog bowl but that same deer coming into a planted alfalfa field, or brassica field or any other field is "natural".

Either way the animal is coming to eat.  It is doing something it MUST do.  

Whether it eats at the pile or in the field or under the oak tree is up to it alone.

So you are contending that by putting a pile of donuts in the woods all the bear are magically going to be attracted well beyond their ability to resist ?  That it is not unlike a high fence, giving them no option at all ?

Give me a break.

I don't bait for deer, its not my style, but I also don't think it is substantively "different" or less worthy than sitting on the edge of a planted field, or a tended oak tree or even sitting off a trail that leads to those areas.

In all of those cases you are using the animal's needs and habits in order to get close for a shot opportunity. Something predators have done since they were smart enough to recognize that it makes for a full stomach.

Why one is "bad" and the others are "natural" is a mystery to me.  
ChuckC

[jacobsladder]

Chuck...say you buy a real nice 100 acre piece of property in northern michigan..... big woods... no farmland within a couple hundred miles..... you do not bait...

but a 1/2 mile away the neighboring camp is bringing in truck loads of sugar beets , carrots, corn etc...

Within a few days your deer sightings suddenly disappear... you hunt the same trails , keep the wind in your face , look for available food source and do everything you can to fill your tag.

While the neighbors are having a hay day on their 40 acres of open pines with truck loads of bait in the middle... the does and fawns are all filling their bellies and the bucks are close to the does ....

All these deer have to eat, but there is nothing natural about a beat down deer path running to the middle of that patch of pines...and that path wouldnt exist if there wasn't a pile of bait (foodplot)... the deer would all be on your 100 acres of prime land laying down in the swamp and browsing their way in to your hardwoods.

To each their own , but hunting a "pile" is much different than hunting a farm field or a ridge of oaks.

[Jason R. Wesbrock]

jacobsladder,

Just for the sake of discussion, I've seen that same situation play out in IL and WI (non-baiting areas) due to food plots.

[jacobsladder]

Jason,

absolutley! same here in michigan.

[Mojostick]

Bird hunting can offer some analogy's for shooting deer "leading to" natural foods vs "over" intentionally dumped bait.

In duck hunting, it's deemed ethical by most to shoot ducks leading to or from the water. It's fine to shoot them while landing or taking off, but not sitting on the water.

In turkey hunting, it's deemed ethical by most to shoot them right after they've flown down from the roost, but not on roost.

Upon reflection, I think the ethical arguement against bait, without even bringing in the bigger biological and social problems caused, is that baited deer are more akin to shooting ducks on the water or turkeys on the roost.

In my area, baiting by the truckload was popular up until a few years ago. It caused bait wars between neighbors. One owner would bring in a pickup load to get the upper hand, the next would bring in a truck and trailer, the next a dumptruck and the wealthy club owners brought it in by the semi.

Since the bait ban, my bowhunting hasn't been better. With all the neighbors baiting, deer go nocturnal or come out at last light. Now with the ban, deer are up and around looking for food 2 hours before dark and you can actually hunt them.

[HUNT 24/7]

First off, this is a great topic.

 Myself, I hunt black bears in the spring over bait & don't have a problem with it.
When deer hunting I don't use food as bait (to much work haha)  but I do use doe urine.

 At the end of the day, if it is legal & the game plentyful, I am ok with it, even if I personally wouldn't do it myself.
 Us hunters face enough people & groups against us & our passion, so for me, as a hunter I will never voice my opinion "against" a legal form of hunting.

But that's just my opinion & nothing more.

[Chris Shelton]

Originally posted by Mojostick:
In duck hunting, it's deemed ethical by most to shoot ducks leading to or from the water. It's fine to shoot them while landing or taking off, but not sitting on the water.

I have also noticed that these "rules" are different for a guy with a bow???  I dont get that, the same guy that shoots a goose on the water is the same guy that wont do it with a gun?  What is the difference.  That and I looked, nowhere in the National Game and Fish laws does it say you cant shoot waterfowl on the water???

[muley40]

If it is legal do it, when it was legal to hunt bear in the spring in Ont.Canada it was the only way to hunt bear, it gave a person a chance to size up the bear, or if you had a sow coming around with cubs, as far as baiting deer in I owa it is illegal, and thats my opinion!

[Burnsie]

I agree with Mojostick.  Why don't we just blast turkeys out of the tree or shoot the ducks off the water.  Well,  because in most areas it is illegal.  If it were suddenly made legal, would you then all of a sudden regard it as a legitimate practice.  I have a feeling most here would still view it in a negative light and not choose it as a way to take ducks and turkey. And then there would be the other crowd that would come up with all kinds of absurd analogies trying to explain why it is a perfectly fine way to take game- "hey it's legal",  "how is shooting a duck sitting still on the water any different from  shooting a deer standing still, isn't the idea to make a clean humane kill"  etc...etc.

[Kurt Miller]

"We don't have to blast them out of the tree or off the water", but honestly, if you shoot them dead in your preferred method they are still dead. Does it really matter exactly where they are standing if you still put your self in the right place and time and fooled their senses.  Heck, its probably harder in some cases to approach them in these "static" locations where they have a chance to see/hear you coming vs. flying clueless into a kill zone...Be careful calling things absurd analogies because you don't like the truth.  the truth is we decide to kill an animal that in most cases, none of us absolutely have to kill to survive--so yes the idea is to make a clean kill. We live in a democracy (maybe for a few more years) and still have a say in what is and is not legal in our home states.  Which means other people completely ignorant in the biological needs for hunting for herd health, and our own personal needs to hunt to fill our  personal needs, can vote to take away our ability to hunt. If you don't like something that is "legal" don't do it.  If you are that against it, work through the system to try to change it, but be careful about causing the majority (non/anti hunters) to see us fighting publicly and give more cause for them to try to limit our passionate pursuits afield.  Do I shoot off the roost and water?  No, but once again, where it is legal...We can argue forever, the bottom line is have fun hunting and don't do anything that goes against your own personal values.  Hunt safe y'all.

[bowfiend]

I'm really reading two repetitive themes:

1.  If it's legal, it's ok.
2.  Baiting is ok when hunting is hard.

I'm not judging and have already admitted in my previous post that I'd harvest a bear over bait if given the opportunity. My concern is that the two themes dominating the discussion negatively affect the ethics of what we all hold in such high regard.

A bank CEO gets a $50 million bonus after running his company so poorly that he needs $35 billion in Federal aid (our money!). It's legal, but it raises my blood pressure to unsafe levels. The legality argument, I feel, is deferring the ethical choice to a game management agency rather than accepting responsibility for our own actions as hunters. Does "They told me it was OK" feed your soul in the same way as "I finally did it!" ?

We choose traditional tackle because it's hard and we find enjoyment in the challenge! So why are we compromising that challenge when the "hunting" is less than ideal? I live in an area where, if I could stick a feeder in my yard, I could kill a P&Y whitetail every year! But that's missing the whole point of the Pope and Young Club. If I'm not mistaken, the Club was founded in part to record bow harvests as a means of proving to the community at large that bowhunting was indeed an ethical an efficient means of harvesting animals. I guess my point is that "legality" and "difficulty" shouldn't be justification for our hunting ethic and that mentality may lower our collective group to what the non-hunting public perceives as the lowest common denominator.