I appoligize in advance for the long post. Below is the text from an article that I published in Bow and Arrow Hunting magazine in 2010. It seems very relevant to this discussion.
It's long...if you're not interested...please just skip over it. No harm no foul.
Ron
THE GREAT BAIT DEBATE
Hunters are usually a pretty supportive bunch, but baiting is one of those divisive topics that will clear the proverbial “big tent” quicker than the after effects of your Uncle Frank’s venison chili! Attitudes about hunting over bait run the gamut from “it’s never acceptable” to “why would you hunt any other way.” As with most controversial subjects, arguments about baiting do not lend themselves to black and white thinking. It’s often a matter of perspective. Try this little exercise. At the same time, soak one hand in a bowl of ice water and the other in a bowl of very hot water. Now, simultaneously move your hands to a single bowl of water at room temperature. To one hand the new water feels warm to the other it feels cold. Your perception is a matter of your experiences and where you come from.
I’ve been on hunts in Florida and Texas where the sound of corn being whorled from an automatic feeder would bring hogs from the brush like fleas from a dead woodchuck’s back. Was this fair-chase hunting? I think so, but it certainly wasn’t very satisfying. This type of “Pavlov’s Dog” habituation to bait, simply short-cuts the most satisfying part of the hunt, which, for me, is learning a species local ecology and behavior to foster a successful stalk or set up that perfect ambush point. Baiting; however, doesn’t necessarily mean shooting fish in a barrel. I’ve been on baited bear hunts in Idaho and Canada that required just as much species knowledge and hunting finesse as many non-baited hunts. So, where does one draw the line? Is baiting okay for some species but not others? Is it okay for a given species in one region or habitat, but not another? Is it okay for one hunter, say a kid or older person, but not another? Let’s examine some issues and arguments about baiting. The intent isn’t to reach any conclusion, but rather to stimulate thought so that each hunter can draw their own conclusions.
Species “X” vs. Species “Y”
The acceptance of baiting is often related to the quarry being baited. For instance, some are perfectly fine with hunting feral hogs over an automatic corn feeder, but would consider the same practice for deer to be downright unethical. By the same token, many are okay with hunting bears over bait, but not other species. Why is this? I think it comes down to human perception and fundamental ecological differences among species. Like it or not, humans place differing values on each animal specie’s life. In our house, a lady bug crawling across the floor gets a careful lift to the outdoors, while a spider gets squashed. In the context of hunting, more value, and hence more scrutiny of hunting practices, is placed on a white-tailed deer than a feral hog. The value placed on each animal is different depending on your personal life experiences and culture. For those steeped in African hunting, the giraffe is often a sought after species, but for many North American hunters the giraffe is a “sacred cow” meant only for viewing, not hunting. For the most part, these value judgments have no basis in biology, but they do play a political role in shaping our views on acceptable hunting practices. A given species’ ecology; however, provides a science-based framework to determine which hunting methods will strike a balance between fair chase and a reasonable expectation of success.
Let’s compare white-tailed deer and black bears. Deer are herbivores with their food more or less evenly distributed across the landscape, but concentrated enough so that savvy hunters can pattern their movements to and from bedding and feeding sties. Furthermore, deer are social animals and with adequate resources can exist at very high densities. Bears, on the other hand, are omnivores. To find an adequate amount of varied food, ranging from grasses to carrion, individual bears range over an extensive area and feed opportunistically. In many cases this means gorging on an abundant but temporary food source, such as a dead elk or ripe blueberry patch, and then moving on to find the next meal. A bear’s home range commonly exceeds 5 square miles within which its movements might seem nearly random to even an experienced hunter. In some western regions, spot and stalk hunting for bears is an excellent strategy, but in most eastern areas with dense timber and little topography for long distance viewing, it’s not a useful method. When spot and stalk isn’t possible, the extremely low odds of a successful bear hunt are unacceptable for most bowhunters with limited time and resources. For many, the solution is baiting, which holds bears in the area and keeps them returning to the same spot for relatively short periods of time—a behavior that’s common to a bear’s typical “boom and bust” ecology.
Region and Habitat
What role do region and habitat play in the acceptance of baiting? For an example let’s look at two popular deer hunting states. Texas and Pennsylvania rank near the top when it comes to both numbers of deer and hunters. Yet, the deer hunting culture and methods in these two states couldn’t be more different. In the Longhorn state, where there is precious little public land, the emphasis is on intensive management of massive private ranches. Within the confines of the law, this gives hunters some autonomy to do things in their own way with little impact to other hunters or neighboring landowners. Supplemental feeding, baiting to lure deer from thick brush, and even culling of genetically inferior bucks have all become common practice.
In Pennsylvania, public land is abundant and with a little effort deer can be effectively hunted without bait in even the most heavily forested areas. In the Keystone state, deer management is practiced mostly at the state level and most hunting takes place on public land or small farms. The allowance of baiting would likely ignite conflicts among hunters on public land and start baiting wars on small parcels of private property. Differences in culture, land ownership, and habitat across a species’ range dictate whether baiting is an accepted and useful means of hunting in one place versus another. Having successfully hunted whitetails in 7 states over 30 years without bait, I have no desire to use bait for deer hunting. That said, I have never hunted deer in Texas and might find baiting there to be perfectly suitable. I see no reason to condemn another hunter’s approach without a full understanding of his circumstances.
The Food Source Comparison
I often hear deer hunters who are pro-baiting defend their practice by comparing it to hunting over a concentrated natural food source, such as a food plot, apple tree, or corn field. Sorry guys, but for me this line of reasoning falls flat and simply comes off as defensive. The hunter using bait has far more control of the situation than a hunter who is focused on a natural food source. Bait can be positioned to give the hunter every advantage when it comes to wind direction, shot angle and distance, and proximity to important habitat, such as bedding areas. Furthermore, when baiting the presence and amount of food is at the discretion of the hunter. That’s not so with natural food sources. When the acorns from the oak flat are gone, that’s it and when the corn has been cut, you’re done. I just don’t think the comparison between concentrated natural food and bait is legitimate. Hunting a cornfield is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube. Hunting a corn pile is more like paint by numbers. Don’t get me wrong, baiting can certainly be challenging, but it’s not the same as hunting a natural food source. Hunters who are challenged to justify the use of bait should focus on their specific situation and not make comparisons to other hunting methods.
Baiting Wars and Disease
The prolonged use of excessive bait can be bad for both hunters and wildlife. Introducing new food sources, such as large bait piles, into the landscape dramatically changes wildlife movement patterns, leaving adjoining landowners wondering why all of the game has disappeared. To compensate, the game-less landowner dumps a huge pile of bait and the war is on. Before long, bickering erupts, often resulting in a loss of hunting opportunity and satisfaction. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard bear hunting outfitters talk about sabotaging another outfitter’s or local hunter’s bait by lacing it with raw onions, which bears detest, or by leaving “Hansel and Gretel trails” from the competitor’s bait to their own.
More importantly, baiting wars can lead to negative effects on wildlife behavior and habitat, and to disease transmission, especially among deer. Prolonged and excessive baiting causes bears to become habituated to human food and eventually humans, making them potentially dangerous in areas with high human populations. For deer, excessive amounts of bait create artificially high population densities, causing over browsing and increased deer-to-deer contact. As documented by several scientific studies (for example: O’Brien et al 2002 and Palmer et al 2004), this extra contact between individuals and with feeders leads to accelerated transmission of diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease.
Natural vs. “Non-native” Bait
For some hunters and many (maybe most) non-hunters, baiting can be a bitter pill to swallow. One way to sweeten that pill is to use naturally occurring foods for bait. Functionally, there is little difference between a pile of apples and a drum of pastries--both serve to coax bears into range. But, there are differences in public perception and hunter satisfaction. Naturally occurring foods, such as acorns, locust pods, apples, plums, persimmons, pawpaws, and many others can be gathered and strategically placed for attracting hogs, deer, and bears. Hunting over natural bait seems, well, more natural and the process of gathering the foods and learning where to place them provides strong connections among the hunter, his quarry, and the natural world. Moving acorns or apples from one location to another to facilitate a hunting opportunity is less contrived than simply dumping a bag of corn. For hunters used to using bait, the differences might be subtle, but for non-hunters they are substantial. Imagine a hiker deep in a National Forest coming upon a pile of apples neatly covered with sticks versus a steel drum of 10-day old cheese Danishes chained to a tree! Furthermore, using natural food is likely better for wildlife health and less likely to create habituation to humans.
The Bottom Line
It seems to me as hunters and outfitters, we need to make sure a few of the mandatory boxes are checked each time we make the decision to use bait as part of our hunt.
Fair Chase: There is no universally accepted definition of fair chase, but I think most of us recognize what is not fair chase when we see it. If you are in doubt, ask yourself this question: Would my hunting mentor (hero) be proud of what I’m doing right now? If you have any question that what you are doing is not fair chase, then make a change. It’s the respectful thing to do for your quarry and yourself.
Public Perception: When using bait the door is wide open for criticism from anti-hunters and, more importantly, non-hunters who might not understand the ins and outs of baiting. When talking about baiting with non-hunters, or even other hunters, make sure to explain that although bait is being used to attract animals, paramount to any hunt is the rule of fair chase and a general respect for wildlife. Explain why bait is necessary given your quarry’s specific behavior or the presence of insurmountable habitat conditions.
Aesthetics: Part of showing respect for wildlife and habitat is aesthetics. The bad image associated with baiting is sometimes related to the lack of care shown at bait sites. I’ve see some bear bait sites that looked worse than the town dump, with old drums, five gallon buckets, and food containers strewn around and plastic bags hanging from the trees. Bait sites should be free from litter and look as natural as possible. This is especially important on public land or if hunts are going to be filmed. Perhaps I’m an extremist, but I don’t even like to see a drum or bucket at a bait site. If large drums or other containers are used, perhaps they should be painted to blend into the forest and screened with brush. The bears might not care about a tidy bait site, but I think that the public and most hunters do.
Summary
For me, there is no simple line in the sand. I prefer non-baited hunts when it’s feasible; however, I am not opposed to baiting under the right circumstances. If I’m hunting over bait it has to be a “do it yourself” hunt or with an outfitter who permits me to get involved. I disdain hunts where I’m expected to sit and wait in a blind or treestand over a bait that someone else has set. I will only hunt with outfitters who give me the flexibility to set my own blinds and stands, and fully participate in the temporal and spatial strategies of baiting.
So where does this leave us? If it’s legal, then it’s up to the hunter to decide the appropriate level of challenge they desire and what constitutes fair chase. I have my own lines, but I don’t pretend that one size fits all for every region, every habitat, every species, or every hunter. If your baited hunt is conducted in an ethical, fair-chase manner that is satisfying to you, and you behave in a way that reflects positively on the hunting community, then there is little left to debate…or is there? What is ethical? What is fair chase? These questions are why the Great Bait Debate rages on.
Topic: Thoughts on Baiting (Read 1817 times)
