Baiting Bill (1151) is Senate side

[Deleted member 20812]

But go ahead let’s call each other names . Maybe we can go look for our integrity together

I have absolutely no integrity qualms whatsoever to call someone a pussy for making a direct accusation without backing it up. None. In fact, in my book it’s lacking integrity to NOT call it out when you deflect instead of backing it up.

 

[8andcounting]

I have absolutely no integrity qualms whatsoever to call someone a pussy for making a direct accusation without backing it up. None. In fact, in my book it’s lacking integrity to NOT call it out when you deflect instead of backing it up.

what accusation?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

what accusation?

Had nothing do with cwd - some guy , Brock or his dad , had their buck gey shot by a private landowner over bait …. That’s it and that’s all

 

[8andcounting]

Ok - still not totally understanding .. I don’t know Brock on a personal level , he’s never been around my area , that I know of . But it’s very apparent this is not about cwd it’s about something else . I can’t answer what that Is . I have baited deer for pics . Never shot one over a bait pile . Haven’t needed to. What else do you want ? I think this bill failing is going to turn things into a shit show . Baiting still legal . Just not hunting over it . More bait piles will get out in the summer , trying for pics and trying to keep nice bucks on accessible land . You can disagree that’s fine. We can talk like adults

 

[8andcounting]

He fought for what he believed in and his side won . Kudos to him . But I don’t think it solved anything. But you can have your opinion. I’ll have mine

 

[8andcounting]

I’m done with this thread . Go pass out JLS . Brock was on different side than me but his side won fair and square . Kudos to them .

 

[William Schmaltz]

That “75% support this bill” stat is pure statistical masturbation. It so accurate that it may as well be on the ticker at CNN.

Approximately 80% of deer hunters in ND say they trust the NDGF with managing CWD. Only 11% think their management approach is too aggressive. Deer hunters make up approximately 10% of the total population. Under the very safe assumption that 95-99% of the non-hunting public trusts NDGF with CWD management, somewhere along the lines of 2-5% of the total population would truly support this bill. As far as I’m concerned, even in failing, the “Yes” votes on the bill WILDLY over represented the true numbers. A very small and passionate group submitted testimony in favor while the vast majority of the public had no clue this bill ever existed.

I just spent 10 days in the great state of ND. Made the rounds to all my family and friends that I have the green light to hunt on. Ten of thousands of acres; none of them heard of the bill, none of them cared. Went to farmer coffee a couple mornings with my Dad; none of the farmers heard about the bill, none of them cared. Went to the sale barn this morning to watch the sale and have lunch; none of the ranchers heard of the bill, none of them cared. I’d bet the top 15 landowners I know never herd of this bill, and nor do they care.

No matter how I fall on the issue, I coil up real quick anytime politicians try to override our game agencies. Further, no matter how I fall on the issue, I demand honest debate. I’m glad to see the bill fail. I hope from here NDGF goes forth with the increased informative and attentive conversation the people in support of this bill deserve.

 

[CraneMan]

That “75% support this bill” stat is pure statistical masturbation. It so accurate that it may as well be on the ticker at CNN.

Approximately 80% of deer hunters in ND say they trust the NDGF with managing CWD. Only 11% think their management approach is too aggressive. Deer hunters make up approximately 10% of the total population. Under the very safe assumption that 95-99% of the non-hunting public trusts NDGF with CWD management, somewhere along the lines of 2-5% of the total population would truly support this bill. As far as I’m concerned, even in failing, the “Yes” votes on the bill WILDLY over represented the true numbers. A very small and passionate group submitted testimony in favor while the vast majority of the public had no clue this bill ever existed.

I just spent 10 days in the great state of ND. Made the rounds to all my family and friends that I have the green light to hunt on. Ten of thousands of acres; none of them heard of the bill, none of them cared. Went to farmer coffee a couple mornings with my Dad; none of the farmers heard about the bill, none of them cared. Went to the sale barn this morning to watch the sale and have lunch; none of the ranchers heard of the bill, none of them cared. I’d bet the top 15 landowners I know never herd of this bill, and nor do they care.

No matter how I fall on the issue, I coil up real quick anytime politicians try to override our game agencies. Further, no matter how I fall on the issue, I demand honest debate. I’m glad to see the bill fail. I hope from here NDGF goes forth with the increased informative and attentive conversation the people in support of this bill deserve.

Jackpot!!! That is what the minority doesn't get. Don't mean they won't stop throwing tantrums and obfuscating.

 

[wct12]

That “75% support this bill” stat is pure statistical masturbation. It so accurate that it may as well be on the ticker at CNN.

Approximately 80% of deer hunters in ND say they trust the NDGF with managing CWD. Only 11% think their management approach is too aggressive. Deer hunters make up approximately 10% of the total population. Under the very safe assumption that 95-99% of the non-hunting public trusts NDGF with CWD management, somewhere along the lines of 2-5% of the total population would truly support this bill. As far as I’m concerned, even in failing, the “Yes” votes on the bill WILDLY over represented the true numbers. A very small and passionate group submitted testimony in favor while the vast majority of the public had no clue this bill ever existed.

I just spent 10 days in the great state of ND. Made the rounds to all my family and friends that I have the green light to hunt on. Ten of thousands of acres; none of them heard of the bill, none of them cared. Went to farmer coffee a couple mornings with my Dad; none of the farmers heard about the bill, none of them cared. Went to the sale barn this morning to watch the sale and have lunch; none of the ranchers heard of the bill, none of them cared. I’d bet the top 15 landowners I know never herd of this bill, and nor do they care.

No matter how I fall on the issue, I coil up real quick anytime politicians try to override our game agencies. Further, no matter how I fall on the issue, I demand honest debate. I’m glad to see the bill fail. I hope from here NDGF goes forth with the increased informative and attentive conversation the people in support of this bill deserve.

I greatly appreciate your last paragraph in this post, it's one thing that we have looked for for many years on multiple topics that has yet to happen.

As far as those surveys sent out.. I would be curious to know what percentage responded and the geography they got responses from. If you sat me in a room with 100 people from our surrounding area (west river as described later) that all received those surveys in the mail, a pretty quick sort could be done. People that saw ND G&F survey on the envelope and put it in the junk mail pile/garbage, and those that filled it out accurately and sent it back in.. and one of those groups would be much larger then the other, and I could probably pick out the few that do respond to them even before that sort was done.

I've said it before on here and on other platforms. There is a divide in North Dakota lots of folks admit.. some call it east river/west river (areas aren't quite right there but it's a fairly easy way to do it), but that divide is real. A lot of sportsmen from east river love to recreate for big game purposes in West river, but don't share the same views and definetly don't have to, but those of us "west river" guys would at least like to have the concerns from a fairly large area of the state with lots of bug game opportunities heard and thought through genuinely by everyone even those it is the less populated half of the state. I hunt with lots of people from "east river" and have helped many of those folks find access and opportunities on things such as once in a lifetime moose tags.. So I get a chance to hear at least some of there concerns (I haven't been to any advisory meetings in that half of the state though).

One last question I pose that has yet to be answered.. If a prion disease such has CWD can occur sporadically (there's studies out there that say prion diseases can), wouldn't the game and fish department have been best off in the interest of the states deer herd, to regulate hunting statewide over bait in 2009? Or do they think the backlash from the entire state would have been great enough a bill such as 1151 would have come forward in say 2011 with enough support after a bill to ban baiting failed in the 2 sessions to prior? At this point with unit hopping there is a lot of "until it affects me it's not a big deal to me"..

 

[wct12]

That “75% support this bill” stat is pure statistical masturbation. It so accurate that it may as well be on the ticker at CNN.

Approximately 80% of deer hunters in ND say they trust the NDGF with managing CWD. Only 11% think their management approach is too aggressive. Deer hunters make up approximately 10% of the total population. Under the very safe assumption that 95-99% of the non-hunting public trusts NDGF with CWD management, somewhere along the lines of 2-5% of the total population would truly support this bill. As far as I’m concerned, even in failing, the “Yes” votes on the bill WILDLY over represented the true numbers. A very small and passionate group submitted testimony in favor while the vast majority of the public had no clue this bill ever existed.

I just spent 10 days in the great state of ND. Made the rounds to all my family and friends that I have the green light to hunt on. Ten of thousands of acres; none of them heard of the bill, none of them cared. Went to farmer coffee a couple mornings with my Dad; none of the farmers heard about the bill, none of them cared. Went to the sale barn this morning to watch the sale and have lunch; none of the ranchers heard of the bill, none of them cared. I’d bet the top 15 landowners I know never herd of this bill, and nor do they care.

No matter how I fall on the issue, I coil up real quick anytime politicians try to override our game agencies. Further, no matter how I fall on the issue, I demand honest debate. I’m glad to see the bill fail. I hope from here NDGF goes forth with the increased informative and attentive conversation the people in support of this bill deserve.

I'm not arguing that 80% that turn surveys in agree with that. I'm honestly just curious of the type of response the game and fish gets on any survey sent out, and the geography that those sent back in come from.

 

[CraneMan]

I greatly appreciate your last paragraph in this post, it's one thing that we have looked for for many years on multiple topics that has yet to happen.

As far as those surveys sent out.. I would be curious to know what percentage responded and the geography they got responses from. If you sat me in a room with 100 people from our surrounding area (west river as described later) that all received those surveys in the mail, a pretty quick sort could be done. People that saw ND G&F survey on the envelope and put it in the junk mail pile/garbage, and those that filled it out accurately and sent it back in.. and one of those groups would be much larger then the other, and I could probably pick out the few that do respond to them even before that sort was done.

I've said it before on here and on other platforms. There is a divide in North Dakota lots of folks admit.. some call it east river/west river (areas aren't quite right there but it's a fairly easy way to do it), but that divide is real. A lot of sportsmen from east river love to recreate for big game purposes in West river, but don't share the same views and definetly don't have to, but those of us "west river" guys would at least like to have the concerns from a fairly large area of the state with lots of bug game opportunities heard and thought through genuinely by everyone even those it is the less populated half of the state. I hunt with lots of people from "east river" and have helped many of those folks find access and opportunities on things such as once in a lifetime moose tags.. So I get a chance to hear at least some of there concerns (I haven't been to any advisory meetings in that half of the state though).

One last question I pose that has yet to be answered.. If a prion disease such has CWD can occur sporadically (there's studies out there that say prion diseases can), wouldn't the game and fish department have been best off in the interest of the states deer herd, to regulate hunting statewide over bait in 2009? Or do they think the backlash from the entire state would have been great enough a bill such as 1151 would have come forward in say 2011 with enough support after a bill to ban baiting failed in the 2 sessions to prior? At this point with unit hopping there is a lot of "until it affects me it's not a big deal to me"..

This was their compromise to appease the vocal minority's tantrum back then (which I thought was BS). At least it has a molecule of logic from the transmission perspective. Even when G&F tried to listen to and compromise with the selfish, they turned around and attempted to stab them in the back with this bill.

 

[wct12]

This was their compromise to appease the vocal minority's tantrum back then (which I thought was BS). At least it has a molecule of logic from the transmission perspective. Even when G&F tried to listen to and compromise with the selfish, they turned around and attempted to stab them in the back with this bill.

Vocal minority back then? The first year that bill was introduced in 2007 and it didnt even make it off the first floor, and was shot down quite easily in 2009 also.

At the CWD specific meeting last fall in minot Charlie bahnson asked myself and a few others in the small groups we had to break up into if those in opposition to the baiting restrictions would be willing to compromise and go back to being able to hunt over bait statewide but over a limited amount (5 gals was his number) and I responded right away yes.. I feel that would be a fair compromise. The state wildlife vet with a PhD brought up a capacity limitation himself prior to this bill being introduced.

Those in opposition had a couple main arguments. Whether it be the ethics side, or not to take the power out of the game and fishes hands with a law through legislation to let them regulate the public resource.

That compromise that Dr bahnson brought up himself, would have been a fair compromise to many on the side in support of this bill, and was brought up in conversation by the state wildlife vet himself.

Would those in opposition of this bill been happy/ok with the game and fish making that compromise in the proclamation before a bill was introduced to the legislature, because it would have kept regulatory power in the hands of the game and fish without the possibility of being handcuffed by the legislature?

 

[CraneMan]

I'm not arguing that 80% that turn surveys in agree with that. I'm honestly just curious of the type of response the game and fish gets on any survey sent out, and the geography that those sent back in come from.

Yep, it's that damn west Minnesota's (Fargo) fault. You do realize that less than 10% of the active households in ND are farmsteads and 65% of our population live in towns of 2000+ people right?

 

[brocksw]

Vocal minority back then? The first year that bill was introduced in 2007 and it didnt even make it off the first floor, and was shot down quite easily in 2009 also.

At the CWD specific meeting last fall in minot Charlie bahnson asked myself and a few others in the small groups we had to break up into if those in opposition to the baiting restrictions would be willing to compromise and go back to being able to hunt over bait statewide but over a limited amount (5 gals was his number) and I responded right away yes.. I feel that would be a fair compromise. The state wildlife vet with a PhD brought up a capacity limitation himself prior to this bill being introduced.

Those in opposition had a couple main agreements. Whether it be the ethics side, or not to take the power out of the game and fishes hands with a law through legislation to let them regulate the public resource.

That compromise that Dr bahnson brought up himself, would have been a fair compromise to many on the side in support of this bill, and was brought up in conversation by the state wildlife vet himself.

Would those in opposition of this bill been happy/ok with the game and fish making that compromise in the proclamation before a bill was introduced to the legislature, because it would have kept regulatory power in the hands of the game and fish without the possibility of being handcuffed by the legislature?

We would've likely opposed a compromise allowing 5 gallon quantity limits.

IIRC when I asked about that, Dr. Bahnson never indicated he was okay with a 5 gallon limit. He asked because he was trying to get a sense of what you guys were okay with/wanted.

 

[wct12]

Yep, it's that damn west Minnesota's (Fargo) fault. You do realize that less than 10% of the active households in ND are farmsteads and 65% of our population live in towns of 2000+ people right?

I literally stated the less populated half of the state in the first post of mine today that you quoted today.. so yes I do realize those demographics. How many residents from those towns of over 2000+ recreate on land that less than 10% of households own (north dakota is 93% privately owned if I remember right). I never said "damn you fargo residents".. I literally just asked the what the geography and return percentage is on those surveys. Becuase without that info, the same argument could be made on the statistics on the 80% of deer hunters are in favor of game and fishes management practices as there was with 75% are in favor of 1151.

Again, I'm not arguing the 80% on returned surveys.. I'm just honestly curious

 

[CraneMan]

Vocal minority back then? The first year that bill was introduced in 2007 and it didnt even make it off the first floor, and was shot down quite easily in 2009 also.

At the CWD specific meeting last fall in minot Charlie bahnson asked myself and a few others in the small groups we had to break up into if those in opposition to the baiting restrictions would be willing to compromise and go back to being able to hunt over bait statewide but over a limited amount (5 gals was his number) and I responded right away yes.. I feel that would be a fair compromise. The state wildlife vet with a PhD brought up a capacity limitation himself prior to this bill being introduced.

Those in opposition had a couple main agreements. Whether it be the ethics side, or not to take the power out of the game and fishes hands with a law through legislation to let them regulate the public resource.

That compromise that Dr bahnson brought up himself, would have been a fair compromise to many on the side in support of this bill, and was brought up in conversation by the state wildlife vet himself.

Would those in opposition of this bill been happy/ok with the game and fish making that compromise in the proclamation before a bill was introduced to the legislature, because it would have kept regulatory power in the hands of the game and fish without the possibility of being handcuffed by the legislature?

I'm not the person to ask about compromise, I say never give an inch when it comes to the welfare of our resources. You walk both sides of the issue here and on other sites yet say you don't care which is BS. You obviously are in the the pro-baiting camp based on what I have seen but know you are not in friendly territory on this site so try to act righteous. You simply want to drag things out by continuing much like Gabe and Wyatt. Why the hell should the G&F compromise again for you when they already did on this issue. PS, I thought you were done on this issue/thread several posts back shortly after you were called out for lacking integrity. People are judged by their actions relative to what they say.

Edit: Sorry, 8andcounting, I thought I was replying to you, but it still applies. I didn't see you handed off the baton to your compatriot.

 

[wct12]

We would've likely opposed a compromise allowing 5 gallon quantity limits.

IIRC when I asked about that, Dr. Bahnson never indicated he was okay with a 5 gallon limit. He asked because he was trying to get a sense of what you guys were okay with/wanted.

You would have opposed it even into the proclamation and not through the legislature to keep the power with the game and fish? Honestly wondering there not trying to argue.

Did you ever hear what the compromise Jeb Williams and the game and fish presented to the senate committee in their 2 meetings prior to it coming out of comittee? Our local town hall meetings are wrapped up for the year and I'm letting legislators focus on other bills to still have to be voted on yet so I haven't asked any of them at this point. Was just curious as to what that compromise was.

 

[wct12]

I'm not the person to ask about compromise, I say never give an inch when it comes to the welfare of our resources. You walk both sides of the issue here and on other sites yet say you don't care which is BS. You obviously are in the the pro-baiting camp based on what I have seen but know you are not in friendly territory on this site so try to act righteous. You simply want to drag things out by continuing much like Gabe and Wyatt. Why the hell should the G&F compromise again for you when they already did on this issue. PS, I thought you were done on this issue/thread several posts back shortly after you were called out for lacking integrity. People are judged by their actions relative to what they say.

Edit: Sorry, 8andcounting, I thought I was replying to you, but it still applies. I didn't see you handed off the baton to your compatriot.

I've been very upfront in being in support of hunting over bait so far on this and other sites and was in bismarck to testify in support so I dont where that confusion is coming from? Plus my name is wyatt.

Edit: Didn't see your edit. Sorry about that.

 

[brocksw]

You would have opposed it even into the proclamation and not through the legislature to keep the power with the game and fish? Honestly wondering there not trying to argue.

We would've likely opposed any compromise that still allowed baiting in CWD zones.

Did you ever hear what the compromise Jeb Williams and the game and fish presented to the senate committee in their 2 meetings prior to it coming out of comittee? Our local town hall meetings are wrapped up for the year and I'm letting legislators focus on other bills to still have to be voted on yet so I haven't asked any of them at this point. Was just curious as to what that compromise was.

The Senate committee was pressuring the GF and us to find a compromise. GF never "presented" a compromise. There were some options discussed, but not many. I would bet you guys wouldn't have accepted them. But that's irrelevant now.

But before the GF even had a chance to really sit down and discuss those options, some of you guys testified in committee that you weren't willing to compromise. So we killed the bill instead.

 

[wct12]

We would've likely opposed any compromise that still allowed baiting in CWD zones.

The Senate committee was pressuring the GF and us to find a compromise. GF never "presented" a compromise. There were some options discussed, but not many. I would bet you guys wouldn't have accepted them. But that's irrelevant now.

But before the GF even had a chance to really sit down and discuss those options, some of you guys testified in committee that you weren't willing to compromise. So we killed the bill instead.

I was agaisnt a compromise once it got to that point also, as we had been trying to find one for years with out as much as nibble but was curious as to what the game and fish presented.

What we're some of the options discussed?