Baiting Bill (1151) is Senate side

[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.

You and your constituents along with federations/organizations did a good of rallying the troops in opposition on the senate side.

Thanks for th polite discussion and back and forth today brock.

 

[brocksw]

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?

My take is that we are already in the "compromise". Hence the reason there isn't a statewide ban already. Because many hunters have asked for that, and the GF has the regulatory authority to impose one, according to the former AG after the 09 session.

Doesn't matter. If the GF wants to go down that road now or it's forced upon them again next session, we can discuss then.

 

[brocksw]

Velva, ND Advisory Board meeting last night. Painful to listen to, but worth the time to listen to the baiters....if nothing else for entertainment.

Baiting conversation starts at 20:47

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=226132853341880

Baiting conversation continues until 38:30 in this video.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=183745197813922

 

[Schism]

I'm at 27 minutes and this is very painful to continue listening to. When is he going to ask Jeb if he's ever seen 600 deer on a silage pile?

Straight out of the gate a familiar voice is threatening that private lands that were once open to hunters will now be closed. I thought baiting was about providing opportunity for kids and the disabled. Seems to me that closing private lands to hunters in response to the failure of HB1151 is doing more to reduce the opportunities of those hunters than the banning of baiting ever will.

Now they want to compromise...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'm at 27 minutes and this is very painful to continue listening to. When is he going to ask Jeb if he's ever seen 600 deer on a silage pile?

Straight out of the gate a familiar voice is threatening that private lands that were once open to hunters will now be closed. I thought baiting was about providing opportunity for kids and the disabled. Seems to me that closing private lands to hunters in response to the failure of HB1151 is doing more to reduce the opportunities of those hunters than the banning of baiting ever will.

Now they want to compromise...

I'm pretty sure most of the time I was at NDSU (2004-2010) the same folks were telling everyone they were going to close up access to their land because they weren't getting what they wanted. How many times can the same people take access away?

 

[wct12]

I'm at 27 minutes and this is very painful to continue listening to. When is he going to ask Jeb if he's ever seen 600 deer on a silage pile?

Straight out of the gate a familiar voice is threatening that private lands that were once open to hunters will now be closed. I thought baiting was about providing opportunity for kids and the disabled. Seems to me that closing private lands to hunters in response to the failure of HB1151 is doing more to reduce the opportunities of those hunters than the banning of baiting ever will.

Now they want to compromise...

This has always been about trying to find some form of compromise.. Listen to Paul's testimony. Theres been numerous meetings attempted with Jeb and other members of the game and fish department even before Jeb was appointed director.

As I've said before the access issue isn't a path that wanted to be taken (90% of my hunting in this state and others is done on private lands we don't own due to waterfowling) but it's been made clear by a good chunk of the people behind the restriction in access that if the game and fish is open to a meeting and sitting down with not just those in support of this bill but people on both sides of the aisle to try and find some form of common ground on this topic. The side in support has come out and said they are in favor of different forms of compromise (setbacks, quantity limitations).. They just need to be invited to the table to at least discuss these things.

 

[brocksw]

Like clock work...

 

[wct12]

I'm pretty sure most of the time I was at NDSU (2004-2010) the same folks were telling everyone they were going to close up access to their land because they weren't getting what they wanted. How many times can the same people take access away?

Its a little more recent rhen that timeframe if i remember correctly but a compromise of eposting and having an app like onx was made on a contreversial bill back then (2315) that has opened some of that access back up to sportsmen, at least on our land and some land in our neighboring areas.

Access is opened and closed by people that own their land for various amounts of reasons. 1151 just so happens to be one those reasons.

 

[BuzzH]

Meh, private landowners can do what they want, and I've never been one to pay attention to threats. Definitely doesn't influence my support or opposition to an issue, that's a fact.

 

[Schism]

This has always been about trying to find some form of compromise.. Listen to Paul's testimony. Theres been numerous meetings attempted with Jeb and other members of the game and fish department even before Jeb was appointed director.

As I've said before the access issue isn't a path that wanted to be taken (90% of my hunting in this state and others is done on private lands we don't own due to waterfowling) but it's been made clear by a good chunk of the people behind the restriction in access that if the game and fish is open to a meeting and sitting down with not just those in support of this bill but people on both sides of the aisle to try and find some form of common ground on this topic. The side in support has come out and said they are in favor of different forms of compromise (setbacks, quantity limitations).. They just need to be invited to the table to at least discuss these things.

My experience has been that the NDGF is more than willing to work with individuals and user groups to discuss issues that are important to them, even meeting outside of the annual advisory meeting. The department employees I have spoken with personally have listened and been professional although my ideas haven't always been implemented as I would have wished. I haven't taken personal offense to that since the NDGF is managing the wildlife in this state for all 779,000 of its residents, not just me.

After listening to the advisory board meeting videos that Brock has posted above I can see why the NDGF might be hesitant (if that is even true I don't know, I'm taking you at your word) to meet with your group. How can a compromise be reached while one side is regularly saying that what this other side is doing and saying is "bullchit?" How can compromise be found when that is the starting place?

 

[wct12]

My experience has been that the NDGF is more than willing to work with individuals and user groups to discuss issues that are important to them, even meeting outside of the annual advisory meeting. The department employees I have spoken with personally have listened and been professional although my ideas haven't always been implemented as I would have wished. I haven't taken personal offense to that since the NDGF is managing the wildlife in this state for all 779,000 of its residents, not just me.

After listening to the advisory board meeting videos that Brock has posted above I can see why the NDGF might be hesitant (if that is even true I don't know, I'm taking you at your word) to meet with your group. How can a compromise be reached while one side is regularly saying that what this other side is doing and saying is "bullchit?" How can compromise be found when that is the starting place

I ask you to find where in that video I said what the game and fish is stating is "bullchit".. (My voice is the one asking about CWD questions, youth tags in North Dakota and following a montana type approach, and the turning of a usfw refugee into a "trophy unit"/quota unit).

Did I call out false statements such as the game and fish not taking any stance as far as ethics (I have the screenshots).. Absolutely. And ask about genome testing in a wild herd where 100% tested negative for CWD and then werent tested further? Absolutely. I also called out some statistics to go along with sask and can post a provincal study that backs the population swings also.

The starting point was brought forth well before this was a unified front in support of hunting over bait. The questions have been brought forth at multiple advisory board meetings in the past (5+ years ago), and have only since had more support from the audience in attendance in the last few years.

I've called for individuals from both sides to sit down and talk about this to hopefully find an answer. I havent demanded it's "our way or the highway" minus not being overly open to comprise once it hit senate comittee, and if you read some comments on pages.. I was fine with setbacks and capacity limits (even much smaller then the house and senate stated).

https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/api/v1/products/119600/formats/137862/download

 

[wct12]

My experience has been that the NDGF is more than willing to work with individuals and user groups to discuss issues that are important to them, even meeting outside of the annual advisory meeting. The department employees I have spoken with personally have listened and been professional although my ideas haven't always been implemented as I would have wished. I haven't taken personal offense to that since the NDGF is managing the wildlife in this state for all 779,000 of its residents, not just me.

After listening to the advisory board meeting videos that Brock has posted above I can see why the NDGF might be hesitant (if that is even true I don't know, I'm taking you at your word) to meet with your group. How can a compromise be reached while one side is regularly saying that what this other side is doing and saying is "bullchit?" How can compromise be found when that is the starting place?

Although I showed up to the meeting with questions about the state/nd game and fish and moving forward with CWD/baiting in the state..

I also had questions/concerns on a multitude of other topics that are valid in the state. And possibilities to get our youth involved and active in the outdoors with guaranteed draw tags like Montana has (for residents and nonresidents) up to a certain age for residents and excluding certain units like the badlands. Do I understand this will cause a decrease in the number of tags available to above "youth" age l?Absolutely. But that's a compromise I'm willing to make

 

[pigsticker]

Side question; Since when, and who decided that it's unethical to hunt over a bait pile? Is this from some opinion piece article, or is it written into the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation? I really want to know when it became "unethical" or not considered "fair chase" to the crowd that claims this.

I find hunting antelope at waterholes to be unethical and I don't consider it "fair chase". Maybe we should ban hunting over water too? My thought is if you can't place an attractant to successfully harvest a deer on a barren landscape such as the open prairies, you most certainly can't use a resource such as water to bushwhack a thirsty animal on a 90F day. I mean...how is that fair? Especially if it's the only water source for miles and the animal has to either risk dying to get a drink of water, or risk dying of dehydration because some bowhunter is occupying its water source?

 

[brocksw]

I believe there have been tens of thousands, if not over 100k deer sampled for genetic testing and analyzed. Dr. Seabury, someone proponents have cited in testimony among other places, is on video stating not one deer with actual immunity has been found using his breeding score or any other method. He is regarded by some on your side to be "the leader" in CWD genetics. Again, he stated there is no true "resistance" and only varying degrees of susceptibility.

Yet, you folks are willing to begin an endeavor to convert an entire wild herd, across 70,000 square miles and 2 species, over to just a couple of genotypes, just to get the deer to potentially live a little longer with the disease.

Not to mention with complete disregard for not only the cost (in multiple currencies, including time) of such an effort, but also the unknown long term effects on herds having such limited genetic diversity (a cattleman such as yourself should be fully aware of the negative impacts of selective breeding for a narrow set of traits), and the completely unknown long term impacts that limited diversity may have on disease course. Think prions mutating or less succeptible genotypes not having that "resistance" across all strains. Unfortunately, it is a pie in the sky hope that genetics will bail wild herds out in the near future. Is there a possibility that natural selection takes place and complete immunity shows up and then manages to work itself out over time. Maybe, and you might be willing to risk it right now, just start buying semi loads of a couple specific genotypes for each species from deer farmers, and liberating them in the wild. Free willy.

But others, including myself, are not.

View attachment 272564

https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/api/v1/products/119600/formats/137862/download

Second, I've already read through some of the literature you cite. I don't believe it's the silver bullet you think it is. I would suggest one spends some time with those population tables and puts them on a timeline with the CWD positive maps and corresponding units that Saskatchewan has also released.

But I am very curious to hear your interpretation.

Lastly, the ethics graphic you shared. Would you agree that some people might find it unethical to hunt over bait? Personally, it makes no difference to me. But I would concede that some people think it is unethical to bait and some do not. Therefore, it is a gray area. Which I believe is what that graphic is stating. No more, no less.

But if it makes you feel better, in 2021 I sat in the back through my son's entire hunters safety course. Baiting wasn't brought up once in the whole course.

 

[pigsticker]

The health of the herd aside, baiting is not hunting. I don't have a problem with state agencies controlling ethics to keep hunting real. No drones, no spotlighting, no baiting. If it is necessary to keep game populations balanced in difficult hunting environments (e.g. bear baiting here), then okay to look the other way. I feel that is simply management culling which I admit I have done in Africa ... but NOT over bait or waterholes ... or out of vehicles. But baiting deer in North Dakota? C'mon! That environment is easily hunted without baiting. Shooting deer over bait or food plots should be banned statewide. An embarrassment that it ever was allowed in the first place.

Your preaching of ethics on this issue seems awfully funny coming from a guy who has hunted high fence in South Africa a couple times. I guess if it works to your advantage, then it's all good...but then forget everyone else's preferences? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Not to mention with complete disregard for not only the cost (in multiple currencies, including time) of such an effort, but also the unknown long term effects on herds having such limited genetic diversity (a cattleman such as yourself should be fully aware of the negative impacts of selective breeding for a narrow set of traits), and the completely unknown long term impacts that limited diversity may have on disease course. Think prions mutating or less succeptible genotypes not having that "resistance" across all strains. Unfortunately, it is a pie in the sky hope that genetics will bail wild herds out in the near future. Is there a possibility that natural selection takes place and complete immunity shows up and then manages to work itself out over time. Maybe, and you might be willing to risk it right now, just start buying semi loads of a couple specific genotypes for each species from deer farmers, and liberating them in the wild. Free willy.

Another important point that biologists have been pointing out for over a decade now….these less susceptible genotypes have been found to be fairly rare in wild populations, which begs the question of whether they are disadvantageous in the wild. In that case, they are under negative selection pressure and artificially increasing those genotypes could be extremely detrimental to the future of wild cervid populations. Huge unknown that can’t be dismissed.

 

[wct12]

I believe there have been tens of thousands, if not over 100k deer sampled for genetic testing and analyzed. Dr. Seabury, someone proponents have cited in testimony among other places, is on video stating not one deer with actual immunity has been found using his breeding score or any other method. He is regarded by some on your side to be "the leader" in CWD genetics. Again, he stated there is no true "resistance" and only varying degrees of susceptibility.

Yet, you folks are willing to begin an endeavor to convert an entire wild herd, across 70,000 square miles and 2 species, over to just a couple of genotypes, just to get the deer to potentially live a little longer with the disease.

Not to mention with complete disregard for not only the cost (in multiple currencies, including time) of such an effort, but also the unknown long term effects on herds having such limited genetic diversity (a cattleman such as yourself should be fully aware of the negative impacts of selective breeding for a narrow set of traits), and the completely unknown long term impacts that limited diversity may have on disease course. Think prions mutating or less succeptible genotypes not having that "resistance" across all strains. Unfortunately, it is a pie in the sky hope that genetics will bail wild herds out in the near future. Is there a possibility that natural selection takes place and complete immunity shows up and then manages to work itself out over time. Maybe, and you might be willing to risk it right now, just start buying semi loads of a couple specific genotypes for each species from deer farmers, and liberating them in the wild. Free willy.

But others, including myself, are not.

Second, I've already read through some of the literature you cite. I don't believe it's the silver bullet you think it is. I would suggest one spends some time with those population tables and puts them on a timeline with the CWD positive maps and corresponding units that Saskatchewan has also released.

But I am very curious to hear your interpretation.

Lastly, the ethics graphic you shared. Would you agree that some people might find it unethical to hunt over bait? Personally, it makes no difference to me. But I would concede that some people think it is unethical to bait and some do not. Therefore, it is a gray area. Which I believe is what that graphic is stating. No more, no less.

But if it makes you feel better, in 2021 I sat in the back through my son's entire hunters safety course. Baiting wasn't brought up once in the whole course.

Casey Anderson 2 nights ago in the videos you posted said a "few" wild deer have been found to be carriers of that less susceptible/genetic marker that prolongs a deers life cycle before showing symptoms of cwd.. Wouldnt it be best if it was tested for (let's use my Williston example again) becuase in that "hot spot" as Casey called it if the 1 death that was in a family group had it, but if a couple of the 52 other deer were carriers of the marker, wouldn't it show at least some increase in an are of a less susceptible population?

I also know a little bit about that generic variation you're talking about in cattle herds.. Have you ever heard of a leptin gene in cattle? It's a marker that's now being tested for feed efficiency. Our family hasn't bought a bull in the last 5 years that isn't TT (double marker carrying) and for years prior were buying bulls with at least one marker (CT)..and I would be willing to bet that over the last few years that at least 50-60% (if not higher) of our cattle herd are now carriers of at least 1 marker. I also know on the scrapies side of things, it's less common to buy a QR ram (less susceptible scrapies carrier) and that buying RR rams rams is the much better option. Again, im not calling to dump semi loads of deer out as you say.. I'm just saying that maybe a little effort into checking genetic markers on deer in North Dakota "hot spots" isn't an awful idea.

Now to Sask again and those charts toy talk about. Let's use units 10 and 46 (CWD Hotspot). White tails are stable to increasing in population so we will leave them out of the conversation. Out of every unit mule deer pops were checked in.. Only those 2 were found to be decreasing (that's why I picked them). Up top on the winter severity chart in that link it says "above average snow fall along with a bitterly cold February".. That might tie into the population decline a bit.. Could also have something to do with post Covid years (Canada was super strict on rules, but has really relaxed the last 2 years) Canadians (and nonresidents) started purchasing tags again.. They went from a couple of the worst license sales years in history back to increased levels and have been taking a 3f2 management strategy up there where the numbers of tags is that much in excess to try and follow some AFWA best management practices like "Reducing cervid density in CWD-positive areas with high animal density." and that possibly could be a reason in a population decline? Because even that link I posted from sask says "cwd could possibly be contributing to a decline in some parts of the Grasslands region".

To the graphic.. Absolutely some people find it unethical to hunt over bait.. You see that all over and is one of the main reasons to be agaisnt hunting over bait (senate floor, here, last falls advisory board meeting in bismarck). But for Jeb Williams to stand up there and say the department stays completely neutral on the ethics side of things, and then to have a graphic in the online portal claiming baiting is a gray area (whether people think it is or not is there own opinion, as I've said I really don't care how you hunt unless you jump snows.. Then I'll give you a little grief) doesn't really seem like a neutral stance. Especially when it's compared to shooting out of a vehicle. If the department is going to stay completely neutral on the ethics side, wouldn't it make more sense for that graphic to not be in there?..

 

[OntarioHunter]

Your preaching of ethics on this issue seems awfully funny coming from a guy who has hunted high fence in South Africa a couple times. I guess if it works to your advantage, then it's all good...but then forget everyone else's preferences? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Most of the properties I hunt in Africa are huge. I don't hunt over feed or waterholes. I don't shoot from vehicles. I don't shoot in corrals. The animals are wild and generally very spooky. The difference is the properties are managed instead of overrun with hunters and few resources to hunt. Some of the animals like kudu and warthog are free roaming as no fence can keep them in. I hunt fair CHASE wherever I hunt. There is no chase involved in shooting something over bait. Hardly seems fair either. But whatever works for you and your variation of ethics. Proudly display that photo of your bear up on the wall - just make sure the big blue bait barrel is in the background. It's an integral part if the story, right?

No need to include a deer feeder in the background this photo. None are allowed anywhere in the whole state of Montana.

 

[SAJ-99]

Another important point that biologists have been pointing out for over a decade now….these less susceptible genotypes have been found to be fairly rare in wild populations, which begs the question of whether they are disadvantageous in the wild. In that case, they are under negative selection pressure and artificially increasing those genotypes could be extremely detrimental to the future of wild cervid populations. Huge unknown that can’t be dismissed.

Maybe it's associated with the "like to hang out by the road" gene?

 

[Schaaf]

Some people just love nothing more than getting dunked on over and over again.