Go Back   QDMA Forums > General QDM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-25-2012, 10:35 PM
Tree Spud's Avatar
Tree Spud Tree Spud is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Central Wisconsin - Zone 4b
Posts: 1,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
Never understood that, it seems like it sends a mixed message.

"Baiting is ok in State A where it is already legal and we certainly don't mind the income that comes from advertising bait and baiting equipment but for you hunters in State B where it is currently not allowed, sorry you're out of luck you can read about BB2 in our magazine but we don't think you should be able to use it."

See, to me that sends such a mixed message that it undermines credibility. Either baiting and minerals and supplemental feeding are ok and the level of risk associated with their use is minimal enough that it's a reasonable one or else the risks associated with their use is significant enough that we should be lobbying to have them banned everywhere and we should not be profiting from their use. It's kind of analogous to the pope saying that it's Ok for Catholics in the US to get an abortion because they are legal but it's a sin for Catholics in Ireland to get one, since they are illegal there. It's either a sin or not, the legality does not change that fact.

WOW!!!!! In your past posts, you tied food plots, baiting, lack of antlerless harvest, private landowner arogance and greed, capitialism, religion, international religion/culture, "big brother" conspiracy theories over private land-owners, sinning vs. the man-made law, and abortion with fenced deer farming!!!!!!

WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must be in Politics ... you are the defender of what you can't explain ...
__________________
Work for a cause, not for applause. Live life to express, not to impress. Don't strive to make your presence noticed, just make your absence felt
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-25-2012, 10:52 PM
winterquartersmgr's Avatar
winterquartersmgr winterquartersmgr is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: tensas parish, lousiana
Posts: 1,910
Default

Let me try and clear up what I was trying to say earlier. Sometimes it is easier to not allow expansion than it is to repeal something. High fence operations can't be closed because of the animals. They can't be set free and the government can't tell someone what they can do with their property (yet anyways).
__________________
Justin F.

Certified Deer Steward 1
Certified Deer Steward 2

Last edited by winterquartersmgr : 02-26-2012 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-25-2012, 10:57 PM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
Never understood that, it seems like it sends a mixed message.

Limiting expansion is one thing, unwinding the clock is something else. I think the important point is its opposed in eary state where disease has appeared and there is no good reason to start it if doesn't exist. Seems understandable.


Quote:
Though rated as a lower risk, Outdoor Life calls for the abolishment of “baiting.” QDMA has advocated the swift prohibition of baiting (hunting over bait) and supplemental feeding in every state where chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other serious disease threats have appeared, often working to support state agencies in making this regulation change. We have also opposed the legalization of hunting over bait in numerous states where the practice was not traditionally allowed, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and others, and opposed lifting the baiting ban earlier this year in Michigan – a state with CWD and bovine tuberculosis. When the future of the whitetail resource is considered, there is seldom a good reason to expand hunting over bait into new areas, while there are numerous potential negatives associated with this practice. Taking these positions has put QDMA at odds with pro-baiting groups and some QDMA members, but our goal is to consider the best available science in every case and do what is necessary to sustain and protect the whitetail resource and our hunting heritage. Outdoor Life called for a group “confident enough to address the wedge issues that divide deer hunters.” Few issues create a bigger wedge than baiting, and we have confronted this issue repeatedly.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-25-2012, 11:14 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
Limiting expansion is one thing, unwinding the clock is something else. I think the important point is its opposed in eary state where disease has appeared and there is no good reason to start it if doesn't exist. Seems understandable.

We'll have to agree to disagree. When QDMA says it opposes the use of bait in some states and not in others and at the same time accepts advertising revenue from companies selling bait and feed, to me that sends a very mixed message about the use of such products. If there is no good reason to start, why are they promoting products employed in the practice?

Just my opinion.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-25-2012, 11:22 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterquartersmgr View Post
High fence operations can be closed because of the animals. They can't be set free and the government can't tell someone what they can do with their property (yet anyways).

I think you meant to say high fence operations can't be closed because of the animals, right?

If so, maybe someone needs to send a memo to the Michigan DNR, they decided last summer that Russian Boars are now a prohibited species in Michigan, despite being allowed on game farms for the last twenty years or so and they gave operators roughly 9 months to dispose of all of their animals, effectively putting those game farms out of business. Judging from that, it appears that high fence operations can be closed by government fiat.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-26-2012, 04:15 AM
darin darin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 21
Default

Remember it is not high fence or low fence. It is hunters together just get your families out doors!!!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-26-2012, 08:54 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree. When QDMA says it opposes the use of bait in some states and not in others and at the same time accepts advertising revenue from companies selling bait and feed, to me that sends a very mixed message about the use of such products. If there is no good reason to start, why are they promoting products employed in the practice?

Just my opinion.

I look at it as grandfathering were its already allowed and no disease concern exists. You don't grandfather something because you support it, you do that as a means to not inflame those that are accustom to it, but also limit further introduction before someone new becomes accustom to it. The opposing is to hunting over bait, not supplemental feeding where no disease concern exists.

As far as advertising, thats not advertising about baiting, its supplemental feeding and each one has the position about the use of supplemental feed at the bottom of the ad. Many states allow the use of supplemental feed, but don't allow baiting. Some states allow both. Some allow neither. An organization with science and health at its core, can't just assume 98% of the time it won't pose a problem so lets not have a printed position on every advertisement.

I suspect if there was a unified factual conclusion that supplemental feeding has zero chance of spreading disease ever and it was impossible for supplemental feeding to have a negative impact on health beyond disease, they wouldn't have the statement or worry about supplemental feeding. Since thats not the case, it seems they have to use that statement every time until it is a fact.

I also suspect we'll never ever see a statement that the organization supports baiting even when legal. Not actively opposing doesn't mean support.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-26-2012, 08:58 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darin View Post
Remember it is not high fence or low fence. It is hunters together just get your families out doors!!!

I don't think many here have a big problem with high fence, nor does the organization. Its the importation of out of state deer and manufacturing breeding and non natural outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-26-2012, 09:34 AM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
I look at it as grandfathering were its already allowed and no disease concern exists. You don't grandfather something because you support it, you do that as a means to not inflame those that are accustom to it, but also limit further introduction before someone new becomes accustom to it. The opposing is to hunting over bait, not supplemental feeding where no disease concern exists.

As far as advertising, thats not advertising about baiting, its supplemental feeding and each one has the position about the use of supplemental feed at the bottom of the ad. Many states allow the use of supplemental feed, but don't allow baiting. Some states allow both. Some allow neither. An organization with science and health at its core, can't just assume 98% of the time it won't pose a problem so lets not have a printed position on every advertisement.

I suspect if there was a unified factual conclusion that supplemental feeding has zero chance of spreading disease ever and it was impossible for supplemental feeding to have a negative impact on health beyond disease, they wouldn't have the statement or worry about supplemental feeding. Since thats not the case, it seems they have to use that statement every time until it is a fact.

I also suspect we'll never ever see a statement that the organization supports baiting even when legal. Not actively opposing doesn't mean support.

If the opposition is to baiting and not to supplemental feeding, then science is not being used as the determining factor because there is no tangible difference from a risk mitigation standpoint between the two practices. If the opposition to baiting is based on some arbitrary moral or ethical consideration, then I'd submit that the organization is straying from it's scientific underpinnings and venturing into the realm of social engineering.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:32 AM
tannenwood tannenwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 19
Default

As a QDMA member, I strongly disagree with the position QDMA has taken to oppose the deer breeding industry. Rather, I think QDMA should maintain their position to lead members by providing quality advice and setting examples in a positive manner related to the management of our deer herd and not extend their opinions about what an american landowner should or should not be able to do with their property.
I am a little confused with QDMA, as I have taken the time to look at how wishy washy the organization and it's leaders are with their stance on some issues.
Example: They have written articles stating that there is no evidence that free choice mineral supply to deer has any effect on antler development, but they endorse "THE ROCK" a football sized rock that is 96% sodium(salt) and only 4% trace mineral. Also, they have written that they oppose baiting in some areas, mainly because the congregation of animals in close proximity may increase the ability to spread disease. Well, what do ya think the rock does??? Many deer come to a location the size of a football and lick the same pice of rock!!!! WOW! What about QDMA and their relationship with RECORD RACK deer feed?? Wonder what happened there? I heard that Record Rack pulled their sponsorship! ???
My point is: why endorse a product, then turn around and oppose the use of it?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:45 AM
kansas-andres's Avatar
kansas-andres kansas-andres is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakland County, MI
Posts: 2,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
If the opposition is to baiting and not to supplemental feeding, then science is not being used as the determining factor because there is no tangible difference from a risk mitigation standpoint between the two practices. If the opposition to baiting is based on some arbitrary moral or ethical consideration, then I'd submit that the organization is straying from it's scientific underpinnings and venturing into the realm of social engineering.

once again you spin the thread into left field with your baiting discusion. You somehow took the thread off topic when u questioned forum user tree spud. We are talking about deer farm expansion, not your northern Michigan baiting facination.
__________________
QDMA Member
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:54 AM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kansas-andres View Post
once again you spin the thread into left field with your baiting discusion. You somehow took the thread off topic when u questioned forum user tree spud. We are talking about deer farm expansion, not your northern Michigan baiting facination.

If you look back in the thread, Winterqrters is who introduced baiting into the thread, I was responding to his and Banc123's comments, so if you are going to cast blame for bringing up the B word, please point your finger in the right direction. Even better, instead of launching an attack, why don't you make a substantive contribution and join in the discussion.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-26-2012, 11:30 AM
kansas-andres's Avatar
kansas-andres kansas-andres is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakland County, MI
Posts: 2,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
If you look back in the thread, Winterqrters is who introduced baiting into the thread, I was responding to his and Banc123's comments, so if you are going to cast blame for bringing up the B word, please point your finger in the right direction. Even better, instead of launching an attack, why don't you make a substantive contribution and join in the discussion.

join in the discussion of baiting and take the thread off topic, No thanks. Please carry on with all of your " substanive " off topic - thoughts on baiting.
__________________
QDMA Member

Last edited by kansas-andres : 02-26-2012 at 11:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-26-2012, 11:38 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,530
Default

One of our new forum members sent me a PM asking if I should rethink my Avatar since I disagreed with deer breeding moving to Ga. , i.e. that picture had to come from a breeding facility. For those not aware of my history, I found this site many many years ago when it was in its early stages. Didn't know much or anything about QDM or that QDMA existed. Hadn't hunted deer in over 20 years. Being from FL where most bucks are tiny compared to others, I stuck that pic on there, sort of joking. Hadn't even really looked at it since, the color scheme maybe. I've switched it to my 6.5+ old big 6 , which has been my primary target for the past 2 years in Ga. I couldn't decide if I'd use this one or the big 10 point I've always had as my FB avatar, that I did grow in Fl practicing QDM. Good catch on the conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-26-2012, 11:55 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
If the opposition is to baiting and not to supplemental feeding, then science is not being used as the determining factor because there is no tangible difference from a risk mitigation standpoint between the two practices. If the opposition to baiting is based on some arbitrary moral or ethical consideration, then I'd submit that the organization is straying from it's scientific underpinnings and venturing into the realm of social engineering.

Its to baiting and only opposed to supplemental feeding when disease concerns exist and other health issues are limited. Call it social engineering if you which, there are also scientific reasons beyond disease to not start baiting.

Wonder if MDuffy or other IL guys might think the introduction of baiting to IL might have an impact on hunting that could be measured in a scientific effect ? Bet they can.

Sorry for dragging the OP off topic, but they are very similar in that the only opposition is for NEW situations for both and not trying to change what exists today, because no good reason exists to let either one start where it doesn't exist today.

If anyone hasn't read this article, its good recap of things the organization is doing to preserve the resouce.

Deer Depression <---Click

Last edited by banc123 : 02-26-2012 at 11:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:10 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
Its to baiting and only opposed to supplemental feeding when disease concerns exist and other health issues are limited. Call it social engineering if you which, there are also scientific reasons beyond disease to not start baiting.

Probably food for another thread since it is pulling this thread off topic but as far as there being any "scientific" reasons other than disease risk mitigation to preclude baiting, they are in all liklihood equally applicable to food plots and a number of other QDMA sanctioned practices, as well.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:23 PM
winterquartersmgr's Avatar
winterquartersmgr winterquartersmgr is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: tensas parish, lousiana
Posts: 1,910
Default

If you go back and reread my post, I was not trying to change the direction of the thread, I was using baiting as an example......

Sorry for the confusion.....
__________________
Justin F.

Certified Deer Steward 1
Certified Deer Steward 2
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-26-2012, 01:04 PM
sandbur sandbur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minnesota (old USDA 3, new zone 4)
Posts: 11,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
I don't think many here have a big problem with high fence, nor does the organization. Its the importation of out of state deer and manufacturing breeding and non natural outcomes.

Besides the importation of deer from other areas, I feel the lack of a double fence to prevent nose to nose contact with wild deer is a factor. Escaped deer and the time and money spent by states to catch them is another factor. And some states are facing closed, CWD infected facilites that no longer have any financial reponsibility, since they are broke.
__________________
Healthy Habitat, Healthy Deer, Less Antler Obsession-All for the Sake of our Hunting Tradition

NRA Life Member
Muskies, Inc. Life Member
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-26-2012, 02:06 PM
shmoopy shmoopy is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Northern Lower Michigan
Posts: 791
Default

Put me down as one sportsman who has a big problem with high fences. Wildlife is just that... WILD. Once the fence goes up and the big checks get written to shoot the enclosed captives any semblence of sportsmanship is gone, Deer become just another commodity to be traded and sold. That's how the importation of "big buck genes" got started and CWD is just one of the terrible unintended consequence. Keep the wild in wildlife... no more fences!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-26-2012, 02:23 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shmoopy View Post
Put me down as one sportsman who has a big problem with high fences. Wildlife is just that... WILD. Once the fence goes up and the big checks get written to shoot the enclosed captives any semblence of sportsmanship is gone, Deer become just another commodity to be traded and sold. That's how the importation of "big buck genes" got started and CWD is just one of the terrible unintended consequence. Keep the wild in wildlife... no more fences!

So just out of curiosity, would you ever order Elk or Venison or Buffalo or Wild Boar that had been raised on a farm with fences, in a restaurant? Is that ok or should that not be allowed either? I don't want to put words in your mouth, which is why I'm asking......
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.