Go Back   QDMA Forums > General QDM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #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: 2,683
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: 1,059
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: 2,683
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: 16,340
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: 16,340
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: 1,059
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: 1,898
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: 11,129
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: 774
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: 1,059
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.