HB 1618

harv418 said:
Having hunted in Texas where baiting is prevalent, i think this is NOT a way to manage the herd. the successful ranches that allow it, have a robust management structure in place. Those that dont get decimated. If the state is going to take on herd management, like Texas as done through their Managed Lands for Deer Program, then allow it everywhere. Otherwise leave it alone.

My lease was an MLDP Lease. 1800 acres, 7 guns. We HAD to take 7 bucks, and 11 does year over year to stay in the program. When we spun corn, our hog population exploded. When we did things better, i.e. feeding cotton seed, protein, etc, we got better bucks.
Click to expand...
Corn is just one item you can bait with.... you can bait with a plethora of different items . Although expensive there are many baits and also beneficial to the herd .
 
Last edited:
Snake said:
Corn is just one item you can bait with.... you can bait with a plethora of different items . Although expensive there are many baits and also beneficial to the heard .
Click to expand...
There's a pile of studies and a pile of biologist saying the complete opposite. It can be detrimental to a deer herd. I know @BSK has kind of gotten out of this thread but I hope he would chime in to this
 
Snake said:
This ^^^^ some reasons on not to bait don't have merit ! Only reason that should be with merit is the Aflatoxins and if you use anti aflactoxin corn then that's out the window .
Click to expand...
What about propping up populations of nest predators (especially coons), hogs, and concentrating coyotes for easy deer kills?
 
Lost Lake said:
If it passes, I hope that each hunter on the baited property would have to wear a minimum of 1,000 inches of Big Bird yellow instead of orange. No landowner exemption on that part.

If it's ever allowed on public, each "hunter" using corn should have to wear a full clown costume, red rubber nose included.

If there are gonna be fistfights over baitpiles, the participants should at least look the part.

I'm very much against the Bill.
Click to expand...
its obvious you dont own land!!! private land owners are not required to wear anything!!! and furthermore should not be told what they can and cannot do on said property. its bad enough we have to pay property taxes to keep property!!! i have never seen those property taxes improve my land.
 
I guess I'll comment on this though we seem to have beaten this already dead horse to death endlessly. The pros and cons of baiting have been endlessly discussed and I don't care one way or the other because I don't need it or want to use it. Baiting is "harvesting" deer to me (a perfectly legitimate sentiment) and not "fair chase" (though even that is dateable considering terrain or hunter skill or deer population levels). But now the "science" of saying that baiting is bad for deer (like with CWD) just evaporates when there seems to be a sentiment that it might be OK if TWRA could get license fees related income for "allowing" it. It seems to me that if it's going to be legal it should be simply "allowed" openly like with other states and no fees should be involved. Otherwise baiting on private property with a "license/fee to bait" walks right into an accompanying set of rules and regulations on HOW you can bait or invite INSPECTIONS to make sure you're doing it according to their mandates or rules or regulations. Imagine TWRA saying "We issued you a permit to bait and are arriving on your property to make sure you are doing it according to our mandates." Sounds like a convenient backdoor way of getting around the recent litigation with TWRA about "trespassing" on private property using the old "open fields" doctrine. "We gave you a permit so now we need to come and inspect you to see your doing it right."
 
lets go
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2684.webp
    IMG_2684.webp
    44.5 KB · Views: 1
In favor or not, I feel like it is a bad slippery slope for the state legislature to get involved in what is clearly in the purview of the wildlife committee, whether you agree with the committee or not. This is something that should be left to the biologists to suggest/or not, and the committee to approve/disapprove.

Very rarely does anything that politicians get involved in, with respect to someone else's expertise, ever go as planned. Or even turn out for the better. They usually make a mess of things, and it becomes impossible to fix them without them admitting they were wrong and undoing it. Look how well prohibition and the war on drugs turned out.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top