Rumor Has it. No Ohio Baiting

[TimSr]

Again I am ignorant when it comes to cwd and although that makes logical sense, is there scientific proof that's the way it's spread?

I have that same question. Sometimes segments of the sport can be quick to scapegoat a practice they are not particularly fond of without sufficient evidence. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and my own conclusions are that they really don't know a hell of a lot about the disease, how it's spread, and how many animals actually have it, and how many are killed and eaten that have never shown any symptoms.

If it is spread as easily as by eating from the same food sources, then I would think nature would be hard to compete with for spreading it, and I wonder how much of it is spread by natural breeding.

Baiting is an enforcement nightmare that is an incredible waste of enforcement resources. The only reason I would support banning it is that it is primarily a bowhunter tactic, and it seems that all of Ohio's deer hunting laws revolve around catering to bow hunters. I've seen a few guys dump a pile of corn on the ground the first day of gun season, and I have to laugh.

 

[Jackalope]

Huge difference to me in natural and unnatural. Going out and hunting deer in a natural environment is completely different than going to hunt a corn pile covered in bottled potions. One is baiting, the other is a natural action/need for survival.

The key word there is "To me". We don't get to dictate a wild animals feeling of enticement. Hunting an item that is enticing the animal is what makes it baiting, how it got there is irrelevant to the animals enticement.

 

[at1010]

I have that same question. Sometimes segments of the sport can be quick to scapegoat a practice they are not particularly fond of without sufficient evidence. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and my own conclusions are that they really don't know a hell of a lot about the disease, how it's spread, and how many animals actually have it, and how many are killed and eaten that have never shown any symptoms.

If it is spread as easily as by eating from the same food sources, then I would think nature would be hard to compete with for spreading it, and I wonder how much of it is spread by natural breeding.

Baiting is an enforcement nightmare that is an incredible waste of enforcement resources. The only reason I would support banning it is that it is primarily a bowhunter tactic, and it seems that all of Ohio's deer hunting laws revolve around catering to bow hunters. I've seen a few guys dump a pile of corn on the ground the first day of gun season, and I have to laugh.

thank you for seeing my point. I just don't think they know enough. I saw last night there has been cases in Texas, those guys are still baiting and the herd seems to be thriving down there. The entire south uses bait as a way of life. In Iowa you are allowed to bait, just not hunt over it. They have had cases of CWD and guys are still using this tactic. I think if we get CWD in our herd we need to all sit back and worry a bit more about CWD, then if guys are baiting.


I also think Joes argument makes a ton of sense, its simply taking the human emotion out of the argument. He is simply stating hunting over X that draws deer to result in Y is baiting. Fill in X and Y with whatever you want.

Example Hunter hunting pinch point to an area where a farmer has penned deer to result in killing a deer is baiting. (I use this example because I knew a guy who was doing this successfully. Now as Joe said in the Turkey ex this guy did not do the placing of the deer, so he didn't think anything of it.)

I think the best example was the apple tree example. I have hunted over natural apple trees that have 100s of apple on the ground. The deer are drawn to that "natural" bait.

I don't feel bad shooting a deer either way FYI.

 

[giles]

I have that same question. Sometimes segments of the sport can be quick to scapegoat a practice they are not particularly fond of without sufficient evidence. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and my own conclusions are that they really don't know a hell of a lot about the disease, how it's spread, and how many animals actually have it, and how many are killed and eaten that have never shown any symptoms.

If it is spread as easily as by eating from the same food sources, then I would think nature would be hard to compete with for spreading it, and I wonder how much of it is spread by natural breeding.

Baiting is an enforcement nightmare that is an incredible waste of enforcement resources. The only reason I would support banning it is that it is primarily a bowhunter tactic, and it seems that all of Ohio's deer hunting laws revolve around catering to bow hunters. I've seen a few guys dump a pile of corn on the ground the first day of gun season, and I have to laugh.

CWD is a prion (I believe that's what it's called). They do know a lot about CWD except how to stop it or treat it. Once an animal that's infected has it, it doesn't show up until the animal matures (this is why the odnr only cut the heads off of bigger road killed deer). Once the animal matures, it may or may not have negative effects on the Deers well being. Either way, once that deer dies, that prion will infect the ground where it died for years and years. The prion will even grow in the plants that form in that spot. (I've read plenty of article that compare it to a nuclear waste land) it can also be passed from nose to nose contact.

If I feel up to it I'll dig up some articles later and start a CWD thread.

 

[giles]

The key word there is "To me". We don't get to dictate a wild animals feeling of enticement. Hunting an item that is enticing the animal is what makes it baiting, how it got there is irrelevant to the animals enticement.

If a human can do that, that's good baiting. Natural...well...that's gods work.

 

[at1010]

CWD is a prion (I believe that's what it's called). They do know a lot about CWD except how to stop it or treat it. Once an animal that's infected has it, it doesn't show up until the animal matures (this is why the odnr only cut the heads off of bigger road killed deer). Once the animal matures, it may or may not have negative effects on the Deers well being. Either way, once that deer dies, that prion will infect the ground where it died for years and years. The prion will even grow in the plants that form in that spot. (I've read plenty of article that compare it to a nuclear waste land) it can also be passed from nose to nose contact.

If I feel up to it I'll dig up some articles later and start a CWD thread.

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.faqDetail/ID/209ea1b39c93f85dde9a5a4261400ea2

This is an article from a credited website. Basically says, they "think" CWD could be spread that way. Also think it can be spread by shit. Also its been around for 40+ years.

 

[finelyshedded]

 

[Jason Short]

If an animal is attracted, and a hunter uses that attraction to his advantage, the animal is indeed being baited. How is he not? The key elements exist. Attractant, a preys enticement to said attractant, and a predator using that enticement to his advantage.

By that logic hunting anywhere in the woods is "baiting". The trees and brush are attractive to the deer as a form of cover so it must be baiting.

 

[Carpn]

A judge only applies to laws created by men, laws which are largely based upon enforceability. This is commonly referred to as baiting. But really it's legal baiting or illegal baiting based upon the laws of your state.

The laws of nature reach far beyond mans laws. Such as an animals natural attraction to food. This is correctly referred to as baiting and looks at the end result of attraction, not the means by which the result was achieved.

It is for this reason that variables to define bait like placed, grown, or natural must be eliminated as a deciding factor of what constitutes bait. They all do if said animal is attracted to it. Those terms only apply to defining enforceable laws, not the natural enticement of the animal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaFtAKnqBU

 

[finelyshedded]

Lmao Jake!!!!

 

[at1010]

By that logic hunting anywhere in the woods is "baiting". The trees and brush are attractive to the deer as a form of cover so it must be baiting.

In a sense yes. Lets say you find a patch of poke berry near a clear cut that the deer are hammering. They are baited to the area naturally or unnaturally. You are hunting over their preferred food source as bait.

I am not arguing the moral side of this argument. Joe is simply stating facts about what "bait" is and how hunters use it.

 

[hickslawns]

Dang Al. You drank Joe's Kool-aid. Lol

 

[cotty16]

I'm not a fan of baiting, but I'm not totally against it either. I've done it because we can. I've used it mostly after gun season in the past. So, if you are in favor or not in favor, I am guilty or innocent depending on your viewpoint.

I have tried to have my boys hunt without bait for all of their years of hunting as well. Same thing with them, we try to utilize the tactic after gun season.

Personally, I wouldn't care at all if baiting were outlawed, but it will never happen. So, how a bout a compromise? Let's bring strategy back into the equation. Let's have a law that a hunter may not be within 100 yards of a bait pile (just throwing a number out there). Now, a more intense strategy has to be in place to kill a deer using bait. We go back to being hunters by covering trails leading to food. After all, this is what we did before baiting. We hunted oak flats, fields, orchards, etc... We used natural baits to see action and hunted strategic areas to get that shot.

I'm not saying guys who pile pounds of corn out do not do this, but I think the most common perception is that people who bait sit right on top of the pile and shoot the deer while it's nose is buried in the corn. Does that happen? Yep. Do some guys sit a distance from the pile? Yep to that TOO. Again, I am guilty of both.

How would this be enforced? I have no clue, but I think it could be a start to getting back to hunting the more traditional way. This would also take the argument out for those who say hunting a food plot is the same thing.

Just want be clear, I am not condemning anyone who baits heavily. It is a legal tactic that I have used off and on. Hell, I pile the apples out there as much as I can too. But a rule about proximity to the bait pile could help squash the debates between the masterbaiters vs. non masterbaiters :smiley_coolpeace:

 

[at1010]

Dang Al. You drank Joe's Kool-aid. Lol

nothing was drank, I am just simply being open minded and non emotional about the argument. Many folks get all torn up and just start yelling bait bait blah blah. If its legal I don't care what people do to be honest.

However, we as hunters are in a time when it will go down as the elitist era. I am better than you because I shot a buck under an apple tree that was dropping 100s of apples vs. you who piled them along an oak flat to give you a more ethical shot at 20 yards. hahahah

I don't even see a true debate because we as hunters do what we can to better our odds to harvest an animal. If you believe baiting is the answer go have at it. If you don't thats fine as well but don't think you are held at a higher moral standard because your deer is less DEAD than his/his/etc.

 

[Big_Holla]

Not pro or con but the one thing to consider on bait vs. natural foods (at least non-crop foods) is you still have to get out there and find it. Finding an apple tree loaded with apples is great...until they are gone or don't produce every year. Finding white oaks that are producing takes leg work and the same is true when it runs out or doesn't produce for 2-3 years. Naturally occurring foods you need to know what to look for and how to identify it whether it's the species of tree, shrub, etc and then you need to find it at the right time. Then you have to have a stand in place at the right time.

A pile of corn, sugar beets, carrots, etc. can be replenished any time a hunter wants to and there is very little need in changing stand locations with the changing seasons. You dictate everything as someone who baits.

 

[Jackalope]

Dang Al. You drank Joe's Kool-aid. Lol

No Kool-aid. The thing about removing emotion and variables from a stance is it leaves little to attack and is quite easy to defend.

 

[hickslawns]

No Kool-aid. The thing about removing emotion and variables from a stance is it leaves little to attack and is quite easy to defend.

I have no emotion involved here. I don't care if it is legal or illegal. I simply believe your thought process is skewed. I don't see it holding up in a court of law.

 

[giles]

I have no emotion involved here. I don't care if it is legal or illegal. I simply believe your thought process is skewed. I don't see it holding up in a court of law.

Don't look now Phil, your getting sucked in...lol

 

[Jackalope]

I have no emotion involved here. I don't care if it is legal or illegal. I simply believe your thought process is skewed. I don't see it holding up in a court of law.

I'm not debating the legality of baiting. Nor the laws created by man to define baiting for legal purposes. I'm looking at the end result to define the means. If the end result was an animal is enticed to a location, the object that enticed him is bait. If you are using that object to help you kill said enticed animal, you are in fact baiting. It's quite simple really.

A judge only applies to laws created by men, laws which are largely based upon enforceability. The laws of nature reach far beyond mans laws. Such as an animals natural attraction to food.

 

[Jackalope]

.


Even animals understand this concept..

[video=youtube;DLfx4Mv7YHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLfx4Mv7YHE[/video]

The dog did not put this bread in the water. He doesn't even understand the concept. Yet he has figured out how to use this situation to his advantage. The situation is the fish are enticed to the bread. The dog is baiting. Just as we are when we sit on an oak flat. We've figured out how to use the animals enticement to our advantage. It doesn't matter if we put it there. We're baiting.