Post by BT on Dec 23, 2007 22:41:45 GMT -5
This is a subject that I was thinking of today.
Other than the chronic wasting disease issue....is there any real reason to disregard the use of baiting in big game law?.
I personally think that baiting is going to have a more effective out come as to maintaining game number count than the present strategy which is employed in states that do not allow baiting.
Here is the thinking...
lets take situation average and throw Joe an Moe into a patch of woods.
Now Moe is allowed to hunt over bait while Joe is not.
Moe has deer that come on time , each and every day and stay put for 15 minutes or more while they feed.
Moe can wait for a deer to put itself into a perfect entry/exit position and can even box the food so that the deer must enter that box for a perfect shot every time.
( just like bear hunting )
Meanwhile , Joe has to hunt and hope that any deer that comes by him will be close enough and will stop or slow to allow for a shot.
Moe is having shot opportunities daily and becomes situation comfortable very quickly due to high deer sightings and shot opportunities.
Joe on the other hand has had few opportunities and is getting ready to launch at the first sign of an opening.
Who will wound the most deer in the course of a season?
Who will have the most shot opportunities?
Since game agencies dont record wounds , the deer that do die from wounds will not be tabulated into the statistics which will be used to figure out the following years allotment.
The question is this.....is baiting a bad thing when viewed in such a way?
The second part of the question is this....
Is sport the issue?...fair play if you will.
I dont see any game agencies caring one way or the other how you get it done as long as it gets done.
What matters in the end is that the management tools work.
Hunting is a management tool....nothing more than that.
So ..... is baiting (where it is illegal) just a matter of being a blue law based on little more than past judgement or is there more to it?.
It was illegal in many states before CWD was ever heard of , so CWD is not the reasoning here
Other than the chronic wasting disease issue....is there any real reason to disregard the use of baiting in big game law?.
I personally think that baiting is going to have a more effective out come as to maintaining game number count than the present strategy which is employed in states that do not allow baiting.
Here is the thinking...
lets take situation average and throw Joe an Moe into a patch of woods.
Now Moe is allowed to hunt over bait while Joe is not.
Moe has deer that come on time , each and every day and stay put for 15 minutes or more while they feed.
Moe can wait for a deer to put itself into a perfect entry/exit position and can even box the food so that the deer must enter that box for a perfect shot every time.
( just like bear hunting )
Meanwhile , Joe has to hunt and hope that any deer that comes by him will be close enough and will stop or slow to allow for a shot.
Moe is having shot opportunities daily and becomes situation comfortable very quickly due to high deer sightings and shot opportunities.
Joe on the other hand has had few opportunities and is getting ready to launch at the first sign of an opening.
Who will wound the most deer in the course of a season?
Who will have the most shot opportunities?
Since game agencies dont record wounds , the deer that do die from wounds will not be tabulated into the statistics which will be used to figure out the following years allotment.
The question is this.....is baiting a bad thing when viewed in such a way?
The second part of the question is this....
Is sport the issue?...fair play if you will.
I dont see any game agencies caring one way or the other how you get it done as long as it gets done.
What matters in the end is that the management tools work.
Hunting is a management tool....nothing more than that.
So ..... is baiting (where it is illegal) just a matter of being a blue law based on little more than past judgement or is there more to it?.
It was illegal in many states before CWD was ever heard of , so CWD is not the reasoning here