Originally Posted By: longspur69
Fun4all, maybe I completely misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting the state shouldn't allow baiting with corn poured out of a sack because it would give private landowners an unfair advantage over public land hunters. It sounds like maybe you agree with me? Public land should be viewed as a hunting club with its own rules imposed by the state, feds, or whoever owns/manages it. If you want to hunt there, have at it. If you don't like the rules, find a club where you do. There's no reason that private landowners should have to play by the same rules as public land hunters. I have spent far more days hunting public land than private and always felt fortunate to have it. I've never felt entitled to hunt public land.

I don't get where you feel allowing hunting over "bait" is asking the state for a handout. Quite the contrary, asking the state to limit what private landowners do based on what the state choses to do on public land _ THAT would be the epitomy of socialism. I've said several times, that I have never hunted over bait, and don't intend to. But, I don't feel the need to impose my way of hunting on everyone else. The strongest argument I've heard on why bait should be illegal is that is isn't sportsmanlike. Well, I don't want to shoot a bear over a garbage can, but I don't care if someone else does. I don't shoot ducks on the water, but I don't care if someone else does. I wouldn't shoot a turkey that I just happened up on by mistake, but I don't care if someone else does. I rarely shoot does, but I don't care if someone else does. The state doesn't need to impose regulations just because that's the way we've always done it.

As hunters, most of us go through a progression as we get older. As kids, many of us just wanted to shoot something just to look at it. Later many of us wanted to kill a buck. Then, for some, it became a numbers thing (I skipped that one). Then it's a racked buck. Then, maybe a bow. Followed by the desire to kill a monster, which seems to mean slaughtering as many does as you can. Eventually, we just want to be out there and it's no longer about pulling the trigger. Maybe not all of you, but most have gone through some of these phases. It seems to me that many of you forgot the way you used to feel and what used to excite you about hunting. Now that we are "enlightened", we seem to know exactly what hunting is all about. Unfortunately, we are compelled to force everyone else into hunting the way we like to - at this particular moment. Unless the deer herd is in jeopardy, the state needs to give hunters as many liberties as is reasonable when it comes to hunting, instead of tailoring the laws to fit personal preferences.


Just a question would you be in favor of allowing people to only hunt private or public land but not both? What if private land hunting was reduced to a small window and public land opportunities were left where they are or increased and because of purchasing a private land license you are not allowed to hunt on public land, does that provide equal opportunity? After all if the baiting bill gets approved private land hunters will be able to bait, but public land hunters will not, so should there be some offsetting opportunity like reduced seasons and limits on private land mandated by the State?

Since there seems to be a mantra for "since other states do it why don't we", some States like Michigan allow "baiting" on public land, why shouldn't it be allowed here? I mean heck, other States do it so it must be the right thing to do, right?

You have probably figured out that I am not in favor of anyone being able to dump any type of nutritional product out to lure deer in to shoot and my discussions have nothing to do with that. The points that I am trying to make and apparently am being unsuccessful is the point that if you look at the current regulations there are legal ways to achieve the same goal without further government interference, intrusion or confusion, which in my opinion the government excels at doing very well. But in the discussions there seems to be an overriding opinion that the government should interfer, intrude and cause further confusing along with selecting one group of hunters over another group of hunters that are hunting the same resource.

If you follow very many of the threads posted on this site you will see people advocating to let me do what I want on my land as it relates to hunting, then the same person turn around and want the governement to limit the number of does that are being shot because the neighbors on their land are doing what they want. Or, the government should let me manage my property the way I want to, then turn around and want the government to limit the size, age, score of the buck that they can kill on their land because they have neighbors that are a bunch of "brown it's downers".

Of course you have the group that jump up and down about that the DCNR and the CAB don't have a clue or know what they are doing, but then turn around and want the same group that they have no confidence in to give them more freedom or restrict somebody else because that person sees getting benefit handed to them (in this case being able to hunt over "bait" poured out on the ground) by that same group of no good lowdown DCNR and CAB members.

My opinion and apparently only my opinion (which I have read on this site "is worth as much as you paid for it") is that in this instance the status quo is the best course to maintain the most opportunities available to both the private and public land hunters. Don't think that I believe that the DCNR and the CAB are without question beyond reproach on specific items, but one thing is for sure, that for the government to "solve" an issue the government will creat more issues and problems with their solutions and remove/reduce opportunities from one (in this case public land hunters) to give more opportunities to another (private land hunter) this time. The next time private land hunters may not be so lucky.

"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope