Yup.

Dude, that's not it at all. That's CONSERVATION in a nutshell.

Many here think "herd health" depends on manipulation of age structure, sex ratios, habitat manipulation and any other ideas the QDMA puts in their heads.

Not sure why your are trying to split hairs with me. Health of the herd is the biggest part on Conservation.

That's not true and I'm not "splitting hairs".

Conservation is the protection of the population for the perpetuation and preservation of the species.

Manipulation of the species in attempts to improve "herd health" is wildlife management.

Big difference. Not splitting hairs.

What's wrong with me - agreeing with 49r again - whew Using "herd health" as a basis for "wildlife management" authority by the DCNR is the same as using the "general welfare" clause to justify earned income tax credits.

Like I said man, I underlined might to cover that, sorry that you assumed, I assumed Ill and IOwa. BTW, I recently read a survey taken in 2008 and at that time there were 22 states that allowed baiting either all or part of the year. Notice that some of them are "big buck" states and I know their size has nothing to do with baiting.
Here they are:
Baiting Allowed In Entire State:

Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Washington

Baiting Only In Selected Areas:

Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin

It does not matter what we want anyway. There are 4-6 guys that pretty well control the outcome of this bill. It just depends whether or not they get behind it or not.

Most of you know how I feel about the CAB but their decisions are rarely backed by science or good economy based research. This means it must be for personal, political or monetary gain.

The baiting bill is fine with me since many do it anyway... I prefer doing away with the a CAB that is not made up of wildlife/fisheries biologists and researchers/ educators.

So a herds health (IE is it healthy) has nothing to do with it's perpetuation??? Who in the hell is talking about antler size in regards to health? I am not. You are the one making that leap.

Show us where I did that.

I understand the desire of some to provide supplemental feed through hunting season without having to worry about the local GW's interpretation of whats legal and whats not.

I see a need to define area for those who do.

This bill, however, IMO will still have a need of interpreting whats legal and whats not and as a result, it may clarify area, but then bring about a whole new set of issues.

IMO it should either stay the way it is, illegal, or be made legal...without all the silly rules.

So how does one go about becoming one of the "over 1,000 supporters"? Is this an anonymous thing so you can vote multiple times? Is there a question that can be answered like "I own a hunting "preserve" and have a tremendous amount of deer inside an enclosure and would like to be able to help my herd due to over grazing and would also like to offer hunts for $8,500 so people shoot deer standing at feeding stations. Would you support my cause in getting the State to change the regulations so I can continue to make money while baiting and not get fined or my clients get tickets, yes or no?"

If you are going to whip up a frenzy using numbers, please provide full disclosure of your background, sampling methods, questions asked, etc, etc, etc. Otherwise, the information can not be substantiated and therefore do not have ANY credibility and using them to change policy, regulations or laws is deceitful.

I am willing to listen to any answers, but just don't provide anymore more smoke and mirrors.

Thanks

Fun4All...you have a PM or two.

If you think this is more than a "baiting bill" and defines "area", how bout the house version which is simply says feed must be "out of line of sight" and a permit costs $24

Just another un-enforceable law.........Just like the so called tag system.