Doc

So basically your saying not to waste any time even thinking about hunting over bait because it just doesn't work? So why did the rancher even bother setting you up with bait? Why did he even buy a feeder? It's like I said above, if it didn't work, we wouldn't even be discussing it. Nobody would go for it.

The bunny-huggers come in all shapes and sizes, but they do not call wind energy "green power" because of the color of the windmills.

I do recall one exceptionally hot day years ago in mid-October, when even the light camo tee-shirt had to come off. Fortunately, the bugs had already taken a hit by some frosts. It all just seemed weird and not a whole lot like hunting either. There was nothing moving in that heat. However, given the kind of weather patterns that we have been getting, perhaps an early paralyzing blizzard is more of a threat this year .... lol.

Congratulations on a nice looking buck and thank you, you just made my point. That also kind of shoots hell out of the argument that trophy deer simply won't show up at a feeder. And I assume the deer was taken in the daylight, so the idea of baiting success only happening at night doesn't seem to hold much water either. It seems to me that if bait hunting were such a hit and miss affair, it wouldn't be much of a topic would it. Who the heck would want to do it if it didn't work ..... lol.

I knew when I started this thread that there would be a lot of truth uncovered relating to motivations and expectations of hunters and their visions of what hunting means to them. It's all good stuff that confirms a lot of the theories I have had about the evolving mentalities of hunters. What I have found shocking is the number of members that want nothing to do with the practice even if it were legal. A total no-holds-barred attitude may be growing, but it has not yet taken over the sport completely. The element of challenge in hunting is not quite dead yet, but it sure is taking a beating.

The last sentence of this paragraph makes no sense to me. Certainly the banning of leg-hold traps is indeed the end product of animal rights activity. And yes I think I see the handprint of those very same people involved with the banning of lead ammo. I think you can also add the authors of the Safe Act into this same group. I would interpret that paragraph as an endorsement of the idea of banning previously legal products without compensation. That's the same mentality as the authors of the Safe Act. Screw the hunters, screw the trappers. It's hard to believe that this is what you are really saying. What am I mis-interpreting here? Or am I not actually mis-interpreting anything that you are saying in this regard.

I think some people do know how to do it and some don't. Those guys on TV shooting out of those box-blinds obviously know what they're doing because for them it's not a question of whether deer will show up in daylight hours, but rather which one of the dozens wandering around munching on the bait do they feel like shooting.....lol.

Nope. Just anticipating some hunting problems that I get hints of every time I go out to practice. This is about the worst year for mosquitos that I have ever experienced. I am hoping that I have a secret weapon ..... thermacell.

Look, I am only offering up a possible explanation for the comment. If you feel good about your conduct in the discussion, that's up to you.

I agree. I think the trend in hunting is away from challenge and more into the "Let's get this thing done and over with". Frankly, I think the DEC is getting in tune with that mentality also as they keep pushing for more efficient ways of wacking deer populations. I think they see a day when controlling deer populations through hunting may become more and more difficult. And so baiting will be getting to be increasingly attractive to them.

There is no "anti-science" stance. Simply a statement that far too many people daily read garbage that is put forth as "a study" and eagerly swallow every word of it without any engagement of their own brain simply because it uses the word "study". To me that is a true frustration. Not wanting to talk for him, but I suspect his comment may have had more to do with your propensity for uncivil ways of conversing when discussions don't go the way you want them to.

I now have one of these units, but have some questions. With the upcoming bow season, I see the early opener as maybe needing some help to keep my sanity while on stand. Besides the trickle of sweat running down my back, I wouldn't be surprised if I might have a generous supply of mosquitos swarming around my head. So here are some important questions that may determine if I really go out or not: 1. Do they work? 2. Is there any detectible scent emanated by these things that could reach out and tip off approaching deer? 3. What kind of radius do they provide protection? 4. Are they affected by light wind?

Some pretty good questions being asked here.

The initial intention of the thread was not to discuss who breaks the law and why, but just simply what are your own personal views on the practice of baiting. We know that there are all kinds of poachers who break all kinds of laws. But I was just wondering how you all would feel if it were suddenly legalized. Would you have a problem doing it or would you view hunting successes using baiting any differently than without? .....and why.

I'm kind of wondering if heat will be a problem with the upcoming bow season October 1st. And the bugs this year......crazy! I just love the thought of trying to hold my sight-pin still with the sweat trickling down my back and a few mosquitos whining in my ears and slamming into my eyes.....lol.

Amazingly enough Texans have no particular problem with that. In fact many of them will tell you there is no real alternative to baiting. As far as the nocturnal switch, I have seen plenty of baited situations where huge mature deer are lured out to bait in full daylight with no problem at all. And a lot of these operations involve pretty exotic permanent box-blinds that obviously are used over and over. No patterning going on there.

Perhaps they should have gotten better sharpshooters. Here in Irondequoit they had very good luck but found the process too expensive to maintain. Which had nothing really to do with the effectiveness of baiting.

Would I bait if it were legal? ..... No. Not because I don't like venison, but I have a personal philosophy of hunting that I hunt the animals as I find them and do not try to condition them to make my hunting easier. That is not some lofty ideal, it is just as I said .... a personal philosophy. For me, deer are not Ivan Pavlov's dogs and I have a certain level of respect for them that makes me want to hunt them like truly wild animals. So that attitude allows for those that may have other personal notions on what hunting is for them and it needn't be the same as mine. So far, so good. But baiting is not something that is done in a vacuum. There are impacts to others. For example, I have heard of situations in other states where the practice is legal, where hunters feel forced to put out bait simply as a way of pulling deer back on their property that have been lured off by neighbors bait stations. It sounds like it can create "bait wars" where each neighbor is competing to buy the best bait available to draw deer off a neighbor's property. That's not so good. I don't like the idea of pitting one neighbor against the other, and I don't think those kinds of competitive situations really belong in the world of hunting. And then there is the thought that hunters are beginning to get the notion that hunting is all about going to the nearest outdoor store and spending enough money to guarantee a harvest. It's kind of like consigning your hunting prowess to some chemist in some lab developing the best attractant for you. Again, it goes against my own personal concept of hunting. I'm not a big fan of "buying" success based on the abilities of some manufacturer. But I am realistic to know that I am probably a minority with that notion.

Is baiting effective? ..... No doubt at all in my mind. That is why some municipalities start right off with "bait and shoot" programs that are effective for as long as the program lasts. There is no patterning of the marksmen, and no more devious defense maneuvers by the deer than any other farm animal that becomes dependent on preferred foods sources. I also have read magazine articles that described how the deer not only came to timed mechanical feeders on a predictable basis, but also became trained to respond to the sound of the feeders going off. So not only was the hunter able to pin-point to the yard exactly where the deer would be, but he even knew when they would be there. I'm sure there is probably some level of skill in doing baiting successfully, but I have absolutely no doubt that it is very effectively when done by someone who knows what they're doing.

Ok, the Dirt Bag thread pussy-footed all the way around the subject. Let's have at it. Let's see if we can keep this as cordial and civilized as possible, but what are all the different views on the propriety of baiting as a hunting tactic. I suppose CWD has to be talked about, but I am really more interested in how you all think that baiting fits in with your idea of hunting. Yes we did all this a year or two ago, I think, but we have gobs of new members now and maybe even some of the long-time members have had a change of heart in their views. So what do you think. Is baiting for deer something you would like to get involved with (if it was legalized)?

That sounds like a much better way of handling multi-trunked tree platforms. Like I said I have picked up a lot of respect for the power of wind and the fatigue factor of repetitive back and forth action on nails and such. If you watch one of these multi-trunked trees in a wind you will note that they don't all move in unison. The reason that I am aware of that is because there was a time when one corner of my platform let loose because of sheared nails. I was just fortunate that the other attachments kept the platform in place enough so I could get the hell out of that stand safely.

Well, I might suggest that you take a bit of your own advice and do a little research rather than just mindlessly committing to this concept purely because it has the word "study" attached to it. It has even been made quite easy for you had you bothered to read the thread. adkbuck (reply number 6 of this thread) supplied counter studies that refute a lot of the emotion spewed by the lead bullet banners. Noted in that article are more of the studies that don't seem to be agreeing with the anti lead bullet proponents at all. And in fact he also supplied some data on copper toxicity for anyone who thinks that the lead alternatives are a safe materials. Also, had you bothered to read it, reply # 12 of this thread also noted a 2008 study conducted by the CDC (how's that for credentials) that pretty much destroys the idea that people who eat game taken with lead bullets are doomed to have higher levels of lead in their bodies because of it. You see it's nice to cherry pick the studies that you want to campaign for, but as I said before you can pretty much go out there and find counter-studies in your little "study war" that will prove just about anything you want to prove. And by golly you will also find plenty of people who will pick up the banner of any cause simply because it has a study attached to it and run mindlessly with it.

And it's even more of a shame that those that worship at the altar of research, simply and mindlessly accept all studies without expending the mentality to apply logic and some good old healthy skepticism. There's been an awful lot of societal mis-steps because of studies that the public has simply accepted as the word of God. Anybody with an agenda can publish a study that may very well not be worth the paper it's written on, and policy can change because no one wants to or can run counter-studies to unmask the agenda. But I will say it. Just because we can't disprove it doesn't mean that we have to have the knee-jerk reaction to accept it and modify our lives because of it simply in the name of a study. It is getting to be a situation where anyone who can garner the most studies in favor of their position can dictate public policy. No one ever admits that there are political motivations that color some of these studies. No one is willing to admit that researchers are fallible and in some cases simply incompetent. If it is called a study, it is gospel. Well sorry, if there is a possibility that there could be political motivations, and the so-called facts spewed are kind of contrary to good old horse-sense and logic, I for one will not just blindly pick up their flag and start marching with it. That's not a response of convenience, that's simply an individual's responsibility to view input with a critical eye instead of throwing on the blinders and saying, "My gosh they did a study, it must be true". But when one "study" conflicts with another "study" what happens to this cult mentality? Well that happens often enough to cause some to look beyond the simple fact that it is "a study". And by the way, do not confuse a "study" with science. Some times it has more to do with salesmanship that any kind of science.

If the land is predominantly planted with pines, there will be nothing for grays, but red squirrels have plenty to eat since they are primarily conifer feeders and dwellers.

Always someone trying to work around something. I would guess that if there is something that the deer really are attracted to in a big way, it won't be too secret for very long. I think the ground will be very well torn up in the area where it is used. It may not be as visible as a pile of apples or corn, but it will not be something that any hunter (or warden) passing by will not notice. It's like salt on a rotten stump. You may not see the salt, but the typical damage done to the stump will be the tell-tale evidence. And then there is the packaging. The stuff has to come in a bag or something. That kind of evidence randomly found is usually sufficient to start an investigation. Often the best evidence is the poacher's own mouth. Most of these guys like to talk about how they are screwing with the law. Also, wardens who have suspicions are generally trained in interrogation techniques that trip these guys up with their own words and attempts at being clever.