Dec 25, 2008 - 04:06:06 CST
LOADING
North Dakota is one of 10 states that restricts baiting of big game.
While there is nothing on the books that restricts baiting totally, it is not allowed on national wildlife refuges and other public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service; Game and Fish Department wildlife management areas; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas and wildlife development areas; state school lands; and state park lands.
Baiting is defined as the placement and use of bait for attracting big game and other wildlife to a specific location for the purpose of hunting.
But North Dakota's baiting restrictions could get tighter after this legislative session.
A bill is expected to be introduced in the 2009 session that would prohibit baiting for the purposes of hunting big game on all lands, public or private.
The bill will be introduced by Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg.
Olafson farms and ranches along with two brothers near Mountain in Pembina County. He was appointed to complete an unexpired Senate term in District 10 in December of 2006, then re-elected this fall.
As a cattleman, Olafson said his primary concern in introducing this legislation is to minimize the risk of spreading diseases that can be transmitted between wildlife and cattle.
"I'm not a hunter myself," he said, "but we have never posted our land.
"In fact, we encourage and invite people to hunt."
Olafson's home district adjoins District 16, an area the game and fish department instituted an early doe season in an effort to reduce the deer population.
That area of the state also is adjacent to the Minnesota border, where there have been confirmed cases of bovine tuberculosis.
Olafson said he has had a number of conversations with constituents in his district regarding baiting, and all of them favor a ban on big game baiting.
He said while he is not personally aware of anyone who baits, he says he's been told it does occur. "I think it is prevalent in our part of the state," Olafson said.
And, while there have yet to be any documented cases of diseases like chronic wasting disease that can affect deer, elk and moose, the close proximity of bovine tuberculosis in Minnesota is reason for concern.
"It makes me more aware for the potential for problems,"Olafson said. "It's definitely a concern for cattlemen."
Olafson said while the draft of the bill is in the final stages, it will contain provisions for food plots and recreational feeding.
He said he expects there will be some resistance to the ban.
But, with the potential for the spread of disease from wildlife to domestic animals, and vice versa, Olafson said he firmly believes the state must take a proactive approach to head off problems.
"These are significant threats," he said. "It is an effort to protect the resource itself."
Opponents of baiting contend it leads to large concentrations of big game animals, making the transmission and spread of diseases like brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis and others more likely.
Deputy state veterinarian Beth Carlson said where diseases are present, concentrating animals does increase odds of spreading them.
Diseases can be passed from animal to animal through saliva, respiratory or birthing fluids, or urine or water materials.
She said both tuberculosis and brucellosis are not very stable in the environment, meaning they are not long-lived. But chronic wasting disease is thought to be able to survive in the environment for longer periods of time, she said. "Certainly we're doing our best to keep these diseases out," Carlson said. "Certainly it is a concern."
Other opponents say baiting alters wildlife's natural movements and congregates them in places they normally can't survive because of lack of food and cover. That, they say, can lead to the destruction of the habitat that is there.
It also can increase competition between landowners themselves and result in what some refer to as "baiting wars," which could decrease the availability of game on public lands adjacent to baited areas.
Greg Link of the Game and Fish Department, said there have been discussions regarding a volumetric approach to allow some baiting.
Volumetric, meaning some baiting would be allowed, but the amount and frequency would be regulated.
"But that does not take care of the problem," Link said, which, for the game and fish department, comes down to disease management and managing deer populations.
Link said in all likelihood, smaller amounts of bait would result in more animals competing for a limited food source and higher concentrations of animals in a smaller area.
He said it also would be difficult to monitor and regulate in the sense of how much bait would be allowed, how often and at what intervals.
Proponents of baiting argue it can be an effective means to control populations that might otherwise not survive harsh winters, and, at the same time, provide economic stimulus for guides and local economies, as well as higher harvest rates for primitive weapons like blackpowder rifles or bows.
Also, it could increase sales opportunities for retailers of feed and feed supplements and feeders.
Then, there are the ethical questions that will undoubtedly be argued. Those questions aside, Olafson said that his bottom line in sponsoring the bill is protecting his and others livelihood, as well as the deer population.
"I'll leave that (ethics) for others to debate."
(Reach reporter Brian Gehring 250-8254 or brian.gehring@bismarcktribune.com.)
While there is nothing on the books that restricts baiting totally, it is not allowed on national wildlife refuges and other public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service; Game and Fish Department wildlife management areas; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas and wildlife development areas; state school lands; and state park lands.
Baiting is defined as the placement and use of bait for attracting big game and other wildlife to a specific location for the purpose of hunting.
But North Dakota's baiting restrictions could get tighter after this legislative session.
A bill is expected to be introduced in the 2009 session that would prohibit baiting for the purposes of hunting big game on all lands, public or private.
The bill will be introduced by Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg.
Olafson farms and ranches along with two brothers near Mountain in Pembina County. He was appointed to complete an unexpired Senate term in District 10 in December of 2006, then re-elected this fall.
As a cattleman, Olafson said his primary concern in introducing this legislation is to minimize the risk of spreading diseases that can be transmitted between wildlife and cattle.
"I'm not a hunter myself," he said, "but we have never posted our land.
"In fact, we encourage and invite people to hunt."
Olafson's home district adjoins District 16, an area the game and fish department instituted an early doe season in an effort to reduce the deer population.
That area of the state also is adjacent to the Minnesota border, where there have been confirmed cases of bovine tuberculosis.
Olafson said he has had a number of conversations with constituents in his district regarding baiting, and all of them favor a ban on big game baiting.
He said while he is not personally aware of anyone who baits, he says he's been told it does occur. "I think it is prevalent in our part of the state," Olafson said.
And, while there have yet to be any documented cases of diseases like chronic wasting disease that can affect deer, elk and moose, the close proximity of bovine tuberculosis in Minnesota is reason for concern.
"It makes me more aware for the potential for problems,"Olafson said. "It's definitely a concern for cattlemen."
Olafson said while the draft of the bill is in the final stages, it will contain provisions for food plots and recreational feeding.
He said he expects there will be some resistance to the ban.
But, with the potential for the spread of disease from wildlife to domestic animals, and vice versa, Olafson said he firmly believes the state must take a proactive approach to head off problems.
"These are significant threats," he said. "It is an effort to protect the resource itself."
Opponents of baiting contend it leads to large concentrations of big game animals, making the transmission and spread of diseases like brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis and others more likely.
Deputy state veterinarian Beth Carlson said where diseases are present, concentrating animals does increase odds of spreading them.
Diseases can be passed from animal to animal through saliva, respiratory or birthing fluids, or urine or water materials.
She said both tuberculosis and brucellosis are not very stable in the environment, meaning they are not long-lived. But chronic wasting disease is thought to be able to survive in the environment for longer periods of time, she said. "Certainly we're doing our best to keep these diseases out," Carlson said. "Certainly it is a concern."
Other opponents say baiting alters wildlife's natural movements and congregates them in places they normally can't survive because of lack of food and cover. That, they say, can lead to the destruction of the habitat that is there.
It also can increase competition between landowners themselves and result in what some refer to as "baiting wars," which could decrease the availability of game on public lands adjacent to baited areas.
Greg Link of the Game and Fish Department, said there have been discussions regarding a volumetric approach to allow some baiting.
Volumetric, meaning some baiting would be allowed, but the amount and frequency would be regulated.
"But that does not take care of the problem," Link said, which, for the game and fish department, comes down to disease management and managing deer populations.
Link said in all likelihood, smaller amounts of bait would result in more animals competing for a limited food source and higher concentrations of animals in a smaller area.
He said it also would be difficult to monitor and regulate in the sense of how much bait would be allowed, how often and at what intervals.
Proponents of baiting argue it can be an effective means to control populations that might otherwise not survive harsh winters, and, at the same time, provide economic stimulus for guides and local economies, as well as higher harvest rates for primitive weapons like blackpowder rifles or bows.
Also, it could increase sales opportunities for retailers of feed and feed supplements and feeders.
Then, there are the ethical questions that will undoubtedly be argued. Those questions aside, Olafson said that his bottom line in sponsoring the bill is protecting his and others livelihood, as well as the deer population.
"I'll leave that (ethics) for others to debate."
(Reach reporter Brian Gehring 250-8254 or brian.gehring@bismarcktribune.com.)
Doubtful wrote on Dec 29, 2008 3:20 PM:
The G&fs stance on this subject is full of assumptions and guesswork, there is no evidence that baiting will lead to or spread disease in wild game populations. Hopefully the legislators will see through the propaganda the G&F has been pushing on people and let landowners retain their rights to feed animals on their property. "
FLHTCUI wrote on Dec 27, 2008 8:45 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.