Yep that's what it sounds like to me. If a warden doesn't like the 100-yard-out-of-sight law, he will simply write tickets to fit his view of things.

What do you mean squeaky. If he sees a deer track headed towards the corn?

What I mean is, if this particular game warden catches you hunting an area with corn over 100 yards and out of sight of stand he's giving you a ticket if there is a single deer track coming by your stand headed in the direction of corn. He stated very clearly it's baiting and he's winning the cases when it goes to court. The law is very vague and his interruption is its baiting. I didn't have near the amount of conversation with the GW as Basscat and several members of my club did. Basscat may be able to go into more detail on exactly what was said. I do know he was looking for corn when checking hunting areas and he had full intentions of righting a ticket if someone was hunting the area with corn. I personally heard him say guys were poring out corn around food plots that where over 100 yards and out of sight. He wrote their butts a ticket and won the case in court.

What I mean is, if this particular game warden catches you hunting an area with corn over 100 yards and out of sight of stand he's giving you a ticket if there is a single deer track coming by your stand headed in the direction of corn. He stated very clearly it's baiting and he's winning the cases when it goes to court. The law is very vague and his interruption is its baiting. I didn't have near the amount of conversation with the GW as Basscat and several members of my club did. Basscat may be able to go into more detail on exactly what was said. I do know he was looking for corn when checking hunting areas and he had full intentions of righting a ticket if someone was hunting the area with corn. I personally heard him say guys were poring out corn around food plots that where over 100 yards and out of sight. He wrote their butts a ticket and won the case in court.

...like convicts in prison...everybody is innocent that gets a ticket

The law is actually not vague AT ALL. It's only got 2 criteria: out of sight and >100 yds. That's it.

"there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any bait or feed located beyond 100 yards from the hunter and not within the line of sight of the hunter, is not a lure, attraction or enticement to, on or over the area where the hunter is attempting to kill or take deer or feral swine.

What I mean is, if this particular game warden catches you hunting an area with corn over 100 yards and out of sight of stand he's giving you a ticket if there is a single deer track coming by your stand headed in the direction of corn. He stated very clearly it's baiting and he's winning the cases when it goes to court. The law is very vague and his interruption is its baiting. I didn't have near the amount of conversation with the GW as Basscat and several members of my club did. Basscat may be able to go into more detail on exactly what was said. I do know he was looking for corn when checking hunting areas and he had full intentions of righting a ticket if someone was hunting the area with corn. I personally heard him say guys were poring out corn around food plots that where over 100 yards and out of sight. He wrote their butts a ticket and won the case in court.

Chuck Sykes needs to jerk a knot in his ass! I along with many others including most GWs from Northeast Alabama heard Chuck explain it last year at a meeting at the Jackson Farmers Co-op. He said the law is as written,100 yards and out of sight, nothing more or less. He said , and I quote " I don't have an officer that can read a deer's mind, a buck can bed down, turn down another trail, get after a doe."

Whatever happened to people learning how to hunt and not needing all this bait?

That's what I'd like to know. Never needed it before now, and won't start using it. The folks I know who do use it aren't killing any better or any more deer than they used to.

Until the appellate courts address the issue, there will be differing interpretations by judge's throughout the state. I intend to address this issue at the winter judge's conference later this month to see if there is any consensus. The regulation enacted by the DCNR does not supersede state law enacted by the legislature. The regulation only creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the bait or feed is not placed as a lure if it is more than 100 yards away and out of the line of sight. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence presented by the game warden in Court that the bait was placed in such a manner as to act as a lure. This could be through photographs or testimony. I have discussed my interpretation of the regulation with our wardens in Lowndes County. Other judges may have a different interpretation, but the regulation does very little to clarify this issue from a legal standpoint. It only serves to muddy the water. I suspect there will be some cases addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals that will help clarify the application of the regulation to the baiting statute but that will not be for several months or perhaps a year. Until then I suggest that you consult with your local game warden before placing any corn or other feed in an area that you may think is questionable.

The regulation enacted by the DCNR does not supersede state law enacted by the legislature. The regulation only creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the bait or feed is not placed as a lure if it is more than 100 yards away and out of the line of sight. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence presented by the game warden in Court that the bait was placed in such a manner as to act as a lure.