Thats a bad translation...I believe that as long as people don't try to push the limits of the bait rule that it defines baiting pretty dang well. You're right in that it's not a hard and fast rule, but once again this rule was not brought about to allow baiting. It's here so you can put out feed well away from where you are hunting, in order to supplement your wildlife management practices.
The closer you get to the flame the more likely you'll get burned.

And just FYI . I have yet to write a ticket for someone with feed over 100 yards away.

Thanks for posting on the subject.

Man I�m sorry but this law is such horsechit. How long is it going to take to fix this? Somebody needs to tell the coach to back up and punt the ball already.

Ignorance deserves no counter..hence the

Then by all means explain my ignorance.

But I already know you can't back this up because I have had this same debate a half a dozen times.

They're your representatives and senators. Call them, email them, mail them. Just know that there are also people calling, emailing and mailing them that oppose baiting...

It needs to be legal or illegal period!
No grey area. I don't care either way. But I do know that I will not be putting anything else out at all. I don't care if ever warden in state comes to my property and picks out a spot for feeding.

Tell them to clarify the law then. But when you tell them that you don't care either way, they are going to be confused about what you want them to do...

I'm not seeing the grey area of the rule. Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn�t matter to most folks whether its legal or not. This gray area though and this horrible rule needs to go. There�s no need in making a middle ground that needs interpretation and all the explanations, yada, yada. It�s silly in itself to make the matter that cumbersome. Making it completely legal or illegal is not going to have dramatic impacts on the deer population over what we are already doing. All of this confusion is being created for nothing when it doesn�t have to be.

It was a bad decision to begin with and even it wasn�t able to be seen beforehand as it should have�.then it surely should be very obvious now. All I�m saying is the powers that be should just own up to it and punt the ball on this one�..An oops, my bad!....and move on. This forum is a very good representation of the general hunting public and I think it represents very well how most hunters feel about the topic. Make it legal or illegal...period.

"Don't push the limits"? The law is the law, right? If the speed limit is 55, then it is alright to go 55. How would you feel a policeman gave out tickets for going the speed limit based on his perception that you were pushing the limits.

I'm a black and white kind of guy. I don't like perceived gray areas.

220-2-.157 Definition of Area Regulation
For the purposes of Section 9-11-244, Code of Alabama 1975, and Rule 220-2-.11, Alabama Administrative Code, as it applies to the hunting of deer and feral swine, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any bait or feed (as defined in Section 9-11-244) 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 the deer or feral swine. For the purpose of this regulation, �not within the line of sight� means being hidden from view by natural vegetation or naturally occurring terrain features. This regulation shall not apply on public lands.

Note, it says bait or feed. Doesn't matter if supplemental feeding or bait. If it's more than 100 yards away and out of sight, then it is legal according to the way the law is written.

Again, it plainly says the bait has to be out of the line of sight, not the deer.

How is this regulation not clear??? Seems clear to me. It says nothing about an additional 50 yards. That's like saying the speed limit is 55 but you can only go 45 or I will give you a ticket.

There is no reason for it to be confusing in the first place. If I walk in a gas station; point a gun at the guy working behind the counter; and demand all the cash in the register that's armed robbery. It isn't a situation where one cop is going to interpret that as a crime while another cop could interpret it as being legal. No, the law is pretty clear. No reason the law should be any less clear here.

If the rule on corn is over 100 yards and out of sight by natural obstructions then that should be it. Why put in the ambiguous BS where the GW can still ticket you if he "FEELS" like it was helping your hunt? Because that basically invalidates the first part.

You can kill 15 dove a day. The law doesn't say 15 dove per day, unless the GW feels like that was too many, and then he can lower the limit and write you a ticket.

Pushing the limits of a speed limit is different. Going 57 or 60 is pushing the limit...how many people get tickets going 56 or 57 in a 55??

No, you are wrong. Going 56 breaks the law. It is exceeding the law. When you stay within the law, it is not pushing the limits. If you are going 56 to 60 then you are pushing the limits of getting a ticket for BREAKING the law. 100 yards and out of sight, that is within the limits of the law. 99 yards and you are breaking the law. 99 yards and you are pushing the limits for getting a ticket.

Why would a GW give a ticket to someone within the bounds of the law? Because they can, I guess. The law is clear.

I think I see the problem here...

I've said this till I'm blue in the face! FIRST and foremost:

1. WE hunters are a VERY small minority of the voters of Alabama

2. The voters of Alabama DO NOT approve of using bait to KILL

3. Fact: Bait is not required to kill deer

4. So why should the law allow baiting?

Then green patches should be illegal too right? And oak trees dropping acorns. And planted corn fields. Right?

Laws are not required to 'allow' anything.
They take Privileges away.

So, at least get the concept correct if you plan to argue about it.

There are plenty of people against hunting in general. So, I guess we all just need to quit......

The better question is why should we restrict just one form of it?