Thanks for the honest reply,I noticed the word hold, if the feed didn't hold game would you still do it.

Probably.......I feed the birds and squirrels in my yard to watch them. And, I sure don't get a big return other than aesthetics.
It is just another Outdoor activity that we all enjoy.
And, it has a 'feel good' thing about it; giving something back.

Thanks

I agree that it helps hold and it offers variety. Deer have different nutrient needs and it does offer some of what they need at certain times. As far as it being easier to kill one over a corn pile or feeder; to me that is absolute hogwash from my experience. To me you are far more likely to see more deer and bigger deer over a fresh cut Ag field(corn or soybean). I hunted over a cut soybean fiield back in November with a feeder in it. Saw over a dozen deer with a couple good bucks; only one deer went to the feeder all day. Some ate acorns around the edge, some grasses and briars, some soybean hulls, and one at corn. I could really care less how many people are hunting over it and it's beyond me as to why the state is worrried about it either. I also got the email and thought "what a joke".

Thanks

So sitting by an ag field that is presumably much much much larger in area than a feeder and you see more deer in the ag field than at the feeder? Interesting observation. Isn't that similar to hunting ag fields in the midwest and seeing more deer and big bucks in a day than sitting in the pine plantations of Alabama and seeing deer in a day? Kind of two separate situations I would think.

I completely agree that it is 2 different situations. I guess my overall point is that I don't think it's a magic bullet and why does it matter. If legalized ; in my opinion it would hurt the outlaws more so than the folks like Hogwild that are using it in a supplemental way. The people that are using just corn instead of working the property and having varieties of food for the wildlife are doing it anyway and I don't think they will ever write enough tickets to stop it. Therefore if it were legal for more people to use it and not worry about where it was placed it may hurt those outlaws more than anyone else. It's simply an opinion and nothing more. Still doesn't answer the question of why the state cares whether or not you kill your 3 bucks over corn poured out or corn you grew. If you kill only what they say is allowed then why do they care how you do it?

Also the Ag field that I could see was prob between 3-5 acres. I know lots of places in Bama that have green fields that big.

Personally, I'd do it like they do in Texas, where "corning" roads (ie slinging out corn from a spinner) is as common of a practice as planting green fields. You can ask those Texas boys how well corn works when there are other things to eat like acorns or nice greenfields. Corn sits kind of in the middle of preferred feed when it's constantly available. Legalize it and end this nonsense that favors outlaws over us regular hunters.

I can't speak for state,but right now you can't hunt by the aid of bait because the legislature passed a law that said you couldn't back in the 50s I think,long time ago. The legislature has never deemed it necessary to change it,and they could do so even if DCNR opposed it.

It will pass soon.

It would have already passed if it were not so vehemently opposed by the DCNR and the pork-barrel additions of other law-makers.

But, it will pass.

I understand that, but to carry it a step further since you brought it up. "Legalize it and end this nonsense that favors outlaws over us regular hunters.", should it be legal on public land too? Or, should the DCNR favor the private land hunter over the public land hunter? One would conceivably say that private land hunting in the vast majority of instances is better than public land hunting, so why should the private land hunter get a benefit that the public land hunter does not?

I go back to the simple solution of invest in shoe leather and smarts versus the simple quick solutions to actually hunt and be as successful as one wants to be as a hunter. But I certainly understand many want the quickest way with the least effort (physical and mental). I can see simple and efficient if it is a life or death situation for a person, but hunting is not that in this day and age.

favor the private land hunter. We pay taxes. Sounds like you need a lease. And I put in plenty of shoe leather, bossman. I just don't have my head buried in the dirt on this issue. It's called being pragmatic, something our new POTUS is excellent at.

I would like to know the reason or intent for the folks planting foodplots with different types of grasses, brassicas, and corn in them during deer season. What is that trying to accomplish?

sgt, ya already know the answer. LOL it's to attract deer to yer area to shoot them. Period. The state legislature said this is illegal.

Problem is the beloved DCNR passed a regulation saying that you could hunt 100 yds away and out of sight of BAIT(their wording). And folks believed Sykes when he made his statements at meetings.

Now folks are getting tickets for hunting over bait(law) when in compliance with the regulation. Pretty shitty deal. Pretty shitty regulation.

I'd fight a ticket all the way to the Alabama Supreme Court for hunting over bait if I was in compliance with the regulation. And Sykes would get damn tired of answering subpoenas to appear at my trials....but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't get past the first jury trial in Circuit Court.

Wonder what the GWs thought that heard Sykes say the reg means what it said, 100yds and out of sight , nothing more , nothing less? And lets not forget he doesn't have an officer that can read a deer's mind. All our boys up in Northeast Bama heard it same time I did. Maybe he didn't get the memo out to all of them.

All of the above are bait IMO , both yours and sgtred's examples, some are "legal" some illegal per laws and regs. I'll submit ALL are bait and the deer that don't get shot over it benefit.

So people that hunt on public land don't pay taxes? What about hunters that own properties in downtown Birmingham, Mongomery, Mobile, Dothan, Huntsville, or any other city, don't they pay property taxes? There is an awful lot of people that spend money on sporting goods, gas, hunting licenses, etc that goes into the game and fish departments and State coffers just like the taxes you pay. The taxes you pay are not set up for you to be able to hunt your land in any form or fashion you want. As a matter of fact it goes into those same coffers that everybody elses taxes go into.

Nope, I don't need a lease, so it's not lease envy. Just trying to get some rational justification on why one group of hunters believes they should get preferential treatment when they already appear to have an advantage to begin with, so far no justification has been provided.

You do realize that this is America and that you have the Right to work hard, earn money and buy some land to hunt on too, right?

How will this effect your public land hunting in a negative manner? You are worked up about something, and the core is you feel your hunting sanctuary is going to be ruined by corn in some way. No bait/food/whatever you want to call it will be allowed on public land regardless. GW's will have much more free time, in theory, when they won't have to enforce esoteric "baiting" laws on private land, and can therefore focus more efforts on making your experience on public land more enjoyable. It seems like a win-win to me. It's not favoring any one group more than another.

Why do Public Land hunters scout play books and maps looking for the best place to set up right on the property line of the BEST possible private property adjoining the Public Land??

Yes, there is a reason!