I agree with you jaw, btw. This is straight from the regs book, the 'area' definition:

"as it applies to the hunting of deer and feral swine, 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 ((obstructed by natural vegetation, or naturally occurring terrain features)) 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."

I've never liked this rule, explanation, or trap, or whatever it is. If I'm reading this correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong) then a court would, via the rebuttable presumption clause, assume that anything 100 yards away and out of sight is NOT deemed a lure, attraction, or enticement, unless a man wearing green pants convinces the court otherwise. Well, anyone who has any prior knowledge about what corn in the woods does to birds, squirrels, deer, hogs, etc is going to know that it greatly affects wildlife movement... that's why we use it in front of our game cams. Most anything that eats a grain like that is going to flock to the area. So, a bowhunter overlooking a trail that leads to corn 400 yards away and two hills over, technically could be ticketed, and the person wearing the green pants could argue that you were hunting by aid of bait. Maybe a court would agree, or maybe they wouldn't? I guess it depends on how well you know the judge in your county.