You can't plant your own food plot on public land. You can't gun hunt from Nov 20 thru Jan 31 on public land. You cant ride your atv all over public land. You can't take your buddies out to a food plot to shoot doves, cook out and drink beer on public land. You can't turkey hunt after 12:00. There's a lot of stuff you can't do on public land. It isn't YOUR land. It's a privelage - not an entitlement. Private landowners OWN their land. Of course they have more rights. Why would you think private landowners should only get the same rights as public land hunters? Skinny is exactly right. The state is just giving back a right they took away for no apparent reason.

Fun4all, So I fence my property, the deer that are "captured" when I do my fencing, they my deer or the States? If a tree falls across the fence and they can jump back and forth till I repair it whose deer are they? After I repair my fence those deer inside mine again?

From that lame BS he posted to me.......

I would say he has no legitimate answers to those questions.

Let me get this straight. You think its unfair to other hunters to allow private landowners to pour "bait" out of a sack on property they paid for or paid to lease. Something hunters of any income level could do. But, you think it's okay to allow baiting for those wealthy enough to buy a tractor, spend $300 to $500/ an acre planting corn. This is fair?

LLUUCCCCYY!!! You got sum splaining to doooo.

You have interesting comments, however, I have in no way said that public land hunter should have EVERY right that a private land hunter has, I have even acknowledge that if you read and understand previous posts. The State by virtue of OWNING or HAVING CONTROL of public land has The SAME RIGHTS to control the access and what happens on public land EXACTLY as the person that owns or controls what happens on private land. In other words to use your examples, a private land owner/controller can restrict and make it where "You can't plant your own food plot on public private land" (i.e. some paper company lands as has been discussed on this site before). "You can't gun hunt from Nov 20 thru Jan 31 on public private land" (there have been posts on this site about hunting clubs who lease private land possibly not allowing hunting for certain periods of time or locations). "You cant ride your atv all over public private land" (there are comments made fairly regularly about restricting riding 4 wheelers on hunting clubs to only allow for retrieving dead deer, again on private land) . "You can't take your buddies out to a food plot to shoot doves" (You are mistaken here, some WMA and other public lands do in fact plant foodplots and allow doves to be hunted over them, but to you point, that could be prevented on private land as well), "cook out and drink beer on public private land" (I can only imagine that open flames not supervised as a part of a land management program are prohibited on timber company lands, and the same goes for the beer drinking due to liabilty reasons). "You can't turkey hunt after 12:00" (this can certainly be controlled on private land and maybe should be controlled on some private lands if the private land owner controller determines that the number of birds can't stand all day pressure). So where in any of these instances that you provided does the private or public land Owner/controller not have the exact same privilege or opportunity?? The privilege is there whether it is exercised or not and it is left STRICTLY up to the land owner/contoller.

I hope this answers or addresses the questions of perceived inequality of land rights between private and public land owner/controllers and the exercise there of.

I have not researched the legalities of fencing off property with a "deer proof" fence/enclosure and who gets to claim the Ownership of the deer that get trapped inside the enclosure (in case those deer get out of the enclosure). There was however a thread on this site not long ago about a deer that was purchased and tagged as being "owned" getting out of it's pen or enclosure (notice I never use the politically spun term of "exclosure") and being killed and whether the shooter had to pay the "legal owner" since that deer was NOT considered a State resource and therefore fell under the State laws regarding domesticated livestock.

If you are considering doing that or if you want to learn what the legalities are you might want to check with the State on how that instance is covered.

Please read on, I am sure you will bump into the answers at some point.

The part that seems to be missed is that the private land hunter has options open to them that are not open to the public land hunter and I don't believe you will find anyone that would say that in general public land hunting is better than private land hunting. I had to say in general because there are always some isolated instances where that is not the case, so we will not have to chase that cat.

A private land hunter can (if allowed by the land owner/controller) plant corn or any other ag product to hunt over if he sets his priorities up to do that either by buying the equipment and supplies as necessary, or paying someone else to do thay , or by allowing a row crop farmer to come in and plant and leave some for the hunter to hunt over. There is more than one way to skin the cat and be legal under the EXISTING regulations.

The point being not whether a person that hunts private land can afford it, but whether he wants to exercise the opportunity to do it. The public land hunter does not get that opportunity to enhance the land under the current regulations, so it does not matter whether they can afford it or not. But, somehow since the private land hunter CHOOSES not to exercise his opportunity to plant and be legal under the current regulations, they should be GIVEN more opportunities by the State. Oops, there we go again lookng for the State to give us something instead of exercising the opportunities that already exist.

Yep, I feel like I am looking gertrude, the cow, in the face explaining that her food will be in another pasture and we will need to go over there and all she can do is blankly stare into space and wonder when someone is going to bring her the next bale of hay.

What I don't understand is.......

You LOVE to argue that Hog-Doggers should NOT have the Right to hunt Public Land.

Now, you are a Champion of the People who wants equality across the board for all!!!!

Yeah, right!

I do not have time to waste debating points that you have already disputed in other posts.

I don't recall arguing that hog-doggers SHOULD not have to right to hunt public land, I do believe however, that hog-doggers should not have the opportunity to run at will on public property, which you seem to advocate.

As I recall from previous threads about hog-dogging on public land I was having a discussion with you and was trying to help you out on how to approach the DCNR and justify your position. I believe you were the one that was arguing instead of listen to advice. As I recall you just kept harping on the fact that the State won't let the hog-doggers run at will on public land and then you finally admitted that you had run out of private land to hunt on. But then again the State owns or controls the public land and since that is the case they can control access, just like the private property owners. Funny how that works isn't it.

Fun4all, maybe I completely misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting the state shouldn't allow baiting with corn poured out of a sack because it would give private landowners an unfair advantage over public land hunters. It sounds like maybe you agree with me? Public land should be viewed as a hunting club with its own rules imposed by the state, feds, or whoever owns/manages it. If you want to hunt there, have at it. If you don't like the rules, find a club where you do. There's no reason that private landowners should have to play by the same rules as public land hunters. I have spent far more days hunting public land than private and always felt fortunate to have it. I've never felt entitled to hunt public land.

I don't get where you feel allowing hunting over "bait" is asking the state for a handout. Quite the contrary, asking the state to limit what private landowners do based on what the state choses to do on public land _ THAT would be the epitomy of socialism. I've said several times, that I have never hunted over bait, and don't intend to. But, I don't feel the need to impose my way of hunting on everyone else. The strongest argument I've heard on why bait should be illegal is that is isn't sportsmanlike. Well, I don't want to shoot a bear over a garbage can, but I don't care if someone else does. I don't shoot ducks on the water, but I don't care if someone else does. I wouldn't shoot a turkey that I just happened up on by mistake, but I don't care if someone else does. I rarely shoot does, but I don't care if someone else does. The state doesn't need to impose regulations just because that's the way we've always done it.

As hunters, most of us go through a progression as we get older. As kids, many of us just wanted to shoot something just to look at it. Later many of us wanted to kill a buck. Then, for some, it became a numbers thing (I skipped that one). Then it's a racked buck. Then, maybe a bow. Followed by the desire to kill a monster, which seems to mean slaughtering as many does as you can. Eventually, we just want to be out there and it's no longer about pulling the trigger. Maybe not all of you, but most have gone through some of these phases. It seems to me that many of you forgot the way you used to feel and what used to excite you about hunting. Now that we are "enlightened", we seem to know exactly what hunting is all about. Unfortunately, we are compelled to force everyone else into hunting the way we like to - at this particular moment. Unless the deer herd is in jeopardy, the state needs to give hunters as many liberties as is reasonable when it comes to hunting, instead of tailoring the laws to fit personal preferences.

Just a question would you be in favor of allowing people to only hunt private or public land but not both? What if private land hunting was reduced to a small window and public land opportunities were left where they are or increased and because of purchasing a private land license you are not allowed to hunt on public land, does that provide equal opportunity? After all if the baiting bill gets approved private land hunters will be able to bait, but public land hunters will not, so should there be some offsetting opportunity like reduced seasons and limits on private land mandated by the State?

Since there seems to be a mantra for "since other states do it why don't we", some States like Michigan allow "baiting" on public land, why shouldn't it be allowed here? I mean heck, other States do it so it must be the right thing to do, right?

You have probably figured out that I am not in favor of anyone being able to dump any type of nutritional product out to lure deer in to shoot and my discussions have nothing to do with that. The points that I am trying to make and apparently am being unsuccessful is the point that if you look at the current regulations there are legal ways to achieve the same goal without further government interference, intrusion or confusion, which in my opinion the government excels at doing very well. But in the discussions there seems to be an overriding opinion that the government should interfer, intrude and cause further confusing along with selecting one group of hunters over another group of hunters that are hunting the same resource.

If you follow very many of the threads posted on this site you will see people advocating to let me do what I want on my land as it relates to hunting, then the same person turn around and want the governement to limit the number of does that are being shot because the neighbors on their land are doing what they want. Or, the government should let me manage my property the way I want to, then turn around and want the government to limit the size, age, score of the buck that they can kill on their land because they have neighbors that are a bunch of "brown it's downers".

Of course you have the group that jump up and down about that the DCNR and the CAB don't have a clue or know what they are doing, but then turn around and want the same group that they have no confidence in to give them more freedom or restrict somebody else because that person sees getting benefit handed to them (in this case being able to hunt over "bait" poured out on the ground) by that same group of no good lowdown DCNR and CAB members.

My opinion and apparently only my opinion (which I have read on this site "is worth as much as you paid for it") is that in this instance the status quo is the best course to maintain the most opportunities available to both the private and public land hunters. Don't think that I believe that the DCNR and the CAB are without question beyond reproach on specific items, but one thing is for sure, that for the government to "solve" an issue the government will creat more issues and problems with their solutions and remove/reduce opportunities from one (in this case public land hunters) to give more opportunities to another (private land hunter) this time. The next time private land hunters may not be so lucky.

Strange recollection there.......

Because I am certain that I have never said that!

I have a LOT of land to hunt. I pay a lot to hunt it, though. That is the point that I make. The State, and everyone knows your angle now , is constantly whining about the hog 'Problem' and how hard detrimental they are to the Wildlife and Environment. Then, in a direct contradiction, they either do NOT allow ANY hunting for them, or very short controlled hunts on our PUBLIC land.

But, you already know that.
You just have an agenda......

Another HUGE irony in your distorted view......



Exactly how does that work???

Somebody TOOK the freedom to begin with. But, you would have the audacity to suggest that is wrong to want it back??????

Fun4all, it sounds like we have more in common than I thought - seriously. I just think that the outlawing bait to begin with WAS the typical government encroachment. It did fowl things up as it usually does. GW's seem to be more focused on writing bait tickets than stopping trespass hunting, night hunting, killing over the limit. Personally, I think those are more serious offenses. GW's are overwhelmed and understaffed. By no means am I suggesting they aren't also trying to pursue the serious violations, but they just can't do it effectively due to the time required to work the bait cases. There was no good reason to outlaw hunting over bait to begin with. And if there was, there doesn't appear to be now. If it's because it makes killing a deer easier, so does a climbing stand, food plots, scope, shooting house, camo, scent killer, etc. There are countless things the state could ban that would make hunting more of a challenge. So, why corn? Corn isn't a magic bullet. It's just one more tool to make it a little easier for less skilled or less fortunate hunters.

As for making things equal and fair, the current law doesn't - period!

Planting a cornfield is by far too expensive for the majority of hunters. Only the most fortunate can do this giving them a distinct advantage over their neighbors. Very few hunters can afford a tractor and its implements. Very few hunters can afford to plant corn, even if they had the mechanical means. Very few hunters have a tract of land that would lend itself to planting corn (timber company land, pasture land, cut over, etc.).

I think what it all boils down to is, you think allowing hunting over bait is the government GIVING certain hunters a handout. Where as I think NOT allowing hunting over bait is the government TAKING a liberty away from landowners. Giving a welfare check is a hand out and should be seen as a gift, not a right. Cutting taxes is giving something back that the government took away to start with.

a

If you think by any means that legalized baiting will be a cheap means of drawing and keeping deer on your property, then you won't be doing it right...and I can bet that one or more of your neighbors WILL be doing it right.

I have lots of friends who hunt in Florida...the lowest amount I've heard from any of them is about $300/month on corn...most start in August, and the season goes out today (2/26) down there. That's 7 months at $300/mo, minimum...adding $2100+ onto your yearly hunting bill.

If you're doing it right, you're not running ONE feeder per baiting sight...you're running two. That way, if one fails to go off or gets something hung in the spinner, the other one will go off. Figure out how many places you want to bait, then multiply it by two to get the number of feeders you need to buy.

that's one my BIGGEST reason against baiting. if ya think those guys with tractors can't buy corn in bulk and more feeders than others

they will benefit the mostest

really reminds me of club meetings where NEW rules were wanted to make things FAIR for all, some folks are retired and some have lot's of money, you just can't beat them

You are in luck! Due to my lack of computer skills and this sites limited amount of archived posts I am not able to resurrect the discussion. However, if you can locate it and resurrect it or the others along the same line where you dislike the DCNR and restrictions on the hog-dogging on public land I will gladly identify your statements.

What pray tell is "my agenda"? Please expose me for what I am!








In case you have not quite gotten it figured out my screen name should give you a clue.

Also, equal opportunity (not the governments version of equal opportunity that is anything but) means the same as, or as close to it that is reasonable (understanding that there are specific differences between private and public land), what a person does with that opportunity is left up to that individual. Some loose, some win. Some are better hunters, some are poor hunters. Some kill monster deer, some kill no deer. All have the same opportunity, which is about as far as a person can get from being socialist, for which I have apparently been accused.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal", straight from?? The Declaration of Independence, which the last time I checked was not a socialist writing. I don't believe I have stated anywhere that everyone should hunt the same way, prepare their property the same way, or do anything else the same way to achieve what an INDIVIDUAL wants to achieve on their land or in their hunting endeavors. I have said that the government should only work and endeavor to allow equal opportunities (maybe you should read that as having the same baseline to start from) and not work toward guarantying a successful outcome for private or public hunter.

I believe I have clearly stated my position on baiting. However, I have stated that if "baiting" is going to be allowed on private property then it should be allowed on public property. Other States allow baiting on public land why shouldn't Alabama? If you don't hunt on public land then why do you care??

Hogwild, don't take all of these comments as directed at you, they are meant for general consumption and contemplation by anyone that reads this post.