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