I've said before that my opinion somewhat changes when talking about the very, very few that supplemental feed year around that want to continue to be able to do so legally during the season. That being said, I don't know of too many deer herds in Alabama that are in dire need of additional food that come from feeders during these 60 degree winters we are having. If food is a problem then most likely it's b/c you have too many mouths to feed on the property. We don't have feeders and our deer are plenty healthy.

And you are correct, I don't agree with your first statement. That mentality is flawed from the beginning when you are talking about wildlife, IMO.

Again, where do you draw the line?

1. in your opinion what percentage of pro-baiters feed year around?
2. in light of the obvious answer to #1 why do you think most pro-baiters want bait legalized?

Every single person I have know that has ever baited did so b/c they felt it would increase their odds of killing a big buck. So, then why do so many pro-baiters on this forum throw out disclaimers about how "corn isn't the magic bullet" or "you aint ever going to kill a mature buck over corn" or "big bucks don't come to corn during the day" or " I just want it legalized cause everyone else is already doing it"?

By the way, my post above was short and had no questions...for someone as astute as yourself on definitions should know the difference between a question and a statement.

Of course there needs to be bag limits and a closed season so you don't wipe out the species. I am also fine with requiring the use of a weapon/ammo that is consistently capable of making a clean kill on the animal in question. There are also many safety related regulations that need to be in place as well. You don't really want me to list all the laws that fall into those categories do you?

The bottom line is that most game laws have a logical reason for existing. But the current state of affairs with baiting is stupid, vague, inconsistent and has no sound factual reason for existing.

If the world were filled with people like you that never questioned a law then women still wouldn't be able to vote.

What percentage of food plot planters plant year round? I know of very few that plant summer plots compared to the many that plant cool season plots.

What happens if a neighboring land owner can see your feeder from his stand, is he breaking the baiting law? From what I read in the bill yes.

Just because the feeder is on somebody else's property does not mean that he would not shoot a deer that was on his property but could see your feeder. Or, since everybody is regulary accused outlaw baiting now, since he is an accused outlaw now he will just shoot a deer on your property under your feeder? Will legalized baiting prevent that?

so....anti baiters = male chauvinist? Hmmm, very interesting observation there.

Probably only 10% or so plant summer plots, would be my guess, but with the various mixes out there most annuals provide food for deer 10 months out of the year. Don't think there is much debate over the benefit of foodplots vs. bait piles from 10-15 to 1-31.

Are foodplot needed year round? Or, are they good for providing winter forage during a stressful time of the year up til the woods start greening up? Also, a person can provide supplemental feed from trough, spincaster, etc now during the season or wait until after the season to feed "bait/feed" and not worry about the "baiting" police. Problem solved!

You miss the whole point.

Here is a hint: assume you are a landOWNER
and do not believe in baiting (read CORN) and
then a bunch of redneck goobers either own
or lease land next to you and saturate that
property with corn feeders and corn piles.

As a basic lesson in civics, one of the
fundamental considerations behind any proposed
law is minimizing as opposed to creating conflict.
The proposed baiting law WILL create serious conflict.
It is inevitable.

Besides, corn baiting is for homo redneck commie pig dog
goobers.

So a couple of questions for those that say that the State has taken away the liberty of private property owners/hunters by not allowing a certain form of food distribution (i.e. pouring bait out of a bag).

Should the State be allowed to manage the States resources that are free roaming and can travel between individual property owners properties?

Should the State be able to control what method that can be used to harvest the States resources and for how long those methods can be employed?

History has proven that leaving it up to each individual land owner to do what is best for the States resources does not work without some type of general rules. If you will recall prior to States starting to manage their resources market hunting just about wiped out deer in many States including Alabama.

Currently, under the rules as I understand them "baiting" and year round feeding are legal if you do them in a way that stays within the general rules established by the party responsible for managing the resource. In my opinion, I have provided ideas in which "baiting" would be legal under the current regulations. Of course a person would have to decide for themselves or ask the State whether those ideas would be legal in their eyes.

So did the State really take away a right or liberty from private property owners/hunters to manage the State's resource? Or, did they provide a management framework and allow private property owners/hunters an opportunity to make decisions on how they manage their property inside those general rules and allow for the continued replenishment of the resource for future enjoyment?

I'm not a fan of baiting, but for the sake of the debate the arguement that the state needs to protect the resource and therefore should not allow baiting is full of holes.

I believe if you do a survey of southern states you will find that more states do allow some form or baiting than don't. Those states all still have deer though so obviously a prohibition against baiting is not needed to protect the deer.

quote: "Here is a fundamental difference between you and me. I don't think people should have to prove why things should be legal. I think the state should have to show a good reason why something should be illegal."


Hear hear! Well said, good man!!!

I agree that baiting wouldn't destroy the deer herd. I'm against it b/c there isn't anything good about it. No good reason to legalize it. I've seen four reasons so far.
1. "b/c everyone already does it"
2. "so I can feed year around without getting a ticket"
3. b/c the state shouldn't have any say on what I do on my property
4. (a new one) b/c the state should have to prove it's bad before they make it illegal.

#1 is never a reason to make anything legal, but seems to be one of the favorites among pro-baiters.
#2 is somewhat legit but simply defining how far one must be from a feeder would fix that. Such as at least 300 yds from a feeder and feeder can't be seen. Besides feeding supplemental feed year around is something most trophy clubs do to maximize antler potential, not to make sure the deer don't die out during the long cold winters we have in Alabama.
#3 we as a society have already proven that we need certain guidelines. We aren't responsible enough anymore to enjoy complete uninhibited freedom.
#4 Sounds great but I'm not sure some things can be "proven" to be good or bad. Maybe just the mere fact that baiting doesn't help the deer herd and the fact that baiting in this state has never been legal coupled by the possible issues with baiting is enough to say let's don't legalize it. If it aint broke don't fix it kind of thing. There are quite a few experts and biologist that are completely against baiting and don't have a dog in the fight. So while "proof" may be hard to come by expert, unbiased opinions are not.

Have the Feds "proven" that a 6 duck per day limit is the magical number and that any less would not be fair to hunters but any more would cause a decline in duck numbers? Don't think so...

What do bait and limits have to with each other???

You keep referencing the fact that 'more' deer, or 'bigger' deer will be killed?

If too many are killed, lower the limit??

I don't know what to do about the downside of killing bigger deer????



I still say that you should have to provide a STRONG reason with lots of credible evidence to make something ILLEGAL. Not, have to prove why it should be legal.

Maybe that is the approach that the State needs to take. No need to write a new Law....just repeal the one in effect now!

Some seem to think baiting would make it easier to kill a buck, I think that's where the limit talk is coming from. Why not just do like Texas and be done with it?

Quote 1:


From another Hogwild post, quote 2:

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

Quote:
give them more freedom

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??????"



Do these two quotes look familiar??? And then turn around and state with authority "If too many are killed, lower the limit??"

Who is suggesting the taking away of freedoms????????

My reason to repeal the law trumps all of your reasons for it to remain in effect, and I wouldn't hunt over bait if it was legal:


Constitution of Alabama 1901

So why not legalize spot lighting? As long as no one kills more than 3 bucks a season and one doe a day, what's the harm?

Contrare to what you pro-baiters think everyone doesn't feel that foodplots and corn piles are the same thing. I know y'all seem to think your opinions are facts but they aren't..

For starters, why should the landowner who doesn't want to hunt over corn have precedent over his redneck goober neighbors?

I was unaware that a fundamental consideration of law was to minimize conflict. I'm sick of raking leaves and picking up sticks that fall in my yard from my neighbors tree. Maybe the state should ban trees in yards.

And I don't know any homo hunters. I might be a redneck. But I have to say making something illegal for no apparent reason sounds more commie to me. With that said, that was a pretty funny statement.

49er, that was well crafted. Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner. For my short time on this forum, I hope you don't mind me saying you're kind of like Ron Paul. There are about 2 percent of things I strongly disagree with you on (so I might not vote for you for President), but for everything else you're right on the button.