Fun4all, you're getting so close to getting it. One of those is for no reason other than that's the way I was brought up. The other would be for protecting the herd.

This one keeps coming up. First of all, I know a lot of people that bait and they all have food plots. I've actually never known anyone that put out corn that didn't also have food plots. But that's irrelevant. There's nothing in the state's mission statement that says all hunting practices must benefit the herd. If they change it to say that, don't get too attached to your rifle scope. Legalize baiting and don't worry about the baiting police. There, problem solved!!

so in your opinion all game laws and regs are unconstitutional?

Because there is a reason for that law. The state should have laws that are intended for safety or the health of the deer herd.

And you're right about corn piles and food plots being different. So are bows and guns. So are ladders and climbers. So is deer scent and scent killer. What's your point?

truedouble,

Not at all. Only the ones that are in fact unconstitutional.

Can you clearly define a public interest in the prohibitions on the use of bait found in 9-11-244 and 9-11-245 that are more important than the personal freedom guaranteed in our constitutions?

Bear in mind that the DCNR already issues permits that allow violations of those statutes.

Edit: Also bear in mind that the new bill would allow baiting if a permit is bought. The new law directly conflicts with the old laws. How does that fit in with the reasons you come up with to my question above?

How is spotlighting on private property by the owner or someone that leases it not safe or a harmful to the deer herd? You don't think sportsmanship or ethics comes in to play on any hunting laws?

Once again, I'm just asking pro-baiters to call it like it is. If hunting over a corn pile is no more advantageous than hunting over a foodplot then why are so many in support of hunting over corn piles? I just want y'all to admit that you believe hunting over corn can make killing deer and even mature bucks easier that any other currently legal method.

truedouble,



I don't think unsportmanlike conduct in football, baseball or hunting is a legitimate government interest. Roughing the kicker does not call for a $2000 fine and possible jail time now, does it?

As for spotlighting on private property, our legislature called that a nuisance, not a safety issue, and only prohibited it from a motor vehicle that is located on a public road.

Seasons and bag limits protect the deer.

Good point. As long as bag limits are observed, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's detrimental to the "perpetuation of the species".

I meant killing deer on private land while spot lighting. Not poaching either...

truedouble,


So it's just killing deer that good sportsmanship applies to? Not all game animals and birds like the law states?

You can get a DCNR permit to spotlight deer at night, bait and shoot them if they think you've got too many of them.

Would you turn down a depredation permit because it is unsafe or unsportsmanlike to use it? I refuse to use one because you have to lie and say you will abide by all laws and regulations when you sign it. Aren't we talking about ethics when we talk about sportsmanship?

If you like the idea of spotlighting, call your congressman and suggest it. I've never been night hunting for deer but I have for coons. I've seen deer in my headlights often enough. I've helped GW working decoy and catching night hunters. I was always under the impression that it was illegal because of difficulty in identifying your target. I've shot coons that could've had antlers and I wouldn't have known it. I would also venture to guess that it would effect the health of the herd. WMA close turkey hunting at noon to give them a chance to breed unmolested. No; they don't need to do that on private land because the pressure isn't a fraction of what it is on public land. By the same token, night hunting wouldn't allow deer a time to do their thing unharassed.

If baiting deer is unethical, the hunters in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisianna, Arkansas, Texas and Kentucky are a bunch of scoundrels I guess.

And if the new bill passes, our state will be selling permits to engage in unethical conduct. They already issue them, as a matter of fact.

Interesting view! Let me see if I am "getting it". Being able to pour "bait" out of a bag to make it easier to kill deer, which in turn increases the number of deer killed protects the herd. Under the current regs a person can legally "bait" but chooses not to because of many factors like they just don't want to go to the trouble, or the expense, or the State won't let me do it MY way, or any other myriad of reasons (yep, you can read that as "excuse") and kills less deer doesn't protect the herd.

There I GOT IT!!!!

Oh wait a minute, easier to kill results in more deer killed and more impact to the deer herd equal less herd protection. Choosing not to legally bait for whatever reason is not as easy as pouring "bait" out of a bag and results in less kills and overall impact to the deer herd equals protects herd.

Dang and I was so close!!! Guess I will have to keep on working on that one.

Don't forget Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia

Since we are "guessing", yep maybe!

How do you know it would increase the number of deer killed? Is Georgia now going to kill so many deer they will not have any left? WHy are there still deer in other states where they have been baiting for years?

If you are interested in protecting the herd, why do you not lobby against gun season? Killing a deer over corn is detrimental to the herd but killing one with a high power rifle is not? That arguement doesn't make any sense.

Some States like Michigan allow baiting on public land, Alabama's proposed laws doesn't. To use the justification of "other States do it" is like saying "just because" since all of the other detail and nuances of those other States laws are NEVER presented and are NEVER the same as what one is trying to get others to believe is the factual truth. So lets just stay with the bill that has been proposed for the State of Alabama.

The convoluted statements about high power rifles, lobbying against guns seasons and comparing that with corn is, quite frankly, confusing. One thing is for sure, you will not kill a deer with a high powered rifle if you don't see a deer, where on the other hand you can kill a deer with a spear if you have a deer standing at a bait pile. The difference is that "baiting" (pouring bait out of a bag) does not require any hunting abilities and therefore, can provide more opportunities to kill a deer, which is not conducive to "protecting" the herd. Where on the other hand not having the skills necessary to consistency see deer when you have a high powered rifle in your hand lends itself to conserving or "protecting" the herd. Wouldn't you agree?

Of course there is the advocated fallback position that if too many deer are being killed using "bait" then the State can always just "lower the limit" because a person shouldn't actually have to have any hunting skills to be successful, so lowering the limit is better than the sport requiring hunting skills.

Your homework assignment for tonight, look up the word "Analogy" and learn how people use them in a debate, Cause that's twice now that one has obviously just whizzed right over your head.