Public = all landowners and hunters. Therefore
there *is* a legit public interest here, especially to
stop what many consider unethical hunting practices,
and also to prevent conflict between the citizenry
over such practices. Another valid public interest is the
preservation and promotion of woodsmanship skills.

Of course this would not be consistent
with libertarian anarchy.:)

The public certainly does include all landowners and hunters.

That means hunters whose morals and ethics allow them to hunt over bait are unjustly restricted by their government due to the ethics and morals of those who do not hunt over bait.

There is no compelling public interest that justifies the restriction.

As for your libertarian anarchy remark:

My beliefs are in support of our constitutional republican form of government. Our state's constitution defines the legitimate purpose of government in Article I, Declaration of Rights Section 35:



My beliefs fit that defintion of the legitimate role of government. I do not believe in hunting over bait, but I do believe our government should protect freedom and liberty.


Your support for a law that attempts to force the beliefs of some on others at the expense of freedom and liberty certainly does not fit our constitutional defintion of the legitimate purpose of government.

I spoke with a local warden and he said if u got at the back of a food plot 110 yds away and left the sage standing and spread the corn out so u could see the yellow you would be fine.

I'm still not sold on the 100yd rule. I have to understand the purpose of a rule.

I just can't understand why a guy should be penalized for being 95 yds away and another guy be ok for being 110yds away.

I realize a rule is a rule but what was the point???

Sorry so you could not see the corn

Speak with another game warden or two without telling them you have already gotten an opinion. then see if their opinions match.

The opinion you got does not match what the game warden's boss said:



link to source here

I agree. Another problem is that game warden told you his "opinion" not the law. The next GW could view it another way.
I've spoken to 3 GW's lately and all 3 think the CAB is a joke.
They just want clarity to make their job doable.

this is unadulterated horsechitt. Make it totally illegal or make it where I can hide IN the feeder neck deep in corn and shoot the chitt out of em........and I personally don't care which it is.

this halfway, zig/zag, crap is worthless and is going to be a nightmare for the poor fellas in Enforcement...

Best post in the whole damn thread

What if you set up on a long logging road 100 yds from where a feeder is off the road, in the thick pines, and out of sight. If you killed a deer crossing the road headed to the feeder, would that be baiting or feeding?

your FIL should have been told by the landowner that there was bait. Don't see how that would be a good example of how this law is going to help. My only sympathy would be for a landowner who feeds year around but hunts in completely different areas than his feeders but had some GW interpret the law in the wrong way....I'm sure this has happened but not enough to pass another BS law that creates more questions and problems than solutions.

As for high fence areas...who gives a rats arse? Let them kill deer tied to trees, at night, over feeders...NO HUNTING LAWS should be designed around high fence deer farms. Hunting laws should without question be written based on free range/ fair chase only.

By the way, take a foodplot with a a couple of cedar trees out in the middle...place a feeder behind the cedar trees at 101 yds from your stand. This is completely legal according to one of the CAB members. Please tell me how this isn't legalizing baiting. If you are pro baiting, fine, but don't tell me that you believe this law does anything productive in regards to defining area for the sole purpose of allowing land managers to feed (not bait) year around.

you sure about that?

Year round supplemental feeding doesn't have to be sack feed, a food plot that has been fertilized, even if it is only natural weeds that deer eat or a green field should be legal as I read the proposal.

I'd be very curious to know how many tickets are written annually for situations involving someone feeding their deer but hunting 400+ yds away and out of sight of a feeder. I bet it is minimal at best. A few on here act like this is a huge problem, but it's really not. Those that feed but don't push the limits on hunting near the feed are not in jeopardy of getting ticketed 99% of the time. It would take a corrupt GW and then even at that would likely get thrown out by the judge.

Sounds like you like to feed on your property but don't want anyone else to.

Just because the local GW in YOUR area let's it slide......that does not make it legal and is the problem in itself! No consistency!

Well said sir!

Also, in talking to a couple of locals at our Courthouse......MANY cases have been being thrown out once they make it to the Courthouse.

Total waste of time for the GW AND the person thicketed if the Law is so vague that the case gets thrown out if contested.

Like I said earlier in the thread.....either make it legal or illegal and be done with the whole Area thing. It is impossible to satisfy people with the definition of Area, and it only leads to confusion for the wardens.

if you are referring to me you would be wrong. I am and always have been completely apposed to being able to hunt over a pile of corn or a feeder. And for the record I haven't seen a GW on my place in over 20 years so I don't know how they used to interpret the old law. I am against this law because this law makes it legal to hunt over a bait pile or feeder, plain and simple. I'm not opposed to year around feeding...so my point is the law should have been 350 yds. (minimum) and out of the line of sight. I and most others that don't want baiting legalized would have been 100% fine with that distance...IMO

agree with you here...but you have to admit the 100 yds was purposely used to help Moultrie and the Ainsworth clan and the other's that would like to see feeders legal to hunt over. that's all I'm saying

I fixed it:

I agree and concur...with both of you.