Rumor coming thru.. (Baiting Bill)

Friend of a friend who is apparently a guy in the know, claims the baiting bill passed the senate today...

Can anybody confirm this.

Whild Bill, can you please confirm for us?

According to Alison it was read for the first time and referred to the Senate committee:

http://alisondb.legislature.state.a...t.ASPX?BILL=HB21&WIN_TYPE=BillResult


Scroll to the bottom for the 2/27 posting

Haven't heard that. It is in committee though.

You guys also need to keep tabs on SB271. This will be another common theme I'm afraid.

Something similar to this 271 has been introduced in the past, hasn't it?

Are there other states with Ag and DNR departments merged like this?

There are some that have made that transition. None have been for the better. Ag & Industry / Ag & Forestry agencies rarely have any enforcement wing. Ours doesn't and is already underfunded.

It has been used in other states to get breeders out from under the purview of Wildlife agencies. Not sure of the intent here but that isn't a desirable outcome.

Seems like I recall an effort in 2016 or within the last couple of years in Missouri to do this, specifically with the breeders in mind as the beneficiaries.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.a...t.ASPX?BILL=HB21&WIN_TYPE=BillResult

2-22 According to this it was read for the first time in the Senate and referred to the Senate commission on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.
Today the report from Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry was favorable. Yea 6 Nay 1

Sounds like it may get a vote this year, especially with Gov. LovePecker not piddlin' around to muck up the Session.

From what I saw, the house bill and the senate bill were different. I may have been looking at a old senate bill but they were different.

Dr. B

Maybe someone who knows more about this will be able to enlighten me, but I would bet that the fine for baiting, even though now it will just be baiting without a license or permit, will remain the same. Also I foresee a lot of tickets for folks not having this baiting permit, if it does come to fruition. New rules will have to be put in place in hunting clubs, people will get pissed for extra pressure on the deer because of filling feeders all the time, yada yada yada.

We have feeders that hold 650 lbs and it takes the deer awhile to empty one of them. Will really be no different than this year except you will be able to hunt right over it as opposed to being out of sight and at least a100 yds away from your stand.

It passed the ag committee yesterday which is a huge step. The past several bills had never made it past that point. It still has to be presented on the senate floor but that should happen shortly. Jack Williams has made sure that he has the amount of support in the senate that is needed to push it through.

God please let this fail!

I hope it passes with flying colors and everyone around me puts out tons of corn.......maybe then I can see more deer than bears lol

All this will do is force those of us that don't put out corn to start using feeders to avoid being left behind. I'm perfectly happy with planting the best food plots that I can. The deer get a whole lot more benefit for a longer period of time from properly planted green fields than corn not to even mention the summer planting we do. Feeders give the greatest benefit to the lazy sobs that don't give the time and effort for long-term benefits of food plots

Yea sure.

Would suit me fine for no food plots or feeding/baiting.

I don't see any bears, but maybe I can keep up with my neighbors who keep it out all year.

Ron, i would be willing to bet the guys with the biggest and best taken care of green fields and food plots are the same guys with the biggest and most feeders. Two pieces of the same puzzle.

maybe or maybe not. I'm a food plotting son of a gun. I plant spring, summer and fall and 95% of my hunting is on food plots but the only time I ever put out corn or rice bran is before or after the season in front of game cams

and in our case will have more damn hogs than we currently have and we have way to many now.

That may be the case IF you are the only one feeding in a very large area.

But, it will not make hogs appear out of thin air.
If ‘everybody’ baits the way people claim......they will stay well-distributed. It will actually nullify the effect of ‘baiting’.

Not that it matters here, but I did get an email today saying that the Georgia State Senate approved Bill 450. This removed the 200 yard and out-of-sight rule for their Northern Zone. Bill now has to go to the House.

Question for those opposed, saying that greenfields won’t matter any more, I have to bakt now since everyone else is, etc. Have you ever killed a deer off a greenfield (or in the woods eating acorns or other natural browse) and when you gutted it found corn in there? Obviously someone somewhere close by had corn out and the deer was still eating from the greenfield

Honestly shouldn’t affect deer movement. Corn doesn’t make em go nocturnal like everyone thinks. Those greenfields are there 24/7 and deer eat them at night as well.

I just don’t follow the logic behind some of the naysayers. Some, ok, I can understand their angle, others, just don’t make good sense

I'm opposed because (a) it makes hunting more expensive, as you will have to bait just to keep up with the Joneses, (2) it gives hunting a bad name, (3) it puts people in the woods more often to fill up feeders, thereby creating more "pressure," (4) the increased likelihood of diseases and predators.

And before you say that planting food plots can be keeping up with the Joneses, then consider how different those expenses are. It doesn't hit you every 7 days like a feeder does.

You must be using a crappy feeder to have to fill it once a week.

I am all for it.

If you search hard enough you might find a valid reason for not baiting but the four you listed are not valid. Number 4 is closest. Still if the bill passes no one HAS to bait. Have allowed baiting in Georgia, southern zone, for years and no ill effect on the deer. Likely all of Georgia will allow baiting next year as today the senate there passed a bill allowing it that now goes to their house.

This thing is all but a done meal. Buddy of mine has a friend in the know. Might buy some corn stocks because we think farmers are going to be planting more corn

There you go! Something else good coming from a baiting bill, it will help the farmers.

Won't affect corn usage. Already a bunch being used.

I sure hope it passes!! I enjoy supplemental feeding year around as well as providing the best food plots in the area. It's just another tool for us folks that are serious about providing our deer herd with the best opportunity to reach their maximum potential. A lot of you fella's are only seeing the negative side, trust me their is a positive to it becoming legal if you are willing to do it the right way.

Ats right.

Baiting sucks!!!!!
FN woos boys!!!

Everyone knows sweet taters is where's it's at!

So will you buy your corn at Dick's or Wal Mart?

I'm thinking both

You can have the corn and sweet taters, peanuts is where it's at.

Roasted Soybeans to add.

Peanut Butter!!!,

hell ,,,, ever body knows all you need is a little Clorox and a few used tampons .

No doubt, when you have corn vending machines popping up I would say you have a ton of people already baiting, I know a lot of folks putting out corn are not hunting over it but I am sure a lot are..

Bill has been read a second time and placed on calendar. Pending 3 rd reading

So can we hunt turkeys with bait as well in this Bill or do we have to stop feeding for turkey season again? What if half a club has a permit to feed and half the club does not? Does that just mean 100 yrs and out of site still for the ones with no permit? This may be the dumbest bill ever. Make it legal or illegal for all animals and move along

Oh, you already have valid, logical questions.

Stupid legislators with the "Pass it and figure it out later, it's really simple anyway" mentality.

NO way they should ever legalize hunting turkeys over bait. Turkeys only move during daylight hours and it would be a slaughter if you could legally bait them.

Wait, baiting is OK for wildlife, though. Isn't it? It's helpful along with food plots and vegetation management by giving them another supplemental food source?

Turkeys would be OK. No big deal.

I see no difference.

The people who would bushwhack them over bait are already doing it.

The Purists who prefer to hunt in the traditional manner will continue to do so.

I was being a bit facetious, since I don't hunt with bait for them and think it could definitely have an impact.

But lack of wording, or the "pass it, let DCNR figure out all that other crap" mentality with no thought to various rabbit holes, is typical Legislator 101.

I am just gonna say this....and, never tell any names!

But, I get to hunt a LOT of properties for hogs. As a matter of fact, saome very exclusive properties with outstanding hunting!!

There is ALREADY so much bait/Supplemental Feed being put out now, I honsestky do not know how on Earth it will change anything for the Wildlife!!!

Just because someone is baiting/Feeding does not mean they are exploiting the Resources.
As a matter of fact, I normally find it to be just the opposite.

I saw something at the beginning of the week on our local news saying the baiting bill passed and is would add $16 to your license if you wanted to hunt over bait! I wish I could find the report!

I has not and will not pass.

It just depends on how they decide to compromise between this and SB271.
It is all Politics nowadays.

Other than not hunting at night. I think it's a bit ridiculous that make laws how to hunt on private property.

Its a done deal

Its not going to change anything here. Everyone feeds anyways. (Well baits)
At least you wont have worries about being too close to some put out you didn't know of. And after 1 year of shooting everything with their nose in a corn pile the deer will only be seen at midnight till 3 am at them. Then all the city hunters that dont see a trophy buck every Saturday morning They can complain about the deer are all dead because the corn hunting.
Corn only helps to a point once a deer figures it out they are as nervous as a Ho on judgment day..
And Id bet during hunting season there is corn on 90% of the private land and EVERY back yard with a spot light all on it has a pile anyways.

Ok

It won't really change much if it passes.......

^^^

Ahhhhhh Texas, how ive missed you....

Lot of assumptions that you have little idea about and are not true.

But, OK.

https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB21/2018

!!!!If anyone wants to keep up with it go to the above link!!!!

https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB21/2018

Looks like unless it is changed again that the out of state $50 per license was not included, it is $15 per license yearly. Anybody know when calendar day 17 is?

Tomorrow

Thanks

So if you only hunt your own property do you still have to pay the $15 ?

The way I read it, yes, if you opt to use bait in a legal manner.

I do believe it will cause deer harvest numbers to increase, does and young bucks especially.

Amazing that one will be able to buy themself out of being illegal.

Really?

You didn't really think about that before you posted it, did you?

I buy a hunting license or it's illegal for me to hunt. I buy a drivers license or it's illegal for me to drive..... do I need to continue?

Yep I did. And from what I hear from some on here, you included, there is a lot of illegal baiting going on now. So yes, if passed the State will let one by their way out of being illegal and make the legal illegal if they don't by their way out because somebody thought that corn was the magic bullet to kill a deer.

hypothetically speaking of course. This might reduce some pressure on clubs. For instance, You dont wanna a feeder that can be seen, so you go every week and pour out a few bags of corn. With this new bill, You just fill up the feeder and hunt over it.

You have always been able to feed. The illegal part has been hunting over it. That said, if the law becomes less restrictive, why do you need to buy anything. Keep doing what you are doing being legal and not hunting over feed and you are fine. Where is it that you "must" buy a permit? A better argument would be just to go ahead and say I just don't want others to be able to do it or this is a screwed up bill and it should just be legal to start with.

On that note, i bought my way out of being illegal last week. I bought myself a renewal of my driver's license. The horror of that.

Let's say, to the post above ^^, that I don't want to hunt anywhere near the "bait" during deer season. Nada.

But I or my club/group have a feeder out with corn/protein in it on another part of the property - let's call it the Whild Bill Sanctuary - and it's a brazillion yards away over three pastures and teh swamp and creek nowhere near where we hunt.

That's "supplemental feeding" and not baiting.

Will the "privilege permit" still be required? Because if so then that's bullchit.

Now that would have legs as an argument. Then you have been infringed. Sad that it even has to be a discussion. Should just be either legal or illegal depending on your position and not be a fee or permit. I personally think it should be completely legal since not detrimental to the population and move on.

100 yards and out of site is supplemental feeding and not "hunting with aid of bait."

That has been established.

If this new "privilege permit" requires a fee for ANY distribution of supplemental feed - such as a feeder in a non-hunted sanctuary area - then that's horsechit.

It's horsechit anyway, but it would be an extra steaming hot pile of horsechit.

Amazing that one will be able to buy themself out of being illegal.[/quote]

Really?

You didn't really think about that before you posted it, did you?
[/quote]

Yep I did. And from what I hear from some on here, you included, there is a lot of illegal baiting going on now. So yes, if passed the State will let one by their way out of being illegal and make the legal illegal if they don't by their way out because somebody thought that corn was the magic bullet to kill a deer.[/quote]

You have always been able to feed. The illegal part has been hunting over it. That said, if the law becomes less restrictive, why do you need to buy anything. Keep doing what you are doing being legal and not hunting over feed and you are fine. Where is it that you "must" buy a permit? A better argument would be just to go ahead and say I just don't want others to be able to do it or this is a screwed up bill and it should just be legal to start with.

On that note, i bought my way out of being illegal last week. I bought myself a renewal of my driver's license. The horror of that.
[/quote]


If a person doesn't hunt for survival, hunting is a "sport" are there any other "sports" that don't have "rules" that the game is played by? Are there any other "sports that use public resources (in this instance free range deer) that don't have rules in place to protect the public resource?

The "sport" currently has rules and regulations and will have regardless of this. Probably need a better analogy as I don't see the relevance. Where does it say this is detrimental to the herd?

So is it up for Vote today like someone stated yesterday??

I think it's supposed to be read again on a 17th

Today is the 17th legislative day. Been listening to chamber audio

Worse than that is you don't buy a permit but the ones that did put bait in your favorite area. Are you supposed to just give it up? or you go in and hunt not knowing JoBob put out corn and gamewarden pulls up your in same boat as now.
So basically if your going to hunt you have to buy the bait permit.

All this is bologna......Its 15 damn dollars!!!!......As expensive as hunting is and as much money as we spend to deer hunt, 15 dollars is nothing.

I don't give a chit if it's 15 cents.

The principle is the same: either make it legal or don't but we shouldn't be hit with a "privilege" fee for this.

Right now our annual resident hunting license is about 25 bucks. Let's go ahead and make it $40. It's just 15 damn dollars! Why not?

But my Lifetime License was bought with the understanding that I wouldn't ever have to pay to hunt again. I understand that I don't have to buy the permit and hunt over corn, but if one guy in a club does then we all have to. Either make it straight up illegal or legal and quit trying to put stipulations on it.

And duck stamps are different because they were in effect when I got my Lifetime License.

Ask the DCNR.

It was a compromise to offset the loss of Revenue from tickets is what it states.

Geez, just tack on $15 to the license fees going forward and be done with it. It's amazing that they can have language in the bill/law that collects additional money, yet nowhere in said bill does it declare what fund or otherwise what the money will go towards.

Make it legal period and increase the license simultaneously. Don't call it a permit fee. Lifetime license holders don't do anything differently. Landowners don't do anything differently. Clubs can choose to do whatever the heck they want.

By calling it a DCNR license, it earmarks the moneys for the Conservation Dept.

I do not think that the current Law allows such an increase in license.
But, they CAN add a fee.

Or a "permit."

Similar to other states (Tennessee, Mississippi) where you buy a hunting license and then also have to buy a permit for bow, gun, muzzleloader or crossbow.

(That will come next. Bank on it.)

I do not doubt that.

Did they discuss or vote on the bill today? I tried to get the Senate audio/video, but it never would load for me.

On principle I agree with most of you...legalize it or don't, but forget making it a privilege tax. But let's get real. This is politics. No one gets exactly what they want in politics. DCNR is not going to give up the cash cow of baiting tickets without replacing the funds somehow. If we want to be done with the ridiculous baiting ban, we are going to have to pay for it. It's worth 15 bucks a year to me.

This means baiting will be mandatory, right?

LIfe never promised you a rose garden.

The State did, but the State also promised thousands of Alabamians that if you paid into the PACT they would guaranty paying for college tuition too. The honorable Kay Ivey said screw all of those folks, we stole their money and they can't do a damn thing about it, so shoo on little peasants!! Yeah the State dones a fine job indeed!!

I do disagree with this bill and think it should be straight up legal. However, if this bill does pass, it would be nice to have those that bought lifetime licenses grandfathered in so they don't have to purchase anything. That was the promise made when they purchased the license.

There is absolutely nothing in this Bill that will prohibit ANYONE from hunting.

She certainly did and when they were confronted with the literature that had the word "guarantee" in it and asked what that meant, she said that really didn't mean it would be absolutely paid but the term "guarantee" was just a term used as a marketing ploy. I'll never trust the state again to make good on a guarantee. I got my Lifetime license before I bought my two PACT contracts. If it had been the other way around, I probably wouldn't have bought a Lifetime License. Not that I bought it anyways, it was a gift from my wife, well, fiancée at the time so my future wife.

Do you live here? Because your very welcome too come out and see

I see the bill is listed as being "engrossed", what is the legal status in layman's terms?

I think it means it’s the final version after both sides have made changes, but I am not sure.

Got this from the Alabama Legislature page "Alabama Legislative Glossary:

"ENGROSSMENT. The incorporation of amendments into a bill or resolution before it is sent to the second house".

Probably insignificant changes like more fees or some type of added ambiguity

It became engrossed when it was sent to the Senate.

Probably trying to figure out a way to make it confusing, and they can't leave out a grey area, got to be a loophole somewhere.

It got bogged down yesterday while they filibustered over a Law about people having ‘Service Cats’!

I believe that they do away with all Deputy GW positions. It is no longer a title, or position, with the DCNR.

You guys should really tune in to the audio and listen to our tax money at work.

So if it didn't get read yesterday as planned, will it just move to first up today or start over?

I just hope enough of these baiting "privilege licenses," if this passes, are sold so the money meets the federal threshhold for returned matching dollars. If not enough are sold then the legislators can get their hands on it like with the state park money - which isn't dedicated.

So they talked about cats yesterday, they are not in session today and will be back at 9:30 on Thursday. And I just wasted 15 minutes trying to get the audio to work.

Got to find some ambiguous law they can issue a $500 ticket for.

I listened to 3 hours yesterday. It's amazing how things are done. I'm sure there are reasons but it made my head explode.

[quote=Hogwild]It got bogged down yesterday while they filibustered over a Law about people having ‘Service Cats’!

I believe that they do away with all Deputy GW positions. It is no longer a title, or position, with the DCNR.

You guys should really tune in to the audio and listen to our tax money at work.[/quote

You serious Clark? What a great utilization of time by our elected officials....smh

Yes please let it fail. I would love for us to go back to real "Fair Chase" laws. No Feeding!

Yea cause corn is a new invention

Im with you exciteman but don't think it will ever happen this time.

If it fails then you are still stuck with the 100 yards crap that even the state can't all get together on what it means.

I may be remembering it wrong but as I recall the 100 yards and out of sight rule still had some kind of vague "If it helped with your hunt" wording that pretty much allowed a GW the ability to ticket you at their discretion even if you were 100 yards away and not in direct line of sight. Yep, that vague crap needs to go.

Not only is the 100 yard rule a little vague, but the GW's have their interpretation and the judges have theirs also.

^^^^ so true @ 257. That lush green patch full of oats, wheat, etc. is primitve.

I dont care one way or the other. It is amazing the people that are against it, WHY? If you dont like it, dont agree with it, Dont Do it, dont buy the bait license. Hunt strict “Fair Chase”.. Nothing changes for you. Why would you care if someone throws corn? If your such a naturalist, why aren’t you standing up against the high fence deer hunting?

Good luck getting a straight answer in response to that question that makes any sense. I never have.

JMO but I imagine anyone against baiting is probably vehemently against high fences. I could be wrong.

My opinion is this,..if someone wants to use corn..let him. It is no silver bullet to kill deer believe me. We use corn in KY but we sure didnt kill any big bucks eating it. Im sure some folks do..good for them.

I dont give a flying EFF what other people do. If it is legal then good luck.

The idea of being against it because you dont like it?

Well, that is the same logic the liberals use over our guns. Since they dont like it...noone should be able to have them.

If you think youre going to have more baiting just because they make it legal youre pretty wrong. People are already baiting..oops..I mean supplemental feeding now.

They still will no matter what the law changes to. So Im all for it...each their own. Either make it legal, or illegal...but this mamby pamby halfway laws like out of line of sight and over 100 yards type stuff is a freaking joke.

I probably wont feed any but if someone else wants to have at it.

Just because you dont agree with it, or do it ...well thats your opinion.

But dont FORCE your standards on others because you dont like it. Thats what liberals do....IMO.

Its not hard to find people against high fence hunting. With the fence all you gotta do is stay out of it. With corn it will change the movement of the deer and if you don't feed at all on your property then your neighbor is going to suck a good bit from you. So basically if it passes then everyone is effected.

I give you a straight answer on why I don't like the idea. Our neighbors are all wealthy people who, as judged by the past have no problem hunting over corn. One in fact was buying a ton and a half a week before the GW shut them down. Just as people don't like neighbors with a brown is down mentality, I don't have the funds nor the desire to get into a corn-a-thon war with our neighbor. It's as simple as that.

If it does pass though, I'll live but I don't like anything other than it is legal or it is illegal. No 100 yards crap that the state it that passed that can't even all get on the same page about and no buying permits. To me that is like the state selling permits that will allow you to go 15 MPH over the posted speed without getting a ticket. That is why I would rather see them just say it is legal with no stipulations if they are going to allow it.

So if the people whose land bordered your hunting club high fenced their land it wouldn't affect deer movement? Hmmm, good to know.



Possibly but then you could say the same thing about your neighbor planting green patches. Wouldn't they attract deer to his land if he had them and you didn't?

Money has always created advantages for people. And not just in hunting. There are members here at Aldeer that have the money to lease land in 2 or 3 places in Alabama and in several other states as well. I can't afford that. As a result they kill more deer and turkeys than I do every year. Should we make that illegal because it gives them an advantage over people like me?

Besides the truly well off can just plant whole corn fields and hunt over them now. I can't afford to do that. Have to make that illegal too I guess.

whats funny is when my land owners plants corn or soy beans in the ag fields and we hunt over them we're legal. But if i pour out corn in a food plot in the woods a hundred yards away from ag field and hunt over it, now I'm illegal.

You can get a straight answer but ask 5 people the same question and you'll get 5 different straight answers. That's the problem, they don't want clarity, it would eliminate individual interpretation

To be clear I am against high fence and corn. And yes if the fence was bordering your property it would affect you some. But not that much different from a river or something like that. And yes I know deer can swim but you know what I mean. My reason for corn is pretty much same as jawbone. We had a baiter in our club this year for a while. It only took a short time in a tree to tell when you had stumbled up on a "hot spot". I saw first hand how much different the deer moved so if it passes I will be hunting over it because im sure not wasting my time beside somebody that is without it.

It's just different now! Soo much corn in the woods! May not be from you.... But, tell that to the warden... when someone drops a load in the woods during the week and you climb in to your stand Saturday am before the sun rises, not knowing it's there... And you GET the ticket..
I paid $1100. to a club that I couldn't hunt after 13 years of being a member, because members puts it out everywhere. They hear every other club around is doing it to... so why not! This year the farmers I know sold more corn than ever and sold all they had. I love how it was in AL 25 years ago & we harvested some fine deer... now we hear about everyone else harvesting their deer on corn piles. Would like to see it pass so I don't have to look over my shoulder when I hunt, not knowing what's been put out around me...

Anybody hear if it got read in todays session?

If it's legal what's the big deal then. Other than you just choosing to gripe and moan about it. Your sinful neighbor would be legal. You could just as easily put out some corn, never mind that all your deer will then become nocturnal. What's the big deal other than some moral obligation against it. You go out to the Midwest on a guided hunt there's an above average chance there will be corn out, I bet you won't be shunning it then.

Looks like HB21 is now SB61:

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2018RS/PrintFiles/SB61-int.pdf

No.....that is a Bill that was introduced in the Senate.

It is still HB21.

So are they going to read this crazy thing or not? And vote

I hope you are not serious about that statement. I happen to believe that stealing is wrong. Others may call it justified because they don't have anything or because 'everyone else does it.' I happen to believe shooting up heroin is wrong, some don't. I believe hunting at night is wrong, some don't. Some people think it is OK to have an unsafe workplace so long as you are making money. Others may disagree. Just because you don't agree that something is wrong doesn't mean that it should be legal. If we all got to decide what we thought was legal just by our own opinions, it would be chaos.

Laws are made for the greater good of ALL. The questions we should be asking are - is baiting good for hunting or otherwise good for a healthy deer population or for the good of the most people? My answer to those questions are (1) maybe if the benefits (arguable) of baiting make people enjoy hunting more outweigh the negative publicity of hunting over bait, (2) no - baiting will not improve the deer population, and (3) baiting is good for people who sell bait and bait dispensing devices, so maybe it's good for the economy, but does it take away from the part of the hunting economy devoted to planting, improving existing habitat, native browse, etc?

That's two maybes and a no. Equals a no to me.

I wonder if a county could prohibit any kind of baiting, hunting with bait, supplemental feeding or any other kind of thing like that (minerals, use of urine) similar to how Randolph County voted to ban dog deer hunting.

That was back, I think, in the early 1980s. The residents got it put on the ballot and then voted on it.

Loss of money from sales of "Deer Corn" or other products probably wouldn't go over well, though.

Unless Supplemental Feeding is made illegal by Law or an Emergency decree by the DCNR; Baiting will be legal.

Just the way it is.

Maybe they will get to it next Tuesday.

Neither high fence nor baiting bothers me where it is legal. I don’t plan on hunting in a fence and if baiting is legalized it will do me zero good with the bear population around here.

Im pretty sure I said IF ITS LEGAL.

I know first hand how it is from hunting KY. It can be a pain in the butt. And we did not see big bucks just coming into corn.

We dont use it here, my neighbors dont either. But if they make it legal and people want to use it..good luck. They are going to be pretty disappointed. They know its not natural and use it after dark.

However, the current law as it stands with supplemental feeding is too ambiguous .
Either make it LEGAL, or ILLEGAL but this halfway between either things is just not sound policy.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner! We had feeding allowed for years while in Georgia. Our club elected not to and saw no different in our harvest rate. Our folks chose to hunt over corn or other feed and it did not bother us. Just do not understand why some people are so against it. Their most VALID reason is; "I do not want to." Well okay don't but if made legal stop worrying so much about how others are hunting. I no longer hunt with a bow but have no problems with those that do. Same with dog hunting or folks that just enjoy small game hunting or ....... Why get so upset about others are hunting?

Sorry this is just not a valid or true statement. Just check with some folks who have hunted in areas that allowed feeding and you will find that it has not proven to be a problem.

just buy more corn than your neighbor...... and you'll be good to go

I live where baiting is legal..... your neighbor can own 5 acres and put out 50 bags of corn and slaughter the deer when typically they wouldn't have much luck.
Mature bucks come to corn early bow season. Mature bucks follow doe to corn during the rut.
Where I live deer prefer corn to food plots.
A cellular trail camera and a corn pile is absolutely lethal. Pour out 10 bags in a 30x30 area. Hang stand 25 yards away for the predominate wind. Hang camera. Don't step foot into the tree unless the buck comes in daylight and conditions are perfect. You'll kill him

I do not agree with all of the ‘extra’ time that bow hunters get.

Nor do I like the fact that Public Land has far more time alocated for bow hunting than for all other types combined.

So what?

And those are things that DO directly affect me and utilize my Tax dollars to provide.

Bow hunters kill a tiny fraction of the deer harvested. It's a way to have open hunting without decimating the population with guns. Plus anybody can get a bow and go if they'd like

I dont think those bastards can read........

And, in turn, if people do not care to supplemental feed, or bait, on their property; they do not have to.

Rumor is the bill is pretty much dead. Biologist lobbied against it and got the votes knocked down...

So when will they meet again?

I heard the same.

But, I still have not heard an Official word on that.
Nor have I heard any Official Statement from the DCNR dissuading (much less banning) Supplemental Feeding.

Evidently, prions somehow know the difference??

By they time they pass legislation with no limits for baiting, corn will be so high nobody will be able to hunt over it they will have to eat it.

The next session is Tuesday

Why and what is their argument??

The NPA (national plotter association) done broke out the big cash!!!

That's pretty funny Danny and spot on! For those that didnt read between the lines:

And that right there proves the whole supplemental feeding BS rule we currently have is both politically and $$ driven. If the "biologists" are so dang concerned about deer transmitting disease at feed stations due to the recent discovery of CWD in MS, where is the new law calling for the immediate banning of all supplemental feeding in AL. Certainly there are not 2 different standards being applied here, are there?

GREAT point. If the biologists are against hunting over bait, then they should be opposed to the current supplemental rule.

Regulation that defines hunters area as it relates to the bait law, which hunters use to do their supplemental feeding(hunter term) is a DCNR rule

I think that we both agree that a Legal Regulation, nor Law, should be in place about this that can be dependent on the Growth Stage of the Native Vegetation. If a feeder is legally placed when the woods are full of leaves and greenery in October. Then it should still e legal in January after the vegetation dies and the leaves fall off.

Also, I think that all of the Politics and deal making going on behind the scenes right is ridiculous!
It is also hypocritical of anyone in the DCNR to complain about Politics with the way things have been run the past few years. You are now an OFFICIAL part of the Machine! LOL

It will be back on the floor next week.
I feel sure that someone will 'give' a little somewhere and there will be an amendment, though.

I would imagine that SB271 is involved in the negotiation, too.

And, since that Committee passed HB21 right on through......It is coming one way or the other.

Politics are dirty business........

I don't know if we agree or don't agree, I was just pointing out the different entities that passed or didn't pass what rules. Legislature passed bait law as currently exists in 1972 I believe,and the legislature is currently debating, voting on, passing or letting die a new law concerning baiting. The DCNR promulgated a regulation that defines the hunters area in the current bait law. Just pointing out which entity did what, don't have an opinion for or against new law or said politics you refer too

What is the difference in sb271 and hb21?

Hb has a fee associated and sb doesn’t??

Who’s sig line is “hunting politics is stupid”? I think that about sums it up. In Alabama baiting is the hot issue. In NC and SC I can’t figure out why hunting on public land on Sunday is illegal but you can hunt on private on Sunday. In both cases it’s messed up like a soup sammich. Facts don’t really matter, it’s all about if the right pockets get lined.

Has the question been answered of which would produce more money for the state?......catching illegal baiters at $500 a pop or requiring a permit at $15 a pop? As everybody knows...always follow the money...

Id guess the 15 dollar fee.

SB271 will place the DCNR under the Dept of Ag & Forestry.....whose Committee voted to recommend HB21 (Baiting Bill) for passage by the Senate.

I didn’t see the fee along with sb271

All the while this happnin........im over here in MARSHALL COUNTY............heeeeeellllllllloooooooo.......anybody out there wanna come make me sum tukeez....gobble gobblee......ohhhhhhh nobody cares....one day....

It’s all about the money

I wouldn't say that. The 15.00 fee would have to blow the tickets out of the water wouldn't it?

I'd guess the $15 will produce a lot more revenue for the dept than $500 fine monies ever will.

who gives a shucks, bait no -no bait, most folks gona do what they want to !!!!

Our government has limited powers by nature, so it tends to hoard what few powers the people have given it. Once government has the right to stop people from doing something they want to do, it almost never hands it back to the people for free. Why does Alabama have a 56% tax on liquor? Because during prohibition we voted to allow the state to take away our right to drink alcohol. And then when we wanted it back, the state said ok, but you will have to pay for it. The state is not going to freely give us back a right to bait deer without a significant revenue opportunity.

I dont use bait but I will pay the fee to cover myself in case someone else (such as a neighboring land owner) puts out some corn. I have a field in the northeast corner of my place that I heard a spin feeder throw corn at 3:00 and again at 3:30 during the season. I do not know where it is (it is was more than 100 yards away) but I could hear it plain as day. I did not hunt that stand after that for fear the GW would write me up. It is unfortunate that a neighbors bait could result in my getting a ticket.

With the fee being paid, I will view it like having uninsured motorist on my auto policy.

You cannot receive a ticket for a feeder that you cannot see on your neighbor's property.

And, I would wager that any ticket written for hunting over one in plain sight on property that you do not own, lease or otherwise control or have access to would easily be beaten in Court.

I think they should make it illegal to hunt over food plots. Since they're worried about cwd. Fair chase means just that. Chased by a pack of smelly hounds. Since shooting them while they're trying to eat is unfair.

Like I said before. If we ban together, and threaten to stop buying hunting license. I'll bet things get changed quick fast and in a hurry.

And the hogs are happy.

It will most definitely cause people to find new ways to provide feed!

The best way I have found is exclusion fences and gravity feeders.

To make it even more like shooting fish in a barrel!

Yep!

High sides and trap doors work best!!!!

Danny, you seem to think the bill is dead this year, or will SB271 some how get it passed? I think that unless there is contamination from prions then there is no way any deer can get the disease. If you aren't exposed to poison ivy, the claps, measles or anything that has an effect on your body you aren't going to get it. The baiting has no affect either way, unless the prions are in the area and if they are there then the baiting part isn't going to matter that much..

It is being negotiated.....that is all I know.

It is supposed to come up on the floor again this coming week.
I kind of expect to see an amendment to it.
Or, quite possibly, it Passes on through and SB271 just kinda dies away.

I really don't understand why politicians should be the ones deciding one way or the other. Do they really even have a clue what's good or bad for wildlife?

There are too many people entirely obsessed to the point of total mania over wanting to hunt deer over piles of corn.

Thankfully, they are a small minority of Alabama hunters.

Unfortunately our system is set up in a way that our hunting rights/privileges are in the politicians hands but fortunately their job is in our hands so if we want to make changes then we may need to change them (replace them)

Like I just said - total delusional mania going on here.

They are not just "politicians" - they are ELECTED LEADERS - and they are not supposed to bow down and
approve every whim of man, especially small vocal minorities.
And with respect to hunting they are supposed to protect and safeguard the sacred tradition, not dumb it down.

I think we have enough dumbing down in this country already.

Whole country is going into the shchitter and you have a bunch of grown men on here whining and crying
and stomping their feet for corn baiting as if it is the end of the world issue of our time. Totally pathetic.

Ok

Only people I see whining so far are the ones FOR more Laws.
Laws only take Rights away.
They do not Grant them.

Notice he didn't mention nothing about the grown men on here whining and crying stomping their feet against corn baiting like it's the end of the world.

Exactly.

Heck I'm trying to figure out where he came up with that rant

CORN! CORN! CORN!!!!!

Stomp! Stomp! Stomp!

Yeah! That's the ticket!!

Wont they add $15 to general hunting liscense an just make it legal?

Ok I'm dumb and lost...i can't decipher what is going on...is it going to pass?

It's about participation trophies that's all. The rest is justification for getting one.

Your Aldeer handle should be Debbie Downer cause you sho ain't no damn Fun

Maybe it should be " fun4some, only if the government approves".

Just ribbing ya a little fun4all. No disrespect intended.

Where is written in stone about what hunting has to be?? So what if people sit over a corn pile. It’s silly to call that out at this point. Have you seen how we all hunt these days??...... I have…..from the old man sitting in a rusty bus in his backyard……to millionaires hunting “the cabin stand”…….to shooting houses with coffee pots and gas burning stoves…..to high fences with feeders the size of cars…….to farmers getting out in the hayfield and propping on the hood of the truck……..and so on. It seems really naïve to take a purist stance against feeders when hunting as a whole is nowhere near that fantasy.

The vast majority of us are driving “buggies” and sitting in shooting houses watching greenfields. That’s ok though…..Hunting doesn’t always have to be a struggle. Why can’t it just be fun? I’ve hunted my arse off to kill deer in the past and I just no longer have the desire to. I have nothing to prove to anyone anymore...including myself. Maybe I just want to sit there and drink my coffee, stay warm, and listen to the peace and quiet. Is that not ok too?

Good thoughts sir.

Good post and I think you are spot on! There is A LOT of hypocrisy between hunters judging how another person hunts. Hunting is supposed to be fun and that is defined differently by everybody.

Fantastic post sir. Well said.

Solid post, CNC.


Native Americans used fire, herded buffalo over cliffs and did what they needed to do. But they're hailed as slinky purists we're supposed to aspire to be.

Fred Bear is touted as the end-all beat-all bowhunting god guru father of bowhunting. He used bait. Didn't hide it.

Cowboys used the .45-70 and .30-30 for hunting but today those aren't enough caliber!

Crossbows? Waaaaahhhh! The drama llamas come out in herds.


The entire purist "you're not a real hunter" stuff is just egotistical bullshittery at its finest, just like fly fishing snobs who think someone with a strike indicator is some kind of horrid gump who doesn't know how to properly drift a No. 20 along a seam.

Great posts, CNC!

Night hunting with spot lights is next right? Hmm??

That's where I am. I love to go and love to watch them just don't care much about killing them anymore. I spend a lot of time and money keeping them around and happy. Turkeys are another story. I guess deer just haven't done as much to piss me off

I am sure you kill them with spears and a loin cloth. Get off your high horse about feeding. It doesn't have to affect you if you don't want it to. Hunt how you want. Quit trying to force your way on everyone else. Making feed legal doesn't force anything on you.

Maybe this will actually free up the boots on the ground to do other enforcement, like night hunting.

Or poaching.

CNC, you probably just made way too much sense. I think you may have just dropped the mic on this thread!

I hope

So now we know where YOU say the line should be drawn regarding methods that should not be legal for a recreational activity! The difference between me and you is the State says baiting is not a legal method to hunt deer or turkey, I have no problem with that. You evidently do
and want to State to change it to a method you want to use but not to another method that you don't want others to use? I believe that sums it up, correct?

What is the connection between baiting and wearing loin cloths and throwing spears??

I draw the line wherever the state law says in whichever state I am hunting or fishing. I respect all the laws, even those I disagree with. Less is better in my opinion when trying to regulate what someone else is doing as long as it doesn't affect others. If Chuck Sykes himself wants to light up his entire property and shoot them I could really care less if it's legal. That's the difference between you and I. You want to regulate everyone else based on your thoughts. I would love less regulation for all.

I know I know it would all be better if we would just all bow down and let Chuck regulate us more. That has worked well for the deer population, hunter satisfaction, youth recruitment, etc.

Get off your high horse about feeding. It doesn't have to affect you if you don't want it to. Hunt how you want. Quit trying to force your way on everyone else. Making feed legal doesn't force anything on you.

Why is it that someone who supports less regulation is accused of wanting to do whatever the argument is? I haven't shot a deer over corn. Plant spring and summer each year. Still think less regulation is better.

Shot a bunch of dove over many a non baited field. Still think the regulations are over the top.

Don't dog hunt. Think hunters should have every right to do it the entire rifle season in every county.

Bow hunt during rifle season. Think rifle hunters are great. See I didn't need more bow season. Less regulation still allows me to bow hunt.

More and more regulations will ultimately be detrimental to managing people's opinions about hunting.

I like the way you change baiting to "feeding" that sounds better doesn't it! Maybe ought to take your angst out on the State and all other governmental entities, they are the ones forcing their ways on everyone else. GameCheck comes to mind, 3 bucks in a year, 5 turkeys in a year, ad infinitum on restrictions for recreational activities. Or, is that okay because you don't think anybody should kill more than 3 bucks in a year, 5 turkeys in a year, catch more than 30 crappie per day, or keep crappie under 9" or 10" etc.? The list goes on regarding how the government forces their way. Should restrictions be placed on what caliber and type of gun you can hunt certain species with and when? Should seasons be placed on when you can hunt certain species?

How does not baiting hurt your hunt or my hunt or anyones hunting?

Serious question where do you think the line should be drawn between legal and not legal in this recreational activity called hunting?

Nice appendix too, Clem.

Preach.

It's especially galling coming from folks that do basically the exact same thing but just with a different type of bait. I'm still waiting for a clear concise explanation of how someone is a lazy slob hunter if they would sit in a tree stand overlooking a feeder if legalized but are not a lazy slob hunter for sitting in a shooting house overlooking a green field or a standing corn field. Of course I know why I haven't gotten an explanation on that point. Because it can be explained. It's the exact same activity. One doesn't require anymore skill, effort, or knowledge than the other.

LOL! I know right. If these guys are so concerned about what makes hunting easier then I guess they better quit using a scoped rifle. Because that makes deer hunting waaaaay easier than a corn feeder. LOL!

Not to mention these same "purist" probly have a trail cam on every tree too.

This purist wants to know when they are gonna vote on this thing again!?!?

Do you think that with the amount of corn out, it can change the flavor of deer? Like feeding out cattle?

Any update on where this is in the Legislature?

I don't care if it's legalized or not. But, I do have a couple of observations...

Calling it "feeding" or "supplemental feeding" vs calling it "baiting" is silly. Feeding/supplemental feeding is 100% legal right now. You can put whatever you want in your feeder right now to help your deer herd, and you can have as many feeders on your property with whatever magical concoction you choose to put in them as you desire to have. There are exactly zero laws against having feeders on your property now...they simply have to be 100+ yards and out of sight from where you're hunting. If you desire to call hunting over food plots "baiting" too, have at it. But, to have the stance that you're not able to provide your deer what you feel they need, then that's simply a falsehood...and not a valid argument for legalizing baiting.

I see several stating "less laws/regulations" as their stance on wanting baiting legalized. I see some of those same people wanting the state to limit the doe harvest statewide. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. If the state legalizes baiting but doesn't limit the doe harvest, how do you feel that will affect the state's deer herd? Not all "brown it's down" hunters are outlaws. But, they WILL use every legal means to continue with their "brown it's down" quest. No one talks about that gorilla in the room.

The EXTREME argument of the "against baiting" crowd saying that those "for baiting" obviously need a pile of corn to kill a deer is just stupid. The EXTREME counter-argument of the "for baiting" crowd that those "against baiting" should be running around in a loincloth with a spear is equally stupid. Just stop...both sides.

Like I said...I don't care either way. In proof-reading my post, it may appear as if I'm against it, but I'm really not. I just don't see any validity in the "I'm not allowed to feed my deer" argument, nor do I feel that it's ok to use "less laws" as an argument FOR baiting, but also be in favor of limiting doe harvest. You either feel that folks should be able to do what they want on their own property, or you don't. If you don't want to shoot does on your property, then don't. That's how you CHOOSE to manage your property...and how your neighbor CHOOSES to manage his property should be of no concern to you. Quite honestly, I don't mind a brown it's down neighbor. Deer don't seem to hang around there very often, and they see my place as a nice, unpressured spot to hang out.

Nice post Hunterbuck

More marbling. Could get our venison to USDA "Prime"...

Heck yeah! 2 votes yes for me!!

Anything yet?

Hey now...The Rob like hunting wear his loin cloth. But only during warm weather. Cold weather and loin cloth makes The Rob's hands look big.

As far as know, the proposed law does not require anyone to hunt over corn. So, it won't effect me either way. But I do enjoy reading y'alls "debate" about it so carry on.

I agree with most of this, but like we've covered ad nauseum, if you put out something, say corn, with intentions of drawing game in to kill it, that is baiting and is still illegal. No matter the distance or sight line. Supplemental feeding means you are not hunting over it .

Oh, I completely agree. I was simply giving leeway to the state's allowance of 100 yards and out of sight.

I've hunted around feeders many, many years, here in Fl. It's not the silver bullet some seem to think. I will say, it is a doe magnet. What happens when you have does? Bucks show up chasing, trying to cut one out, around mid January. It's no different than a spot that holds does naturally. Now, don't get me wrong. You can see bucks at a feeder, but not so much until it has been established for a few years. Fawns growing up around feeders, learn not to be afraid of them. Unless they witness momma or sister being shot. They get more nocturnal then. You most likely aren't gonna see Bullwinkle, at a feeder, during daylight hours, after the season has started.
I will say, people (especially kids) can learn a lot watching deer at a feeder. One thing I DO KNOW. There are no absolutes of, or about, anything, when it comes to deer hunting. As soon as you think you've figured it out. Well, you know.
Lastly, I have seen and killed more bucks in Al, without baiting, supplemental feeding, what ever you want to call it, than I have in Fl.
Just my $.02 observation from down here around a feeder.

Can't find anything that says whether they read it today or not. Has anyone hear or read anything on the timing of the next step? Thanks

They just gonna keep bringing this thing up every year until the right deal is made. Sombody says I will give you 10% tax on every bag of corn sold. Done the next day.

Its dead on arrival

Ben is that opinion or you have some information.

Talked with one of the ALFA lobbyist and he said the same Senators who have always been opposed are still opposed. He thinks it still has an uphill battle to pass this year.
I emailed one of the Legislators yesterday and got this response, "I think it will be on the floor of the Senate this week and it stands a very good chance of passing."

What's the status of 271 - the bill that would merge DCNR and the Department of Agriculture?

That's the one that's screwed up. Governor Peckerlover combined all the law enforcement agencies into this "big, streamlined unit!" and that failed. Doing the same with Ag and Wildlife likely would not have a good, positive outcome and possibly would be disastrous.

Everybody refers to Bentley as Gov Peckerlover....farthest thing from the truth. He may love his pecker but he’s knocking 80. That pecker has to have been shriveled for years. When you get to that age, it ain’t nothing but a quart jar of sagging balls. I bet the pecker ain’t seen the light of day for 20 years...


When Rebecca said there was no sex, i think she was right. That pecker been limp for years.

Lots of good points there. I have been pretty consistent in wanting less regulation, but I don't think it's inconsistent to want the dcnr to restrict the doe harvest enough that some areas don't become completely devoid of deer. If one guy owns a section of land and kills 5 does per season, that is probably sustainable. But if that section is owned in 16 blocks of 40 acres by 16 different people, and each one kills just one doe, then that is probably not sustainable.

The dcnr has a function and I think they have dropped the ball with the liberal doe harvest in areas with a lot of small landowners. This isn't complicated; Charles Kelley showed them how to do it for decades, and he did with limited regulations.

There is so much corn in the woods now that I don't think making it completely legal would make much difference to the deer. But I sure wish they would just make it either legal or illegal. The system now is confusing, and requiring a baiting license is politics of the worst sort.

I just hope they never make it legal to bait turkeys. They will have to radically shorten the season if they do.

My contacts say SB 271 has very little chance of passing. I know the Alabama Farmers Federation is against it.

PCP makes good points. The doe harvest needs working but I cant think how to make it work unless they tied total does removed from a parcel based on acerage but that would be a logistical nightmare. I would guess if anything was done that it would be tied to the licence insead of the property. Probably 3 bucks and 3 does. I hunt in a very poor area of the state and many of the locals kill more than 6 deer a year but they eat what they kill. It is more of subsistence hunting. I personally know of one man (with a small family) who the man and wife have very low wage jobs but refuse to get on any government assistance. Their meat diet is what he kills, be it deer, hogs or fish from the tombigbee. They have an impressive garden every year. We talked about the possibility of a doe limit and he said he would just have to eat more hogs. They are much more plentiful anyway.

Regarding the baiting\feeding law, I just want them to make it simple. No gray areas where some people think they are doing right and get a ticket because the GW looks at it differently. Black\white with no gray areas.

Is the guy a good hunter? I'd have to think he would be.


And if I was in his shoes I'd probably do whatever was needed whenever it was needed if I was feeding my family.

I would consider him an ethical hunter, not a brown its down hunter. He does not shoot babies. but if his family needed meat he probably would. So would I. He kills a lot of hogs though.

That's one good thing about our wildlife population. Deer and hogs are plentiful and, within the seasons or regs, you can do what is needed to put meat in the freezer for a family.

Why are they against it?

Why are they against it?
[/quote]

Because it basically combines the Dept of Ag and Dept of Conversation into one agency.

Because it basically combines the Dept of Ag and Dept of Conversation into one agency.[/quote]


I'm confused.....is the house bill and senate bill the same bill or different?

Agendas in action with the attempt to combine. In other states where this has been attempted, one aspect is the high fence breeders would benefit and the wildlife agency would be diminished or essentially dismantled.

I'm confused.....is the house bill and senate bill the same bill or different?[/quote]


SB 271 & HB21 are two seperate bills. HB21 is the "baiting bill or corn bill" & SB 271 is about combining the two agencies.
Clem is spot on about the effects of SB 271.

Is there a link to where I could read the entire bill? Can only find the status of the bill but can't read it......

SB 271 & HB21 are two seperate bills. HB21 is the "baiting bill or corn bill" & SB 271 is about combining the two agencies.
Clem is spot on about the effects of SB 271.[/quote]


So SB 271 does not include anything to do with baiting?

No.

Senate Bill 271 is about combining Ag and DCNR, and does not have anything to do with the baiting bills in the Senate and House.


Well ... nothing overt or clear in the writing. But there could be some "Welllll, I won't vote for that if we get to vote for this" chit going on. Sounds like neither one is going to get a vote. Still a bunch of time left, though.

^^^^^^^^^^thanks Clem!!

Actually, it was not a good post and was not "spot on."

It was silly nonsense for this reason: it has always for generations until now been etched in stone that hunting had to be based on the
principle of FAIR CHASE, hence bating via corn piles (deer) and crop seeds like wheat (birds) were banned. The point being to preserve
the hunting tradition with a sense of honor and honor code based on fair chase, and to also promote woodsmenship skills.

"Preserve the hunting tradition" Wait Aren't you against dog hunting?

So I have to give up my compound bow, now?

What woodsmanship skills does it take to sit in a shooting house over a green patch? Could you list them alphabetically and I'll take notes.

please inform us how hunting should be done.

"If you don't hunt like I hunt, then you are a worthless poacher."

Brother, sounds like you've stepped in deep DO-DO and have no way to back out.

I guess we need to all go back to making our own bows and arrows (no steel arrows tips so better learn flint napping), but didn’t the plains Indians use horses to run/herd bison off of cliffs? Maybe somebody should have told them about fairchase and all that stuff.

To the extent any of this may be driven by high fence owners, I wish that deer bred and raised in high fences were just considered livestock and handled as such. Let them hunt in July for all I care, and completely exempt them from all hunting regulations and laws. Have not thought this through completely but it seems that would prevent all this meddling and trying to combine departments in an effort to advance their agenda.

Are you directing this to me? Because I'm not the one trying to tell you how to hunt. I am just highlighting the inconsistency and hypocrisy of calling someone that would hunt over a feeder an unskilled, unethical slob hunter while being perfectly fine with hunting over a green patch. There is no moral difference and there certainly isn't anymore woodsmanship involved with one or the other.

Woodsmanship skills LOL. half the guys I hunt with are 50 years old and older. Most of the time they just want to go sit on a greenfield and there's nothing wrong with that. My Dad who is 54 years old just started hunting with me 3 years ago. He doesn't care about woodsmanship he's just out there to have fun. At the End of the day it's about having fun. If you have fun stalking deer in a swamp with a recurve hey have at it. If some one else wants to sit in a big shorting house wacthing a greenfield with a feeder in the middle I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to just because they don't have "woodsmanship" also If you use any type of camouflage, high powered rifle, scent control, calls, treestands, or attractant scents it's not fair chase. My Grandpa used to to tell me about Man drives they made back in the 80's That's not fair chase.

^^^^^^amen brother

Your grandpa? The 80s?

Why ... why ... why ... you just watch it, you whippersnapper.

Grumblemumble mumblegrumble damned kids mumble grumble.

Well said. Hunting is supposed to be fun.

Might have been the 90s I don't know if that was a thing in the 80s I just heard stories about it

Ah, yeah. Dog and man drives for deer have been "a thing" for about 100+ years in the Southeast.


On another site I heard someone bitching about how food plots "have become popular in the last 20 years or so." Food plots have been around for 40+ years. All this stuff ain't new.

Now I do feel like an old man. Dammitman/cornbreadhell.

No I didn't mean anything towards you. I just replied to the whole thing because that was the closest one available. nothing intended towards you. sorry for the mistinterpretation.

Let me guess, your eyes are brown...

Cool.

I'm going hunting if it passes or not

What I have come to realize is that 90% of the ones against Baiting are the ones that are doing it and do not want their neighbors pulling their deer away from them!!! I hope it passes!!

Who said huntin was supposed to be fun? I thought you were supposed get up way before daylight, go climb a tree in freezing weather and sit motionless for hours. See some decent bucks, but pass on them because they do on TV. LOL

Ok, so does anyone know when day 17 is? When is next action? I need to know when to buy my corn stock

They are back in session at 10 AM today, but I don't know if it will be brought up. Like somebody else said, there are a handful of senators that are blocking the bill thus far. Hard to believe a bill that past the house by close to 80% vote and has already past the committee vote in the senate by a 6-1 vote can't even get to a senate vote.

It's just politics as usual. Nothing new or different than with other bills.

Not enough money being "donated" to the right senators to get their votes. The CornWars Lobby isn't getting the job done, obviously.

It has passed the House in each of the last three years and has died each year in the Senate without a vote. No reason to expect it will be different this year.

So what does that mean? If you look at the status, it looks like it has passed everything and waiting on the Senate Vote. Does that mean it sits and dies?

Email or call your senator.

I just did with support to get this to the floor for a vote.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/ISD/Senate/ALSenators.aspx

Yes it does, if the senate never brings it to a vote or bringing it to a vote is blocked by a select group that is against it. Lots of bills sit and die and never get voted on. If politicians were required to vote on every bill, there would be a lot of them get voted out of office. A lot of controversial stuff never comes up for a vote because politicians dont want their positions on the subject to be a matter of public record so that it can be used against them when they run for re-election. Barack Obama voted "present" (never yes or no) on pretty much every vote that came up when he was a senator for that very reason.

That just proves that senators have more woodsmanship than representatives.

Would like to urge my senator to support but his information shows no email and phone number did not except text, District 31 Jimmy Holley for Coffee, Dale, Pike, and Covington.

Well, after reading the last couple of pages of this thread, I see that sportsmanship and woodsmanship are truly a thing of the past. SMH. Ultimately, I don't see how this will be good for the future of hunting. Apparently, most folks these days want deer hunting to be like a video game, instant gratification. SMH...

i bet all these anti corn master woodsmen have high doller clubs they hunt in.

I bet if it passes we will all need a higher dollar club with less members to be worth a crap.

1 corn pile per 300 acres draw a lot more deer than 1 per 75.

Yes. It can/could die on the Senate floor and then that's it, just like in the past.

A bill could sit (and die) in Committee, or it could get out of Committee (by vote) and go to the Senate (or House) floor. Then it could sit there and die on the floor without a vote, or get a vote.

I can't remember if a bill can/could be referred back to Committee from the H/S floor after it has come out of a committee, though. I think once it gets out of committee to the H or S floor that's where it stays.

I just emailed my Senator and both sponsors of the bill. I’m really interested to see if I get a response. My Senator is Gerald Allen, he is a real Goof. He couldn’t find his ass with both hands, I doubt he even knows about the bill.

I emailed my senator as well

I have no ethical/moral opposition to the corn deal, my concern is that as expensive as hunting already is, it’s going to become even more of an arms race. Majority of club members are going to feel inclined to put an ever increasing amount of corn out to battle their ‘perception’ of the neighbor’s practices. We will all be paranoid about each other and dumping massive lbs of corn out per acreage. Which of course will just even the odds of holding deer since the deer can get it anywhere (like I suppose they can right now). Only difference willl be our pocketbooks lighter. I guess I just don’t look forward to what will enivetably be another line item on the club budget.

You think it will be legal to bait on public land? Or, maybe they will be hunting like the anti corn master woodsmen in those high dollar clubs?

FIFY

Far as I know right now it's illegal to bait on public land

doubt it. my point is, of course the people who have an advantage now. Dont wont folks baiting. Are you a public land hunter?

No, not against dog hunting.

What does using a compound bow have to do with CORN BAITING?

Since you consider food plots to be baiting and since hunting over bait is the most important
thing in your life, then you should just plant a food plot so you can hunt over "bait."
Problem solved.

Sad but true.

No, they are not, but you are incredibly stupid and immature.

Groundhawg posted it originally but heres' my take on what i think he was trying to say.

Killing one with a crossbow is a whole lot easier than killing one with my compound, and killing one with my compound is a whole lot easier than killing one with a recurve. Killing one with a recurve is a whole lot easier than killing one with a spear. Killing one with a spear is a whole lot easier than stalking up and killing one with a knife. Each and every one of those situations gives you an advantage over the previous example. Same as what you're hunting over. Acorns, Greenfield, Corn. Where do you draw the line???????

Bait is such a negative word... I like attractant better.

Tink's 69 is an attractant
The can calls, grunts, etc are an attractant
Rattling with antlers is an attractant
Hunting near a scrape during the rut is using the scrape as an attractant
Making mock scrapes is an attractant
Hunting near a dropping oak is hunting near an attractant
A corn or soybean field is an attractant
A lush green food plot is an attractant

The above are all legal,

A pile of corn is an attractant (but is illegal to hunt over unless you are at least 100 yards away and its out of sight)

Hard to rationalize the difference in the last one and the above incomplete list of attractants widely used by hunters, and if you carefully look at the intent, you will realize that the word 'attractant' could easily be replaced by the word 'bait' on all of them.

Nice deflection. But you still didn't address how hunting out of a shooting house in a green patch requires any woodsmanship skill compared to hunting over a corn feeder. But I know the reason you didn't answer it. Because you can't. And baiting isn't the most important thing in my life. For example I would rank it way back behind not being a flaming hypocrite that can't provide any actual logical reasons to support a ridiculously flawed and inconsistent opinion of what constitutes ethical or skilled hunting.

Not to interrupt a good argument but Todd, I would suggest that while "bathing" isnt the most important thing in your life, you might want to grab a bar of soap and hit the creek occasionally. Your deer sightings will probably go up regardless of whether you're hunting over corn, greenfields, acorns or even in the "big pen".

Hang on, abolt - if he's not bathing then he's more akin to Native Americans and their stick bows, thus more of a "real hunter." Right?

Spoke with Cam Ward today by email and he said that he was in support of the bill. I asked when they would vote on it and he said "they were only voting on senate bills right now in the senate but next week will offer a good chance for passage."
Let us know if any of you hear back from your senators, it will be interesting to see what they say about it.

Once again, 100 yards and out of sight DOES NOT maker corn legal to hunt over. If you put corn out in order to attract game and hunt that game, it is baiting and as of today, baiting is still illegal. All the 100 yards and out of sight decree did is put another element of the crime a GW has to prove, i.e. he has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the deer you were hunting were attracted to the corn. This is why I am so adamant that it should be legal or illegal, period, No stipulations to keep confusing people.

Well Clem, that's an excellent point. I guess he would be, just as long as he is puffing on the "peace pipe" on a regular basis and masking that stink with the smell of SMOKE.

I'm a shower type of guy myself......

Smoke, body stink - dammit, Todd's going to be THE ULTIMATE HUNTER!!!!

In his shooting house with a heater, full camo, Ozonics and crossbow overlooking a food plot with a drip bottle of synthetic "urine" nearby, of course.

You sir are 100% correct. I've said the same thing til I was blue in the face on here and everyone says, no if it's 100 yds and out of sight it's legal. According to the law, if it is influencing deer movement to make them easier for you to kill, it is considered baiting and is still illegal in AL whether it is 100 - 200 - or 300 yards away. It should either be legal to have supplemental feed/bait out during the season or it should not. Black and white. No middle ground. I personally dont care either way. If it is illegal, then the fines need to be astronomical and the GWs need to enforce the hell out of it. If it is legal, they can spend all that extra time chasing night hunters and poachers.

I expected a better response than a 3rd grade insult. I set the bar low for you to jump over and you tripped on it.

I have just one more question, "Were you born stupid or is this a recent development?"

^^^^^^^^ WHYYYYYY cant everyone just get along? All this animosity is making me very uncomfortable and I am starting to feel upset and "triggered". I think I just need to retire to my safe space and practice my coloring while looking at puppy pictures.

Our District Judge sees it this way also and has explained it to more than a couple of people, the hard way, that didn't take the time to learn the difference between baiting and supplemental feeding.

And how can he prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?

Deer whisperer

LOL! Damn auto correct. That is funny. Fixed it.

Hold on while I run this through the universal translator.

Let's see.

Setting: Bulls##t to English

Entering the text.

Hit translate button.

Here it comes now.

Translation reads: "I still can't answer the f###ing question".

Me too! For those in favor of this bill, I encourage you to take a few minutes and do the same.

Common sense I guess.

You know when they passed this 100yard rule several years ago, I called the game and fish headquarters in enterprise, al and spoke to lieutenant, can't remember his last name, but I gave him several examples of hunting situations and he said it was legal. Except one I mentioned if I was hunting say a clear cut and in the middle of the clear cut was a patch of trees and I had the feeder behind it and it was over 100 yds and out of sight, he said I would get ticketed. Due to me being able to see all around the feeder, but if I put a feeder over a 100yds and out of sight down a powerline, lane,or road that was ok. Now I'm not saying y'all are wrong, just what the man that strokes the tickets in my area said to me. I agree though, they need to make it legal or illegal.

Nothing back from my senator yet....

Me either. He must be rallying the troops like I told him to

I instant messaged mine. Let's see if that does anything.

So if the deer’s nose is pointed away from the feeder that’s 400’ away and out of sight on the backside of a hill top it’s a good shoot? But if the deer’s nose is pointed at the feeder it’s a dirty shoot? Common sense flew out the door long ago when it comes to this law. Let’s all understand the purpose of the 100 yards away law is to benefit high fence operators that contribute to political campaigns. It’s so the free range big pen deer can have big antlers too.

“Fair Chase” don’t make me laugh. People ridding around in $20k toys towed to the woods behind $80k trucks onto $5k+ annually strict QDMA clubs lost that bully pulpit once the trail cam count got beyond 20.

Don’t get me wrong if I could afford it I would fox Hunt mounted on a fine steed I straddled after stepping 3 steps from a Rolls Royce with the umbrella in the door and the stocked liquor chest in the boot. But I certainly hope I would be able to not kid myself about fair chase. We are merely consumers of hunting gear designed to defeat natural defenses of the animals we hunt.

But I absolutely agree make it cut and dry. Feeder with feed between 15 Oct and last day of turkey season equal bad or call a distance and any beyond that is ok or back up the truck and dump it over top of your shooting house is cool. Just take the judgement or lack there of out it.

If I hunted a piece of property and was on a power line facing due east, the property immediately to my back or due west is not mine. My neighbor decides to put a feeder 110 yds from the property line. The property isn’t mine to hunt, I cant see he has a feeder. I’m not even facing that property. I dont believe in “baiting”, I try to follow all hunting laws. Nobody is hunting the property behind me on this day, the feeder goes off just as a GW walks up and checks me and ask about the feeder. I dont even know it is there. My question is this: If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

My point, jawbone, was that if everything else in my list is deemed legal, there is no common sense to the fact that using 'corn' as an attractant should be illegal, whether 2 miles away and hidden in a hollow log, or on the ground directly under your tripod or lock-on.

I agree with you jaw, btw. This is straight from the regs book, the 'area' definition:

"as it applies to the hunting of deer and feral swine, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any bait or feed located beyond 100 yards from the hunter and not within the line of sight of the hunter ((obstructed by natural vegetation, or naturally occurring terrain features)) is not a lure, attraction, or enticement to, on, or over the area where the hunter is attempting to kill or take the deer or feral swine."

I've never liked this rule, explanation, or trap, or whatever it is. If I'm reading this correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong) then a court would, via the rebuttable presumption clause, assume that anything 100 yards away and out of sight is NOT deemed a lure, attraction, or enticement, unless a man wearing green pants convinces the court otherwise. Well, anyone who has any prior knowledge about what corn in the woods does to birds, squirrels, deer, hogs, etc is going to know that it greatly affects wildlife movement... that's why we use it in front of our game cams. Most anything that eats a grain like that is going to flock to the area. So, a bowhunter overlooking a trail that leads to corn 400 yards away and two hills over, technically could be ticketed, and the person wearing the green pants could argue that you were hunting by aid of bait. Maybe a court would agree, or maybe they wouldn't? I guess it depends on how well you know the judge in your county.

CALD!....

I would much rather have my neighbor bait deer than have them high fence their property. I can compete with them on the baiting.

So another week and no vote, not looking good.

Never happen!

It will be voted on next week, Per Cam Ward in an email from him yesterday. FYI, he is in favor of the bill.

The questions that will be raised, presented, argued and unanswered are numerous and these legislative dickwads don't have a clue or care about it.

The reigns of Charles Kelly and Corky Pugh were not perfect and both could be dictatorial jackwagons. But we had fewer regulations and laws, more overall hunter satisfaction and less of this completely idiotic bullshittery and distrust going on like we've had in the last 10-15 years.

But, yeah, we're doing "progress." Thank God for that.

Hahaha you have a way with sharing words (and truth), my friend.

"The reigns of Charles Kelly and Corky Pugh were not perfect and both could be dictatorial jackwagons. But we had fewer regulations and laws, more overall hunter satisfaction and less of this completely idiotic bullshittery and distrust going on like we've had in the last 10-15 years."

Hammer meet nail. That is it in a nutshell. End of story.

The Senate is not in session today, will be back in session on 3-20-2018 at 2:00 PM.

Sums it up very well!

The thing about any deer hunting from a tree stand is that there is very little skill involved no matter what kind of food source or travel route you are watching. That's especially true if someone else placed the stand; all.it is then is a test of marksmanship, and maybe the ability to stay awake. Though I gotta admit I have been surprised many times at grown men who can't hit a doe standing broadside 75 yards away. So whether watching a green field is somehow better than watching a corn pile is kinda senseless to me. Neither one of them make you a hunter.

Slip up on him and shoot him in his bed if you wanna talk woodsmanship skills. Or walk him up in cutover and shoot him running off if you wanna test your shooting.

Waiting for a deer from a tree stand is just boredom.

Emailed my senator this afternoon hopefully I will get a response

I’m still waiting on mine. Don’t know if he will respond or not

From the late 1970's til 3 years ago I hunted public land. Does that make me a public land hunter? Or, maybe that gives me a perspective to see both sides of the public land and private land hunting fence. My point is the private land hunters have better hunting opportunities, be it better land, less competition, less pressure, better control of what happens on the property than the public land hunter and yet that is not good enough, easy enough, etc, etc, etc. No need to go any further, it's all about "fun" (fun meaning got to see and kill a deer every time one goes and spends their precious time in the field).

If this passes, it will create a nightmare for large hunting clubs. "That's my corn pile, You know I was feeding that spot, etc.". We as hunters have to be very careful not to let this divide us. We already have enough going against us with animal rights groups and the image of gun owners being created by the media. The more I watch this thread, the more I despise some of our politicians. Dang it, poop or get off the pot!

No different than "I put that stand there you can't hunt it" hunting club drama.

Fellas, the Law will not do ANYTHING except remove a current restriction if it passes.

PEOPLE are the problem.

If you are a person........think about that for a little while.

So we get rid of all the peoples, then what do we do?

Good Lawd, y'all still jawin' bout this $hit!?

So now the standard for legalizing something is going to be, "It can't be anything that could possibly cause two people in a hunting club to argue?" Holy sheep s##t Batman! Please tell me what could pass that standard? What do people in hunting clubs "NOT" fight about?

That's the same thing I was thinking about the "Hillary" thread........

Was there a particular issue that got the ball rolling? Was it the implementation of the 3 buck limit? Or something else? Personally I did not like the reduction in the buck harvest primarily because all the data we had indicated that it was not needed. Secondarily because the cab had 2 recommendations, one from a study group that they put together to get what I felt like was their desired recommendation of some sort of buck limit and they had a second recommendation from the wildlife section of the aldcnr, you know the folks that have been hired and have the responsibility of managing the wildlife of this state, to not make any changes to the buck limit. We know which they approved.
I don’t trust the cab or many in the aldcnr because of the way they did the bucks limit reduction. They had a desired outcome that they wanted, I felt like they created a study group that would make that a recommendation for that desired outcome, then ignored voices that were contrary to what they wanted.
Let me clarify that I am not slamming those that were on the study group just the cab.

I think the main thing that brought the baiting bill up was the ambiguous 100 yard supplemental rule. The hunters were not exactly what was legal, the game wardens had their own interpretations and the judges in many cases had their own views. I understand what my game warden said he was enforcing, 100 + yards and out of sight. I think a lot of hunters were contacting their politicians.

Yep, perfect

I'll also say that this is a VERY Tough subject. Some people want to only kill a big buck. They put money and effort to do that. They may have lots of money, they may not. Some people don't really care the size or age of a deer they kill, they just have fun doing it. Without writing an essay, baiting, I think can make most peoples hunting experience better. Will I bait? No, I'm fortunate enough to hunt family owned crop land. But I don't really have a problem with it. In an interview with a young Ted Nugent he said he was brown bear hunting with Fred Bear one time and they hadn't had any luck. Fred shot one of their pack mules in the head with a colt single action, ate some of it and used the rest for baiting bears. They ended up killing one. Imho, Fred Bear is beyond any of us as far as hunting goes. He utilized his options and did what it took to make his hunts enjoyable.

That's the same thing i was thinking about the "Throw n Mow" thread

If only Stephen Hawking could've figured out the definition of "area" for baiting/feeding and how that would work with Throw 'n Mow while improving antler genetics, we'd be good.

/crossthreaddouble/

Boom! Exactly. Talk about a rambling wreck.

you still talkin bout this Matt????

Nah. I left CNC's little charade long time ago. Just was a fun poke there.

So what your saying is we should use the same standards on private and leased land, as those of public land?if you're a public land hunter it's a non-factor anyways. It ain't gonna make a difference either way.

[/quote]
doubt it. my point is, of course the people who have an advantage now. Dont wont folks baiting. Are you a public land hunter?[/quote]

From the late 1970's til 3 years ago I hunted public land. Does that make me a public land hunter? Or, maybe that gives me a perspective to see both sides of the public land and private land hunting fence. My point is the private land hunters have better hunting opportunities, be it better land, less competition, less pressure, better control of what happens on the property than the public land hunter and yet that is not good enough, easy enough, etc, etc, etc. No need to go any further, it's all about "fun" (fun meaning got to see and kill a deer every time one goes and spends their precious time in the field).[/quote]
So what your saying is we should use the same standards on private and leased land, as those of public land?if you're a public land hunter it's a non-factor anyways. It ain't gonna make a difference either way. [/quote]

Apparently it's hard to catch the point that private/leased land hunters have it better than the public land hunters. And yet it's not good enough. And I will leave it with that.

Aught to change your name to Ol Stick In Tha Mud

I emailed my Senator asking that this bill be brought to a vote. Never got an answer back.

Anybody else hear what the status is?

I sent an email also. No reply

No response from my senator

No response from Senator Whatley....

No response here either.

Some people saying on Facebook it’s supposed to be voted on today

I got a response from Chambliss. It seemed to be a cookie cutter type of response...like thanks for your interest etc......

Listening in, sounds like its on the calendar today, but after a bill that will have several hours of debate.

Second bill to be discussed today. One in front of it regarding Lt. Governor that sounds like it will have some lengthy discussions. Could be a while before it comes up. Watching the live feed is pretty interesting.

Being discussed now.

Just sent a text to my son who is an intern at the statehouse. He'll let me know what's going on in a bit.

Dr. B

Being discussed now. This debate would REALLY make you proud of the State of Alabama.

The masterbaiters on Facebook are spooging on themselves because someone said a senator told him it will be voted on today and will pass.

A big case of situational ethics. No one wants any more taxes until it lets them kill monster bucks at will (in their minds that is the way it will work anyways).

He should be a solid yes...

Facebook Masterbaiters say it just passed.

Get your corn here folks

Passed 16-9

Did not pass yet. That was just a vote to read and vote on the bill. Vote has not happened yet.

I just watched it. Said they will adopt the bill

Them jokers ain't got a clue why they are voting on it or what they are voting on for that matter. Situation normal I guess.

that was a vote to adopt the BIR(budge resolution). The actual vote has not happened.

Oh, ok. So when does actually voting happen?

When these guys shut the hell up and allow a vote.

Lol!!

Haha...no crap

Why are they talking

Let's play a game. For every legislative action there are almost always unintended consequences, That is why it is called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

So let's see who can predict some of the unintended consequences. First off... corn prices going up. Both feed corn for obvious reasons, but also more people that used to produce human consumption corn will now switch to the more lucrative feed corn so human consumption corn will go up. Law of Supply and Demand. I'm not talking about Bird'seye frozen since I don't think this will impact what they do in Iowa but your local produce market Silver Queen.

Secondly, hunting will be harder because the deer will be able to get all they want at night so there will be no need for much daylight movement. The next action resulting from that will be people crying that there are no deer because they never see them like they used to. At best, they will be even more nocturnal than they are now.

Personally, I don't think I will ever celebrate an additional tax or fee on something that the State Constitution says is a Right. This same logic is used to argue against CCW permit fees. While I realize I don't have to buy a corning permit, I hunt with several other people and all it takes is one and we all have to do it.

Your other two reasons I could consider valid, however, this argument is dumb and always has been. What about the greenfields that everyone plants? Aren’t they available 24 hours of the day? Or do they close up shop at dark?

So the bill is being carried over, whatever that means

Kill a deer or two off of a greenfield and see what happens.

I have. They come back the next day and give you an opportunity to shoot another one.

[. First off... corn prices going up. Both feed corn for obvious reasons, but also more people that used to produce human consumption corn will now switch to the more lucrative feed corn so human consumption corn will go up. Law of Supply and Demand. I'm not talking about Bird'seye frozen since I don't think this will impact what they do in Iowa but your local produce market Silver Queen.

Nah



With you on this one completely agree .

To add, although these are also intended consequences that is not be said. Reduced limits, shorter seasons, mandatory tags because more deer are being killed, less sighting means less deer in obviously many peoples minds because they aren't seeing them in their same old places that they sit every weekend. Hunting becomes closer to market hunting thereby requiring more regulations and rules. But don't let the intended and unintended consequences get in the way of groveling at politicians feet that have not a clue what they are voting on, but will do anything to get elected. Might as well get rid of the DCNR if politicians are going to micromanage at the loudest whiners whim.

interesting layout lol ^^^^^

The only change I see is not having to look over your shoulder and wonder how a game warden is going to interpret the law. This has always smelled like entrapment to me.

I dont think it will affect em much all my deer r nocturnal anyway less its end January

I’m not going to argue pressure, that is not what was said. What was said was that now with corn, they will have access to food 24/7. What about acorns, honeysuckle, briars, whatever the goats want to eat. It is already available 24/7.

Carried to the next session I think. Pretty much dead for now.

I don’t understand why they didn’t vote on it today?

sounds like some folks are scared they're gonna lose their advantage

CARRIED OVER. Term used to describe a motion on which action has been postponed on a legislative matter.

CARRIED OVER. Term used to describe a motion on which action has been postponed on a legislative matter. Bills not disposed of on that legislative day are carried over in the same order to the next day's calendar.

Though the term is most often use to carry over a bill to the next day it can and often is used to kill a bill for a given legislative term when the lawmakers do not want to deprive the folks on the alder forum of a topic that they can discuss, argue, and fuss about for at least another 12 months.

At the end of almost every legislative session, bills remain upon which final action has not been taken. For example, a bill may have passed the house but not have emerged from a senate committee for a final vote. Another way that legislative chambers accelerate bill processing is by allowing bills to carry over from the first year of a biennium to the second. This procedure saves a good deal of time, effort and cost. Carryover bills do not need to be redrafted, and they often retain their place on the floor or in committee.

Give em brake, they already worked 3 hours today, they’re exhausted. Calling it a day.

Your deer are stupider than ours. There is a reason many biologist recommend not shooting does off of foodplots.

For real!

Coitus Interruptus for all the masterbaiters.

^^^^^^Truth right there. The ones crying about it becoming legal are, in all probability, most likely the ones already hunting over it and dont want the competition of their currently law abiding neighbors doing it too once it becomes legal.

We had a field bordered on one side by big mixed timber and a creek, behind it was a couple hundred acres of 5 yr old pines and on the other side by a 150 acre cutover. We had a tripod on it that we called the "machine gun nest". You could honestly kill every single time you hunted it if you wanted to. There was so much spent brass under that tri-pod, you had to be careful not to roll your ankle slipping on it. And they just kept on coming in to it day after day and season after season.

So since it passed a vote to be voted on, can it be left to die or does it have to get voted on the next legislative session before they can move to the next bill? I don't understand all the process.

X575 duzen

Sounds like that handful of "Nay" senators had enough clout they shot it down.

Exactly! I ended up killing 4 deer from the same shooting house this year over a plot, wasn’t intentional, trail cameras showed that was where they were at so that was where I hunted.

There were 3-4 Senators lined up to filibuster the bill and so they carried it over.
It can be brought back up any remaining day but they would still have to break the filibuster. So in all likelihood it's dead.

So who is paying these people to filibuster?

I have no idea. Stutts, Singleton, Sanford, & Beasley are the main ones that are against it.

So this bill is important enough to filibuster it? Good grief......

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/ISD/Senate/ALSenators.aspx

Look at these guys........who elects these clowns?

It's hard to believe that a bill that passed committee in the House by a 7-1 vote and a pass in a floor vote of close to 80% by the House and passed committee in the Senate by a 6-1 vote can be stopped by 4 or so old coots that will not even allow the bill to go to a floor vote. Alabama politics at it's finest.
What is the association with the HB271 and the bait bill? Is that something that can/will be attached by some means?

Baiter haters!

"Master Baiters stop vote in Senate"

A new group will now be forming in Alabama, Masterbaiters Lives Matter. A protest march will be scheduled soon. "We just want to be able to do what we've been doing for years without fear of being profiled as a criminal and shot by Game and Fish employees" said one of the masterbaiters who wished to remain anonymous.

What big $$$ is behind not wanting it to come to a vote?

Dr. B

Fun4all must have some connections.

This may be the $64,000 question right here!

Doc,

Was your son able to find out anything?

Very strange.....I don't get where people would be protecting "money interests" unless they want to keep the ability to fine for baiting.

Wow..I dont bait deer but I know there is freaking corn everywhere in Alabama with the STUPID law as it is. Heck there was corn everywhere before the stupid supplemental feeding law even. Ive heard feeders since Ive hunted in Bama going off across property lines.

A TON of folks bait in Bama...and they always will.

My feeling is if people want to bait they will. Whether it is legalized, illegal or DISGUISED as "supplemental feeding".

Why are you so against it? If some folks want to do it..let them. I could care freaking less.

Personally I think it is a waste of time and money. How do I know? I hunt where baiting is LEGAL..in KY and we have NEVER killed a good deer there in freaking corn. We put out some corn last year in KY ... But all that use it during daylight hours after the opener of ARCHERY is Does. And even they only use it JUST before dark and are skittish as a cat on a hot tin roof around it.

IT IS NO MAGIC SILVER BULLET.

I hunt Texas,..they bait. I hunt Ohio..they bait. I hunt Wisconsin..they bait. I hunt Kansas..they bait. I hunt Florida..they bait...I hunt NH, they bait , Maine...bait......the list goes on and on. I have NEVER killed a deer over bait in any of those states either. WHY? because big bucks dont get big by being stupid. They know it is not natural and avoid it during daylight hours.

Either make it legal or ILLEGAl...meaning no dam corn out period. The law as it stands is a joke.

By the way...if you dont LIKE doing something..well then..DONT DO IT. Thats how I view things. I dont like baiting or even supplemental feeding during the season..so I DONT DO IT. It is my choice.

But trying to belittle those that do, call them names and rally against other folks that do like it, is a page right out of liberals handbook.

THE LIBERALS dont LIKE GUNS..so noone should be able to have them! Lets label THEM too! They are right wing radicals..clinging to their guns. Gun Nuts!

The LIBERALS dont like baiting bears in New England etc. Should that be illegal too? They sure spend alot of time and money trying to make it illegal.

YOU dont like bait..so noone should be able to use it! I know..lets LABEL them! They are Master baiters....cheating the system. Evil supplemental feeders. Scourge of the hunting community!

Same logic and approach to me. Id rather go by "to each his own".

It was the same with X bows...some folks are dead set against it...so NOONE should be able to use them. They WERE illegal in many states..still are in some. BUT GUESS WHAT? Some people NEED to use them.

Ive archery hunted since I was 13 with a Fred Bear long bow and a Fred bear recurve. Then went to a compound bow at around 22 yo.

Now , Im older. Ive torn my rotator cuff part way thru last archery season and CANNOT shoot my bows anymore. I HAVE to use a CROSSBOW now. Do I like having to..NO. But it sure is better then NOT hunting!

Well a lot of traditional archers DONT LIKE COMPOUND bows. Think your lame if you use one.
Using your logic..should they be illegal? Should Xbows be illegal if YOU dont like them as well?

Some people are against FOOD PLOTS! Well..I guess they need to rally and make them ILLEGAL too...nothing but dam bait anyway they say.

I have an idea...let people hunt the way THEY want to..not the way YOU want to. Thats how I view everything. Im not the authority or regulator of others actions. I COULD CARE LESS.

People need to just do their thing and let others do theirs IMO.

One thing for sure..the 100 yards , out of line of site law is a freaking joke. Too ambiguous and up to each wardens "discretion or interpretation".

Id rather they pass it, make it legal and the dam wardens can do some real work..catching dam poachers...not ranging peoples "piles" to see if it is over 100 yards.

We dont have enough wardens to police that BS law as it is. Make it legal, and free them up for Road hunters, spotlighters, nighthunters, trespassers, etc.

Hunters need to stick together,...not act like crying liberals over everything THEY dont agree with and try to rally to make it ILLEGAL. We are truly our own worse enemies with all the bickering over gear, bait, food plots, X bows, non traditional archery gear, corn piles, etc.

Again thats my opinion...but the liberal approach of EVERYONE has to do things the way I LIKE TO is ridiculous. Again, to each his own. We have enough dam rules and regulations already.

It is funny to me that so many "self professed Less government Conservatives" are on here crying for more govt intrusion..instead of LESS. SMDH.

Rant over.

what he said ^^^

But, but, but he made vailid points and common sense. Who here wants to listen to that?

If it comes to a vote it WILL pass and those 4 Senators know that. Filibustering is the only way they can stop it.

Thanks for the insight. How long can they filibuster a bill?

Call their bluff and let them filibuster. They may blab for 15 minutes and run out of anything to say. Sounds like this is about the equivalent of a toddler having a temper tantrum.

[quote=] The only change I see is not having to look over your shoulder .... [/quote]

^^ That is the bottom line reality: the illegal corn baiters want to have their illegal hunting activities legalized
so that they "don't have to look over their shoulder."

Naaaa, some of us just dislike vague and inconsistent laws. Especially when no one can state a valid reason why it should have ever been illegal in the first place.

On the other hand some people are mindless unquestioning sheep who never question the "why" of anything. If the government says something is bad or has to be illegal they just accept it without question. People like you will be the first in line to turn in your guns if they ever get banned. Thank goodness our forefathers were not like you or we would still be a British colony.

Ive never heard one good arguement why corn should be illegal its always just somebody that thinks their neighbor is gonna draw their deer away with a corn pile i personaly think once they legalize it it aint gonna be no different than hunting a green field because corns gonna be everywhere not just in a few hidden spots down in the bottom. Its gonna be harder to draw them to the corn when they got 10 other piles laying around. So with that said i hope they keep it illegal so itll keep working

Hey, all kidding aside, I have no doubt that is actually true of some that are opposed to it being legal. It's a selfish reason but at least it makes more sense than any other reason they have offered.

Some folks are just too self righteous.

Finally a diagram explaining why some still think baiting should remain illegal.

Relax, the government doesn't need to explain to you why something is illegal. Just accept that they know what's best for you and go back to grazing on the grass.

Just substitute CORN for Crossbows and the link sums up this debate..
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10215837001978342&id=1243943516&fs=4#

I haven't read this whole thread so if this has been covered I apologize.

Why would they expect to get paid over lost revenue from the fines of hunting over bait? It's not the only game crime in town and the time wasted on chasing baiters can be used to go after night hunters
and other game violations. They are not losing revenue. I would bet that the money spent flying around the state looking for baiters is more then the 143k they get from the fines.

so is the leg. back in session today?

They convened at 10:00 this morning.

Why in the world wouldn't they legalize night hunting to. Maybe not riding around in a truck but normal style hunting most us work days. I think it would still be tougher to hunt at night than during the day and should make deer not so nocturnal. Really thinking about it more who are they to tell us we cant ride in a truck and shoot them at night? I mean its a free country. I really don't know how people own land and can keep people from hunting it. I also think we should be able to hunt anywhere we want to as long as its in the US.

Your on to something here. Make those of us that work at night provide proof of that and then pay for a $15 nocturnal hunting privilege permit. No riding around in a vehicle, but have to sit in a stand. For another $15 bucks you can hunt over your corn pile. There you go standing up for the late night crew.

So any news on if they are going to vote on it today.

I'm checking with my son to see if he has heard or knows anything...

Heres a link to keep track of the bill. http://alisondb.legislature.state.a...t.ASPX?BILL=HB21&WIN_TYPE=BillResult

Playing the devil's advocate role, what is the legitimate reason it should be legal? If you can't kill a deer already in Alabama, you need to find another pastime. Some of the same people that argue that the state lets us kill to many does are having orgasms over the idea of legal corn. But I doubt it will effect me either way, our neighbors have been putting out corn for years. Many of the deer we kill close to the line have bellies full. One neighbor was buying a ton and a half a week from the Co-op until he got a visit from The Man. Once again, They are going to allow it eventually, but with more stipulations to muck things up. Straight up legal or illegal. No permits, no 100 yards, etc.

Please, please, please pass the corn bill,,,, NOW! I can't sleep until they do. I want corn. I need corn, I must have corn, otherwise I'm going to go out of my mind like Todd17. Somebody please go to Montgomery and talk to these guys. I HAVE TO HAVE CORN !!!!!! It's my constitutional right, you can't stop me......... CORN. The rest of ya'll against corn are liberal Hillary supporters and Obama voters and your mama wears combat boots!!

Right off the bat this question reveals a fundamental difference in me and you. I believe in freedom. I believe that there should be as little restriction on that freedom as possible. And while we certainly have to have laws that restrict certain activities I feel that it is incumbent upon the person advocating that something be illegal to provide a good reason it should be. Not the other way around. I should not have to explain why I should be free to do something. The government should have to explain why I shouldn't.

But since you ask, here goes.

Our current law regarding this situation is deeply flawed and indefensible. If I am rich enough to plant a corn field then I can legally hunt over it. But it's illegal to hunt over a feeder slinging corn. Why? It's literally the same substance.

It is also legal to hunt over a green patch which is simply another form of bait. It's like saying it's legal to fish for bream with crickets but not an earthworm without any explanation of why that should be the case.

I have asked many times on here for people to explain why corn fields and green patches should be legal to hunt over but not a feeder and have never gotten an answer that made any sense. There is certainly no ethical difference in sitting over a green field vs a feeder. And the only other reason I have ever seen thrown out there is the risk of disease transmission. If that were the reason behind all this then it should be illegal to feed deer period. There is nothing about sitting over a corn feeder with a gun that transforms it into a potential disease hot spot. But it isn't illegal to feed deer. In fact I have never heard a wildlife biologist even advocate making it illegal. The stuff about disease transmission only seems to come up in regards to hunting over it. Not to mention that deer grazing in the same small green patch are just as likely to be exposed to a disease as the ones eating around a feeder.

Since you corners like to throw out that a pile of corn is the same thing as a greenfield, I have to ask, how much cover does a pile of corn provide for quail, rabbits, and turkey poults? All of them need the cover for protection and the quail and turkey poults need the protein from the insects found in spring time food plots. How long do you think it will take hawks and owls to start perching above corn feeders and picking off all the small game attracted to them?

Take up your food plots and greenfield are the same shucks with the biologists. See if they feel that way too.

Todd your reasoning is right on with my thinking. We have people making laws that leave grey areas and the GW’s are left to interpret as they see fit which shouldn’t be the case. LEO’s are to enforce the law not make an interpretation that’ll be different from the next LEO you come into contact with. Interpretation of law should only be up to judges. I know that some LEO/GW are interpreting according to the judges they deal with but that’s not always the case as we all know

It’d be nice if the owls would pick off the coons and possums coming to the feeders. Too bad we don’t have a predator that do that for the hogs

We had a couple of Bald Eagle roost and raise babies every year for about 10 years in the same nest that was fairly close to a food plot. It just seemed like every time I saw a coon while watching the plot they were as wide open as they could get crossing the plot. I guessed it was because of the eagles but one of the biologists that work down there said that wasn't the reason because a coon is too ornery for an eagle to want to mess with.

Maybe we need some pterodactyls for the hogs.

I would think the ornery part would be gone when those talons sink up in the coons loins...ouch!

Corn is also yellow while green patches tend to be green. That's another difference. Doesn't have anything to do with the central argument of why one should be legal while the other isn't but then neither does the difference you pointed out. And if the ankle high green patches on your place are the only cover the quail, rabbits and turkey have then I'm sorry to break it to you but they ain't gone make it. Besides this is not an either or situation. You can have both. We plant about 14 green fields on our place every year.

Didn't realize I had to be this literal but when we say there is no difference we are "OF COURSE" speaking in the sense that they are both bait placed in a specific location by man for the express purpose of luring a game animal into gun or bow range. Also that sitting over one verses the other requires no difference in skill or effort. That's what we mean.

It's like if I said that murder is murder whether you use a handgun or a shotgun and you chimed in to say it was different and went on to describe the physical differences in the two weapons. Eh, you kinda missed the point there. Hunting over bait is hunting over bait. Whether or not a squirrel can hide in your bait vs mine really has no bearing on the ethics of the situation.



I really can't even tell if you are being serious now. So now we have to keep feeders illegal because owls will sit over them and eat all the small game animals? LOL! We have had them out on our place for decades now and I can assure you there is still an abundance of small game. But by all means if you truly believe that then don't put any out on your place if legalized. Pretty soon all your neighbors rabbits, squirrels, and quail will be nothing but owl s##t and you will be sitting pretty with all the small game animals in the county. LOL!

Food plots aren't ankle high in the Spring when young wildlife tends to be born and needs the cover. If you ever bothered to plant a food plot you would realize this. There are great benefits in food plots to all wildlife. You are showing ignorance to contend otherwise.

Like I said, I really don't care whether corn is legal or not. I just want it to be flatly legal or flatly illegal without stipulations about permits and distance. But I do take great exception to the proffer that there is no difference between corn and a food plot or planted corn. Do some reading up on this and you will see how wrong you are.

And you are showing yours by saying s##t like this when you don't know me, what I do or have done and what knowledge I may or may not have. We have been planting green patches on our land for over 30 years. Started when we stopped running deer with dogs back in the late 80's. I doubt seriously you know any more about them than we do. They are one good thing to have. Feeders slinging corn and protein pellets are another good thing to have. Hunting over one is no different ethically or skills wise than hunting over the other. If you can list a reason to the contrary then do so. Otherwise you simply join a long line of people here who despite their opposition could not state a single relevant reason why one should be illegal vs the other.

This is such a compelling argument we should just ban hunting within 100yds or within sight of or on any trails to or from (as determined by a reasonable GW) any man made or natural source of food, water, or mineral.

Doc did your son ever get back with you about the bill?

Todd, I believe you are my long lost twin. LOL. I also believe you should run for president. If I had to guess, we're close to the same age, just reading your post. I'm 54. I agree with 99.99999% of everything you've said, especially the part about the gov't explaining why they are taking away one of our freedoms. Nothing Alabama ever does, as far as game laws, make any sense.

I have planted green fields for a long time and if it were legal to put feed within the 100 yard area I would have both for the deer to choose from. Some years when the rain doesn't cooperate we have dirt plots, if it were legal to feed within the 100 yard area at least we might get a shot at something. At 66 I don't do as well in the woods as I use to.

Small food plots of a few acres or less are predator magnets. If you need cover then it won't come through small acreage plots.

Thank you. And yeah we are close to the same age. I am 52.

Y’all should get together and watch Brokeback Mountain......

This thread just went ghey.

Ya'll are absolutely brutal.

Lord love a duck

I received this email from Senator Chambliss in reference to HB 21 today after I emailed several senators urging them to bring this to a vote. I thought the bill was favorable in the Senate Committee...




"I received a lot of input from both sides of this issue when this bill first came up two years ago. I weighed all of the information received and have opposed this bill since that time. The bill has failed on the Senate floor twice.



The bill failed in Senate Committee again this session by a 3-8 vote several weeks ago. The following week, the bill was on the agenda again at the very end of a 12 bill agenda. The chair came in and “voice-voted” the entire agenda and said that it was approved over the clear voices of the majority.



This is not right. It is anti-republic. It is clearly un-American! This underhanded tactic grew the opposition to the bill.



Obviously, this is not what you want to hear… but you deserve to know the details of what has gone on."

I'd email him right back and thank him for his response. Then I'd say, "as my senator, I feel it is important to know where you stand on issues and why. Please explain to me what information you received and what caused to to oppose this bill for the last 2 years, while approving the supplemental feeding bill at the same time."

This is how the sausage is made in every state and in Washington, adding-tacking-removing-changing bills added to bills added to bills. It's crappy but it's how they all do things. I'm sure Chambliss isn't surprised. If he is then he's naive.


So do we need to hold off yet on making the counterfeit feeder decals to sell on the BlackCornMarket or can we get the printers running?

Son told me it's as good as dead. Probably only 2 more session days left and it's not gonna see the light of day. Word is there isn't gonna be a special session.

Dr. H

Thanks for your information. At least you can contact your senator. Timmy Holly, our senator for district 21, does not even have and email address or voice mail. Can only contact him via "snail mail".

Dont vote to re-elect a sorry SOB that wont respond to constituents

I don't follow this email........what tactic grew the opposition to the bill??

I just noticed this (in bold) and missed it earlier.

A bill can't get to the Senate or House floor for consideration of a vote without getting out of committee unless I don't remember my civics lessons correctly or something's changed.

If HB21 didn't get out of committee as Chambliss says then it can't be on the Senate floor to be filibustered and not voted on (or voted on).

Either Chambliss is wrong, lying to you or something funky's going on. Or I',m missing something.

It Passed the Senate Committee 6 to 1.

So, I guess the man is just a liar.

This^^^^^ I'd email the azzhat again.

This is correct. Not sure what Chambliss is trying?

I emailed him back this afternoon and thanked him for his response and also stated that I thought that I read that the bill was considered favorable in the Senate Committee. This was his response back.

"That’s the rub - the overwhelming majority there was against it. It was the same Committee and the same Senators were there, but the Chair on a voice vote said the majority was in favor. That was clearly not the case."

jimmy will follow the money, I spoke with him several years ago about an issue and he said I agree 100% with you only to vote the other way when the time came

So he is saying that most senators in the committee did not want it but the committee chairman - Tom Whatley - did a voice vote and approved it anyway?

The committees typically aren't big. Anyone on them saying "NO" to a vote could be easily heard. If the majority in a 7-person committee voted "NO" then unless the chairman is deaf, stupid or literally lied and certified (or whatever's done) a vote to get it to the Senate floor then there's some shady sh*t going on.

If what Chambliss is asserting is true then this bill being on the Senate floor is bogus.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to contact him, follow up and to keep us informed.

I don’t think Whatley would have pulled that move, but I could be wrong.

Committee Vote is a matter of Record.

The man is lying; plain and simple.

Maybe he is stupid and does not realize that the Public not only has access to the info....but can even listen in on their idiotic ramblings and filibusters.

The days of coming back from Montgomery and spinning yarns about how hard of a battle they fought over Issues to their unknowing Constituents are over.