New Baiting Bill from the Senate

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/...S=SB346-int.pdf

as i said in the other post .

all this does is define ,,, AREA !!!!!!

49'er and others been bitching about them doing this ,,,,, for how long ???

so y'all don't get the wrong idea , i bitched about it too lol

The new version:

1. Still doesn't allow killing coyotes or hogs over bait or even 101 yds from or out of sight of bait.

2. Still includes the prohibition for using "salt" that has been interpreted vaguely by the DCNR. (White salt, Trophy Rock, etc... ????) Mineral supplements - still prohibited unless you hang them from a feeder I suppose.

3. Nothing about providing authority for the commissioner to permit the use of bait with depredation permits.

Senator Scofield told me this one was coming when I talked with him about the Democratic sponsored bill. Their main focus on this bill is as Frankie said, to actually define the area where feeding can be done legally during the season.

This one will pass.

Not without a lot of opposition! This is a MAJOR change that allows baiting deer with corn and hunting over it. No provisions for coyotes, hogs, quail, turkeys, whatever.

I voiced my opposition when we talked about it. He left it with, "well, the current regulation as it's written is vague and needs work." It's a Republican controlled Senate. It will pass unless folks get on the phone and voice their opinion. My Senator is a sponsor of the bill, so I figure he's gonna vote Yes. LOL I've already voiced my opinions to directly to him. Call yours, soon!

IMO, that helps the bill.

If by hunting over it you mean 100 yards away...then you are correct. This is MUCH better than the other bill.

Still ridiculous. Really, what's the point of all the "over 100 yards away" and "out of the line of sight"? It's just going to allow for some "creative" placement. At least with the other bill, it limited the number of feeders that would be placed in the woods with the "within 100 yards of a 1 acre planted plot" clause.

If this one passes, get ready for your club to go through some turmoil.

So.......If a hunter is 120 yards away and has one of those fish feeders that throws the corn in a straight line, and has it attached to the backside of a 4 foot diameter oak tree, so it's not visible, is this legal?
Opinions??

I agree it is bette, but if you are going to legalize baiting then just legalize it, not hide behind a 100 yd rule.



One of the first questions that this law will NOT address, adding to the confusion of the average AL hunter. This is the kind of crap we will get if we let the legislature make game laws.

I just don't understand what they are after. Do they not want a hunter to sit and watch a feeder, or dump out a pile of corn and sit over it, 30 yards with a bow, or out further with a gun?? What are they really trying to accomplish is my question. It just seems like they are complicating something that doesn't need to be. I guess that's politicians for you. I don't have an ethical problem with hunting over corn. I think it causes problems in a lease, and would be against it in the lease I'm in. If they enforce the limit of three bucks, what difference does it make how they are killed. Dead is dead.

Why is EVERY question around Laws, Rules, Regulations, Ethics, Etc.... about BUCKS ONLY?????

They're all that matter. A Doe just eats food. All them hussies need to be killed! I learned that on Deer TV. LOL

Hey that is where I learned it also.

I didn't mean slaughter the does. Maybe there should be a doe limit. I don't know. I know there are not as many deer, does or bucks in areas that I have hunted since the 80's. I don't know if that's a product of less soy beans/farming or doe killing. I think you can kill as many does on a food plot as you can at a feeder, probably more, so I don't really understand your point. I'm just trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish with this bill??

But, why is your opinion on BUCKS different?

Are they more susceptible to being killed at a feeder?

I don't understand?? My opinion on bucks? The law says you can kill three. So kill three at a feeder or three from a food plot. What does it matter??

but it does answer a question . what is ,,,,AREA. hell its pretty simple . i don't see what problems there could be ?

Welp, there goes your plywood senario.

I like it. all of my hunting has rolling hills. I can put the feeders in draws and see every deer that comes and goes. I don't really want to drag a dear from under a feeder and screw it up with scent anyway. very generally speaking, its a step in the right direction......

Well..... at least this will put most on an even playing field. If you want to bait... do it. It just won't be illegal to do it anymore. No more competition with the neighbor who is baiting illegally. Now it gives the deer more choices. My corn.... or the neighbors corn. IMO... it will not make killing bucks easier... but it could help you holdem on your property better, but that will depend if cornzilla is your neighbor.....

This bill and the other one may really just be a warning shot to the DCNR to get this baiting issue properly resolved. The DCNR hates having the legislature meddle in "their" business but the people are saying get this issue resolved or we'll resolve it for you.
Keep in mind that this bill was introduced late in the session. And in most cases, the later a bill is introduced the less chance it has of passing.

How long would it be before senate votes on this?

The bill has only had its first reading, now it goes to committee. If it gets past committee then it will have to be voted on a couple of times before moving to the house for a similar process then after that to the governor for signing. Its a long process which is why it is best to introduce a bill as early in the session as possible.

Skinny, is there anything being introduced about the change in dates for south Bama?

I can still think of a lot of scenarios that would cause problems. The easy answer is just to allow baiting. Is that right??? I have no idea. I have a friend who has a 1000 acre lease that backs up to a subdivision made up of 5-10 acre lots. Just about every house has a feeder where they "watch" deer and turkey. From one of his fields he can see a couple of feeders. Is he breaking the law???????
I don't see how what someone does on their property could effect his rights.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the ALDCNR is considered part of the executive branch of the government which does not have the right or authority to deal with 9-11-244, which makes hunting over bait illegal. Only the legislature has the right to amend this law to make it legal.

Ok, it looks like they are gonna put this bill on the fast track. They just proposed an identical sister bill in the legislature, meaning if the bill passes both houses it goes straight for signature by the governor. Its a fast way to pass a bill. This is the link to the house version of the senate bill and they are identical.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/...S=HB419-int.pdf

Yep, "even playing field" for private property hunters!! Yippie, now we will not have to be bothered to call that 1-800-272-game or interrupt the iphone posting while on stand to send an email to the DNCR about that pesky neighbor that is breaking the law. Yippie!!

Hmmmmm. I find it interesting this bill says wildlife benefit greatly from feeding, yet we've been lead to believe all these years that feeders spread disease. Which one is it???

If feeders where causing rampant plagues among game animals there wouldn't be an animal left alive in the whole state of Texas. At least not one that eats corn.

Besides, as I have said a dozen times when ever this subject comes up, if disease transmission was the real motivating force behind the baiting ban then why isn't it just flat out illegal to feed animals with feeders period? Do feeders only cause the spread of disease if you hunt over them? Cause that's all that's illegal, hunting over them. You can sling 100 metric tons of corn a year on your place if you want. Just can't hunt near it. Seems like a deer would be at the same risk of disease whether it was January with a hunter nearby or July with no human within 10 miles.

I agree with you 100%. I'm just saying it now appears they have been making excuses for the past few years everytime this comes up. Seems like the conservation folks always played the disease card. Maybe since Corky Pugh is gone that's the difference, I don't know. Just amazes me how all we've heard is baiting would spread disease, now all of the sudden it is very beneficial to wildlife.

if there are no disease to spread feeders won't but if a disease is there you can bet your last dollar it will help spread it .

far as i know it has always been stated that feeding is beneficial to wildlife .

but it does have a down side .

I think it will pass this session. The DCNR had it's chances to move on this before it got to this point. At least this bill simplifies baiting and how it can be done legally.

burbank,



I don't agree at all. It only adds to the confusion.

1. If you don't buy feeder permits hunt deer the law is still the same as it was before. What is the "affected area" if you don't have a permit hunt deer? [corrected]

2. Can you hunt hogs and coyotes over bait? Same as it was before.

etc, etc with confusion added to it.

See. I'm even getting these danged ol' bill mixed up already.

Does the Senate bill call for permits? Making a law allowing hunting over bait called the "hunter protection act".

Why would you need a permit? This law is simple. Feed em, just don't hunt them over it. I would assume since is specifically mentions deer, this does NOT address hogs.

No it doesn't include permits. My bad. [post above corrected]

So when will we find out if this bill passes?

If we are lucky, never.

X2

X3

You will officially find out by the time the legislative session closes which is usually around the last week of March or first week of April. They usually have two meeting days a week (Tues/Thurs) and committee meetings between those days. 30 total meeting days.

Read this website and learn to use Alison, its not just deer hunting the legislature messes with. http://www.legislature.state.al.us/
Remember this quote and remember it well "No mans land or life is safe when the legislature is in session"

I can only add is no truer words have been spoken!

Now try and figure who first said that.

A very wise man by the name of Gideon Tucker.

^^^^ Some say Mark Twain, but I think it goes back to the founding fathers, Ben Franklin maybe ?

I first heard it from George Wallace when I was a boy, but its properly attributed to Thomas Jefferson and sometimes attributed Andrew Jackson.

Sounds like something TJ might have said.

Just out of curiosity how does this line of sight thingy work?

Does that mean only when you pull the trigger that you cannot see the feeder?

Does it mean no matter where you are past 100 yards from the feeder it cannot be seen?

Does it mean that if your gun is not loaded that you can sit and watch the feeder from anywhere, but if you are going to shoot that yuo have to be 100 yards away, get in a position to where you cannot see the feeder, load you gun and then shoot?

Does it mean that you cannot have a gun loaded or otherwise when you go fill the feeder?

Does it mean that you can place a gravity feeder (like those stump looking things in a low spot to where you cannot see the feeder but you can still see the deer over the feeder and can "legally" shoot it? Does it mean that if you are hunting out of a climbing stand that you have to stay just low enough on the tree that you cannot see the feeder?

Does it mean that only the person designated as the "shooter" cannot see the feeder, but the non-hunting friend can from a different position and can text message the "shooter" that a deer is at the feeder?

Does it mean that the "hunter" cannot see the feeder, but the live feed video camera placed at the feeder sight transmitting images to the "hunter" is ok since it is not in the "hunter's" line of sight?

Does it still allow GW discrection in determining if the "hunter" is following the intent and the letter of the law? If yes, how is this any different than the term "area" in the current regulations because GW discrection is still involved? And for the conspiracy theorist, will the game wardens show favoritism to their buddy's or will they still not be able to give tickets out to people breaking the baiting law because they were not looking through the "hunter's" scope when they pulled the trigger so there is no way to actully prove the "hunter was breaking the law.

So actually in the end this baiting law does not define what can and cannot be done nor is it any more enforcable than the current regulation.

^^^ you just gonna make your head hurt!

F4A,


The DCNR's defintion of hunting covers a lot of ground. Walking down a railroad right-of-way carrying a rifle slung over your shoulder with an empty chamber and scope covers in place can get you at ticket. Whether that defintion is overbroad or not has not been litigated yet.

You've got to watch out for some of the language in their defintion:



You don't want to worry any animals when you're outdoors or do anything that might disturb them. Just walking thru the woods with no weapons at all may put you on shaky ground if you was to scare a bird or something.

All of this looks more like the government is "doing something FOR us", when in realtiy "they are doing something TO us". Basically, they will have created more garbage that is just as arbitrary and vague as the existing regulations and decided that private land hunters should get an added advantage(perceived or not) over public land hunters. Should the government just allow all hunters the same opportunities to succeed or fail?

actually fun4all, this legislation undoes something that the gubberment did to us. Who decided that baiting was a bad thing for deer but an ok thing for fish?

and to add to your other point about private land owners. Private land owners have privilege in the USA. Keep in mind that private ownership is part of what this country was founded on.
I got running water and a toilet or three in my house, that doesnt mean I have to let any vagrant come in and take a sh1t.

Yep, private land ownership allows the privilege to control what happens on your property and who has access. However, free roaming animals, as I understand it, are State resources that you are allowed to reduce to your possession by meeting the States requirements. Public land does not provide the public the privilege of controling what happens on public land or who has access. I anticipate that you would agree that the private land hunter has a significant advantage over the public land hunter that is pursuing the same free roaming State resource, so why should the private land hunter be provided additional advantages (privilege) for the same resource?

I am glad you have indoor plumbing and the neighbors probably are too! Again being a private land owner allows you to control who has access to you potty. Now, if there was a public right-of-way that came into your house (since you have indoor plumbing and all) and covered the area where the (notice I didn't say your, since that would confer ownership) potty sits, well that would be another story on who could have access.

Again should the government select one segment of it's citizen to receive additional benefits to reduce the State's resources to an individual's possession over another segment of it's citizens? Or, should the government allow equal OPPORTUNITY (with the understanding that private land already has inherent privilege that public land does not) for all citizens to partake of the State's resources.

Well, I guess that the State has the Right to fence my property off AND the obligation to reimburse me for any damage THEIR wildlife does to my property as well.

You can't just have it one way.......

Nope, your property, you property rights to control what does or does not come onto YOUR property. If you don't want the State's resources there you fence YOUR property off. However, I do understand the "government should do something for me" train of thought versus being self reliant and figuring out another way to skin the cat.

When I was much younger and did not have access to private land through connection, family, or otherwise all I had access to hunt was public land. At that point in time only buck were legal in gun season except for the 2 or 3 "doe DAYS" on private and public land, however, you could kill does with archery equipment. So instead of sitting around whining about not being able to shoot deer and never seeing bucks to shoot on public land I decided to hunt strictly with archery equipment on public land. Problem solved! Did I just start slaughtering deer by doing that? No, but I did change the way I was going about hunting to increase my opportunities and was not begging the government to help me out.

Currently in the State of Alabama you can legally feed deer year round and you can place bait out and hunt over it legally, the ONLY thing a person has to do is place the "bait" by thinking far enough in advance, you know that thing called planning, to plant the agricultural seed/grain so that it can grow and produce hundreds of times more feed/bait than that sack that you planted. Now is that so hard to figure out? Or, is it just so much easier to whine to the government to help you out because you are unwilling to help yourself out? Or, because "everybody else is doing it anyway"? Or, any other excuse that can be thought up to get the government to give you a little more advantage to kill a deer.

You can't plant your own food plot on public land. You can't gun hunt from Nov 20 thru Jan 31 on public land. You cant ride your atv all over public land. You can't take your buddies out to a food plot to shoot doves, cook out and drink beer on public land. You can't turkey hunt after 12:00. There's a lot of stuff you can't do on public land. It isn't YOUR land. It's a privelage - not an entitlement. Private landowners OWN their land. Of course they have more rights. Why would you think private landowners should only get the same rights as public land hunters? Skinny is exactly right. The state is just giving back a right they took away for no apparent reason.

Fun4all, So I fence my property, the deer that are "captured" when I do my fencing, they my deer or the States? If a tree falls across the fence and they can jump back and forth till I repair it whose deer are they? After I repair my fence those deer inside mine again?

From that lame BS he posted to me.......

I would say he has no legitimate answers to those questions.

Let me get this straight. You think its unfair to other hunters to allow private landowners to pour "bait" out of a sack on property they paid for or paid to lease. Something hunters of any income level could do. But, you think it's okay to allow baiting for those wealthy enough to buy a tractor, spend $300 to $500/ an acre planting corn. This is fair?

LLUUCCCCYY!!! You got sum splaining to doooo.

You have interesting comments, however, I have in no way said that public land hunter should have EVERY right that a private land hunter has, I have even acknowledge that if you read and understand previous posts. The State by virtue of OWNING or HAVING CONTROL of public land has The SAME RIGHTS to control the access and what happens on public land EXACTLY as the person that owns or controls what happens on private land. In other words to use your examples, a private land owner/controller can restrict and make it where "You can't plant your own food plot on public private land" (i.e. some paper company lands as has been discussed on this site before). "You can't gun hunt from Nov 20 thru Jan 31 on public private land" (there have been posts on this site about hunting clubs who lease private land possibly not allowing hunting for certain periods of time or locations). "You cant ride your atv all over public private land" (there are comments made fairly regularly about restricting riding 4 wheelers on hunting clubs to only allow for retrieving dead deer, again on private land) . "You can't take your buddies out to a food plot to shoot doves" (You are mistaken here, some WMA and other public lands do in fact plant foodplots and allow doves to be hunted over them, but to you point, that could be prevented on private land as well), "cook out and drink beer on public private land" (I can only imagine that open flames not supervised as a part of a land management program are prohibited on timber company lands, and the same goes for the beer drinking due to liabilty reasons). "You can't turkey hunt after 12:00" (this can certainly be controlled on private land and maybe should be controlled on some private lands if the private land owner controller determines that the number of birds can't stand all day pressure). So where in any of these instances that you provided does the private or public land Owner/controller not have the exact same privilege or opportunity?? The privilege is there whether it is exercised or not and it is left STRICTLY up to the land owner/contoller.

I hope this answers or addresses the questions of perceived inequality of land rights between private and public land owner/controllers and the exercise there of.

I have not researched the legalities of fencing off property with a "deer proof" fence/enclosure and who gets to claim the Ownership of the deer that get trapped inside the enclosure (in case those deer get out of the enclosure). There was however a thread on this site not long ago about a deer that was purchased and tagged as being "owned" getting out of it's pen or enclosure (notice I never use the politically spun term of "exclosure") and being killed and whether the shooter had to pay the "legal owner" since that deer was NOT considered a State resource and therefore fell under the State laws regarding domesticated livestock.

If you are considering doing that or if you want to learn what the legalities are you might want to check with the State on how that instance is covered.

Please read on, I am sure you will bump into the answers at some point.

The part that seems to be missed is that the private land hunter has options open to them that are not open to the public land hunter and I don't believe you will find anyone that would say that in general public land hunting is better than private land hunting. I had to say in general because there are always some isolated instances where that is not the case, so we will not have to chase that cat.

A private land hunter can (if allowed by the land owner/controller) plant corn or any other ag product to hunt over if he sets his priorities up to do that either by buying the equipment and supplies as necessary, or paying someone else to do thay , or by allowing a row crop farmer to come in and plant and leave some for the hunter to hunt over. There is more than one way to skin the cat and be legal under the EXISTING regulations.

The point being not whether a person that hunts private land can afford it, but whether he wants to exercise the opportunity to do it. The public land hunter does not get that opportunity to enhance the land under the current regulations, so it does not matter whether they can afford it or not. But, somehow since the private land hunter CHOOSES not to exercise his opportunity to plant and be legal under the current regulations, they should be GIVEN more opportunities by the State. Oops, there we go again lookng for the State to give us something instead of exercising the opportunities that already exist.

Yep, I feel like I am looking gertrude, the cow, in the face explaining that her food will be in another pasture and we will need to go over there and all she can do is blankly stare into space and wonder when someone is going to bring her the next bale of hay.

What I don't understand is.......

You LOVE to argue that Hog-Doggers should NOT have the Right to hunt Public Land.

Now, you are a Champion of the People who wants equality across the board for all!!!!

Yeah, right!

I do not have time to waste debating points that you have already disputed in other posts.

I don't recall arguing that hog-doggers SHOULD not have to right to hunt public land, I do believe however, that hog-doggers should not have the opportunity to run at will on public property, which you seem to advocate.

As I recall from previous threads about hog-dogging on public land I was having a discussion with you and was trying to help you out on how to approach the DCNR and justify your position. I believe you were the one that was arguing instead of listen to advice. As I recall you just kept harping on the fact that the State won't let the hog-doggers run at will on public land and then you finally admitted that you had run out of private land to hunt on. But then again the State owns or controls the public land and since that is the case they can control access, just like the private property owners. Funny how that works isn't it.

Fun4all, maybe I completely misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting the state shouldn't allow baiting with corn poured out of a sack because it would give private landowners an unfair advantage over public land hunters. It sounds like maybe you agree with me? Public land should be viewed as a hunting club with its own rules imposed by the state, feds, or whoever owns/manages it. If you want to hunt there, have at it. If you don't like the rules, find a club where you do. There's no reason that private landowners should have to play by the same rules as public land hunters. I have spent far more days hunting public land than private and always felt fortunate to have it. I've never felt entitled to hunt public land.

I don't get where you feel allowing hunting over "bait" is asking the state for a handout. Quite the contrary, asking the state to limit what private landowners do based on what the state choses to do on public land _ THAT would be the epitomy of socialism. I've said several times, that I have never hunted over bait, and don't intend to. But, I don't feel the need to impose my way of hunting on everyone else. The strongest argument I've heard on why bait should be illegal is that is isn't sportsmanlike. Well, I don't want to shoot a bear over a garbage can, but I don't care if someone else does. I don't shoot ducks on the water, but I don't care if someone else does. I wouldn't shoot a turkey that I just happened up on by mistake, but I don't care if someone else does. I rarely shoot does, but I don't care if someone else does. The state doesn't need to impose regulations just because that's the way we've always done it.

As hunters, most of us go through a progression as we get older. As kids, many of us just wanted to shoot something just to look at it. Later many of us wanted to kill a buck. Then, for some, it became a numbers thing (I skipped that one). Then it's a racked buck. Then, maybe a bow. Followed by the desire to kill a monster, which seems to mean slaughtering as many does as you can. Eventually, we just want to be out there and it's no longer about pulling the trigger. Maybe not all of you, but most have gone through some of these phases. It seems to me that many of you forgot the way you used to feel and what used to excite you about hunting. Now that we are "enlightened", we seem to know exactly what hunting is all about. Unfortunately, we are compelled to force everyone else into hunting the way we like to - at this particular moment. Unless the deer herd is in jeopardy, the state needs to give hunters as many liberties as is reasonable when it comes to hunting, instead of tailoring the laws to fit personal preferences.

Just a question would you be in favor of allowing people to only hunt private or public land but not both? What if private land hunting was reduced to a small window and public land opportunities were left where they are or increased and because of purchasing a private land license you are not allowed to hunt on public land, does that provide equal opportunity? After all if the baiting bill gets approved private land hunters will be able to bait, but public land hunters will not, so should there be some offsetting opportunity like reduced seasons and limits on private land mandated by the State?

Since there seems to be a mantra for "since other states do it why don't we", some States like Michigan allow "baiting" on public land, why shouldn't it be allowed here? I mean heck, other States do it so it must be the right thing to do, right?

You have probably figured out that I am not in favor of anyone being able to dump any type of nutritional product out to lure deer in to shoot and my discussions have nothing to do with that. The points that I am trying to make and apparently am being unsuccessful is the point that if you look at the current regulations there are legal ways to achieve the same goal without further government interference, intrusion or confusion, which in my opinion the government excels at doing very well. But in the discussions there seems to be an overriding opinion that the government should interfer, intrude and cause further confusing along with selecting one group of hunters over another group of hunters that are hunting the same resource.

If you follow very many of the threads posted on this site you will see people advocating to let me do what I want on my land as it relates to hunting, then the same person turn around and want the governement to limit the number of does that are being shot because the neighbors on their land are doing what they want. Or, the government should let me manage my property the way I want to, then turn around and want the government to limit the size, age, score of the buck that they can kill on their land because they have neighbors that are a bunch of "brown it's downers".

Of course you have the group that jump up and down about that the DCNR and the CAB don't have a clue or know what they are doing, but then turn around and want the same group that they have no confidence in to give them more freedom or restrict somebody else because that person sees getting benefit handed to them (in this case being able to hunt over "bait" poured out on the ground) by that same group of no good lowdown DCNR and CAB members.

My opinion and apparently only my opinion (which I have read on this site "is worth as much as you paid for it") is that in this instance the status quo is the best course to maintain the most opportunities available to both the private and public land hunters. Don't think that I believe that the DCNR and the CAB are without question beyond reproach on specific items, but one thing is for sure, that for the government to "solve" an issue the government will creat more issues and problems with their solutions and remove/reduce opportunities from one (in this case public land hunters) to give more opportunities to another (private land hunter) this time. The next time private land hunters may not be so lucky.

Strange recollection there.......

Because I am certain that I have never said that!

I have a LOT of land to hunt. I pay a lot to hunt it, though. That is the point that I make. The State, and everyone knows your angle now , is constantly whining about the hog 'Problem' and how hard detrimental they are to the Wildlife and Environment. Then, in a direct contradiction, they either do NOT allow ANY hunting for them, or very short controlled hunts on our PUBLIC land.

But, you already know that.
You just have an agenda......

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



Exactly how does that work???

Somebody TOOK the freedom to begin with. But, you would have the audacity to suggest that is wrong to want it back??????

Fun4all, it sounds like we have more in common than I thought - seriously. I just think that the outlawing bait to begin with WAS the typical government encroachment. It did fowl things up as it usually does. GW's seem to be more focused on writing bait tickets than stopping trespass hunting, night hunting, killing over the limit. Personally, I think those are more serious offenses. GW's are overwhelmed and understaffed. By no means am I suggesting they aren't also trying to pursue the serious violations, but they just can't do it effectively due to the time required to work the bait cases. There was no good reason to outlaw hunting over bait to begin with. And if there was, there doesn't appear to be now. If it's because it makes killing a deer easier, so does a climbing stand, food plots, scope, shooting house, camo, scent killer, etc. There are countless things the state could ban that would make hunting more of a challenge. So, why corn? Corn isn't a magic bullet. It's just one more tool to make it a little easier for less skilled or less fortunate hunters.

As for making things equal and fair, the current law doesn't - period!

Planting a cornfield is by far too expensive for the majority of hunters. Only the most fortunate can do this giving them a distinct advantage over their neighbors. Very few hunters can afford a tractor and its implements. Very few hunters can afford to plant corn, even if they had the mechanical means. Very few hunters have a tract of land that would lend itself to planting corn (timber company land, pasture land, cut over, etc.).

I think what it all boils down to is, you think allowing hunting over bait is the government GIVING certain hunters a handout. Where as I think NOT allowing hunting over bait is the government TAKING a liberty away from landowners. Giving a welfare check is a hand out and should be seen as a gift, not a right. Cutting taxes is giving something back that the government took away to start with.

a

If you think by any means that legalized baiting will be a cheap means of drawing and keeping deer on your property, then you won't be doing it right...and I can bet that one or more of your neighbors WILL be doing it right.

I have lots of friends who hunt in Florida...the lowest amount I've heard from any of them is about $300/month on corn...most start in August, and the season goes out today (2/26) down there. That's 7 months at $300/mo, minimum...adding $2100+ onto your yearly hunting bill.

If you're doing it right, you're not running ONE feeder per baiting sight...you're running two. That way, if one fails to go off or gets something hung in the spinner, the other one will go off. Figure out how many places you want to bait, then multiply it by two to get the number of feeders you need to buy.

that's one my BIGGEST reason against baiting. if ya think those guys with tractors can't buy corn in bulk and more feeders than others

they will benefit the mostest

really reminds me of club meetings where NEW rules were wanted to make things FAIR for all, some folks are retired and some have lot's of money, you just can't beat them

You are in luck! Due to my lack of computer skills and this sites limited amount of archived posts I am not able to resurrect the discussion. However, if you can locate it and resurrect it or the others along the same line where you dislike the DCNR and restrictions on the hog-dogging on public land I will gladly identify your statements.

What pray tell is "my agenda"? Please expose me for what I am!








In case you have not quite gotten it figured out my screen name should give you a clue.

Also, equal opportunity (not the governments version of equal opportunity that is anything but) means the same as, or as close to it that is reasonable (understanding that there are specific differences between private and public land), what a person does with that opportunity is left up to that individual. Some loose, some win. Some are better hunters, some are poor hunters. Some kill monster deer, some kill no deer. All have the same opportunity, which is about as far as a person can get from being socialist, for which I have apparently been accused.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal", straight from?? The Declaration of Independence, which the last time I checked was not a socialist writing. I don't believe I have stated anywhere that everyone should hunt the same way, prepare their property the same way, or do anything else the same way to achieve what an INDIVIDUAL wants to achieve on their land or in their hunting endeavors. I have said that the government should only work and endeavor to allow equal opportunities (maybe you should read that as having the same baseline to start from) and not work toward guarantying a successful outcome for private or public hunter.

I believe I have clearly stated my position on baiting. However, I have stated that if "baiting" is going to be allowed on private property then it should be allowed on public property. Other States allow baiting on public land why shouldn't Alabama? If you don't hunt on public land then why do you care??

Hogwild, don't take all of these comments as directed at you, they are meant for general consumption and contemplation by anyone that reads this post.

longspur, great post

I hunt on public land every year for as far back as I can remember, but I don't care if the state does or doesn't allow baiting on it. It's theirs to do with what they chose. On the other hand, I've had several paid leases in which my neighbors used bait and I didn't. That's not a level playing field.

GW's aren't winning the war against baiting, much like LIO's aren't winning the war on drugs. There's a difference. I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs because I can see a clear reason not to. Win or lose, it's a fight worth fighting. It should be illegal. I'm not in favor of legalizing child molestation because I can see a clear reason not to. Win or lose, it's a fight worth fighting. However, I don't see any reason to keep fighting baiting. It shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

Corn isn't the only bait out there, however it is one of the more expensive choices. I feed peanuts and give 5$ for a 100 pound sack and use trough feeders. Pretty cheap to me.

Well said. Nice to read a post by someone that uses a little logic, fact, and common sense to formulate their opinions unlike many of those who oppose baiting yet have nothing factual or of any real substance to back up their "feelings" that corn is evil.

What Todd said x2

1.what the heck is a "less fortunate hunter"?

2. do you believe that any lines should be drawn by the state when it comes to "making it a little easier" for "less skilled"/ "lazy hunters".

By the way, what's logical or common sense to one, might be preposterous to another.

I just ask for all baiters to call it like it is and quit the "corn doesn't really help any ways, I'm just for it b/c everyone else is already doing it and it's no different than tree stands or acorns or foodplots, etc., etc., etc. BS. If you are pro-baiting you are pro-baiting b/c you believe it will either help you kill more deer, help you kill deer with less effort, or help you kill more bucks, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. So if you want to legalize it just admit the reasons behind your support of the new bill.

so where do you draw the line? As far as hunting regs.? Since deer go from one property to another a land owner doesn't own the deer so there should be laws? Correct? or just a free for all?

so... hunting over a food plot isnt "baiting"??? hmmm lol

troudouble, I don't get where you think everyone in favor of legalizing baiting just wants to kill more deer or is a lazy hunter. It no doubt applies to many advocates, but what difference does that make? It doesn't apply to me, but I don't see where that even matters. I kill exactly the number of deer I want to every year. I like watching them and let tons of deer walk. I usually kill one buck a year. This year I killed two. I had the opportunity to kill 12 or 15. I bought one sack of corn and put it out in September with a game camera. Is there something wrong with that? If a GW checked that spot in October, he could have probably found some chaff there and wrote me a ticket for hunting in "the area" of bait even though I never hunted within a quarter of a mile from there. That's freaking ridiculous.

There are an infinite amount of things that are legal that I don't participate in, but don't feel should be made illegal. I don't want the whole rest of the world to be clones of myself. I rarely sit on a foodplot, but I do some. I mostly like being in the woods outside of a shooting house, but not always. I like having the freedom to hunt how I want to.

Where do you draw the line? I would say draw it where it's absolutely necessary to maintain a healthy population and where it's absolutely necessary for safety. There needs to be an open and closed season. There needs to be a limit on the number of deer taken. There need to be laws related to safety. There DO NOT need to be laws tailored to fit my style of hunting, your style of hunting, Corky Pugh's style of hunting, or anyone else's.

Where do YOU draw the line? How do YOU define hunting? Is it okay for a sportsman to kill a deer he doesn't need for food? Is it okay for a grown man to kill a spike he needs for food? Is it okay for a trophy hunter to kill more does than necessary for a healthy population? Would it be okay for someone in a wheelchair to shoot a deer over a pile of corn? What about an active duty soldier home for a few days at Christmas? Who are you to decide what is or isn't an acceptable in hunting?

good point sir....

If corn baiting is legalized
there is going to be a LOT of conflict
between neighboring landowners.

Just imagine all the small properties surrounding larger properties (or whatever)and folks are lining propery lines
with corn feeders. It is bad enough that people are lining
property lines with greenfields. If passed there will be
"the battle of the corn feeders" going on.

Legalized baiting will just make for more conflict.
It is bad public policy.

well , i don't care what the guy next door kills . they just as much theirs as mine some thing a few are forgetting these days .

my definition of bait is manually placing or pouring something on the ground or in a feeder that can be immediately eaten by wildlife for the sole purpose of killing an animal.

Anything else is not baiting in my book. I would consider a foodplot a multipurpose foodsource and wouldn't argue that "one" of it's purposes for most hunters is to attract deer for the purpose of killing them. You could say the same for mast producing trees, browse after a burn or TSI, ag. fields, etc. Which takes us back to my last question. Where do you draw the line? Most states have apparently taken a similar stance to what is considered bait and what is considered a foodsource that could be utilized to attract deer. Intent and benefit to wildlife have to be considered.

By the way, I would be fine with making it illegal to hunt over foodplots if it meant keeping baiting illegal. 75% of the reason we plant foodplots is to feed our deer and to improve the habitat with the goal of maximizing potential and to keep as many bucks on our property as possible. "Hunting foodplots" is great for kids and older people but for me, whether I hunt them or not isn't that big of a deal. I much prefer hunting in the timber or around cut overs or sage fields.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bait


bait... so hunting over a food plot weather its for qdma or whatever is bait. once ya sit there with a gun with the intent to kill a deer its bait... so, whats difference

also hunting over acorns would be bait

What a pretentious load. I'm opposed to the baiting ban because it's a stupid, vague, and inconsistent law. Making it illegal to hunt over corn but perfectly fine to hunt over a green patch is like saying you can't kill people with a rifle but you can murder anyone you want with a shotgun. Would that make sense to you? I guess it would since you obviously can't see the same baffling stupid inconsistency in the baiting laws.

What if the speed limit between your house and where you worked was listed as "In the Area of Too Fast" and therefore wide open to the individual judgment of each cop you passed on the highway as to exactly what speed was too fast.

I don't need corn legalized to help me kill does and small bucks (pretty much all you are going to see at a feeder in daylight). Do you know how many deer I pass up a season? Of course you don't, because like many on your side of the issue you don't have any real factual basis for the insults you hurl at the people opposed to the current state of affairs. I could kill 25 deer a year if I wanted. I just have no need for that much meat or the desire to kill small bucks.

But while we are on the subject of easier, how do you hunt deer? On foot with only a spear? If we are going to ban things based purely on what makes hunting easier then there is a helluva list of stuff we are going to have to heap on to that pile of restricted items. For example which of the following makes killing a deer easier, a corn feeder or a firearm? When you admit the truth of that question to yourself I guess you will be ditching all your hunting rifles. After all, you would want hunting to be easier now would you. Noooo, you are too high minded and moral for that.




Typical but once again no substance. If we are wrong about there being no difference in hunting over green patches then please lay out the facts to us. Is there some strange mystical force in the universe that makes it harder to climb into a shooting house over a green patch vs one near a feeder? Do suitable climbing trees refuse to grow near green patches making it impossible to use a tree stand any where around them? Does it take decades of woodsman hunting wisdom to learn to work the latch on a shooting house door or to be able to open those plexiglass windows? Come on, explain to us how sitting near a corn feeder makes you a slob hunter but sitting over a green patch makes you Daniel f###### Boone. Cause I'd love to hear that explanation.



And if you oppose it then admit your reasons. Look in a mirror and say, "I have had unsubstantiated bulls### pumped into my brain about corn baiting to the point where I cannot differentiate BS from real facts anymore." AND "The legalizing of baiting would be a recognition that patch hunting and feeder hunting are really no different and then all us patch hunters would officially be no better than the people we have erroneously and baseless called slob hunters for years."

Since we are going to assume insulting things about each other, how do you like my version of it?

tell that to the state of Alabama and the 30+ other states that don't consider foodplots, acorns, ag fields and browse as "bait".

So why do you want hunting over a pile of corn legalized? Are you for some reason just adamant about the state getting the definition of "Bait" correct or is there a underlying reason?

And again, where do you draw the line?

simmer big fellow. We are talking about bait here, not murdering people...

"I don't need corn legalized to help me kill does and small bucks (pretty much all you are going to see at a feeder in daylight)."

There you go again. Just call it like it is... If you want hunting over corn piles legalized you think it's going to help you kill more bucks and down deep you know that it could also help you kill a mature bucks.

I could send you hundreds of pictures of at least 10 different mature bucks just over the past few years that I have over a pile of corn during the day time. Granted the date on those pics doesn't go beyond the end of Sept. but I think it's safe to say that if I had continued to pour out corn they would have continued to show up during the day. Darn thing is when I quit pouring it out the didn't show up as much. And what's even more mind boggling is a lot of these cameras were set up on foodplots. Still got pictures of these bucks but mostly at night...crazy, I know...

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

But as to your question, because it would be great to be able to continue the supplemental feeding of our deer through season (two and a half months when they need it most) without fear of passing too close to one of the feeders and getting a ticket.

Blah, Blah, Blah, another post long on questions and devoid of answers. Because you have none like everyone else on your side of this debate.

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

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

Again, where do you draw the line?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You miss the whole point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hear hear! Well said, good man!!!

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

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

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

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

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

If too many are killed, lower the limit??

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



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

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

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

Quote 1:


From another Hogwild post, quote 2:

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

Quote:
give them more freedom

Exactly how does that work???

Somebody TOOK the freedom to begin with. But, you would have the audacity to suggest that is wrong to want it back??????"



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

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

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


Constitution of Alabama 1901

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

truedouble,

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

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

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

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

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

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

truedouble,



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

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

Seasons and bag limits protect the deer.

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

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

truedouble,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There I GOT IT!!!!

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

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

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

Since we are "guessing", yep maybe!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, you run right out and try that. LOL! Film it for us so we can see how easy that turns out for you.

If we are banning what makes killing deer easy then firearms would have to be the first thing to go. I could easily kill 25 a year with a gun and never lay eyes on a grain of corn. If you kill 25 deer in one season with a spear over any kind of bait I'll kiss your @$$ under the main redlight in your hometown and give you 2 weeks to draw a crowd to watch.

Amazing to me the folks that say they've never hunted over bait, yet they can tell you how easy it is.

ok... im going to brake this down for everyone to understand... Hunting is like masterbation. If the "man" says hey fella you can only use your right hand. Then all the south paws are going to have a fit. Ya see, some states can use their left hand, and this pleases them. Now you can't sit here and say you dont wanna be pleased, weather its from the right or the left," different stokes for different folks". but the out come is still the same. ONE HAPPY ASS HUNTER!! hahahahahaha

your homework for tonight. Look up the word sarcasm

by the way, your last post about how if everyone thought like me women still wouldn't be voting is not an analogy. Your other homework assignment is to look up analogy, so if you want to use one you can.

Now that there's funny! I don't care who ya are.

Todd, this is an analogy, but just a bad one...

not bad just truthful

and sometimes the truth hurts, i put it where 97% of men could understand, hope your not part of that 3%

I think you think way to much about what other men do in their spare time and would feel much better if you didn't care whether or not I'm in your 97% or 3%.

hahahaha people are waaaay to serious

I hope the folks over in the Legislature
take a look at this thread and see what they
are doing to the deer hunting world: causing
a lot of division and conflict.

If they legalize this unethical and unsportsmenlike
method of "hunting" it will get a whole lot worse
and the conflict will not just be internet debate
it will be real life and real personal for tens of
thousands of people.

They are creating Master-baiters.

So you don't hunt near green patches, white oak trees, honeysuckle vines, or any form of bait? If so then I admire you for taking on a greater challenge. If you do hunt over any form of bait then you are just another in a long line of hypocrites on the other side of this debate.

So says Todd1700... who still hasn't figured out that his opinion is not fact and continues to stoop to name calling

If everyone thought like you, "never questioning the why of a law" then yes women still would not be able to vote. Get it now? And yes that is an Analogy.

Here, let me help you.

Analogy: Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

So says anyone with a grain of common sense. Bait is bait.

Tell me what part of the following isn't a fact.

A corn feeder, if legalized, would be a food source placed in a specific location by humans for the express purpose of drawing a deer into range of a gun or bow so it can be killed.

A green patch, which is already legal, is a food source placed in a specific location by humans for the express purpose of drawing a deer into range of a gun or a bow so it can be killed.

Some of us have the brains to see the absurdity of one being legal while the other is not since they are the "Exact Same Activity".

And not one person on your side of this debate, you included, has "EVER" given one credible, fact based reason that there is any difference between these two things that warrants one being illegal while the other is not.

Now, here is where you delve off into some side issue or diversionary question to mask the fact that you can't actually come up with a reason they are morally or ethically any different either. Don't feel bad though, nobody else on your side can either. Thankfully it looks like even the powers that be in government are finally coming around to the absurdity of the situation.

you didn't infer. you stated that women wouldn't be voting now if everyone thought like me. Not an analogy but a statement based on your opinion.

An analogy would be something like "being in favor of killing deer over corn is like being in favor of legalizing drugs". A statement based on one's opinion would be something like "people that support hunting over a corn pile are the same people that support legalizing illegal drugs.

I guess Texas hunters aren't as ethical as Alabama hunters.........(insert sarcasm here)
These folks that are against this sure do seem to know a lot about it. Makes you wonder.

"PLACED" is the key word. See how you threw in the word "placed" in the same sentence as foodplot? Well that was incorrect. Foodplots are planted not "placed" and thus the difference between hunting over bait and hunting over a food source. Example. You can legally hunt a white oak but the second you collect white oak acorns and "PLACE" them in your hunting spot it is considered "BAIT". Thanks for helping me prove my point.

And yes, if you go back and read other posts and/ or literature in publications regarding baiting there is a lot of information that explain the difference between foodplots and natural food sources and bait, with regards to benefiting wildlife and hunting too.

LOL! I read you like a book. I said you would delve of into a side issue again to avoid disputing the facts in my last post and here you go. Cause it's all you can do. And yes my earlier post was indeed an analogy. They come in all shapes and sizes.

Are you allowed to drive on the highway? Are you older than 12? Green patches are "placed" in specific locations just like any other bait. The fact that you will not even concede that simple point proves that you will just say anything to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Still waiting to hear how sitting over a green patch is ethical while sitting over a feeder would not be.

LOL! I addressed your opinions (not facts). might want to check again on your idea of an analogy. You seem to have trouble with understanding both analogies and facts. You must have slept through English class too many times

lol so who wants to go hunting...

No you didn't. You tried to make a ridiculous meaningless distinction between planting a patch and placing it somewhere that made no sense or difference on the map of any sane mind.

And I understand facts well. Just haven't heard anything that even resembles one from you.

How is sitting over a green patch more ethical than sitting over a feeder? How does one require more skill than the other? Since both are basically just sitting on your @$$ over bait with a weapon what makes one a great feat of skill and the other an example of slob hunting?

Don't worry, I know you have no answers to those questions. Well none that you would admit in your current state of self delusional denial.

Truedouble, I'll have to say you remind me of my 6 year old daughter arguing a point that she knows she is wrong about. You don't place foodplots???? That is crazy. How about the person who places sawtooth oaks, then when they produce hunts over them. How is that not baiting?
Ahhhhh, but we all know climbing into a climate controlled shooting house complete with mini-bar and tv, then watching a lush food plot planted for the sole purpose of attracting deer so they can be judged, then shot......now that is hunting.

The insults are great. keep them coming

Look I'm tired of giving you a lesson in English and telling you that your facts are really just opinions so I'll close out by saying the following.

I'll concede that the definition of bait is relative. To me bait is something already made that is put in a bag that can be poured or "placed on the ground" for immediate results (corn, Cmeerdeer, etc.). A foodplot is grown not placed and can be and often is used as a way to attract deer to an area and in my opinion is different than bait, by definition, by it's benefits to wildlife as well as how much it actually helps in regards to killing deer. The #1 argument by baiters is it's no different than other foodsources but that is an opinion based on your definition of bate and not a fact.

at what point are you hunting without any aid?

I guess in your case the acorn didn't fall far from the tree. Pot, meet Kettle

For the sake of argument, who says "hey let's go place some trees to day, or even better how about placing some foodplots? The method of delivery is the difference. I bet your 6 year old could have figured that out though.

and to Todd, even if the discussion was about "skill" which it isn't, how much skill is required to kill a deer anyway? 90% of killing deer or at least good deer is hunting on good land. A lot more knowledge and skill involved with improving habitat and stand locations. The sitting, waiting and killing is the easy part. Just makes it easier though if you have a pile of corn in the middle of the woods 10 yds from your stand.

so foodplots arnt placed??? wth lol

And until someone can find a fact based counter to that argument it remains a pretty good one. There is no ethical difference. And no one has been able to explain one in any of the 20 times this subject has come up since I've been a member here.

All you hear is talk about how green patches are more nutritious or harder to plant. A point that isn't necessarily true in most cases but even if you conceded that point, (which I don't) what difference does that make from an ethical standpoint? That's like saying it's OK to hunt at night with Brand A spotlights because they are of a higher quality and harder to find than Brand B spotlights. What difference does that make in the nature of the activity you are engaged in?

Besides having no relevance to the question at hand it isn't even true in most cases. I'll concede that most people probably wouldn't load a feeder with anything but corn. And I realize there are some guys on here that plant their patches with these high dollar Biologic type blends of seeds. But trust me when I tell you that they are the exception and not the norm. Most people plant simple rye grass or winter wheat. Not exactly packed with nutrition. And I can point you to bags of stuff that can be slung from a feeder that will provide waaaay more vitamins, minerals, protein and essential nutrition than any green patch.

Yeah, cause it's way tougher to kill one with a 30-06 sitting 10 yards off a green patch. That's a much tougher shot just because there is a different type of bait on the ground.

I swear, the more I talk to some people on the internet the more it makes me scared to drive on the same highway with these people.

LOL! He is a fountain of ridiculous logic isn't he?

Look dude, ya just plain stupid if you don't
know the difference between food plots, white oaks
and corn piles. And yer just another redneck goob
if you think hunting over corn piles is ethical or sportsmanlike.

Then explain the difference ethically since it's so simple?

nope, planted. you can "place a foodplot all day long if your definition of placing is taking a dozer and clearing out a spot, but you will not have a foodplot until you plant something. Now you could place a bag of corn in a "placed clearing" but that would just be a bait pile.

All I can say is that I'm glad you are on the other side of this debate cause with logic like this you aren't helping your team. LOL!

Just for the sake of continuing to make you look like a fool, I know plenty of folks who "placed" sawtooth oaks for the sole purpose of shooting deer under them. Heck, the State actually gave them away a few years ago. In fact I can take you to a place now where the former Conservation Director hunted and show you oak trees planted just for the purpose of shooting deer.

I'd like to see you call some of my Texan friends un-ethical.
Alabama has to be the national refuge for narrow minded people.

Good grief man.......So corn is instant bait and oats and rye are bait 7-10 days later when they sprout. Got it.

Todd, at what point should the state say killing a deer (State's resource) can not be done by this method?
1. Pouring "bait" out of a bag
2. hunting over a grown food source either "placed" or naturally grown (like an acorn falls from an oak tree and sprouts, grows into a mature oak and drops acorn)
3. using a nightscope on a high powered rifle for hunting after dark standing in a foodplot
4. uses a spotlight and a high powered rifle to shoot deer from a vehicle (of course this would only be on your own property and shining your foodplots)
5. using drug laced "bait" to immobilize the deer so you can get really close and kill the deer
6. shooting deer running away from a forest fire
7. shooting deer swimming across a private lake while riding beside it in a boat
8. shooting a deer unable to escape from a 30'x30' enclosure surrounding a feeder
dispensing bait


From your comments one would figure that all of these would be okay because they result in a dead deer and some of these methods make it easier, so that is a good thing. Right?

If that is not right, at what point does it change from being okay/right to not being okay and wrong (i.e. should be prohibited by the State)?

How do you know corn makes it easier if you've never tried it?

One difference in all those other examples Fun4all is that to the best of my knowledge no weird inconsistency exists in those restrictions like in the baiting law. You can't night hunt deer with one type spotlight but not another. You can't drug deer with one type chemical but not another. You can't shoot deer swimming across one type public lake or river but not another. Etc, etc. You can debate whether any of those things should be legal if you want but at least those laws are consistent.

Some of them like night hunting are a safety issue I guess. Not sure it's a good idea for folks to be blasting out through the woods with high powered rifles at an eye reflection in the dark. Lots of potential for things besides deer to die right there.

Well now you have got me there. I have never tried it, but reading some of the postings on this site that seems to be a major reason for making it legal. If it's not easier then why all of the clamor for it?

The point of the post is in the last questions.

The following excerpts from a dissenting opinion writted by a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court involving laws and morals (obscenity in this case) are also applicable to our laws that attempt to legislate morals for hunters in my view.

McKinney v. City of Birmingham, 296 So. 2d 236 - Ala: Supreme Court 1974
JONES, Justice (dissenting).

But, 49'er......

You have missed the entire concept that you have to have Laws to make things LEGAL, not forbid them by making the ILLEGAL!

Maybe we should consider Section 9-11-245, which would remain in effect:


No person shall at any time make use of any:
-pitfall
-deadfall
-baited field
-cage
-trap
-net
-pen
-baited hook
-snare
-poison
-explosive
-chemical

...for the purpose of injuring, capturing, or killing birds or animals protected by law or regulation of this state.

This section shall not prevent the trapping of animals classified as fur-bearing animals by a duly licensed fur catcher. ...


Does getting a permit make it ethical or sportsmanlike to use the above to eradicate game animals that are also considered to fur bearers or a nuisance?

Well now you have got me there. I have never tried it, but reading some of the postings on this site that seems to be a major reason for making it legal. If it's not easier then why all of the clamor for it?

The point of the post is in the last questions. [/quote]

I'm not clamoring for or against. I'm saying there's no difference in a corn pile and a food plot. So basically you're saying you are against it because others are, or because others say it makes hunting easier......?? Strange way to form an opinion, but to each his own I guess.

So since the ethical, sporting or moral issue was sidestepped here is a question on the wierd inconsistency. It is okay to shoot two does per day for the entire hunting season, but you can only shoot three bucks that have antlers and one of the bucks has to meet more restrictions. Do you see any inconsistency there? Or, is it that okay because one deer has antlers and the other doesn't, but then another deer has to have more antlers than another deer for it to be "legal".

One type of deer you can legally kill 2 per day for 108 days = 216 does, but you can only shoot 3 bucks. Do you know of anywhere in the State that has ever had a buck to doe ratio of 72 to 1? If there was a place it certainly is not dispersed over the area that currently fall under the current limitations. Is that inconsistent?

So since in your opinion everything is bait and can be hunted over and you can legally bait by regulation in the state during the season why are you so fixated on pouring "bait" out of a bag? Is it really about the inconsistency? If it is are you leading the drive petitioning the legislature to change the other game and fish regulations and laws that are inconsistent?

Of course to some this is okay because after all we are talking about bucks and the State should make killing four bucks illegal instead of making it legal. After all the State did take away our freedom of killing one buck per day during the season, but that is okay. Where as, allowing another way to bait is just the State giving us our freedom back. On one hand the State should take a freedom away, while on the other hand they should give us a freedom back. No inconsistency there!

By George, I think I am catching on!!

jmj120 quote:
"I'm not clamoring for or against. I'm saying there's no difference in a corn pile and a food plot. So basically you're saying you are against it because others are, or because others say it makes hunting easier......?? Strange way to form an opinion, but to each his own I guess. [/quote]

Let's see.

Reasons given for "baiting" (pouring bait out of a bag)
1. everybody is doing it already
2. my neighbor is pulling deer off my land
3. all of the deer that are taken to the processor are full of corn
4. makes killing deer easier
5. everything else is "bait"
6. no difference in killing deer over a pile of corn than sitting in a shooting house over looking a foodplot or an oak tree dropping acorns
7. other States allow it
8. the law is inconsistent
9. defines "area"
10. gives us our freedom back
11. private land owner should be able to hunt however he wants
12. So people can "feed" year round
13. One of my favorites, just make it legal and if too many deer get killed reduce the limit
14. people can't afford or aren't allowed to plant foodplots

I am sure I have missed one or two other just as compelling justifications. What seems to be missing is anything that speaks about preserving, conserving, protecting or managing, but there sure is an awful lot of give me, help me, oh whoa is me and allow me sentiment in the "justifications".

Wanting to make sure I have the facts on why "baiting" should be allowed so I can form an opinion.

You will get no argument from me on that point. The virtual unlimited amount of does you can kill compared to only 3 bucks strikes me as more of a trophy deer management scheme aimed at producing more and bigger bucks rather than anything that really has any impact on the overall health of the herd. I'm sure some of the QDM guys will jump me for saying that. LOL!

But just because you are allowed to kill that many does doesn't mean that you have to shoot that many off your land.

shouldn't hear anything negative from people that support QDM, because QDM doesn't support unlimited doe harvest. It supports doe harvest as need to balance the herd. I'm not going to disagree that in most cases, now days, 2 does a day is extreme, but this does allow a hunter to kill multiple does in one day until they have met the proper quota for their property in lieu of dragging it out through the rut. I don't know anyone that shoots any doe they see b/c they think that's what they should do, but based on what some on here have said, maybe it's true. So education is the key as doe kills are generally part of a management plan designed to hold and kill more mature deer. In other words most people are only killing does cause either does need to be killed to reduce the population or keep the herd balanced OR they think does need to be killed for those reasons but the number of does they are killing is too extreme. Point is most people wouldn't have an issue laying off does but a lot of hunters do have an issue laying off bucks, which is why a restrictive buck limit makes sense and a liberal doe limit makes sense, IMO.

Let's see, reasons against baiting:

1. My Pappy said it's bad
2. The state made it illegal, confirming what my Pappy said.
3. Corn is yellow, grass is green
4. It doesn't require a tractor and is therefore too easy to apply.
5. Neighbors will shoot all of MY deer.
6. Neighbors will shoot all of public land deer.
7. Corn doesn't have roots, grass does.
8. Corn doesn't grow on trees, acorns do.
9. Corn doesn't result in more deer, tink's 69 does.
10. Corn is different from grass.
11. If you legalize corn you'll have to legalize night hunting.
12. Corn doesn't build fat reserves for deer to help get through winters with poor mast crops. Wait, that's not right. Well, grass does too. Wait, that's not right either. Oh heck, I don't know. This stuff gets confusing.
13. Lazy people can kill deer over corn. Hunting is for hard workers only.
14. Shooting deer over corn requires no skill, shooting deer eating grass does.
15. Corn is magic and deer can't resist its powers. They will come in a line day after day after day until there are no deer left.
16. Redneck Goobers use corn.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I know there's no more chance of changing the minds of those who hate all manner of change, than there is of changing the minds of us in favor of less unwarranted regulation. It is fun to debate it, but I can tell some are starting to get angry. So, I'm going to do my best to back out - at least for now.

Let's see.

Reasons given for "baiting" (pouring bait out of a bag)
1. everybody is doing it already
2. my neighbor is pulling deer off my land
3. all of the deer that are taken to the processor are full of corn
4. makes killing deer easier
5. everything else is "bait"
6. no difference in killing deer over a pile of corn than sitting in a shooting house over looking a foodplot or an oak tree dropping acorns
7. other States allow it
8. the law is inconsistent
9. defines "area"
10. gives us our freedom back
11. private land owner should be able to hunt however he wants
12. So people can "feed" year round
13. One of my favorites, just make it legal and if too many deer get killed reduce the limit
14. people can't afford or aren't allowed to plant foodplots

I am sure I have missed one or two other just as compelling justifications. What seems to be missing is anything that speaks about preserving, conserving, protecting or managing, but there sure is an awful lot of give me, help me, oh whoa is me and allow me sentiment in the "justifications".

Wanting to make sure I have the facts on why "baiting" should be allowed so I can form an opinion.
[/quote]

Just want to let you know that not everyone wants to do this for what some may say the wrong reasons. But i would love to know how you think legalizing baiting will make it that much easier to kill deer? Me for example I believe that the ppl this bill will benefit will be the ones that are feeding nutritional sups to the deer in turn making a healthier deer heard. Also just because you feed them does not mean they will walk out during the day. But here is the great thing if it passes YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT!

But i do have a question.... Based on the post i quoted i am assuming that you hunt with a stick and string and wear normal clothes do not use a tree stand or any type of sent/attractant because all those things make hunting easier.... And we don't want to make hunting any easier now do we ?

All i am trying to do is to get you to look at this with an open mind. Not everything has to be negative.

Now one thing with or without this bill stays true. The ppl that are all ready hunting illegally ie over bait at night ect ect ect.... They will keep doing it no matter what....

I love the entire part of hunting ie checking feeders, cams making plots ect ect not just the shooting them part... This bill if it passes will only aid those who love the entire sport year round. JMO hope i don't upset you in any form or fashion again just trying to get you to open your mind a little bit.

This is hilarious. And like most good comedy it's made even funnier by the fact that it's also true as well. Well crafted sir.

That list is the first one that I have seen that shows reasons for it to be illegal.

And, it summed up all snips, sarcasm and condescending 'Holier than Thou' posts have said quite well!!!

BTW, where does Food Plot seed and Fertilizer come from if it is not "poured out of a bag"????

For me this exchange and it's abrupt end is a microcosm of this whole debate with many (not all) on the anti-corn side.

Guy is just in a rage of righteous fury that anyone who favors legalizing corn baiting is just a unethical, redneck, pond scum, slob, hunter.

But you ask for a simple explanation of how it's so ethically different than sitting over a green patch that it warrents such venom and...........que the crickets chirping.

Never seen so many people so passionate about keeping something illegal when they cannot provide one single scientific fact indicating it's bad and won't even attempt to explain how it's morally different than sitting over a green field.

Todd1700, you must sleep less than I do.

Work nights and pretty much keep the same hours when I'm off. LOL!

I don't see a problem with putting corn out and hunting over it. I hunted over corn for 10 years in Louisiana, when i lived there. We didn't always hunt over corn and other products out of a bag. One reason we couldn't afford to buy bags of stuff each week. Another reason we saw just as many deer, if not more, without baiting. I only killed 15 deer while I lived in LA. I only killed 3 maybe 4 deer over bait. The rest were in green fields, power line, in white oak flats or pine thickets. Never killed a buck over bait, not that it hasn't happened by someone else, just my experience. I have only seen small bucks and does eating bait during daylight hours in those 10 years. I am sure people have had much different experience than I have hunting over bait. I don't understand what problem people have with hunting over bait. All it is is a food source, most people hunt food sources or trails leading to food sources all the time. Maybe my view point is this way because I started deer hunting over bait and it is normal to me. Just my thought.

That's exactly it. Conversely many here that oppose it believe it's wrong for no other reason than the fact they have just always been told it's wrong.



In the past 15 years of supplemental feeding on our land and keeping game cameras out, out of thousands of pictures I have only a handful of photos of a shooter buck at a feeder in daylight. In order to make it to a mature age on even moderately hunted land in Alabama you can bet a buck has become a pretty reclusive animal. And he isn't going to lose his mind and forget the habits that got him to that age just because someone pours out a sack of corn. I think a lot of people are basing their opinions on the effects of corn on big bucks on what they see on TV hunting shows filmed in pens with semi-domesticated deer. Those shows and the behavior of the deer on them bear little resemblance to the world most of us hunt in.

Great Post Hoss!

Should baiting be allowed on public land?

Public land is the ONLY place baiting should be allowed and "hunters" should be allowed to sit right on top of the corn pile.

X2

I do have several concerns with this but first a question..What about the "illegal" mineral blocks, how will they be affected?? I'm not sure if someone mentioned this, but "here piggy, piggy, piggy"...ya think your property may have a pig problem now, just wait till you start slinging corn all over the place... and that close to your food plots not gonna be pretty...and will I need a special permit to shoot the pigs over or around the corn like now?? I think a lot of clubs will probably stop summer planting just to be able to afford the corn just to keep up with the neighbors, and that can't be good for the wildlife population in general...BUT, i think the corn wouldn't really be about shooting a rack buck coming to the feeder, it would be more about keeping the doe population on your property..

Yep, I think keeping corn or any feed /bait out all season, would be like having a primary scrape that never gets cold. That's what will get the big bucks killed, not the food but the does at the food. IMHO

BTW, welcome.

Todd1700, where did you go?

Asked a simple question and you seemed to have disappeared.

If the bills pass or are defeated, when will the results be known?

The bills have to work their way thru the Legislature.


There will be a committee meeting in the Senate this week to discuss some of the bills.

03/07/2012 AC&F Senate RM727 2:30PM

- Trespass, no duty to certain persons who trespass, Sec 6-5-345 added

- (Public Hearing) Conservation and Natural Resources Department, whitetail deer, may be hunted over bait under certain conditions, Sec. 9-11-244 am'd.

- (Public Hearing) Conservation and Natural Resources Department, whitetail deer, hunting season extended



The spincast feeder bill HB322 in the House is in a committe that has not announced a meeting lately. It does not have a companion bill in the Senate.

Whenever a bill has a public hearing it has a reduced chance of passing, or it will likely be amended. Meaning that the bill will go from being a very simple bill to a highly complicated one.

what if it's already very complicated?

Here is the difference.

No corn - A deer wants to feed, it determines a location and heads to it. Be it food plot, acorns, honeysuckle, etc....

Corn - A deer wants to feed, it determines a location and heads to it. Be it a food plot, acorns, honeysuckle, corn, etc....

Difference - It simply costs more money. So, on top of gas, lease price, bullets, hunting gear, etc...now add another expense of buying bait.

Did you really accomplish anything? Of course, other than making someone else some money?

What's the latest on this bill? There only are about 10 days left in the regular session.

The bill was pretty simple. It is not a bill to make it legal to hunt over bait. It clarifies what constitutes baiting. Feed and/or mineral have to be at least 100 yards away and can not be in sight of where you are hunting. The 100 yard rule is easy to understand for most. The in line of sight has people confused. If you can shoot an animal at any distance when it puts it's head down to eat something you put out, it would be considered baiting and would be illegal. I don't know about most of you guys, but I'm about fed up with the government telling me what I can and can't do on my private property. Most people already manage their properties. As for the Senate, I wish they would spend more time trying to help people who have lost their homes and jobs. I could go on and on about how hypocritical most of the opponents of this bill are, but I've already spent too much time venting my opinion. The guys that I know, that are for this bill, are more about the quality of deer they manage, not how many they can kill. Call your local Senators and ask them to vote for more government or for less government.

More bills, more rules = more government. Baiting/feeding deer is already legal.

Then why are you against simple baiting? Yall should just introduce a bill that allows "shoot(ing) an animal at any distance when it puts it's head down to eat something you put out"

One reason I don't like the bill is the added confusion it causes.

The changes only affect deer. It's easy for people to misunderstand that. Any other animal is still hunted under the same old confusing combination of law/rule/depredation trapping/baiting/night hunting permitthat currently exists.

The changes only affect hunting deer near feeders. There are no provisions for allowing hunting near mineral blocks, Trophy Rocks , salt, pure white salt or any other bait that is not in a supplemental feeder. And the area is still not defined for those other hunting siutations that don't involve a feeder.

Here's what the language of the changes looks like:



"whitetail deer may be hunted more than 100 yards from a supplemental feeder"

The Senate and House committees both voted in favor of their respective companion bills and put them on the calendars for a vote of the full Senate and House.

I'm not against any type of baiting. I'm against the government telling what I can and can't do on my property. This bill would eventually lead to legal baiting, which is okay with me. If someone doesn't want to kill an animal over bait, kill a doe, kill a small buck, etc., then don't. But don't tell others not to, just because you don't think it's right. I believe that most hunters are smart enough to take care of their own hunting lands. It's time to get the government out of so much of our lives. Take care of our borders, our roads, and OUR needy should be the focus of the government. Local government should take care of law enforcement. The government is run by lawyers, that is why there are so many laws!!!

Hunting over bait is already legal in the State, you just have to figure out how to stay within the current rules. No new rules, regulations and laws. Issue solved.

Please enlighten me on how baiting is legal?

Pro baiters claim everything is bait when what their intention is to pour corn out of a bag that they bought at Walmart or the local hunting store. All they have to do is grow corn in their foodplots and voila BAIT without the Walmart "Deer" corn bag!! Not to mention perfectly legal!

Ok i just didnt know what you ment but you are correct plant it and its legal...

While I agree with your premise, the Game and Fish folks will tell you in a hurry the wildlife on your property does not belong to you. That's what kinda makes your argument moot.

Your point is kinda moot.

Explain this law:

(emphasis added)

If you read the law for what it says, you'll find the purpose defined for the state holding title to wildlife:

(emphasis added)

Wildlife is held in trust by the state for use by the people of the state. The people of this state own it's wildlife. Their government does not.

In Alabama, it is not legal to hunt any of your property that has a food source that was not grown there and left standing for the wild life. That's the point, if you have 10 acres with bait on it , you can not hunt it until 10 days after the bait is gone. It's the same if you had 10,000 acres with only one area baited. The game warden is probably going to spend more time trying to catch the guy with 10,000 acres than the guy with 10 acres. There are alot more people with small acreage baiting than those with larger tracts. The law needs to be specific, based on distance and visability, if it is going to be illegal to bait.

Dennis,

You may be right about how the game wardens are currently handling baited property, but the law ceratainly does not require that the whole property to be put off limits to hunting for the 10 day period.

I have found no caselaw to support that interpretation of the law. Vague laws that leave the details up to the enforcement agency have often been struck down once they have been challenged in the appeals courts.

I doubt if the DCNR is willing to risk a challenge to this easy source of revenue by closing down an entire 10,000 acres to hunting because a small portion of the land was baited. An owner of a large tract would probably be more likely to engage in such a challenge due to having more money to spend on a challenge.

When bait was found on our lease, our club's officers decided what the affected area was and that's all we closed for the 10 day period. We decided 80 acres was adequate to comply with the law. The rest of our lease was left open to hunting.

I didn't see any need to notifiy the game warden. A law is required to give adequate notice to those whose activity is being restricted by it. We were ready to defend our decision in court if it came to that.

If the CAB, the Legislature and the DCNR can't agree on what an affected area is, the landowner's decision aught to be as good as anyone else's as long as it is within reason. I consider the officers of our club to be reasonable men of at least average intelligence.



State v. Lupo, 984 So. 2d 395 - Ala: Supreme Court 2007




Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 US 385 - Supreme Court 1926

Self policing is the right way and I applaud that effort!!!!! If more detailed regulation is put forth then only more arguments will ensue regarding the details of the regulation and in the end nothing changes.

For the "pro baiters" police yourself, if you want to put bait out and have an argument with the State about how you can't comply with the regulations against baiting because they are hard to understand then go right ahead.

I have been on a large scale corp. dove hunt where some idiots put corn out on our spot over night. we were able to move up the hill, out of sight and close to a quarter mile up the dirt road and hunt all day. game warden even sat us up there. So, I have seen both sides of it.

if it's okay for UNCLE TED it must be the right thing to do ! lol

this^^^ is so not true.

if you have 10,000 acres you can definitely get far enough away from the bait to hunt legally on the same tract of land. The law requires that the hunter knew or should of known the existance of the bait to be prosecuted. One cannot be held accountable for bait that is miles away from where you are hunting.

troy

It is at the discretion of the Game Warden!!!

We have some how gotten off track about the bill. It is NOT a Pro-baiting Bill. It is a Pro-feeding bill. People who are baiting will continue to bait. This will let those who would like to FEED quality feed to the deer on their property and continue the practice during deer season without being shut down. It will still be illegal to hunt over the bait. The only people I can possibly see being against this, would be those who are baiting. Those who bait will not be as successful if their neighbors can keep putting feed out, also.

D, there is no discretion involved in making a decision on making an arrest just for being on the same property as bait that is miles away. There is no arrest to be made at that distance.

troy

I agree with Dennis 100%. There is definately a difference between supplrmental feeding and baiting. i have been feeding deer on our lease for over 15 years.They are fed soys and corn out of trough feeders and there is not a feeder within sight or shooting distance of any stand. we were visited 4 years ago by 2 game wardens on a Christmas weekend and with all 9 of my feeders being located on the sides of the dirt roads through my lease [so my lazy arss could load them out of the back of the truck] the only citations written were for no hunter orange on 2 guys. Whether these guys were going by the letter of the law or not, i don't know, but they obviously had run into this enough before that we weren't the first ones they had come across. They haven't been back since. I'm sure they could have tore us a new one and shut us down if they wanted.I think we owe it to the officers to give them the proper laws to determine what is Baiting and what is Feeding.

A person can "feed" now and can't hunt over it, so if that is all that the bill is, then why is it "needed"? Sounds a whole lot more like a "baiting" bill to me or a bill to placate someone that has a monetary interest in "baiting" or "feeding".

It's funny, I am against it and I don't "bait" or "feed" out of a "deer" corn or "deer" feed bag, so that comment may need to be reeled back in.

To sum it up, a person can already do what the bill will allow and not everybody that is against the bill "baits", so I guess there is no justifiable reason for the bill.

I can tell you this for a fact. I have been keeping records on deer sightings and hunter man days on my property for over 10 years. When i stopped supplemental feeding 3 years ago,deer sightings and harvest on the 5 most productive green fields which are located on my north property line dropped by 40%. This property line is adjoined by a commercial hunting lodge.Do the math with that. They got the money and i ain't!

So does this mean you are for the bill or against the bill?

Good post. You are right. You can feed all you want now. A bill like this is nothing less than a bill to bait. It's obvious to everyone. Why not just call it like it is? That is my question. Why not just say, "hey, we want to bait our deer, just make some guidelines for us to do it". Pretty simple.

According to the legislature website, this bill is "Indefinitely Postponed in the House of Origin" which means its dead for this year. So I am going to unstick this post.

Thank you, Skinny.