Confused about baiting rule now

Answer is pretty simple. If you have questions of whether you are hunting over bait, then you probably are. I know if the State doesn't define it for some they can't figure out ways around the rule of hunting over bait.

... The court has said:

"`As generally stated, the void-for vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 [357], 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). A statute challenged for vagueness must therefore be scrutinized to determine whether it provides both fair notice to the public that certain conduct is proscribed and minimal guidelines to aid officials in the enforcement of that proscription. See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). If the statute `either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,' it is void for vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)."
McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala. Crim.App.1983). See also State v. Gooden, 570 So.2d 865 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).

"The void for vagueness doctrine ... protects against legislation providing insufficient warning of what conduct is unlawful. E.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The doctrine was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 [357], 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983), as follows: `... the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' (Citations omitted.) The Court in Kolender, supra, further opined that the most important aspect of the void-for-vagueness doctrine is `not actual notice, but the other principal element of the doctrine—the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement,' quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974). These minimal guidelines should be provided in order to avoid `a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors and juries to pursue their personal predilections.' Smith, supra, at 575, 94 S.Ct. at 1248." 1265*1265 Kerr v. State, 474 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.Crim. App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Kerr, 474 So.2d 145 (Ala.1985). ...

Yall makin this harder than it really is. 100 yards thats 300 ft. out of plain site. but as Commisioner said behind a bale of hay is not considered out of site. he also said the game warden has the right to shoose if its out of site.

"`[A]mbiguous criminal statutes must be narrowly interpreted, in favor of the accused.' United States v. Herring, 933 F.2d 932, 937 (11th Cir.1991). `[I]t is well established that criminal statutes should not be "extended by construction."' Ex parte Evers, 434 So.2d 813, 817 (Ala.1983). "`[C]riminal statutes must be strictly construed, to avoid ensnaring behavior that is not clearly proscribed.'" United States v. Bridges, 493 F.2d 918, 922 (5th Cir.1974).

"`In United States v. Boston & M. RR Co., 380 U.S. 157, 85 S.Ct. 868, 870, 13 L.Ed.2d 728 (1965), the Supreme Court stated:

"`"A criminal statute is to be construed strictly, not loosely. Such are the teachings of our cases from United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L.Ed. 37 [(1820)], down to this day. Chief Justice Marshall said in that case:

"`"`The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is, perhaps, not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.' Id., p. 95.

"`"The fact that a particular activity may be within the same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the criminal prohibition. United States v. Weitzel, 246 U.S. 533, 38 S.Ct. 381, 62 L.Ed. 872 [(1918)]."

"`Moreover, "one `is not to be subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute plainly impose it,' Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U.S. 356, 362, 25 S.Ct. 443, 49 L.Ed. 790 [(1905)]. `[W]hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.' United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 229-230, 97 L.Ed. 260 [(1952)]." United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293, 297, 92 S.Ct. 471, 474, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971).'

"Bridges, 493 F.2d at 923.

"`Words used in the statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.' Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. City of Hartselle, 460 So.2d 1219, 1223 (Ala.1984). The general rule of construction for the provisions of the Alabama Criminal Code is found in Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-1-6: `All provisions of this title shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and to effect the objects of the law, including the purposes stated in section 13A-1-3.' Among the purposes stated in § 13A-1-4 is that found in subsection (2): `To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed.'"

599 So.2d at 1264-65. Moreover, "the law favors rational and sensible construction," and "[i]n construing statutes, courts are not required to abandon common sense." Hankins v. State, 989 So.2d 610, 618 (Ala. Crim.App.2007).

I aggree.... Thats just what He said. I dont care about hunting over corn. I hunt with dogs.

I hope they remove the 'with the aid of bait' part too. I was told by an over-zealous Warden that it was illegal to release my dogs at deer protein feeders in the Summer time without a permit since it was using bait.

Just make it legal or illegal and be done with it!

By accpeting this permit, the permittee agrees to abide by all state and local laws and ordinances.

I aggree.... Thats just what He said. I dont care about hunting over corn. I hunt with dogs.

They probably have permits from the Commissioner to hunt over bait like he has given on the property I hunt.

IMO,They should make it legal or illegal and quit playing.

Dumb question: does this pertain just to deer or to turkey hunting also

Disagree, laws and regs should NOT be up to the officer. In this case in sight or out of sight. I agree with 9er, welcome back BTW.
Where does this leave the old reg? Lets say you have "feed" out and are 100+ yards away and out of sight. The day the last grain is gone you move closer than 100 yards, has the "feed" now magically become "bait" because you haven't waited 10 days since last grain is gone per old reg?
IMO,They should make it legal or illegal and quit playing.

Surely it's all game animals.
I was wondering too

Me too. I've got a game camera going over a corn pile and I intend to hunt the property. Turkeys usually hang out in the chufa patch which is on the far side of the 150 acres. Just wonder if I get to chasing one and he heads to the corn how close can I get, ect..
I say just legalize it. The folks who want to hunt over corn are doing it anyway. We don't do it on our lease, and wouldn't if it were legal, but I don't have a moral issue with it.

The folks who want to hunt over corn are doing it anyway.

So you are saying that most folks normally only follow the laws that they agree with? ...

Do most folks quit hunting deer at sunset?

Section 9-11-235
Taking, etc., of protected birds or animals, raccoons or opossums at night; nighttime hunting of foxes with dogs.

It shall be unlawful, except as to trapping as otherwise provided by law, for a person to take, capture, or kill, or attempt to take, capture, or kill any bird or animal protected by the laws of this state between sunset and daylight of the following day, except that the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources may by a duly promulgated regulation, allow the taking, catching, or killing of raccoons and opossums between sunset and daylight in any county or counties within the state. ...

So you are saying that most folks normally only follow the laws that they agree with?

IMO,They should make it legal or illegal and quit playing.

I would have to agree with this statement when it comes to hunting over bait. The convenience store down the street from my house sells 2 tons of corn each week during hunting season.

I agree.

SECTION 35
Objective of government.

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

End of story?

Not 'til we get my version of ethics written into the law. I believe it's both unethical and illegal to swear with your hand on a Bible to support our constitutions and then practice usurpation and oppression the authority that has been delegated to you.

Constitution of Alabama 1901

By that logic we should just legalize drugs, moonshine, gambling, prostitution,
speeding, running red lights, driving drunk etc.

Well, it is ALREADY illegal. What we need
to do is just keep it that way!

There is no
problem here. Game wardens are perfectly capable of
enforcing the law here. They are not stupid. They know
when someone is using corn etc. to hunt with.

If some folks just need additional guidance
then just define "area" as follows:

"No hunting within 500 (five hundred) yards of
any bait/corn/etc."

If you are hunting closer than 500 yards to the corn/bait
you are wrote up. Plain and simple. End of story.

There's one big obstacle with the "500 yard law". If your neighbor puts his feeder near your property line, you have allowed your neighbor to dictate hunting on your property. Any law that includes a distance also has to include the same distance away from a property line. Otherwise, you're going to have some serious issues.

I was not advocating making anything legal . I said ,I agree people follow laws they agree with , and used hunting over bait as an example.

I do not care if it is legal or not it will not change the way I hunt .

There's one big obstacle with the "500 yard law". If your neighbor puts his feeder near your property line, you have allowed your neighbor to dictate hunting on your property. Any law that includes a distance also has to include the same distance away from a property line. Otherwise, you're going to have some serious issues.

Bamarich,

How would you feel if the law prohibited fishing with bait?

Can you define the public interest that should override individual liberty to decide whether hunting over bait is ethical or not?

Ethics are closely kin to religion. We have provisions in our constitutions that prohibit our government from establishing religious beliefs through laws. How is the issue of hunting over bait or fishing with bait different from establishing religious beliefs using the law?

so make it illegal to put a feeder out with in x amount of yards of your property line (besides who puts feeder's on property lines?...defeats the purpose) Go with 200 yds...100 yds is simply legalizing without legalizing...

none of us follow all laws to the T but a lot of us try. To say people in general only follow laws they agree with is stepping way out. I don't agree with our current tax laws but I still pay them...thats just one of many laws I follow but don't agree with. What about those that hunt in South Bama that haven't been able to hunt a real rut...you think most of them just go ahead and shoot deer in February? I just don't get your logic...

Most good clubs feed 8 months out of the year ,

This is not a LAW.....

it is simply a definition of the very vague, and often abused, term AREA.

It is now defined that if you are closer than 100 yds and in sight of a bait pile or feeder.....you are hunting over bait.

??? Not sure why you're picking a bone with me. I'm just saying that if there's a restriction on proximity to the feeder, there is going to have to be one in relation to the property line also. Otherwise, guys are going to get fined for something they have no opportunity to know about. I'm neither for it/against it in this thread... just pointing out a possible issue.

... Requiring, for one to be convicted of violating § 9-11-244, that he either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited does not render § 9-11-244 unenforceable. Requiring such a low level of mental culpability simply requires the State to prove that with reasonable investigation the hunter could have discovered the bait. The imposition of a low-level standard of mental culpability also protects a hunter who performed the necessary investigation, but was unable to detect the presence of bait, perhaps because he was barred by a property line. ...

Actually, there's no need for a property line restriction. That matter has already been settled:



Ex parte Phillips, 771 So. 2d 1066 - Ala: Supreme Court 2000


Not really picking a bone ... just wondering why you would add more restrictions in order to enforce a law that should never have been passed to begin with.

It should be repealed so we could be done with all this confusion, don't you think? How does this law benefit the public in any form?

OK.....you got me.....

I 'chose' to go by the Regulation (220-2-.07) that the ALDCNR set instead of the State Law dictated by the Legislature. The Regulation says 'daylight hours'.

… The provisions of a statute will prevail in any case of a conflict between a statute and an agency regulation.
Ex parte State Dep't of Human Resources, 548 So.2d 176 (Ala.1988).

An administrative regulation must be consistent with the statutes under which its promulgation is authorized.
Ex parte City of Florence, 417 So.2d 191 (Ala.1982).

An administrative agency cannot usurp legislative powers or contravene a statute.
Alabama State Milk Control Bd. v. Graham, 250 Ala. 49, 33 So.2d 11 (1947).

A regulation cannot subvert or enlarge upon statutory policy.
Jefferson County Bd. of Ed. v. Alabama Bd. of Cosmetology, 380 So.2d 913 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).

Regulation 810-3-15-.05(10) therefore cannot override Ala. Code 1975, § 40-18-8(j).

"`It is well established that criminal statutes should not be "extended by construction."'"
Ex parte Mutrie, 658 So.2d 347, 349 (Ala.1993)...

"`Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.' Ex parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532, 535 (Ala. 2001).

This thread is way too technical for me. I'm going to go back to being a regular deer hunter. I'll check back later to see if you guys work this thing out.

This thread is way too technical for me. I'm going to go back to being a regular deer hunter. I'll check back later to see if you guys work this thing out.

If you plan to hunt, the best thing you can do to stay out of trouble is to either learn the volumes of laws and rules or have a lawyer hunting with you.

I see you're new here, welcome,Ponderosa meet 49er.

Agree. And every GW I've spoken with thinks it's a joke.
Just like the stupid honor system for the 3 buck limit.

It really shouldn't be an issue here. Nobody here has ever hunted anywhere near corn.......

Where is the sarcasm button?

On the bright side, this will prevent SOME people from baiting and shooting out their back doors.
Maybe.

This is not a LAW.....

it is simply a definition of the very vague, and often abused, term AREA.

It is now defined that if you are closer than 100 yds and in sight of a bait pile or feeder.....you are hunting over bait.

none of us follow all laws to the T but a lot of us try. To say people in general only follow laws they agree with is stepping way out. I don't agree with our current tax laws but I still pay them...thats just one of many laws I follow but don't agree with. What about those that hunt in South Bama that haven't been able to hunt a real rut...you think most of them just go ahead and shoot deer in February? I just don't get your logic...

I'll just go find me an oak tree dropping acorns since baiting ain't allowed.

this law sucks and so did the old law, BUT previously area could have reasonably been interpreted by a fair GW or a law abiding hunter as far more than 100 yds away from a feeder. In other words in the past I doubt a hunter who honestly tried to follow all hunting regs. and ONLY continued to feed during hunting season for feeding purposes would have ever considered hunting 100 yds away from a feeder. So now, area has been defined as being much smaller than most would have thought and is small enough that bait can now fairly easily assist a hunter in killing a deer. If the real purpose was to define area in a way that would allow clubs and landowners to feed year around without having to worry about whether or not they were breaking the law then they would have defined area as much greater than a distance of 100 yds.

Sykes added the definition will allow people to continue to trap hogs on their land while still being able to hunt deer. Previously, the baited hog traps effectively prevented people from hunting deer in the area of the trap.

Protecting feral hogs as a game animal is idiotic.

Mr. Sykes needs to read the law. When the commissioner classified feral hogs as a protected game animal, he made it illegal to bait or trap them. (9-11-244 and 9-11-245)

The "area" is only defined for deer and hogs in the proposed amended rule. If you kill any other species of game animal, that still leaves it to the discretion of the game warden to define "area". The "rebuttal" clause in the proposed change allows for the same thing. That is unconstitutional.

This whole mess is a money trap and it needs to disappear in its entirety. Our legislature needs to repeal it.

The rule will go thru the AAPA review and comment process. Hunters should use their opportunity to express their opinions before this is finalized.

... To the extent that the Board, by adoption of a regulation that purports to amend a duly enacted statute, has sought to impose a further prerequisite upon parties to disciplinary proceedings before the Board before their appeals may be deemed perfected, the Board has done so in the absence of authority.

"It is settled law that the provisions of a statute will prevail in any case in which there is a conflict between the statute and a . . . regulation.

"`It is axiomatic that administrative rules and regulations must be consistent with the constitutional or statutory authority by which their promulgation is authorized. "A regulation . . . which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute, is a mere nullity." This is because an administrative board or agency is purely a creature of the legislature, and has only those powers conferred upon it by its creator.'

"An administrative agency cannot usurp legislative powers or contravene a statute."

Ex parte Crestwood Hosp. & Nursing Home, Inc., 670 So. 2d 45, 47 (Ala. 1995) (citations omitted; quoting Ex parte City of Florence, 417 So. 2d 191, 193-94 (Ala. 1982), quoting in turn Manhattan Gen. Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 (1936))

Section 9-2-2

Powers and duties generally.

The general functions and duties of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources shall be as follows:

...(8) To recommend to the Legislature such legislation as may be needed further to protect, conserve, increase, or to make available or useful the wildlife and other natural resources, state parks and the monuments and historical sites of Alabama.

...

Now, we are STILL in the same muck, mess and mire that we were/are.

Who is going to define 'Area'???...

... If someone is so silly (or devious) that they need a definition of "area" then it should be one where all reasonable minds could agree that the corn is not and cannot be used to kill deer. And that would be my 500 yard proposal.

Regards.

The most reasonable thing would be to either make feeding legal, or illegal, and quit beating around the bush!!!!

Feeding was already legal and so was baiting, it was just NOT in the form that everybody wanted, much easier to pour it out of the bag than to plant it and let it grow and continue to feed the wildlife after the season goes out. But that is obviously to hard for some to understand, or more likely requires effort. Now the baiting, excuse me, feeding is good for gun hunters but not for bowhunters, so why can't they say it only has to be ten yards from away and out of sight from the bowhunter??????????????????????

Sad when egos, ineptitude and searching for the lowest common denominator of effort and skill defind "hunting"!

NO possible way, but the current Law, that feeding can be legally done on the same property as hunting under the current Regs.

Sure, it can. Depends on the game warden's discretion.

I am afraid that you are a little too full of yourself this afternoon.

Feeding is legal.
Baiting is illegal.

NO possible way, but the current Law, that feeding can be legally done on the same property as hunting under the current Regs.

SO, your stance is that baiting is legal....if YOU agree with it.

That is not the way the Law is supposed to work.

Sorry!

Nope, not my stance at all. If a person considers a foodplot "bait" then baiting is already legal, it's just not the way that some folks want to bait because it takes effort. Hence, their never ending search to do it easier. Feeding deer during the deer season is NEVER about the deers health it is about killing deer and killing deer only!! Show me one person that thinks that deer can only survive in Alabama when they are feed during deer season and I will show you a person that sales "deer feed", deer corn or any other "feed" gimmick to make money on the "hunters". Like the commercial says "gotta level the playing field", seems like the liberals use that same slogan to take from the doers and give to the lazy, funny how it fits in both instances isn't it??

It it passes and reads like it does so far I think I will wait a year or so before I try it. Game wardens sometimes don't use common sense in my opinion. I know of two cases in specific that I remember. A few years ago a friend of mine had a small lease near Andalusia with 3 food plots. Early in the season he invited a friend to go up with him. As they left the truck he reached in the back seat and picked up an old jacket from the past season as it was cool. As they walked to the plot he found a handful of pecans in the pocket. He started cracking them as they walked, and every one he cracked was rancid. When they got within sight of the plot he pointed out the ladder stand to his friend. He cracked another rancid pecan and threw it and two more on the ground. About 4:30 a game warden walked into the plot with his friend, checked the license and then told him he was getting a ticket for baiting, the three rancid pecans he had dropped on the ground, about a $470 fine. Another friend told me he, his grandson and a friend went to his small lease this past year with 3 food plots in January. They had put a camera on the edge of the plot with a half sack of corn in September and did not see any remains of the corn after a few days. The game warden went in to check them about 4:00 and he ask about them taking pictures of any good deer. He pointed out the area they had the camera and corn in Sept. The game warden literally sifted the dirt for several minutes before he found one black mostly rotten kernel, another $470 ticket. IMHO those two tickets should have never been written.

The most reasonable thing would be to either make feeding legal, or illegal, and quit beating around the bush!!!!

More false straw man argumentation. Feeding is legal for deer
and always has been. You just can't hunt near it
when the feed is corn or some other pour out substance.

The example involving your father in law is the fault of the
landowner who should not have put corn baited hog traps next to
his foodplots, and should have warned your FIL not to hunt that spot.

The first of the other two examples is a gamewarden problems not law problems.
If a clarification of law was in order for that situtuation it would be
that a person has no responsibility over someone else's property. Most
gamewardens already go by that.

The second situation the gamewarden is right to say you cannot
start a hog hunt at a corn bait station. Yeah, they ought to make
it legal to use any kind of bait for hogs and coyotes as they are
a nuisance.

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

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

... the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

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

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

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

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

... A rebuttable presumption is one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise, Guy said.

"In this case, the rebuttable presumption is that if you are in compliance with the regulation, you're presumed not to be baiting, but that can be overcome by the evidence," Guy said.

The burden of proof still rests with the state to establish that the hunter placed the feed outside of an on-going supplemental feeding program and with the intent to lure or attract game to within shooting range, Guy said.

Alabama's conservation law enforcement chief Kevin Dodd said the new regulation will still require his officers to use their discretion when making baiting cases. ...

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

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

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

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

... The burden of proof still rests with the state to establish that the hunter placed the feed outside of an on-going supplemental feeding program and with the intent to lure or attract game to within shooting range, Guy said.

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

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

Tell that to my Father-in-Law and two others that received tickets for hunting over bait while hunting as guests in foodplots that had hog traps set in the woods beside them. The traps were baited with corn....BUT, not in sight of the shooting house. And say what you want; BUT I am not going to walk around a food plot looking around for corn before hunting it.

Or, how about the GW's being ordered to go to a high dollar high fence and flagging areas around protein feeders to designate 'area' so as to allow hunting and feeding to go on at the same time.

Or, to the GW that told me that I could not legally release my dogs at the protein feeders to trail up and bay the hogs that were eating all the guys expensive deer feed.

I could go on.
But, I think you are plenty intelligent enough to see that there are too many loopholes and WAYYYYYYY too many exeptions based on 'who' you are.

I am afraid that you are a little too full of yourself this afternoon.

Feeding is legal.
Baiting is illegal.

NO possible way, but the current Law, that feeding can be legally done on the same property as hunting under the current Regs.

It's up to the GW's first, then the Judge. Seems we keep forgetting about him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 9-11-244

Taking, etc., of protected birds or animals by means of bait.

[s]No person at any time shall take, catch, kill or attempt to take, catch or kill any bird or animal protected by law or regulation of the State of Alabama by means, aid or use, directly or indirectly, of any bait such as shelled, shucked or unshucked corn or of wheat or other grain, salt or any other feed whatsoever that has been so deposited, placed, distributed or scattered as to constitute for such birds or animals a lure, attraction or enticement to, on or over the area where such hunter or hunters are attempting to kill or take them; provided, that such birds or animals may be taken under properly shocked corn and standing crops of corn, wheat or other grain or feed and grains scattered solely as a result of normal agricultural harvesting and provided further, migratory birds may be hunted under the most recent provisions established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources within the limits of the federal regulations.

(Acts 1951, No. 1001, p. 1672, §1; Acts 1991, No. 91-591, p. 1093, §1.)[/s]

Section 9-11-245

Unlawful methods of hunting birds or animals protected by law or regulation.

No person shall at any time make use of any pitfall, deadfall, baited field, cage, trap, net, pen, baited hook, snare, poison, explosive, or 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. It shall be legal to use a scaffold for gun hunting of all legal game species except wild turkey and to use a scaffold for bow hunting of all legal game species.

(Acts 1951, No. 1001, p. 1672, §2; Acts 1975, No. 195, p. 681, §1; Acts 1995, No. 95-563, p. 1174, §1.)

220-2-.06 Game Animals Designated
The following animals are hereby designated as game animals: Bear, Beaver, Coyote, Deer, Opossum, Rabbit, Raccoon, Squirrel, Nutria, Fox,Mountain Lion (Cougar), Groundhog, Bobcat, Red Wolf, Feral Swine (Wild Hog), except those feral swine reduced to the personal possession of a landowner or his agent, provided, however, that notwithstanding such reduction to personal possession, in the event such feral swine are hunted, they shall at such time of hunting be designated as game animals.
______________________________________________________________
220-2-.86 Feral Swine Regulation
All feral swine (wild hogs) found in the wild are hereby classed as game animals. The seasons and methods for taking feral swine will be as provided in Rule 220-2-.01. Once reduced to personal possession of the landowner or agent, feral swine will no longer be considered a game animal. However, feral swine will be considered a game animal at any time they are hunted. Notwithstanding any other regulation to the contrary, it shall be unlawful to transport feral swine alive beyond the boundaries of the property from which they are taken without a permit from the local conservation officer, or to release feral swine into any area of the state, except ...

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

I have stayed out of this one because I think it is a joke. I bet you there are fewer than 10 landowners in the entire State of Alabama that TRULY supplemental feed during deer season (outside of high fence operations). This baiting/supplemental feeding issue is just one big rouse.

The truth of the matter is those that say they are supplemental feeding during deer season are either trying to keep “their” deer on their property so no one else will kill them or they are baiting them to try and kill them themselves.

The antlers have grown all they will grow and the deer are as fat as they will get.

There are so many folks wanting to keep up the illusion of supplemental feeding. Could money be the reason?

I believe it should be outlawed all together during deer season. And please don’t come at me with the green field is baiting story. My brother and I plant around 100 acorn trees each year, is that baiting as well?

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

I guess if you start splitting hairs, what you're saying could be considered baiting... Several things come to mind. A fella could plant 5 acres in corn, bushog it, and hunt over it legally every day, but if he dumps an extra bag in the field, all of a sudden he's baiting. Makes no sense to me.
I feed corn 9 months a year. You can easily tell when the acorns drop, they stop eating corn. Also when the trees begin to bud, they stop with the corn (my experiences at least).
I just say make it legal and be done with it. To me it's just another tool to use to kill a deer, same as a food plot or planting oaks.

I agree, Elkhunter.

I feed in a couple of places in the middle of my property to hold the deer on the property. There is no hunting in the area around the feeders.... BUT, my definition of area and the GW's may not be the same?????
I also feed here at my house and my Camp to allow viewing of the wildlife. Again, no shooting or hunting there. But, I suppose an overzealous warden 'could' make the argument that game was being influenced by the feed???

I could not afford to install feeders in every field on my place; and would not want to if I could. I would continue to do just as I always have. Pick a couple of interior sites, set up free-choice feeders, make them OFF-LIMITS to hunting and then hunt the rest of the property.

So, you are correct.....it would not change anything. But, it would relieve the 'worry' of a GW having a different perspective on 'Area' than I do and clarify the legality.

I also have a wish!!!
I wish that people would quit spewing the BS that feeding was BAD for the Wildlife. If that was the case, there wouldn't be any left!

If Dan gave a flip about selling feeders you don't believe he would have forced this issue when he became chair of the CAB?

this is unadulterated horsechitt. ...

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

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

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

I feed in a couple of places in the middle of my property to hold the deer on the property. There is no hunting in the area around the feeders.... BUT, my definition of area and the GW's may not be the same?????

but IT IS NOT not the same thing as planting foodplots...that's why most biologist are against legalized baiting. If a club has x amount to spend, and baiting is legal they will likely minimize or eliminate food plots (a 9-12 month of the year food source accessible 24/7) and implement feeders that will stay full from Oct.-Jan. 31st. And that's just the nutritional side of it.

Then there is the point that many hunters and non hunters view a planted field as an ethical way to bait deer while many do not see pouring out a bag of corn in the middle of 1000 acre unmanaged pine forest as being sporting or ethical.

Then there is the money side of it...where it becomes a pissing contest over who has the most feeders and spends the most money keeping them full during hunting season, only to make the herd more nocturnal than it already was. So my question to those that say they don't really care but say we might as well make it legal...why would that be your position. It's just going to cost you a lot more money or put you at a disadvantage if you don't do it. I understand some feel hunting over a feeder or bait pile is perfectly sporting and acceptable and should be legal...fine, although I disagree, at least you aren't hiding your real position.

Honestly, I think if it were made legal there wouldn't be very much of an increase in corn feeding over what's already being done. You make good points, I just think that train has left the station.

Your "logic" , which is actually illogical, is
commonly used by supporters of corn/feeder baiting:

"Since there are some law breakers out there we should
just legalize it."

People make the same arguments with
respect to drugs, pedophilia and a whole lot of other
crap. It is piss poor brain mush "reasoning".

whatthehellareya'llargueingabout??????

Section 41-22-5
Notice of intent to adopt, amend, or repeal rules; submission of data, views, etc., by interested persons; procedure for adoption of emergency rules; effect of this section on other procedural requirements; validity of rules in substantial compliance with this section; limitation of proceedings to contest rules.
(a) Prior to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule, the agency shall:

(1) Give at least 35 days' notice of its intended action. Date of publication in the Alabama Administrative Monthly shall constitute the date of notice. The notice shall include a statement of either the terms or substance of the intended action or a description of the subjects and issues involved, shall specify a notice period ending not less than 35 days or more than 90 days from the date of the notice, during which period interested persons may present their views thereon, and shall specify the place where, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views thereon. The notice shall be given to the chairman of the legislative committee, as provided in Section 41-22-23, and mailed to all persons who pay the cost of such mailing and who have made timely request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings and shall be published, prior to any action thereon, in the Alabama Administrative Monthly. A complete copy of the proposed rule shall be filed with the secretary of the agency and the Legislative Reference Service.

(2) Afford all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. Upon adoption of a rule, the agency, if conflicting views are submitted on the proposed rule, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its adoption, incorporating therein its reasons for overruling any considerations urged against its adoption. ...

This proposal will be open to public review and comment before it is finalized, probably starting March 1 when the next Alabama Administrative Monthly is published.

Honestly, I think if it were made legal there wouldn't be very much of an increase in corn feeding over what's already being done.

I think you are sadly mistaken. Corn sales/baiting would go through the roof if legalized. MOST of the people who hunt do it legally and responsibly. It's kinda like a locked gate...the only people a locked gate keep out are the honest people. Honest people will begin baiting if it's made legal. Think corn is high now? Just wait.

Ethanol and dry weather had a lot more influence on corn prices than a few sacks of corn or the deer.

So you don't think "honest" people are going to place it at least 100 yards and out of sight of their stand?

Corn isn't the magic bullet.

Of course they would. That's the point I was making. You argued that if it were made legal, you don't think there would be an increase in corn feeding over what's already being done. I said there would be. Lots more people would do it in creative ways so they could LEGALLY shoot deer coming to the feeder.




I realize that. I live 1/4 mile from the Florida state line, and hunt there several times a year, as well as having lots of friends who hunt down there full time. Absolutely nothing worse than "hunting" by watching a feeder, waiting for it to go off. It's nothing other than a trick to get people to pay more to hunt...which is why I'm totally against baiting. Hunting is expensive enough as it is. You're not going to kill very many bucks off a feeder, but if everyone is doing it, you're forced to because it does draw deer away from your property if you're not doing it too. Plenty of the folks I know who hunt down there wish they had never legalized it.

March 1 of 2014 ?

Currently, baiting "seems" to be much more of a problem for some of you than it really is. The weird, bad, crazy, unethical, dishonest, crooked always stand out and get the attention. This is human nature. That's why if you watch the news every night you want to go crawl in a bunker somewhere and never come out.

What is *your* definition of "area" in terms
of distance in yards from hunter to feeders??

Deer make grown men act like 2 year old kids.

I fixed it for you. Grown men will apparently do anything to make killing a deer easier and then complain that too many deer are being killed by everybody but them.

Don't forget that it will also make grown men throw temper tantrums and sull up if the Law does not provide for THEIR own personal beliefs and morals!

AMEN!

Our little lease is basically all family. Only 1 guy and his son that aren't close family.....and he is a lifelong friend.

We are very open and honest about what we see and everyone works hard HOPING for the others to all have good hunts!!!

In my experience, that is RARE!

That is rare. I vowed to never again fool around in a club full of aggressive type folks. Hunted in one lease in Montgomery County where the earliest you could sign in was 4:30AM. There were guys showing up at 3:30am and sitting in a chair at the sign in board. I paid 2000 dollars and hunted the place twice. It was pitiful

Just curious, but how did you know that they were there sitting at 3:30am, were you there too?

heheheheheheheh.... I needed a good laugh this morning.

As a non-agressive hunter, I think that anybody that shows up before 5:00 needs to get a life

I hunted as a guest of a BIG club in Wilcox Co years ago. You could not sign in for an area before midnight. The guy I hunted with would go to bed, get up at 11pm and drive to the club to sign in at 12:01, then go home and go back to bed. Seen it myself.

Some people just take it too serious. We still have "agressive hunters" but we are trying to put in rules to cut down on the amount of traffic on the property during the season. Pressure is the number one problem and we have cut back on the number of bucks per membership and put in a better buck rule.

Some people just take it too serious. We still have "agressive hunters" but we are trying to put in rules to cut down on the amount of traffic on the property during the season. Pressure is the number one problem and we have cut back on the number of bucks per membership and put in a better buck rule.

I hunted as a guest of a BIG club in Wilcox Co years ago. You could not sign in for an area before midnight. The guy I hunted with would go to bed, get up at 11pm and drive to the club to sign in at 12:01, then go home and go back to bed. Seen it myself.

....but we are trying to ... put in a better buck rule.

That had to have been Flat wood. I admit to making several of those midnight trips myself. But what's really bad is that some would often sign in before midnight. The next guy would scratch the name out and flag it for being too early.


it was Flat Wood Hunting Club, lots of deer there in the late 70's...
There wasn't a bad place to hunt on the club, but they told me I had to GI sign in if I wanted to hunt with them

Good to see you posting again Troy; we missed you! Come over and tell us a turkey story.

What is suppose to come out of it?

Talked to warden again yday and he said they are just gonna write more hunters orange tickets, licenses not actually on the hunters and deer not marked or called in whichever they go with.

He said they were meeting in a month or so to go over this and learn exactly how they are goin to police this new rule.

As a club board member I wished they had either left it alone or jus made it legal. Reason being if one guys puts it out and another gets to close not knowing its there he gets a ticket. This sucks !

As a club board member I wished they had either left it alone or jus made it legal. Reason being if one guys puts it out and another gets to close not knowing its there he gets a ticket. This sucks !

The government NEVER does anything for you, but they certainly do things to you!! If they make baiting legal they should make spotlighting legal!

Well our board will vote and we will follow that. Won't be based on one person

The should also make green fields illegal to right?

WHAT????????????????

As far as I can see it with a club there is no way to let individuals feed anywhere they want to unless your board is ok with innocent members getting tickets. It should either be club feeding stations that are clearly marked that everyone knows about and are shown or no feed at all.....still pretty simple.

LOL!!!! To some a dead deer is a dead deer no matter whether it is killed with a spear along a trail or killed with a howitzer standing over a pile of corn, so why would spotlighting and shooting a deer be any different?? Before the issue of safety is brought up, the other methods have safety concerns also. What it boils down to is where does the line get drawn for ways to kill a deer?? It seems that more and more people want the absolute easiest way to do it, so where does it stop?? Just questions to ponder when one starts thinking about ways to take advantage at any cost.

Yeah Bama is behind for sure. But hey i don't get to make the rules I just have to play by them.

Yeah I want to understand the logic but I don't think there is any. Really made it tough on clubs. We have got to decide and out of everything I have seen suggested either not allow it or have designated places are the only realistic and fair options

That is the craziest reasoning I've ever seen.
Just more of Alabama's backwards arse way of doing things.
Is it easier to kill a deer in Texas or Florida??
Think outside the box every now and again.

The only thing I WANT is to make the right choice for our club. And it will be based on what OUR board wants. I get on this site caused I'm bored to death and after gettin hammered by someone I've never met I usually don't get back on here for a while. You don't know me or my hunting ethics or desires.

And fun4all that was directed to you as I assume ur comment about wanting was directed at me

It doesn't hurt to get hammered on aldeer; happens to me all the time.

Just keep posting and don't worry about it. And I think y'all should put out lots of corn right on my property line. Please send me a map of the locations.

Really?? So are game cameras outlawed or just bait?

Nope, not directed at you, but glad you are working on what is good for your club. My point is, instead of getting out there and hunting to best the deer in his house there are an awful lot of people (yes, word chosen for a reason) that would rather use any and every short cut to make deer change their habits and make it easier to kill a deer. It is not needed unless your life depends on it, does yours?

So it's easier to kill a deer in Florida or Texas than Alabama?

Thanks 49er.


But, how can there be a presumption that bait or feed is NOT a lure, attraction or enticement to a deer or hog??????? If there is no lure, attraction or enticement how can it be bait or feed???

It is completely STUPID wording. And of course, nothing is said about just exactly when a person is hunting?? What if a person is walking to his "stand", but goes by and put more "bait"/"feed" out and is 70 yards away from the "bait"/"feed" and sees a deer heading in his direction 100 yards away, is he hunting then? Or, does it only count as hunting when he gets to his "stand"??

Typical Government BS?

A couple of other things, how does any of this "protect the public"? Or, how does the absence of this proposed rule "significantly harm or endanger public health, welfare or safety"?? Up until there was a wantfest there has not been significant harm or danger to public health, welfare or safety, so per SOP the "officials" are making things up to solve a made up "crisis". Fine governing right there!!

I have never hunted in Florida or Texas, so I could not provide a first hand account. I do however, have first hand experience in Alabama with a group of fellows that used corn and yes they killed deer at "their stands" just about anytime they hunted "their stands". Once I was able to do some scouting around their stands and found out what was going on, I quickly divorced myself from that situation and never return to that property. Interestingly enough, there were a number of gentlemen in law enforcement that hunted that property. So if my experience stands true, it takes less skill, woodsmanship and knowledge to dump a bag of corn out and consistently see and shoot deer. You may have a different experience in Florida and Texas and can provide your knowledge.

Well I've been hunting the same land for 15 years and have a really good idea of their normal travel routes. But I work cameras from July 4th till Sept 25ish and get an inventory of which areas have the best deer and hunt those areas. I mainly hunt from lock ons very high up around edges of thickets watching trails. Since deer are primarily nocturnal I hardly ever see 4 yr olds but when I do it's a close up shot of 125 yds or less which makes for an easy shot.

I agree with the idea that corn makes them more nocturnal. But we never kill many bucks prerut so I'm not as strong opponent to it as some. I'm not excited about the potential increase in pressure if we allow corn on our club


I think once the rut kicks in they will make mistakes after does not after food. So my opinion is that it doesn't help or hurt things. Prerut it might hurt a little but we never kill any prerut anyway

Just curious, how do you hunt? What methods do you use to locate deer?

Dont you know we shouldnt plant corn or food plots!!!

We should go all natural!!! lol

I hunt deer with a bow, rifle, shotgun sometimes and a pistol while sitting in a treestand, stillhunting and from a ground blind on rivate and public land. I locate deer by putting in time and effort scouting getting the lay of the land and gaining knowledge of what, where and when deer do what they do in their house, which seems to have worked the last 36 or 37 years. Thanks for asking!

****************************************************************


Sounds good. I guess none of these deer you hunt are traveling from a bedding area to a food source?
Explain the difference in a 30 acre cornfield, some bush-hogged and some left standing, or dumping out 10 sacks of corn in an open field. I'd really like to hear your reasoning.

Instead of discussing sacks of corn that will be gone in a few days waiting for someone to show back up and dump some more out when they WANT to, or setting a timer to ring the dinner bell on the feeder and re filling it up when they WANT to or planting corn and leaving it in the field to provide cover and food for periods when nobody is around and does not require somebody to WANT to come and place more out. Why don't you provide insight into where you think the legal line should be drawn in the methods and strategies to kill the ever elusive deer? It is obvious that dumping corn out of a bag is acceptable, what about spotlight deer standing at a feeder in the middle of a greenfield where it is perfectly safe? I had to add the perfectly safe part to keep the discussion out of the safety ditch, if the State can mandate that you have to wear hunter orange while in the woods below 12' they can mandate that you have a flashlight, glowing hat etc if you are below 12', so don't go there. Unless of course you would rather discuss that instead of where you think the line should be drawn. Also, you might want to provide thoughts on why it should be legal to "feed"/"bait" during hunting season on private property that is adjacent to or even inside a public area like a management area but not legal on the public land? Of coures I expect the "you can't control the public land" or confrontation comments. Should the private land owner be provided with a method or strategy that is not open to the adjacent public land hunter? Why should the private land hunter be allowed this startegy, is it harder to kill a deer on private land?

I would like to see one single documented
case of a game warden writing someone a ticket
for hunting near/over/around bait where the
bait/feeder/whatever
was more than 400 yards from the hunter.

ONE case. Let's see it folks.

Did you pull the 400 yard figure out of your arse??
I can give you examples of an entire lease being shut down for 3 weeks because of the presence of corn.

Personally, I'd like to see the State change the rule to Supplemental feeding being allowed from February 1st - October 5th ONLY.

From October 6th - January 31st no Supplemental feeding of any type allowed at all. If a warden finds it out during that time anywhere on your hunting property it's a ticket, no questions asked.

Of course, this is just my opinion but if they would do this all "gray" areas of the law would be totally eliminated.

Now, ya'll can jump on me with both feet. I know it's coming.

You are wrong about current law regarding feeders. Some Game Wardens will ticket a hunter for hunting the same area as a feeder. This law tries to remove that problem by establishing an area. In my opinion, the law fails, but that's just my opinion. You say some want the State to make that decision for them????? Well, they are the ones that create the laws we hunt by, I once again don't understand your argument
As for methods to legally kill deer..I'm good with the daylight until dark hunting hours. I like the season length as it is. I wish the State would implement a tagging system that works. I see nothing morally wrong with hunting a food plot, white oak tree or corn feeder. Killing deer is easy. Killing 5,6,7 year old bucks is darn near impossible.

Yep. Everybody knows you can just dump out a bag of corn and 200 class bucks will run to it.

in 26 years on the job I never heard of anything even close to 1200 being closed because of the "presence of corn".....

what year?

what county?

Please point me to the current rule, regulation or law that says that you can not have a feeder out during hunting season. So, from your comments the GWs don't enforce the same laws? That is an interesting suggestion.

I am glad to see you have a line that you will not cross to kill a deer. One question though, what if your neighbor finds it perfectly moral to lure a deer into a trap with corn and walk up to the trap and shoot the deer and he wants that legalized? The outcome is the same, right? If legalized he would have used all of the legal means and methods and let's not forget that he would properly tag and report the kill, so that would be okay, right?

My line is drawn at the point where a supposedly more intelligent being starts the domestication process through continual feeding of a non-self replenishing resource for the simple purpose of killing the inferior species. Especially when the supposedly superior species has the supposedly superior capacity to gain the knowledge needed to best the lesser species on his terms.

Cuz Pat has a good idea that would clear it all up easily! However, I don't think it will get much attention because it is not what the people WANT. Dang, there is that word again.

Elmore County, probably 5 years ago, turkey season. Corn present in several locations on the property. Ticket given to one hunter. Call Kieth Mann. Tallapoosa River.

Personally, I'd like to see the State change the rule to Supplemental feeding being allowed from February 1st - October 5th ONLY.

From October 6th - January 31st no Supplemental feeding of any type allowed at all. If a warden finds it out during that time anywhere on your hunting property it's a ticket, no questions asked.

Of course, this is just my opinion but if they would do this all "gray" areas of the law would be totally eliminated.

Now, ya'll can jump on me with both feet. I know it's coming.

Elmore County, probably 5 years ago, turkey season. Corn present in several locations on the property. Ticket given to one hunter. Call Kieth Mann. Tallapoosa River.

Where did the road take a left turn and go from implying that it was deer season when the property was closed down to Turkey season???? If "facts" are going to be put out there, make sure ALL of the facts are presented!

B'hamFred, I guess you have and I have been told now and we can just go away! We can meet up at Tannehill and flint some stones for our next hunts because we are obviously not worthy of asking questions or having opinions.

Did you pull the 400 yard figure out of your arse??
I can give you examples of an entire lease being shut down for 3 weeks because of the presence of corn.

Troy, I hope you will give the folks at DCNR your input on this one.

They need to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about from time to time.

End of story?

Not 'til we get my version of ethics written into the law. I believe it's both unethical and illegal to swear with your hand on a Bible to support our constitutions and then practice usurpation and oppression using the limited authority that has been delegated to you.

Constitution of Alabama 1901

No, not from the rearend, it came from commons sense*,
which is something your immature self is lacking.

And you confess that you and your group were a
bunch of outlaw corn hunters during turkey season.
I have no sympathy. Makes me wonder what ya'll were
doing during deer season...

*those with commons sense knew I was referring
to anyone actually TICKETED for hunting *deer*
near corn or other pourable bait when they were
at least 400 yards away. I would like to see the
same for anyone that was at least 400 yards away
from the corn while turkery hunting too....I'm
waiting.