But there has never been a legislative value placed on a game animal. This would require the Court determine the value of a deer or a turkey in order to assess restitution. That's a horrible idea. There would be no consistency across the state unless the Department of Conservation passed a regulation establishing a value, which sets an awful precedent. I'm a hunter and I would place an extremely high value on a game animal whereas another judge who doesn't hunt or understand wildlife may only make a nominal valuation. The issue about high fence animals is different because for all intents and purposes they are treated like livestock by the high fence owners regardless of whether they are viewed as such by the state. I have several friends in Lowndes County who own or operate high fences and they can place a monetary value on each animal. We don't need to extend that already flawed system to free range game.

Wanting permits for feeders is nothing new. I know I guy that's been voicing his opinion on this issue for years. He's basically been saying make "baiting" legal and issue permits for feeders.

This is in contradiction to the North American model of conservation wherein wildlife has intrinsic value and is owned collectively by people and managed by the State for the peoples benefit. If we are going to start placing a monetary value on every game animal, we might as well reduce them all to livestock to be bought and sold.

This is about pricing regular people out of deer hunting. Both bills. If the penalty is so high for a simple mistake of accidental trespassing while hunting, then fewer people will hunt. If only the people who can afford to feed with a permitted feeder can shoot deer over bait then regular people will just give up.
These bills show a real contempt for the good people of this state. These politicians should probably be voted out come next election for even proposing these bills. I wonder what other nasty bills they are proposing for the non-hunting topics?