plots ain't bait because the state sez they ain't bait. Corn, on the other hand, is bait. I like being delusional me.

Good article.

I guess my cornfields are just huge baiting sites. Cool!

I have a large plot on top of the plateau , it's surrounded by several hundred acres of hardwood clear cut and select cut. When ever I give a property tour I always say, " this is what legal bait looks like."

I think Troy gave the right answer. These threads pop up often, and it's really just an argument over semantics. Words can be redefined to mean anything you want them to mean, but on a question like this it is the state government that must provide the legal definition of a word. I don't think that our state government has done a good job defining this one, but it is what it is. You can come up with your own definition of a word if you want, but I doubt the GW is gonna agree.

All game belongs to the people of a state, and through state government the people have agreed on acceptable methods of harvesting game, and unacceptable methods. Right now in AL, growing something is not considered bait, but dumping out corn is. At least, it is if you are hunting within 100 yds or within sight of it. You can redefine bait to mean any source of food if you want to, but that isn't the legal definition until it is changed by the state.

Is a rose still a rose by any other name? State and QDMA can call it what they want, results are the same. Plots = Bait.

I am in Indiana. I have the farmer that farms my land leave some standing corn and soybeans as part of our lease agreement. I take some money off the cash rent. That's legal but me throwing out corn is not.

For the record, I wouldn’t “bait” even if legal. Just not my thing. That said, I think QDMA makes some really good points about why baiting/food plots are different and how baiting provides no benefit to the herd. Don’t get me wrong, plots are just another form of baiting. I just think when you compare dumping corn on the ground to producing year around forage, plots are hands down the better choice.

The State doesn't believe that all game belongs to the people of the State. If they truly did, then why did they allow folks to fence them in and take ownership of them? They don't have a problem with supplemental feeding, but add the presence of hunting and it's the devil. Seems like a lot of double talk to me. They say one thing, but the actions say something else.

if the hunters want it to be legalized we should ban together and tell them we aint buying hunting license until the baiting bill is passed. Hit em in the pocket book.

So what some of you are saying, if I understand this right, is that if I will admit that my greenfield is bait, you will feel better about yourself for pouring out corn in the woods. That, in your mind, justifies your thinking?

The state defines it , correct. This is the same state that says opening up the combine throat to let their share of grain on WMAs go out on the ground , or bush hogging standing corn isn't bait. But let some old guy go out in his cut cornfield and sweeten it a little with corn from the bin for his grandson to hunt over and he's baiting. Yeah right.

Same state who's Commish just decided it was legal to hunt over Trophy Rocks, when such as that has been illegal for years , Yeah Right.

The definition changes as needed.

Sounds like y'all are master baiters.


Corn tossed out from a bag and a food plot are designed to do the same thing - bring in a deer so you can watch it and decide if you want to shoot it. Period.

Justify it any way possible. Try to explain benefits, pros and cons, whatever. But the bottom line is they're both a form of baiting. One's legal and gets the big Attaboy back-pats for "conservation." The other is said to be the tool of lazy POS horrible people not worth anyone's time.

Fred Bear used bait.

Also, "conservation" isn't planting something for 3 months out of the year and then letting it die so you can go back nine months later and do it again. "Conservation" is maintaining something year-round, truly enhancing something, making habitat better. Not planting a half-acre field to be able to shoot a deer.

They're both baiting.

If Parrot Head were in Alabama he could take it a step farther . He could have the farmer shell his part out on the ground , or bush hog a little at a time and still be perfectly legal. But, that's not baiting.

Also, I've sat over food plots and feeders or corn (Kansas, Florida, South Carolina, Texas). It's fun seeing deer on both. But to me it's killing, not hunting. I prefer the woods.

But my bottom line is to kill a deer. If I wanted to take some high moral ground I'd go volunteer at the church soup kitchen and give alms to the poor.

Clem, I have taken master baiting to the next level.

Now if I go out and alter the corn or beans from normal ag practices that would be illegal. Say disk it under or bush hog it.

Exactly.

Plant a giant field of corn, harvest it, leave a little extra by opening the tractor thingy = Agriculture

Cut the gorgeous corn it with a Bush Hog but not harvest it = Hey, hey, wha'cha doing?

Throw out a sack of corn = You're an illegal horrible terrible lazy "hunter" and need to be excoriated!

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but in my mind there is a glaring and distinct difference between a corn pile and a greenfield or standing corn. Hunting a planted plot is no different than sitting in hardwoods over acorns. You are using a naturally or agriculturally occuring food source which is consistant with what deer would traditionally feed on without the aid of man, i.e. soft mast and hard mast. Deer naturally browse grasses, forbs, foliage and nuts and berries. They consume and leave as they would wether we were there or not.
But a pile of corn is more like foodstamps. It does not occur naturally. It is not generally spread over an entire field. It is meant to draw a hungry deer to one spot, to the exclusion of other seasonal, natural food sources, and keep the deer coming back to the same spot. They eat what they can and leave some behind, usually, which makes any communicable disease more likely to spread to the next deer to eat from the pile. One could assume that, done long enough, deer in a certain area could come to depend on the corn during a time of year that it isn't giving them the nutrition they need. What happens when you've trained the deer to come to your corn and then stop feeding them?
Clearly, the point of both is to kill a deer, but the methods are very different in practice and the potential for negative unintended consequences would appear to be higher with baiting.
My personal experience is that, where I hunt, bait draws hogs and hogs run deer off. The club next to us were spreading corn over most of their greenfields(winter ryegrass) this season. They killed a bunch of pigs and two deer. We plant wheat and oats and killed a few pigs and a good number of deer.

So a food plot occurs without the aid of man?

Cool. I can just skip planting them next year and wait on them to naturally occur!

Honest question to those who are redefining the word "bait," - when do you think one crosses the line and becomes a baiter? If a planted field is bait, what made it so? Was it putting out the seed, or the fact that a tractor was used?

I can grow far more deer food with a drip torch than a tractor, and without putting out any seed. So am I hunting over bait if I hunt a spot in December that was burned the previous February?

Does any human involvement make it bait? I've got oak trees that are over 60 years old, but the reason they are there is that a guy gave up farming the land in the early 50s and moved to Detroit, so they can't be considered natural. I made the decision to leave them at the last timber cut, so am I hunting over bait if I hunt the area? I really don't understand the new meaning.

If I am understanding the argument, I don't think I have any land to hunt that wouldn't be considered a baited area, and I have probably never killed but one turkey that wasn't over bait. I once killed one that flew down on the asphalt of a rural airport and walked about 500 yds to my calling. Unfortunately, I did let him get onto grass before I shot him, so I guess he wasn't legit either. Might have been a grasshopper in the grass.