What if your neighbor has a feeder on the property line and you dont know about it?

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.

What if your neighbor has a feeder on the property line and you dont know about it?

The safety buffer zone of land you own but can't hunt protecting you from errant bullets, arrows and the occasional tussle with a neighbor will nullify this potential sticky wicket.

The safety buffer zone of land you own but can't hunt protecting you from errant bullets, arrows and the occasional tussle with a neighbor will nullify this potential sticky wicket.

Here's your answer from the Alabama Supreme Court:

(emphasis is mine)
Ex parte Phillips, 771 So. 2d 1066 - Ala: Supreme Court 2000

What if your neighbor has a feeder on the property line and you dont know about it?

That is also something the enforcement division can help with. Why would the enforcement division want to write tickets when you have no legal way of know about it.

Then again, that goes back to common sense.

Because we conclude that a conviction under § 9-11-244 requires a showing that the defendant either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Phillips could be found guilty even without proof that he baited the field or knew that the field was baited. Therefore, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Real hunters dont need BAIT period.

If you are putting out pellets, corn or whatever DURING hunting it should be considered BAIT not supplemental feed.

Feed all you want whle season is out. I dont have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is those with financial aspirations in teh hunting industry trying to dictate what the rest of the population should do in the name of wildlife conservation.

I spoke yesterday as well and I am against the bill. It is not supplemental feeding if you start/do it during hunting season only. It is baiting. Make it a year round requirement and then you may be able to claim that.

But, here is something that I find interesting. Under the bill, the ONLY animal that can be killed on property that is baiting is whitetail deer. So, if it passes "as is", forget yotes, hogs, coons, ducks, and any other game animal on your property. It will be illegal for you to hunt them. That is a big sacrifice.

Forget high fence. I don't care what you do in your fence. Bait if you like. If the bill wants to legalize it for high fences, go ahead.

For all else, here are some of the motivations.
Large properties that do honestly supplemental feed all during the year are doing so for two primary reasons. They want their deer to be big and healty and they want their deer to STAY on their property.

There is no doubt this is a really a baiting bill. If it were truely about supplemental feeding, it would require the participants to do it year round. If this passes, the "during deer season" supplemental feeders will increase probably 100 times. And they will just about all stop at the end of season, when the deer will really start needing it.

Real hunters dont need BAIT period.

If you are putting out pellets, corn or whatever DURING hunting it should be considered BAIT not supplemental feed.

Feed all you want whle season is out. I dont have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is those with financial aspirations in teh hunting industry trying to dictate what the rest of the population should do in the name of wildlife conservation.

And if that is true, it is crap. That is why "area" needs to be explicitly defined.

How is that any different from you dictating that other hunters should not hunt over bait because of your preferences?

How is it in the interest of the public for your beliefs to be forced on others?

You could ask the same questions in relation to murder,
robbery, rape, child molestation, pedophilia, abortion,
pornography and "gay" marriage.

1. corn baiting is unethical, unsportsmanlike and
negates fair chase.

2. corn baiting makes for a bad public image and anti-hunters
use that to their advantage in waging their anti-hunting
and anti-gun war.

3. corn baiting creates conflicts

4. corn baiting is about QDM Extremism run amock

5. corn baiting in unecessay to be able to hunt and
kill deer

6. corn baiting will only create a culture of super
baiters instead of competent, skilled and ethical hunters

6 if some people are dead set on hunting over corn, plant a
dang cornfield.

Fact is, the DCNR is shooting themselves in the foot by not conceding that they wrote a bad regulation in the first place. State agencies make bad regulations all of the time, its when they waste time and money and hours fighting them that the real problems start.
If they would go ahead and explicitly define "area" then all of this would go away.

Skinny gets the best post on this entire discussion.

Skinny gets the best post on this entire discussion.