If you are for it, let me know, we are compiling a list. Thanks, Will Ainsworth

Should not the level of support for a bill have been requested while the bill was in committee, rather than after it has been passed from committee to the full senate?

We have been gathering and getting support and have over 1,000 supporters of the bill now that own or lease land. My reason for the post was to let anyone that wanted to support the bill to have an opportunity to get involved and get on the list we have started. The level of support is from a wide range of people include (landowners, hunters who lease land, bowhunters, high fence owners, etc) The strange thing is even the opposition today has a lot of members in their associations or membership that are on the list. I think generally hunters are tired of a vague law.

No because it requires a feeder. You cannot leave a permanent feeder or for that matter a stand on public land, so how would you supplemental feed?

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.

Our family owns Dream Ranch. My dad Billy, myself, and my brother Austin.
Don't think we can give away any free hunts ha ha.

I wanted to get everyone's feedback on SB 346. It passed committee today and i was fortunate enough to get to testify for the bill. If you are for it, let me know, we are compiling a list. I believe it is time to define area, the current law is to vague. This is not a baiting bill, its a common sense supplemental feeding bill to define area so managers of properties can know where to legally place supplemental feeders. Just one tool a manager can use. The yardage and line of sight was drafted from our neighboring states of Mississippi and Georgia.

Thanks,
Will Ainsworth

I just want to sit in a stand with my son and a camera. Doesnt even have to be during the season , just want to see some of the bucks that you have there in person

As long as the head of the CAB is related to a feeder company then it is wrong for any legislation or CAB buisness to pass a new rule that increases FEEDER SALES.

I know a guy that got busted hunting over corn he asked the Warden to define the area where the corn was and so he called Montgomery before writing this guy a ticket and Montgomery told the Warden anything within a square mile.

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.

Most hunters/clubs won't use this to "supplemental feed" and everyone knows it.

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

The United States Supreme Court has stated the following about the void for vagueness challenge:

"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute `abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,' it `operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms.' Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to `"steer far wider of the unlawful zone" ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas where clearly marked.'"

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972), quoting, in part, Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372, 84 S.Ct. 1316, 1323, 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964). See also United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617-18, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954). To withstand a challenge of vagueness, a statute must: 1) give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, and, 2) provide explicit standards to those who apply the laws. Grayned.

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.

Why not just pass the bill as it was originally worded? If it needs to be changed, then go for it in a few years. As usual, too many opinions spoiled the final bill. A few years ago a near retirement game warden told me that as long as any of the old Claude Kelly personnel had a say there would be no changes in the Alabama deer season dates and the baiting laws, seems like it is true.

The only defense would be proving that someone
else surreptitiously placed it onto your property to get you
busted and therefore didn't know it was there. Period.
Problem solved. Case closed.

Would be more like hunting in KY, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, (where they kill those big bucks) and any place else that might allow baiting.

That's exactly right. Call it a baiting bill and drop the BS. No distance or sight restrictions. Just make baiting legal. Someone said, "it would change the way we hunt all together" or something like that. That's right too. Would be more like hunting in KY, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, (where they kill those big bucks) and any place else that might allow baiting.

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.

Barry,
I appreciate and agree with your position on most issues but this isn't a high fence or large land issue. This is a "horrible law" that is not clear that put honest hunters in jeopardy if they want to supplemental feed during hunting season. The problem is their are many people from all different walks of the hunting community that believe it is past time "area" needs to be defined, they have had it with a game warden or Montgomery or a judge trying to interpret the law for them. The law needs to be common sense and needs to define area, that is what SB 346 is about. This is a supplemental feeding bill. IF you can't shoot over it, it's not bait in my opinion. As far as the year round requirement is concerned there is no reason to go there. You can already supplemental feed outside of hunting season. Its the "area" issue during hunting season that is the problem.
As far as anyone wanting to take tour of Dream Ranch or coming and seeing deer, we give 100's of free tours a year and welcome visitors.
I don't really see where the CAB or Dan Moultrie applies to this in response to Mr. Crockett comments.
The example by Blessed is another reason this issue has gotten so cloudy, and their is a lot of support for this bill.

That's exactly right. Call it a baiting bill and drop the BS. No distance or sight restrictions. Just make baiting legal. Someone said, "it would change the way we hunt all together" or something like that. That's right too. Would be more like hunting in KY, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, (where they kill those big bucks) and any place else that might allow baiting.

Barry,
I appreciate and agree with your position on most issues but this isn't a high fence or large land issue. This is a "horrible law" that is not clear that put honest hunters in jeopardy if they want to supplemental feed during hunting season. The problem is their are many people from all different walks of the hunting community that believe it is past time "area" needs to be defined, they have had it with a game warden or Montgomery or a judge trying to interpret the law for them. The law needs to be common sense and needs to define area, that is what SB 346 is about. This is a supplemental feeding bill. IF you can't shoot over it, it's not bait in my opinion. As far as the year round requirement is concerned there is no reason to go there. You can already supplemental feed outside of hunting season. Its the "area" issue during hunting season that is the problem.
As far as anyone wanting to take tour of Dream Ranch or coming and seeing deer, we give 100's of free tours a year and welcome visitors.
I don't really see where the CAB or Dan Moultrie applies to this in response to Mr. Crockett comments.
The example by Blessed is another reason this issue has gotten so cloudy, and their is a lot of support for this bill.

That's exactly right. Call it a baiting bill and drop the BS. No distance or sight restrictions. Just make baiting legal. Someone said, "it would change the way we hunt all together" or something like that. That's right too. Would be more like hunting in KY, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, (where they kill those big bucks) and any place else that might allow baiting.

Also,

One of the pro baiting bill speakers commented that young hunters need to be able to kill big bucks so they will be hooked into hunting. He said that the bill would assist in that. I almost puked. I have had the pleasure of helping many young hunters take their first deer. None have started with a big buck and ALL were very happy and excited.

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.

What good reason is there against you doing it your way and him doing it his way?

Government is not a pawn for people to force their preferences on others:

If the bill is passed those of us that don't have fences will have to make a choice to bait or not bait.

This is why it's my opinion that those that hunt in a fence shouldn't try to make changes for people that don't hunt in a fence.

Barry,

You still didn't give a good reason why your idea of what's right or wrong should prevail over his.

When you get thru cracking up over me, think about answering my question.

49er, what's your position on legalizing dope and other drugs?

I didn't say his was wrong, I said it is not necessary for a young hunter to kill a big buck to get hooked. Surely, you can't disagree with that?

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.

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.

I don't disagree with your idea.

I do disagree with you using ideas just as weak or weaker than his to oppose an amendment to a law that would allow him to use his own ideas.

Why is "area" such a hard concept to grasp. .

If you want those folks making decisions on matters they have no knowledge of then its just a matter of time that somebody else comes along and blows warmer air up the skirt and they stop hunting all together, because those mean old hunters that are shooting all of those little Bambis over a pile of corn that was placed there to keep those little old deer from starving to death.

Barrys right or wrong is based on morality!!!!!

Dreambucks right or wrong is based on immoraliy.

If a man has to use a lie to further his agenda then it is wrong!! Dreambuck wants to bait so that he can generate a profit. He does not care to help the herd. He would not be playing FRANKENSTEIN with wildlife if he cared about the deer herd.

Our entire Wildlife management system is based upon the premise that the WILDLIFE belongs to the people. Wildlife life stewards do not HIGHFENCE and inject steroids/growth hormones into wildlife or advocate shooting deer at 100 yards at bait piles. It is an impossibility to mske A LIE right.

Morality and ethics just matter.

respectfully,

Allen

It that what has happened in other states where baiting has been legal for years?

I'm not a fan of baiting, but with it legal in so many states it is a hard fight to win.

Well, pardon me please.

Just one other question.

You introduced yourself as being a member of BHA. Did you mean to imply you were there to represent the group? If not, I'm not sure why you thought that mattered one way or the other.

I'm not trying to be smart. I just want to know if the BHA opposes the bill as a group.

[quo but government is best when it does nothing! .

Feeding year round is supplemental feeding. Feeding during deer season is baiting. You're misleading people by claiming otherwise.

Nutritional gaps is when the native browse and what you have planted are not sufficient to keep the deer healthy. This can be caused by a lot of factors, one example is a drought that limits your greenfields doing well, along with native browse suffering as well.

Fur Flying,
I appreciate your interest in wildlife management. Using that logic then planting green fields year round(warm and cool) is supplemental feeding and planting them in the fall is baiting. Cause your using it as an attractant, right? I been fortunate to learn a lot from a lot of different biologist. Some of the lessons i've learned are that you need a year round approach to land management. Included in that are habitat management, warm and cool seasons plots, and supplemental feeding. The reason the bioloigist give for one of the main benefits is what they call filling in the "nutritional gaps" Nutritional gaps is when the native browse and what you have planted are not sufficient to keep the deer healthy. This can be caused by a lot of factors, one example is a drought that limits your greenfields doing well, along with native browse suffering as well. Another example that is relevant to this bill is the winter months when native browse is mostly gone. These are the times supplemental feeding is beneficial to wildlife and really i would argue they need it during these times. The problem most honest landowners have is they will not feed during hunting season because of a horrible law that doesn't define area, and you could argue this is the time they need it most.

Allen,
We base our management program on 4 cornerstones(Age, nutrition, genetics, and stress) We try to manage all 4 of these well. We have never used steroids, hormones or anything else.
As far as wildlife belonging with the people, i generally agree with you. Since you have an issue with people raising deer, do you have an issue with the 1,000,000 plus released quail in south georgia plantations, or the hundreds of thousands of pheasant released in South Dakota Ranches and Public land, or the bass being raised to be put in ponds, what about ducks, chukar, buffalo, elk, etc. I know great stewards that own high fences and some that don't.
Moral and Ethics do matter, and I'm the one spreading facts about wildlife management, not lies about someone business.

I want to make this clear, their are a lot of people that want this bill to pass(lease holders, hunting clubs, land owners), i am amazed just at the support we have received today from people on this site through emails and phone calls.

First off let me point out to you that I said Might and underlined it because I did not know about Illinois and Iowa, other than the fact that they kill big bucks there like they do in Texas and KY. I have said on here many times that my experience with shooting over bait in KY, over the past 11 year 3 or more trips a year, has shown me that the big bucks do not come to the feeders during the day time(usually). In those 11 years we have killed many large bucks and I don't recall a single one being killed at a feeder.
That being said, if baiting is legalized if one does not wish to one does not have to use it. I doubt that baiting on private property will pull many bucks off the unbaited public property.