OK so I copied the following from the Alabama Hunting and fishing digest, Hunting and Fishing Regulations $ Info page under Prohibited meathods of hunting.
It is illegal to: 22.Hunt using poison, explosives or chemicals to include deer blocks, molasses blocks, mineral blocks, chemical licks, and similar products. Deer may be hunted over plain salt licks containing no other minerals or chemicals.
There have been may threads on here about using Di-Cal / Trace mineral salt / feed salt for salt lick sites and I know most hunting clubs around use some variation of this mixture. So is it legal to hunt in the "Area" of these licks? I know there will still be traces of the mineral and Di-cal in the ground once season is in and I would hate to see someone get a ticket for it.

So is it legal to hunt in the "Area" of these licks?

First rule Leroy....do not rely on the "digest" for info on laws/regs. Go to the real laws/regs....

I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for hunting near an established "salt" lick that had Di-Cal/minerals/salt in it. Technically it would be illegal but I would see no problem with a watered-in lick.

A lick in Nov/DecJan fails to meet the definition of bait because it is not an attractant to deer in those months.

I never did write any bait tickets for hunting over a red mineral block in the years I worked.

Now a "molasses/corn" block was a different story, I wrote tickets for them if near the stand.

Eddie will disagree with most of what I've said...

troy

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.

Section 9-11-244
Taking, etc., of protected birds or animals by means of bait.

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.)

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)

______________________________________________________________
220-2-.04 Game Birds Designated

Resident Game Birds: Bobwhite Quail, Ruffed Grouse, Wild Turkey; Migratory Game Birds: Wild Duck, Wild Goose, Brant, Rail, Sora, Coot, (Poule d'Eau or Mud Hen), Jacksnipe (Wilson Snipe), Woodcock, Dove, Gallinule, and Merganser.
______________________________________________________________

Below is the code 2Dogs referenced.
Interesting that this code groups all birds and animals protected by law or regulation together.
I remember years back a story of guys using rocksalt to get doves to go to a pond for water and supposidly getting a ticket for using it. (I don't know how or why I just remember the story) If that is true I can see where it would be and should be illegal, but I agree that putting out a salt lick for deer is much different since it is not an attractant during the legal hunting season and it sounds like at least by some comments that it is veiwed as such. It sounds to me like the code below was written more for the birds.

What a confusing mess!


Alabama code 9-11-244
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.

Since this thread is about baiting, some of you might be interested to know that DCNR officials had to shut down one of their own hunts due to baiting in recent years:

Tuscaloosa News article, Sept, 2010

link:
Officials: Dove shoot field in line with laws


Here's some caselaw from Federal Court that might be interesting to some of you who dove hunt:








link:
US v Marston

I wouldn't recommend using white salt to bait doves, btw.

Wonder why they don't shut down parts of management areas that have row crop land,