</a JR Holmes Oil Company </a Shark Guard Southeast Woods and Whitetail Mayer Insurance Services LLC
Aldeer Classifieds
ISO 2000s or newer 3/4 or one ton truck 4wd
by 000buck. 07/17/24 05:38 PM
arctic cat 4x4 fs
by gman. 07/17/24 02:11 PM
Kubota M7060
by gmterry. 07/17/24 09:44 AM
2021 Kawasaki 250F
by burbank. 07/16/24 08:32 PM
Sitka Lot For Sale
by booner. 07/16/24 04:44 PM
Serious Deer Talk
Clethodim
by jwalker77. 07/17/24 09:25 PM
Rut
by sidehitter. 07/17/24 07:14 PM
Sawtooths
by G/H. 07/15/24 09:00 PM
Blood Trailing Breeds
by muddyfeet. 07/15/24 08:47 PM
OnX or HuntStand?
by Josh77. 07/15/24 03:20 PM
July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Land, Leases, Hunting Clubs
Tuscaloosa Lease - Looking for Members 24/25
by DA_Outdoors. 07/12/24 04:26 PM
Winston County Lease
by FreeStateHunter. 07/09/24 06:41 PM
Great deer turkey and hog hunting
by Rvbuckhunter. 07/08/24 09:05 PM
Dale/Barbour county
by eskimo270. 07/06/24 10:19 PM
Timber company and alabama power question
by mopar. 06/30/24 02:15 PM
Who's Online Now
172 registered members (Snuffy, Woody1, jeffhhub, blade, 3006bullet, crenshawco, Cuz-Pat, hillmp, Bandit635, Scout308, KnightRyder, DThrash, Safetyman, Booner Hunter, NonTypical, CAL, icducks, Turkey, BearBranch, Ridge Life, Huntn2feed5, Turkeyneck78, Mennen34, jake44, bamaeyedoc, BradB, lectrode, Canterberry, smallgame, rwh1, Cactus_buck, mauvilla, desertdog, CDAuburn, Conc49, cartervj, jchurch, Jbf, 007, twaldrop4, bowkl, BC_Reb, hoggin, NorthFork, MoeBuck, mossyback, Big Bore, 2 ducks, BCLC, just_an_illusion, Beer Belly, BayedUp, Tree Hanger, Broadhead26, auwild, 4Tigers, Turkey_neck, 3blades, JEM270, gcr0003, slanddeerhunter, BOFF, WDE, Driveby, DoubleShoalsJR, Ten37, Dean, Morris, bambam32, RCHRR, GUT_SHOT, Pwyse, Ryano, 202P&Y, TDog93, RikkiV, kodiak06, brushwhacker, jwalker77, ridgestalker, BrandonClark, jhardy, specialk, Tigger85, baitstop, lpman, CouchNapper, deerkiller25, Jmfire722, JustHunt, Ben2, dustymac, MTeague, Fattyfireplug, toothdoc, ColeT, 1hunter, T Bone, bows_and_does, klay, metalmuncher, Bows4evr, k bush, Ol Backwoods Boy, RayDog, Wapiti55, WC82, Mmiller, booner, TamaDrumhead, Chaser357, leroycnbucks, 000buck, MCW, Bigwhitey, LongBeards29, auman, coldtrail, Noler_Swamp, Mbrock, gmterry, scrubbuck, Jonathon Doe Jr., fillmore, DGAMBLER, Bulls eye, eclipse829, Dog, Bjoff27, Petey, Madmax0818, JLMiller, HHSyelper, JohnnyLoco, 380jeff, OlTimer, JohnG, deerhunter_1, Shane99, HappyHunter, Herdbull, robinhedd, SouthBamaSlayer, Moose24, Overland, trailertrash, Brian_C, leroyb, hayman, quailman, Eutaw, Whiskey9, Frogeye, Turberville, Fishhead706, GomerPyle, MC21, farmerjay, courseup, 13 invisible), 628 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13
Confused about baiting rule now #551640
03/09/13 09:39 PM
03/09/13 09:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,119
Dothan
L
LIOJeff Offline OP
8 point
LIOJeff  Offline OP
8 point
L
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,119
Dothan
So what is the new baiting rule that was voted on????
100yds out if sight?
Permit?
Protein?
Close to food plot?

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551648
03/09/13 09:44 PM
03/09/13 09:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 739
Ashville
cdcrosshunt Offline
4 point
cdcrosshunt  Offline
4 point
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 739
Ashville
Check out the march 9th cab meeting discussion.


QDMA- Let him go so he can grow.
www.qdma.com
“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal.” Aldo Leopold
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551666
03/09/13 10:02 PM
03/09/13 10:02 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,201
Central Alabama
Cuz-Pat Online content
Booner
Cuz-Pat  Online Content
Booner
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,201
Central Alabama
From the way I understand it the CAB basically just defined the term "area".

You must be 100 yards from the feeder and it must be out of your line of sight.

As far as I can tell, no other regulations attached.


Cuz-Pat

Patton's European Mounts
Professional Quality Skull & Antler Taxidermy
Since 1998
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551677
03/09/13 10:16 PM
03/09/13 10:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
Jefferson
F
Fun4all Offline
10 point
Fun4all  Offline
10 point
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
Jefferson
Answer is pretty simple. If you have questions of whether you are hunting over bait, then you probably are. I know if the State doesn't define it for some they can't figure out ways around the rule of hunting over bait.


"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551681
03/09/13 10:22 PM
03/09/13 10:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,119
Dothan
L
LIOJeff Offline OP
8 point
LIOJeff  Offline OP
8 point
L
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,119
Dothan
Ok. I see where someone cleared it up. Two different rules were getting mixed together.

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: Fun4all] #551762
03/10/13 12:39 AM
03/10/13 12:39 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline
Booner
49er  Offline
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
Originally Posted By: Fun4all
Answer is pretty simple. If you have questions of whether you are hunting over bait, then you probably are. I know if the State doesn't define it for some they can't figure out ways around the rule of hunting over bait.


It's not simple unless the confusion is cleared up to make it simple like it should be.

Your definition of an "affected area" may be entirely different from mine. When statutes are written, the accused is not supposed to be left to guess at what is required. It is not fair to leave interpretation of criminal statutes up to each individual law enforcement officer.


Here's a discription of the "Void for Vagueness Doctrine" from an Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals opinion:

Quote:
... The court has said:

"`As generally stated, the void-for vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 [357], 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). A statute challenged for vagueness must therefore be scrutinized to determine whether it provides both fair notice to the public that certain conduct is proscribed and minimal guidelines to aid officials in the enforcement of that proscription. See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). If the statute `either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,' it is void for vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)."
McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala. Crim.App.1983). See also State v. Gooden, 570 So.2d 865 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).

"The void for vagueness doctrine ... protects against legislation providing insufficient warning of what conduct is unlawful. E.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The doctrine was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 [357], 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983), as follows: `... the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' (Citations omitted.) The Court in Kolender, supra, further opined that the most important aspect of the void-for-vagueness doctrine is `not actual notice, but the other principal element of the doctrine—the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement,' quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974). These minimal guidelines should be provided in order to avoid `a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors and juries to pursue their personal predilections.' Smith, supra, at 575, 94 S.Ct. at 1248." 1265*1265 Kerr v. State, 474 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.Crim. App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Kerr, 474 So.2d 145 (Ala.1985). ...


Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So. 2d 1263 - Ala: Court of Criminal Appeals 1993



Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: 49er] #551788
03/10/13 07:51 AM
03/10/13 07:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
doghunter29 Offline
spike
doghunter29  Offline
spike
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
Yall makin this harder than it really is. 100 yards thats 300 ft. out of plain site. but as Commisioner said behind a bale of hay is not considered out of site. he also said the game warden has the right to shoose if its out of site.


Hold my Beer while I Kiss ya Girlfreind
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: doghunter29] #551798
03/10/13 08:31 AM
03/10/13 08:31 AM
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 35,308
Boxes Cove
2Dogs Offline
Freak of Nature
2Dogs  Offline
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 35,308
Boxes Cove
Disagree, laws and regs should NOT be up to the officer. In this case in sight or out of sight. I agree with 9er, welcome back BTW.
Where does this leave the old reg? Lets say you have "feed" out and are 100+ yards away and out of sight. The day the last grain is gone you move closer than 100 yards, has the "feed" now magically become "bait" because you haven't waited 10 days since last grain is gone per old reg? crazy confused
IMO,They should make it legal or illegal and quit playing.



"Why do you ask"?

Always vote the slowest path to socialism.







Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: doghunter29] #551837
03/10/13 09:44 AM
03/10/13 09:44 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline
Booner
49er  Offline
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
Originally Posted By: doghunter29
Yall makin this harder than it really is. 100 yards thats 300 ft. out of plain site. but as Commisioner said behind a bale of hay is not considered out of site. he also said the game warden has the right to shoose if its out of site.


If the game warden is left to interpret the law, then the law and the Commissioner's interpretation of the law in the form of this rule is subject to being declared void if the accused chooses to fight it.

The Commissioner is a lawyer, so he should know better. His opinion just hasn't been challenged by the rght person yet:

Here's what our courts have already declared:

Quote:
"`[A]mbiguous criminal statutes must be narrowly interpreted, in favor of the accused.' United States v. Herring, 933 F.2d 932, 937 (11th Cir.1991). `[I]t is well established that criminal statutes should not be "extended by construction."' Ex parte Evers, 434 So.2d 813, 817 (Ala.1983). "`[C]riminal statutes must be strictly construed, to avoid ensnaring behavior that is not clearly proscribed.'" United States v. Bridges, 493 F.2d 918, 922 (5th Cir.1974).

"`In United States v. Boston & M. RR Co., 380 U.S. 157, 85 S.Ct. 868, 870, 13 L.Ed.2d 728 (1965), the Supreme Court stated:

"`"A criminal statute is to be construed strictly, not loosely. Such are the teachings of our cases from United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L.Ed. 37 [(1820)], down to this day. Chief Justice Marshall said in that case:

"`"`The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is, perhaps, not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.' Id., p. 95.

"`"The fact that a particular activity may be within the same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the criminal prohibition. United States v. Weitzel, 246 U.S. 533, 38 S.Ct. 381, 62 L.Ed. 872 [(1918)]."

"`Moreover, "one `is not to be subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute plainly impose it,' Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U.S. 356, 362, 25 S.Ct. 443, 49 L.Ed. 790 [(1905)]. `[W]hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.' United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 229-230, 97 L.Ed. 260 [(1952)]." United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293, 297, 92 S.Ct. 471, 474, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971).'

"Bridges, 493 F.2d at 923.

"`Words used in the statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.' Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. City of Hartselle, 460 So.2d 1219, 1223 (Ala.1984). The general rule of construction for the provisions of the Alabama Criminal Code is found in Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-1-6: `All provisions of this title shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and to effect the objects of the law, including the purposes stated in section 13A-1-3.' Among the purposes stated in § 13A-1-4 is that found in subsection (2): `To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed.'"

599 So.2d at 1264-65. Moreover, "the law favors rational and sensible construction," and "[i]n construing statutes, courts are not required to abandon common sense." Hankins v. State, 989 So.2d 610, 618 (Ala. Crim.App.2007).


Archie Phillip's case is a clear example of a Commissioner's personal opinion being struck down as contradicting settled law. That can happen again if hunters are not given fair warning of what is expected by a Commissioner's rules.



Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: 49er] #551843
03/10/13 09:52 AM
03/10/13 09:52 AM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
doghunter29 Offline
spike
doghunter29  Offline
spike
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
I aggree.... Thats just what He said. I dont care about hunting over corn. I hunt with dogs.


Hold my Beer while I Kiss ya Girlfreind
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: doghunter29] #551847
03/10/13 09:58 AM
03/10/13 09:58 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline
Booner
49er  Offline
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
Originally Posted By: doghunter29
I aggree.... Thats just what He said. I dont care about hunting over corn. I hunt with dogs.


You should care even if you don't hunt over bait. Like me, you probably hunt where some folks use corn for drawing deer to cameras and hunting over bait. They probably have permits from the Commissioner to hunt over bait like he has given on the property I hunt.

One day it is considered to be legal by the Commissioner, the next day he will nail you to the wall for doing it.

I don't want to get caught in his money trap.

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551850
03/10/13 10:01 AM
03/10/13 10:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
doghunter29 Offline
spike
doghunter29  Offline
spike
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
its all about the Benjamins lol


Hold my Beer while I Kiss ya Girlfreind
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551853
03/10/13 10:02 AM
03/10/13 10:02 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
H
Hogwild Offline
Booner
Hogwild  Offline
Booner
H
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
I hope they remove the 'with the aid of bait' part too. I was told by an over-zealous Warden that it was illegal to release my dogs at deer protein feeders in the Summer time without a permit since it was using bait.

Just make it legal or illegal and be done with it!

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: Hogwild] #551857
03/10/13 10:05 AM
03/10/13 10:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
doghunter29 Offline
spike
doghunter29  Offline
spike
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Dora, Alabama
lmao was ya hunting or just runnin em ?


Hold my Beer while I Kiss ya Girlfreind
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551860
03/10/13 10:10 AM
03/10/13 10:10 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
H
Hogwild Offline
Booner
Hogwild  Offline
Booner
H
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
Catching hogs that were eating all the feed.

BUT, he told me that HE could write me a permit and it would be legal.

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: Hogwild] #551861
03/10/13 10:11 AM
03/10/13 10:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline
Booner
49er  Offline
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
Originally Posted By: Hogwild
I hope they remove the 'with the aid of bait' part too. I was told by an over-zealous Warden that it was illegal to release my dogs at deer protein feeders in the Summer time without a permit since it was using bait.

Just make it legal or illegal and be done with it!


What did he say about the permits he signs himself to allow game animals to be hunted over bait? Who gave him authority to ignore the law?

Or permits he signs to hunt deer over bait instead of opening the season on does to reduce the population like the law requires?

It's time to dump this whole mess and be done with it like you say.

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: LIOJeff] #551864
03/10/13 10:15 AM
03/10/13 10:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
H
Hogwild Offline
Booner
Hogwild  Offline
Booner
H
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
Oh, he was quick to point out the fact that HE could write me a permit........

Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: Hogwild] #551892
03/10/13 11:14 AM
03/10/13 11:14 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline
Booner
49er  Offline
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
Yeah, and you would have to sign at the bottom of that permit vowing to abide by all laws and ordinances.

Are you willing to lie to use a depredation permit? I'm not.



Quoting directly from a depredation permit:

Quote:
By accpeting this permit, the permittee agrees to abide by all state and local laws and ordinances.


That agreement doesn't allow you to do anything that a person without a permit cannot do. It just means game wardens will look the other way while you do it.

Last edited by 49er; 03/10/13 11:20 AM.
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: doghunter29] #551971
03/10/13 01:12 PM
03/10/13 01:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
bigt Offline
14 point
bigt  Offline
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
Originally Posted By: doghunter29
I aggree.... Thats just what He said. I dont care about hunting over corn. I hunt with dogs.


Well I don't care about corn nor dogs. I hunt with a bow and gun. laugh


Life is too short to be small !!

http://crshuntingclub.webs.com/
Re: Confused about baiting rule now [Re: 49er] #551980
03/10/13 01:30 PM
03/10/13 01:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,030
Round ‘bout there
C
Clem Offline
Mildly Quirky
Clem  Offline
Mildly Quirky
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,030
Round ‘bout there
Quote:
They probably have permits from the Commissioner to hunt over bait like he has given on the property I hunt.



People on your property hunt deer over corn/feed with a special permit from the commissioner? Is that what you're saying?


"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter

"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013

"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13

Aldeer.com Copyright 2001-2024 Aldeer LLP.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.184s Queries: 15 (0.073s) Memory: 3.3120 MB (Peak: 3.6496 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2024-07-18 02:36:23 UTC
</a