Originally Posted By: Todd1700
Quote:
who still hasn't figured out that his opinion is not fact


Tell me what part of the following isn't a fact.

A corn feeder, if legalized, would be a food source placed in a specific location by humans for the express purpose of drawing a deer into range of a gun or bow so it can be killed.

A green patch, which is already legal, is a food source placed in a specific location by humans for the express purpose of drawing a deer into range of a gun or a bow so it can be killed.

Some of us have the brains to see the absurdity of one being legal while the other is not since they are the "Exact Same Activity".

And not one person on your side of this debate, you included, has "EVER" given one credible, fact based reason that there is any difference between these two things that warrants one being illegal while the other is not.

Now, here is where you delve off into some side issue or diversionary question to mask the fact that you can't actually come up with a reason they are morally or ethically any different either. Don't feel bad though, nobody else on your side can either. Thankfully it looks like even the powers that be in government are finally coming around to the absurdity of the situation.


"PLACED" is the key word. See how you threw in the word "placed" in the same sentence as foodplot? Well that was incorrect. Foodplots are planted not "placed" and thus the difference between hunting over bait and hunting over a food source. Example. You can legally hunt a white oak but the second you collect white oak acorns and "PLACE" them in your hunting spot it is considered "BAIT". Thanks for helping me prove my point. smile

And yes, if you go back and read other posts and/ or literature in publications regarding baiting there is a lot of information that explain the difference between foodplots and natural food sources and bait, with regards to benefiting wildlife and hunting too.

Last edited by truedouble; 02/28/12 04:12 PM.