Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum Disputing a Deer baiting Citation - A Little Help?

I agree. I don't think you could be ticketed for that.

X2

49er, I will pass this info along. Thanks.

Fellas, Thanks for the interest, but I will not disclose which county this occurred in. The best I can do of you is to tell you that it occurred in the Southern part of the state.

ya'll are real sure about that??????

troy

From the DCNR webpage: FAQ



Trophy Rock or mineral blocks. I don't use either one. Can anyone tell us if a new hunter could have distinguished between a Trophy Rock and a mineral block without doing a chemical analysis?

I would say even a chemical analysis would be very similar between a Trophy Rock and a mineral block. That's crazy that one is allowed and the other isn't.

[quote=49er] [quote]Q: Am I responsible for bait or feed that may be placed by someone else?

A: Only if it can be established that you knew, or reasonably should have known it was there. In Phillips v. State, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that proving �actual guilty knowledge� is not required. However, it also ruled that it was reasonable to expect the hunter to clear the area such that with a �reasonable investigation� the hunter could have discovered the bait. Generally, it is not reasonable to expect a hunter to know what is placed on an adjoining landowner where he/she has no access.

dosen't let ya off if the bait is on adjoining property. Notice the statement "GENERALLY, it is not reasonable..." it dosen't say never, dosen't say it's legal to hunt where you can SEE the bait.

OUTBACK, show me the law/reg that makes an exception if it is on adjoining property.

if you are sitting in your ladder stand 10 yards off the line and there is a two foot tall pile of ear corn 10 yards across the line from you, YOU ARE HUNTING OVER BAIT. Period, no exceptions in the regs, laws, operating procedures of the DCNR.

now that said, I would of, and did, give more lattitude to someone if the bait was across the line on another property he did not have permission to hunt.

And I have arrested someone for exactly the same thing, got a conviction in Greene Co District Court, conviction in Circuit Court(same case), and paid. The individual was an outright outlaw that reported to me some bait(100#s of shelled corn in a pile) on adjoining property(10 yards). I investigated and arrested a hunter on that property, sitting over the bait. Knowing the outlaw that reported it, I went back a couple of days later and caught him sitting in a ladderstand 30 yards from the bait in plain sight. Bingo.

troy

The one that says all land is posted and it's illegal to trespass. I understand the court's reluctance to offer anything more than a "generally reasonable". A clear distinction could make it feasible for me to place bait 3 feet across the neighbor's line and hunt it. The LEO should have discretion to determine if I placed the bait but not so much that I could be charged with both trespassing and baiting.

I never mentioned trespassing, anyone could of put the bait there. But if you can easily see the bait and id it as bait, say a big pile of yellow corn, and you are hunting then you are guilty of hunting over bait.

And I agree an officer should show discretion in writing tickets in those situations.

BTW, ALL land is NOT posted against trespass in Alabama unless you are referring to a "trespasser" carrying a gun while doing so. Then the charge would be hunting w/o permission. Different thing.

If you can see the bait, you would know it's there without trespassing.

The opinions of the Supreme Court of Alabama are law when they interpret statutes. They said if you knew or should have known the bait was there, then you meet the requirements of mental culpability. So that is the law now.

They went on to say, if you don't know it's on someone else's property, then you may not be able to make your inspection in order to know that it is there.

This thread needs to be "stickied" to the top so that TGray can keep us updated as to how this turns out when it finally does go to trial.

Don't worry - I will post the results of this crappy experience.

All -

I wanted to update those interested. The case went to trial today. My friend represented himself and I was available to tesify.

After all was said and done, the judge cited the State vs. Phillips case as he found my friend not guilty.

The judge found that my friend could not have reasonably been expected to know there was bait on the ground, just as I said would be the outcome.

Before his case was called, three other guys were each found not guilty. this all occur today at the Coffee County courthouse in Elba.

Thanks 49er for your help in this.

Glad it went well.

Don't look for the bills pending before the Legislature to make it any better though. They just add to the confusion.

This crap needs to end... repeal 9-11-244 and amend 9-11-245.

Congrats. Glad to see there was some common sense used. What were the specifics of the other cases?

Welcome to Aldeer!

Glad to see it all worked out for yall.

The other case involved three individuals, all charged the same day and on the same hunting club, with hunting over a baited field. They were all put on trial at the same time and they were represented by an older souther woman that essentially beat the crap out of the young asst. district attorney. It was pretty fun to watch, I have to admit. You gotta love a southern woman.

The game warden had gone out to the fields on 21 Dec and found what he described as a 'few shells' of corn. He returned on the 23rd of Dec and cited the hunters. He admitted that he had to spread the 1 foot tall grass open before he could see it. In each case the hunters told him that they were not aware the field was baited and in each case the warden took them to the spot and showed them an otherwise un-noticeable bit of corn.

The hunters each explained to the judge that to walk thru out the field searching for bait would in effect destroy their potential for hitting a nice deer, due to the fact that scent would be spread thru the field. On cross-examination, the warden agreed that it would potentially place a hunters scent in the field.

In the end, the judge cited Phillips vs. State, and referenced the strict liability clause. He found that the fact that the warden stated the grass had to be moved in order to see the bait, and that the bait was not visible from the stand, and that by searching the field on foot for bait would be counterproductive, the hunter did not meet the 'Knew or should have known" clause. and therefor was not guilty of the crime.

As for me, I learned a very valuable lesson in all of this. I should have had a very solid handle on the law so that I did not place my friend in this awful predicament. Time will tell if he will continue to hunt. In his case, the judge asked him how experienced he was as a hunter, and of course the judge was sympathetic to the fact that this was his very first day of hunting.

When the warden was under oath, I also learned that he did not discover the green field and bait as he spotted them from the cockpit of a C172 - as was his initial statement at the time of the citation. Instead, I learned that my neighbor, Carl Lott, brought him to the fence line on his side and pointed out the block. I sent Carl a text to let him know that my friend was found not guilty and that I was aware that it was he who reported the bait. If he would have simply spoken to me, I would have fixed the problem right away. I would have preferred to get along with my neighbor, but now that ship has sailed.

could Lott see the bait from his property, did he have to walk onto your property???

How did Lott or the game warden "know, or should have known" that the mineral block was not a Trophy Rock?

Was a chemical analysis done on the block and then the results presented as evidence in court?

Quoting an email from the DCNR that was shared with me: