Just wondering.Why do you want baiting legalized,if you do?

I really don't see the difference from hunting over or near food plots and throwing out corn. If one is legal than the other should be or do away with food plots....both are feeding the deer.

JMO

I would have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE.....

I don't care if you hunt over a food plot or bait...


WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE WAY I HUNT ???

YOU WILL OR WILL NOT HUNT OVER BAIT, BUT DON'T TAKE AWAY MY CHOICE.......

Simple, lack of hunting skills!

j/k

I dont really get that double d,to me its a rule like...its bow season,you cant gun hunt during bow season.No choice there either.Or the season is open or closed.No choice to hunt deer during May.

I agree with osduck5, but I'm NOT joking.

The same can be said for ANYONE that hunts near food plots, mineral licks, agricultural fields. You are taking advantage of a mane made attractant.

I dont care either way. But its the same as salt licks or food plots, you are putting something there to attract the deer. Lots of people do it anyhow so why not.

Im just wondering if anyone will say anything besides making it easier to kill deer.What else could it be?

The same can be said for ANYONE that hunts near food plots, mineral licks, agricultural fields. You are taking advantage of a mane made attractant.

Easier to kill a deer yes, does and small bucks. Easier to kill a mature buck no, period. I hunt in Kentucky because I grew up in Kentucky and I have used corn piles to inventory my bucks. Last year, I had 16 bucks on my camera using my corn pile after gun season. The reason for the corn was to see what has been pressured. I don't hunt with a gun because it is too easy for me to shoot a buck at 300 hundred yards, which I have done.

Anyways, three of those 16 bucks were mature bucks. They came in at night and my camera captured them. I would not have known they were there without the corn. Hunting over corn is my option and I don't use it to kill mature bucks because it doesn't work. They associate the corn with humans and keep their distance until the safety of night. However, by knowing they are there, I learn the direction they come from and there bedding areas, along with their escape routes. Corn does not mean the person has a lack of skill. I have killed several pope and young bucks and none of them have come over corn.

Corn is an option. To me, I can kill a mature buck every year with a gun. Had a 140 eight point this year during gun season at 50 yards, but I only use a bow and couldn't get a shot. Corn has not proven successful mature harvests to me, since I have not killed a mature buck in two years and I have corn out. The problem on my property is the lack of cover. I have plenty of food since there is about 200 acres of crops. Most of the mature bucks stay on the adjoining property because of the thick cover and I can only use the rut to get them out early. I did have one mature 10 pt. this year in bow range, but his rack wasn't big enough.

Personally, I don't care what TN does about corn, but I hate hearing some guys on here say that mature bucks will be killed all the time. That just doesn't happen. If it is legalized, it is each person's choice and others should not degrade that person's hunting skills. Even the best hunters have bad years and don't kill a buck.

Group "A" a hunting club with 1000 acres. . The neighbors plant food plots and make sanctuaries. Keeping the deer on their land. They use cameras to locate where the bucks travel and to see where the biggest ones are so they wont have to scout as much plus they have drawn deer to stay on their land. When the rut rolls around they will have most the does and because of the cameras no exactly where to find them. This brings in even more bucks.

Group "B" the hunter who lives next to Group A's 1000 acres. He has 50 acres, no fields covered in hickory, sweet gum and beech but no oaks. He has limited income. His chances of seeing a nice buck are very low. If allowed to put out bait he increases his chances of pulling some does even if temporarily to his land. Now the big buck normally won't get caught at the bait until after daylight even if a doe is in estrus. But now the hunter can back off the pile and figure out his best spot to catch a buck following a doe or waiting on dark.

Group "C" is on the opposite side of group B and they throw out corn illegally.

Difference in these groups one has money and one has nothing to draw the deer and one is hunting Illegally.

Baiting becomes legal and the playing field is equaled out at least a little.

I see a differenc when bow hunting at least,2 acre food plot,or a 4 foot square pile of corn?Which would be easier to kill a deer off of when bow hunting.?

Ok then change it to guns.Now whats the difference football?Both bait and corn are designed to draw deer to small areas.With a gun I don't see much of a difference at all.

Make you a list titled "benefits to deer" with 2 columns on it. One side falls under food plots/agricultural fields and the other under bait piles. See any difference in the two?

Make you another list titled "hunting tips" with the same 2 columns as above. How many items did you list under bait piles?

Point being...it's not hunting. It's shooting. Big difference.

Because feeding deer is already legal as is food plots and mineral licks, etc...

If you had corn out during a GOOD ACORN season they wouldn't hit it like they normally would IMO!

Yes, but i'm referring to baiting , if it were legal as well.

Just wondering.Why do you want baiting legalized,if you do?

There are no "good points" for baiting.

That's a matter of opinion and it's yours and I disagree.I should have to choice to choose on private land.

I don't see much difference between food plots, and baiting. I have plots on my property. They attract deer from surrounding properties, and help hold them on yours. If superior hunting skills, and woodsmanship alone were adequate to take deer consistently, then most of us wouldn't use trail cams, minerals, food plots, or baiting.

It seems that several say they want baiting because they should have the right to choose. We live in Tennessee which is part of the United States of America. Here you have the right to vote(that is when you get to choose) for the people that either make the laws or puts someone in the position to make them. America has been that way a long time before any of us was born. Like said earlier, deer and all wildlife are not personal property. Where would this right to choose stop? Do we do away with our entire legal system? Should I have the right to drive 150 mph? Which laws do we eliminate so some can have the right to choose what the majority might not want?

Most deer hunters know very little about what is good feed for deer to eat. It is not like feeding cattle. Farmers either buy livestock feed that has a nutritional analysis done or send in samples from what they have grown. Much of the feed is also medicated and have vitamins added. Food plots have far more nutritional value that what will get poured out on the ground.

In my opinion if baiting was legal many will feed in late summer through end of season then stop. The deer would have come somewhat dependent on humans then get cut off at the worse time of year like now.

What someone does on their own private property concerning wildlife could very well affect the wildlife on my property. It would turn into a baiting contest in a very short time.

Why are yall supporting something that is unhealthy for the animal you love to hunt? Its a proven fact that throwing out bait is unhealthy for wildlife, but you still support it. I just dont get it.

If it's unhealthy, then why is it legal to bait during the months that hunting season is closed?

Sooo.... If baiting became illegal year round, deer would automatically quit feeding in corn fields?

For one reason that law is set by state legislators that know nothing about wildlife instead of our wildlife commissioners because some people, who don't hunt, want to feed wildlife to watch them from their house. Those same people who want to feed and watch wildlife are the same ones wanting to take away our hunting rights. So be careful whose side you take!

As far as unhealthy goes, it's like you living on cookies and cake. You will be good and fat but not healthy. Deer filling up on corn can actually reduce antler growth because they will not consume as much of the food that does help antler growth. Oh well some will never understand this so continue on.

Should be the Hunter's choice

good Post BH. I've thought about how I would use hunting around bait to my advantage as i too am one who prides myself in my woodsmanship and skills learned through "walking the miles."

Here's one take: I set out a feeder. I put in something good to eat that is also good "for" them. I set up a trail cam. since most big, mature bucks are hardly ever seen on any given property I hope to see one under the cover of darkness from my cam pics.
bingo! Mr. 10 point that I've never ever seen before comes to my "bait" site and i couldn't be more excited.
knowing that I have a shooter buck in that area I now can concentrate on finding him during daylight hours. I continue to monitor my trail cam pics from my "bait" site. From here, as it stands now, I'll have to get all my bait out of here 10 days prior to season which will pretty much kill my chances of him returning, especially during daylight hours.
at this point I'll try to set my trail cam up (or buy another 2 or 3) so I can pinpoint what direction he is coming from. I'd like to say that I could set some cams up to follow him all through the woods but that's about impossible. Once I get a certain direction down I can then let my skills of terrain and cover take over.
Hunting will now be a big problem for several reasons. One; I don't hunt every single day. Two; if I get rid of the bait and because of problem 1 I may not be able to get a chance at this nice buck.
Scenario; If I could let this bait stay, hunt away from it in a thicket or around cover that he may be in I could stand a good chance at bagging him as he comes out or back to it.
The biggest question is "distance." Nobody at TWRA seems to have any concrete "distance" relative to a bait site that a hunter can hunt. they say as long as it is not manipulating that deer BUT we all know that is cloudy and up to that LEO's interpretation at best.
I'm not hunting "over" that bait. The bait's contents should be the healthy (mainly because if the TWRA allows it they could also regulate WHAT I put in it). I'm also using my skills to determine location and area of bedding that he may/may not be coming from.

Whatdya think?

The feeder proved there was a shooter buck for you to hunt. Now, your ability to harvest this shooter will rely on more than the feeder. I've been in this situation every year hunting in KY. YOU will eventually harvest a shooter, not the feeder.

A lot of people don't look at it this way and that is alright, but there is no need for some hunters to hate on other hunters for using this technique. Like I said before, I don't care what TN does about their laws, but when the time comes, and most likely it will, don't tear each other a new one for using this method. Fighting amongst each other will only cause further consequences for the hunting world.

Duck,

I have no problem with you feeding the deer all year long. AND, imo, if you set aside a certain area, say for a satuary and feeding area, then leave the bait out but never go in there to hunt.

For example.........let's say that you hunt 100 acres, woods and fields. You put out a feeder on one side and only hunt the other side. Say, you set the feeder up over a hill and you are well away from it and can't see it, then I have no problem with that....BUT......I still would not do it, simply because , IMO, it takes away from the "essence or hunting", IMO.

In my mind, when I think of deer hunting, I think about going into a deer's backyard and harvesting him or her doing one of their daily routines. Learning their patterns is all part of the game....

It's kind of like this.....i love golf. I like to play as often as I can. I often play with guys that "pick up their ball" when it's within a certain lenght of the cup. they call it a gimme....

I hate that.......the object of the entire game is to put the ball in the hole and no shot is a gimme.....kind of like playing basketball and only having to hit the rim for it to count....

To me, and I don't expect everyone to feel the same way, the whole hunting experience is just that, the experience. It's not about the kill or the ease at which you are able to be successful. I don't kill a nice buck every year, but when i do, the thrill is somewhat euphoric for me. I don't want to lose that feeling....and I believe that baiting would do that to me.

one last thing, IMO, people that want to take the easy way out have lost the passion in life and just want the results without the thrill of the chase and the work that involves........I find that very sad.

Bh

In my mind, when I think of deer hunting, I think about going into a deer's backyard and harvesting him or her doing one of their daily routines. Learning their patterns is all part of the game....


Bh

Seriously how many of us hunters would really be able to tell if there was any ill effects?

It's so much easier to make a feeder and fill it with good nutritious food for deer than it is working the land in hopes that it will produce forage that is equivelant to the food in the feeder. It has already been proven that TN soil isn't that great.
Killing a deer over that same feeder isn't much different than waiting for one to enter a food plot. In fact, if i can feed the same deer better quality feed then I'd say using a feeder is much better. I can also keep it full for the whole year but the plot will die out much sooner.

Not for it but what's the difference between mineral sites, food plots and baiting sites?

Just wondering.Why do you want baiting legalized,if you do?

99% of hunters use bait..in some form or fashion....just as the rest of you do..

[quote=Bottom Hunter]

I keep hearing the pro baiters say there has not been any ill effects from feed if off season or other states that allow it. If those people are not able to understand or learn enough about deer to kill them without bait, how in the world would they be able to recognize any ill effects? It has been said we have more deer than we think dying of old age in this state yet how many find all these deer remains. Seriously how many of us hunters would really be able to tell if there was any ill effects?

I reckon I am a 1%'er.....

None!.This thread is really just beating a dead horse.
99% of hunters use bait..in some form or fashion.lets face it and own it,if you use feeders all year up until hunting season, plant plots to draw deer to your tree stand,put out trophy rocks ,YOU ARE BAITING!!Go back and read my post about the hunter I caught pouring out bags of corn on opening day, who hated bait hunters , when he was doing it and berating others who baited..
I put out many plots,many feeders, a homemade salt lick or 10,so wheather you do it legal or illegal,its still baiting..so yes I admit I legally bait deer , just as the rest of you do..

they make that assumption the same way many of you do in regards to that because someone feels that baiting is ok automatically means that they cannot hunt and have no skills. almost as stupid as saying that since a person doesnt use bait - if legal - then they are the great white hunter.

Guess I'm another 1%'er along with my wife.

I would like to know how and where you come up with those percentages. Just sitting here counting what is done on mine and neighboring property. The people that fit your definition of baiting is 8. The number that do no form of artificial feeding or baiting of any sort by your definition is 15. That by my calculations is nothing like your percentages.

Sure seems like a lot of pro baiters want to post unproven information to support what they want. Just like the post on one of the many baiting threads that posted the states that allow baiting. It has now been posted that was also incorrect info.

I agree with osduck5, but I'm NOT joking.

Guess I'm another 1%'er along with my wife.

I would like to know how and where you come up with those percentages. Just sitting here counting what is done on mine and neighboring property. The people that fit your definition of baiting is 8. The number that do no form of artificial feeding or baiting of any sort by your definition is 15. That by my calculations is nothing like your percentages.

Sure seems like a lot of pro baiters want to post unproven information to support what they want. Just like the post on one of the many baiting threads that posted the states that allow baiting. It has now been posted that was also incorrect info.

BGG. . . . . You wouldn't be so thrilled to uncover the results had the numbers been reversed.

I disagree, Yodel.
If the numbers had been reversed, I really believe "baiting" as you're wanting it would have been made legal, and those poll results would have been widely distributed (by the TWRA) as the reason why TWRA made the change. I say that because there is such a big difference in the "for" and "against" numbers.

But at best, for reasons stated previously, baiting is a very "mixed" blessing, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

This is my second post on this thread and you automatically assume I'm a proponent of baiting. If you would, please, read my first post and tell me how you came to this conclusion.

Yodel,

I assumed, my apologies if erroneously, you were a proponent of baiting because you "sounded" eager to kind of "attack" BigGameGuy's info about the baiting survey which showed most hunters and non-hunters are opposed to baiting.

However, you may have assumed my thinking you were a proponent of baiting was why I posted ---- that wasn't the case --- I posted what I posted because I believed you were wrong in your assertion that TWRA would hide the polling data had the results been different. I often disagree with the TWRA, but don't believe they're hiding anything.

DWM ,so you dont put out any salt blocks,no food plots, no feeders in the off season??

Show me one place I said they cannot hunt and have no skills. If I did I do not remember.

I'm neither for nor against, but I can't stand when someone from TWRA gets on here and posts the results of a poll when those results support their management pratices. I've got a poll for the TWRA. Let's see how many hunters think an antlerless permit should be included in the price of a regular license. I bet you wouldn't see the results if they did take the poll.

I noticed the U.T. survey included NON hunters. Why were non hunters even surveyed?

I'm neither for nor against, but I can't stand when someone from TWRA gets on here and posts the results of a poll when those results support their management pratices. I've got a poll for the TWRA. Let's see how many hunters think an antlerless permit should be included in the price of a regular license. I bet you wouldn't see the results if they did take the poll.

Why in the world would we even bother to ask a question like that when we are already 99.9% sure of the answer. That's like asking hunters if they would like to buy Lifetime licenses for only only $5.00 regardless of their age.

The purpose of polls is to get answers to questions we are not sure the answer of. My bad for thinking everyone knew what polls were for...

think back to the time you wrote "If those people are not able to understand or learn enough about deer to kill them without bait...."

Exactly. But next week TWRA will be on here saying the reason we're staying with a 3 buck limit is because of input from the majority of hunters. I'm sure the general non hunting public will be included in that poll as well.

Why wait until next week, I can give you that stat now.



Yes...absolutely! The majority of hunters do indeed want a three-buck limit. (Pssst...we left the non-hunters out of this one.)

I'm sure your next post will be refuting our samping and attacking the data, so if you do not understand the "science" part of things, there is no use continuing this discussion.

Yes. But it was a statistically significant sample.

If you need information on statistical sampling you can do a search on here. There was a great presentation given that explained what significant sampling entails. Keep in mind, the larger the population, the smaller the percentage of people sampled needs to be.

I'm sure your next post will be refuting our samping and attacking the data, so if you do not understand the "science" part of things, there is no use continuing this discussion.

The polls are only going to contain data that fit the agenda of the TWRA. That's a fact. If the polls produce data that may go against the "belief" of the TWRA we will never see unless the numbers are "moved around" to fit the agenda. Now that my friend is "science".

The polls are only going to contain data that fit the agenda of the TWRA. That's a fact. If the polls produce data that may go against the "belief" of the TWRA we will never see unless the numbers are "moved around" to fit the agenda. Now that my friend is "science".

Just what is the agenda and beliefs of TWRA?....

Total BS!

Really? Prove me wrong then fanboy!

$$

No reason to waste my time.

I believed like you last year, then spent an inordinate amount of time doing my own data collection to see how it compared to TWRA's. There info was/is spot-on. The public perception is also as they say as well.

Don't get confused by your own little microcosm, it is a big world out there with more folks then just you.

One man data collecting machine! Wow! You collected the same amount of data as the whole Tn Wildlife Resource Agency. Well I'm not taking your word for it and I sure don't have the time to conduct a study such as yours. Me confused? No, but I'll bet you are from all your "data collecting". Bet you voted for Obama too didn't you since you apparently believe everything you read or have been told. Go back and collect more data fanboy. "Its a big world out there" and life is difficult for those that are as gullible as you!

Really? Prove me wrong then fanboy!