Baiting Bill HB1618/SB1942

[Madbowh]

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then you seem to be a person who cares about the animals you hunt. If so then take the time to at least lightly research the adverse affects baiting can have on all wildlife, not just deer. There are endless resources on the subject and many published academic studies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, only asking that you read up on it for yourself. Is that reasonable?

Serious curiosity on this question, would like your response.

The reasons you give not corn baiting is interesting and I agree/ believe the same things. What I don't understand is what I think is a double standard.

Baiting/ feeding with corn is perfectly legal unless you kill over it, so with that why is it allowed if there is real risks to the animal why does twra give nonsense answers and answers that don't add up or contradict other responses about baiting deer.

The double standard being a non hunter can feed them anything but a hunter can't? I add a hunter can legally feed or bait but not kill over it. I can place bait then go hunt their travel routes to it, given im the right distance away... WTH.

Maybe your thoughts?

 

[Headhunter]

I seen plenty of turkeys in Kentucky this year.

They are in a bad decline in the area we hunt.

 

[Bull_TN]

How does bait even the playing field?

And since when is it the government's job to regulate fairness?

Pro baiting arguments are borderline socialist. Prove me wrong.

Just for fun... Baiting laws are the government telling you what you can do on your land. This is closer to socialism than you being able to do what you want (bait or not) on your property.

 

[TheLBLman]

The reasons you give not corn baiting is interesting and I agree/ believe the same things. What I don't understand is what I think is a double standard.

Baiting/ feeding with corn is perfectly legal unless you kill over it, so with that why is it allowed if there is real risks to the animal why does twra give nonsense answers and answers that don't add up or contradict other responses about baiting deer.

The honest short answer is "politics", and political decisions by state legislators, NOT TWRA's decisions.

If TWRA could have their way, there would be ZERO wildlife "feeding" in TN.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the "zero", and SCN can chime in to correct.

My point is that TWRA hasn't caused this double-standard.
Many non-hunters demand the freedom to "feed" wildlife in their backyards.

If TWRA tries to point out what's not good about that, tries to stop wildlife feeding,
immediately, a larger group of people are complaining to their state legislatures, demanding that the "government" do something about this misguided TWRA that wants to stop people from feeding all the starving deer.

At present, TWRA can only regulate wildlife "feeding" to the extent it involves "hunting".
Perhaps some limited exceptions, but very few.

Just like in West TN's CWD hunting zones, TWRA has made it illegal for hunters to place salt.
But the more powerful TN Dept of Agriculture does not agree with the TWRA, so cattle farmers legally place more salt right now in the CWD zone than deer hunters ever did. And I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing as to which state agency is more right or wrong on the salt issues.

I'm torn as to what is the lesser of the evils, such as being allowed to place salt for wildlife, or not. We hunters are told to stop doing it, but the deer just start getting more of the salt they want from the salt licks farmers place in cattle pastures.

I'm not "torn" when it comes to killing wildlife over "bait" poured from a bag, and it makes no difference whether it's on private or public property, or someone's backyard or their back forty.

TWRA has had the current authority to make killing over bait illegal; the state legislature has the authority to over-rule TWRA. Be careful for what you wish, as the state legislature can make any public lands off limits to hunting, with just the stroke of a pen, anything else, if enough "constituents" demand it. Most "constituents" do not hunt.

Even most state legislators don't hunt, nor do they care about what we see as double-standards?
Well, they might make things worse, then proclaim they've righted an injustice?

 

[TheLBLman]

Just for fun... Baiting laws are the government telling you what you can do on your land. This is closer to socialism than you being able to do what you want (bait or not) on your property.

Just for more fun . . . . . If your dog runs across your neighbors yard, does your neighbor have the right to kill your dog because he can do as he pleases on his own property?

If you answer "no", why doesn't your neighbor have the right to kill your dog on his own property?

 

[Hymie3]

This thread will be longer than the stupid China virus thread I predict……

 

[Bull_TN]

My two cents, the baiting situation in TN is just stupid. You can pour out piles of corn outside of season legally, you're non-hunter neighbor can have a pile of corn in their back yard 100 yards away from your stand legally, you can plant corn and hunt over that. The whole thing is ridiculous. I could take it seriously if the conversation was no bait/feeding wildlife versus allow it, but this exercise in trying to argue which forms of baiting/feeding is ethical is nonsense. I am against pouring out piles of corn because of the disease aspects. I would support a law that said you can't "pile" bait or use "trough" feeders. Bait must be spread.

 

[Bull_TN]

Just for more fun . . . . . If your dog runs across your neighbors yard, does your neighbor have the right to kill your dog because he can do as he pleases on his own property?

If you answer "no", why doesn't your neighbor have the right to kill your dog on his own property?

Yeah, if my dog runs across your land, please shoot that sorry Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Bull_TN]

Just for more fun . . . . . If your dog runs across your neighbors yard, does your neighbor have the right to kill your dog because he can do as he pleases on his own property?

If you answer "no", why doesn't your neighbor have the right to kill your dog on his own property?

Seriously though, killing somebody's pet is a lot different than pouring out some corn. I'm for laws that regulate killing stuff. We kinda need those.

 

[Madbowh]

The honest short answer is "politics", and political decisions by state legislators, NOT TWRA's decisions.

If TWRA could have their way, there would be ZERO wildlife "feeding" in TN.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the "zero", and SCN can chime in to correct.

My point is that TWRA hasn't caused this double-standard.
Many non-hunters demand the freedom to "feed" wildlife in their backyards.

If TWRA tries to point out what's not good about that, tries to stop wildlife feeding,
immediately, a larger group of people are complaining to their state legislatures, demanding that the "government" do something about this misguided TWRA that wants to stop people from feeding all the starving deer.

At present, TWRA can only regulate wildlife "feeding" to the extent it involves "hunting".
Perhaps some limited exceptions, but very few.

Just like in West TN's CWD hunting zones, TWRA has made it illegal for hunters to place salt.
But the more powerful TN Dept of Agriculture does not agree with the TWRA, so cattle farmers legally place more salt right now in the CWD zone than deer hunters ever did. And I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing as to which state agency is more right or wrong on the salt issues.

I'm torn as to what is the lesser of the evils, such as being allowed to place salt for wildlife, or not. We hunters are told to stop doing it, but the deer just start getting more of the salt they want from the salt licks farmers place in cattle pastures.

I'm not "torn" when it comes to killing wildlife over "bait" poured from a bag, and it makes no difference whether it's on private or public property, or someone's backyard or their back forty.

TWRA has had the current authority to make killing over bait illegal; the state legislature has the authority to over-rule TWRA. Be careful for what you wish, as the state legislature can make any public lands off limits to hunting, with just the stroke of a pen, anything else, if enough "constituents" demand it. Most "constituents" do not hunt.

Even most state legislators don't hunt, nor do they care about what we see as double-standards?
Well, they might make things worse, then proclaim they've righted an injustice?

That's some interesting stuff, appreciate the info. That's why I asked you and ski.


"If TWRA tries to point out what's not good about that, tries to stop wildlife feeding,
immediately, a larger group of people are complaining to their state legislatures, demanding that the "government" do something about this misguided TWRA that wants to stop people from feeding all the starving deer."

^^^ this is a problem for all hunters I think

 

[Ski]

Serious curiosity on this question, would like your response.

The reasons you give not corn baiting is interesting and I agree/ believe the same things. What I don't understand is what I think is a double standard.

Baiting/ feeding with corn is perfectly legal unless you kill over it, so with that why is it allowed if there is real risks to the animal why does twra give nonsense answers and answers that don't add up or contradict other responses about baiting deer.

The double standard being a non hunter can feed them anything but a hunter can't? I add a hunter can legally feed or bait but not kill over it. I can place bait then go hunt their travel routes to it, given im the right distance away... WTH.

Maybe your thoughts?

It's for sure a double standard but not necessarily a purposeful one. It's actually kind of complex.

My thoughts are that multiple related but distinctly different issues are being conflated as one. TWRA enforce game laws. It's illegal to hunt over bait. It is not illegal to bait. Completely different. I'm not aware of a law prohibing people in TN from feeding wildlife, only hunting over it. That explains the double standard. Being wildlife driven I would assume most at TWRA oppose baiting across the board, but they have no jurisdiction to prosecute baiting because there is no law preventing it. They can only control the hunters so that's what they do.

The issue most anti-baiting crowd has is with aflatoxic corn. There's no legitimate deniance that it is deadly to medium and small birds. Those who have familiarized themselves with the topic of aflatoxic mold understand that it is specific to corn and a few other nuts. Sure mold grows on anything given the right conditions but the mold that grows on corn is deadly. Mold that grows on rotting turnips is not. Mold on rotting apples is not. Corn specifically is the problem. And since corn is the bait of choice I oppose baiting.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't particularly care about baiting. Pour out so many apples that the deer get drunk on fermenting fruit. Doesn't bother me. Paint your dove fields black with sunflower seeds. I wouldn't care. All I ask is that folks take the time to read up on aflatoxins so they understand why corn is much more of a detriment than it is a benefit. And I will clarify that the manner in which corn is handled makes a big difference. In silage or if poured out as bait it becomes much more prone to molding. Much different than spilling out of a harvester. Still dangerous but why increase the risk if we don't have to? I know some folks will absolutely refuse to acknowledge how dangerous corn is to wildlife because it's an inconvenient truth if they like baiting. But that's the arument I guess. We all present our opinions and see where the chips fall.

Anti-baiting crowd think they are protecting wildlife and that baiters are only worried about their own selfish easy button hunt. Baiters think anti-baiters are hypocrites because they grow food plots and the baiters think it's the same thing. And round & round we go.

 

[Snake]

Just for more fun . . . . . If your dog runs across your neighbors yard, does your neighbor have the right to kill your dog because he can do as he pleases on his own property?

If you answer "no", why doesn't your neighbor have the right to kill your dog on his own property?

Even though we kinda disagree on the OP up until this point sir you have been educational, intellectual and informative but come on brother....

 

[Snake]

It's for sure a double standard but not necessarily a purposeful one. It's actually kind of complex.

My thoughts are that multiple related but distinctly different issues are being conflated as one. TWRA enforce game laws. It's illegal to hunt over bait. It is not illegal to bait. Completely different. I'm not aware of a law prohibing people in TN from feeding wildlife, only hunting over it. That explains the double standard. Being wildlife driven I would assume most at TWRA oppose baiting across the board, but they have no jurisdiction to prosecute baiting because there is no law preventing it. They can only control the hunters so that's what they do.

The issue most anti-baiting crowd has is with aflatoxic corn. There's no legitimate deniance that it is deadly to medium and small birds. Those who have familiarized themselves with the topic of aflatoxic mold understand that it is specific to corn and a few other nuts. Sure mold grows on anything given the right conditions but the mold that grows on corn is deadly. Mold that grows on rotting turnips is not. Mold on rotting apples is not. Corn specifically is the problem. And since corn is the bait of choice I oppose baiting.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't particularly care about baiting. Pour out so many apples that the deer get drunk on fermenting fruit. Doesn't bother me. Paint your dove fields black with sunflower seeds. I wouldn't care. All I ask is that folks take the time to read up on aflatoxins so they understand why corn is much more of a detriment than it is a benefit. And I will clarify that the manner in which corn is handled makes a big difference. In silage or if poured out as bait it becomes much more prone to molding. Much different than spilling out of a harvester. Still dangerous but why increase the risk if we don't have to? I know some folks will absolutely refuse to acknowledge how dangerous corn is to wildlife because it's an inconvenient truth if they like baiting. But that's the arument I guess. We all present our opinions and see where the chips fall.

Anti-baiting crowd think they are protecting wildlife and that baiters are only worried about their own selfish easy button hunt. Baiters think anti-baiters are hypocrites because they grow food plots and the baiters think it's the same thing. And round & round we go.

By read your post there is one thing that is troubling , not your nor any anti- baiters fault . The main focus of your stance is that baiting is harmful to the wildlife . Now here's the catch 22 TWRA says you can "feed" the wildlife but you can't " bait" the wildlife . You can kill 'em (turkeys & some small fowl) with " feed" but you can't by baiting????? The only difference here by a anti- baiters stance is a baiter can't kill them over bait. I am sorry but that is absolutely lunacy. Weather it be a bait station or a feeder station using anti-baiter's main stance there is absolutely no difference. Aflatoxin will be present in a "feeder" station as well as a ' baiter" station unless the corn knows the difference The only difference is it must bother some for someone to shoot a deer over a bait station but that's not really the main stance or at least that's what's been mentioned.

 

[Madbowh]

It's for sure a double standard but not necessarily a purposeful one. It's actually kind of complex.

My thoughts are that multiple related but distinctly different issues are being conflated as one. TWRA enforce game laws. It's illegal to hunt over bait. It is not illegal to bait. Completely different. I'm not aware of a law prohibing people in TN from feeding wildlife, only hunting over it. That explains the double standard. Being wildlife driven I would assume most at TWRA oppose baiting across the board, but they have no jurisdiction to prosecute baiting because there is no law preventing it. They can only control the hunters so that's what they do.

The issue most anti-baiting crowd has is with aflatoxic corn. There's no legitimate deniance that it is deadly to medium and small birds. Those who have familiarized themselves with the topic of aflatoxic mold understand that it is specific to corn and a few other nuts. Sure mold grows on anything given the right conditions but the mold that grows on corn is deadly. Mold that grows on rotting turnips is not. Mold on rotting apples is not. Corn specifically is the problem. And since corn is the bait of choice I oppose baiting.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't particularly care about baiting. Pour out so many apples that the deer get drunk on fermenting fruit. Doesn't bother me. Paint your dove fields black with sunflower seeds. I wouldn't care. All I ask is that folks take the time to read up on aflatoxins so they understand why corn is much more of a detriment than it is a benefit. And I will clarify that the manner in which corn is handled makes a big difference. In silage or if poured out as bait it becomes much more prone to molding. Much different than spilling out of a harvester. Still dangerous but why increase the risk if we don't have to? I know some folks will absolutely refuse to acknowledge how dangerous corn is to wildlife because it's an inconvenient truth if they like baiting. But that's the arument I guess. We all present our opinions and see where the chips fall.

Anti-baiting crowd think they are protecting wildlife and that baiters are only worried about their own selfish easy button hunt. Baiters think anti-baiters are hypocrites because they grow food plots and the baiters think it's the same thing. And round & round we go.

Thanks for the input, between you and lblman I just learned quite a bit there, a few things make more sense now. You 2 just put me on the no corn should be used for bait side of things, baiting and killing over it I would be for public or private but not corn. Like the way you put all that and completely agree.

 

[Ski]

Weather it be a bait station or a feeder station using anti-baiter's main stance there is absolutely no difference. Aflatoxin will be present in a "feeder" station as well as a ' baiter" station unless the corn knows the difference

Correct, the corn doesn't know the difference. The aflatoxin mold can grow on it regardless. I was only pointing out that pouring it directly onto the ground in piles amplifies the mold growth in comparison to corn that gets scattered or spilled during harvest. A spinning broadcast feeder still piles it up. It just does so over time rather than all at once. As I said in an earlier post, the corn that gets spilled during harvest is a collateral damage we accept because that farm is critical to feeding us humans. Doesn't mean that it's not still dangerous for wildlife. It only means we accept that harm because it does a bigger good for all of us. That's not the case with baiting.

 

[Hawk103161]

The honest short answer is "politics", and political decisions by state legislators, NOT TWRA's decisions.

If TWRA could have their way, there would be ZERO wildlife "feeding" in TN.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the "zero", and SCN can chime in to correct.

My point is that TWRA hasn't caused this double-standard.
Many non-hunters demand the freedom to "feed" wildlife in their backyards.

If TWRA tries to point out what's not good about that, tries to stop wildlife feeding,
immediately, a larger group of people are complaining to their state legislatures, demanding that the "government" do something about this misguided TWRA that wants to stop people from feeding all the starving deer.

At present, TWRA can only regulate wildlife "feeding" to the extent it involves "hunting".
Perhaps some limited exceptions, but very few.

Just like in West TN's CWD hunting zones, TWRA has made it illegal for hunters to place salt.
But the more powerful TN Dept of Agriculture does not agree with the TWRA, so cattle farmers legally place more salt right now in the CWD zone than deer hunters ever did. And I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing as to which state agency is more right or wrong on the salt issues.

I'm torn as to what is the lesser of the evils, such as being allowed to place salt for wildlife, or not. We hunters are told to stop doing it, but the deer just start getting more of the salt they want from the salt licks farmers place in cattle pastures.

I'm not "torn" when it comes to killing wildlife over "bait" poured from a bag, and it makes no difference whether it's on private or public property, or someone's backyard or their back forty.

TWRA has had the current authority to make killing over bait illegal; the state legislature has the authority to over-rule TWRA. Be careful for what you wish, as the state legislature can make any public lands off limits to hunting, with just the stroke of a pen, anything else, if enough "constituents" demand it. Most "constituents" do not hunt.

Even most state legislators don't hunt, nor do they care about what we see as double-standards?
Well, they might make things worse, then proclaim they've righted an injustice?

I have personally seen HUGE Corn piles put out by TWRA Agents. Then they take handicap hunters to it and allow them to kill deer/turkey over that bait. I'm not talking scattered about I'm talking a pile. Me personally I have no problem at all with this since it definitely levels the field for them......How good is a law that the makers of that law are allowed to break same law. Now I know that @TheLBLman is totally against this practice as are many other hunters on this forum. P.S. this was a private farm too. That to me is a Double Standard. The individual that I knew has passed on so am not sure if they do that any more. I bet they do though...

 

[Hawk103161]

It's for sure a double standard but not necessarily a purposeful one. It's actually kind of complex.

My thoughts are that multiple related but distinctly different issues are being conflated as one. TWRA enforce game laws. It's illegal to hunt over bait. It is not illegal to bait. Completely different. I'm not aware of a law prohibing people in TN from feeding wildlife, only hunting over it. That explains the double standard. Being wildlife driven I would assume most at TWRA oppose baiting across the board, but they have no jurisdiction to prosecute baiting because there is no law preventing it. They can only control the hunters so that's what they do.

The issue most anti-baiting crowd has is with aflatoxic corn. There's no legitimate deniance that it is deadly to medium and small birds. Those who have familiarized themselves with the topic of aflatoxic mold understand that it is specific to corn and a few other nuts. Sure mold grows on anything given the right conditions but the mold that grows on corn is deadly. Mold that grows on rotting turnips is not. Mold on rotting apples is not. Corn specifically is the problem. And since corn is the bait of choice I oppose baiting.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't particularly care about baiting. Pour out so many apples that the deer get drunk on fermenting fruit. Doesn't bother me. Paint your dove fields black with sunflower seeds. I wouldn't care. All I ask is that folks take the time to read up on aflatoxins so they understand why corn is much more of a detriment than it is a benefit. And I will clarify that the manner in which corn is handled makes a big difference. In silage or if poured out as bait it becomes much more prone to molding. Much different than spilling out of a harvester. Still dangerous but why increase the risk if we don't have to? I know some folks will absolutely refuse to acknowledge how dangerous corn is to wildlife because it's an inconvenient truth if they like baiting. But that's the arument I guess. We all present our opinions and see where the chips fall.

Anti-baiting crowd think they are protecting wildlife and that baiters are only worried about their own selfish easy button hunt. Baiters think anti-baiters are hypocrites because they grow food plots and the baiters think it's the same thing. And round & round we go.

Patulin is a mycotoxin produced by a variety of moulds, particularly Aspergillus, Penicillium and Byssochlamys. Often found in rotting apples and apple products, patulin can also occur in various mouldy fruits, grains and other foods. Major human dietary sources of patulin are apples and apple juice made from affected fruit. The acute symptoms in animals include liver, spleen and kidney damage and toxicity to the immune system. For humans, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances and vomiting have been reported. Patulin is considered to be genotoxic however a carcinogenic potential has not been demonstrated yet. Rotten Apples have a high rate of Aflatoxin contamination.

 

[Hawk103161]

It's for sure a double standard but not necessarily a purposeful one. It's actually kind of complex.

My thoughts are that multiple related but distinctly different issues are being conflated as one. TWRA enforce game laws. It's illegal to hunt over bait. It is not illegal to bait. Completely different. I'm not aware of a law prohibing people in TN from feeding wildlife, only hunting over it. That explains the double standard. Being wildlife driven I would assume most at TWRA oppose baiting across the board, but they have no jurisdiction to prosecute baiting because there is no law preventing it. They can only control the hunters so that's what they do.

The issue most anti-baiting crowd has is with aflatoxic corn. There's no legitimate deniance that it is deadly to medium and small birds. Those who have familiarized themselves with the topic of aflatoxic mold understand that it is specific to corn and a few other nuts. Sure mold grows on anything given the right conditions but the mold that grows on corn is deadly. Mold that grows on rotting turnips is not. Mold on rotting apples is not. Corn specifically is the problem. And since corn is the bait of choice I oppose baiting.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't particularly care about baiting. Pour out so many apples that the deer get drunk on fermenting fruit. Doesn't bother me. Paint your dove fields black with sunflower seeds. I wouldn't care. All I ask is that folks take the time to read up on aflatoxins so they understand why corn is much more of a detriment than it is a benefit. And I will clarify that the manner in which corn is handled makes a big difference. In silage or if poured out as bait it becomes much more prone to molding. Much different than spilling out of a harvester. Still dangerous but why increase the risk if we don't have to? I know some folks will absolutely refuse to acknowledge how dangerous corn is to wildlife because it's an inconvenient truth if they like baiting. But that's the arument I guess. We all present our opinions and see where the chips fall.

Anti-baiting crowd think they are protecting wildlife and that baiters are only worried about their own selfish easy button hunt. Baiters think anti-baiters are hypocrites because they grow food plots and the baiters think it's the same thing. And round & round we go.

Aflatoxins are metabolites produced by toxigenic strains of molds, mainly Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, which grow in soil, hay, decaying vegetation, and grains. Aflatoxin is produced by fungal action during food production, harvest, storage, and processing. Dietary exposure to aflatoxins may result in severe toxic and carcinogenic outcomes in humans and animals. Aflatoxin toxicity may result in nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, convulsions, and other signs of acute liver injury. Long-term exposure also leads to various complications like growth retardation, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This activity describes the evaluation and management of aflatoxin toxicity and reviews the role of the interprofessional team in managing patients with this condition.

 

[Hawk103161]

Correct, the corn doesn't know the difference. The aflatoxin mold can grow on it regardless. I was only pointing out that pouring it directly onto the ground in piles amplifies the mold growth in comparison to corn that gets scattered or spilled during harvest. A spinning broadcast feeder still piles it up. It just does so over time rather than all at once. As I said in an earlier post, the corn that gets spilled during harvest is a collateral damage we accept because that farm is critical to feeding us humans. Doesn't mean that it's not still dangerous for wildlife. It only means we accept that harm because it does a bigger good for all of us. That's not the case with baiting.

This is as close as any one has come to acknowledge that it can happen even in the normal routine of Farming. There is a risk it's just acceptable because the good outweighs the bad. This is true in many facets of life.

 

[DoubleRidge]

Weather it be a bait station or a feeder station using anti-baiter's main stance there is absolutely no difference. Aflatoxin will be present in a "feeder" station as well as a bait station.

Correct....so outlaw corn for wildlife feed period...its not a healthy choice...or at minimum the risk outweighs any reward or benifit.

Problem is, in this context....TWRA cant tell granny, whos feeding her pet critters in her back yard what to do....shes not a big game hunter.

Wife and I have a bird feeder and I never buy cheap bird seed with corn in it...dont wanna feed tree rats or risk afltoxin to songbirds.

I cant believe this conversation has gone on so long? As stewards of the land and wildlife I cant believe the topic of feeding corn to wildlife is so complicated?

If people wanna hunt illegal and bait atleast use something that cant become toxic to birds...or feed something actually benifical to deer. (Edited to remove rotten apples after reading Hawks post)

And again....working with a chainsaw opening the canopy will give you a much greater return on investment...much healthier for all wildlife in so many way.