Baiting Bill HB1618/SB1942

TboneD · Mar 2, 2024

This thread has been more than a little revealing. I knew folks deer hunted for different reasons, with some much more interested in the hunt than the kill. Maybe there's not as many of us like that as I thought.

Since I have family in MS I've thought a lot about it and had many a conversation concerning it for some time now. The one that keeps coming back to me is the one I've had with myself, though about what if they make it legal in TN. Will I quit hunting? No but I'll probably quit buying the sportsman license and hold off to see what the acorn crop is looking like for that particular year.

Anyhow, if all you got out of this thread was the drama and you missed the reasons why baiting isn't good for deer hunting, the deer, or wildlife in general, you have the internet at your fingers.

The fact that politicians are the ones behind it speaks volumes. We ought to be raising the bar when it comes to the welfare of wildlife, hunting ethics and sportsmanship, not lowering it, especially when most folks don't "get" us hunters to begin with.

Bull_TN · Mar 2, 2024

MickThompson said:
That was an autocorrect. Supposed to read non hunters. Non hunters do not support hunting over bait. Really good chance he doesn't get permission to hunt if he's slinging yeller acorns.

"Level the playing field" is a fallacy that's been dispelled. You just gave an example of a hunter getting permission without bait. Now show me one that got permission because of bait.

He shot that first doe on public in a spot I found where a farmer had lost about 100 pounds of soy beans. It was actually about 50 yards from there, but I knew about where the deer entered the field and where they were going. The access road curved and went uphill causing the beans to pour out. While technically not "baiting". It's the exact same thing in my mind.

Bull_TN · Mar 2, 2024

I have been on the fence about sharing this, but I think y'all deserve to know. I'm not going to give details, but I work with a lobbyist for my job. I have been following the internal politics of this situation. This bill not moving forward has nothing to do with the bill. The decision was made to not support this bill because the sponsor of the bill came after a long-term and well liked Senator that was trying to leave the Senate gracefully for health reasons. If another Senator would have sponsored this bill, it would have most likely become law.

mike243 · Mar 3, 2024

I think lobbying should be outlawed, it's bribery about any way you look at it, that's a big reason this country is in such political BS now, very few honest politicians because of lobbyists imo.

DoubleRidge · Mar 3, 2024

Bull_TN said:
I think almost everyone that frequents a site like this is for what's best for wildlife. The question is do you think that making hunting more accessible through baiting helps or hurts wildlife. I see hunter recruitment declining rapidly. If those numbers were climbing, I would have a different option, but the reality is our way of life is dying right before our eyes. If we don't do something to bring in new hunters, we're a few generations, maybe two, of this being gone forever. Most people don't have a dad that brought them up in the woods. We have to get those people access to hunting (and the purchase of license every year) to turn this thing around. Is anyone really worried about running out of deer? I bet 80% of the land in TN isn't hunted. The deer are going to be just fine with or without hunting. Why not provide more accessible hunting methods to reach more hunters? I have personally mentored multiple adults that never hunted growing up but want to access the sport, and now they're hooked. I truly believe most people that killed their first doe over some corn would move on from that to more advanced methods. Maybe bait isn't the right catalyst to increase hunter recruitment, but we have to do something. I want my future grandkids to have the opportunity to hunt. It's been pointed out already how out numbered we are (hunters verses non-hunters). Eventually our voice will be so small that the New Jersey cat ladies will ban the whole thing once and for all. Just my two cents.

I appreciate your concern for the future of hunting...and I get the concept of what your saying.
I just dont think the majority of those who are "pro-baiting" are being driven by their desire to grow the sport...but I hear what your saying...I see it...young kids have video games, baseball, football, soccer, softball, travel ball, tournaments and the list goes on and on....many years ago I would have a different kid to carry on the juvenile hunt each year...last several years that has faded....but for me, just my opinion, I dont see baiting as the answer...and I wont recap all of the reasons I feel baiting is bad for wildlife.

TheLBLman · Mar 3, 2024

Killing deer over a bait pile is counter-productive in promoting the future of hunting, as it's really not hunting, but more similar to just "killing" a farm animal coming to a feeding trough.

Killing deer over a bait pile is more a "participation trophy" than anything to do with hunting.
Those who participate can get their "hey, look at me" credits on Facebook, etc.,
but they're not really becoming hunters because of that.

Why not make nighttime spot-light killing of deer legal, too?
Similar mentality if you really believe killing over bait piles promotes people developing lifetime desires to be "hunters". But no one really believes that.
Follow the money.

TheLBLman · Mar 3, 2024

From the get-go, this "baiting bill" has been about politics, money, and short-cuts to killing an animal.
Nothing to do with hunting; nothing to do with promoting the future of hunting.
It actually harms the future of hunting.

TboneD · Mar 3, 2024

Bull_TN said:
I have been on the fence about sharing this, but I think y'all deserve to know. I'm not going to give details, but I work with a lobbyist for my job. I have been following the internal politics of this situation. This bill not moving forward has nothing to do with the bill. The decision was made to not support this bill because the sponsor of the bill came after a long-term and well liked Senator that was trying to leave the Senate gracefully for health reasons. If another Senator would have sponsored this bill, it would have most likely become law.

I'm slow to wake up this morning. You mind clarifying your next to last statement a bit? I appreciate you sharing and just want to be sure I understand you correctly.

TboneD · Mar 3, 2024

TheLBLman said:
From the get-go, this "baiting bill" has been about politics, money, and short-cuts to killing an animal.
Nothing to do with hunting; nothing to do with promoting the future of hunting.
It actually harms the future of hunting.

Absolutely. I've talked to my cousin in MS many years about it and know why it became legal down there. It was absolutely pure politics. Law enforcement no longer had to worry about investigating all the tips of baiting. And the hunter's justification was the old excuse:

"Everybody's doing it!"

So now they often do DIRECTLY compete with neighboring hunters in how many feeders they keep filled, which is proven not to be in the best interest of wildlife. And they've raised a generation of hunters that know little about hunting besides picking a stand downwind of a feeder that deer have the best likelihood of coming to during legal shooting hours based on what they've been seeing on their trail cams.

TheLBLman · Mar 3, 2024

TboneD said:
And they've raised a generation of ~~hunters~~ shooters that know ~~little~~ nothing about hunting . . . . .

Perhaps a case can be made for "shooting" live targets, but killing animals over bait piles does not make a case for promoting "hunting".

"Shooting" (whether it's casting an arrow or a bullet) is in fact a part of hunting.
But "hunting" is not necessarily any part of "shooting".

"Shooting" is an activity, a "sport", and a very different "skill set" than "hunting".
Many professional "shooters" (whether for "sport" or for their careers) have never "hunted" deer or any other "animal" subject to game laws.

And I'm personally all for promoting "shooting", just don't harm "hunting" in the process.

A good example of promoting "shooting" is our archery programs in schools.
Even the hunter education programs promote "shooting" (and "hunting"),
as do the more obvious promotions of shooting sports, especially among youth.

grill-n-man2 · Mar 3, 2024

Well there is a few things for certain after all the comments
1 - some things never change glad certain "opinions " don't work for the state anymore tainting the hunting world with personal agendas instead of unbiased decisions
2 - factual discussion with school yard name calling still is non existent
3 - either outlaw in all forms or legalize it all
4 - the idea of what is baiting is so opinionated and diverse that there will never be a truly defined definition as that definition will and probably be based upon money generated not facts. Example bush hogging standing corn is legal but same stuff out a bag isnt
5 - momma always said duma*#/z is as dum#($z does. Very elegant indeed sir

Snake · Mar 3, 2024

TheLBLman said:
Perhaps a case can be made for "shooting" live targets, but killing animals over bait piles does not make a case for promoting "hunting".

"Shooting" (whether it's casting an arrow or a bullet) is in fact a part of hunting.
But "hunting" is not necessarily any part of "shooting".

"Shooting" is an activity, a "sport", and a very different "skill set" than "hunting".
Many professional "shooters" (whether for "sport" or for their careers) have never "hunted" deer or any other "animal" subject to game laws.

And I'm personally all for promoting "shooting", just don't harm "hunting" in the process.

A good example of promoting "shooting" is our archery programs in schools.
Even the hunter educations programs promote "shooting" (and "hunting"),
as do the more obvious promotions of shooting sports, especially among youth.

And a perfect example of shooting and it hurting hunting is poaching !! It requires no knowledge of how to hunt but got to be a good shot .

Snake · Mar 3, 2024

TheLBLman said:
Killing deer over a bait pile is counter-productive in promoting the future of hunting, as it's really not hunting, but more similar to just "killing" a farm animal coming to a feeding trough.

Killing deer over a bait pile is more a "participation trophy" than anything to do with hunting.
Those who participate can get their "hey, look at me" credits on Facebook, etc.,
but they're not really becoming hunters because of that.

Why not make nighttime spot-light killing of deer legal, too?
Similar mentality if you really believe killing over bait piles promotes people developing lifetime desires to be "hunters". But no one really believes that.
Follow the money.

I can agree with all your points to a tee given the facts I didn't know . But in relation to the future of hunting taking a kid to a shooting house and waiting for a deer to feed its gut is also not good for the sport of " hunting " ! We've all said that most of these hunting shows which the majority does this exact thing shows young hunters nothing about the aspects of hunting !!! While being on this one subject of things that are not good for hunting this should be on the list. Got to be a good shot as do poachers but not much a hunter IMO. With that said setting in a shooting house watching a foodplot could be good for the wildlife except the one you shoot but still is it good for the sport "hunting" ? I've even read where some here say it don't teach the young hunters nothing but some do what they just bashed !! Don't get me wrong I'm thinking of building me one for the real cold days now I just don't hunt those days anymore.

Bull_TN · Mar 3, 2024

TboneD said:
I'm slow to wake up this morning. You mind clarifying your next to last statement a bit? I appreciate you sharing and just want to be sure I understand you correctly.

I was trying to make the point that all the things that are being discussed on this thread are not what's being discussed by the people that make the laws.

MickThompson · Mar 3, 2024

Bull_TN said:
I have been on the fence about sharing this, but I think y'all deserve to know. I'm not going to give details, but I work with a lobbyist for my job. I have been following the internal politics of this situation. This bill not moving forward has nothing to do with the bill. The decision was made to not support this bill because the sponsor of the bill came after a long-term and well liked Senator that was trying to leave the Senate gracefully for health reasons. If another Senator would have sponsored this bill, it would have most likely become law.

Hensley is the only senator that apparently has an interest in passing this... maybe that's a clue about its merits?

Bull_TN · Mar 3, 2024

mike243 said:
I think lobbying should be outlawed, it's bribery about any way you look at it, that's a big reason this country is in such political BS now, very few honest politicians because of lobbyists imo.

Brother I couldn't agree with you more, but this is the game we have to play until the rules change. If I had a magic wand, I would end lobbying, add term limits to every political office, end insider trading by politicians, add age limits to run for office... I could go on for a while.

killingtime 41 · Mar 3, 2024

Well well so the health of the herd isn't the reason TWRA makes changes. What a joke these people are anymore. It depends on who you are and how much money and influence you have to make changes in wildlife in the state. That is wrong on many levels. Even though we all knew. Now we know for sure. Thanks for sharing.

TboneD · Mar 3, 2024

Saw a serious hunter at church this morning who's a very nice guy I highly respect. Asked him if he heard about the bill and he hadn't but was in favor of it for two reasons. The states to our north and to our south do, so why not? Then he said that given the poor ground on his place (Wilson County) he couldn't grow big deer without feeding them.

I didn't have time to say anything other than to tell him that overall, feeding deer is harmful to the wildlife and mentioned there could even be a connection between deer corn and the decline of quail and turkey. I also didn't have time to tell him God made whitetails to be browsers, and that if they lived long enough they could get bigger than you'd think, even on poor ground.

This young man is a true sportsman and I'm sure his hunting ethic is as high as mine or anybody else. So in reflection after talking to him I think the answer to keep our great state from going the way of the other states is through EDUCATION. But who's gonna do it? The TWRA? Well they haven't yet! I guess I would hope there's been some change of thinking by some that truly read this thread.

Ski · Mar 3, 2024

TboneD said:
Saw a serious hunter at church this morning who's a very nice guy I highly respect. Asked him if he heard about the bill and he hadn't but was in favor of it for two reasons. The states to our north and to our south do, so why not? Then he said that given the poor ground on his place (Wilson County) he couldn't grow big deer without feeding them.

I didn't have time to say anything other than to tell him that overall, feeding deer is harmful to the wildlife and mentioned there could even be a connection between deer corn and the decline of quail and turkey. I also didn't have time to tell him God made whitetails to be browsers, and that if they lived long enough they could get bigger than you'd think, even on poor ground.

This young man is a true sportsman and I'm sure his hunting ethic is as high as mine or anybody else. So in reflection after talking to him I think the answer to keep our great state from going the way of the other states is through EDUCATION. But who's gonna do it? The TWRA? Well they haven't yet! I guess I would hope there's been some change of thinking by some that truly read this thread.

Might recommend he check out MSU Deer Lab on youtube. Legit academic education on what deer actually prefer to eat, nutritional values of native browse and forbs, and how to enhance the habitat to maximize support of those already naturally occurring plants. Can get a little boring at times but usually is super interesting stuff.

MickThompson · Mar 3, 2024

TboneD said:
Saw a serious hunter at church this morning who's a very nice guy I highly respect. Asked him if he heard about the bill and he hadn't but was in favor of it for two reasons. The states to our north and to our south do, so why not? Then he said that given the poor ground on his place (Wilson County) he couldn't grow big deer without feeding them.

I didn't have time to say anything other than to tell him that overall, feeding deer is harmful to the wildlife and mentioned there could even be a connection between deer corn and the decline of quail and turkey. I also didn't have time to tell him God made whitetails to be browsers, and that if they lived long enough they could get bigger than you'd think, even on poor ground.

This young man is a true sportsman and I'm sure his hunting ethic is as high as mine or anybody else. So in reflection after talking to him I think the answer to keep our great state from going the way of the other states is through EDUCATION. But who's gonna do it? The TWRA? Well they haven't yet! I guess I would hope there's been some change of thinking by some that truly read this thread.

There's a saying about horses and water that comes to mind.

The public rushes to social media (like tndeer) instead of having an honest conversation about issues like these. Pretty sure baiting/feeding is covered in Hunter Ed to some degree but that's one point of contact.

Do you think anyone in this thread or the politicians that brought the bill contacted TWRA or any professional biologist for information about baiting before publicly taking a position?

This isn't directed at you but I think people in general are really quick to seek out our echo chambers for confirmation and value that over facts. Look at the popularity of Facebook legal advice.

Baiting Bill HB1618/SB1942

Should baiting be allowed on private land?

Yes

No

Don't care

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads