Corn in 2023?

[Bone Collector]

One is an attractant, and one is a supplement. It's as simple as that in my eyes.

which is which? Both attract and in the later months, I'd say both are supplements. If they have nothing to eat and you dump some carbs on the ground.... That is a supplement vs. nothing.

Not trying to be argumentative, just demonstrating there is a counter argument to every argument on this topic.

 

[Talome13]

which is which? Both attract and in the later months, I'd say both are supplements. If they have nothing to eat and you dump some carbs on the ground.... That is a supplement vs. nothing.

Not trying to be argumentative, just demonstrating there is a counter argument to every argument on this topic.

No argument needed friend. As stated, it's pretty simple in my eyes. My vision is different than yours which is perfectly fine

 

[DoubleRidge]

I agree with everything you said, but we have to ask other questions (to be fair) if we look at your questions.

Sure it should, and we know that the answer is a plant from the ground, but if we know that corn is not healthy or less healthy, then we need to stop it from being put out period. If we allow people to have it in their backyard it is no different than in the woods. Also the other issue (whether healthier or not) is people plant food plots to shoot deer on... so maybe it is for herd health too, but ultimately that is where you set up to shoot deer, so you are using them (I am too) to shoot deer. It may be the healthier option, but without stopping it all together, people that don't have equipment, or money for seed and fertilizer, etc. should be able to put it out until they say it is bad and we are going to cease the whole practice.
I would use the same logic of making it illegal for everyone and all purposes to comment on your MSU study. If we know it is bad and the wildlife is the focus, then stop it all together. However, it can't be bad for me and not for thee though when it comes to hunters and nonhunters.

Agree, cut it out totally...but the idea I believe was to not stop folks from using their back yard bird feeders....but I'm absolutely fine with stopping the feeding of wildlife with corn that's possibly tainted with aflatoxin.

Where we differ is I'm not going down the "haves and have not" path....my neighbor can afford to plant 10 acre of beans but I can only afford to plant 2 acre.... another neighbor can't afford to plant any beans ...but that fact shouldnt allow someone to feed wildlife corn that may be tainted with aflatoxin? I don't think someones financial situation or equipment ownership should determine what's best for wildlife...nor should it determine how we're allowed to take game.

 

[DoubleRidge]

which is which? Both attract and in the later months, I'd say both are supplements. If they have nothing to eat and you dump some carbs on the ground.... That is a supplement vs. nothing.

Not trying to be argumentative, just demonstrating there is a counter argument to every argument on this topic.

For me personally (different for different people) corn is an attractant which is normally only placed out with one goal in mind....where the food plot is a more healthy supplement to the native habitat....a supplement that can also, in some cases, provide fawning cover and turkey nesting cover....but just an opinion.