Lets try this ? again

Tennessee Deer Sporting & Deer Hunting Community Forum

Help Support TNDeer | Tennessee Deer:

Please never make it legal to bait public land would be a nightmare. I would probably quit hunting it would be retarded dangerous. Imo. I dont need to bait now and dont see a need for it im the future
Lets try this ? again. So you know your beating this dead horse. Yet you still ask the question?
 
I have a friend who is a Game Warden in Ohio. He says it's the biggest headache he has as an officer, people constantly complaining about their neighbors putting out more bait than them (truckloads of bait literally in some cases) while the adjoining landowners put out a little or none. He says constant whining gets old very quickly. He says Tennessee should resist for as long possible to legalize it. I do however think it will be legalized at some point here. The conflicts will escalate between hunters I can imagine what will be said here on the site. Can't we just argue about UT Football, Rage Broadheads, ETC.
 
I think it's human nature to never be satisfied. There will always be someone pushing the envelope of whats legal or not. When it comes down to it and someone has to wear the Daddy Pants and make a law, I'd personally prefer it to be based on sound scientific data instead of emotion. If its ever legal on public land it will be a disaster.
 
Baiting has to be the worse thing ever. I mean look how it has devastated KY's herd. They are in such trouble, they are only allowed to kill one deer a year. :) Now, since I want to continue with the option of killing three a year, I am going to have to be against baiting, cause Lord knows we don't want what KY has.


BTW,,, Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm.


I also don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that baiting got KY the deer they have. Also through my experience and all the people I talk to that hunt KY, I have never heard of any deer dying for this nasty corn poison.


Just an FYI, I will not bait if it is legal or illegal, so my opinion should not count either way.
 
To BSK - since you are the one who has actually come the closest to the actual question. this is what I am trying to find out. When an "attractant", regardless of what it is, is used for the sole and only purpose to take wildlife what seperates what is legal and what is not as defined by law? When law makers make these decisions it is, well should be, outlined in the law as to what is considered bait and what is not. There is specific wording in every law that gives a clear definition as what is legal and what is not. If this was not the case then everything would be solely left up to the opinion of what ever law enforcement officer thought on that particular day and time. But that ain't the way it works, because if it did nobody would know what is legal and what ain't. The TWRA has to have a clear and specific definition other than "one you pour out and the other you don't Duhh". The definition that seperates the two is what is being looked for. If its as simple as one you pour and one you don't then everybody better rethink food plots because every seed that I have bought and used was "poured". See what I mean by interpretation not specific. And yes I have asked TWRA more than once over the years. And yes I tried this on the TWRA part of this forum and it was locked.
 
Oh one more thing, if its as simple as one is poured and the other is an agricultural thing then how can a field you are going to hunt say dove or waterfowl over that has been "harvested" by a farmer for agricultural needs can be considered baited and shut down because the wagons and/or machines that the farmer used had to much blow by? The law on bait is not simply confined to deer and corn. And since most of us hunt more than deer and the question pertains to more than deer it might not be a bad idea to find out the answer to my question. Many a ticket has been wrote for hunting a field where a farmer has harveted his crop, yeah harvested not poured out, that was considered baited.
 
Grill-n-man,

I don't work for the TRWA, so I can't answer your legal question. However, FOR DEER, in my opinion it is extremely easy to define. If you place a food source to attract deer--a food source that did not grow out of the ground in that location--it is baiting.
 
I just hope they keep it illegal for wild turkeys sake. Much more susceptible to disease and they can't adjust travel patterns to move at night, stuff like that.

It also hurts the art of hunting, whether its deer or turkeys. You go and sit next to your bait, in a blind or shooting house, you wait for your deer or turkey to come next to your bait, you shoot it.

I plant food plots, and have shooting houses and stands in them. But to be honest I normally don't hunt them. I just don't really consider it deer hunting when your in the comfort of a nice shooting house in a 5 acre food plot. Also, I rarely see a nice buck in food plots during the daylight hours anyways.

Hunting turkeys is a way different issue. IMO, it is totally un-ethical to sit by a pile of corn in a blind with your "prety-boy, two headed, b-mobile, super strut jake decoy" and wait for the turkeys to come to you. That isn't how turkey hunting is done. TV is ruining it by putting everyone in blinds and showing it to where they deer hunt turkeys, except calling them some.
It is way more fun to get out and manuever and go after them anyways.

My opinion on it and will never change.
 
When a discussion of baiting vs. foodplots comes up everybody always quotes the health issues but I read Grill-n-man's question as more of an ethical issue.

In my opinion, and I don't know this to be fact, when TWRA came up with the anti-baiting laws they were not thinking of deer health nearly so much(if at all) as they were in offering fair-chase equal hunting for all hunters. There is a perception that hunting over bait gives a hunter an advantage over others who do not hunt over bait so game laws were passed to make baiting illegal. This always brings up the question, "Aren't Fall/Winter foodplots just bait?" People can say they aren't all they want but I disagree. Even if you don't hunt directly over the plot, the major motivator for planting these foodplots for most people is to make it easier to kill a deer. If you hunt a staging area nearby that wouldn't have the concentration of deer without the foodplot, then you are using that foodplot as bait even though that form of baiting is legal while a pile of corn isn't. You can look at the shelves of the local sporting good stores and see that most foodplotters are growing the stuff for bait because they sell so much more seed in the Fall compared to Spring.

Having said all the above, I will say that neither corn nor food plots have produced vast numbers of deer coming in daily in my experience. I've had cameras set up over corn "on-demand" feeders that basically went cold once gun season got rolling. My food plots sure don't bring herds of deer running in either during hunting season.
 
His question was, "What is the difference...?" Okay, here is the answer.

The difference is the way hunting over both is perceived. Baiting is perceived to be taking advantage of the wildlife by taking advantage of their weakness for an easy meal. The easy meal become an easy kill.

Planting a food plot becomes work at some point. Therefore it is not an easy meal. And the animal is not drawn to a specific spot. Therefore it is more sporting in the eyes of some.

Think of it this way. It is illegal to put some drug in a woman's drink and then take advantage of her. It is not illegal to take out to dinner and a movie and then ger about half drunk and take advantage of her. One requires more work and in either case, the end result is not as satisfying.
 
bowriter said:
His question was, "What is the difference...?" Okay, here is the answer.

The difference is the way hunting over both is perceived. Baiting is perceived to be taking advantage of the wildlife by taking advantage of their weakness for an easy meal. The easy meal become an easy kill.

Planting a food plot becomes work at some point. Therefore it is not an easy meal. And the animal is not drawn to a specific spot. Therefore it is more sporting in the eyes of some.
Click to expand...

You are not being consistent in your application of the word "easy" here. It is true that bait piles are easy for a hunter while food plots are not. However, food plots and bait piles are equally easy for the deer to walk in to so the end result(perceived advantage) is the same. In theory either food source is supposed to lure in and concentrate deer making it too easy to kill a deer compared to open woods hunting. Regarding food plots not concentrating deer, that depends on the size of the food plot. A 50ft square plot of "Secret Spot" for instance is not that much different at all from a spin feeder full of corn.


bowriter said:
Think of it this way. It is illegal to put some drug in a woman's drink and then take advantage of her. It is not illegal to take out to dinner and a movie and then ger about half drunk and take advantage of her. One requires more work and in either case, the end result is not as satisfying.
Click to expand...

Very good anolgy of the exact same inconsistent scenario as food plots vs. bait in a bag. :grin: :blush:
 
Okay, I'm sure you are right. You have made dummies of us all. Now I will tell you the real difference.

One is legal, one is not. If youneed to know more than, go troll bowsite.
 
And the question remains "Why is one legal and the other not"? :)

Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's ethical. There are laws all over the world that aren't morally right.
 
As I said, we are all dummies and dummies make dumb laws. For example, it is against the law to text and drive. however, it is not against the law to drive and masturbate. Which is more distracting?
 
What if they make it illegal to own a gun? Are you simply going to tow the line and not question it?

Surely you don't think that every law ever passed is good?

And I see no reason for your insulting tones, BoWriter. This is supposed to be a place where hunters can discuss subjects in a friendly manner.
 
What insulting tones? I did not even come close to typing what I was thinking. I thought I was being quite polite since you seem to be dead set on a meanigless debate with no possible conclusion or constructive outcome.

The subject has been beat to death many times over the years on this forum and others. Of course not all laws are good. Many are just plain ludicrous. But this sort of endless loop is just as bad. I thouoght it was quite well explained that it is not about ethics. That seems to be your focus and from a gun hunter only point of view I can understand that. Probably, you have never had a deer feed wihtin 10-yards of you for 20-minutes and never provide a shot. But that is not the point, is it. It may all depend on whether or not one uses mechanical or fixed blades.

Just for clarification, what is your point. I seem to have forgotten. I also seem to have lost my butter and salt.

Now see, that is me being polite. Lot better than I use to be. Ask any of the old timers. :)
 
bowriter said:
As I said, we are all dummies and dummies make dumb laws. For example, it is against the law to text and drive. however, it is not against the law to drive and masturbate. Which is more distracting?
Click to expand...


LMAO!!! I love you bowriter, you crack me up :D
 
My point is that there is no ethical difference between a corn pile and a small food plot. What do I say should be done about it as far as laws are concerned? I really don't care if the laws change or not. Just talking. I plant as much as 14 acres of food plots myself each year. Rarely use bait except in front of a camera and ahven't done that since 2009 or 2010, don't recall whcih year I quit. It just makes me smile when I see food plotters talking down to corn pilers (Is that a word?) as if food plotting is somehow less of an advantage in attracting deer to shoot.

Yes, I have seen deer very close for long periods of time. I had a doe stand for a timed 24 minutes last year at a measured 18 feet munching on a greenbriar of all things. Almost drove me crazy since I was on the ground sitting on a turkey stool with nothing between us but a piece of camo burlap. Thought rigormortis was going to sit in from being absolutely motionless so long.
 
Grill-n-man said:
To BSK - since you are the one who has actually come the closest to the actual question. this is what I am trying to find out. When an "attractant", regardless of what it is, is used for the sole and only purpose to take wildlife what seperates what is legal and what is not as defined by law? When law makers make these decisions it is, well should be, outlined in the law as to what is considered bait and what is not. There is specific wording in every law that gives a clear definition as what is legal and what is not. If this was not the case then everything would be solely left up to the opinion of what ever law enforcement officer thought on that particular day and time. But that ain't the way it works, because if it did nobody would know what is legal and what ain't. The TWRA has to have a clear and specific definition other than "one you pour out and the other you don't Duhh". The definition that seperates the two is what is being looked for. If its as simple as one you pour and one you don't then everybody better rethink food plots because every seed that I have bought and used was "poured". See what I mean by interpretation not specific. And yes I have asked TWRA more than once over the years. And yes I tried this on the TWRA part of this forum and it was locked.
Click to expand...
I've never poured a bunch of seed out to do a food plot. To me this is pretty simple. You take a seed and put it in the ground and at some point if your lucky it will germinate and turn into a green plant. A normal agricultural practice that can be done on a large or very small scale. The law is pretty simple to me.
 
Thanks to the couple of yall that understand the question i am trying to find the answer for. It appears to be another dead end and too many are taking it personal and completly out of context. So once again I will try a different route to find what should be a easy answer, as to asking for a clear definition of a law that has been on the books for many years. And to those that merely take a law as its just the law and have no interest in questioning its true meaning, definition, and/or reason I can quote a saying that has gone thru history as simply this " Ah as sheep to the wolf ". And as for my theory as to why one is legal and one isn't is - bag of attractant $4.99 - tractor, plow, disc, land+taxes, seed, fertilizer, diesel, all equals muti million dollar a year industry. And that is simply good business not wildlife management.
 
lung-buster said:
Grill-n-man said:
To BSK - since you are the one who has actually come the closest to the actual question. this is what I am trying to find out. When an "attractant", regardless of what it is, is used for the sole and only purpose to take wildlife what seperates what is legal and what is not as defined by law? When law makers make these decisions it is, well should be, outlined in the law as to what is considered bait and what is not. There is specific wording in every law that gives a clear definition as what is legal and what is not. If this was not the case then everything would be solely left up to the opinion of what ever law enforcement officer thought on that particular day and time. But that ain't the way it works, because if it did nobody would know what is legal and what ain't. The TWRA has to have a clear and specific definition other than "one you pour out and the other you don't Duhh". The definition that seperates the two is what is being looked for. If its as simple as one you pour and one you don't then everybody better rethink food plots because every seed that I have bought and used was "poured". See what I mean by interpretation not specific. And yes I have asked TWRA more than once over the years. And yes I tried this on the TWRA part of this forum and it was locked.
Click to expand...
I've never poured a bunch of seed out to do a food plot. To me this is pretty simple. You take a seed and put it in the ground and at some point if your lucky it will germinate and turn into a green plant. A normal agricultural practice that can be done on a large or very small scale. The law is pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

What you have to remember is that when the law was written with the wording "normal agricultural practices", food plots had never been conceived of. Those words referred to literal farming for a profit where the farmer gave his best effort to remove the entire crop from the field. Inevitably though some grain would always be accidentally left behind. The law was worded - "normal agricultural practices" - to allow hunting in those fields while excluding pouring corn out in the same field and hunting over that. TWRA did not want any kind of attractant put out specifically to draw in deer to hunt over period.
Years later, Food plots came along and basically "gamed" the system by planting crops specifically for deer and leaving it there. It is a normal agricultural practice to plant a crop and watch it grow but I don�t know of any farmer that grows 500 acres of corn and then lets it stand and rot in the field. In other words, food plots are not really a normal agricultrual practice. Leaving a crop in the field is something that only hunters do. I think it�s safe to say that the intent of most hunters when they plant a food plot is to hunt over it - i.e. the food plot is legal bait. This is why some people still question the law.
 
Corn, apples, oaks, wheat, clover, pecans, honeysuckle, oats, persimmons it all grows out of the ground. You can plant ANY of these things you want. You just can't pile it up into a big pile and hunt over it no matter how hard you try and argue.
 
It is hard to believe people still try to justify pouring out feed is the same as growning a food plot. Yes, both hunters want to shoot deer/turkey over the food. But even a basic/cheap easy to plant/grow grain like wheat or rye is much more beneficial to everything that lives in the woods. This provides food throughout the entire year for many animals. Deer/turkeys eat the grass part of the wheat during the fall, winter, and early spring. Late spring and summer when the seed heads mature, it provides cover and nesting habitat for turkeys and quail, as well as seeds to eat.

I understand hunters' arguments though, about those that can only hunt public land, or those that have access to private land that the landowners wont allow or can't allow planting.

I can probably speak for alot of the other hunters here. I plant food plots to make my land better for all wildlife, not just shoot more deer. I think any hunter that is able to, and willing, plants food plots to better the land for animals than to just simply kill them.
 
How many hunters are going to continue to go every week of the entire year to add to their corn pile? I wouldn't think many. If you plant a food plot, it is there the entire year.
 
Yeah, I know food plots are way more beneficial than a pile of corn for the long haul. I have had 4 acres of "Alfa Rack" for several years now that we cut for hay but it was primarily planted to feed deer. It stays well ahead of the deer until about January 1st then pretty much goes dormant due to cold weather. I have 2 smaller Imperial clover patches on other parts of the farm. Have had up to 7 or 8 acres of Pennington Spring/Summer deer mix too. I also have several Winter plots to help get the deer through the January to 1st green up time when the acorns are gone. I used to grow beef cattle and know the big advantage a food plot is going to give. Whether you are talking about a fawn or angus calf, if you keep the female of the species fat and healthy from the time they are bred until the young are weaned, you will have fawns or calves that are larger and grow faster. Stunt them early on and they never seem to reach their potential. At least with cattle if they are starved young or are born to a malnourished cow, a calf never seems to recover to the point where it should be in growth. Of course a steer is typically slaughtered for beef before it's 2 years old where deer live somewhat longer. A deer might eventually recover but I'm doubtful if they could personally.
 
I will agree this law when made likely worked as it was supposed to in keeping people from pouring out bait to hunt over. Now we have people growing bait to hunt over, never harvesting the food, just leaving it as bait to attract and kill what they want. Its just a loophole and a way around the baiting law. As for the argument that food plots are beneficial year round, yeah maybe 20% of those put out are maintained and actually benefit wildlife most of the year. Bottom line is the MAJORITY of all plots planted for wildlife are KILLING PLOTS designed and only available during months around the season! All this said, I could care less if baiting is legal or not, could care less if killing plots are legal or not, just stating my opinion on the matter as I have ZERO interest in hunting over either! It is what it is However!
 
I wanted to add, you are certainly within your legal right to put out a big pile of corn. I've seen people put out truck loads of the stuff. You just can't hunt over said pile.
 
DeerKiller2012 said:
They might as well legalize it. It's obvious a bunch people are doing it every year. I know it ain't everyone on here but around my area people bait like crazy. I personally don't just because its not legal and it's not worth my gun, bow, or truck, or being interrupted while I actually get to sit in my stand a few hours . Deer patterns are already screwed up by people baiting, road riding, spotlighting. So might as Well legalize baiting and focus on the other two since that's a little easier to work with less manpower. I'd rather them bust all these people shooting deer with rifles during bow and muzzleloader myself . . This is just an opinion so don't be rude.
Click to expand...

X2
 

Latest posts

Back
Top