Aitkin Age Deer Baiting Article

[Jameson]

Any updates on the Aitken case?

[PEATMOSS]

It all seems relevant to me.

[WaitForIt]

Quote:

they always seem to have 1 or 2 stands on the edge of their plots. HMMMM. Coincidence, I dont think so. Foodplots DO benifit the hunter so stop kidding yourselves and others.

I'm not kidding myself. I know plots help to draw deer to my area. I do not usually hunt the plot itself but I know it still is a draw. However, the difference is that the food will be there long after I'm gone whereas the bait will not.

Quote:

white tailed deer in Minnesota need absolutly NO suplimental feeding by humans

Quote:

Every habitat has a certain "carrying capacity" as we call it in NR, we are quickly allowing deer to exceed that

Agreed. Winter starvation and predation will take care of the weak, reducing the herd to its natural level. Food plots help increase the carrying capacity of the land and that is partially why I choose to engage in it. Better habitat can support more deer and my food plots are a part (just a part) of that. I also plant mast-producing shrubs and trees, kill invasive species, and will also do selective logging to improve native browse.

Quote:

helps genetically inferior deer survive and breed

This is a common misconception. Many QDM studies show there is almost no such thing as a 'cull' buck, and that you cannot manage for genetics in a free ranging herd, food plots or not.

Quote:

So, if I do my scouting, find a good deer trail, set-up my stand nearby, and then place a small amount of corn on the trail...just a gallon or so....just enough to get the deer to stop and concentrate on something else long enough for me to shoot it...and then I removed the left over feed when I drug the deer out, that would be ok?

Actually, this is a very reasonable proposition. My only comment is the difficulty of enforcement, but it seems many of our hunting laws are that way.

Quote:

Sure I can go downtown to the bar and pick up some chick that is drop dead gorgeous, but it wouldn't change the fact that the obesity rate in America is out of control and still growing.

This is probably the best non sequitur I have ever seen

Quote:

I don't believe that cutting down or tilling the food plot in the fall would be considered "baiting"...

Check the regs - I disagree with this law but have no part of that argument since I do not engage in that practice. I am assuming it would be done for waterfowl hunting not deer.

Not everyone views food plotting the same, I get that. For me, it is just one part of habitat improvement. I admit that for some, it probably functions mainly as seasonal bait - but still, the food remains for the wildlife post-season so even in that case I cannot equate it to baiting.

[cribbageboy]

Lichen Fox, yes you are correct that cutting, tilling and cultivating are all normal practices in farming, but if one sets up a deer stand and hunts over it, that 20 acres turns from legal agricultural work to illegal feeding of deer during the hunting season.

WaitForIt,

I mostly have nothing but good things to say about your post. It truely shows that you ARE planting your foodplots for more than just inticing game animals. Unfortunately however, I think you are in the minority. Planting vegitation that creates mast, selective logging (as long as the amount of edge is kept to a minimum), and invasive species control are all very important factor to creating good habitat.

I do however find one qualm with your post.

Quote:

Food plots help increase the carrying capacity of the land and that is partially why I choose to engage in it.

Although this does help the CC of the land, feeding wildlife is only one of the many steps to increasing the CC of a certain plot of land. And like I stated in earlier posts, is increasing the AMOUNT of deer really what we want to do as sporstmen and women, or do we want to increase the QUALITY of deer in MN. For me quality is much more important than quantity.

Lastly,

Does anyone have new info on the boys in Aitkin?

[UdeLakeTom]

Does anyone have new info on the boys in Aitkin?

The Age only comes out on Wednesday nights. I have been checking it since the article came out, but I don't know the court date, and there hasn't been a follow up yet.

[lakevet]

Agreed. Winter starvation and predation will take care of the weak, reducing the herd to its natural level. Food plots help increase the carrying capacity of the land and that is partially why I choose to engage in it. Better habitat can support more deer and my food plots are a part (just a part) of that. I also plant mast-producing shrubs and trees, kill invasive species, and will also do selective logging to improve native browse.

[cribbageboy]

Amen to that!

[nateonthenet]

The state dropped the charges and the guns will be returned. Just came out yesterday.

[wahoohendoo]

the bad guys get away with another one! obviously guilty or very lazy

[UdeLakeTom]

Charges of shooting deer over bait have been dismissed for three men who hunt on their land in the Aitkin area.

They will also have their guns returned to them, which were confiscated at the opening day of deer hunting season in 2008.

Judge John Solien ruled on July 17 that charges are dismissed against Mark Allaman, Jeffery Allaman, Mark's son and Daniel Miller, Mark's son-in-law.

"The defendants' motion to dismiss the charges pending against them for lack of probable cause is herewith and in all respects granted," the judge ruled.

"We are excited that we have won this deer baiting case," said Mark Allaman, when contacted for a comment, "and hopefully this will be of benefit for other fellow deer hunters.We are really excited that we can get our guns back."

"My clients and I are very pleased about Judge Solien's decision," said Attorney James Magnuson. "We believe it is a victory not just for us, but for Minnesota hunters, and it is just plain common sense."

At a pre-trial hearing before the judge last month in Aitkin County District Court, attorneys Erick Kaardal and Magnuson of Mohrman and Kaardal, Minneapolis, asked that charges be dismissed in that the deer feeding statute is vague and probable cause was not shown.

They were offered a plea agreement at that time, which they rejected. They were asked to plead guilty and then could get their guns back.

The three stated that they have been hunting on their land north of Big Sandy for about five years.

They were upfront, stating that they did feed deer and other wildlife on their property. They rigged up a system with feed in a suspended barrel that let down feed every day with a timer system.

They said that the last time they filled the feeder was Labor Day weekend in 2008, well before deer season. The solar battery on the automatic feeder gave out in early October so it wasn't dispensing feed. Also, they tightened the spinner plate on the dispenser on Oct. 24 so no feed could fall to the ground.

The law says you have to quit feeding deer 10 days before the season opens. When the men took their deer stands on opening day of Nov. 8, 2008, they were cited for hunting over bait and their guns were confiscated.

Conservation officers said they were alerted by a Turn in Poachers call.

From the start, the men said they would fight the charge, that they were aware of the law and they followed it.

The judge wrote: "Having bait in a closed container, whether it is in a feeder can or unopened bag, does not violate the law. The deer must have access to the bait. Then the question becomes whether what was on the ground on Nov. 6 and the date of the offense, Nov. 8, constitutes bait. Although there is dispute as to the character and amount of what was on the ground on these dates, the evidence clearly shows that whatever it was there wasn't much of it. The statute does not contain a volume requirement - it requires that it must be 'capable of attracting or enticing deer.' Despite evidence of 'fresh' tracks in the area, the court believes that trace amounts found on theground to be legally insufficient to support this element," the judge wrote.

Solien said regarding whether or not they were hunting in the vicinity of bait, that the legislature intended that determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. There are no appealate court decisions on the issue. It's the court's position, he said, that any hunter on Allamans' 100-acre parcel could be considered as hunting in the vicinity of bait. "The court concludes that as a matter of law these defendants were not aided by or using bait and were not in the vicinity of the trace amounts of bait upon the ground."

"Applying these standards to the facts of this case, and for the reasons state herein above, the state has not presented sufficient facts ... and accordingly the citation against the defendants are herby dismissed," the judge wrote.

[Jameson]

Quote:

... hopefully this will be of benefit for other fellow deer hunters....

Hunters are not allowed to hunt over bait. How does baiting have to do with hunting deer in Minnesota? This might, might be of some benefit for photographers, tourists, or someone else, but not for hunters.

I originally thought they would get off. It didn't seem that the CO had enough evidence that the defendants knew the area to be baited 10 days prior to the hunt.

What would it take to stiffen up the deer baiting laws? We already have a no feeding zone in the TB zone up north. Could we expand that to the entire state? except the Twin Cities? I bet this law would need to be changed by changing a statute. Hmmmmm.

[certified jumbo]

wow!!! not sure what he mean when he says this is a benefit to all hunters, that doesn't even make sense.

if all the facts i have reviewed are true, it sure seems to me they are guilty with out a doubt. to be honest i don't even know what there is to dispute, plain and simple. i'm glad i don't own the land next to them.

my thoughts............they should have been found guilty.

[UdeLakeTom]

The interesting part is that the CO's received a TIP call and responeded to it. This means that the somebody evidently had it in for these hunters, ie, the bait is keeping the deer away from us, not in a personal means.

The fact that they made an attempt to shut down the baiting before the season began, in my opinion, means they did not use the feeder for baiting purposes.

It is good that the COs responded, but maybe, just maybe, they went a little too far.

[PEATMOSS]

Anyone else notice that the "baiting problem" we seem to have in this state has coincided directly with the rising popularity and proliferation of food plots?

[Jameson]

No, I have noticed the proliferation of baiting coinciding with the rise in popularity of deer cameras. It seems that to get a good pic of the deer you need them to stop at one specific spot. A bait pile accomplishes this very well. Than when hunting season is about to start many people have a hard time stopping baiting.