Baiting

[tealitup]

When I was bear hunting this weekend - I had the chance to read the laws booklet - cover to cover (what else to do in a bear stand). Please read the following about bait (general) and tell me what you think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunting Method Restrictions

Bait

• Liquid scents, salt, and minerals are not considered bait, unless they contain other foods defined below as bait.

• “Bait” is grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer and that has been transported and placed by a person.

• This restriction does not apply to foods resulting from normal or accepted farming, forest management, wildlife food plantings, orchard management,or similar land management

activities.

• The restriction does not apply to a person hunting on their own property, when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person.

• Hunters are not allowed to use bait or hunt in the vicinity of bait that the hunter knows about or has reason to know about or hunt in the vicinity where bait has been placed within the previous ten days.

___________________________

• The restriction does not apply to a person hunting on their own property, when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person.

THis section seems to say that the section as a whole does not apply to landowners who do not conspire to feed animals on adjacent land. AM I WRONG IN READING THIS?

Maybe I am just stupid today, but... I looked in the 2005 rules/policy book and this written section was not there. (I could not find a 2006 book).

Also, emailed DNR today.

[Mark Christianson]

I think its saying that I could legally bowhunt behind my house, even though my neighbors may have feeders out for deer that I know about.

Basically its saying that if you conspire with someone else to feed deer on their property to benefit you, you are in the wrong. If you know somebody is feeding deer, and its all on their terms, you are fine to hunt the area. BUT, I'll use caution to not sit directly on a trail going to those feeders.

Definitely some gray in all this.

Thats a very high level analysis on my part.

[chucker34]

It sure looks like that but remember the "smell test." If it smells wrong, even though you're following the letter of the law, the DNR can warn you and make an example of you in a gray area such as this. I'm not saying you, in particular, or that you would do it. Just saying people in general should consider this.

Consider the following. What if my neighbor has a farm where the deer visit the corn crib every night and I set up 100 yards from it on my own property that adjoins. Legal, perhaps, maybe not. He's not baiting for me, but I know that its pretty much smells like baiting. I don't want to find out the hard way that what I'm doing is going to get my hunting priveleges revoked.

[Mark Christianson]

I am not justifying the grayness of the issue, just stating thats what it pretty much means though.

Tealitup wanted to know what it meant, and basically thats what it means.

I completely agree with you chuck.

[lcornice]

Quote:

---

I think its saying that I could legally bowhunt behind my house, even though my neighbors may have feeders out for deer that I know about.

Basically its saying that if you conspire with someone else to feed deer on their property to benefit you, you are in the wrong. If you know somebody is feeding deer, and its all on their terms, you are fine to hunt the area. BUT, I'll use caution to not sit directly on a trail going to those feeders.

Definitely some gray in all this.

Thats a very high level analysis on my part.

---

That's exactly why it was changed by the legislature. There were a few situations around the state where people couldn't hunt their own property because a neighor was feeding and they'd be hunting over bait. So, it was changed to exempt people IF they weren't involved in the feeding on the neighbors property.

It can definitely be gray (what isn't these days) but I did like the comment about passing the 'sniff test'.

[Hossienda]

Maybe you can also help me with this part of it:

• "The restriction does not apply to a person hunting on their own property, when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person."

Would this mean that if I am hunting private property and I have no ownership stake in it that I could get a ticket?

Thanks,

-Hossienda

[lcornice]

Quote:

---

Maybe you can also help me with this part of it:

• "The restriction does not apply to a person hunting on their own property, when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person."

Would this mean that if I am hunting private property and I have no ownership stake in it that I could get a ticket?

Thanks,

-Hossienda

---

The statute was specific to a landowner exemption. As indicated, unless you own the property, you are not protected by the exemption.

[Ufatz]

Just a cautionary note fellas: remember that it does not matter what people in here "think" or "guess" the law means. It is the interpretation used by the COURT that will prevail. The "smell test" admonition was on point.

[Mark Christianson]

I have firm belief that what lcorn says, is about as good as it gets.