Baiting deer?

[JeremiahJohnson]

Let's try this one...During the summer months you've decided to bait an area with corn and put a camera on it in an attempt to see what's in the area. You know the law and that the bait must be cleared up 10 days before you hunt it, so to be certain you're legal you use PVC pipe with both ends threaded making it easy to clean up the area without having to pack anything out. So 20 days before you hunt you visit the area, set your stand, remove all the corn from the ground and seal up the tube. For all intents and purposes the corn is gone and you are well within the 10-day clause of the law. Are you legal?

Since no one tackled this one I'll tell you what COs have told me. The majority of them would probably still cite the hunter even though technically he is not baiting, but the corn is still there - though not accessible - and deer can smell it. That is - they say - violating the baiting law using food for the purpose of consumption to draw deer to a site. I argued smell can't get out of pvc and lost. "But it holds pressurized water! How can scent get out?" No luck. So, in case you thought you could turn your feeder off and clean up the area - no luck. Don't just turn it off, remove it entirely from the area.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

If you think they're not vague, here's a test...(before you ask about the answer, I've put these before several CO's during teaching Hunter Education).

Ready?

You're hunting a persimmon grove. You've decided to hunt near enough the persimmons you'll have persimmons under your tree. You set your climbing stand and get your gear loaded. Just before climbing your tree, you bend over, pick up a hand full of persimmons and smear them on your tree. Are you legal?

I used to do this once in a while just to freshen up the smell of persimmons in the area. You know, anything to mentally convince yourself you're helping the cause. I've had more than one CO tell me if he saw me do it, he'd cite for baiting. I've also used persimmons to place them in the container where my clothes are kept, to cover with persimmon smell - real persimmon smell. You guessed it. Baiting.

 

[ws6duramax]

I used to do this once in a while just to freshen up the smell of persimmons in the area. You know, anything to mentally convince yourself you're helping the cause. I've had more than one CO tell me if he saw me do it, he'd cite for baiting. I've also used persimmons to place them in the container where my clothes are kept, to cover with persimmon smell - real persimmon smell. You guessed it. Baiting.

Unless your leaving your clothes on the ground for the deer to eat , that's not baiting . Scents have always been legal .

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Unless your leaving your clothes on the ground for the deer to eat , that's not baiting . Scents have always been legal .

I agree with you, however the CO's - at least many of them - don't interpret it that way. If a real "food for consumption" is used (whether it's to attract i.e. scent or not) that's bait. Synthetic scents are specifically spelled out as legal. However, real food items used - in their estimation to attract them for consumption - is under the food for consumption clause. That's why in the PVC reference many CO's said they would still cite for baiting even though the corn is inaccessible. It's real food used as an attractant - whether in liquid or solid form - therefore baiting.

All of that could be easily cleared up in the wording of the law. All they would have to do is say natural scents are legal as are synthetic scents. Problem solved.

 

[ws6duramax]

I agree with you, however the CO's - at least many of them - don't interpret it that way. If a real "food for consumption" is used (whether it's to attract i.e. scent or not) that's bait. Synthetic scents are specifically spelled out as legal. However, real food items used - in their estimation to attract them for consumption - is under the food for consumption clause. That's why in the PVC reference many CO's said they would still cite for baiting even though the corn is inaccessible. It's real food used as an attractant - whether in liquid or solid form - therefore baiting.

All of that could be easily cleared up in the wording of the law. All they would have to do is say natural scents are legal as are synthetic scents. Problem solved.

That may very well be , but if you click on the regulations on DNR webpage it says this .

"It is illegal to use bait, salt, snares, dogs or other domesticated animals to take deer. Bait is considered any product that is transported into a hunting area and placed there for animal consumption. Baits can be in the form of salt, mineral blocks, prepared solid or liquid, or piles of apples or other food that is intended for the animal to eat. An area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait and any affected soil."

Says nothing about synthetic or natural . Just if it's intended for consumption .

 

[gregr]

They're not childish or pointless, they happen. Talk to a few CO's, or better volunteer to teach hunter-ed. Get involved with your local CO's and talk to them. These things happen.

In Springville, two years ago, there was a bow hunter - ethical fair chase guy like yourself - used his atv to haul his deer out of the woods far enough to get it to the truck, very rough country he was pulling the deer out of. Was placing his tag on the deer at the tailgate of the truck, edge of the woods, was cited for moving a deer without a tag on it. Apparently he didn't realize moving the deer on his atv was moving it on a motorized vehicle. The deer was on the atv all of 100 yards, up hill, through the woods to his truck. Cited.

If these instances are actually occurring, then I stand corrected, it is outrageous. While this has nothing to do with the ambiguity of the allowable distance from bait to a hunter, it does expose some issues with interpretation and enforcement of fish and game laws, and this should be addressed. How does one get these grievances addressed?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

That may very well be , but if you click on the regulations on DNR webpage it says this .

"It is illegal to use bait, salt, snares, dogs or other domesticated animals to take deer. Bait is considered any product that is transported into a hunting area and placed there for animal consumption. Baits can be in the form of salt, mineral blocks, prepared solid or liquid, or piles of apples or other food that is intended for the animal to eat. An area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait and any affected soil."

Says nothing about synthetic or natural . Just if it's intended for consumption .

It is how it's taught in the state sponsored hunter ed program and even published in local newspapers:

DNR reminds hunters Use of deer attractants bait of any kind is illegal

You can ask CO's yourself at a hunter-ed course or places like this one:

D-I-Y Question | HUNTING INDIANA

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

If these instances are actually occurring, then I stand corrected, it is outrageous. While this has nothing to do with the ambiguity of the allowable distance from bait to a hunter, it does expose some issues with interpretation and enforcement of fish and game laws, and this should be addressed. How does one get these grievances addressed?

It's easier to get something changed in the hunter education material, then it is in the hunting regulations. Believe me I bring this stuff up all the time in hunter education classes and talk to CO's about it. Some of them say their hands are tied. When direction comes from their management that's the way it is, but most of this can be thwarted by bringing it up in hunter education and talking to Conservation Officers...they're people like you and me (most of them). Ha. Going to the DNR "town hall meetings" they bring to different regions every year helps. Keep putting back that these kinds of interpretations are not right. Natural scents should be allowed along with synthetic scents. More leeway in agricultural practice interpretations - don't be so quick to assume someone is doing something wrong just because there's a spill in the area. Lean toward the hunter when they don't have any influence on their neighbors and what they do. Fair Chase is about knowingly - KNOWINGLY - attracting a deer artificially. I'll keep beating that drum until things change.

 

[Willie]

Key is - “a food that is transported and placed for consumption,..."

 

[ghitch75]

i transport seed/food to grow/place for consumption....so this is what i don't get....i don't see any difference in pouring food on the ground or putting seed in the ground to "bait" them in????????

this is why i see the baiting law as very very stupid......

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Willie I have seen citations for apples in a have-a-heart trap. They can't possibly be consumed, yet they are food (the kind that is normally consumed unlike synthetic scents), therefore bait. I've seen 5-gallong barrels with apples and other fruit - holes in the lid - no way it can be consumed. Bait.

In my case two different CO's told me if they saw persimmons in my clothes container, that's residue on the clothing - bait.

Ridiculous, but it happens.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

i transport seed/food to grow/place for consumption....so this is what i don't get....i don't see any difference in pouring food on the ground or putting seed in the ground to "bait" them in????????

this is why i see the baiting law as very very stupid......

In my opinion, there's no difference. However, interpretation should be easier than ethics. Whatever the prevailing ethics of the state are, the regulations and state-sponsored education should clearly reflect those ethics. If we say no baiting, then there should be clear understanding and unified consistent enforcement.

 

[ghitch75]

but it takes a act of god to change things......that is the sad part...

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Oh, I don't think so ghitch75, attitudes can change. Even those who have the prevailing ethic regarding baiting - placing food no go/growing food go - are of the opinion that the scenarios I've presented here are ridiculous. Natural food for cover or attractant isn't any different than synthetic and should be treated the same - either ban it or allow both (for instance). Consistent enforcement can be obtained through the DNR meetings and getting involved with hunter education. It's better than it was, but still a lot of room for improvement.

 

[ghitch75]

so you know more about this than me.....who do you talk to to get it started to get the laws more concrete to the CO's not just up to there desecration?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

so you know more about this than me.....who do you talk to to get it started to get the laws more concrete to the CO's not just up to there desecration?

I'll PM you my buddy - hunter ed. instructor - NBEF regional director - he can get you into the flow with hunter education, getting to know the CO's and talking to many of them.

 

[ghitch75]

that would be great!!!..... there is one CO that lives on the road going to town ....i'll stop and chat with him when i see him home.....

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

That's exactly it (PM sent), these guys are regular guys just trying to do their job and do it best they can. When laws are vague, more conversation helps bring the interpretation closer I think. A combative attitude never changed anyone's mind. Offering friendship and an open discourse is always the better road to mutual respect and understanding.