|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 7:40:22 GMT -5
I've read through all this, and actually Richard shared his thoughts yesterday with me even. I agree there is a gray area in the regulations which (speaking with CO's confirmed) puts too much discretion on the officer to decide. There are folks out there with say 30 acres of ground out there that bait up behind the house but then hunt the woods and think they are legal......well according to the IC code you in fact did not remove the bait from a hunted "area" IF the CO deems the situation as the "area".
Me personally I believe they need to add just a small addition to the IC code expressing that this "area" as defined as any parcel the hunter is on or contigious with which the hunter also hunts or owns. That would remove most if not nearly all discretion of the officer in most scenarios and flat would halt a ton of baiting going on during the season.
Personally I'd also express a thought...I for years was extremely anti-baiting. I am talking to the point of blasting folks that do it, however my trip out to Kansas a few years back introduced me to the first legal and widely utilized approach. Granted many of the hunters I meant did food plots, and scouted like beasts but most had at least one bait spot on the property...and I did something I never thought I would, I hunted over bait one day.
Until you've hunted with a hunter controlled dispersed bait pile I don't believe anyone can know their feelings on it. I was 100% legal, and don't get me wrong I would have shot a beast had one walked in, but I did not enjoy the hunt and figured out right then and there it was not my thing at all and didn't hunt the spot the rest of the trip.
That's me though...I like JJAS say if legal, and you want to do it go for it....doesn't mean I always agree or like or would myself.
As for the debate of food plots vs bait....I always viewed them as different but until I hunted a controlled food dispersal bait pile I truly never knew just how different they truly are. I'll leave it at that as that is a debate for another day.
Blessings everyone, have a good one!
|
|
|
Post by antiwheeze on Sept 5, 2017 7:49:41 GMT -5
Mineral stumps (google it) may be the next salt block alternative. FYI several if not all Indiana F&W areas have food plots such as standing corn, sunflowers, clover and beans. Actually mineral stumps are not an alternative to salt blocks, they actually deliver amazing amounts of minerals as the tree attempts to balance its above ground and below ground nutrient distribution. Salt blocks are purely attractants, providing very little nutrients and are more like candy than anything. The University of Mississippi PhD was promoting mineral stumps as a legal alternative to mineral supplements where blocks are not allowed. I missed the July window to try some. ty....did you get to play with any?
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Sept 5, 2017 7:56:44 GMT -5
Right! Baiting & food plots are for lazy hunters. There plenty of mast trees (soft & hard) out there to hunt under. There are watering holes & creeks to hunt by, learn the land & how deer use it. There is no need to teach the deer to come running when you shake a corn bag. Educate your self about the natural activities of prey you hunt & try to become a better hunter. Lol....food plots are for lazy hunters. Who knew being lazy was so much work! Lol. It always amazes me the amount of time, money, and effort people put into food plots. All to supposedly keep deer on your property and increase sightings (make hunting more easy). It is baiting, it will always be baiting. Just like crossbows are not archery equipment, they never will be. $$$ drives it all imo
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Sept 5, 2017 7:58:58 GMT -5
Its great that we are all entitled to our opinions .... no matter how bat crap crazy others might find them.
|
|
|
Post by antiwheeze on Sept 5, 2017 7:59:07 GMT -5
Lol....food plots are for lazy hunters. Who knew being lazy was so much work! Lol. It always amazes me the amount of time, money, and effort people put into food plots. All to supposedly keep deer on your property and increase sightings (make hunting more easy). It is baiting, it will always be baiting. Just like crossbows are not archery equipment, they never will be. $$$ drives it all imo I recon that depends on your definition of baiting.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 8:22:00 GMT -5
Actually mineral stumps are not an alternative to salt blocks, they actually deliver amazing amounts of minerals as the tree attempts to balance its above ground and below ground nutrient distribution. Salt blocks are purely attractants, providing very little nutrients and are more like candy than anything. The University of Mississippi PhD was promoting mineral stumps as a legal alternative to mineral supplements where blocks are not allowed. I missed the July window to try some. ty....did you get to play with any? Oh yeah, it is something we've been doing for years, just never had things confirmed by a biologist what we assumed by the action we were seeing on these things. Just incredible brows and deer annialated some we've done to the point they don't even live past a year.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 5, 2017 8:54:08 GMT -5
I've read through all this, and actually Richard shared his thoughts yesterday with me even. I agree there is a gray area in the regulations which (speaking with CO's confirmed) puts too much discretion on the officer to decide. There are folks out there with say 30 acres of ground out there that bait up behind the house but then hunt the woods and think they are legal......well according to the IC code you in fact did not remove the bait from a hunted "area" IF the CO deems the situation as the "area". Me personally I believe they need to add just a small addition to the IC code expressing that this "area" as defined as any parcel the hunter is on or contigious with which the hunter also hunts or owns. That would remove most if not nearly all discretion of the officer in most scenarios and flat would halt a ton of baiting going on during the season. Personally I'd also express a thought...I for years was extremely anti-baiting. I am talking to the point of blasting folks that do it, however my trip out to Kansas a few years back introduced me to the first legal and widely utilized approach. Granted many of the hunters I meant did food plots, and scouted like beasts but most had at least one bait spot on the property...and I did something I never thought I would, I hunted over bait one day. Until you've hunted with a hunter controlled dispersed bait pile I don't believe anyone can know their feelings on it. I was 100% legal, and don't get me wrong I would have shot a beast had one walked in, but I did not enjoy the hunt and figured out right then and there it was not my thing at all and didn't hunt the spot the rest of the trip. That's me though...I like JJAS say if legal, and you want to do it go for it....doesn't mean I always agree or like or would myself. As for the debate of food plots vs bait....I always viewed them as different but until I hunted a controlled food dispersal bait pile I truly never knew just how different they truly are. I'll leave it at that as that is a debate for another day. Blessings everyone, have a good one! So you don't think a CO "discretion" is the correct way to enforce the game laws? Personally I believe this is the best person for the job they are trained and have training for these rules.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 5, 2017 8:57:22 GMT -5
Mineral stumps (google it) may be the next salt block alternative. FYI several if not all Indiana F&W areas have food plots such as standing corn, sunflowers, clover and beans. Actually mineral stumps are not an alternative to salt blocks, they actually deliver amazing amounts of minerals as the tree attempts to balance its above ground and below ground nutrient distribution. Salt blocks are purely attractants, providing very little nutrients and are more like candy than anything. And are not legal to hunt over/around if man made!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Sept 5, 2017 9:25:12 GMT -5
Tynimiller makes a couple of good points in his post.....
I wonder how many people are putting a mineral site in on their property and then come hunting season, figure if they don't hunt within "X" number of yards of it, they aren't breaking any laws. For those who do this, it might be worth checking into before the season.
As far as the CO's making decisions on "gray areas", we've all read stories where people felt there were inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws by different CO's. I don't know if it was sour grapes in some cases or these folks had legitimate complaints, but I do agree the law should be made as "black and white" as possible to help avoid these situations.
Finally...as I said earlier "Doesn't mean I like all of it, doesn't mean I do all of it, but if it's legal...it's legal."
For example...
I know I'm in the minority of hunters who disagree with the use of game cameras (especially real time cameras) during the hunting season. And while I may not use them (and have debated my opposition to their use during the season), I can't expect those who do to stop, as they are fully within their legal right to utilize them.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 9:31:15 GMT -5
I've read through all this, and actually Richard shared his thoughts yesterday with me even. I agree there is a gray area in the regulations which (speaking with CO's confirmed) puts too much discretion on the officer to decide. There are folks out there with say 30 acres of ground out there that bait up behind the house but then hunt the woods and think they are legal......well according to the IC code you in fact did not remove the bait from a hunted "area" IF the CO deems the situation as the "area". Me personally I believe they need to add just a small addition to the IC code expressing that this "area" as defined as any parcel the hunter is on or contigious with which the hunter also hunts or owns. That would remove most if not nearly all discretion of the officer in most scenarios and flat would halt a ton of baiting going on during the season. Personally I'd also express a thought...I for years was extremely anti-baiting. I am talking to the point of blasting folks that do it, however my trip out to Kansas a few years back introduced me to the first legal and widely utilized approach. Granted many of the hunters I meant did food plots, and scouted like beasts but most had at least one bait spot on the property...and I did something I never thought I would, I hunted over bait one day. Until you've hunted with a hunter controlled dispersed bait pile I don't believe anyone can know their feelings on it. I was 100% legal, and don't get me wrong I would have shot a beast had one walked in, but I did not enjoy the hunt and figured out right then and there it was not my thing at all and didn't hunt the spot the rest of the trip. That's me though...I like JJAS say if legal, and you want to do it go for it....doesn't mean I always agree or like or would myself. As for the debate of food plots vs bait....I always viewed them as different but until I hunted a controlled food dispersal bait pile I truly never knew just how different they truly are. I'll leave it at that as that is a debate for another day. Blessings everyone, have a good one! So you don't think a CO "discretion" is the correct way to enforce the game laws? Personally I believe this is the best person for the job they are trained and have training for these rules. Oh for sure, IF you are going to write laws with gray (discretionary) area I do believe all of the ones I've met have the ability to analyze/investigate and come to a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 9:34:58 GMT -5
Actually mineral stumps are not an alternative to salt blocks, they actually deliver amazing amounts of minerals as the tree attempts to balance its above ground and below ground nutrient distribution. Salt blocks are purely attractants, providing very little nutrients and are more like candy than anything. And are not legal to hunt over/around if man made! LOL Nothing is transported into the area for consumption. If the law said anything done in order to deliver nutrients or a consumable resource to the deer than 100% it would be illegal.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 9:37:25 GMT -5
I wonder how many people are putting a mineral site in on their property and then come hunting season, figure if they don't hunt within "X" number of yards of it, they aren't breaking any laws. For those who do this, it might be worth checking into before the season. Without even hesitating I bet I could list over a dozen I know personally which I have told them they gotta close them and cover em. I do not know where they hunt so unable to report directly, however I did inform them should I hear they keep doing it, as a sportsman I have no choice but to at minimum inform the DNR of what I do know...which I have actually done quite a few times after discussions changed nothing....quite a few look into the IC code and/or give the local CO a call (I give them number) and figure things out right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 5, 2017 9:57:06 GMT -5
There are lots of definitions in the IC code but "area" is not one of them.
So how does a hunter or CO know what an "area" is?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Sept 5, 2017 10:13:01 GMT -5
I've read through all this, and actually Richard shared his thoughts yesterday with me even. I agree there is a gray area in the regulations which (speaking with CO's confirmed) puts too much discretion on the officer to decide. There are folks out there with say 30 acres of ground out there that bait up behind the house but then hunt the woods and think they are legal......well according to the IC code you in fact did not remove the bait from a hunted "area" IF the CO deems the situation as the "area". Me personally I believe they need to add just a small addition to the IC code expressing that this "area" as defined as any parcel the hunter is on or contigious with which the hunter also hunts or owns. That would remove most if not nearly all discretion of the officer in most scenarios and flat would halt a ton of baiting going on during the season. Personally I'd also express a thought...I for years was extremely anti-baiting. I am talking to the point of blasting folks that do it, however my trip out to Kansas a few years back introduced me to the first legal and widely utilized approach. Granted many of the hunters I meant did food plots, and scouted like beasts but most had at least one bait spot on the property...and I did something I never thought I would, I hunted over bait one day. Until you've hunted with a hunter controlled dispersed bait pile I don't believe anyone can know their feelings on it. I was 100% legal, and don't get me wrong I would have shot a beast had one walked in, but I did not enjoy the hunt and figured out right then and there it was not my thing at all and didn't hunt the spot the rest of the trip. That's me though...I like JJAS say if legal, and you want to do it go for it....doesn't mean I always agree or like or would myself. As for the debate of food plots vs bait....I always viewed them as different but until I hunted a controlled food dispersal bait pile I truly never knew just how different they truly are. I'll leave it at that as that is a debate for another day. Blessings everyone, have a good one! So you don't think a CO "discretion" is the correct way to enforce the game laws? Personally I believe this is the best person for the job they are trained and have training for these rules. Let's say Secretary Clinton was suddenly an ICO...would you trust her discretion? Why on Earth anyone would want to leave it up to anyone elses discretion is beyond me. That's now how law is supposed to work. At all.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Sept 5, 2017 10:48:24 GMT -5
My opinion... The Indiana "baiting laws" do have a lot of gray area. However, the COs are pretty good at determining who is and who isn't baiting. I've said in the past and I'll say it again... Either ban it (baiting and feeding) totally or legalize it totally. Elimiante the gray area completely. I read some hunting groups on FaceBook and I cant believe all the mis-information out there on this subject. The COs are good at determining when they find it and see it. They are even pretty darn good at finding it if you lead them out there and stand them right on top of it. They are not very good at enforcing the law or catching the people doing it. Not even when you lead them to it by the hand. Not even if you give them the name and address of the people doing it. AND IT IS NOT ALL THEIR FAULT this is the situation. There are a limited number of officers and they have a crap load of laws to enforce of an even bigger, thousands, of liars and cheaters and that's before you ever start throwing in the thieves and trespassers. Just finding a bait pile won't convict a cheating liar even if his tree stand is sitting right on top of a pile of corn, even if he had his name on the stand, a bucket of corn in the stand and a game camera pointed at it all with pictures of him carrying it all out there on opening day. An officer has to stand there and SEE them hunting over it. This is the only thing this change would affect. All the officer has to prove with a change in the law is who put the bait there and the date it is there. Game over. NOTHING ELSE IS DIFFERENT. None of the hypotheticals dreamers wonder about change. Bait now is still the same things considered bait then. Nothing new, nothing less. Any one who is not cheating now has no reason to fear or oppose it. Only the poaching liars hunting over bait as the law reads right now need worry because it makes it a lot easier to stop and convict them.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Sept 5, 2017 10:54:54 GMT -5
Let's be clear. "IF" a Conservation officer suddenly shows up on your property concerning "baiting violation" issue's then there has been a complaint filed on you by someone. Don't know of to many CO's that randomly walk thru the wood's looking to write out citation's. Maybe some do???
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Sept 5, 2017 10:58:27 GMT -5
Let's be clear. "IF" a Conservation officer suddenly shows up on your property concerning "baiting violation" issue's then there has been a complaint filed on you by someone. Don't know of to many CO's that randomly walk thru the wood's looking to write out citation's. Maybe some do??? I use this scenario when discussing with folks. IF a CO officer came to your property on a concern...does your gut think "oh crap" or "gotta steer him from that spot"...if so you are doing something you most likely should not IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 5, 2017 11:03:30 GMT -5
Let's be clear. "IF" a Conservation officer suddenly shows up on your property concerning "baiting violation" issue's then there has been a complaint filed on you by someone. Don't know of to many CO's that randomly walk thru the wood's looking to write out citation's. Maybe some do??? ^^^^ THIS
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Sept 5, 2017 11:52:19 GMT -5
On a comical note. Was at local farm store Sat. And they had 2 pallets full of "deer corn" on sale and a sign reading " Get ready for deer season". LOL. Can't make it up.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 5, 2017 12:16:02 GMT -5
And are not legal to hunt over/around if man made! LOL Nothing is transported into the area for consumption. If the law said anything done in order to deliver nutrients or a consumable resource to the deer than 100% it would be illegal. So your saying there is mineral stumps that exists that have not been made by man adding stuff to them?.....Never seen one one those.... I seen ground stites but never a dead tree stump.
|
|