|
Post by Hawkeye on Dec 16, 2008 17:55:05 GMT -5
As to the question ,and my answer,I was using a product like, liquid Cmere as the basis for my answer. However, I would bet from personal experience,spraying or hanging a smelly substance or liquid on the ground such as Tinks or other estrus Deer attractants or doe urine could result in a Deer consuming such a product. Therefore technically under the law,illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2008 18:57:35 GMT -5
Met. I doubt that where I hunted were replants. Hills, steep, steep, 30 to 45 degree slopes, run off cuts down thru them anywhere from 4 to 6 feet deep, at least 10 feet wide. Yes part of it has been cut at some time but most of it I would guess is free standing or growing or what ever. Now I can take you or tell you of a place that has a bunch of man planted trees down in that area. If you would like to google earth it. Used to be a great place to hunt. It is hard to say what woodlots came from replants and what didn't, I agree with you. My whole point is that foodplots are beneficial to the habitat and I cringe when people link them with baiting. I just brought the whole oak tree/acorn thing up to show that the whole foodplot = baiting debate leads us down a pretty slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 16, 2008 18:57:55 GMT -5
Hawkeye: My Point...
I'm honestly not trying to be a pot-stirrer here. This is my first year up in a tree... and in my case "patterning" is right out. The trails in town here are truly random.
I have a 16sq Block area to hunt... 200ft all around the peremiter of which is a "no go" zone.
I don't want to run afoul of the Rules by using Tink's or some other such, but I DO want to help cull the herd here... so it seems to me that Lures/Attractants are a no brainer...
I just don't understand the interpretation of the rules well enough...
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Dec 16, 2008 20:01:20 GMT -5
Old Ironsights, just don't put out any salt blocks, mineral blocks, deer cane, corn, apples, carrots or any other attractant that a critter can actually eat. The wafers that are made of apple, acorn, fresh earth, etc. are fine to use as a cover scent. I have yet to see a deer try to eat one! ;D I did see three baby coons go nuts over an apple wafer once, but they got bored with it pretty quick and left it alone. All of the deer estrus and mature buck lures like Tink's 69 are not considered bait and can be used accordingly to lure in a buck. Personally, I have never had much luck with them, and they would probably be a waste of time this time of year. I do use fresh earth cover scent religiously as well as the fresh earth wafers. I go so far as to bag up all of my clean laundered clothes, especially jackets and bibs, in to garbage bags with a wafer in the bag for good measure. If you are that worried about it just don't put anything out at all, and if someone else has, pick it up and get rid of it. Good luck and very happy hunting in the frigid temps this time of the season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Dec 16, 2008 20:25:38 GMT -5
OI if you can get hold of some tarsal gland scent it makes a great cover scent. Technically it is all a form of bait. One (scents) is sex bait, the others are considered as food or edible baits. Just stay away from all edible baits.
Met. People that plant fruit trees close to their hunting areas know that they will pull in deer, but since they harvest some of the fruit they can get away with not calling it bait. My personal opinion is simply when you plant a food plot the intent is to bring deer into a certain area and keep them there. IE. provide food. Since it grows it is considered as being legal. Intent in my opinion is what makes it baiting. I feel that if they are going to allow that form of baiting then they should also allow, come here deer and cocaine and corn, etc. Why not plant a beet crop or a turnip crop near where you hunt? Intent and legal are not one and the same in this area. One form of baiting is legal and the other is not yet the intent is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 17, 2008 0:15:07 GMT -5
I think anyone on here knows in his heart what is and isn't bait. Some people just like to exploit the law and find loop holes. (not aimed at anyone here)
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 17, 2008 16:55:11 GMT -5
I wish "in your heart" was also "In the eyes of some particular CO"...
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2008 17:57:11 GMT -5
You certainly do not have to use cover/attractant scent to kill a deer .... if you are worried about legality in the least just don't use any.
I have hunted for long enough and personally observed enough deer that I feel confident in saying that IMO, in the majority of situations scents are a waste of time/money/effort.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 17, 2008 18:39:22 GMT -5
I wish "in your heart" was also "In the eyes of some particular CO"... IMO some of our hunting regulations are a little too cloudy. IMHO regulations need a good read by a committee of some sort which could make recommendations regarding a rewriting of some of the regs that are too vague in spelling out the letter of the law. If two C.O.s can't even agree on the interpretation of a regulation, they need to be more clearly worded. Interpretation of the law is a discretion reserved for the judicial branch, not LEO's.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 17, 2008 18:44:32 GMT -5
I've said all along that our game laws are written with too much left up to officer's discretion, and written very confusingly!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 17, 2008 18:54:09 GMT -5
They would be wrong ..... but I bet 99 out of 100 LEO's you tell that would disagree. That is part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Dec 17, 2008 19:41:57 GMT -5
I've said all along that our game laws are written with too much left up to officer's discretion, and written very confusingly! Amen!
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Dec 17, 2008 19:47:12 GMT -5
IMO some of our hunting regulations are a little too cloudy. IMHO regulations need a good read by a committee of some sort which could make recommendations regarding a rewriting of some of the regs that are too vague in spelling out the letter of the law. If two C.O.s can't even agree on the interpretation of a regulation, they need to be more clearly worded. Interpretation of the law is a discretion reserved for the judicial branch, not LEO's. [/quote] That would be the logical thing to do,But some are not to good at doing the logical.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Dec 19, 2008 12:49:07 GMT -5
through the 4 pages of "junk" that i have read the only reasonable arguement from allowing people to hunt over feed is from deer being infected from diseases such as CWD. Didn't we have an outbreak last year here in Indiana? My point is, deer getting diseases is natural, its gonna happen regardless of what anyone does. KY has allowed people to hunt over feed for years, and i don't believe they have anymore "outbreaks" than we do here in Indiana. I have a few feed stations set up in KY, and yes sometimes i hunt within shooting distance from them. 90% of the time deer won't feed until after legal shooting hours, its just natural. I personally, wouldn't have a problem shooting a booner with his head down in a barrel eatin' some oats, just the same has i don't have a problem shooting a booner when he just trying to make love that one time he gets it a year. Now come on guys which is worse shooting a deer while he eats, or while he's tryin' to get lucky once a year?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 19, 2008 12:53:19 GMT -5
through the 4 pages of "junk" that i have read the only reasonable arguement from allowing people to hunt over feed is from deer being infected from diseases such as CWD. Didn't we have an outbreak last year here in Indiana? My point is, deer getting diseases is natural, its gonna happen regardless of what anyone does. KY has allowed people to hunt over feed for years, and i don't believe they have anymore "outbreaks" than we do here in Indiana. I have a few feed stations set up in KY, and yes sometimes i hunt within shooting distance from them. 90% of the time deer won't feed until after legal shooting hours, its just natural. I personally, wouldn't have a problem shooting a booner with his head down in a barrel eatin' some oats, just the same has i don't have a problem shooting a booner when he just trying to make love that one time he gets it a year. Now come on guys which is worse shooting a deer while he eats, or while he's tryin' to get lucky once a year? Indiana, nor Kentucky, has ever had a case of known CWD. You might have that confused with EHD. Since it has been proven that CWD can be spread by deer feeding in close proximity, do we wait until after the fact?
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Dec 19, 2008 13:00:55 GMT -5
no doubt!
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Dec 19, 2008 13:05:40 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that out for me Woody. So Kentucky has yet to have a break out of CWD, even though they allow people to hunt over feed. Now under Indiana law you are allowed to feed deer, but just cant hunt over it correct? So by not hunting over feed is what keeps the deer from CWD I can feed deer all year long without the fear of CWD, but as soon as i hunt near it, the chance of CWD increases? ? Gotta do better than that Woody!
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2008 13:11:39 GMT -5
FWIW the CWD issue is why I prefer Broadcast Feeders rather than trough/bucket feeders...
|
|