I think there should be a classified difference between hunting OVER a bait pile, and hunting WITH a bait pile.

I personally would not choose to hunt over one, it would just take the thrill of the chase out for me, but if it is legal, than it is a non-issue for someone else who does. Animals were put on this earth for us to eat, so if we live trap them, "trick" them, whatever, at least it's dinnertime.

What is the difference between baiting a deer and baiting a fish hook? Wouldn't it be the same concept? If you are against baiting a deer, shouldn't you be against throwing a baited hook into the water? Shouldn't you just set the hook out and hope a fish ended up on the other end of it? Just a question, but I just wondered if there is really much difference in that? How about dove hunting. Most dove hunters I know (including myself) sit in the midst of dried up sunflower rows, perhaps they should just sit in the middle of the road.

Everyone is entitled to their own means of legal hunting, you will never find someone who agrees with 100% of what you agree with. As we all become veterens of outdoor sporting, we all learn what works for us.

Like someone already posted, perhaps they have a feeder set up on one side of the woods, 300 yards away from their stand, simply to keep the deer in the area. Here in Indiana, we rarely have to worry about it because we almost always have beans or corn within eyeshot of any wooded area! LOL

It's a personal preference thing, I wouldn't hunt over a bait pile, but I don't know the circumstances regarding another hunter, so I really have no right to judge what works for him... perhaps he works 3 jobs and can only hunt once or twice a year, it happens. It sure would make life a lot easier for him if he could fill the freezer on one of those occassions.