And I fail to see how a food plot is more beneficial than a feeder. The only animals I know of that eat grass in a food plot in my area are rabbits and deer. On the other hand animals that eat corn at a feeder? Deer, rabbits, every type of small bird, raccoons, squirrels, hogs, turkeys, etc. So explain to me again how a green patch is more beneficial than a feeder?

So I take that to mean you would not congratulate someone who shot a deer in a green patch either. Because that's nothing more than bait just a like a corn feeder. In both instances it's an artificial food source placed in a specific location by humans in order to lure game animals in for a shot. Any attempt to spin it or sugar coat it so that it seems different than shooting a deer at a feeder is just a mass of self delusion.

Do you think fishing should be illegal? Do you refuse to congratulate people who catch big fish with bait?

I often hear this and I'm not saying that deer can't catch diseases at a feeder. But here are my problems with this notion as a reason to keep baiting illegal. If the risk of disease transmission is the reason for keeping baiting illegal then why isn't it illegal to feed deer period? Because you can feed deer 80 metric tons of corn a year on your land. You just can't hunt them over it. So is it the presence of a hunter sitting over a corn feeder that causes the deer to catch a disease? Obviously not right? Also if legalized baiting were the certain disease spreading doom that some would have you believe then there wouldn't be a deer left alive in the whole state of Texas. Or at the very least they should be having 10 times the disease problems that non-baiting states are having. I have seen no evidence that is the case however. Deer might catch a disease at a feeder but they might also catch one eating under the same white oak tree or off the same patch of honeysuckle vines or licking each others butts for that matter.

I am just constantly amazed at the opinions on baiting. People that think anyone that wants to hunt over a feeder are pond scum will turn around and go sit in a shooting house over a small green patch without giving a second thought to how identical those two activities are. Or perhaps these same people will fly up to Canada and shoot a bear over a bait barrel. Or maybe fly out to Wyoming and sit over the only water hole for 30 miles waiting to shoot an antelope whose thirst has finally overwhelmed his fear of the Double Bull blind next to the waters edge. What is the moral, ethical or sporting challenge difference in any of those things compared to hunting near a corn feeder? What greater hunting skill is being displayed or brought into use in those situations? Climb a ladder stand near a feeder and you are an unethical slob that cheats to kill an animal. But sit in a shooting house over a green patch in Alabama; a blind next to a water hole in Wyoming or a tree stand over a bait barrel in Canada and you are Daniel Boone? And a much more ethical person to boot? LOL! Ridiculous BS.

The truth is that most people that are opposed to baiting oppose it simply because it's probably always been illegal where they live and so they were raised to view it as wrong. And like most unquestioning sheep in this country they never pause to ask themselves, "hey wait a minute, why is this illegal when food plots are not".

To me hunting over a food plot being legal while feeders are illegal is like saying it's OK to night hunt with brand A spotlight but totally illegal if you use brand B spotlight. Makes no sense.