jcchartboy

What do other members think.....If a hunter is posting pictures of a deer taken over bait, should that fact be mentioned?

I know I always assume a deer has NOT been baited. I think it is a relevant fact that should be stated when any hunter is publicly displaying their harvest for comments...

What are your thoughts....?

SteveBNy

If legal in their area, why - so their parade can be rained on by the holy ones?

Steve

Totemkopf

I don't think that's necessary.

jcchartboy

Most hunters expect to know whethera deer was taken with a bow or a gun...correct?... Why?...Each involves a different set of skills and gives a good indication of how the deer was taken.

The same thing holds true for baiting/non baiting.Each takes a different set of skills, and gives an indication of how the deer was taken.

Clearly, if a hunter is comfortable hunting over bait they should not feel any shame in admitting it. They should be proud of their hunt and the means by which theyharvested it.

Displaying a picture without the full story, is to me misleading.

In every other form of hunting in the US that allows baiting..ie..hogs..bears..etc. It is considered standard practice to state whether bait was used when displaying pictures of a harvest. Why should deer hunting be any different?

Chasam60

I have often wondered how fine the line is between a food plot and bait? Planting food plots is a generaly accepted practice throughout most of the country,and encouraged in many areas. Baiting is usually illeagle. Perhaps it matters how far away your tree stand is?

Charlie

jcchartboy

For the purpose of this conversation the difference would be baitings ability to unnaturally congregate deer in a very precise location (the bait pile), and often at an exact time (when the feed is dispersed).

For a more practical biologic discussion on how food plotsactually have verylittle in common withbaiting please read the following...
http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug05/3.html

midwestxpress

I don't think it should matter. If the hunter feels its ok to shoot over bait, then thats all that should matter.

jcchartboy

I guess I should have also asked... for those whoare responding to this post have you ever hunted over bait?

I guess that has a big influence on each persons answer.

arlow

I dont hunt over bait but have no problem with those that legally do. The only purpose in wanting people to state the animal was taken over bait is so you or others can berate them for using a method that you consider to be unsavory. I know it is actually encouraged in parts of Connecticut where the herd needs to be cut drastically.

Same with crossbows. I dont use one but if you wanna go ahead. It isnt gonna affect my hunt or yours. Actually if it gets a few more young people into hunting (or keeps some older ones around a bit longer) it is a good thing IMHO.

Too many elitist here judging others. Hunt how you want to and let others do the same. As long as it is a legal and acceptable practice your opinion really doesnt matter anyways.

If we as hunters don't learn to stand together and quit all this infighting we are going to lose this sport forever. Learn there are regional practices that may not be the same as yours and get over it.

My 2 cents

Chasam60

Excellent article thanks.I know a few people who bait-not legal in New York,but done none the less. I can see why food plots and mineral suppliments can be used in the same way,butmuch more beneficial for the deer population.

Charlie