PA Baiting Question??
09-13-2010 | 10:30 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Fork Horn
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
PA Baiting Question??
Law reads:
Taking Advantage of Food or Bait:
Taking Advantage of Food or Bait:
It is unlawful to hunt in or around
Just looking for a clear explanation of the baiting law in PA! Obviouly you are not allowed to bait within 30 days of the hunt, but what about mineral sites that have melted into a stump or the ground?? Are you required to dig up the dirt or stump?? There doesnt seem to be a clear say how of what is allowed and not allowed. My main concern is left over residue that may still be there?? Any advice or suggestions
any area where artificial or natural bait, food, hay, grain, fruit, nuts, salt,
chemicals or minerals, including their residues, are used, or have been used
within the past 30 dayschemicals or minerals, including their residues, are used, or have been used
Just looking for a clear explanation of the baiting law in PA! Obviouly you are not allowed to bait within 30 days of the hunt, but what about mineral sites that have melted into a stump or the ground?? Are you required to dig up the dirt or stump?? There doesnt seem to be a clear say how of what is allowed and not allowed. My main concern is left over residue that may still be there?? Any advice or suggestions
Last edited by Huntingtherut; 09-13-2010 at 10:39 AM.
09-19-2010 | 07:57 PM
#9
Banned
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Baiting seems to be a bigger problem for people who bow hunts then for people who rifle hunts for some strange reason.
As people gets more and more lazy, they would rather buy a couple of bushel of corn or some miracle chemical which will draw in deer, rather then set up in a good spot and actually hunt for their trophy buck.
Some of those baits and feeders actually costs more then what the deer is worth. In my travels, I often come to bait piles and posted signs and after a while, I come to realize that the two are often connected. Were people actually thinks that because they own the land that they also own the wildlife on that land. Like as if it was THEIR DEER.
Using the example that it is legal in other places - should make it legal here would be like me telling the judge that he shouldn't fine me for driving 90 MPH on I 80 because you can drive 90 MPH in Montana in the daytime.
There is usually a different set of circumstances which leads to people doing all kinds of crazy things to harvest a deer.
Here is a article of one man who went hunting without any blaze orange on and a Amish man who shot him because he was hunting on HIS property and he didn't identify his game before he shot the other hunter. The judge - Maximum John let the Amish guy go because he had a family and because he didn't actually admit to shooting the other hunter. The law didn't even prove that it was his .270 that killed the other hunter. Even though they found a empty case on the ground and found the bullet that killed the hunter. they couldn't prove who pulled the trigger or if there was any malice involved.
http://www.thecourierexpress.com/sit...d=572984&rfi=6
As people gets more and more lazy, they would rather buy a couple of bushel of corn or some miracle chemical which will draw in deer, rather then set up in a good spot and actually hunt for their trophy buck.
Some of those baits and feeders actually costs more then what the deer is worth. In my travels, I often come to bait piles and posted signs and after a while, I come to realize that the two are often connected. Were people actually thinks that because they own the land that they also own the wildlife on that land. Like as if it was THEIR DEER.
Using the example that it is legal in other places - should make it legal here would be like me telling the judge that he shouldn't fine me for driving 90 MPH on I 80 because you can drive 90 MPH in Montana in the daytime.
There is usually a different set of circumstances which leads to people doing all kinds of crazy things to harvest a deer.
Here is a article of one man who went hunting without any blaze orange on and a Amish man who shot him because he was hunting on HIS property and he didn't identify his game before he shot the other hunter. The judge - Maximum John let the Amish guy go because he had a family and because he didn't actually admit to shooting the other hunter. The law didn't even prove that it was his .270 that killed the other hunter. Even though they found a empty case on the ground and found the bullet that killed the hunter. they couldn't prove who pulled the trigger or if there was any malice involved.
http://www.thecourierexpress.com/sit...d=572984&rfi=6
