I will not enter into debate with Joe. I will simply state: I see your point. I disagree.
Brock described that funnel to me several times before we hunted it. Holy cow! That is a serious funnel.
People can disagree. This doesn't change the fact that we take advantage of an animals enticement in many different ways. We get to define the legality of baiting. Mans laws do not get to dictate an animals natural draw to baits be it a like of corn or a pile of does.
What I don't understand is how people think dumping a pile of corn and hunting a funnel to it is baiting. But hunting a funnel to a field of planted corn isn't baiting.
Hunting a pile if apples I dumped is baiting. But hunting a pile of apples from a tree I played isn't baiting.
Hunting a corn field planet for AG isn't baiting. Hunting a 1/4 acre of corn I planted for deer isn't baiting. But hunting a pile of corn I dumped out is baiting.
The problem is people are trying to define baiting by how the law defines baiting and giving zero consideration to what baiting actually is. To define what baiting really is we have to look at the actions of the animal and our action to use that to out advantage. Laws don't define nature.
Funny how that works though. People let laws define what they consider moral or right. For example there are those here who say minerals aren't baiting. The people of Other states would likely call you a baiter as their laws define minerals as such.
And it even changes by species. Turkeys vs deer. To define baiting we need to remove the human person opinion and look at the animals actions. This if they're enticed and you're using that to your advantage, you're baiting that animal.
