Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Sign up

Baiting, what's it mean to you?

Jamie said:
I don't see the logic here in the context of this topic. hunting deer in or near a naturally occurring food source is not baiting them. putting 500 lbs of corn in a pile every week for 6 month is totally baiting. hunting down wind of a primary scrape near a well used deer trail is not baiting. putting a mock scrape where you want it to be is baiting.

utilizing natural food sources, terrain features, known travel patterns, etc. to your advantage is called "savvy deer hunting". baiting is purposefully, artificially attracting them to a specific place with whatever.
Click to expand...

The end result is the same, a deer was enticed to an area due to something being present there. The end result is what dictates if it's bait or not, not our personal opinion on what constitutes baiting. If you're hunting over a scrape or a corn pile the deer was still attracted to that area. Deer don't understand the concept of baiting only that they're enticed to action. If the end result is enticement, it doesn't matter the original method, they're both bait.
 
Thanks everyone for your comments so far. I really do enjoy these kind of discussions. I do have another question though...

For those of you that have said "I think it should be banned", I ask why?

I understand the idea behind spreading disease and such, but this could be regulated through broadcasting the feed and not reusing the same spot. I don't think Ohio has a CWD problem at this point, so I don't see the harm.
 
hells bells, Joe, under your interpretation of what baiting is, every single tactic used by people to get close enough to a deer to shoot it can be construed as baiting. how realistic is that?

we all know what "baiting" really means with respect to killing deer. whether you agree or disagree with the legality of baiting deer, it is considerably different that actually hunting them.
 
Jamie said:
hells bells, Joe, under your interpretation of what baiting is, every single tactic used by people to get close enough to a deer to shoot it can be construed as baiting. how realistic is that?

we all know what "baiting" really means with respect to killing deer. whether you agree or disagree with the legality of baiting deer, it is considerably different that actually hunting them.
Click to expand...

That's because I'm not applying a personal bias that's based on my opinion or feelings, but rather looking at cause and effect. If the end effect on the animal behavior is the same, which is an animal being enticed to an area, then one must also put the causes in the same category. It's very realistic. Just because someone took advantage of a naturally occurring enticement doesn't mean the deer wasn't enticed, if he was enticed in any way then he was baited. Deer don't understand the concept of baiting. They don't have comprehension or analytical thoughts. Thats why they can be enticed into modifying their behavior. To a deer a pile of corn is viewed the same as an oak flat. But the pile of corn is easier and deer like all animals choose the path of lease resistance. The only other factor they take into consideration is danger. If the corn pile is perceived to be more dangerous than the Oak flat they will go to the Oak flat. Dear do not understand the concept that you actually put the corn there or if the oak flat grew naturally. If a hunter takes advantage of either he is taking advantage of that enticement and thus. Baiting.
 
I'm applying logical though, not personal bias. baiting is fine by me, so give me a break with that. what you are suggesting may well be true in the most literal sense in terms of semantics, but is a ridiculously gross over simplification of the issue.
 
If Ohio does ban "baiting" it will be interesting where they draw the line. Will it be piles of bait? Food plots? Scents? Will it be any form of trickery like ozonics or smoke? Honestly, is baiting any different than smoke if you think about it? One tricks deer into feeding at a certain spot, the other tricks them into thinking a certain spot is safe.

Maybe we should all go back to being naked and carrying a rock. That would definitely change the game. If you are successful you can then wear clothes.
 
giles said:
Thanks everyone for your comments so far. I really do enjoy these kind of discussions. I do have another question though...

For those of you that have said "I think it should be banned", I ask why?

I understand the idea behind spreading disease and such, but this could be regulated through broadcasting the feed and not reusing the same spot. I don't think Ohio has a CWD problem at this point, so I don't see the harm.
Click to expand...

I probably spend 70% not over bait and 30% on it. The harm I've seen is not with disease, although it's possible, but it's with the effect it has on the deer, movement, and the way hunter's pursue them. It's a bit different for me because baiting is legal everywhere here. MOST guys who bait, and that's probably 90% of the hunter population, do it wrong. What I mean is, they don't pay attention to scent control, bedding areas, prevailing winds, they check cameras 2X a week etc. When there is a pile every 200 yards, and 80% of the guys aren't paying close attention to the small details, all it does it make it that much more difficult for everyone else. It's sad, but I see it all the time. Guys just dump corn, with no plan of attack, or real thought about why and where, they just hope they get lucky and can draw in anything close. IMO, even though baiting is a lot of work, it has created the lazy hunter... it's just not teaching the majority of hunters, especially new ones, how to hunt. It's caused the "everyone else is baiting, so if I don't, I won't see any deer" mentality, and in the long run, it's just made it tougher. When baiting was first made legal, it was much different, but after a few years, the deer got their PHD's and the game changed.
 
I dunno how I feel about it . Its a great way to get young , and new hunters to see deer . But if ya don't teach em the other aspects of deer hunting then they are missing out . It also gives the people with a 5 acre chunk a way to pull deer and kill a doe . Let's face it , the majority of hunters in Ohio are pretty casual and are happy to just kill a deer . Sure , the antler craze has made more trophy hunters ...but most hunters just wanna kill a deer or two .
 
I support banning baiting because corn piles have drastically altered the hunting in Ohio... for the worse. I'm guilty of it too, so it's the pot calling the kettle black here. However I look at it like Lance Armstrong and his EPO scandal. I just listened to a podcast with him and he said that when they first went to Europe, it was very apparent that if he and the team did not embrace the culture of doping, they'd never compete, never win money and never secure lucrative sponsorships. So they doped.

In Ohio right now if you are not baiting, you're behind. It's reached a point where you HAVE to bait in some areas just to see deer, let along kill them. When I started running corn on my parent's 11 acres back in 2005, I was the only person doing it. In January 2006, I killed the lead doe out of 13. Over the years, more people have moved in to the area. Several bait and a few fill their freezer over it every year. I've never killed more than 1 deer a year back there since 2007. The bait I just put out is competing with at least 3 other piles in a 100 acre chunk. I'll be lucky to get 3-4 deer coming to it.

Baiting has aided in the decimation of the deer heed and I'd like to see it go away. Food plots to me, are not baiting. I want to ban "piles".
 
Jamie said:
I'm applying logical though, not personal bias. baiting is fine by me, so give me a break with that. what you are suggesting may well be true in the most literal sense in terms of semantics, but is a ridiculously gross over simplification of the issue.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that you specifically were applying a personal bias. I was saying that I have completely eliminated it as a factor of the equation. As for applying logic, that requires underlying facts. That's why it's called "drawing a logical conclusion". We have no facts to say that an oak flat is different than a corn pile from the deers perspective. They do not possess that cognitive ability.

It's like when we talk about climate change causing the sea levels to rise. The end result is the sea levels have risen. Pretty much every scientist attributes this to climate change. Where they differ on opinion is what type of climate change. Is it man-made global warming. Or is it the natural warming cycle of the earth. The reality is when it comes to defining "climate change " the cause does not matter. It doesn't change the fact that the cause is"climate change" which had an effect of "raising sea levels". What you are attempting to argue and draw the line at is that man-made global warming is considered climate change. But the natural warming cycle of the earth is NOT considered climate change. The question is "what is climate change". just as the question is "what is baiting". If the end result is a change in the climate that caused see levels to rise, that's climate change. it's the same thing as a change in an environment that caused a deer to be enticed to that area. That's baiting. Natural or man-made is totally irrelevant. The end result is an animal was enticed to an area. Even if you go out in November and purposefully hunt in the core area of a lot of does, you are using them as bait. That is baiting.
 
I’m not buying the logic that there is no difference hunting a corn pile and acorns or any other naturally occurring food source.

Now if you told me you had the only white oak tree in a 2 mile radius and it was a magical oak tree that could produce year round no matter the weather conditions and its crop was just as plentiful in late January as it was in early November and it also had the ability to be customized to keep squirrel and coons out……..well then maybe I can see some of the logic. I also might be able to see some of the logic if you told me the baiting involved putting out 50-100 small piles of bait scattered over 100 acres.

But since that’s not reality, that’s where my difference in opinion starts. The reality is that without bait most of us are hunting a homogenous landscape interspersed with agriculture and mast. Not using bait gives much better odds for the deer as they have any number of food sources available and could be anywhere on any given day. Natural food sources also lack the ability to condition deer like dogs. Some years there may be mast , other years not so much.

And again, I am indifferent to baiting, I just want more out of a hunt than staring at a pile of corn for 7 hours. Most people don’t set it or hunt it right to begin with and in the process they just educate the deer and any mature buck would avoid such an area especially during shooting hours.
 
I think WI has a pretty good handle on baiting. I'd have to look it up again, but they only allow it in certain areas and you can only put out a small amount at a time. I'd personally like to see some sort of regulation put on it. I honestly believe that anyone hunting in this state these days is hunting over bait. Even those that don't use bait, those deer are traveling to and from it. It's out of control if you ask me. There is a reason it's not allowed on public lands...
 
giles said:
I think WI has a pretty good handle on baiting. I'd have to look it up again, but they only allow it in certain areas and you can only put out a small amount at a time. I'd personally like to see some sort of regulation put on it. I honestly believe that anyone hunting in this state these days is hunting over bait. Even those that don't use bait, those deer are traveling to and from it. It's out of control if you ask me. There is a reason it's not allowed on public lands...
Click to expand...

Baiting is not allowed on public lands because most piles would become garbage dumps by some idiots who don't care except to kill a deer.
Just because it's not someone's idea or don't approve of it's use is no reason to ban it. Use it you want, don't use it if you don't want to and just leave everyone alone either way.
 
Jamie said:
hells bells, Joe, under your interpretation of what baiting is, every single tactic used by people to get close enough to a deer to shoot it can be construed as baiting. how realistic is that?

we all know what "baiting" really means with respect to killing deer. whether you agree or disagree with the legality of baiting deer, it is considerably different that actually hunting them.
Click to expand...

We fell for the ultimate "baiting" Jamie. Joe is the master. He has us all lured in. Fugger just like to debate. lol
 
hickslawns said:
We fell for the ultimate "baiting" Jamie. Joe is the master. He has us all lured in. Fugger just like to debate. lol
Click to expand...

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1453399944.693033.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.