Rumor Has it. No Ohio Baiting
- Thread starter matthewusmc8791
- Start date
IMO, hunting on the edge of a AG field is not hunting over bait. Corn-piles are far more concentrated to very small area versus a cornfield per se'. Same thing goes with oak trees on a flat. There are other sources of browse as well other oak trees interspersed throughout the woods surrounding these oak flats in which the deer have available to forage on.
Physically pouring or dumping grain or fruit is baiting otherwise why do hunters feel they have to dump or pour anywhere near AG fields or oak flats if they are considered big baiting piles or areas? It's because these hot traffic areas aren't small enough to put the odds in the hunters favor so they try to pinpoint the food source with a pile to help manipulate the deer travel patterns up wind of their ambush spots to increase their chances of success.
IMO, baiting will not go away unless CWD hits the wild deer herds. It's pretty much here to stay unfortunately. If baiting has a positive light to it it's helped get our youth more involved into the sport. Kids get bored and lose interest very fast these days and the evolution of the baiting has been a tool to help boost up sightings to keep them interested in the hunt.
The biggest negative I see in baiting is the potential of disease spreading of course but it forces those who don't believe in baiting to join the ranks or get left behind. Just like leasing property to just have access to good ground. Where and when will this end?!?! The future of hunting is not looking TOO good IMO.....
Physically pouring or dumping grain or fruit is baiting otherwise why do hunters feel they have to dump or pour anywhere near AG fields or oak flats if they are considered big baiting piles or areas? It's because these hot traffic areas aren't small enough to put the odds in the hunters favor so they try to pinpoint the food source with a pile to help manipulate the deer travel patterns up wind of their ambush spots to increase their chances of success.
IMO, baiting will not go away unless CWD hits the wild deer herds. It's pretty much here to stay unfortunately. If baiting has a positive light to it it's helped get our youth more involved into the sport. Kids get bored and lose interest very fast these days and the evolution of the baiting has been a tool to help boost up sightings to keep them interested in the hunt.
The biggest negative I see in baiting is the potential of disease spreading of course but it forces those who don't believe in baiting to join the ranks or get left behind. Just like leasing property to just have access to good ground. Where and when will this end?!?! The future of hunting is not looking TOO good IMO.....
at1010
*Supporting Member*
- 5,284
- 159
one thing I always see brought up is the spread of disease with baiting. I am honestly asking cause I don't know, is CWD more prevalent in the South/Texas than other areas?
I ask because when I lived in Texas they all run feeders on every farm big or small all year round. They've been doing this for a very long time, and I never heard of CWD down there but just was wondering if it was in that area.
I know feeding doesn't cause CWD but I do know that Ohio is not the only state that allows bait.
Baiting is a good place to transfer diseases and sickness because so many animals come to that one spot. Trough style feeders exaggerate this issue because animals are actually touching the same spot.
CWD is a monster that should have its own thread.
CWD is a monster that should have its own thread.
at1010
*Supporting Member*
- 5,284
- 159
Again I am ignorant when it comes to cwd and although that makes logical sense, is there scientific proof that's the way it's spread?
- 39,159
- 274
How it got there doesn't matter. Hunting over a food source be it natural or placed is baiting. If an animal is attracted to a spot by an object that animal was baited. Hunting in that area is using that bait to the hunters advantage. We only get to decide what is and what isn't bait with regard to laws. Laws don't apply to an animals instincts. If an animal is enticed by an object to visit a certain area that object baited that deer. The animal dictates what's bait. Not hunters.
With the logic you are using, we could take it one step further:
Hunting a pinch point is the same as driving deer. It is funneling deer toward you. Whether it is guys pushing or a natural terrain feature, you are taking part in manipulating their movements.
I don't buy this info I typed anymore than I believe a 100 acre cornfield is the same as a pile of corn.
FWIW- I don't care if a guy baits.
Hunting a pinch point is the same as driving deer. It is funneling deer toward you. Whether it is guys pushing or a natural terrain feature, you are taking part in manipulating their movements.
I don't buy this info I typed anymore than I believe a 100 acre cornfield is the same as a pile of corn.
FWIW- I don't care if a guy baits.
- 39,159
- 274
Not quite. One is free will, the other is a man induced flight instinct.
Here's a good one for you. Down in Vinton county a guy I knew had turkeys penned up behind his house. He also had chickens and Guinny hens. Guess what ridge had the best turkey hunting for miles around. The one that ran right behind his house. The toms were baited to that ridge by the sounds of his penned up turkeys. Now we know it's illegal to use live turkeys while turkey hunting in ohio. And "we" didn't. But in reality that's exactly what was happening. I'm not going to sit here and tell you we didn't use that to our advantage. I'm also not going to tell you those birds had nothing to do with it. I'm also not going to climb on my high horse and say those turkeys weren't baited because we didn't personally pen those domestic birds up. Or they weren't baited because those domestic birds were part of a natural farming practice. Those toms on that ridge didn't know the difference between penned up, free range, or wild. That's why they were there. They were baited plain and simple. The law says using a live bird while hunting is illegal. But in this case we were perfectly legal. Penned, free range, he put it there, I put it there, legal, illegal, none of that matters to the wild tom.. The fact of the matter is those toms don't know the difference, and by us using that to out advantage they were being baited.
If you use something to your advantage that attracted an animal, you're baiting, wether you put it there or not doesn't matter to the animal being attracted. Laws and definitions dictate the actions of man, not animals. And we shouldn't be so naive as to think a mans law is the law of nature. The animal decides the definition of baiting by it's act of being enticed. Not the ohio revised code, that simply dictates what form of baiting you can be fined for.
I admire your persistence, but I think you are the only one here who believes what you are saying. :smiley_chinrub:
purposefully putting a pile of food in a specific place at a specific time to attract a deer to it is no different than driving deer to a specific place at a specific time. you are manipulating the animal in order to have them standing where you want them so you can shoot them, right? legality and morality notwithstanding, of course.
purposefully putting a pile of food in a specific place at a specific time to attract a deer to it is no different than driving deer to a specific place at a specific time. you are manipulating the animal in order to have them standing where you want them so you can shoot them, right? legality and morality notwithstanding, of course.
- 39,159
- 274
I never compared baiting to drives. . I said driving deer and hunting a funnel is not the same thing. One is purposefully causing a flight response, the other is free will.
As for baiting. I'm not stating what I believe. I'm applying consistent set of standards to define a result. Ones that aren't influenced by personal opinion. For all I've said I've yet to see one argument that isn't based on someone's personal beliefs, feelings, or opinions. The standard is, if an animal is enticed to an area and you are taking advantage of that enticement, you're baiting. Period. What defines baiting is the animal enticement. Not some arbitrary set of feelings that makes people sleep at night, or some laws that were created by man.
Here is the reality of it.
Analyze that. "Food that is used to entice fish or other animals as prey. ". Notice it says nothing about placing, growing, how much food etc. There's three key factors. Food. Enticement. Prey. It's quite simple. If food has enticed an animal you intend to kill. That's bait. If you as a predator are using that your advantage, you are baiting.
are African lions baiting when they wait in ambush at water holes or if they ambush wildebeest while they are eating grass on the Savannah? or does baiting only apply to people? I'm just trying to wrap my aging brain around this.
I hate to be a nitpicker, but are we discussing "bait" the noun or "bait" the verb? seems relevant to this pointless discussion. :biggrin:
I hate to be a nitpicker, but are we discussing "bait" the noun or "bait" the verb? seems relevant to this pointless discussion. :biggrin:
- 39,159
- 274
They are using the enticement of food to hunt an animal who was enticed to that spot because do said food. Soooo yes. They are in essence baiting. I think what you're getting hung up on is the action of the hunter placing said food. It's not about placing but rather using the animals enticement against it as prey. The true measuring stick is the action of hunting said animal that was enticed by food. To the prey animal it doesn't matter if you placed it or it's naturally occurring. The enticement is the same. This is what makes it baiting. Not I you put it there or not.
- 39,159
- 274
A judge only applies to laws created by men, laws which are largely based upon enforceability. This is commonly referred to as baiting. But really it's legal baiting or illegal baiting based upon the laws of your state.
The laws of nature reach far beyond mans laws. Such as an animals natural attraction to food. This is correctly referred to as baiting and looks at the end result of attraction, not the means by which the result was achieved.
It is for this reason that variables to define bait like placed, grown, or natural must be eliminated as a deciding factor of what constitutes bait. They all do if said animal is attracted to it. Those terms only apply to defining enforceable laws, not the natural enticement of the animal.
- 39,159
- 274
If an animal is attracted, and a hunter uses that attraction to his advantage, the animal is indeed being baited. How is he not? The key elements exist. Attractant, a preys enticement to said attractant, and a predator using that enticement to his advantage.
You are using a key word this time that I've never noticed before…"food" I thought you also used this logic when hunting doe during the rut? They aren't food.
- 39,159
- 274
We were discussing food so I typed it but quickly realized it could be misconstrued. I was in the process of changing it when you read it.
Is an animal enticed to a doe during the rut? Do we as predators use that enticement to our advantage? If so then the answer is yes. That animal is being baited.
Anything that entices an animal, that we as a predator use against them, is bait. The end result of enticement is what defines it. Not the means by which it was enticed. The means is irrelevant to the result. And it's the result that we predators use to our advantage.
Huge difference to me in natural and unnatural. Going out and hunting deer in a natural environment is completely different than going to hunt a corn pile covered in bottled potions. One is baiting, the other is a natural action/need for survival.