Should Alberta allow Baiting with restrictions

[slickwilly]

Although I see the benefit of putting in food plots, and I don't necessarily think people who plant food plots are being lazy: probably the opposite in fact. I have trouble enough getting out before the season to do a little spotting, let alone dragging a plow out into the middle of the bush and planting an acre of alfalfa in the spring.
However, I feel like the feed plot hunting system has an unintended effect of limiting access to deer for everyone. The way it is now, everyone can see what kind of crops are out, and even if you can't get permission on that specific field, it is possible to catch them en route.
But I can't help but feel that food plots would be extremely effective at holding deer in a specific place, which would limit who could even see the deer, let alone get access to them.
This is pretty much just an unsubstantiated theory, but I hear deer hunting stories from out friends south of the border, and it seems like a nightmare, something I really want to avoid.

[fish_e_o]

make it legal or don't it's not going to matter the issue is they can't enforce it

[Nait Hadya]

Problem I have seen is an unwillingness to proceed with prosecution. If they will not enforce the law, what's the point of having it in the act.

[Leafy]

Just another form of enjoying our passion really... The theory behind disease transfer is pretty much a mute point as contact is inevitable. Our neighbors to the east would have a significantly higher rate of infection as baiting there is been done for decades.

The unfortunate truth behind this style of hunting is the social aspect... You think people are protective of "their" areas, add the work it takes to properly employ bait and issues with encroachment will prevail in a negative way.

There is a lot of positives with this method of hunting which in my opinion far out way any negatives..

[honkerman]

I see there to be a bunch of positives for baiting.
First off, it could potentially help to keep the deer off the roads leading to fewer accidents with vehicles. In my opinion it would further promote the need to ask for permission and lead to less "road warriors". It would be a big benefit for taking young hunters and big help for that young hunter to be active with trail cams and game management. In my area there is a big oilfield presence. I have been told a number of times now that rifle season is a scary time of year. If someone puts in the effort to plant a food plot, he would know surroundings and there would be far less accidents.

[EZM]

I think there is a clear distinction when hunting in the natural habitat versus hunting over a bait.

Planting crops specifically to attract deer to an area, and hoping to hold them there, as you shoot them from a tree stand is baiting. It's clear.

To me weather or not there a feeder spraying food on them, or a salt lick and pile of apples on the ground ..... the end result is a attractant was placed there (planted included).

The key distinction is a farmers alfalfa field will attract deer but it's likely a 40-400 plus acre piece of land and you never know where the deer emerge. In a food plot you set up the crops in a small area, set up a stand, shooting lanes, etc... much more to me like a canned hunt.

The hunting style of glassing, stalking and shooting a mule deer or elk out in the foothills would be completely a different experience.

If the laws allow both, there should be a distinction in the B&C or P&Y books IMO.

Nutrition added to deer, in particular, can show a >50% increase in antler mass and >30% in body mass through "habitat enhancement" (the most gentle term to describe baiting and feeding).

Personally I'd rather go out in the bush and work the traditional way .... it's about the experience ..... not the result.

I just think there needs to be a distinction. I'm not against improving habitat, but I am against canned hunts ..... this practice seems to border too close to the "canned hunt" for me.

[Lefty-Canuck]

A question for thought (Devils advocate )

If I find a natural lick and set up a tree stand over it....and hunt it until I shoot a booner white tail and booner moose, if I enter those animals in the "book" should I have an asterisk by my name?

I would argue finding a good spot with water and natural mineral employs traditional hunting techniques, heck I scout the trails and likely could tell you which ones the animal will take hence the location of my stand.

....because the lick is what is causing their patterns to come by it for a drink....and I set up over it. If I was a "real Hunter" would I never hunt from the stand and employ only spot and stalk methods to hunt my game?

In a "canned hunt" you can pick your animal from a catalog, and they release it into a defined enclosure...baiting/exploration is not close to a "canned" hunt IMHO.

LC

[riden]

I really see it as a property rights issue. I think the province is overstepping it's authority forbidding me from wildlife enhancements on my property, if I plan to hunt it.

Why can't a person who has the coin, buy a quarter section of land or a parcel and devote it to hunting? If I improve overall habitat for wildlife, I am doing everyone a favor. I am not suggesting outright baiting or feeders, simply food plots.

I am not saying Conservation laws should not apply to private property, I am saying the province has no business telling me what I can't plant on my private property.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

A question for thought (Devils advocate )

If I find a natural lick and set up a tree stand over it....and hunt it until I shoot a booner white tail and booner moose, if I enter those animals in the "book" should I have an asterisk by my name?

I would argue finding a good spot with water and natural mineral employs traditional hunting techniques, heck I scout the trails and likely could tell you which ones the animal will take hence the location of my stand.

....because the lick is what is causing their patterns to come by it for a drink....and I set up over it. If I was a "real Hunter" would I never hunt from the stand and employ only spot and stalk methods to hunt my game?

In a "canned hunt" you can pick your animal from a catalog, and they release it into a defined enclosure...baiting/exploration is not close to a "canned" hunt IMHO.

LC

Food for thought too.....
In the area I live, there are still lots of small farmers. Lots of farmers here openly plant sections of fields with hunting in mind. They plan to hunt the area, or family and make sure alfalfa or something similar is close. They are very open about their plans.

It makes no sense to me that a farmer can do this, but I can't on my acreage.

[Leafy]

Originally Posted by riden

I really see it as a property rights issue. I think the province is overstepping it's authority forbidding me from wildlife enhancements on my property, if I plan to hunt it.

Why can't a person who has the coin, buy a quarter section of land or a parcel and devote it to hunting? If I improve overall habitat for wildlife, I am doing everyone a favor. I am not suggesting outright baiting or feeders, simply food plots.

I am not saying Conservation laws should not apply to private property, I am saying the province has no business telling me what I can't plant on my private property.

No issues Riden, planting what ever you want is your right on private property... Harvest, graze, or recreational use is your choice and far from being illegal if you choose to hunt the area.

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by riden

Food for thought too.....
In the area I live, there are still lots of small farmers. Lots of farmers here openly plant sections of fields with hunting in mind. They plan to hunt the area, or family and make sure alfalfa or something similar is close. They are very open about their plans.

It makes no sense to me that a farmer can do this, but I can't on my acreage.

No kidding? And don't forget the famers that get paid to lock up their land so outfitters can take in paying clients for $$$. Opps sorry that doesn't happen in Alberta!

[dmcbride]

I'll add another scenario.

I have a piece of property that I have permission to hunt on. It is a 15 acre Alfalfa field that is beside a creek with a deep ravine. There is a finger off the field that is about an acre in size because of the way the creek bends with a 20 yard gap to get to this 1 acre finger of the field. It really is the perfect hunting spot with it staying a little greener than surrounding areas because of the sun light it receives and extra shelter from the trees.

For the guy's against habitat improvement, would it be unethical to hunt this finger because of the size and the fact the deer always come to feed in this small secluded spot? I mean it has everything a perfect food plot would have, the only difference is the farmer did all the work for me.

With all the hobby farms around the big cities now day's there are tons of small crop fields that are smaller than 5 acres that provide food to deer in the same way a food plot would. Sorry I just don't understand how it is alright to get permission and hunt one of these small food plots, but it is not alright in the eyes of some to create one on private property.

[wildside2014]

Realistically I would have to answer this question in a few years. As of right now, with all the complaining and moaning about overharvesting and supplemental tags combined with culling and winter kill I find it completely hilarious guys are asking if SRD should put into effect a tactic that will potentially increase harvest numbers.

So with that I offer the question, are people on this forum ACTUALLY concerned with the decreasing numbers in the bottom half of the province? or are they just ticked off that they aren't killing deer like in the good ol days?

[riden]

Originally Posted by Leafy

No issues Riden, planting what ever you want is your right on private property... Harvest, graze, or recreational use is your choice and far from being illegal if you choose to hunt the area.

I don't think everyone agrees that it is legal.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by riden

I don't think everyone agrees that it is legal.

It really doesn't matter that certain people 'feel' as though its illegal. Its not illegal. If I plant apple trees on my fenceline on my home qtr and know that a cranker buck is feeding off of it you bet its 100% legal to harvest that buck. And yes this is an actual scenario and yes Im fully legal if I choose to shoot that buck.

[Leafy]

Originally Posted by riden

I don't think everyone agrees that it is legal.

Wild's got it right, does not matter what the AO community feels.

[mds694]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

It really doesn't matter that certain people 'feel' as though its illegal. Its not illegal. If I plant apple trees on my fenceline on my home qtr and know that a cranker buck is feeding off of it you bet its 100% legal to harvest that buck. And yes this is an actual scenario and yes Im fully legal if I choose to shoot that buck.

Depends why you planted them there, as has been established in previous thread. Planted for shelter belt, ornamental, human consumption etc, that's fine. Planted to attract deer, not so much...

[hal53]

Two very different situations here, one is a land owner planting a food plot to help wild life, the other is outfitters looking to set up bait stations similar to bear baiting, so they can serve more clients in a season.....the former , I have no problem with, the latter

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by mds694

Depends why you planted them there, as has been established in previous thread. Planted for shelter belt, ornamental, human consumption etc, that's fine. Planted to attract deer, not so much...

So what is wrong with all of those reasons, including the habitat improvement to attract deer? A person cannot do both?

[rasbok]

I totally agree with this post.

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I support it, has been done in Saskatchewan, you put the effort in, might have a chance to be closer and make a lethal shot, observe wildlife etc, we do it in another form when we sit by a alfalfa field etc so yes allow it and move on.

But when it comes to changes to be made "SNAFU"

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by mds694

Depends why you planted them there, as has been established in previous thread. Planted for shelter belt, ornamental, human consumption etc, that's fine. Planted to attract deer, not so much...

If you are referring to 'intent' sure. But how do you dive into a guys mind and actually prove the latter? Mine are planted because I wanted my kids to be able to pick apples in the summer. Im not braindead enough to think deer wouldn't feed off them. But that's neither here nor there. Im fully legal shooting a deer off a planted and grown apple tree.

Now a pile of apples laying on the ground on a game trail, that's a different story. Intent can be shown.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by hal53

Two very different situations here, one is a land owner planting a food plot to help wild life, the other is outfitters looking to set up bait stations similar to bear baiting, so they can serve more clients in a season.....the former , I have no problem with, the latter

I agree with this as well.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

If you are referring to 'intent' sure. But how do you dive into a guys mind and actually prove the latter? Mine are planted because I wanted my kids to be able to pick apples in the summer. Im not braindead enough to think deer wouldn't feed off them. But that's neither here nor there. Im fully legal shooting a deer off a planted and grown apple tree.

Now a pile of apples laying on the ground on a game trail, that's a different story. Intent can be shown.

Exactly....dumping a pail of monster mix on crown land under a stand....shows intent.

LC

[mds694]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

So what is wrong with all of those reasons, including the habitat improvement to attract deer? A person cannot do both?

Nothings wrong with any of those reasons IMO, just saying if being used to attract deer for the purpose of hunting it could be considered baiting, as established in the previous thread. Suggesting it's totally legal regardless of intent is incorrect.

[mds694]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

If you are referring to 'intent' sure. But how do you dive into a guys mind and actually prove the latter? Mine are planted because I wanted my kids to be able to pick apples in the summer. Im not braindead enough to think deer wouldn't feed off them. But that's neither here nor there. Im fully legal shooting a deer off a planted and grown apple tree.

Now a pile of apples laying on the ground on a game trail, that's a different story. Intent can be shown.

Yep proving intent can certainly be challenging but just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's completely legal.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by mds694

Nothings wrong with any of those reasons IMO, just saying if being used to attract deer for the purpose of hunting it could be considered baiting, as established in the previous thread. Suggesting it's totally legal regardless of intent is incorrect.

Im trying to follow you here. So you are saying my example I put out there is a 'grey' area? I will challenge you to phone a conservation officer. I will then have you have him contact me. I can promise you its 100% legal.

In essence youre saying that because I know my land. As in I know where every Saskatoon bush, apple tree and so forth is located right down to the square inch, that that could be interpreted as baiting?

[riden]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

If you are referring to 'intent' sure. But how do you dive into a guys mind and actually prove the latter? Mine are planted because I wanted my kids to be able to pick apples in the summer. Im not braindead enough to think deer wouldn't feed off them. But that's neither here nor there. Im fully legal shooting a deer off a planted and grown apple tree.

Now a pile of apples laying on the ground on a game trail, that's a different story. Intent can be shown.

But in my scenario, I will never harvest a "Deerweed" type crop. My intent would be clear and I wouldn't have the logical "out" that you do.

[wildside2014]

Originally Posted by riden

But in my scenario, I will never harvest a "Deerweed" type crop. My intent would be clear and I wouldn't have the logical "out" that you do.

I would guess you probably would have some issues at some point if you had a conservation officer come across it. Doesn't mean I don't side with you regarding habitat improvement on private land.

On public land I just cant agree. Not so much because I don't want to see it, but because from what I understand public land is so competitive and you hear so many stories of guys claiming 'rights' to areas and so forth. I think planted crop sites would just make matters worse.

[mds694]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

Im trying to follow you here. So you are saying my example I put out there is a 'grey' area? I will challenge you to phone a conservation officer. I will then have you have him contact me. I can promise you its 100% legal.

In essence youre saying that because I know my land. As in I know where every Saskatoon bush, apple tree and so forth is located right down to the square inch, that that could be interpreted as baiting?

Nope wouldn't say yours is a grey area at all, I'm just saying not all scenarios regarding food plots aren't. All about the intent.

[riden]

Originally Posted by wildside2014

I would guess you probably would have some issues at some point if you had a conservation officer come across it. Doesn't mean I don't side with you regarding habitat improvement on private land.

On public land I just cant agree. Not so much because I don't want to see it, but because from what I understand public land is so competitive and you hear so many stories of guys claiming 'rights' to areas and so forth. I think planted crop sites would just make matters worse.

Which brings up my next issue with this, it is almost impossible to prosecute a land owner on private land who grows a plot to attract deer. Why write any law where the chances of enforcement are so slim?