I spoke yesterday as well and I am against the bill. It is not supplemental feeding if you start/do it during hunting season only. It is baiting. Make it a year round requirement and then you may be able to claim that.

But, here is something that I find interesting. Under the bill, the ONLY animal that can be killed on property that is baiting is whitetail deer. So, if it passes "as is", forget yotes, hogs, coons, ducks, and any other game animal on your property. It will be illegal for you to hunt them. That is a big sacrifice.

Forget high fence. I don't care what you do in your fence. Bait if you like. If the bill wants to legalize it for high fences, go ahead.

For all else, here are some of the motivations.
Large properties that do honestly supplemental feed all during the year are doing so for two primary reasons. They want their deer to be big and healty and they want their deer to STAY on their property.

There is no doubt this is a really a baiting bill. If it were truely about supplemental feeding, it would require the participants to do it year round. If this passes, the "during deer season" supplemental feeders will increase probably 100 times. And they will just about all stop at the end of season, when the deer will really start needing it.

Our family owns Dream Ranch. My dad Billy, myself, and my brother Austin.
Don't think we can give away any free hunts ha ha.

I wanted to get everyone's feedback on SB 346. It passed committee today and i was fortunate enough to get to testify for the bill. If you are for it, let me know, we are compiling a list. I believe it is time to define area, the current law is to vague. This is not a baiting bill, its a common sense supplemental feeding bill to define area so managers of properties can know where to legally place supplemental feeders. Just one tool a manager can use. The yardage and line of sight was drafted from our neighboring states of Mississippi and Georgia.

Thanks,
Will Ainsworth

I just want to sit in a stand with my son and a camera. Doesnt even have to be during the season , just want to see some of the bucks that you have there in person

As long as the head of the CAB is related to a feeder company then it is wrong for any legislation or CAB buisness to pass a new rule that increases FEEDER SALES.

I know a guy that got busted hunting over corn he asked the Warden to define the area where the corn was and so he called Montgomery before writing this guy a ticket and Montgomery told the Warden anything within a square mile.

I spoke yesterday as well and I am against the bill. It is not supplemental feeding if you start/do it during hunting season only. It is baiting. Make it a year round requirement and then you may be able to claim that.

But, here is something that I find interesting. Under the bill, the ONLY animal that can be killed on property that is baiting is whitetail deer. So, if it passes "as is", forget yotes, hogs, coons, ducks, and any other game animal on your property. It will be illegal for you to hunt them. That is a big sacrifice.

Forget high fence. I don't care what you do in your fence. Bait if you like. If the bill wants to legalize it for high fences, go ahead.

For all else, here are some of the motivations.
Large properties that do honestly supplemental feed all during the year are doing so for two primary reasons. They want their deer to be big and healty and they want their deer to STAY on their property.

There is no doubt this is a really a baiting bill. If it were truely about supplemental feeding, it would require the participants to do it year round. If this passes, the "during deer season" supplemental feeders will increase probably 100 times. And they will just about all stop at the end of season, when the deer will really start needing it.

Most hunters/clubs won't use this to "supplemental feed" and everyone knows it.

And if that is true, it is crap. That is why "area" needs to be explicitly defined.

The United States Supreme Court has stated the following about the void for vagueness challenge:

"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute `abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,' it `operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms.' Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to `"steer far wider of the unlawful zone" ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas where clearly marked.'"

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972), quoting, in part, Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372, 84 S.Ct. 1316, 1323, 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964). See also United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617-18, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954). To withstand a challenge of vagueness, a statute must: 1) give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, and, 2) provide explicit standards to those who apply the laws. Grayned.