I'll just go find me an oak tree dropping acorns since baiting ain't allowed.

This . even if baiting was legal

Good post. Agree completely. This is not a definition
of "area" rule, it is a legalized baiting rule and conflicts
with the statute against baiting.

I am disappointed in Comm. Guy big time.

Well at least it is a start.......how many others have done anything in the past.........Lets just see what his next move will be.

Pasted this in a related thread, but here it is again.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/03/alabama_conservation_officials.html

Mr. Sykes needs to read the law. When the commissioner classified feral hogs as a protected game animal, he made it illegal to bait or trap them. (9-11-244 and 9-11-245)

The "area" is only defined for deer and hogs in the proposed amended rule. If you kill any other species of game animal, that still leaves it to the discretion of the game warden to define "area". The "rebuttal" clause in the proposed change allows for the same thing. That is unconstitutional.

This whole mess is a money trap and it needs to disappear in its entirety. Our legislature needs to repeal it.

The rule will go thru the AAPA review and comment process. Hunters should use their opportunity to express their opinions before this is finalized.

Protecting feral hogs as a game animal is idiotic.

I totally agree!

I agree - this new "rule" is the biggest buch of cockamemee bull I
have ever seen. I cannot believe how idiotic Chuck Sykes comments
are. Whoever appointed him as the new director of the Wildlife and
Freshwater Fish Dept. needs to have their head examined.

Some have accused me of citing court cases that are old, even though they still stand. Well the ink is still wet on this one:


IN RE EX PARTE CHAMBERS, Ala: Court of Civil Appeals 2013

The DCNR's new rule attempts to assume legislative powers that have not been delegated to it. There are bills currently pending before both the Alabama House and the Senate to define "affected area".

The DCNR was certainly aware that these bills had been introduced. The commissioner's action is too late. He missed his chance. He needs to butt out and leave the legislature do its job that it should have done long ago without trying to pull this scheme to write things into the law that are not there.

It is illegal to hunt with bait or to trap deer or hogs even with the commissioner's complicity. Coyotes can only be baited or trapped in compliance with laws that apply to animals classified as furbearers, and the commissioner has no lawful authority to allow doing so otherwise.

Our legislators need to take the bull by the horns and act on the bills that have currently been introduced.

Our legislators have made it clear that they will not take action unless they are prodded into doing so by hunters who are affected by all this mess. Those bills will continue to sit right there in the committees they have been referred to and they will die unless we act.

Bill in House Agriculture and Forestry Committee

HB118 Sponsor: Long
Conservation and Natural Resources Department, whitetail deer, may be hunted over bait under certain conditions, Sec. 9-11-244 am'd.

Bill in Senate Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee
SB88 Sponsors: Whatley, Scofield, Ward

Conservation and Natural Resources Department, whitetail deer, may be hunted over bait under certain conditions, Sec. 9-11-244 am'd.

What if the CAB members read this and repeal their suggestion and it does not go forward.

Now, we are STILL in the same muck, mess and mire that we were/are.

Who is going to define 'Area'???

The way I read their Proposal, that is all they did.
I do not see a new Law or Regulation allowing Hunting over Bait.

Our legislature can, and should straighten this out. If it doesn't, the courts can do it for them if hunters are willing to give them the opportunity.

The DNCR's solution just adds more confusion to the mix.

It expands the law by adding things such as the "rebuttal" clause, and allowing two game animals to be hunted under circumstances that the law, when applied to the rest of the game animals, defines as a crime.

Their proposed expansion/amendment of the law is an unconstitutional assumption of legislative powers.

[Read the quote from the recent case I cited above for an explanation of what I'm talking about.]

I agree on the 'picking and choosing' of the animals that it includes. That makes no sense.

BUT, the term AREA has begged for definition for many years now. ALL of the different agencies have failed us in this regard!!!!!

So, in my humble opinion.....MAYBE this is a start, or catalyst, at the very least.

Why did they wait until the bills pending in the legislature were introduced?

This is a blatant attempt to circumvent legislative action. They should be working with the legislature to move the bills there forward in a sincere cooperative effort to correct these probems.

I have come to the conclusion that a turkey would wade thru a cornpile to get to a chuffa patch.

One of two things should happen:

The legislature needs to repeal its prohibition of hunting protected animals with the aid of bait or it needs to amend the law to read:

Section 9-11-244
Taking, etc., of protected birds or animals by means of bait.

No person at any time shall take, catch, kill or attempt to take, catch or kill any bird or animal protected by law or regulation of the State of Alabama by means, aid or use, directly or indirectly, of any bait such as shelled, shucked or unshucked corn or of wheat or other grain, salt or any other feed whatsoever that has been so deposited, placed, distributed or scattered as to constitute for such birds or animals a lure, attraction or enticement to, on or over within the distance of 100 yards area where such hunter or hunters are attempting to kill or take them; .provided, that such birds or animals may be taken under properly shocked corn and standing crops of corn, wheat or other grain or feed and grains scattered solely as a result of normal agricultural harvesting and provided further, migratory birds may be hunted under the most recent provisions established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources within the limits of the federal regulations.
(Acts 1951, No. 1001, p. 1672, §1; Acts 1991, No. 91-591, p. 1093, §1.)


Section 9-11-245
Unlawful methods of hunting birds or animals protected by law or regulation.

No person shall at any time make use of any pitfall, deadfall, baited field, cage, trap, net, pen, baited hook, snare, poison, or explosive, or chemical for the purpose of injuring, capturing, or killing birds or animals protected by law or regulation of this state. This section shall not prevent the trapping of animals classified as fur-bearing animals by a duly licensed fur catcher. It shall be legal to use a scaffold for gun hunting of all legal game species except wild turkey and to use a scaffold for bow hunting of all legal game species.

(Acts 1951, No. 1001, p. 1672, §2; Acts 1975, No. 195, p. 681, §1; Acts 1995, No. 95-563, p. 1174, §1.)


The commissioner needs to make the following change:

______________________________________________________________
220-2-.06 Game Animals Designated

The following animals are hereby designated as game animals: Bear, Beaver, Coyote, Deer, Opossum, Rabbit, Raccoon, Squirrel, Nutria, Fox, Mountain Lion (Cougar), Groundhog, Bobcat, Red Wolf,. Feral Swine (Wild Hog), except those feral swine reduced to the personal possession of a landowner or his agent, provided, however, that notwithstanding such reduction to personal possession, in the event such feral swine are hunted, they shall at such time of hunting be designated as game animals.

I disagree with the chemical part......poison is an indiscriminate killer that has NO place in the outdoors!

My change leaves the prohibition against using poison.

It allows using chemicals such as those found in scents and urines that are widely used as attractants already but are ignored by enforcement officers.

Does this mean we agree now?

Pretty much.....

The Law is NOT supposed to be confusing, nor left to interpretation.

The law is also supposed to have as its purpose protection of a compelling public interest when individual freedom or rights are restricted.

I can think of no significant public interest that needs to be protected by prohibiting hunting with the aid of bait. The fact that some of us don't like it doesn't make it a compelling public interest. Preservation of liberty and freedom is a compelling public interest.