|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 registered members (quailman, KPcalls, Ryano, BCLC, metalmuncher, Pocosin, 3bailey3, Big Game Hunter, UncleHuck, TwoRs, Maggie123, Mennen34, Mike59, Huntn2feed5, stl32, fish_blackbass, Chickenrig, AuGrayghost, Frankie, dave260rem!, Birdman83, TroyBoy1988, CNC, 3Gs, BamaPlowboy, Joe4majors, BrentsFX4, square, CrappieMan, Vernon Tull, outdoorguy88, canichols424, slippinlipjr, bfoote, BigA47, AU338MAG, Woodsy, sawdust, Tree Dweller, Fishduck, Morris, globe, Gobble4me757, Obsession, dawgdr, BrandonClark, NoHuntin, Rainbowstew, deadeyesdad, riflenut, BC, bamamed1, sj22, hallb, brett.smith, Colt1917, burbank, BuckSpear, TurkeyJoe, Squeaky, Treelimb, OlTimer, SouthBamaSlayer, mjs14, HSV. HUNTER, brianr, Antelope08, thayerp81, DryFire, BPI, Nightwatchman, odocoileus, oldforester, G/H, Gizmo76, jbatey1, AUdeerhunter, Holcomb, low wall, Dean, snakebit, Floorman1, gman, JCL, kyles, Bronco 74, jlbuc10, Ray_Coon, Hunting-231, booner, Chancetribe, dirtwrk, Ben2, fish251, klay, Bmyers142, jawbone, murf205, Stu, 7PTSPREAD, 10 invisible),
893
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: Bamarich2]
#553915
03/12/13 07:41 PM
03/12/13 07:41 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
??? Not sure why you're picking a bone with me. I'm just saying that if there's a restriction on proximity to the feeder, there is going to have to be one in relation to the property line also. Otherwise, guys are going to get fined for something they have no opportunity to know about. I'm neither for it/against it in this thread... just pointing out a possible issue. Actually, there's no need for a property line restriction. That matter has already been settled: ... Requiring, for one to be convicted of violating § 9-11-244, that he either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited does not render § 9-11-244 unenforceable. Requiring such a low level of mental culpability simply requires the State to prove that with reasonable investigation the hunter could have discovered the bait. The imposition of a low-level standard of mental culpability also protects a hunter who performed the necessary investigation, but was unable to detect the presence of bait, perhaps because he was barred by a property line. ... Not really picking a bone ... just wondering why you would add more restrictions in order to enforce a law that should never have been passed to begin with. It should be repealed so we could be done with all this confusion, don't you think? How does this law benefit the public in any form?
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: 49er]
#553970
03/12/13 08:22 PM
03/12/13 08:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,630
Northport
Bamarich2
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,630
Northport
|
??? Not sure why you're picking a bone with me. I'm just saying that if there's a restriction on proximity to the feeder, there is going to have to be one in relation to the property line also. Otherwise, guys are going to get fined for something they have no opportunity to know about. I'm neither for it/against it in this thread... just pointing out a possible issue. Actually, there's no need for a property line restriction. That matter has already been settled: ... Requiring, for one to be convicted of violating § 9-11-244, that he either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited does not render § 9-11-244 unenforceable. Requiring such a low level of mental culpability simply requires the State to prove that with reasonable investigation the hunter could have discovered the bait. The imposition of a low-level standard of mental culpability also protects a hunter who performed the necessary investigation, but was unable to detect the presence of bait, perhaps because he was barred by a property line. ... Not really picking a bone ... just wondering why you would add more restrictions in order to enforce a law that should never have been passed to begin with. It should be repealed so we could be done with all this confusion, don't you think? How does this law benefit the public in any form? Hadn't been keeping up with the whole thing... just saw a problem when someone said "just make a 500 yard rule and be done with it." Have been in a county before with an eager game warden before who would probably ignore the property line idea unless it was mentioned in the restriction. JMO
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: Hogwild]
#554214
03/13/13 06:39 AM
03/13/13 06:39 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
OK.....you got me.....
I 'chose' to go by the Regulation (220-2-.07) that the ALDCNR set instead of the State Law dictated by the Legislature. The Regulation says 'daylight hours'.
I got you again ... the STATUTE says "sunset": … The provisions of a statute will prevail in any case of a conflict between a statute and an agency regulation.
Ex parte State Dep't of Human Resources, 548 So.2d 176 (Ala.1988).
An administrative regulation must be consistent with the statutes under which its promulgation is authorized.
Ex parte City of Florence, 417 So.2d 191 (Ala.1982).
An administrative agency cannot usurp legislative powers or contravene a statute.
Alabama State Milk Control Bd. v. Graham, 250 Ala. 49, 33 So.2d 11 (1947).
A regulation cannot subvert or enlarge upon statutory policy.
Jefferson County Bd. of Ed. v. Alabama Bd. of Cosmetology, 380 So.2d 913 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).
Regulation 810-3-15-.05(10) therefore cannot override Ala. Code 1975, § 40-18-8(j).
"`It is well established that criminal statutes should not be "extended by construction."'"
Ex parte Mutrie, 658 So.2d 347, 349 (Ala.1993)... "`Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.' Ex parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532, 535 (Ala. 2001).
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: Ponderosa]
#554242
03/13/13 07:36 AM
03/13/13 07:36 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,663
Boxes Cove
2Dogs
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,663
Boxes Cove
|
This thread is way too technical for me. I'm going to go back to being a regular deer hunter. I'll check back later to see if you guys work this thing out. I see you're new here, welcome,Ponderosa meet 49er.
"Why do you ask"?
Always vote the slowest path to socialism.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: 49er]
#554373
03/13/13 09:48 AM
03/13/13 09:48 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
jmj120
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
|
This thread is way too technical for me. I'm going to go back to being a regular deer hunter. I'll check back later to see if you guys work this thing out. If you plan to hunt, the best thing you can do to stay out of trouble is to either learn the volumes of laws and rules or have a lawyer hunting with you.  Or just lock the gate behind you.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: 2Dogs]
#554390
03/13/13 09:57 AM
03/13/13 09:57 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 192
Mathews Alabama
Ponderosa
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 192
Mathews Alabama
|
This thread is way too technical for me. I'm going to go back to being a regular deer hunter. I'll check back later to see if you guys work this thing out. I see you're new here, welcome,Ponderosa meet 49er. Thanks! Great source of info here.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: truedouble]
#554476
03/13/13 11:43 AM
03/13/13 11:43 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
WmHunter
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
|
[quote=truedouble
so make it illegal to put a feeder out with in x amount of yards of your property line (besides who puts feeder's on property lines?...defeats the purpose) Go with 200 yds...100 yds is simply legalizing without legalizing... [/quote]
Agree - go with a 200 yard restriction. Absolutely.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
" Chuck Sykes is a dictator control freak like Vladimir Putin " WmHunter
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: jmj120]
#554478
03/13/13 11:54 AM
03/13/13 11:54 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
WmHunter
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,363
Montgomery
|
This is not a LAW.....
it is simply a definition of the very vague, and often abused, term AREA.
It is now defined that if you are closer than 100 yds and in sight of a bait pile or feeder.....you are hunting over bait. Agree. And every GW I've spoken with thinks it's a joke. Just like the stupid honor system for the 3 buck limit. 100 yards IS a joke. A big fat *!@%^& joke. That is LEGALIZED baiting as anyone is capable of tactically using "out of sight" corn at 101 or even 300 yards. Who the heck came up with this garbage? And I mean names and addresses of all involved.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
" Chuck Sykes is a dictator control freak like Vladimir Putin " WmHunter
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: WmHunter]
#554488
03/13/13 12:07 PM
03/13/13 12:07 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
I agree, the law is garbage.  The garbage part was likely added when the original statute was last amended in 1991. The sponsor's name was Haynes, but it don't give his address. He called it "Animal Protection". It don't say what animal rights group he represented though. Acts 1991, No. 91-591, p. 1093, §1The governor who signed the amendment was a republican, Guy Hunt. He doesn't have an address now, he died. (Lieutenant Governor Jim Folsom, Jr. became governor upon conviction of Guy Hunt for ethics violations) Ain't that a bitch? Maybe this whole mess will be put in the garbage soon by our legislature. That's where it belongs.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: LIOJeff]
#554592
03/13/13 02:31 PM
03/13/13 02:31 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,587
Kennedy, al
globe
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,587
Kennedy, al
|
On the bright side, this will prevent SOME people from baiting and shooting out their back doors.
Maybe.
Everything woke turns to shucks
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: globe]
#554605
03/13/13 02:42 PM
03/13/13 02:42 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
jmj120
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
|
On the bright side, this will prevent SOME people from baiting and shooting out their back doors.
Maybe. I can hang shiny objects in my back yard and attract Mexicans.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: Hogwild]
#554833
03/13/13 07:54 PM
03/13/13 07:54 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
truedouble
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
|
This is not a LAW.....
it is simply a definition of the very vague, and often abused, term AREA.
It is now defined that if you are closer than 100 yds and in sight of a bait pile or feeder.....you are hunting over bait. this law sucks and so did the old law, BUT previously area could have reasonably been interpreted by a fair GW or a law abiding hunter as far more than 100 yds away from a feeder. In other words in the past I doubt a hunter who honestly tried to follow all hunting regs. and ONLY continued to feed during hunting season for feeding purposes would have ever considered hunting 100 yds away from a feeder. So now, area has been defined as being much smaller than most would have thought and is small enough that bait can now fairly easily assist a hunter in killing a deer. If the real purpose was to define area in a way that would allow clubs and landowners to feed year around without having to worry about whether or not they were breaking the law then they would have defined area as much greater than a distance of 100 yds.
|
|
|
Re: Confused about baiting rule now
[Re: truedouble]
#554846
03/13/13 08:07 PM
03/13/13 08:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
jmj120
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,623
Alabama
|
The folks who want to hunt over corn are doing it anyway. So you are saying that most folks normally only follow the laws that they agree with? I would have to agree with this statement when it comes to hunting over bait. The convenience store down the street from my house sells 2 tons of corn each week during hunting season. By that logic we should just legalize drugs, moonshine, gambling, prostitution, speeding, running red lights, driving drunk etc. I was not advocating making anything legal . I said ,I agree people follow laws they agree with , and used hunting over bait as an example. I do not care if it is legal or not it will not change the way I hunt . none of us follow all laws to the T but a lot of us try. To say people in general only follow laws they agree with is stepping way out. I don't agree with our current tax laws but I still pay them...thats just one of many laws I follow but don't agree with. What about those that hunt in South Bama that haven't been able to hunt a real rut...you think most of them just go ahead and shoot deer in February? I just don't get your logic... Ahhh.. You are one who always obeys the legal hunting hours?
|
|
|
|
