# Baiting-Part II



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

Great recent thread on baiting. This is healthy dicsussion...

new scenario....

On a parcel of land there are 5 ponds. Distance between the farthest one's is 1000 feet. Could you bait one pond and never hunt it, while hunting the farthest away pond...and still be legal....how far away is "hunting OVER bait"....andy


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

always wondered what constitutes an "area"? define that please.

I would post this question in the other forum (think it's called "Questions about Hunting Laws"). there's some really smart guys there that might be able to help out. retired CO's and such.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

You would prolly get a ticket, because most baiters (I know, because I'm a Master Baiter) don't hunt the actual baited pond, they set up on the traffic lanes going in and out, so as to not spook the pond.

I think the "area" description would apply to your set up, which is sweet, if it's the private land location in your pictures.


----------



## MFPS (Jun 21, 2009)

My question Baiting with what? there lies the answer


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

waxico said:


> You would prolly get a ticket, because most baiters (I know, because I'm a Master Baiter) don't hunt the actual baited pond, they set up on the traffic lanes going in and out, so as to not spook the pond.
> 
> I think the "area" description would apply to your set up, which is sweet, if it's the private land location in your pictures.


hey hey....this is theoretical property in rainbow village.....no where near any where I hunt......


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

Do you have native Unicorns in Rainbow Villlage?
Is Tinkerbell the mayor?

I would use Flamingo decoys to hunt field #7...OH CRAP, I'M GONNA GET FLAMED!


----------



## Duckman Racing (Oct 11, 2004)

From the Federal guidelines link that was posted in the other thread:



> *Distance*
> How close to bait can you hunt without breaking the law? There is no set distance. The law prohibits hunting if bait is present that could lure or attract birds to, on, *or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them*. Distance will vary depending on the circumstances and such factors as topography, weather, and waterfowl flight patterns. Therefore, this question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis


I look at it as basically if the birds are flying to/from a baited area you can not hunt them. Doesnt matter if you are 40 yards, 400 yards, or 4 miles away from the bait.


----------



## Chewbacca (Apr 5, 2006)

I think that this part of the law is more than a little vague, especially if it's interpreted such that you can be ticketed even if you don't know that the bait is there (which I've heard of). 

Let's say I set up 5 miles from an (unknown to me) baited pond in a completely unconnected swamp, and those birds in the swamp get up to go feed in the baited pond 5 miles away, and I shoot one of them (let's call it a hen mallard, just for fun :evilsmile) as it's flying over my head. Does this mean that I'm hunting a "traffic lane" and can be cited for hunting over bait? To me that is a completely preposterous interpretation of the law. 

I've been scouring my brain trying to remember a time that a duck flew over or past me and told me where it was going to feed. 

I really believe that baiting is (or at least should be) more of a proximity issue than the law makes it out to be. Baiting 1 of 2 ponds on a 5 acre parcel and hunting the non-baited one = baiting (IMO). Sitting on a "traffic lane" miles away from the baited site = not baiting (again, IMO). I'm not sure how it could be proven that a particular bird was flying to a particular site miles away right before it was shot.


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

I hear yah, DR

with that kind of lee way... I'd say short of sitting right on the pond that's baited, if you have a great lawyer you can get out of that one.

400 yds, across two hedgerows and you "never knew there was a bunch of cracked corn that spilled out".... i can see getting out of that one.
(well, until they show the pics of me accidentally cutting that bag open in the back of the truck and it all falling out as I held the bag up, trying to stop the flow..." :evil:

post it up in the other forum. you'll get some expert opinions for sure.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

ahartz said:


> Great recent thread on baiting. This is healthy dicsussion...
> 
> new scenario....
> 
> On a parcel of land there are 5 ponds. Distance between the farthest one's is 1000 feet. Could you bait one pond and never hunt it, while hunting the farthest away pond...and still be legal....how far away is "hunting OVER bait"....andy


Feds have successfully made cases on hunters intercepting birds on the way to baitied areas from miles away. It can be done. Five ponds within a few hundred yards of each other would be baiting no questions asked.


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

DS, I'm assuming their case was alot stronger than; "we saw a bait pile 2 miles away and saw these 4 individuals hunting in the line between said pile and a known roost".

I'm sure they had photo evidence of _intent_ to bait an area by said party, right?


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Looks like our friends across the border deal with this, too. This is from yesterday's Windsor Star:

Amherstburg hunter fined for baiting ducks
By Chris Thompson, The Windsor Star November 3, 2009 

_WINDSOR, Ont. &#8212; An Amherstburg resident has been fined $2,000 for placing corn in a pond before duck hunting season to act as a bait.

Court heard that in Sept. 25, 2009 Ministry of Natural Resources conservation officers were conducting surveillance on a suspected baited pond near Big Creek in the Town of Amherstburg.

The unidentified resident was observed dumping 22 kilograms of corn into the water a day before the opening of duck hunting season to attract the waterfowl.

An all-terrain vehicle was seized at the scene and will be returned upon payment of the fine.

The case was heard in court in Windsor on Oct. 28.

Baiting is done to attract waterfowl to ponds or other waterways so the birds become accustomed to feeding at the site. This gives the hunter an unfair advantage.

It is legal to bait up to 14 days prior to the hunting season.

Hunters may not hunt within 400 metres of a baited site unless it has been free of bait for at least seven days.

The resident is also banned from holding a migratory bird hunting licence for a year.
_


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I'm sure it was a full blown investigation. This is what the Conservation Order says:

(h) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited. Hunters should be aware that a baited area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the taking of any migratory game bird on or over the following lands or areas that are not otherwise baited areas: 
(i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice. 
(ii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with natural vegetation. 
(iii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops, as long as such camouflaging does not result in the exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of grain or other feed.​(iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops where grain is inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds.

The red type is why you can be gotten for utilizing baited areas at any distance if it can be proved that it was "AIDING" your hunt.


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

what if the corn was still on the stalk w/ roots intact and the stalks were stuck into the mud in the bottom of the pond :lol:


----------



## Duckman Racing (Oct 11, 2004)

Shlwego said:


> Looks like our friends across the border deal with this, too. This is from yesterday's Windsor Star:
> 
> Amherstburg hunter fined for baiting ducks
> By Chris Thompson, The Windsor Star November 3, 2009
> ...


I saw this on the other site, I think there is some information missing from the article though. It says "it is legal to bait up to 14 days prior to hunting season" but then also says that if an area "has been free of bait for 7 days" it can be hunted.

Was the guy busted for actually hunting the pond the next day? or was he busted for dumping a bag of corn in the pond the day before the season started?


----------



## donbtanner (Sep 26, 2007)

dead short, whats with the LW&F badge? Haven't seen one of those in a while..... since 80's in Gueydon...... which by the way, I did not recieve a ticket......


----------



## MFPS (Jun 21, 2009)

If it were on the Stalk it would be no differant than hunting a managed area therefore legal... I know a food plotter


----------



## Chewbacca (Apr 5, 2006)

dead short said:


> The red type is why you can be gotten for utilizing baited areas at any distance if it can be proved that it was "AIDING" your hunt.


Right. I'm just saying that it's much too vague to be fair. I'm certainly not advocating the use of bait, but I think that the wording of the regulation is flawed and leaves too much leeway in the hands of the enforcing agency/officer. 

The Canadian article that was posted contained what seemed to me to be a much more clear rule: _Hunters may not hunt within 400 metres of a baited site unless it has been free of bait for at least seven days._

The Canadian version seems to provide more of a bright line. 

What sense does it make to have laws regulating such things, if you're not sure whether or not you're breaking them?

Seatbelt - wear it or get a ticket; don't steal cars; and don't break into houses that aren't yours. All simple rules, and effective for the most part.

Is that bait over there aiding me in attracting waterfowl to this spot 10 miles from the bait? - Ummm.... Not sure. I guess the CO will tell me when he gets here.....


----------



## Spartaned (Jan 24, 2006)

Again, it's all about the Zone of Influence. If ducks are being attracted to an area because of bait, and you're hunting within that area, it's illegal. Five miles away sounds far-fetched, but 500 yards away is within the realm of possibility. Waterfowl being attracted to an area by bait are illegal to hunt. That zone can be a mile square area and hunting will be shut down within it if a baiting case is made. Bait (especially corn) and waterfowl activity associated with the bait are very easy to spot from aircraft, over water or land, and that's how many baiting cases are documented, along with officer observations from the ground on the days leading up to the bust or the day of.


----------



## hunter301000 (Dec 6, 2005)

Everybody better watch out!!! I heard someone in a southern state is baiting, and a few of our flight birds are going to feed there. Your going to get ticketed if you shoot one of them!!!!!!! BS :lol:


----------



## Chewbacca (Apr 5, 2006)

Spartaned said:


> Again, it's all about the Zone of Influence. If ducks are being attracted to an area because of bait, and you're hunting within that area, it's illegal. Five miles away sounds far-fetched, but 500 yards away is within the realm of possibility. Waterfowl being attracted to an area by bait are illegal to hunt. That zone can be a mile square area and hunting will be shut down within it if a baiting case is made. Bait (especially corn) and waterfowl activity associated with the bait are very easy to spot from aircraft, over water or land, and that's how many baiting cases are documented, along with officer observations from the ground on the days leading up to the bust or the day of.


Thanks for the input. Good to see it from someone who's had firsthand experience. 

I wholeheartedly agree that 500 yards is reasonable to enforce. It's when the distance starts to span miles that I feel the case gets shaky.


----------



## Spartaned (Jan 24, 2006)

Never heard of ia closed zone going beyond a mile square...


----------



## firenut8190 (Jul 15, 2006)

Why even bait? Are you that hard up to shoot some ducks.
Its not about killing birds ever time out. It's about being out in the field with your dog or buddies or kids and BSing about old times ect... it's just a bonus to take a bird Some people just don't get it!

What's the old saying? " cheaters never win"


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

If you guys honestly want to see what it's like, go over to Walpole Island, Canada. It's totally legal, the Indians use it to make up for any effort to be good hunters. They all do it.

I'm over it, it negated any skill I might have...the mentally challenged could put you into birds, no offense to them.

I did find out that, if the birds have been around awhile, they'll flare at the slightest sign of corn, land 100 yards away, and sit there 'till dark, and swim in.
It was maddening to see 2-300 birds 100 yards away, not being fooled.


----------



## Gander Club (Dec 31, 2004)

It would appear that the duck clubs around Mitchell's Bay play by a different set of rules. There are baited ponds all over the place. You have to be a certain distance to shoot near them. On the real expensive clubs you just hunt between two ponds and pass shoot!


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

firenut8190 said:


> Why even bait? Are you that hard up to shoot some ducks.
> Its not about killing birds ever time out. It's about being out in the field with your dog or buddies or kids and BSing about old times ect... it's just a bonus to take a bird Some people just don't get it!
> 
> What's the old saying? " cheaters never win"


I was waiting for that. Its ok, I agree with you firenut. 

Thank you guys for all chiming in. all good responses. For many many reasons I would not bait, not the least of which is my job, I will soon be a DNR employee again. and I am one of the few to use my real name here, so I didnt post it expecting to try any of it. full transparency here!!!..... andy


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

You can not shoot birds going into or leaving a baited site.


----------



## Zorba (Jan 24, 2007)

I guess the whole issue is there are holes in the law that you could take advantage of. But, if you get caught your going to get it. I got pinched by the Feds a few years back and I can tell you they do not care.(not for baiting. possesion of cleaned birds) They come in an area and ticket the hell out of everyone. Write the tickets in Fed court so it makes it harder to fight. For me that's a 3 hour ride to Marquette. All they need to know is who you are. After that you will get a ticket in the mail. They tell you plead guilty and it's all over.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

waxico said:


> If you guys honestly want to see what it's like, go over to Walpole Island, Canada. It's totally legal, the Indians use it to make up for any effort to be good hunters. They all do it.
> 
> I'm over it, it negated any skill I might have...the mentally challenged could put you into birds, no offense to them.
> 
> ...


hey wax...you make it sound so.....seedy.....:lol::lol:


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

dirty and soiled, killing versus hunting.

Not my bag...


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

So.....say....if someone posted up and gave away the location of my little honey hole way out in the woods, and some dirty scumbag cyberscouters started hunting it......and I wanted to make_ really_ sure they didn't hunt there again for quite a while...... 

How much does a hundred pounds of shell corn go for these days, anyway? :evilsmile:evilsmile:evilsmile


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

firenut8190 said:


> Its not about killing birds ever time out. It's about being out in the field with your dog or buddies or kids and BSing about old times ect... it's just a bonus to take a bird Some people just don't get it!


Being outside and with your buddies is part of it, but it would be a lot cheaper to sit in the bar with them if shooting birds played no role.

I hunt for the challenge of it and being around friends is the bonus for me, not the other way around.

I will say, after my best duck days and best fishing days I usually find myself not hunting or fishing. I enjoy the days when everything goes right, but in turn, when it does and it is too easy, it just is not as much fun when you know it is a slam dunk.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Spartaned said:


> Again, it's all about the Zone of Influence. If ducks are being attracted to an area because of bait, and you're hunting within that area, it's illegal. Five miles away sounds far-fetched, but 500 yards away is within the realm of possibility. Waterfowl being attracted to an area by bait are illegal to hunt. That zone can be a mile square area and hunting will be shut down within it if a baiting case is made. Bait (especially corn) and waterfowl activity associated with the bait are very easy to spot from aircraft, over water or land, and that's how many baiting cases are documented, along with officer observations from the ground on the days leading up to the bust or the day of.


Sound like you have "all your ducks in a row". Simply put, the further from the bait the hunters are the harder and more complex the investigation would be - surveillance, documentation, maybe covert stuff, interviews. I would guess that most bait is found in the immediate prioximity of the hunters at fault making it a done deal. Remember that the Feds make up the majority of the waterfowl rules and for the most part Michigan Rules usually reflect the fed regs. There are places in this country where baiting miles from the hunt location would/could be productive. Corn as bait is incredibly easy to spot from the air in the right conditions (so are apples, beets, and pumpkins). There are places in my county where baiting within 400-500 yards would be very effective and very illegal. 

Also remember that if you are caught and cited by the feds you can't take care of the ticket in your local court. As mentioned in another post, it goes to the Federal Court. For us that's Bay City.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

hunting man said:


> You can not shoot birds going into or leaving a baited site.


Whewww,, now that that's all cleared up...:lol:


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

Bonney.... change your avatar!
(evil empire) :rant:


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Branta said:


> Bonney.... change your avatar!
> (evil empire) :rant:


:evil: I had to leave it down until they won, I couldn't take a chance on jinxin' 'em..


----------



## Ooey Gooey Bouy (Feb 27, 2007)

dead short said:


> I'm sure it was a full blown investigation. This is what the Conservation Order says:
> 
> (h) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited. Hunters should be aware that a baited area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the taking of any migratory game bird on or over the following lands or areas that are not otherwise baited areas:
> (i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice.
> ...




Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas??


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Ooey Gooey Bouy said:


> Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas??


I read it differently. It is not considered baited to hunt over standing crops.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Ooey Gooey Bouy said:


> Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas??


Quote:
Originally Posted by dead short 
I'm sure it was a full blown investigation. This is what the Conservation Order says:


(h) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited. Hunters should be aware that a baited area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the taking of any migratory game bird on or over the following lands or areas that are not otherwise baited areas: 
(i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice. 
(ii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with natural vegetation. 
(iii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops, as long as such camouflaging does not result in the exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of grain or other feed. 
(iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops where grain is inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds.

The red type is why you can be gotten for utilizing baited areas at any distance if it can be proved that it was "AIDING" your hunt. 



Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas?? 

The managed areas fall into all the exceptions listed:
(i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice. 
(ii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with natural vegetation. 
(iii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops, as long as such camouflaging does not result in the exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of grain or other feed. 
(iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops where grain is inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds.

The only thing that would make them baited is if someone took additional grain and threw it out on the ground or stood there and purposely shook the corn (or whatever) onto the ground making it more accessible to the birds.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Ooey Gooey Bouy said:


> Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas??


No, the managed areas are legal. Read the highlighted info below:

_(h) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited. Hunters should be aware that a baited area is considered to be baited for 10 days after the removal of the bait. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the taking of any migratory game bird on or over the following lands or areas that are not otherwise baited areas: 
*(i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops* (including aquatics); standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice. _​*(iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops*_ where grain is inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds._

Since the managed areas fall under these categories, they are not considered baited.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Ooey Gooey Bouy said:


> Under these rules, technically all of the managed waterfowl areas in Mi (Fish Point, Harsen's, etc....) are illegal. Are the refuges not baited?? What about the people that hunt the bays surrounding these areas??


 Yes the managed areas are all baited. You would get a ticket for harvesting only half a private owned field and then hunting it.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

hunting man said:


> Yes the managed areas are all baited. You would get a ticket for harvesting only half a private owned field and then hunting it.


Not true. The managed areas are NOT baited, or do you know something we don't? As for private land, I know of several farmers who leave a few rows of corn standing so that hunters have a place to hide. WHEN a farmer decides to harvest his crop is his business. If he decides to harvest only a portion of his field and leave another portion standing, it does not mean that hunting over the portion that is havested is hunting over bait.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

So could I plant a field of corn and then flood it and hunt in it?


----------



## ajmorell (Apr 27, 2007)

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> So could I plant a field of corn and then flood it and hunt in it?


That is my understanding, but to be honest I don't know for sure. I was told you can add water to the corn but not corn to the water.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> So could I plant a field of corn and then flood it and hunt in it?


The answer is: I know where you live and you don't have enough property! :lol:

Serious answer is "YES."


----------



## lastflight (Aug 16, 2005)

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> So could I plant a field of corn and then flood it and hunt in it?


Yes. Just don't knock any cobbs down while you are retrieving birds or picking up decoys. 

As for the managed area, they are NOT baited because the crops are being harvested in normal way. If they brush-hogged all of the corn then it would be baited (and amazing to hunt :evilsmile).


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

lastflight said:


> Yes. Just don't knock any cobbs down while you are retrieving birds or picking up decoys.
> 
> As for the managed area, they are NOT baited because the crops are being harvested in normal way. If they brush-hogged all of the corn then it would be baited (and amazing to hunt :evilsmile).


If a guy had the land and the means he could flood his own corn and hunt over it.

On another note, the last bait that I had to deal with was actually guys that had brush-hogged corn. Does not fall into the "normal agricultural practice" and is definitely considered baited.


----------



## DuckMan87 (Jun 11, 2009)

how do corn fields not=bait? just cuz its not a pile of corn?




waxico said:


> Do you have native Unicorns in Rainbow Villlage?
> Is Tinkerbell the mayor?
> 
> I would use Flamingo decoys to hunt field #7...OH CRAP, I'M GONNA GET FLAMED!


and they actually hunt tinkerbells there...kinda like teal


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

flooded corn private or state is legal to hunt. flooded beans private or state is legal. you need permission from owner of the standing crop to hunt it though as you would be disturbing his crop....

we have a few locals who flood corn here in our county on private and do it well. it is 100% legal and is not considered baiting. If you harvest some of that crop before flooding it has to be harvested through normal means and no excess spillage or "mowing" it down.



DuckMan87 said:


> how do corn fields not=bait? just cuz its not a pile of corn?


because its a standing crop. its no different than a farmers corn field out in BFE that has water. Birds still have to work for it and its spread out, on the cob, and unshucked. I think its obvious that dumping a 1ton load of corn into a flooding and hunting outa of a corn strip that is unharvested.....the difference should be evident.

its basically the difference between food plots vs. carrot pile. one is grown by nature and other is placed by man. Some will still call a food plot baiting, but to each his own i guess.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

DuckMan87 said:


> how do corn fields not=bait? just cuz its not a pile of corn?


Simple question/Simple Answer - Yes. If you read all the posts before that deal with the legal description of what bait is and what it isn't, it really isn't that difficult to figure it out.


----------



## firenut8190 (Jul 15, 2006)

So if I ate a couple cans of corn then went out waterfowl hunting the next morning and had to you know..... Now is that baiting?


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

firenut8190 said:


> So if I ate a couple cans of corn then went out waterfowl hunting the next morning and had to you know..... Now is that baiting?


 
If you would eat a duck after you saw a duck eat that......that there's some issues........:yikes:


----------

