Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Tadpoletodd

To Bait...or Not to Bait ???

Recommended Posts

Tadpoletodd

Quote from 2007 MN Hunting Regulations, pg 72...

Bait

• Liquid scents, salt, and minerals are not considered bait, unless they contain other foods defined below as bait.

• “Bait” is grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer and that has been transported and placed by a person.

• This restriction does not apply to foods resulting from normal or accepted farming, forest management, wildlife food plantings, orchard management, or similar land management activities.

• The restriction does not apply to a person hunting on their own property, when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person.

• Hunters are not allowed to use bait or hunt in the vicinity of bait that the hunter knows about or has reason to know about or hunt in the vicinity where bait has been placed within the previous ten days.

Bullet point #4 clearly states that the restriction to use bait does not apply to someone hunting on their own property as long as certain stipulations (...involvement...agreement...with neighbor...) are met. Could this not be interpreted that if you are hunting on your own property, and you have no direct or indirect involvement with a neighbor regarding baiting, you can hunt over bait yourself. Is that interpretation incorrect?!?

I've always thought baiting was prohibited across the board. But then I read that, do a double take, read it again and then ask myself "does this mean I can hunt over an apple pile on my own property as long as I'm not in cahoots with my neighbors, etc, etc?" It just got me thinking.

I'm new to the hunting portion of this forum and did a search on this subject but came up with nothing. I apologize if it's been covered already. I'm interested in any feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shack

Quote:


when the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to feeding wildlife on adjacent land owned by another person.


This part pertains to the property owner/hunter!

If you do not participate in the baiting going on next door, you can not get in trouble.

Last year, you could get in trouble even if you did not know about your neighbors bait pile. Last year, as long as the deer you shot, eat from you neighbors bail pile, you could get fined.

The was changed to protect a hunter from getting in trouble from this occurring. Also to protect a hunter from hunter harassment by a neighbors purposely baiting deer to make a hunter not able to hunt that land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tadpoletodd

Thanks for the link to the other thread. I figured this had been hashed out in depth already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shack

Now, this rule does not apply to public lands, only private lands! That still is a grey area.

Scenario:

I hunt state forest land, that buts up against private property. The owner of the private property has a bait pile for deer pictures, habitat or hunter harassment. The private land owner could even be hunting illegally him self over bait pile. In theory, even if you do not know about bait pile, it is illegal for you as the hunter to hunt over a trail or deer that comes from that pile.

Now your chances of getting into trouble are going to be slim, if you did not know about the bait pile. But, there is that lingering doubt that something could happen. I wonder how many times CO’s and Game wardens hear “I am not involved” or “I did not know” and that person was lying and found to be lying. I think CO’s and Wardens might rather have a court of law decide if you are lying or not. Thus a ticket or fines are issued and bla, bla, bla! That’s the way I think my luck would be!

I think we will see a law change next year to include the hunter on public lands as well. Or maybe not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gspman

This point was brought up either on the radio or on KFAN outdoors lately and the DNR rep made it clear that it's not okay. The rule on bullet #4 is being misinterpreted that it's okay to bait on your own land when it still is not. You will see this rule change to be made more clear next year.

I'd follow bullet #5 to be on the safe side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tadpoletodd

Oh, I have, and will, continue to follow #5. I read the other post and some people implied I'm "insane" for interpreting it the way I did. I wasn't looking for a loop-hole. It truly was just the honest interpretation I made after simply reading it through several times. I don't think I'm "insane". tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • leech~~
      Here's a little back ground. The Dakota originally called the lake Mde Maka Ska (modern spelling Bde Maka Ska, pronunciation: Be-DAY Mah-KAH-Ska)[5] meaning White Earth Lake,[6] or White Bank Lake,[7] a name that probably was given by the Ioway who inhabited the area until the 16th century. Another Dakota name for the lake may have been Mde Med'oza, which was the name initially adopted by settlers, either as Lake Medoza or in translation as Loon Lake.[8] The Dakota also described it as Heyate Mde, meaning "Lake Set Back (from the River)".[9] The United States Secretary of War, John C. Calhoun, sent the Army to survey the area that would surround Fort Snelling in 1817. Calhoun had also authorized the construction of Fort Snelling, one of the earliest Euro-American settlements in the state. The surveyors renamed the water body "Lake Calhoun" in his honor. The Fort Snelling Military Reservation survey map created by Lt. James L. Thompson in 1839 clearly shows the lake as bearing the name "Calhoun".[10] Minneapolis skyline reflected in the lake in 2010 Calhoun's legacy as a pro-slavery politician has led critics to question whether he is the best person to be honored. In 2011 the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board visited the issue. Their legal counsel concluded that the board could not legally change the name, as state law gives that power to the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and then only in the first 40 years after the name was designated. Following the Charleston church shooting in June 2015, a fresh drive to change the name started via an online petition. The Park Board indicated it would look into whether they could change the lake's name through state action,[11][12] and in fall 2015 added the Dakota name to signage below the official name.[1] On March 22, 2016, an advisory group decided via majority vote to urge the Minnesota Park and Recreation Board to restore the lake's former name.[13] In 2017, the Minneapolis Park Board voted unanimously to change the lake's name back to that of Bde Maka Ska[14] and the Hennepin County commissioners approved it more narrowly.[15] The change needs final approval at state and federal level in order to go into effect.[16] There was also a proposal to rename the lake for Senator Paul Wellstone, who is buried in nearby Lakewood Cemetery.[17]
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources today announced the State of Minnesota has approved changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis to Bde Maka Ska. The DNR’s decision follows a Hennepin County Board resolution requesting the change.  “The DNR respects the role of elected county boards in determining name changes for geographic features,” DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr said.  “In this instance, I am confident the Hennepin County Board carefully considered community values and citizen perspectives in determining that this was the right action to take. DNR’s role is to ensure the county followed the proper process.” The DNR’s decision means the lake name change will become official in Minnesota when the DNR’s approval is officially recorded by Hennepin County and published in the State Register. Hennepin County commissioners voted to seek the name change Nov. 28. The DNR will submit the Hennepin County resolution, along with the state approval, to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, which will approve or deny the name change for federal use. The DNR is the state agency that approves or denies name changes for geographic features, after Minnesota counties consider name change resolutions, gather public input and vote on proposed changes. In considering county requests to name a geographic feature or change a feature’s name, the DNR’s role is to consider 1) whether the county followed a proper public process prior to taking its action, and 2) whether the county-approved name complies with naming conventions. For example, names must avoid confusion with similarly named features, and names may not commemorate a living person. A copy of the DNR’s order for this name change and details on how Minnesota geographic features are named are available on the naming geographic features webpage. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • monstermoose78
      Saturday is the day I will open blue lake wide open If I have to
    • opsirc
      I had too go to his face book page
    • shaneD
      my dad grew up in The Pas, my grand parents owned the avenue hotel and they had a place on Clearwater. Summers we would go up and fish and ski and such. Lots of good memories, other than the horseflies (Bulldogs). My experience was always it really didn't matter what you used, for lakers as long as it was shiny it got hit. Our technique was pretty simple, drop it to the bottom and reel is up fast. they hit hard on the way up and its clear like superior so you can see them a long way down if you have good ice. The river right out of town is good for char too.
    • Poseidon
      Yeah, ok, I'm using the 8. My drill also overheated after punching 5-6 holes in quick succession. Thanks for the responses... sorry for hijacking the thread
    • shaneD
      So I just came back from Lake Winnipeg, and the 3 feet of ice they have there and found my auger lacking. I gave up the gas auger years ago to switch to the clam plate and drill. Around here, even Bemidji where I fish the most, I have never had a problem with getting through the ice. Lake Winnipeg is a different story. Anyway, I have a 6 inch bit now, and when with drilling a couple holes side by side to deal with the big fish but thinking back to my old 10 inch strikemaster I was almost willing to deal with all the issues I had with it to have some space to wrangle a fish. Soooo, im looking at going with an 8 inch bit, with the Milwaukee and the clam plate. I know that clam had a gearbox in the past that would help with that but seems they no longer offer it. will I tear up my drill with the bigger auger? I have two 9 amp batteries  and double the torque now too so I'm figuring a few  extra holes compared to the five amps and 650inc pounds I had for the previous drill setup. Suggestions? thoughts? other than getting a gas auger, cuz that isn't happening.
    • mrpike1973
      That would make a difference now wouldn't it?  Oops my mistake I have a 6 inch just got done fishing today with 5 amp battery I got 27 holes at 19 inches of ice. I noticed the drill seemed warm after drilling 5-6 in a row but no problems. I don't have a gas auger any more but I see what the guys are saying about a power auger.
    • Pat McGraw
      Thank you.
    • Capt. Quicksteel
      If you want to get in there by snow mobile or walking over, Wolf Lake is worth a try.
  • Share & Have Fun