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

[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.

[shogun]

You cannot bait in MN no matter what.

This was being discussed in another thread:

http://www.fishingminnesota.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1184949&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[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.

[Tadpoletodd]

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

[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!

[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.

[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".