08-03-2006, 02:09 PM
To bait or not to bait
Hunters question proposed bill
ATLANTA — Consider it the Mason-Dixon line of Georgia hunting.
To hunters north of the line, which would be etched across the center of the state from LaGrange to Burke County, just below Augusta, there would be no change.
But if a House proposal passes, hunters south of that line would be allowed to hunt over bait, no small feat in the hunting community.
That means hunters could put grain, apples or any other type of bait in a feeder to lure animals within their line of sight. It also means that it could be much easier for some outdoors enthusiasts to rack up kills each deer season.
The proposal brings up a philosophic rift among Georgia’s hunters. Should the state make it easier for new hunters to speedily experience the sport by savoring the value of a quick kill? Or should it keep the current law, which requires the feeders to be 200 yards away from hunters?
State Rep. Jay Roberts, the proposal’s sponsor, noticed that rift, as well as a geographic split, while traveling around the state talking about the proposal. Hunters in the northern half of the state were firmly opposed to the change. But down in south Georgia, he said, they favored it.
‘‘Let’s get everybody the opportunity to choose what they want to,’’ said Roberts, a Republican from Ocilla, in south-central Georgia. ‘‘I don’t see any difference hunting over a food plot or hunting over a feeder.’’
Some hunters, however, say it takes a shot at their passion.
‘‘To me, hunting is a sport. What sport is there in killing over bait?’’ asked Bob Ledford of Taylor County, a member of the Anybuckadoo Hunting Club in central Georgia. ‘‘Notice I said killing not hunting. There is no sport in baiting animals. I don’t do it.’’
The state’s Department of Natural Resources has emerged as one of the plan’s leading opponents.
It warns hunting over bait could increase the risk for transmission of diseases from the deer to other animals, disrupt feeding habits and attract rodents.
The agency also opposes the change because, they contend, it threatens the principles of hunting.
‘‘Hunting is a skill that is learned and with it comes respect for the animal that you are hunting and a sense of being part of the conservation of the animal as a species,’’ said Melissa Cummings, a spokeswoman for the DNR’s wildlife resources division.
‘‘Scores of younger generations will lose this respect and sense of conservation if the only hunting they know is over a pile of corn.’’
But Wesley Paulk, an agricultural teacher who hunts deer on his 600-acre farm near Ocilla, said changing the law just legalizes the tactics some hunters already use.
‘‘I can go in and plant corn, just like in a food plot. It’s legal to hunt over it,’’ he said. ‘‘But you can’t put it in a barrel and hunt over it as the law stands now. And I just don’t see any difference.’’
If the proposal reaches the House floor, the debate promises to be lively.
In a Rules Committee meeting last week, roughly half the members noisily voiced their opposition to the bill while the other half clamored just as loudly for it.
‘‘Sometimes,’’ state Rep. Earl Ehrhart of Powder Springs said with a smile, ‘‘we need to move on controversial issues.’’
GREG BLUESTEIN
Associated Press Writer
Mvh
Kim
Jeg er ikke fejlfri,men det er så tæt på at det skræmmer mig.
Hunters question proposed bill
ATLANTA — Consider it the Mason-Dixon line of Georgia hunting.
To hunters north of the line, which would be etched across the center of the state from LaGrange to Burke County, just below Augusta, there would be no change.
But if a House proposal passes, hunters south of that line would be allowed to hunt over bait, no small feat in the hunting community.
That means hunters could put grain, apples or any other type of bait in a feeder to lure animals within their line of sight. It also means that it could be much easier for some outdoors enthusiasts to rack up kills each deer season.
The proposal brings up a philosophic rift among Georgia’s hunters. Should the state make it easier for new hunters to speedily experience the sport by savoring the value of a quick kill? Or should it keep the current law, which requires the feeders to be 200 yards away from hunters?
State Rep. Jay Roberts, the proposal’s sponsor, noticed that rift, as well as a geographic split, while traveling around the state talking about the proposal. Hunters in the northern half of the state were firmly opposed to the change. But down in south Georgia, he said, they favored it.
‘‘Let’s get everybody the opportunity to choose what they want to,’’ said Roberts, a Republican from Ocilla, in south-central Georgia. ‘‘I don’t see any difference hunting over a food plot or hunting over a feeder.’’
Some hunters, however, say it takes a shot at their passion.
‘‘To me, hunting is a sport. What sport is there in killing over bait?’’ asked Bob Ledford of Taylor County, a member of the Anybuckadoo Hunting Club in central Georgia. ‘‘Notice I said killing not hunting. There is no sport in baiting animals. I don’t do it.’’
The state’s Department of Natural Resources has emerged as one of the plan’s leading opponents.
It warns hunting over bait could increase the risk for transmission of diseases from the deer to other animals, disrupt feeding habits and attract rodents.
The agency also opposes the change because, they contend, it threatens the principles of hunting.
‘‘Hunting is a skill that is learned and with it comes respect for the animal that you are hunting and a sense of being part of the conservation of the animal as a species,’’ said Melissa Cummings, a spokeswoman for the DNR’s wildlife resources division.
‘‘Scores of younger generations will lose this respect and sense of conservation if the only hunting they know is over a pile of corn.’’
But Wesley Paulk, an agricultural teacher who hunts deer on his 600-acre farm near Ocilla, said changing the law just legalizes the tactics some hunters already use.
‘‘I can go in and plant corn, just like in a food plot. It’s legal to hunt over it,’’ he said. ‘‘But you can’t put it in a barrel and hunt over it as the law stands now. And I just don’t see any difference.’’
If the proposal reaches the House floor, the debate promises to be lively.
In a Rules Committee meeting last week, roughly half the members noisily voiced their opposition to the bill while the other half clamored just as loudly for it.
‘‘Sometimes,’’ state Rep. Earl Ehrhart of Powder Springs said with a smile, ‘‘we need to move on controversial issues.’’
GREG BLUESTEIN
Associated Press Writer
Mvh
Kim
Jeg er ikke fejlfri,men det er så tæt på at det skræmmer mig.