BS violation today

[Dos Perros]

How did the wardens even get access? Either the owner let them on, they trespassed, or they could see the feeder from the road and used that to establish probable cause — which seems pretty weak (how could they know it had feed in it from the road?).

 

[Marbles]

From the AGFC website "A hunter is liable for a baiting violation if he or she knows, or reasonably should know, that the area is or has been baited, even following complete removal of bait."

"There is no set distance from a baited site that a hunter may shoot a turkey. If the wildlife officer deems the bait is aiding the hunter in harvesting a turkey, the hunter can be cited for a violation."

It sounds like it will depend on the judge and how well you can argue that it was reasonable for you not to know the corn was there. It sounds like it comes down to would a reasonable person have checked the feeder when they first saw it? Or, on this particular lease, would a reasonable person have expected it to be inactive. Good luck, I can see it going either way unfortunately.

 

[Bubblehide]

From the AGFC website "A hunter is liable for a baiting violation if he or she knows, or reasonably should know, that the area is or has been baited, even following complete removal of bait."

"There is no set distance from a baited site that a hunter may shoot a turkey. If the wildlife officer deems the bait is aiding the hunter in harvesting a turkey, the hunter can be cited for a violation."

It sounds like it will depend on the judge and how well you can argue that it was reasonable for you not to know the corn was there. It sounds like it comes down to would a reasonable person have checked the feeder when they first saw it? Or, on this particular lease, would a reasonable person have expected it to be inactive. Good luck, I can see it going either way unfortunately.

No turkey was shot, so it looks like he can beat the reg you posted, as the bait did not aid in anything.

 

[Bubblehide]

Furthermore, thevregulation is flawed. I mean, if I am a mile from the bait site, 10 miles from it, 100 miles from it, a warden could, under this reg, determine the bait aided in the take of a turkey . The reg needs to be re-written.

 

[2ski]

I guess my take is if you pay to hunt the lease, its reasonable to assume that you would know there's an active feeder. Also, how would the warden know who does or doesn't know.

I'm sure game wardens have never been lied to so when someone tells them they didn't know, they should believe them. Sarcasm.

I see why you're not happy, but I can also see it from the other side.

 

[Bubblehide]

I guess my take is if you pay to hunt the lease, its reasonable to assume that you would know there's an active feeder. Also, how would the warden know who does or doesn't know.

I'm sure game wardens have never been lied to so when someone tells them they didn't know, they should believe them. Sarcasm.

I see why you're not happy, but I can also see it from the other side.

"Or reasonably should know"

 

[Bubblehide]

The part above can be subjective. What I mean is, let's say the OP entered the property and took a path in which the feeder was not visible. A rational person could only conclude that it is not reasonable to expect the OP to know it was there, but the Warden could chose to still vote him.

My point here is that subjective laws should not be on the books, and such laws have a long well established history of the courts throwing such cases out.

 

[Bubblehide]

@Gapmaster I suggest you take all the info here and call the regional F&W law enforcement supervisor and explain the situation along with how you did not violate the regulation you were cited for. The odds are he or she will retract the citation and you will not need to go to court.

 

[Marbles]

Furthermore, thevregulation is flawed. I mean, if I am a mile from the bait site, 10 miles from it, 100 miles from it, a warden could, under this reg, determine the bait aided in the take of a turkey . The reg needs to be re-written.

I will not argue about it being poorly written. I don't know in regards to this law specifically, but I do know some laws in Arkansas where intentionally written vaguely to allow for selective enforcement. Of course, sometimes poorly written laws only had good intentions and incompetence behind them.

I think the period in the second paragraph shows a clear separation of ideas and the part that matters is "If the wildlife officer deems the bait is aiding the hunter in harvesting a turkey, the hunter can be cited for a violation." An additional problem is that most likely is not the exact wording of the law, but a summary of the actual regulation and any applicable case law, so trying to pick the wording and punctuation apart is probably not worth while.

The post by @GunsAreFun is a good example of a time when it was clearly unreasonable for the person to know.

Of course, in the end I'm not a lawyer, much less a lawyer with expertise in the areas in question, so it all just comes down to spitballing ideas.

 

[wapitibob]

How do you hunt over bait that's 300 yards away?
I'd have called those guys every blue word in the book.

 

[11boo]

BS is putting it mildly.

 

[Rob5589]

From the AGFC website "A hunter is liable for a baiting violation if he or she knows, or reasonably should know, that the area is or has been baited, even following complete removal of bait."

"There is no set distance from a baited site that a hunter may shoot a turkey. If the wildlife officer deems the bait is aiding the hunter in harvesting a turkey, the hunter can be cited for a violation."

It sounds like it will depend on the judge and how well you can argue that it was reasonable for you not to know the corn was there. It sounds like it comes down to would a reasonable person have checked the feeder when they first saw it? Or, on this particular lease, would a reasonable person have expected it to be inactive. Good luck, I can see it going either way unfortunately.

In that case, the OP may be out of luck. He saw the feeder, walked a few hundred yards, then proceeded to hunt. On his way back he was busted. The law definitely needs to be cleaned up.

 

[Squincher]

Lengthy I know...So I took my son on his first turkey hunt this morning. Arkansas youth weekend. Went to a lease that I’m a member of. We walked down an old road that I’ve used for locating birds my entire life. Someone had a deer stand and a corn feeder still up from deer seasons. We walked straight by it and down the ridge another 300 yards. I proceeded to crack off a few calls but heard zip in return. Walked back towards my truck and when we went by the feeder, 3 wardens stood up out of the brush. My son (13) was given a warning for hunting over bait. I was given the same warning and issued a citation for “aiding/abetting” because I supposedly let him do it.
I know you can’t bait turkeys. I never have and never will. I honestly didn’t even pay attention to the feeder because it wasn’t mine and I didn’t even know it was there until we topped the ridge. There was still some corn in the feeder and a tiny bit on the ground.
Didn’t matter to the warden. Simply wrong place, wrong time. But not the way a kid should be introduced to Game and Fish officers. Most are simply doing their jobs. But this was overboard. I will be fighting it in court. Thoughts???

You need a lawyer if you are going to court, and not one of the internet variety. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

 

[5MilesBack]

Here's another take on it........how big is the property? Is all the property around it private or public? A warden could make a case that there was an active feeder on the hunting lease property, which is being used to attract birds from other properties "to the leased property" for the purpose of hunting them........regardless how far away from the feeder you are, and regardless whether that was YOUR intent or not. The facts are........there's an active feeder during turkey season on that lease.........and your son was hunting that lease.

 

[Laelkhunter]

Would it be any different than the wardens putting out fake deer/elk near roads and citing people for shooting them?

Not quite the same. Robo deer/Elk are used to catch "road hunters" who are a true danger to everyone when someone shoots from a vehicle at an animal onto property that belongs to someone else.
A deer feeder on private property on a deer hunting lease that was left there and you get ticketed for "walking by" and hunting a ways from it isn't fair. Some would say "You should have known", but it sounds like there was no intention to violate the law here.

 

[5MilesBack]

Not quite the same. Robo deer/Elk are used to catch "road hunters" who are a true danger to everyone when someone shoots from a vehicle at an animal onto property that belongs to someone else.

In CO, they set them up off the road on national forest land and then sit, wait, and watch for all the folks that shoot at them from a vehicle. From a safety perspective, there isn't much difference between shooting from a vehicle on the side of the road, and getting out of the vehicle and shooting from the proper distance from the road.

I've always wanted to find one of those here, and then park.........get out.......walk off the 50 feet required from the centerline of the road, and then light that target up.

Back in the 80's I read an article in the paper detailing one of these stakeouts/setups. One of their comments made me laugh......."A vehicle stopped on the road and two guys got out with their rifles. They proceeded to each shoot four rounds into the fake deer and then proclaimed how tough that deer was. They each reloaded and shot off another four rounds before we approached them to tell them the deer was fake and issue them citations."

 

[rayporter]

since you walked past the feeder to hunt i think you are going to lose.

 

[JNDEER]

In Ca based on the letter of the law, you would lose in court, no ands if's or butts about that. Your state, I have no idea. I presume the law is very similar if not the same, as such, you should have been the legal distance required from the corn on the ground. It is the hunters responsibility.

I am not saying I like it, I am just stating it the way it is, with zero candy coating.

1 - you can legally feed birds
2- you have to be hunting within X amount of yards (200 I think?) of the feed for you to be guilty of hunting over bait.


just so others know some of the specifics for CA regs

 

[Donjuan]

Since it is a lease, can you find out who has the feeder and have them vouch for it? I am afraid the games will just consider it everyone in the clubs duty to know where it is. I'm guessing since they could see it by the road, it was an easy setup for them

 

[FLAK]

Thats a crock.
Now I gotta scout for feeders before I hunt?