Baiting North Ga vs South Ga

[Zforzachariah14]

I'm not sure if anyone else is confused why South Ga can "bait" and North Ga cannot. It seems to me that it should be complete opposite. South GA is typically flat and a lot more farm ground where you can plant food plots and grow crops to help the deer population. It's hard to plant food plots on mountain sides and hills that are vertical versus horizontal. Anyone else think this or am I missing the whole point?

 

[colts]

IMO Keeps the Fla. hunters happy. They bring a lot of revenue in.

 

[timbgtm]

I believe dnr has it right on this one. There's more Hunter's here in the northern zone and housing also to deal with.

 

[Bear44]

The deer population in the south is much more dense and at risk of over population. That's why it's legal to bait there, not because poac... uh, hunters wanted it.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Ahhh... "baiting".... that age old topic where everyone agrees.

Here's mine from a BIOLOGICAL standpoint which is the only reason hunting even exists today.
How many people think a deer has EVER starved to death in the Georgia? I won't even bring up the possibility for disease transfer as the responses will be typical.
Given I assume everyone knows the answer to that question is zero, then the only reason to shoot over bait is to increase your odds, right? The problem is, the facts show you are LESS likely to shoot a deer, particularly a mature buck, over a bait pile (thanks to our neighbors in South Carolina for that objective data). So then it becomes a matter of personal preference and or what you are used to. South Georgia, as has been pointed out, is closer to FL where it's been legal for years and the fact is probably had more as a percentage of shooters violating the old law. They lobbied their legislatures and the north hunters did as well and we got the half pregnant division we have now.
If you think you "need" to bait to shoot a deer in Georgia, you are doing it wrong... WAY wrong. YMMV.

 

[GeorgiaGun1]

There are instances where smaller tracts of land are suitable to feeding programs. This arbitrary distance from feeders is ridiculous. Private is private land.

I can see the restrictions on public land. But what and how I handle my personal property isn't really anyone's business. (Within reasonable safety concerns of course, have to add that to make sure the whole "nuclear waste dumping" example isnt used against me) ;-)

I feed my deer. I like to see them. Even have several named. But I also harvest several of them a year to provide for my family.

The only detail apparently that matters is am I within xxx yards of my feeders. Like some miraculous thing happens at xxx yards....

Feeders aren't necessary to take a deer, but a management program for wildlife can make a property much better overall. Food plots, supplemental feeding, predator control, and habitat improvement all are elements to a properly handled program for wildlife.

 

[GeauxLSU]

There are instances where smaller tracts of land are suitable to feeding programs. This arbitrary distance from feeders is ridiculous. Private is private land.
I can see the restrictions on public land. But what and how I handle my personal property isn't really anyone's business. (Within reasonable safety concerns of course, have to add that to make sure the whole "nuclear waste dumping" example isnt used against me) ;-)
I feed my deer. I like to see them. Even have several named. But I also harvest several of them a year to provide for my family.

The only detail apparently that matters is am I within xxx yards of my feeders. Like some miraculous thing happens at xxx yards....

Feeders aren't necessary to take a deer, but a management program for wildlife can make a property much better overall. Food plots, supplemental feeding, predator control, and habitat improvement all are elements to a properly handled program for wildlife.

The issue is wildlife are not your personal property. They are a natural resource like any other. They are no more "your deer" than it's "your air" or "your water". The attitude that the wildlife "belongs" to individuals is exactly why we have the regulations we do. Left to our own devices, we've already proven we will decimate the populations up to and including extinction. "Look, a passenger pigeon!"

I completely agree, the arbitrary distance is absurd. It should be all or nothing.

 

[Shutter Monkey]

Ahhh... "baiting".... that age old topic where everyone agrees.

If you think you "need" to bait to shoot a deer in Georgia, you are doing it wrong... WAY wrong. YMMV.

I totally agree... but (you knew there was a "but" right? ), patterning a buck in the millions of acres of dense N. GA Piedmont forest across thousands of property lines is incredibly difficult even if the hunter could go anywhere they wanted.... I'd say virtually impossible for the average weekend warrior. In the absence of acres and acres of cultivated farm land/forest transitions like they have in south GA, the DNR could at least throw us Northern boys a bone and allow baiting. I doubt it would make any difference to the harvest and it would shut up lots of disgruntled part time shootists.

 

[Toddmann]

Hunting deer up north is already easy enough hunting those wide open hills and saddles that create easy funnel routes to make deer sooo easy to kill. Heck if y'all put corn out it would be like shooting fish in a tiny barrel. Don't get your blood pressure up I am just joking. Be glad you don't have baiting up there. It changes the natural flow of wildlife, sets up disease transfer areas and increases your hunting cost.

 

[drewga11]

Baiting isnt always a surefire way to see or kill deer. I put out a feeder last year, set to dispense twice a day during daylight hours only. The main reason for the feeder was to try to get more deer on camera, to get a better idea of what size deer were using our property. The only deer that actually visited the feeder during daylight hours were deer that were less than a year old. Every other deer on camera was after dark.