# The Rules if your Neighbor is Baiting/Windermere



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

What are the exact rules about bow hunting if your neighbor is baiting?  I heard that everyone hunting Windermere had a visit from the DNR and he told them they could not hunt it because so many neighbors had feeders out.  

People have feeders everywhere around Metro Atlanta, but can that prevent you from Bow hunting a spot if your property does not have a feeder.

I have tried to find this in the regulations, but the wording is so pathetic.  It needs to be more written in stone.


----------



## Impact97 (Dec 10, 2015)

*Feeders*

As long as the feeders are 250 yds away and out if site, you can hunt all day.


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

What if your neighbor's feeder is 100 yds or closer?


----------



## j_seph (Dec 10, 2015)

Impact97 said:


> As long as the feeders are 250 yds away and out if site, you can hunt all day.


http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/14gahd/bait-the-taking-of-game-feral-hogs-over-bait/


In the Northern Deer Zone, it is  unlawful to hunt deer upon, around, over or near any feed or bait when  the hunter is less than *200 yards away or within sight of such feed or  bait.* *

This seems interesting right here, are the homeowners actually the ones breaking the law?

 Any such feed shall not be placed in a manner as to cause hunting  on an adjacent property to be prohibited.* The placing of any feed or  bait and the hunting of deer over such feed or bait on any state or  federal lands is prohibited.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Negative. Someone baiting their property does not preclude you from hunting your property even if both you and the bait are on immediate opposite sides of the property line.


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

The wording is terrible, and it needs to be re written.  For example....what if you live on 2 acres and your neighbor has 2 acres and you want to bow hunt it, but your neighbor has a feeder out?  What would you do?


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Negative. Someone baiting their property does not preclude you from hunting your property even if both you and the bait are on immediate opposite sides of the property line.



But.....can u hunt if the feeder is within 200 yds on the adjacent property.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> The wording is terrible, and it needs to be re written.  For example....what if you live on 2 acres and your neighbor has 2 acres and you want to bow hunt it, but your neighbor has a feeder out?  What would you do?



The wording is excellent, to wit:

O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9  

(a.1) *It shall be unlawful for any person to place*, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter any corn, wheat, or other grains, salts, apples, or other feeds or *bait* so as to constitute a lure or attraction or enticement *for any game bird or game animal* on or over any area where hunters are or will be hunting.

(a.2) *Nothing in subsection (a.1)* of this Code section *shall prohibit any person from placing,* exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering any corn, wheat, or other grains, salts, apples, or other feeds or *bait so as to constitute a lure or attraction or enticement for deer on lands that are not under the ownership or control and management of the state or federal government; *provided, *however, that any such lure or attraction or enticement shall not cause hunting on any adjoining property to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section.*

(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt any game bird or game animal upon, over, around, or near any place where any corn, wheat, or other grains, salts, apples, or other feed or bait has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered so as to constitute a lure, attraction, or enticement to such birds or animals. It shall also be unlawful to hunt any game animal or game bird upon, over, around, or near any such place for a period of ten days following the complete removal of all such feed or bait.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> But.....can u hunt if the feeder is within 200 yds on the adjacent property.



Your neighbor can pour corn out on the ground right next to the property line and you can hunt on your property on the other side of the property line right next to the corn.

See O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9 (a.2) above.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

Get your hunt on!


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

A baiting neighbor is the best kind of neighbor!


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

Well....if anybody was a part of the Windermere situation where the DNR said no hunting because the feeders were everywhere throughout the area, they need to fight it.

But, I was afraid the wording was vague so the DNR could do what they wanted to do.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> Well....if anybody was a part of the Windermere situation where the DNR said no hunting because the feeders were everywhere throughout the area, they need to fight it.
> 
> But, I was afraid the wording was vague so the DNR could do what they wanted to do.



The GW cannot supercede state law. 

If the bait is on an adjoining property and you are hunting on property right next to it it doesn't matter if there is a train car load of corn next door just across the property line. You can still hunt your property without violating the law. The law is crystal clear and either the GW was wrong or whoever told you that misunderstood the GW and any GW making a case over it is going to lose badly in court.

The size of the property makes no difference and the distance from the bait on the other property makes no difference. No bait on your property = you are good to go. Period.


----------



## gtgeorge (Dec 10, 2015)

Actually if you do hunt it you are guilty of hunting over bait as that is how it is written. And your neighbor is guilty of placing bait within the prohibited bating zone. If they want to bait deer they can not place bait to make it a violation should there be a hunter on an adjoining property.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 10, 2015)

The way I thought it was is: provided it doesn't make hunting on the adjoining  property prohibited, in other words you can put out bait, but not if it is close enough to prohibit your  neighbor from hunting his property


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

gtgeorge said:


> Actually if you do hunt it you are guilty of hunting over bait as that is how it is written. And your neighbor is guilty of placing bait within the prohibited bating zone. If they want to bait deer they can not place bait to make it a violation should there be a hunter on an adjoining property.



That is not how it's written. Parse the law again.

If there is no bait on your property you are not guilty of hunting over bait if the bait is on the other property regardless of how close you are to the bait.

It is not illegal to bait in the Northern zone. In the Northern zone you can dump out all the bait you want on your property as long as you are 200 yds away from the bait and it is not visible from that distance. You can hunt right on top of where your bait pile was 10 days after all of the bait has been removed from the location.

Regardless, it doesn't matter how much bait you dump out on your property or where you dump it. As long as I am on my side of the property line I am not violating any game law.

It really is just that simple.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

They can't stop you from hunting, and you can't stop them from baiting.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> Why do they have the words: provided, however



Those words indicate the exception is coming next.

The exception is highlighted in bold black and red fonts.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

soon enough everyone will be legal to hunt over bait everywhere


----------



## PappyHoel (Dec 10, 2015)

Just my opinion... If you have a 500k house you can afford a hunt club.  You bought into an HOA community that does not lend itself to real Georgians.

Just my opinion and I think Sinclair would agree.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Let's parse the entire section:

1. It is illegal to place bait in an area where hunters are or will be hunting except for all game species except,

2. You can place bait (for deer only) as long as the property is not owned, controlled or managed by the state of Georgia or the federal government except,

3. If you do place bait on your private property doing so does not preclude hunters on an adjoining piece of property from hunting their property regardless of where you place the bait or how much you place.

4. In the Northern zone if you place bait you must be 200 yds away from the bait and it must not be visible from that distance.

5. In the Southern zone corn it up here, corn it up there. The sky is the limit.

It is still illegal to place bait when hunting all other species of game animals and fowl. The only exception is deer.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I agree, but the exception is, if it prohibits your neighbor from hunting then you can't but the bait there, which means you can place bait that will prohibit others from hunting their property



no it doesn't prohibit you hunting on your side if the bait is on the other side of the line. your neighbor can't do anything on his side of the line to make to make your hunt illegal. You have to do that yourself on your side.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I agree, but the exception is, if it prohibits your neighbor from hunting then you can't but the bait there, which means you can place bait that will prohibit others from hunting their property



You are wrong. What the section clearly says is your placing bait on your property does not prohibit me from hunting legally on my property.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I'm not trying to disagree, I just read it different



You're not reading it correctly.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I'm not trying to disagree, I just read it different



I re-parsed it for you. Read just the bold highlighted words in my Post #8.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

I work in law enforcement and the issue is that in the part you have highlighted precurses subsection B of the code section. Therefore it is indicating that a person can bait on their own land as long as it doesn't prohibit the hunting for someone on adjacent land.


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> I re-parsed it for you. Read just the bold highlighted words in my Post #8.



Too bad parsing laws will not hold up in court......you can't just take the portions you want and throw out the rest.

According to the 2 lawyers in the office next door....you are incorrect.  The placement of bait in an area that would prohibit hunting on the neighbors property is illegal (which is the portion you selectively highlighted in red after the word provided).......thus the provided aside portion of the law.  That does not make it legal to hunt said land of yours, you are still hunting illegally....but that is because your neighbor made it illegal for you.

Of course, I sent said law to my father in law and brother in law, both attorneys, and both said you might be legal....the wording, in their words....is ambiguous at best.....

Read it again, the placement of bait that close to a neighbors property is making hunting prohibited on the neighbors property.......

So you see.....it just depends on who reads what.  If the GW decided to give you a violation you would have to waste your time defending yourself in court....which could open yourself up to the judge's interpretation.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> I work in law enforcement and the issue is that in the part you have highlighted precurses subsection B of the code section. Therefore it is indicating that a person can bait on their own land as long as it doesn't prohibit the hunting for someone on adjacent land.



*shall not cause hunting* on any adjoining property *to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section.*


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

That's right. Placing bait on your property which would make it unlawful for someone on the adjoining property to hunt is illegal on the person placing the bait. Believe what you want its written for a reason. But you have to read all of it together not just pick and choose the parts you want to read. All of OCGA is that way.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

reylamb said:


> Too bad parsing laws will not hold up in court......you can't just take the portions you want and throw out the rest.
> 
> According to the 2 lawyers in the office next door....you are incorrect.  The placement of bait in an area that would prohibit hunting on the neighbors property is illegal (which is the portion you selectively highlighted in red after the word provided).......thus the provided aside portion of the law.  That does not make it legal to hunt said land of yours, you are still hunting illegally....but that is because your neighbor made it illegal for you.
> 
> ...



Then none of you are reading the law correctly.

Generally baiting is illegal for all game species except deer. If you are baiting for deer you can't bait state or federal lands. If you do bait your private property, you baiting on your property does not prohibit me from deer hunting on my property, regardless of where you place the bait or where I hunt as long as I am hunting on my property.

I'll take my chances with the judge.


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

As I stated earlier.....the wording is PATHETIC AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.  I would be willing to bet that there have been numerous BUCKS killed with a bow in Metro ATL  that were within 200 yds from a neighbor's feeder.  

I believe that when this thread is over...there is NO conclusion because the wording is so tricky.


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> *shall not cause hunting* on any adjoining property *to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section.*



Again, you can't be selective......

To sum it up....

You can pour out all the bait you want if you don't hunt over it (private land of course).

You can hunt land that is baited as long as you are 200 yards away and not in clear sight of said baited area (what defines area anyway)....

However, if your placement of bait causes your neighbor to be prohibited from hunting.....you can't place the bait there.....the fact that the words provided, however, are in the text means......if you are preventing your neighbor to hunt illegally you can't put your pile of bait there.  Again, ambiguous at best.....


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> That's right. Placing bait on your property which would make it unlawful for someone on the adjoining property to hunt is illegal on the person placing the bait. Believe what you want its written for a reason. But you have to read all of it together not just pick and choose the parts you want to read. All of OCGA is that way.



I'm a CPA and I've been parsing complex law for 30 years. I'll bet I'm right and you're wrong.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Well in that case Ill go throw some bait on the neighbors property and say he did it.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

And that is the exact reason that subsection was put in there to prevent that.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

reylamb said:


> Again, you can't be selective......
> 
> To sum it up....
> 
> ...



No it's not ambiguous. It clearly says you placing bait legally or illegally on your property "shall not cause hunting on adjacent property to be prohibited under subsection b...." It is clear and concise.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Well in that case Ill go throw some bait on the neighbors property and say he did it.



That would be illegal trespass and illegal baiting. It still would not prohibit you from legally hunting deer on your property.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> And that is the exact reason that subsection was put in there to prevent that.



Not for deer.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Wow..


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Then none of you are reading the law correctly.
> 
> Generally baiting is illegal for all game species except deer. If you are baiting for deer you can't bait state or federal lands. If you do bait your private property, you baiting on your property does not prohibit me from deer hunting on my property, regardless of where you place the bait or where I hunt as long as I am hunting on my property.
> 
> I'll take my chances with the judge.



You are correct, someone isn't reading the law correctly.  I will take the opinions of said DEFENSE lawyers (neighboring office) over my ambulance chasing in-laws all day every day.

"Provided, however," along with the selected portion you are choosing to read means......in fairly plain English....unless your actions will prohibit some activity for the neighbor.

Provided your actions SHALL NOT CAUSE you neighbor to hunt illegally, you can place bait.  Again, you have to take the entire text, not just what you want to read.

The wording is terrible.  I am fairly certain the intent was to prevent anti-hunters from pouring bait along the property lines to prevent hunting certain areas of neighboring properties......but that is not what is written.

"Provided, however"....(ie as long as).....your actions shall not cause your neighbors legal hunting to be prohibited...... 

With the daftness of the courts these days....no way I wanna take my chance with them......you might go in with a charge of hunting over bait and get life without parole for something that happened in Timbuktu....


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> No it's not ambiguous. It clearly says you placing bait legally or illegally on your property "shall not cause hunting on adjacent property to be prohibited under subsection b...." It is clear and concise.



I would agree with your interpretation....if not for the Provided, however......


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

reylamb said:


> "Provided, however"....(ie as long as).....your actions shall not cause your neighbors legal hunting to be prohibited......



No. Provided however if you place bait your placing of the bait shall not prohibit deer hunting on the adjacent land.


----------



## Broken Arrow 68 (Dec 10, 2015)

Turkey Freak is correct in his posts.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Wow..



Wow back at you.


----------



## Hunter454 (Dec 10, 2015)

Elfii is 100% correct, per the code section you are legal as long as the bait isn't on your property, the DNR officer referenced about the Windermere situation was wrong, and probably just said that because "that's how it's always been done" or he hasn't read the code section for himself, I'm a police officer and I have seen this happen several times, officers write citations or charge someone with something because a senior officer told them that's how it should be 5 years ago and they took it as the gospel


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

So does the adjacent land hunter get to regulate if I get to put corn out on my land? Or can I stop the hunter from hunting by putting corn out?


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Hunter454 said:


> Elfii is 100% correct, per the code section you are legal as long as the bait isn't on your property, the DNR officer referenced about the Windermere situation was wrong, and probably just said that because "that's how it's always been done" or he hasn't read the code section for himself, I'm a police officer and I have seen this happen several times, officers write citations or charge someone with something because a senior officer told them that's how it should be 5 years ago and they took it as the gospel



I bet if the trial judge doesn't agree with you and me the appellate court will reverse him hard.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

The person placing the bait can be charged if it is with criminal intent!


----------



## Hunter454 (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> I bet if the trial judge doesn't agree with you and me the appellate court will reverse him hard.



Absolutely  ;-)


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm still gonna pour corn out behind my house within 100 yards of the line. If the neighbors don't want to hunt it, their loss.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I am prohibited to put corn on the line, because it makes it illegal for my neighbor to hunt that part of his property that is 200 yards or line of sight of the corn, that is why I can't do it, if it didn't make it illegal for him, then I could do it, I can't because it makes it illegal for him



No. You are wrong. You placing bait on your property has no bearing on legal hunting on my property if there is no bait on my property. It's the concept of private property rights. What you do on your property has no control over my free, quiet enjoyment of my property rights on my property, including deer hunting.


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 10, 2015)

Why would a neighbor need to be told in a written law that he can bait and it won't make the adjacent land owner illegal? 



It is my understanding the law changed a few years ago and what elfii is saying is correct.  But, the way it reads seems incorrect. 


I would expect law to tell a neighbor he can't bait if it's going to make it illegal for the adjacent land owner


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 10, 2015)

Still............I don't know who or what to believe.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> Still............I don't know who or what to believe.



Me, Hunter454 and the law itself.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Just spoke with a local DNR LEO he is going to call me back and clarify!


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 10, 2015)

Come to Matt Ga. Pick me up. I will show you we can hunt it. You think I care what the neighbors have out OR what the GW said. Your wrong  My neighbor may have feed out every 100 yards all around my property for all I know. Even if I did know. Im going to hunt mine. So anybody lives around me. Feel free to put the corn to em.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Just spoke with a local DNR LEO he is going to call me back and clarify!



Just sent a PM to a GW on here. He will clarify also.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Just sent another PM to another GW on here.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

This should be interesting. I wonder if the law is interpreted differently throughout the LEO's in the division. Can't way to see if their is a difference


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

there*


----------



## champ (Dec 10, 2015)

Yes, getting the info from Mr. Greenjeans will be awesome. I thought I was clear on this a month ago but after reading all of this I'm even more confused???


----------



## bulldawgborn (Dec 10, 2015)

What if I pour corn out behind a big piece of plywood 201 yards straight in front of my tower stand in the northern zone.  Am I legal?


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 10, 2015)

Dnr said its 200 yards and line of sight


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 10, 2015)

A prime example of laws that are overwritten.....  why should us citizens have to hire a lawyer in order to understand an otherwise simple law??

If the idea that a neighboors bait would put you on the wrong side of the law, how are you supposed to know there is bait without trespassing?


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 10, 2015)

A.1.    Basically says you can't bait on federal or state land

A.2.  Basically says you can bait deer on your land.     " provided however"  (unless ) it's going to make an adjoining land owner illegal.


how·ev·er
houËˆevÉ™r/Submit
adverb
1.
used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.
"People tend to put on weight in middle age. However, gaining weight is not inevitable"
synonyms:	nevertheless, nonetheless, but, still, yet, though, although, even so, for all that, despite that, in spite of that; More

In this case however would have to mean that it's legal to put it out unless it's going to make someone else be illegal


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> This should be interesting. I wonder if the law is interpreted differently throughout the LEO's in the division. Can't way to see if their is a difference



Agree but even then they are LEO's. It's the Georgia Supreme Court that has the ultimate say. Know any Georgia Supreme Court justices? I don't.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

When I talked to the GW earlier he indicated that if you knew it was there then you were hunting over bait. If you don't know it's there is another story. Still waiting on the clarification though.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

I sure don't. But our system could use an overhaul. There are things still in the OCGA criminal book that are not even laws anymore, but they are still printed.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

kbuck1 said:


> A.1.    Basically says you can't bait on federal or state land
> 
> A.2.  Basically says you can bait deer on your land.     " provided however"  (unless ) it's going to make an adjoining land owner illegal.
> 
> ...



That is not what a.2 says. a.2 says you baiting on your land will not make hunting on my land illegal under sub section b. b. is a reiteration of a.1 and clarifies it by saying once all the bait has been gone for 10 days it's legal to hunt that tract of land again. b. does not override a.2. b. refers to the property that has been baited. a.2 provides an exemption from the general prohibition against baiting for adjacent property that has no bait on it.


----------



## Core Lokt (Dec 10, 2015)

GON needs an "ask the law" section where LEO's can answer questions like this. Or better yet, why won't any of them that are lurking answer??


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> When I talked to the GW earlier he indicated that if you knew it was there then you were hunting over bait. If you don't know it's there is another story. Still waiting on the clarification though.



Ask him to cite the case law that says so and what the elements of proving intent are.



turkey freak said:


> I sure don't. But our system could use an overhaul. There are things still in the OCGA criminal book that are not even laws anymore, but they are still printed.



This particular code section is pretty ham handed and needs to be clarified/simplified. It's hard to parse. "The law is written by lawyers."

I firmly believe a trial court ruling based on your interpretation would be reversed on appeal so fast it would make your head spin, barring any case law re: intent to the contrary.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Core Lokt said:


> Or better yet, why won't any of them that are lurking answer??



Because most of them want to remain anonymous. This place is like hunting over a baited field for them. What happens when the deer busts you in your stand?


----------



## Jim Ammons (Dec 10, 2015)

Bro. John Bowers it is time for you to step up and settle this for everyone.  Elfiii, to my understanding of the regulation you are 100% correct. Maybe John will step in shortly.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Like I said it's going to be very interesting.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 10, 2015)

Core Lokt said:


> GON needs an "ask the law" section where LEO's can answer questions like this. Or better yet, why won't any of them that are lurking answer??



Good question...  prolly a few answers.

1. they dont want to interpret the law wrong thus giving folks bad info and looking like an idiot.

2.  They prolly dont know the answer

3. They know the answer, but the ambiguity usually plays in their favor


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 10, 2015)

Dnr told me 200 yards or line of sight, and it's up to the officer to decide if he is going to write you up, whether or not he thinks you knew, this officer said he usually won't hold it against you If it looks like it's not your fault,but again it is up to the officer on site, if an officer has warned the OP then I'd say he may write some people up


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Jim Ammons said:


> Bro. John Bowers it is time for you to step up and settle this for everyone.  Elfiii, to my understanding of the regulation you are 100% correct. Maybe John will step in shortly.



Would love for JB to weigh in but he's not in LE. Still, I'm sure his interpretation will be consonant with mine which will be consonant with 90% of the GW's.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Just sent a PM to a GW on here. He will clarify also.





Good grief! It's clear already!

But, I will add. I have very disappointing knowledge about baiting and prosecution.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Like I said it's going to be very interesting.



Reply from GW #1 who is a supervisor:



			
				GW#1 said:
			
		

> yes you are correct.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> Dnr told me 200 yards or line of sight, and it's up to the officer to decide if he is going to write you up, whether or not he thinks you knew, this officer said he usually won't hold it against you If it looks like it's not your fault,but again it is up to the officer on site, if an officer has warned the OP then I'd say he may write some people up



on your own property or where you are trespassing!


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 10, 2015)

Elfii,  if your interpretation is correct, could a land owner who places bait within 200yds or in sight of the property line be givin a ticket for unlawfull placement of bait? Even if that landowner is not hunting?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2015)

So, you can hunt over bait under some circumstances in northern zone. Interesting loop hole I am sure will be exploited.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> So, you can hunt over bait under some circumstances in northern zone. Interesting loop hole I am sure will be exploited.



If you had your neighbor put the bait on his side of the line to get around the law, it would be like putting bait out yourself.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

swampstalker24 said:


> Elfii,  if your interpretation is correct, could a land owner who places bait within 200yds or in sight of the property line be givin a ticket for unlawfull placement of bait? Even if that landowner is not hunting?



Are we talking about deer or other game animals and birds? 

If you aren't hunting on the baited property then there is no violation. There has to be a nexus between the bait and hunting for a violation to occur.

If it's other than deer bait is bait and it's illegal if you're hunting. I know this because I had some turkey hunters next door that dumped out cracked corn on my side of the line during turkey season and then they hunted on their side of the line right on the line. I called the local GW and he busted them but not for the bait because he couldn't prove they placed it or they knew about it. He could prove hunting without a license for the spouse of one of the hunters who was with her husband and that's what they got busted for. He told me generally speaking most GW's apply the 200 yd rule for turkey hunting and bait, regardless of which side of the property line the bait is on unless you convince them you didn't know the bait was on the other property. Randy on here has an excellent story about that. That part of the law needs to be clarified. There could be bait on one side of your 1,000 acre lease and you are turkey hunting clear across the other side nowhere near the bait but technically you are in violation of the law. That's cocked up sidewise.

If it's deer then different rules apply. 

If you're in the Southern zone you can pour the corn all day long and twice on Sundays as long as you are hunting deer and nothing else.

In the Northern zone:

If you bait and the bait is < 200 yds away and is visible - ticket for hunting over bait.

If you bait and the bait is < 200 yds away but you can't see the bait - ticket for hunting over bait.

If you bait and the bait is more than 200 yds away but you can see the bait - ticket for hunting over bait.

If you bait and the bait is more than 200 yds away and is not visible - no ticket.

If you're neighbor baits his property but you don't bait yours - no ticket regardless of how much bait and where it is. The property line and no bait are the magic words.


----------



## Fork Horn (Dec 10, 2015)

Another scenario....

What if a hunter is hunting national forest land and the private property it borders has bait on it?  I know the bait can't be on the National Forest land, so let's say there is zero bait on NF land, but he is hunting near the boundary line.  According to what we've learned here, the hunter would be legal...correct?

Now what if the hunter owns the private property?  Since he's not hunting the private property and is hunting NF land, is he still legal?

This is very interesting.  I'll say I have learned something here today.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Fork Horn said:


> Another scenario....
> 
> What if a hunter is hunting national forest land and the private property it borders has bait on it?  I know the bait can't be on the National Forest land, so let's say there is zero bait on NF land, but he is hunting near the boundary line.  According to what we've learned here, the hunter would be legal...correct?
> 
> ...



Correct (for state of Georgia purposes) and yes. Don't know what the feds have to say about it on NF land.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> So, you can hunt over bait under some circumstances in northern zone. Interesting loop hole I am sure will be exploited.



All you have to do is say you are hunting hogs. That may not work so well if you have a bottle of Tinks 69 and a fawn bleat on you though. This ain't the GW's first rodeo.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 10, 2015)

This is like one of those pictures, if you hold it one way it's a pretty woman, turn it a little, it's an old witch


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> This is like one of those pictures, if you hold it one way it's a pretty woman, turn it a little, it's an old witch



It's real simple. If you are deer hunting in the Northern zone don't have any bait on the property you are hunting on and you are good to go. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing.


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Reply from GW #1 who is a supervisor:



And a reply from the Fulton County District Attorney's Office says you and the game warden.....are wrong.

The Provide, however, means (in non-lawyer terms) as long as......as in as long as putting out said bait does not prohibit your neighbor from being able to perform an otherwise legal function on his property.......so, they added said Provided, however....to stop landowners from preventing their neighbors from hunting.

In other words, you can put out "bait" as long as you aint huntin it....and it doesn't prevent your neighbor from huntin either....

He also said he would smack anyone in the head that brought that drivel into his office to prosecute......


----------



## reylamb (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> It's real simple. If you are deer hunting in the Northern zone don't have any bait on the property you are hunting on and you are good to go. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing.



That is your professional, legal advice?  You will pay the fine when folks get ticketed?

You guarantee this, just like the last 2 Presidential Prognostications you guaranteed?


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 10, 2015)

This is so simple i'm confused at how simple it is.


----------



## groundhawg (Dec 10, 2015)

gtgeorge said:


> Actually if you do hunt it you are guilty of hunting over bait as that is how it is written. And your neighbor is guilty of placing bait within the prohibited bating zone. If they want to bait deer they can not place bait to make it a violation should there be a hunter on an adjoining property.



Negitive Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.


----------



## groundhawg (Dec 10, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> But.....can u hunt if the feeder is within 200 yds on the adjacent property.



yep, you sure can.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 10, 2015)

*The Rule...*



Impact97 said:


> As long as the feeders are 250 yds away and out if site, you can hunt all day.



The Rule in The Northern Zone is :"

It is unlawful to hunt deer within 200 yards or within line of sight of bait".

It Is Not 250 Yards-

It is on page 30 of the 2015-2016 Seasons and Regulations booklet.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

reylamb said:


> That is your professional, legal advice?  You will pay the fine when folks get ticketed?
> 
> You guarantee this, just like the last 2 Presidential Prognostications you guaranteed?



No. The Game Warden who is a supervisor of other Game Wardens guaranteed me this and since he is the one who would write the ticket I'm going with what he told me.

I'm not impressed with your Fulton County District Attorney office's reply. In fact I'm not very impressed about much of anything in Fulton Co. It's only saving grace is Dekalb is one step below it on the bottom of the barrel.

Moreover if it meant what your lawyer says it means the words would be "does not", not "shall not".


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

And as far as your lawyer buddy is concerned tell him I said to bring it and we'll see who smacks who in the head harder.


----------



## rydert (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> And as far as your lawyer buddy is concerned tell him I said to bring it and we'll see who smacks who in the head harder.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 10, 2015)

*Key Words:*



brownhounds said:


> What are the exact rules about bow hunting if your neighbor is baiting?  I heard that everyone hunting Windermere had a visit from the DNR and he told them they could not hunt it because so many neighbors had feeders out.
> 
> People have feeders everywhere around Metro Atlanta, but can that prevent you from Bow hunting a spot if your property does not have a feeder.
> 
> I have tried to find this in the regulations, but the wording is so pathetic.  It needs to be more written in stone.



"I Heard".....


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> No. The Game Warden who is a supervisor of other Game Wardens guaranteed me this and since he is the one who would write the ticket I'm going with what he told me.
> 
> I'm not impressed with your Fulton County District Attorney office's reply. In fact I'm not very impressed about much of anything in Fulton Co. It's only saving grace is Dekalb is one step below it on the bottom of the barrel.



Don't leave Clayton County out of the mix !!


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

Atlanta Dawg said:


> Don't leave Clayton County out of the mix !!



We do not rank amateurs with professionals.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> We do not rank amateurs with professionals.



Touch'e  !!


----------



## Gbr5pb (Dec 10, 2015)

Good thing I'm hog hunting then!


----------



## j_seph (Dec 10, 2015)

What IF I am feeding the deer and critters..................Not Baiting..............just feeding them as I do my cats?


----------



## BillK (Dec 10, 2015)

So my 86 year old neighbor who has never hunted anything in her life, let along killed anything, is breaking the law by pouring out her "wildlife attractant" if I hunt within 200 yards of said attractant on my own property.  Don't make since does it? And what I mean by wildlife attractant is Wally world bird seed.


----------



## Gbr5pb (Dec 10, 2015)

Hadn't killed a deer in over 30 years that didn't have corn in it! Cherokee county Taylor county to Cohutta wilderness area! Lots of people baiting feeding or something


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Sometimes you have think about the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law.. What behavior was it intended to stop?


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 10, 2015)

*Suggestion...*



BillK said:


> So my 86 year old neighbor who has never hunted anything in her life, let along killed anything, is breaking the law by pouring out her "wildlife attractant" if I hunt within 200 yards of said attractant on my own property.  Don't make since does it? And what I mean by wildlife attractant is Wally world bird seed.



Please read all remarks by ELFIII--he does an excellent job of breaking this down.  Suggest starting with his first response then read through.


----------



## turkey freak (Dec 10, 2015)

Only if his interpretation is 100% correct.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

rydert said:


>


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Sometimes you have think about the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law.. What behavior was it intended to stop?



People baiting their property so the neighbor couldn't hunt his. The law as worded now exempts the "neighbor" from violation if the property next door is baited which is as it should be.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Reply from GW #1 who is a supervisor:



Reply from GW#2:



			
				GW #2 said:
			
		

> You are correct in that a neighbor who chooses to place feed on his property does not effect your right to hunt your property.


----------



## specialk (Dec 10, 2015)

I know one thing....this spring during turkey season I know where a whole lot of adjacent land is going to have a lot of corn on it....


----------



## elfiii (Dec 10, 2015)

specialk said:


> I know one thing....this spring during turkey season I know where a whole lot of adjacent land is going to have a lot of corn on it....



The exemption only applies to deer.


----------



## TwiggsCountyHardwoods (Dec 10, 2015)

shall not cause hunting on any adjoining property to be prohibited 

that's the pertinent language which seems clear enough. SHALL NOT........BE PROHIBITED


----------



## BillK (Dec 10, 2015)

> Please read all remarks by ELFIII--he does an excellent job of breaking this down. Suggest starting with his first response then read through.



I agree with elfIII 100%. That is why I said "Don't make since does it?"  I have followed this thread all day. I was not confused about the law when this started and I'm not confused now.


----------



## groundhawg (Dec 10, 2015)

turkey freak said:


> Only if his interpretation is 100% correct.



And it is, 100% correct!


----------



## PappyHoel (Dec 10, 2015)

T.P. said:


> So does the adjacent land hunter get to regulate if I get to put corn out on my land? Or can I stop the hunter from hunting by putting corn out?



Pure speculation on my part, but I would bet that's the case here.  Windemere is a very large HOA community and I'm speculating (could be wrong) that someone didn't want their pet deer being killed.  Hence, my previous buzz bait errrr I mean post.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 10, 2015)

PappyHoel said:


> Pure speculation on my part, but I would bet that's the case here.  Windemere is a very large HOA community and I'm speculating (could be wrong) that someone didn't want their pet deer being killed.  Hence, my previous buzz bait errrr I mean post.



Yep, I feed the deer in the back yard all year long. I have to take into accout, I'm fattening them up for the neighbors to kill. But, I do it anyways. And the neighbors don't complain. Lol


----------



## PappyHoel (Dec 10, 2015)

T.P. said:


> I'm still gonna pour corn out behind my house within 100 yards of the line. If the neighbors don't want to hunt it, their loss.



I feed my deers like that.  There's a hunt club back there 300 yards.  They come hang out here when the hunters are in the woods.  I came home at noon on opening of gun season this year (I didn't see any while hunting)and there were 8 in the hard woods behind my coop.  It's the darnedest thing.


----------



## humdandy (Dec 10, 2015)

Well, if this is not an argument for legalizing it statewide, I don't know what is........or banning it state wide, but then again you will always have the "Little Ole Lady" who likes to feed the deer year around.............or hogs..........., now won't you?


----------



## rolltidefan (Dec 10, 2015)

In my opinion, I wish the state would either legalize it statewide or make it illegal statewide. I have been hunting for over 30 years and know for a fact numerous people who hunt in the northern zone, in baited areas, within site during deer season. I also know for a fact that some land owners and clubs around me run feeders year round which takes away from me enjoying my hunts because the deer are on those properties being fed. If, it were legal, then at least I can try to run feeders to help hold them on my property instead of me trying to abide by the law while my surroundings is not and they are holding the deer. I have thought several times about calling the GW about those properties but just don't want to get into a feud with the neighbors. SO...will the state PLEASE legalize it for everyone!


----------



## KKrueger (Dec 10, 2015)

I didn't read all of the replies, but the state has given us an extended season in these metro counties as well as the ability to harvest does any day of the season. The spirit of this is to kill a lot of deer and reduce negative deer/human interactions.  I think a game warden should encourage you to hunt as much as you can regardless of what adjoining property owners do.

The universe of hunt-able properties in suburbia is so limited. Do not handcuff the hunters for doing what we can where we can.

We aren't a problem. We are a solution.


----------



## tree cutter 08 (Dec 10, 2015)

If I want to hunt my land, I'm going to. I don't care if they line my property line with corn. I pay the taxes on my land.


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 10, 2015)

If KKrueger's post does not make this crystal clear I am not sure what would. The law cannot affirm suburban hunting in the metro counties more vigorously than it does and then nullify that very affirmation because a neighbor thinks a wild deer (that they are going to smack with their car on Windermere Parkway) is their pet.
I would ask the GW that gave the Windermere advise to square the two. And then I would ask him to pick up all the dead deer on WP & Hwy 20.


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 11, 2015)

Thank you ELFII.  It seems clear enough now.


----------



## shakey gizzard (Dec 11, 2015)

Just a matter of time before NO ONE will be able to hunt less than 5 acres!


----------



## Killdee (Dec 11, 2015)

GW#1 needs to give the Windermear GW a little talking to.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers (Dec 11, 2015)

elfiii said:


> I bet if the trial judge doesn't agree with you and me the appellate court will reverse him hard.



Cheaper to pay the ticket..


----------



## spurrs and racks (Dec 11, 2015)

*double negative*

"Negative. Someone baiting their property does not preclude you from hunting your property even if both you and the bait are on immediate opposite sides of the property line."

read the game laws....

In Troup, Meriwether, Upson, Crawford, Bibb, Jones, Baldwin, Hancock, Glascock, Warren, McDuffie and Richmond counties and all counties north of these, it is unlawful to hunt deer within 200 yards or line of sight of bait.

Feral hogs may be hunted over or near bait on PRIVATE lands year round in every county provided that the bait is not placed within 50 yards of any property ownership boundary. However, placing bait for hogs may make a property (or portion of a property) un-huntable  for  other species, such as turkeys. Generally, you may not hunt turkeys within 200 yards or within line of sight of bait. Hunters are urged to communicate with others who may hunt other species on or near an area where baiting for deer or hogs is being considered.

s&r


----------



## nmurph (Dec 11, 2015)

Just make baiting illegal, like it was not too long ago. It's illegal to hunt doves over bait, why should deer hunters have an exception? Flame away...


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

I used to hunt a property where the county line was one border, they were southern zone I was northern.  They legally had all kind-a bait on the other side.  If I had stayed 200 yards away I would have lost the ability to hunt a good chunk of my lease.  I didn't worry about it, and hunted where I wanted to.


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I used to hunt a property where the county line was one border, they were southern zone I was northern.  They legally had all kind-a bait on the other side.  If I had stayed 200 yards away I would have lost the ability to hunt a good chunk of my lease.  I didn't worry about it, and hunted where I wanted to.


As it should be. Some of these answers would change really fast if it was actually happening to some of them.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 11, 2015)

nmurph said:


> Just make baiting illegal, like it was not too long ago. It's illegal to hunt doves over bait, why should deer hunters have an exception? Flame away...


Not enough plane & dove collisions to make it worth while to thin em out


----------



## meers (Dec 11, 2015)

elfiii,is correct. In defense of the Windermere GW, Hunters would need concent from adjacent land owners to retrieve shot deer, or otherwise trespass. If hunter had concent from a baiting land owner there's the problem with knowledge of bait, and hunting over bait. If hunter didnt there's the problem of trespass, and or unretrievable game. We do not know the exact situation, but he does. On this one I put my money on the GW. As stated earlier this isn't the GW first rodeo.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 11, 2015)

Migmack said:


> Cheaper to pay the ticket..



It'd be cheaper but it wouldn't be near as fun as a day in court proving an LEO wrong.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

Maybe it would be more productive if somebody who has actually been fined for hunting the neighbors bait would jump in.......I do not know anybody who has.  Heck, I don't know anybody who has been fined for hunting their own bait either.


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 11, 2015)

Heck I can call em and they want even come out here. How the crap they gonna catch anybody. Pretty much do whatever you like.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 11, 2015)

GA DAWG said:


> Heck I can call em and they want even come out here. How the crap they gonna catch anybody. Pretty much do whatever you like.


You calling the office number or do you have the GW cell number


----------



## BornToHuntAndFish (Dec 11, 2015)

Appreciate all the good helpful clarifications.


----------



## nickel back (Dec 11, 2015)

.....


----------



## spurrs and racks (Dec 11, 2015)

*Ranger Bradfield*

will right you up. Make no mistake about it.

s&r


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 11, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I never wanted the law to read one way or the other, I just read it a different way is all, I called two different Dnr officers and got the same answer, Elfiii pm two and they agree on a different answer than what I got, I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, I'm saying the GW don't agree on the answer, if Elfiii is right, and I'm fine with that, then the law is worthless, as me and my neighbor can set up feeders and hunt over bait legally



So...you and Elfii came up with 2 different answers?  This law is a joke.


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 11, 2015)

Who is the Game Warden around Fulton and Forsyth County?  Somebody needs to give him a call, and figure out the truth on this.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 11, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> So...you and Elfii came up with 2 different answers?  This law is a joke.



No that's not what I meant, if the law is how I read it, then you can't put bait on the line because it prohibits your neighbor from hunting that spot, if it's how he reads then it does not , if it does not prohibit him then there is no law against baiting the line, which means me and my neighbor could legally cheat, and that can't be in the spirit of the law, if it is as he reads, then the law on baiting private land does not include property lines


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 11, 2015)

I think we have to look at the spirit of the law, can you imagine a Ranger walks up, and you are five feet from a corn pile, the look on his face when you tell him it's ok because it's the other side of the line, or the only way you know is because of gon forum, call and ask a DNR officer for yourself , is it ok to knowingly hunt over bait as long as it's on the other side of a property line


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

spurrs and racks said:


> will right you up. Make no mistake about it.
> 
> s&r



OK, for you and all the lawyers contacted that say it is illegal. What the heck is THIS "provided, however, that any such lure or attraction or enticement shall not cause hunting on any adjoining property to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section." REFERENCING????

This must be referencing something in this section of law that IS NOT ILLEGAL. If it is NOT referencing hunting my property with the bait on another property what IS IT referencing????

Or are we just going to ignore it?

"Will write you up. Make no mistake about it" sounds a bunch like our current president. I guess the law really does not matter, at ANY level of government.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 11, 2015)

Joe EC said:


> OK, for you and all the lawyers contacted that say it is illegal. What the heck is THIS "provided, however, that any such lure or attraction or enticement shall not cause hunting on any adjoining property to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section." REFERENCING????
> 
> This must be referencing something in this section of law that IS NOT ILLEGAL. If it is NOT referencing hunting my property with the bait on another property what IS IT referencing????
> 
> ...



Aww you mad bro? We're just talking here, no harm meant


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

No, not mad. Just stating a fact. The "law" really does not mean anything. Sad, sad, state of affairs.

Be careful "just talking", you might get written up!


----------



## brownhounds (Dec 11, 2015)

Thank you for clarifying.....This was not intended to get any body's panties in a wad.  I just don't like the wording of the law...I really don't like laws period.


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

10-4 Johnny, now you are catching on!! That was my question "written up" for what?????

Don't get all mad now.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 11, 2015)

Joe EC said:


> 10-4 Johnny, now you are catching on!! That was my question "written up" for what?????
> 
> Don't get all mad now.



Brother my life is so good it's hard for me to get mad and keep a straight face, I'm just to blessed


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

Amen brother!


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 11, 2015)

So now whats the answer?


----------



## T.P. (Dec 11, 2015)

Now I'm mad.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 11, 2015)

brownhounds said:


> Who is the Game Warden around Fulton and Forsyth County?  Somebody needs to give him a call, and figure out the truth on this.



All you need to do is to go to the DNR website and plug in Forsyth and Fulton County's and it will give you the name, rank, and telephone number of several.  It is probably best that since this is a problem specific to your area that you ask the ranger and can give the ranger specifics, he can ask you questions based upon your knowledge, you can ask him questions, etc....Anything other than that would pretty much be a He said/He said or She Said sort of deal with no resolution specific to your situation.
I would think the Ranger would be happy to meet you at the sight so there is no confusion as to the specific concern and situation.


----------



## Da Possum (Dec 11, 2015)

T.P. said:


> Now I'm mad.



^^ x's 2


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 11, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Those words indicate the exception is coming next.
> 
> The exception is highlighted in bold black and red fonts.



This was your interpretation of the words " provided however "   that there is an exception coming next.  

What is stated above that says you can put bait on your property so long as it's not state or federal land.   The exception or what comes next is ,   unless it's going to make the neighbor be hunting illegally. 

I agree that you are right about the actual law. But it doesn't read that way. 

How does it not say this?


----------



## uncle bunky (Dec 11, 2015)

elfiii said:


> The wording is excellent, to wit:
> 
> O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9
> 
> ...



You need to re-read (a.2) slowly. This does not mean the Neighbor's bait "shall not" cause your hunting to be prohibited.  It means the bait "shall not" be placed in a location where it would cause hunting on an adjoining location to be prohibited.  

Hint. This is also in a paragraph concerning where one may place"corn,etc" not the hunting over said bait. 

Re-read with this in mind (and an open mind) and use some common sense.

You are so locked in to your interpretation you won't allow yourself to see your mistake.  I've been there done that  before. Locked in on verbiage, so sure of myself until the light finally went off and I could see it the correct way.

You can advise whatever you like, "PROVIDED, HOWEVER", that any such advice does not cause fellow forum members to hunt in a prohibited manner.

So does my last sentence concern what you can advise OR  can members follow your advice with impunity.?????????


----------



## JWT (Dec 11, 2015)

Anybody that lives around Windemere needs there head examined,how can people live like that?


----------



## Throwback (Dec 11, 2015)

Good grief.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 11, 2015)

GA DAWG said:


> So now whats the answer?



The answer was all the way back on post 4, click the link it's worded a lot better


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

uncle bunky said:


> You need to re-read (a.2) slowly. This does not mean the Neighbor's bait "shall not" cause your hunting to be prohibited.  It means the bait "shall not" be placed in a location where it would cause hunting on an adjoining location to be prohibited.
> 
> Hint. This is also in a paragraph concerning where one may place"corn,etc" not the hunting over said bait.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 11, 2015)

Ok, so let us assume that the Neighbor's placing bait has made it illegal to hunt my property. Why didn't the GW write up  all the Neighbor's since the placing of the bait, which made my hunting illegal, was the first illegal  act? Why not go after the baiter?


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 11, 2015)

Joe EC said:


> uncle bunky said:
> 
> 
> > You need to re-read (a.2) slowly. This does not mean the Neighbor's bait "shall not" cause your hunting to be prohibited.  It means the bait "shall not" be placed in a location where it would cause hunting on an adjoining location to be prohibited.
> ...


----------



## Kdad (Dec 11, 2015)

Holy snikeys gentlemen! Incredible depth.


----------



## antharper (Dec 11, 2015)

To go back to the original post ( the rule ) my rule has always been very simple just make my feed pile bigger than my neighbors, goodnight I've got a migraine from reading all of this !


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 12, 2015)

I know common sense doesn't play into the law all of the time but I still try to use it when I can, and common sense says that the law is not going to force me to break the trespassing laws in order to thoroughly inspect my neighbors property within 200 yds of my line to be sure that I can legally hunt.  

Many properties are so small that it is impossible to get 200yds away from your property line anyway.  My neighbor can't do something to his land that will prevent my use of my land.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 12, 2015)

cowhornedspike said:


> I know common sense doesn't play into the law all of the time but I still try to use it when I can, and common sense says that the law is not going to force me to break the trespassing laws in order to thoroughly inspect my neighbors property within 200 yds of my line to be sure that I can legally hunt.
> 
> Many properties are so small that it is impossible to get 200yds away from your property line anyway.  My neighbor can't do something to his land that will prevent my use of my land.





ya reckon?


----------



## elfiii (Dec 12, 2015)

kbuck1 said:


> This was your interpretation of the words " provided however "   that there is an exception coming next.
> 
> What is stated above that says you can put bait on your property so long as it's not state or federal land.   The exception or what comes next is ,   unless it's going to make the neighbor be hunting illegally.
> 
> ...



I been in a tree since yesterday afternoon. I'll address your post and uncle bunky's when I get back tomorrow.


----------



## Joe EC (Dec 12, 2015)

KBuck,
No, I do not agree. It clearly says that the the placing does not cause the adjoining property to be subject to section b.

Johnny, now I am not sure you are catching on. 
What, exactly, was your link attempting to disclose? 

The statute says "It shall be unlawful for ANY (not just hunters, ANY person) person to place....on or over any area where hunters are or will be hunting."

And from the link you provided "Any such feed shall not be placed in a manner as to cause hunting on an adjacent property to be prohibited."

Whether or not you read all of this as the hunter can or can't hunt on his property it is crystal clear that the placer of the bait has violated this statute.

So the question still stands, why were the neighbors (WHO PLACED THE BAIT IN AN AREA WHERE HUNTERS ARE HUNTING) not "written up"?


----------



## Throwback (Dec 12, 2015)

if you're going to quote the law, quote the law--not the regulation book.


----------



## CraKaLaCKiN (Dec 12, 2015)

How would you even know if your neighbor was baiting to begin with? As long as you aren't aware there was bait within 200yds I'd think that would go a long way in court. I'm with Elfiii on this one. AND . . . you only need to create doubt in 1 juror. 

Has anyone asked a Game Warden?


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 12, 2015)

Throwback said:


> if you're going to quote the law, quote the law--not the regulation book.



I would say 99% go by the reg book


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 12, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> I would say 99% go by the reg book



Maybe not the Judge though...


----------



## JohnK (Dec 12, 2015)

If you stick a deer and he runs on the adjacent property owners land.....are you going to trespass and get the deer? If they are feeding them and consider them pets I would be surprised if you end up with the deer if it gets off your land.


----------



## Gbr5pb (Dec 12, 2015)

Yes yes and yes


----------



## elfiii (Dec 13, 2015)

uncle bunky said:


> You need to re-read (a.2) slowly. This does not mean the Neighbor's bait "shall not" cause your hunting to be prohibited.  It means the bait "shall not" be placed in a location where it would cause hunting on an adjoining location to be prohibited.
> 
> Hint. This is also in a paragraph concerning where one may place"corn,etc" not the hunting over said bait.
> 
> ...



You are incorrect. 

For the sake of clarity I did not originally post the entirety of 27-3-9, (b)(1). Here it is.



> (b) (1) Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt any game bird or game animal upon, over, around, or near any place where any corn, wheat, or other grains, salts, apples, or other feed or bait has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered so as to constitute a lure, attraction, or enticement to such birds or animals. It shall also be unlawful to hunt any game animal or game bird upon, over, around, or near any such place for a period of ten days following the complete removal of all such feed or bait.
> 
> (2) The prohibitions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to:
> 
> ...



Your side insists the parsing of the law is your otherwise legal act (baiting) is legal unless your act prohibits a hunter on adjoining parcel of land from being unable to hunt because of the 200 yd/not visible rule. In that case your legal act (baiting) is now illegal. The hunter on the adjoining piece of land is still enjoined from hunting within 200yds/not visible from the bait on your property.

My side says the correct parsing is your otherwise legal act (baiting) does not prohibit another otherwise legal act (hunting) on an adjacent parcel of land regardless of the 200 ys/not visible rule.

In determining which parsing is correct you have to apply the law in the context of the legislative intent. You can't ignore legislative intent and make up your own meaning of the law. Neither can the trier of fact.

So what is the legislative intent?

The complaint was people were baiting their land so the land owner adjacent to them couldn't hunt their property. Enter the legal doctrine of injured party/equitable relief.

This was why the General Assembly addressed the amendment in the first place. To provide equitable relief to the injured party.

Parsing the law your way we are to believe the equitable relief provided is the guy doing the legal baiting is now in violation of the baiting law even though in all other respects he is complying with the law.

OK, but that is not equitable relief for the hunter on the adjoining property who is not baiting. He is still enjoined by law from hunting on his property because of the otherwise legal baiting occurring on your property.

Further, hunting and fishing are a constitutionally guaranteed right under our state constitution. The state may regulate said right but the state may not abridge or otherwise deny your right to hunt under color or operation of law.

So let's examine what your parsing of the law does especially in the case of a small adjacent tract of land. For example let's say the placing of bait on one tract of land makes it illegal to hunt the entire adjacent tract of land because the hunter on the adjacent tract of land can't get to a spot to hunt on his land that is 200 yards away from the bait and the bait is not visible.

What has happened? The hunter on the adjacent tract of land is being denied his constitutionally protected right to hunt due to an operation of law. If you can't legally hunt on your own land because somebody next door is doing another legal act how is this not an abridgment of your guaranteed right by operation of law?

Do you think this was the General Assembly's intent?

My parsing of the law is the correct one. I'll bet the cost of your lease against my cost of ownership of my property the appellate courts are going to see it my way too.


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 13, 2015)

My neighbor can bait deer to look at Provided however I dont see em on my side first and shoot em.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 13, 2015)

So is it ok for me an my neighbors to set up places to help each other, example, I set up a feed tube by his stand, but on my side? He does the same for me on down the property line, and still be legal, honest question, not trying to drag this any further


----------



## elfiii (Dec 13, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> So is it ok for me an my neighbors to set up places to help each other, example, I set up a feed tube by his stand, but on my side? He does the same for me on down the property line, and still be legal, honest question, not trying to drag this any further



That would be conspiracy. Definitely illegal.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 13, 2015)

Great post, elfiii.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 13, 2015)

elfiii said:


> That would be conspiracy. Definitely illegal.



This is the part I don't understand, if it's ok for me to bait the line, and it's ok for him to hunt his side, even if I do, then where is the crime


----------



## elfiii (Dec 13, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> This is the part I don't understand, if it's ok for me to bait the line, and it's ok for him to hunt his side, even if I do, then where is the crime



You bait your side of the line so Hunter B can hunt over bait legally on his side. Hunter B baits his side of the line so you can hunt over bait legally on your side. Both of you legally hunt 200 yds away/out of sight from the bait pile on your side of the line.

The two of you have conspired to circumvent the law. A conspiracy charge would require proof of intent. That would be hard for the GW to do but you sure aren't going to make him your friend doing that.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 13, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> This was my point from the start, I may have made it poorly, if you SEE a corn pile 5 feet across your line and hunt there, then you have circumvented the law, although I didn't have the grammar to say it that way



No you have not.

I believe you could tangle a square Johnny.


----------



## Johnny 71 (Dec 13, 2015)

Ok, you tell me if the GW walks up and I didn't ask my neighbor to put the corn out, he will be fine
If he walks up and I did ask my neighbor, but deny it, he will figure it out and be mad
I say if he walks up it will look the same from his point of view
I am not the only one who disagreed with you
Spurrs and racks gave the name of an officer
But I will drop it


----------



## elfiii (Dec 13, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> Spurrs and racks gave the name of an officer



I know that officer. His name is Jim Bradfield and I bet he would side with me. In fact I'm going to ask him about it.


----------



## mguthrie (Dec 13, 2015)

I read that your property would be made illegal to hunt if another person placed bait on there property to make it so but elfii' post # 191 makes complete sense and clarifies it for me. Until that post I was ready to debate him otherwise. Thread killer right there


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 13, 2015)

S from what I'm reading the thing to do is pour out you corn on the neighbor's side of the property line then hunt on your side of the line. Sounds like to me a ticket will be written regardless


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 13, 2015)

What we gonna do when it becomes legal to bait?


----------



## six (Dec 13, 2015)

GA DAWG said:


> What we gonna do when it becomes legal to bait?



I'll be moving my  corn pile back to my side of the property line.


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 13, 2015)

Im still just gonna hunt everybody elses corn. Cheaper that way.


----------



## six (Dec 13, 2015)

Good point


----------



## tonyrittenhouse (Dec 13, 2015)

*laws*

In my opinion all the laws written in the regulation book are written to vaguely. There has always been to much officer discretion on the laws. (The "and's " and " or's" of laws .) So, the laws should be written to express exactly what is meant no question's or officer discretion needed. I have been in court a few times and know common sense and the law don't always go hand and hand.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 14, 2015)

GA DAWG said:


> What we gonna do when it becomes legal to bait?



Hunt over bait!


----------



## spurrs and racks (Dec 14, 2015)

*what is written in your game laws...........*

is all you need to know. You may not hunt over bait in the northern zone. You may not hunt within sight of bait at any distance. You may not hunt less than 200 yards of bait if you cannot see it.

simple

Now folks go to court over game violations every day. Some get thrown out, some get the cost of court and the fine.

The law is simple enough written. I know this, the last thing the game warden wants to be involved in is a wising contest between neighbors. It's the fastest way to get everybody wrote up.

Ain't been a deer skinned in our camp that didn't have corn in it. 680 acres and nobody is suppose to be baiting in my club. Go figure, yes all of my neighbors are throwing corn as well as some of my club members. Everybody is pleading ignorant.

s&r


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 14, 2015)

elfiii said:


> The wording is excellent, to wit:
> 
> O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9
> 
> ...



First, my disclaimer.  No one is my client for this statement and this does not constitute a legal opinion to anyone.  In order to give a legal opinion, I would review any pertinent court cases and regulations, which I have not done.  So, take this with a grain of salt and worth as much as you paid for it.

Looking solely at this language, as long as you are not personally involved in anyway with the placement of the bait and you are not shooting over the property where the bait is located, the placement of bait on an adjacent property will not make it illegal to hunt the property where the bait is not located.

Now, I've seen courts twist much clearer language than this and I haven't looked and don't intend to look at any cases interpreting this statute.  We down here in the Southern region of the state don't care, because supplemental feed practices for deer are legal!  

Now, let me be real clear, if you entice your neighbor or are a part of group that even laughing goes out and entices the neighbor, that would be conspiracy to violate and you would not get off of that one.


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 17, 2015)

reylamb said:


> And a reply from the Fulton County District Attorney's Office says you and the game warden.....are wrong.
> 
> The Provide, however, means (in non-lawyer terms) as long as......as in as long as putting out said bait does not prohibit your neighbor from being able to perform an otherwise legal function on his property.......so, they added said Provided, however....to stop landowners from preventing their neighbors from hunting.
> 
> ...



Well, a Fulton Co. DA opines ... that settles it .      Sorry, could not help myself.

If he said what you are saying, then he contradicted himself.  Suddenly with this interpretation, if the neighbor admits to baiting to stop you from hunting, you can hunt, but if the neighbor just like to see the animals eat corn you can't.  Think about that.  Under this interpretation, you would have to go ask your neighbor what he meant by pouring that corn.  That is NOT an appropriate criminal standard.


Once again, y'all ain't my client and this is a personal opinion and worth what you paid for it.  If you really are faced with this question, call a lawyer.


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 17, 2015)

BillK said:


> So my 86 year old neighbor who has never hunted anything in her life, let along killed anything, is breaking the law by pouring out her "wildlife attractant" if I hunt within 200 yards of said attractant on my own property.  Don't make since does it? And what I mean by wildlife attractant is Wally world bird seed.



As I stated before, I have not looked at the legislative record, but I do believe from my reading that is only unlawful to put out bait in order to interfere with someone hunting the adjacent property.  If that is not your intent, then there would be no criminal act by putting out supplemental feed.  If you recall, Georgia is very pro-hunting and anti the anti-hunters.  We have another law that states it is unlawful to interfere with a hunter.  This takes that a step further and says even if you own the adjacent property you can not bait to disrupt your neighbor's hunting.

Put disclaimer here!


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 17, 2015)

Johnny 71 said:


> Ok, you tell me if the GW walks up and I didn't ask my neighbor to put the corn out, he will be fine
> If he walks up and I did ask my neighbor, but deny it, he will figure it out and be mad
> I say if he walks up it will look the same from his point of view
> I am not the only one who disagreed with you
> ...



First, every LEO thinks everyone is a crook who has or has not yet been caught.  Second, hard to prove a conspiracy if everyone shuts their mouth, but I am no longer amazed by how stupid most people are around LEO's.  Reminds me of Ron White's joke ... I know I had the right to remain silent, but unfortunately, I did not have the ability to remain silent.

Most of these laws (again, I haven't checked the legislative record on this one) were for the problem centered on loud PITA people who were trying to screw up hunting and darn proud of it.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 17, 2015)

MudDucker said:


> First, every LEO thinks everyone is a crook who has or has not yet been caught.  Second, hard to prove a conspiracy if everyone shuts their mouth, but I am no longer amazed by how stupid most people are around LEO's.  Reminds me of Ron White's joke ... I know I had the right to remain silent, but unfortunately, I did not have the ability to remain silent.
> 
> Most of these laws (again, I haven't checked the legislative record on this one) were for the problem centered on loud PITA people who were trying to screw up hunting and darn proud of it.



Flat bread sammiches?


----------



## T.P. (Dec 17, 2015)

MudDucker said:


> First, every LEO thinks everyone is a crook who has or has not yet been caught.



No truer words.


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 17, 2015)

MudDucker said:


> As I stated before, I have not looked at the legislative record, but I do believe from my reading that is only unlawful to put out bait in order to interfere with someone hunting the adjacent property.  If that is not your intent, then there would be no criminal act by putting out supplemental feed.  If you recall, Georgia is very pro-hunting and anti the anti-hunters.  We have another law that states it is unlawful to interfere with a hunter.  This takes that a step further and says even if you own the adjacent property you can not bait to disrupt your neighbor's hunting.
> 
> Put disclaimer here!



How Would You Be interfering With or disrupting the hunting of The Adjacent landowner by putting corn out? You already stated in another post that you can hunt your property if the neighbor has baited their property or are feeding deer.


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 17, 2015)

If yall would stay the crap off the property lines. You wouldnt know what I was doing.


----------



## kbuck1 (Dec 17, 2015)

Originally Posted by reylamb  View Post
And a reply from the Fulton County District Attorney's Office says you and the game warden.....are wrong.

The Provide, however, means (in non-lawyer terms) as long as......as in as long as putting out said bait does not prohibit your neighbor from being able to perform an otherwise legal function on his property.......so, they added said Provided, however....to stop landowners from preventing their neighbors from hunting.

In other words, you can put out "bait" as long as you aint huntin it....and it doesn't prevent your neighbor from huntin either....

He also said he would smack anyone in the head that brought that drivel into his office to prosecute......
Well, a Fulton Co. DA opines ... that settles it .     Sorry, could not help myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by MudDucker 

If he said what you are saying, then he contradicted himself. Suddenly with this interpretation, if the neighbor admits to baiting to stop you from hunting, you can hunt, but if the neighbor just like to see the animals eat corn you can't. Think about that. Under this interpretation, you would have to go ask your neighbor what he meant by pouring that corn. That is NOT an appropriate criminal standard.


Once again, y'all ain't my client and this is a personal opinion and worth what you paid for it. If you really are faced with this question, call a lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------


I don't get that from his post at all. 

When he says you can't put bait out that will keep your neighbor from being able to hunt it's referring to the 200 yd rule 

It's nothing to do with the neighbors intentions, it's the neighbors placement location


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 17, 2015)

Any neighbor comes here and ask why I put bait out. Im having em locked up for trespassing.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 15, 2016)

elfiii said:


> You are incorrect.
> 
> For the sake of clarity I did not originally post the entirety of 27-3-9, (b)(1). Here it is.
> 
> ...



Well said, elfiii.


----------



## jatopack (Dec 15, 2016)

I would have to say it is confusing. You wouldn't need wordingabout placing bait by neighbors property if it were not possible for neighbor to place bait in a location to make hunter illegal. By reading that to me it's says it is actually possible for a neighbor to place bait to make the hunter illegal.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 15, 2016)

I have always understood it to be like Elfiii is saying...


----------



## coltc (Dec 16, 2016)

Elfiii is 100% correct! As long as the bait is not on your property, hunt away. In many cases, how would you know if there is bait on the adjacent property unless you trespassed acrossed the line.


----------



## humdandy (Dec 16, 2016)

coltc said:


> Elfiii is 100% correct! As long as the bait is not on your property, hunt away. In many cases, how would you know if there is bait on the adjacent property unless you trespassed acrossed the line.



Does the same apply for turkey hunting?


----------



## Big7 (Dec 16, 2016)

*Redneck translation:*



turkey freak said:


> That's right. Placing bait on your property which would make it unlawful for someone on the adjoining property to hunt is illegal on the person placing the bait. Believe what you want its written for a reason. But you have to read all of it together not just pick and choose the parts you want to read. All of OCGA is that way.



Just caught this thread.

Above is eggzzackkly what it means.

Redneck translation:

Putting bait on your side to THINK you are messing me up on MY side makes YOU the one breaking the law.

End of story.


----------



## bfriendly (Dec 16, 2016)

Big7 said:


> Just caught this thread.
> 
> Above is eggzzackkly what it means.
> 
> ...



Yes, BUT it also keeps the hunter Legal..........What a great read. I cant believe so many are not understanding the Professional Parsing that took place on pages 1 and 2


----------



## slingblade625 (Dec 16, 2016)

All this would be settled if we were given the right to do as our southern hunters are allowed to do.
I've never understood the real reason we can't feed an hunt deer like they can. You may or may not agree with feeding an hunting over it, that just means you don't have too. But some folks do enjoy this way of hunting. The folks that have no food on their property at this time of year an no place to put in food plots would have the opportunity to possibly have a few deer to hunt.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 16, 2016)

Big7 said:


> Just caught this thread.
> 
> Above is eggzzackkly what it means.
> 
> ...



So, if I've been feeding the deer for three years in my back yard, no one hunts the adjoining properties, and I'm legal. Suddenly Joe Blow gets permission to hunt Ol Man Kinney's farm which is my a joining neighbor, and suddenly I'm breaking the law?


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 16, 2016)

T.P.- I think you're okay as long as you're not hunting over it... My layman's opinion.
But it won't be illegal for your neighbor's people to hunt near your feed pile as long as they are on their side of the p.l.


----------



## Rich M (Dec 18, 2016)

Laws are crazy stuff.  Especially when you start nit-picking words.

I'm pretty sure the law is written so that someone CANNOT keep a neighbor from legally hunting by placing bait.  That is the first thing a neighbor would do to protect the deer - place a pile of corn adjacent to the property line.

If they do that with the intent of stopping legal hunting, and the local LEO decides to enforce against the hunting guy who owns the adjoining property, then the placer of the bait should also be fined for placing the bait there in the attempt to stop the hunting and also open themselves up for lawsuit for compensation regarding the loss of the hunting use of the adjoining property.

So, I buy 10 acres and the neighbor decides she doesn't like me hunting there and strategically places 2 piles of corn to eliminate my ability to hunt there.  Then calls LEO when she shes my truck parked at the gate on opening day.  LEO comes out and fines me for hunting over the neighbor's baits.

I show LEO the land survey and law and demand that he also fine her cause I'm gonna use that in my case as I sue her for the loss of my hunting rights on my property cause she illegally stopped me from hunting on my property.  We're talking $thousands$ - land payments, hunting improvement costs, vacation time, replacement meat, and the loss of the overall enjoyment of the hope of sitting in a tree and waiting for the big buck. 

Sounds like a headache that the law may be trying to avoid.  

I'm shopping for land and one purpose of it is for hunting - wife doesn't like me being on leases anymore.  I'll try to keep my eyes and ears open on this one and nip it in the bud - will share the law and say it has 2 possible interpretations.

1 - your feeding the deer cannot impact the right for me to hunt MY land.

2 - your feeding the deer can remove my right to hunt my land AND is illegal for you to do that, and I'll sue your socks off for removing my right to hunt MY land.

SO - instead of tucking tail and hiding - use the law.  Send the neighbor a certified letter explaining the ramifications if they bait you out of hunting and then sue the socks off them if they do, they would have willingly broken the law to mess you up.  You would probably have to call LEO on them and have them written up/ticketed for a successful court case.  It will only happen once.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 18, 2016)

elfiii said:


> You are wrong. What the section clearly says is your placing bait on your property does not prohibit me from hunting legally on my property.




I think the hunter is gong to get a ticket because Ga law says you can't hunt within 200 yards and line of site of bait and doesnt mention anything about property lines. AND  what is to stop a person hunting close to the property line from pouring out corn across the property line and hunting while claiming he didnt know anything about it.  Game Wardens arent going to worry about who did the baiting they are going to write the ticket and let the hunter and judge worry about it in court.
REMEMBER THIS IS ABOUT THE LAW NOT ABOUT COMMON SENSE and usually the two never meet.

 Also how are you going tp prove the adjoining landowner did the baiting. I agree with Rich get the legal ball rolling with LEO's involved beforehand will be you're only recourse


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 18, 2016)

Rich M said:


> I'm pretty sure the law is written so that someone CANNOT keep a neighbor from legally hunting by placing bait.  That is the first thing a neighbor would do to protect the deer - place a pile of corn adjacent to the property line.
> 
> .



I had this exact thing happened to a friend of mine who was hunting a tract of land in an urban area. He found a note on his tree stand not too far from the property line advising that he could no longer hunt there because there has been bait  placed in the neighbor's backyard. Apparently with the intent of stopping his bow hunting. And the note could have only been put there by trespassing. My friend had posted the property and apparently drew the ire of the homeowners for hunting in 'their' woods. So the game warden was called by my friend, and it was resolved in a favorable manner to him. GW said he was good to go.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 18, 2016)

I am surprised that there are not DNR officers or LEOs who read regularly on this site that have not posted up on this thread to clear this up???


----------



## Water Swat (Dec 18, 2016)

1eyefishing said:


> I am surprised that there are not DNR officers LEOs who read regularly on this site that have not posted up on this thread to clear this up???



Because they probabky don't know either.


----------



## T.P. (Dec 18, 2016)




----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 18, 2016)

Excellent work,T.P.-


----------

