HB 1285: A Bill Even True Deer Hunters Should Object To
by Bill Simon
Last week, Rep. Jay Roberts dropped HB 1285, a bill designed to make it legal to bait deer with food in places that deer might not normally go, and shoot them as long as the baiter is at least 200 yards away.
Wow…that kinda reminds me of noodling, except the fish have somewhat of a sporting chance in the natural habitat of the water.
Not so with some goober being able to set-up a bait stand and entice deer to come into areas that are usually barren of such food for the sheer purpose of him/her being able to more easily kill the deer. Yeah…that’s sporting alright.
And, who’s going to pace-off the 200 yards to make sure the “hunter” (cough!-cough!) plays fair within the law?
Hey, here’s a great idea for Rep. Roberts: Let’s put a hooker in his office and see if she cannot entice him to put on her panties for a lap dance right then and there.
Sphere: Related Content
February 13th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I want to know where that baited field is in Texas that attracts old lawyers into the line of hunter fire….
February 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I understand several sponsors of the bill own FEED STORES. Can you say line their pockets with legislation. If they vote for the bill they should have an ethics complaint filed against them.
February 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Like we should expect anything less! This is only the tip of the iceberg folks. In November these guys want it to be every goobers God-given Constitutional right to whack Bambi over a corn pile (it is an election year!). Guess, they don’t realze that hunters make up less than 2% of the population! No wonder Georgia is dead last in education.
Good point Dave! As I understand, Flint River Mills makes alot of deer feed and is associated with some political high rollers. Makes you wanna go HMMMMMMM!
What happens when we feed animals? They breed more successdully. That is, they make more animals. The last thing we need in Georgia is more deer.
February 19th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Sort of like hunting at the zoo. Very sporting.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:27 am
I had heard that the Chairman of the GOP’s family owns Flint River Mills?
Can anyone verify that?
If that is the case, wouldn’t the clause in this bill that forces hunters to restock their feeders with feed every two weeks be problamatic for the party if the money trail was followed?
I’ve also ben told that one of the co-sponsor’s of the bill actually owns a feed store. I know that should he vote for this bill it would be an ethics violation, but isn’t there controls in place that would stop a legislator from authoring or co-authoring such a deal for themselves?
February 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Debbie, that would be Southeastern Minerals, Inc and its sister companies in Texas, Illinois, and North Carolina. They manufacture mineral pre-mixes used by other companies that make animal feeds. They also make what is known as mineral blocks (a popular bait with deer hunters).
As for the Flint River Mills, I beleive that his father sat on the Board of FRM.
I have also heard that one of the co-sponsors owns a feed store in Barrow County (maybe Winder?). Certainly, this should borne by the eyes of ethics watchdogs.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Looks like a potential political scandal is brewing. Maybe it is just gossip. It would be easy to check who the co-sponsors of the bill is and if he owns a feed store.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:18 am
Actually, it might not be as easy as you think. A lot of these folks, when they fill-out their “disclosure forms”, they fill-in the blanks of what they own with something like “retail store,” or, more likely “businessowner” and leave it at that.
Are they lazy legislators, or, just crafty in not being complete in describing what they do? I vote for “crafty.”
February 21st, 2006 at 11:26 am
A friend of mine who lives in Barrow County says that his Representitive owns a feed store.
I don’t know what district that would be? Do you think that Rep. could be the author of the bill? Surely not?
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Debbie,
That would be Rep. Terry Lamar England.
Bill’s correct. It takes a lot of effort researching and digging up these skeletons intended to be hidden from the public view. But it there if you put forth the effort!
“W”
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 am
HHMMMMMMMMM,
Rep. England is actually a co-sponsor of this bill!
I’m a political novice but isn’t this a bit over the top? Can our elected officials actually write and pass legislation that so obviously increases their own income and get away with it?
Does this sort of thing go on frequently?
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:19 am
…while it is not necessarily sporting of these toothless backwoods (and the Escalade driving versions) clods, deer are like rabbits and cause not only vehicle but plant and crop damage…I am for anything that thins these vermin…..like trees, they are weeds, the big fans of trees don’t have 100 of them on their suburban lot dropping leaves 12 months a year…they live in some high rise…
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:25 am
Well I guess since I am the topic of much speculation here I should comment. I do own a feed store in Barrow County, Winder to be exact. I am one of approx. 2,000 retailers in the State that sell feed products. DNR says that about 4% of the State’s population actually hunts or fishes. Now not all of them hunt deer, I hunt Dove and no deer so you see the point. Then lets say that half of that number hunts deer, we are at 180,000 people, divide that by 2,000 stores and you wind up with about 90 customers per store. How many of these do you think will drive from Winder 3 hours south to hunt in the zone that would allow the baited hunting, some sure, but not many. We have more deer in our part of the State than we can shake a stick at.
Now I wonder if we would be having this discussion if I were a sponsor of a tax cut bill that would affect me and you? What about the farmers here in the House that are raising corn for a living? Do they have a conflict since it could potentially increase the market price of corn? What about the attorney’s that are members that draw up the land leases for the hunt clubs? Is their’s a conflict? There are topics daily that apply to us all.
I could see the arguement if my store were located in or near the area where this will be allowed, but it is not.
As a matter of fact, for the margin that any feed dealer makes on a bag of corn, it just isn’t worth trying to “pull” something off like this. I have never denied nor hid the fact that my wife and I own a feed store. On my financial discloser form each year I list that plainly for all to see. I am proud of my association with agriculture in this State.
To close, it is far more profitable for me to be at that store earning a living than it is being up here representing my 50,000 constituents. I enjoy being a representative, but I do not appreciate blogs like this constantly calling in to question the ethics and morals of me and my fellow legislators, be they Republican or Democrat. These folks leave their families and jobs for a week at a time this time of the year to try to make this State a better place to live, work and play. Yes we asked for the job, but nothing about it allows for anyone to impune our character.
By the way, I am not the author of the Bill in question, I am a signer on it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:38 am
Say, Vince? Are any and all animals that cross the path of where you direct your SUV at any one time also “vermin?”
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:44 am
Rep. Terry England,
I appreciate you coming onto the blog and posting a very thoughtful answer.
You are right, to some degree. Us constituents should not jump to conclusions and impugn legislators just because there might be a connection between a bill’s passage and their line of work.
However, there have been lots of legislators before you (both Repub and Dem) who have had no problem working on bills that directly help their self-interest.
SO, here’s a question to you: How would you respond to defend your position to support this legislation after reading Glenn Dowling’s op-ed piece in today’s AJC on this very topic?
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Bill,
If my SUV or Truck, or sports car, or even my boat are on roads or waterways paid for with my user taxes and fees the vermin come second(except my dog), unless there is an attorney in the ditch I can hit first!
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:50 am
Vince,
Yes, but you see, it is the very result of something like this bill that would CAUSE more deer to go wandering on the roads for you to hit.
Attorneys can only legally be hit with quail buckshot, not automobiles or trucks.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
Bill,
Thanks for your comment and question.
You are right, some of those that have been here before us have done things that were very questionable. My test is always, “What would my Lord, my Mama and my grandparents think if they read ______ about me on the front page of the newspaper?” I stick to that and I think that a LOT of my fellow members do the same thing now.
I read the op-ed article that you referenced. I think the ones that are drawing the attention and causing the harm are the folks that are like Mr. Dowling. If they continue to draw attention to the topic, then sure the public opinion will be negative.
What gets me is, the same ones that are so vocal against it and touting the disease problem, are the ones that advocated supplemental feeding in their magazines and publications for years.
Of all the bags of corn that I have seen and sold over the years, I have yet to see one bag sold or on a truck for that matter, that said do not feed to humans or livestock. The same issues about disease that have been brought out in the discussion also do not hold water. Deer are pack animals to some extent. They for the most part travel together, males included until rut usually.
Here in Georgia we have been supplemental feeding for several years now, and actually have the most healthy deer herd in the State’s known history according to some. Yes we have a problem with deer car/accidents. Hunting over bait will not change that here in North Georgia since that is not allowed north of the line established in the bill.
The bill outlines that the feeding program will be done year-round. This also has been the call from the hunting groups for years. It is the best thing for the deer herd. If a hunter has a management program in place which calls for supplemental feeding, food plots and minerals (not just salt blocks but a real mineral program) then the herd is healthier and safer from disease. I don’t think anyone can dispute that.
The hunters that have a year-round program will not be the ones feeding, in fact many of the hunt clubs forbid hunting over bait in their club rules and I don’t expect that will change. The bill does not force anyone to hunt this way, it remains the individuals own choice.
I can’t buy Mr. Dowlings’ arguement about making the deer in danger more by other animals. These animals already are aware of where and what the deer herd feeding paterns are now. If you have an automatic feeder setup in the woods on a timer, all the animals in the area, turkey, deer, etc.. know when it spins. They can hear it and they also develop a daily feeding pattern.
What it all boils down to is that the location of the deer stand that the hunter is in or the location of the feed will change in those cases where the hunter decides to take advantage of the things allowed for in the bill.
I hope I have answered your question, as I have typed it I have been interupted about 10 times so I hope the thought process makes some kind of sense.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:44 am
Rep. Englan,
I live in Walton county. I hunt in Harris County. No way would I travel to my lease and then attempt to secure my seed. I can only assume it would be the same if I was a baiter.
You must realize that the majority of the hunters in this state live above the political divider drawn in this legislation and you should know, though it appears you may not, that many of those travel to the Southern zone to hunt. This is a statewide issue! You should not attempt to divide our state!
Baiting and feeding deer has been historically illegal in Georgia. I have grown up hunting in this state at a time when if someone found a deer track, let alone a deer, people would ride for miles to come see it, that is if the hunter didn’t dig it up and take it town square to show off. The way that Georgia got to the point of having the healthy deer herd of which you speak was through the efforts of wildlife biologists such as Jack Crockford and Joe Tanner among many others, working with the ethical hunters and landowners of this state, such as my father and grandfather, in protecting the restocked animals to ensure their health and recovery.
We stood gaurd with these dedicated men and women and helped protect our precious resource from poachers of every type, from baiters to spotlighters to tresspassers etc. There is a strong creed that lives in the conservationist/Sportsmen and women of this state that has served to protect and foster the re-emergance of our deer herd following the wholesale slaughter that occured by all available means during the difficult economic times off depression.
That creed is responsible for the healthy herd we have enjoyed for the past few decades here in Georgia! You’ll not be allowed to give credit to the harmful, unethical practice of shooting deer over bait for the efforts of these upstanding men and women and I am offended by your attempt!
You join in the liberal tactic of incrementalism by taking your approach. As I stated earlier, in Georgia if you were feeding deer anywhere on a piece of property, historicaly, you were considered a poacher. Then a few years ago we were asked to “compromise” and the law was changed to allow hunting on property as long as you were 300 yards away and out of sight from the feeder. Then it was decided that 300 yards was too far and the line was moved in yet another increment to 200 yards. Now of course those that desire total liberalization claim they need even “more compromise”! Many claim they don’t really want to hunt over bait, they just want a “choice”. The next step will be to remove the line and alow the scurge in North Georgia saying “well if it’s OK down there, then it ought to be OK up here”.
Do the term “incrementalism” and “choice” ring any bells?
Rep. England, I don’t know you and have no idea how you came to believe the things you believe concerning deer biology, but I fear you have been given some rather poor advice on this issue. I urge you to contact the wildlife proffesionals at Wildlife resource Division and ask those well educated, trained men and women how they feel about baiting and then make your decision.
I for one, do not think you supported this legislation for financial reasons, but I can see how your political adversaries on the other side of the aisle could make the assumption.
Please re-consider. This legislation is bad for the resource. It is bad for hunting. It is bad for Georgia and it is bad for the Republican Party.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Jeff,
I agree with your point about Joe Tanner and many others had a part in the recovery and now over abundance of Whitetail deer in our State. I too remember when seeing a deer was a very rare thing. I grew up on and still live on our family farm in Barrow County that is very well populated with deer now. I was a truck crop (vegetable) farmer for several years and suffered the impact of a large deer herd. This still remains a problem today statewide. But this is beside the point. I enjoy seeing the deer now that I am not doing this type farming any longer.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on our definition of a poacher. My definition has always been that one that is hunting with a spotlight, hunting on posted property, hunting without permission on someones property. Not one that describes someone that feeds deer as a poacher. Would you describe the couple that feeds deer in their backyard for the pleasure of watching them a poacher?
You asked about my knowledge of deer biology. I don’t have a degree in animal science and never have said that I did. But, I do understand livestock biology very well and know that basically what is good for one species is generally good for another. I have followed the research done by many deer biologist across the nation and this is what I have drawn on for my (admitted) limited knowledge. Many of the practices that are used today are promoted by the Quality Deer Management Assoc. and I have seen improvement in animal health everywhere based on this type of management. I have heard a great length from the folks at the Wildlife Resource Division on their opinions about this matter. They have been saying that this would increase the disease population due to the close proximity of animals to each other. I don’t know about your deer in Walton County, but ours in Barrow tend to travel in groups or herds. So I feel like nature has dispelled this arguement.
I appreciate your questions and comments also. None of us up here know everything about all things. We are just trying to do the best job possible for the folks of the State.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Rep. England,
My definition of a poacher is someone who kills game animals in an illegal or unethical manner. While the little old couple that feeds the deer in their backyard should be advised that they are not helping the animals, they are certainly not poachers.
However, when presented with the biological fact that feeding deer can cause severe health issues, not only in deer, but to a higher degree in songbirds and poultry such as wild turkey, then I believe those that continue to do so, or continue to make it easier for others to do, are not making the right decisions for our resources.
One last question for you sir, if you don’t mind, have you heard from your constituents concerning this issue, and if so, how do they feel about htis issue?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Jeff,
Sorry for the delay in responding. We were in recess for a luncheon and a Committee all in the span of 45 minutes. I haven’t figured with the running we do in a day, how I continue to gain weight up here.
Anyway, to your question.
Up until about a week or so ago, I had only heard from a couple of constituents about the matter. Those I had heard from to the best of my memory, were all for the measures allowed in the bill.
I actually only started hearing from those against at the end of last week and at this point it is still less than 25 against and about 10 for it.
I will say that of all of the e-mail responses, with the exception of about 5 total, have all been auto generated e-mails with no personal comments.
Again, thank you for asking.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Rep. England,
Yes, your answer does make some sense. Thank you very much for taking the time to rebutt Mr. Dowling’s opinion.
I am not a hunter, but I am glad to get both sides of this story. You might wish to copy your response to me and send it to the AJC as a rebuttal; it was well-worded.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Sir, I completely understand the delay. I have another job myself!
I do find it very interesting however, that of the input you have recieved about 60% are opposed to the legislation, yet you seem to still be planning on voting in favor of it.
You certainly aren’t implying that you would discount a constituents message to you because of the form in which it delivered are you? I’d think you would appreciate their time and effort in communicating their thoughts with you.
I’m certainly learning a great deal from this excercise about politics. I had previously been under the impression that our Representitives were supposed to represent our desires.
I’m fairly young, but I’ll get the hang of this “Representitive Democracy” stuff one of these days!
Thanks again fro your time in responding to my questions and thank you for serving in your government.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
OOPP’s! I meant to say “our government”.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Jeff,
I didn’t mean that I discount the input. But one thing I have found, a lot of the time on these auto sends, the folks don’t always reaad them before they ask they be sent.
I ALWAYS appreciate input. Even when I disagree with the sender. Sometimes and quite often, the e-mails I receive help to point out a flaw in a bill we are considering.
You mentioned that you were young and having a hard time figuring out this gov’t thing. I turn 40 this year and don’t even claim to understand it. Just as you think you have it figured out, it changes.
I enjoy it most of the time. HAHA It is a very rewarding job especially when you can help folks with their problems.
I appreciate you asking the questions and allowing me to respond.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Bill,
Thank you for your kind words. I would rather leave the fight with the AJC Editorial Board to someone else.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I too am concerned about hunting deer over bait. I have issues with baiting from an ethical standpoint rather than a biological. The idea of baiting does not seem like something a sportsman might want to do. It’s difficult to make a bioloical argument against hunting over bait due to the fact that it is acceptable to feed deer and plant food plots. I just don’t see how a hunter holding a gun near the feed poses any additional negative impact to the entire population.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I understand Alec Poitevint spoke at a hearing yesterday urging the bills passage. He said it would be an economic boom for the state, especially large land owners who could sell hunts. It is my understanding he owns or has large holdings in land and feed operations in Georgia and around the country. Seems this could be a conflict of interest which creates ethical concerns for the State GOP considering he is chairman.
Also it is my understanding he has interest in Fenced Hunting Land. The deer are effectively pinned and can be hunted inside an enclosure. Presently Georgia law specifies that a minimum of 600 acres can be fenced. Talk about unfair.
I can see the ethics charges piling up if this bill passes.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Calvin,
Just a quick comment on the fenced hunting issue. I am trying to find an answer about the size or even if it is legal to have a fenced Whitetail hunt. What I have been told so far is that the acreage is 640 (or 1 section) and it is only legal to hunt non native species within the area. So currently my understanding is that it is not legal to hunt Whitetail in the fenced enclosures. The reason the non native animals are legal has to do with trying to keep the non native animals out of the wild and breeding with our naitve deer.
I will repost if I find out different. By the way, I am not in favor of allowing the “canned” hunts in Georgia either. If it is a native species they should be left in the wild.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Here is a good example of a canned hunt. I wonder if the deer were baited as well.
http://www.real-hunters.com/bellar-trial-video.cfm
February 24th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Terry,
While I may be a political novice, the current situation as it relates to hunting in Georgia is a subject with which I am fairly well versed.
The high-fence or “deer-proof” fence minimum acerage is in fact 640 acres. Until recently it was only 300 acres.
It is currently legal in the state of Georgia to shoot native whitetail deer inside those pens. It is a disgusting situation for ethical Sportsmen and women and one that should eliminated.
However, rather than moving to eliminate the practice and taking down these canned hunt emporiums, several of the same Representitives that have signed onto the baiting bill have also attempted to take oversight of cervid farming away from Wildlife Resource Division and give it to the Department of Agriculture. (HB 825)
It is believed that once that had been done, they would have an easier time working through the House Agriculture Committee, as opposed to the House Game, Fish & Parks committee to allow not only the shrinkage of size of the pen but also re-open our state to the import of cervids (deer, elk, etc.) and other exotic animals for the purpose of selling canned hunts. These hunts can produce income for the landowners in the range of $15,000 to $30,000 for each animal!
Many sportsmen and women believe that HB 1285 and HB 825 or at least “kissing cousins” if not “blood-brothers” intended to line the pockets of the wealthy at the cost of Geogia’s great traditions of Fair Chase Hunting.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Jeff,
I will defer to you on this. My comment came from what I had been hearing during 2 sub-committee meetings we have had over the last two weeks, and the information that I understood, was that Whitetail hunting was not allowed in fences. Again, I defer to you. I have felt the whole time that we don’t need to do this.
Yes some of the signers are the same but not me. The Dept. of Ag has expressed concern about having this added to their list of things to do and be responsible for. I think we still have at least one more sub-committee meeting before it comes to the full committee for a vote.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Rep. England,
I apologize if I may have led anyone to believe that you were among the Rep.s that had signed on to both bills! I knew that you were not a sponsor of HB 825 and I should have made that abundantly clear! Again, my sincere apologies.
As for the comments heard at the sub-committee hearings, I understand that at times one can hear differing “facts” from various factions during a debate or hearing.
I also had checked with the Dept of Ag and found that they had no interest in taking on cervids.
I also wanted to thank you for coming to this public forum and joining in this discussion! You certainly did not have to do so and I certainly appreciate your time. We are basically neighbors and I would welcome the request for any assistence I could offer you in your endeavors at the Capital!
Well, except HB 1285 of course!lol!
February 24th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Interestingly, in 1986 the USDA announced that brucellosis would be eradicated from the US in five years. What is happening now? Prior to and during the Brucellosis eradication efforts, it was known that cattle had passed the brucellosis bacterium on to wild deer. However, baiting and feeding were quite unpopular and deer herds were considerable lower than today. However, as brucellosis was eradicated there were still reserviors for the disease - deer. But prevalence was extremely low 1-2% or less. That is, until feeding and baiting became popular. It is clearly documented that prevalence in wild elk herds was about 1% prior to feeding. In fed herds, the prevalence is 35% or more. These areas are where brucellosis has re-appeared in cattle herds.
What would an outbreak of Brucellosis do to out cattle herds and family farms in Georgia.
http://www.uga.edu/scwds/topic_index/2002/IdahoBrucellosisLinkedtoWildlife.pdf
http://www.uga.edu/scwds/topic_index/2004/BrucellosisWYcattle.pdf
February 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Jeff,
I didn’t want to put words in the Dept. of Ag’s mouth but you are right, they don’t want to have to look after all the deer in the state as the bill would have them do.
I started not to join the discussion, but after seeing untrue things about myself being posted, I couldn’t let it pass by. My family and I work very hard in our community and have for over 6 generations. I don’t want to do anything to tarnish that. So I figure the best medicine is getting the truth out there.
Thank you for your offer of help. Anytime you see an issue that is an interest, please let me know, I would welcome the help. You can find my e-mail at http://www.legis.state.ga.us I don’t figure they want us handing out our addresses on here.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Would anyone offer their take on this pending bill concerning fenced hunnting.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06//versions/hb1463_LC_25_4410_a_2.htm
February 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
david,
I think Rep. Warren has put forth a bill any fair minded person could embrace!
Shooting deer in pens is not fair and profiting from it should be criminal!
I’m contacting my Representative this morning and asking him to sign on to this.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Debbie,
You do realize that the bill does allow for hunting deer in a fenced area if it is in exsistence as of June 30, 2006. So it is allowing to happen what you are saying should be criminal.
The only thing it prohibits is building any new pens legally after that date.
Just making sure you understood what it meant. The wording can fool you sometimes on these bills.
I guess it would be fair to the individuals that already have this in place and have invested. It would basically grandfather them in but allow no others to start after that date. I still don’t necessarily feel this is okay for Whitetails.
February 25th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Rep. England: Our thanks to you for taking part in this discussion
Sir, I am appauled at your suggestion that Mr. Dowling’s letter to the AJC is “causing harm” by drawing attention to the baiting issue. It is an established fact that the very foundation of a Democracy is an informed public. Your comments seem to imply that you by far prefer to do business in back rooms as opposed to operating out in the public arena. Your constituency might very well disagree with such a stand.
I congratulate you for wanting to make our State a better place in which to live, work, and play. However, I fail to see where the proposal of baiting wildlife contributes to any of the above.
You clearly take the position that baiting wildlife to make them easier to kill is a good thing. You have closed your mind to the possibility that the opposite might be the case. You fail to take into account that the majority of your constituency might very well take baiting to be a bad thing.
You seem to have taken particular care not to mention the morality and ethics associated with shooting deer over a pile of corn. You should know that it is neither moral nor ethical to shoot deer, or any animal, while they are in the vulnerable position of attempting to satisfy their basic need to survive. I am not an animal right’s advocate, but I do recognize the unfairness of such an endeavor.
It is extremely unfortunate that State Legislators would trample roughshod over Georgia’s Wildlife Resources Division in matters involving the Wildlife Resource of this state. Georgia has Wildlife Biologists who are trained, experienced, and professional, who are being ignored in this vital matter. This is a sad commentary, reflecting unfavorably upon the legislative process in this State.
Unlike you Rep. England, I am a deer hunter. I killed my first deer in 1944, 62 years ago. I have hunted regularly since then. Most of this hunting time was in South Georgia, the very zone where you seem to think that the salvation of deer hunting depends upon the success of this proposed legislation.
I know of no rational reason for splitting the State of Georgia into a baiting zone and a non-baiting zone. We have enough division already without our own legislature propagating more division.
It is clear that South Georgia special interests are driving this whole matter. Proponents of the proposal have shied away from efforts to make the matter statewide for the simple reason that the issue would not carry with North Georgia hunters and Legislators.
My hope and my expectations is that the effort will meet with failure.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Terry,
Well? We have to start somewhere! I would imagine it would be easier to pass legislation with a “Grandfather clause” than one that didn’t.
Once this one passes, you could propose legislation that would shut down the existing canned hunt operations.
The more I think about your willingness to vote against the wishes of your constituents, the more unsettling it is to me.
I’m going to speak with my Representitive to determine if does the same sort of thing. I sure do hope not!
February 26th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Tom Murphy told many newly elected democrats when they first started in the legislature to remember “No one from Atlanta Georgia got you elected to this house. People from your district elected you.”
You would do well to consider that point Mr. England
February 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Rep. England,
Can you tell us whether Alec Poitevint has a direct financial interest in any entity which would benefit from allowing whitetail deer to be killed (notice I explicitly refuse to use the word “hunted”) over bait? If so, doesn’t the close connection between Poitevint and Gov. Perdue generate at least some questions that MUST be answered before you decide to vote affirmatively for this bill? I know you signed on it, but that isn’t irrevocable, is it?
As others have done, I thank you for participating in this discussion. As you can see, you’re the only one so far who has shown enough concern to do so. That speaks very well of you in my humble opinion.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Sorry everyone for being away for a couple of days. I wanted to spend some time with family this weekend, so I didn’t check e-mail.
Mr. Holt, I agree that we have to have open and fair government. That is not what I meant in what I said about Mr. Dowlings article. I DO have a problem when misinformation is given to forward someones cause. The aflatoxin issue is one that should not be brought up. Most all feed companies that bag or process corn test for this toxin in their incoming grain loads. It is just not worth the gamble for them not too. The recent dogfood scare is a prime example of what can happen when they don’t. His diease arguements are not supportable either for the reasons that I listed in earlier responses. He mentions that bagged corn is often tagged saying not for human use and do not feed to livestock, I have yet to see a bag so labled. These are the problems I have with articles like his that are written purely to bring up the emotional points and not base the arguement against based on facts.
I do not feel the salvation of deer hunting is based on the passage of this bill as you have stated. I think that the sport of deer hunting is alive and well in the state right now and wil remain so for a very long time into the future.
Everyone here has assumed that I will be voting for this measure. I have yet to say one way or another. In fact, the measure still has to make it to the Floor for a vote. Getting there is over half the battle in the legiislative process. Just because I am a sponsor of the bill doesn’t automatically say that I will vote for it. Quite often, bills come out of the committee process changed to the point that they do the exact oposite of what they were intended to. I don’t ever commit one way or the other until it is up for the final vote in the house.
Debbie, on HB1463, what I am saying, is lets don’t make it legal to begin with. You go on to mention my “willingness to vote against the wishes of my constituents” bothered you. As I mentioned in an earlier response, I have about 50,000 folks in my district and I have only heard from about 35 total for and against. I don’t know if that actually gives anyone a clear message of the feelings of that large of a group. Also, considering that the groups against the measure have an organized effort against, while the folks for the measure do not. There are issues everyday in the House that not all of my constituents like, so I have to vote against the wishes of some percentage of them every time I push the button. If you were on the other side of the issue, you would certainly appreciate it that I would give time to listen to your arguement in favor, wouldn’t you? If I said no to you the second you asked to talk about the issue in the beginning would you feel like you had wasted your time in such a case. Again, I think all sides should have their chance to be heard.
To David, Speaker Murphy had a very good point. It still rings true today. I would again point back to the response to Debbie above in response to your message. By the way David, I do not respond to threats very well. You could have made your point in a different and more respectful way than your last sentence.
I have tried to remain respectful to all that have posted on this site so far. However, one thing I have noticed is that sometimes when folks are behind a computer screen, they don’t return the favor. I have held my tongue (well my fingers I guess) until this point. All 256 of us in the House and Senate are elected by the folks in our districts. I appreciate the faith that these folks have placed in us to do a job, but that does not open us to the point of being talked hateful too or being threatened especially in a public forum such as this. If you feel differently than this, that is okay with me, that is your right but don’t expect me to respond to your comments. We can have a civil - adult discussion without being ugly to one another.
I will step down from my soapbox now.
Dadddy always said you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I hope all of you had a great weekend.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Lucky,
Your e-mail came in as I was finishing up my response above. I appreciate your kind comments. I have enjoyed the discussion with the exception of a couple things on this matter.
To answer your question about signing on to a bill, yes we can remove our names if we want to. It however is considered for lack of a better word - rude. There have been several bills that we all have signed on to at some point in time and then vote against on the floor. As I had mentioned earlier I think, when you receive information that shows there is a problem, then you change your mind. Quite honestly, it take a fair amount of time to remove your name and we really don’t have time to do it a lot.
I would prefer that Mr. Poitevint answer the questions related to him. I know part of the answer, but I hope you respect the point and position I am in, that is his battle to pick or fight and not mine. I hope you understand.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Terry you say, “Debbie, on HB1463, what I am saying, is lets don’t make it legal to begin with.”
It IS legal currently! There are 300 acre pens in this state where deer are held and killed by one person for a fee paid to another person. When the law dictating the size of the pen was changed to 640 acres, the smaller ones were “Grandfathered” in.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Rep. England,
It appears that you may be “softening” your stance on the issue, not to put words in your mouth. I do hope this is the case.
I don’t know if you were in attendance at the Committee meeting last week to hear Rep. Roberts presentation of the bill to the Committee or not. I was there and found his lead in to the presentation quite ineresting.
He went to the trouble to make it abundantly clear that though he is Gov. Perdue’s Floor Leader, this is not the Goveernor’s legislation.
Why do you think he went to that effort?
I realize that you have previously given your support to this bill, as have other Representatives, and that it may be a bit uncomfortable for you to make a 180 degree change in position and vote “NO”. This “pickle” has been presented to me by other Reps. who were pressured by the Floor Leader prior to their hearing of the desires of their constituents. They had offered that they would simply not vote as a “compromise” solution.
The traditions and heritage of conservationist-sportsmanship in Georgia doesn’t need more “compromise”. You know that it will take 91 “NO” votes for this measure to be defeated. If you should choose not to vote, you will have still voted for the measure with your lack of action. Every single vote is extremely important.
Please, for the sake of maintaining the current great high traditions of ethical sportsmanship here in Georgia, speak with Rep. Roberts and tell him you can no longer support this bill and join those who will do the right thing for Georgia’s future.
BTW, it is odd that the legislature is moving to outlaw or further restrict cock and dog fighting yet would consider the legalization of baiting. It certainly would, at a minimum, send a confused message.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Debbie,
I am sorry and may be getting the issues confused, but are you saying that it is legal to hunt Whitetail in that way? My understanding the whole time has been that it is legal on non - native specie. We have got too many conversations going here for me to keep clear….Sorry for the confussion.
Jeff,
Again, I will leave it to the person you are asking the question about to answer those questions. My thinking would be, traditionally when a Floor Leader brings a bill it is usually a bill the Governor has asked for. I think Jay was just making the point that is not the case here. But I will leave that for him to answer if he wants to.
Your BTW, is a good point.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Rep. England,
Again, thank you for the time you’ve devoted to this discussion. I certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to speak for someone else. As far as Debbie’s question regarding “penned” hunting, it IS currently legal in Georgia, unfortunately.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Representative England
Please forgive the perception I created in my last post as being a threat. It was not intended to be one. My point I was trying to make (as as you realize I am a poor writer and slander the English language often) was politicians sometimes lose connection with the people who elected them.
I do appreciate the time you have spent here in this discussion. I personally believe baiting will be bad for hunters and hunting over the long run.
As a grass roots worker nothing aggravates me more than someone I worked to help elect only to have them discount those who hammered the signs in the ground, stuffed the envelopes, manned the phones, staked the polling places at 4 a.m., etc.
Again I do appreciate your entering this conversation.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:05 am
David,
Thanks for the clairification.
I have been down that same road before with helping someone get elected and them they do an about face. So I understand where you are coming from.
March 8th, 2006 at 9:26 am
FYI, I have been told that the author of HB 1285, realizing that his bill was about to meet over-whelming defeat on the floor, has withdrawn his bill!
I sure do hope the House Leadership will take this in the same light they would take it had it not been withdrawn. The baiting issue has been brought up in the legislature year after year and this should settle the situation once and for all.
I’ve been told the head count was in the neighborhood of 131-50.
Now we have SB 612 to deal with! This one is really more amazing than HB 1285! If passed it would reduce the fine for hunting any animal over bait to the paultry sum of $25!
Sportsmen have asked the legislature time and again to pass bills that would significantly increase the penalties for poachers and now they try to basically decriminalize poaching by reducing the fine to a joke!
These are Republicans? The Liberitarian Party is looking more and more inviting.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I have just found this blog after asking jeeves about the laws in Georgia on baiting deer, as I really love deer. I have run these type people from trespassing on my acreage and the deer literally hide in my yard during hunting season. I am thoroughly disgusted after reading these blogs! From those I have observed from the 2% group of so-called “hunters” in the west Georgia area are some of the most ignorant beings I’ve ever seen. We are talking about frenzied type behavior over just killing and I have even observed the thrill of “their” power they have over this animal. They are not thrilled to have good meat at all, it’s not about that-it’s about power over “something”. I came from family in the north who occassionally hunted; but, I never observed power mongering, bloodthirty, torture enjoying - ever. The group I have observed in W. Ga. area are illiterate, drinking “buddies” and make me sick to my stomach with their
stupidity and lack of interest to improve their pathetic lives in anyway.