Hunting Over Bait

We recognize that the issue of feeding/baiting wildlife (especially white-tailed deer) is complex. We understand the dilemma presented by the current ambiguity of the law, and the difficulty of enforcing current law. We understand the pressures and frustrations that law-abiding hunters face when neighboring landowners feed and/or bait deer. Under current statute, feeding is not restricted in any way, and the fine line between what constitutes a feeding program and what constitutes baiting can be vague and depends upon subjective interpretation in many cases (ie., distance from feed that an individual may hunt, etc.) However, we believe that amending current law to allow indiscriminate baiting that may include piling of bait, scattering on trails or in concentrated locations without protection from the elements, etc. would have the following harmful implications:

1. Jeopardize the tradition and sport of hunting in Mississippi

We believe relaxation of restrictions that would allow hunters to harvest game animals with the aid of bait will further widen the opinion and perspective gaps between citizens who support and participate in the sport of hunting and the citizens who do not hunt but also do not oppose the sport. The non-hunting, as well as the anti-hunting publics, will view hunting with the aid of bait as unethical and inappropriate. This will serve only to further compromise our efforts to perpetuate and preserve our hunting tradition in the face of increasing public sentiment against the sport. Additionally, the use of bait by hunters may increase the incidence and severity of illegal harvest, including bag limit violations, gender and antler size violations. Such illegal harvest will have implications not only upon the property upon which the action takes place, but can have a detrimental effect upon surrounding properties that lie within the normal home range of the game animals. Such impacts could be detrimental to the management efforts of these adjoining landowners/managers. Moreover, the use of bait is contrary to the spirit of fair chase, and the majority of both the hunting and non-hunting publics consider such use of bait as unethical.

2.Create biological and wildlife population problems

The increased density of game animals at, or in the vicinity of, bait sites will increase the likelihood of wildlife disease transmission. The risk of disease transmission directly from the bait is well documented, as target and non-target wildlife ingest wet, moldy or fungus infected grain or other feedstuffs. Such acceleration in the speed and efficiency of disease transmission will affect many species, and can potentially result in epidemic situations in wildlife populations. Additionally, there is potential increased predation that will be facilitated by these aggregations of game animals, both through the density increase and the increased exposure that results when prey species are lured out of protective cover.

3.Create habitat problems that pose significant threat to long-term sustainability of the wildlife and forest resources.

Supplemental feeding and baiting has the potential to artificially increase animal populations above natural carrying capacity of the habitat. Such artificially high populations invariably result in habitat degradation and, long-term, reduction in carrying capacity. Like the disease implications, the effects of habitat degradation will have a landscape level impact, and could affect a broad array of both plant and animal populations.

You are not logged in or are not a member yet.
Please [sign up] or [login] and contact a decision maker about this issue.