(a.1)Nothing in subsection (a) 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 be placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered so as to cause hunting any species of wildlife on any adjoining property to be prohibited under subsection (b) of this Code section.
(Ga. L. 1925, p. 302, § 6; Code 1933, § 45-317; Ga. L. 1955, p. 483, § 64; Ga. L. 1968, p. 497, § 18; Code 1933, § 45-508, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 396, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 469, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1179, § 5; Ga. L. 2007, p. 47, § 27/SB 103; Ga. L. 2011, p. 249, § 1/HB 277; Ga. L. 2019, p. 808, §§ 4, 7/SB 72.)
The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, deleted former subsection (a), which read: "As used in this Code section, the term:
"(1) 'Northern zone' means the northern zone for hunting deer with firearms as established pursuant to subsection (c) of Code Section 27-3-15.
"(2) 'Southern zone' means the southern zone for hunting deer with firearms as established pursuant to subsection (c) of Code Section 27-3-15.";
redesignated former subsections (a.1) and (a.2) as present subsections (a) and (a.1), respectively; in subsection (a.1), substituted "subsection (a)" for "subsection (a.1)" near the beginning and inserted "be placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered so as to" and "any species of wildlife" near the end; rewrote paragraph (b)(2), which formerly read: "The prohibitions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to:
"(A) The hunting of deer in the northern zone, other than on lands under the ownership or control and management of the state or federal government, if the hunter is at least 200 yards away from and not within sight of such feed or bait; and
"(B) The hunting of deer in the southern zone, other than on lands under the ownership or control and management of the state or federal government, if the hunter has written permission of the landowner to hunt upon, over, around, or near such feed or bait, except as otherwise provided by paragraph (3) of this subsection."; and substituted "game warden" for "conservation ranger" throughout subsection (c).
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, in subsection (c), "ten" was substituted for "10" in the third sentence, "(c)" was deleted following "this subsection" in the eighth sentence, and "person's" was substituted for "person" in the tenth sentence.
Law reviews.- For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 181 (2011). For article, "Game and Fish: Wildlife Generally," see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 181 (2011).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Due process satisfied.
- O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9, when read as a whole, gives sufficient notice of the acts it prohibits so as to comply with the requirements of due process. Price v. State, 253 Ga. 250, 319 S.E.2d 849 (1984).
Activities constituting "hunting."
- In a prosecution for hunting over a baited field, evidence was sufficient to show defendant was "hunting" where defendant's activities constituted placing, setting, drawing, or using a device to take wildlife, whether or not defendant was actually in the act of pursuing, shooting, killing, or taking deer at the time of apprehension. Redding v. State, 217 Ga. App. 529, 458 S.E.2d 168 (1995).
Evidence of violation.
- Private land under surveillance for illegal hunting was not a "private place" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62, prohibiting the filming of activities of persons in a private place; thus, in a prosecution for hunting over bait, a videotape showing defendant in possession of a bow and arrows on a hunting stand in that area was admissible. Quintrell v. State, 231 Ga. App. 268, 499 S.E.2d 117 (1998).
Punishment for violation.
- Suspension of defendant's hunting and fishing "privileges" during the probation period imposed upon conviction of a violation of O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9 was not an abuse of discretion. Quintrell v. State, 231 Ga. App. 268, 499 S.E.2d 117 (1998).
State's compliance with O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9(c) was not a condition precedent to defendants' prosecution for hunting over a baited field as the legislature did not intend for the provision to apply to any game animal or bird, or the legislature would have so specified. Bennett v. State, 252 Ga. App. 451, 557 S.E.2d 29 (2001).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Fingerprinting required for violating paragraph (b)(4).
- Offenses arising from a violation of paragraph (b)(4) of O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9 are offenses for which fingerprinting is required, while those offenses arising from a violation of subsection (c) are not offenses for which fingerprinting is required. 2011 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 11-5.
Fingerprinting not required for violating subsection (c).
- Offenses arising from a violation of subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 27-3-9 are not offenses for which fingerprinting is required. 2011 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 11-5.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Fish, Game, and Wildlife Conservation, § 53.
C.J.S.- 38 C.J.S., Game; Conservation and Preservation of Wildlife, §§ 55, 56.