Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11452 (2026)

Baiting deer

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Prohibitions. A person may not, during an open hunting season on deer:

A. Place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place; or [PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]

B. Hunt from an observation stand or blind overlooking salt, grain, fruit, nuts or other foods known to be attractive to deer. This prohibition does not apply to hunting from an observation stand or blind overlooking:

(1) Standing crops;

(2) Foods that are left as a result of normal agricultural operations or as a result of a natural occurrence; or

(3) Bear bait that is placed at a bear hunting stand or blind in accordance with section 11301, subsection 1. [PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]

[PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF); PL 2003, c. 655, Pt. B, §171 (AMD); PL 2003, c. 655, Pt. B, §422 (AFF).]

2. Penalty. A person who violates subsection 1 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 may be adjudged.

[PL 2019, c. 630, §3 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2003, c. 414, §A2 (NEW). PL 2003, c. 414, §D7 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 655, §B171 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 655, §B422 (AFF). PL 2019, c. 630, §3 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 2017 ME 8 (Me. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 2017 ME 8 (Me. 2017). · cites it 7× “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1). [¶ 13] Because Lajoie did not object to or otherwise raise the alleged error in the jury instructions at trial, we review his *136 unpreserved challenge for obvious error.”

State of Maine v. Richard Peters, 2024 ME 33 (Me. 2024). · cites it 5× “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1) (2020). 12 Defense counsel said that “[i]f I had known it was just the placing of the bait, I would have cross-examined witnesses as to that.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11452(1) — 2 cases

State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 2017 ME 8 (Me. 2017). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1). [¶ 13] Because Lajoie did not object to or otherwise raise the alleged error in the jury instructions at trial, we review his *136 unpreserved challenge for obvious error.”

State of Maine v. Richard Peters, 2024 ME 33 (Me. 2024). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1) (2020). 12 Defense counsel said that “[i]f I had known it was just the placing of the bait, I would have cross-examined witnesses as to that.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11452(1)(A) — 1 case

State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 2017 ME 8 (Me. 2017). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1). [¶ 13] Because Lajoie did not object to or otherwise raise the alleged error in the jury instructions at trial, we review his *136 unpreserved challenge for obvious error.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11452(1)(B) — 2 cases

State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 2017 ME 8 (Me. 2017). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1). [¶ 13] Because Lajoie did not object to or otherwise raise the alleged error in the jury instructions at trial, we review his *136 unpreserved challenge for obvious error.”

State of Maine v. Richard Peters, 2024 ME 33 (Me. 2024). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1) (2020). 12 Defense counsel said that “[i]f I had known it was just the placing of the bait, I would have cross-examined witnesses as to that.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11452(2) — 1 case

State of Maine v. Richard Peters, 2024 ME 33 (Me. 2024). “12 M.R.S. § 11452(1) (2020). 12 Defense counsel said that “[i]f I had known it was just the placing of the bait, I would have cross-examined witnesses as to that.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.