Normal Ag Ruling

[JABIII]

Hunting operations lose case
Aberdeen couple among plaintiffs in bird baiting case

By Joe Kafka

Associated Press Writer

PIERRE - Owners and operators of hunting services in central South Dakota have lost a lawsuit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over threats of prosecution for certain farming and management practices.

U.S. District Judge Richard Battey had earlier ruled against the hunting services, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld that decision.

The lawsuit against the FWS was filed in 2003 by a handful of people who provide paid hunting of waterfowl in Hughes County, a popular goose-hunting area adjacent to the Missouri River.

Arguing that they had violated no federal regulations and that FWS should back off, the plaintiffs said their farming practices were normal but also were designed to maximize goose-hunting opportunities.

Filing the lawsuit were Alex and Annie Falk of Aberdeen, Big Bend Ranch Hunting Inc., Bob Nystrom, and Mohammed Hattum. The Falks own a Hughes County ranch and lease hunting rights on the ranch to Big Bend. Nystrom and Hattum are landowners who also have commercial goose-hunting operations.

The federal appeals court noted that commercial hunting results in substantial income for those operators. For example, the court said Big Bend Hunting Ranch normally gets $284,250 in annual gross revenues from hunting - in addition to $9,000 in membership fees from its waterfowl-hunting club.

The plaintiffs said their farming activities help ensure that the hunting operations are financially practical by also helping attract waterfowl.

The Fish and Wildlife Service threatened prosecution of the landowners unless they prohibited waterfowl hunting on ground where grain has been harvested after Dec. 1 each year.

The Falks and Hattum had left corn standing in their farm fields to attract waterfowl, but the threat of prosecution forced them to cease hunting or harvesting in those areas after Dec. 1.

The landowners argued in their lawsuit that harvesting corn after Dec. 1 each year is a normal farming practice in South Dakota.

The appeals court disagreed, relying on testimony from Robert Hall, an Extension Service agronomist and professor at South Dakota State University. Hall researched records from 1970-94 and determined that 95 percent to 100 percent of the corn harvest in South Dakota is typically done by Dec. 1.

Hunting over grain spread as bait has long been outlawed because birds will dive onto those fields and are easily shot.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, first passed in 1918, makes it unlawful to shoot waterfowl attracted by bait if a person knows or should know that an area is baited. Convictions can bring fines up to $15,000 and six months in prison.

The 8th Circuit also upheld a FWS determination that goose and duck hunting cannot be done in corn fields where winter wheat has been sown by aircraft because that is not a recommended farming practice.

The Falks also were advised by the appeals court that they cannot allow waterfowl shooting on their property after Dec. 1 if an adjacent landowner who competes for waterfowl hunters has harvested grain on his land after that date.

"Because harvesting corn after Dec. 1 is not normal harvesting, the neighbor's land was a baited area," the court wrote.

[JABIII]

Resident asks Pamlico commissioners to impose ordinance

July 05,2006

CHARLIE HALL

SUN JOURNAL STAFF

BAYBORO — Another hunting controversy could be looming in the wetlands of Pamlico County.

In the past, the county courtroom has been host to hundreds of hunters on bear hunting issues. This time, the item of hunters’ choice — and citizens’ concern — is duck.

Commissioners listened Monday night to complaints by Hobucken resident Nelson Lee about what he called annoying and dangerous duck impoundments built near residential areas on Goose Creek Island.

Lee said the duck hunting grounds bring hunters, who begin a thunderous barrage of gunshots as early as daylight off Lowland Road.

He brought a map that showed a 10-acre impoundment within 400 feet of the closest of eight homes. He claimed that another impoundment — about 500 acres — was in the works.

Lee said pellets from the gunfire often fall into the yards near the hunting fields.

He also charged that the proprietors, who were not named, import eggs from Canada to produce small birds.

“Ducks bring more ducks,” he told the board.

He also raised questions of avian flu dangers in the years to come as a result of the increased bird population.

He asked commissioners to impose an ordinance that would limit such impoundments to a half mile from homes.

Commissioners directed interim County Manager Tim Buck to check into the situation for possible county intervention.

The county has no noise ordinance.

Lee said he was not opposed to the duck hunting lands, which are an economical boost for the county. He just wants them to practice their sport away from homes, where he said elderly and young people are at risk.

Commissioners also pondered the idea of an ordinance that would limit the distance from a residence in which a firearm can be discharged.

Buck told commissioners that owners of duck impoundments are not required to register their activities with any county offices.

Charlie Hall can be reached at 635-5667 or chall@freedomenc.com.