Pouring corn vs planting corn - double standard?

[walt4dun]

I tried to search for this topic but to no avail.

Also, I'm not trying to start any trouble, just looking to understand the reason why.

The topic about what regulations people would support got me to thinking about this... The vast majority of people seemed to support more food - but the DNR ain't got the dough for it so if it is going to be it is up to us.

Back in the day, dumping corn in the swamp was commonplace, everyone did it. And people killed birds. I understand that there are a magnitude of other factors that have changed since then as well as to why we don't have as many ducks anymore... I get that.

Regarding corn - It appears to me that there is a double standard as far as baiting for waterfowl is concerned these days. Planting an impoundment vs dumping corn equals the same net result right? The ducks come in to eat the corn.

I understand that planting an impoundment requires more money, time & energy, etc but at the end of the day it is still baiting. Leaving a stand of corn in a field that you intentionally flood for the purpose of shooting the wildlife that come in to feed on it is NOT a normal agricultural practice - that sounds like baiting to me. If planting that pond helps you justify what you are doing in your mind then thats fine, but I would say that dumping corn is a lot easier for the same net result. As long as you stay within the legal bag limits, shooting times, etc then whats the big deal about one of the other?

My question is why is one illegal and the other not?


OK, I am ready for the firing squad, shoot.

[buckpro]

I tried to search for this topic but to no avail.

Also, I'm not trying to start any trouble, just looking to understand the reason why.

The topic about what regulations people would support got me to thinking about this... The vast majority of people seemed to support more food - but the DNR ain't got the dough for it so if it is going to be it is up to us.

Back in the day, dumping corn in the swamp was commonplace, everyone did it. And people killed birds. I understand that there are a magnitude of other factors that have changed since then as well as to why we don't have as many ducks anymore... I get that.

Regarding corn - It appears to me that there is a double standard as far as baiting for waterfowl is concerned these days. Planting an impoundment vs dumping corn equals the same net result right? The ducks come in to eat the corn.

I understand that planting an impoundment requires more money, time & energy, etc but at the end of the day it is still baiting. Leaving a stand of corn in a field that you intentionally flood for the purpose of shooting the wildlife that come in to feed on it is NOT a normal agricultural practice - that sounds like baiting to me. If planting that pond helps you justify what you are doing in your mind then thats fine, but I would say that dumping corn is a lot easier for the same net result. As long as you stay within the legal bag limits, shooting times, etc then whats the big deal about one of the other?

My question is why is one illegal and the other not?


OK, I am ready for the firing squad, shoot.

corn runs out, may not be at the right level, etc etc.

the bag never runs out..theres a big difference. It would turn into a killing and a circus.

Market gunners didnt plant corn, they dumped it in a pile, duck concentrates on pile(dont have to work for it) millions died that way.

Rich man puts water in is corn, poor man puts corn in his water.

[tradorion]

It all depends on wheteher you have the land or not.... those who have the land defend their practice to the point of drawing blood and tell you how poor for the resource the other version of baiting is...

If you are the one without land that wants to add corn to water (thus drawing the ducks away from the landed gentry) then you get death threats....

In my simplistic view- laws are controlled by politicians and politicians are controlled by money (both cash and money equivalent benefits like being invited to hunt) which they get (both sides) from friends with land and politicians only allow biological issues to have impact when there is ABSOLUTELY no other choice....

So- in the end who is bending the politicians ear?

Kinda funny that we are now able to raise the number of the dove limit so the few who can hunt doves today can kill more birds... but the idea of keeping the limit the same and allowing a degree of baiting so that MORE HUNTERS might get in on the deal is "unthinkable".....

can you tell i am an absolute cynic on this subject??

[dixiedeerslaya]

Kinda funny that we are now able to raise the number of the dove limit so the few who can hunt doves today can kill more birds... but the idea of keeping the limit the same and allowing a degree of baiting so that MORE HUNTERS might get in on the deal is "unthinkable".....

very good point

[jwilliams]

It all depends on wheteher you have the land or not.... those who have the land defend their practice to the point of drawing blood and tell you how poor for the resource the other version of baiting is...

If you are the one without land that wants to add corn to water (thus drawing the ducks away from the landed gentry) then you get death threats....

In my simplistic view- laws are controlled by politicians and politicians are controlled by money (both cash and money equivalent benefits like being invited to hunt) which they get (both sides) from friends with land and politicians only allow biological issues to have impact when there is ABSOLUTELY no other choice....

So- in the end who is bending the politicians ear?

Kinda funny that we are now able to raise the number of the dove limit so the few who can hunt doves today can kill more birds... but the idea of keeping the limit the same and allowing a degree of baiting so that MORE HUNTERS might get in on the deal is "unthinkable".....

can you tell i am an absolute cynic on this subject??

Perhaps you are saying that politicians shouldn't be running the biologist/management side of our natural resources? Pipe dream to let the actual biologist run it.

[tradorion]

Simple formula to my mind..... there are XYZ number of ducks in the populations..... every year you can kill ABC number of ducks without negatively impacting the overall populations.... what should it matter how that ABC number is reached??

But back to those who have the land- they want as big a slice of that pie coming to their place as they can get- and others outside their field negatively impact how much of the pie comes to their place....

Now- you see "like minded" conservationists get together and argue for their way b/c they are birds of a feather.... but i have always found it funny as hell that there is a SOLID niche of outlaws that think that since they "contribute their time money or land to the resource" they believe the DESERVE an extra slice of the pie. EXAMPLE- i have either ticketed or laughed with friends after they ticketed vocal local members, chapter presidents and higher of many of the great conservation organizations....

To me the primary issue is "Protect the Resource IN ORDER TO USE THE RESOURCE" and the second great issue is in keeping those who use the resource growing their own numbers... ANYTHING that creates more hunters is to me a good thing-

[turbo]

art,

you took the words out of my mouth....

[Sportin' Woodies]

remember the federal aspect to this equation.

you wouldnt want all the boys north and west of us pouring corn out would you?

[Turd Ferguson]

tamies are the solution

[jwilliams]

for the record, I wouldn't want everyone to be able to bait legally.

[Dook]

Regarding corn - It appears to me that there is a double standard as far as baiting for waterfowl is concerned these days

I understand that planting an impoundment requires more money, time & energy, etc but at the end of the day it is still baiting.

how is planting a crop, (normal ag process) harvesting none, then putting water around it is baiting?

It is no different than a MO, AR, or MS corn field that gets flooded by a river before they can harvest, and all of that happens naturally there. I just don see how you could call it baiting.

[duckduckdog]

I think it's the "naturally" that he is referring to -

His question is regarding the intent to never harverst and flooding by articial means - pumps, etc.

[tradorion]

You can call i whatever you want to call it.... pretty damned simple.

IT AIN'T NOTHING until SOMEBODY names it..... adding water to crops is legal baiting... adding corn to water is illegal baiting.

Kinda like the dove thing again- when there was top sowing of wheat you were very limited in how much food you could put on the ground.... but the "new rules" make ONE cup of wheat put on the ground illegal but a 5 gallon bucket of "grown there" food shredded on the ground totally acceptable.

Laws change- legal now or legal then--- its all semantics (had a typo!).... and will change again along the way

[dixiedeerslaya]

how is planting a crop, (normal ag process) harvesting none, then putting water around it is baiting?

It is no different than a MO, AR, or MS corn field that gets flooded by a river before they can harvest, and all of that happens naturally there. I just don see how you could call it baiting.

how is is not baiting? you plant a specific crop specifically for the purpose of attracting waterfowl....

harvesting was never the intention...

[Take em']

I agree with Trad on this one (if I understand his point correctly). There is a legal bag limit for a reason, why should we not be able to do what we (public hunter) can to harvest ducks, when the private landowner can "attract" them for their benefit. It is ashame, but it boils down to money and politics. If we stay within the limits then it shouldn't hurt. If this causes more ducks to be harvested, lower the limit next year. Pretty easy concept.

[tradorion]

the one thing i have learned in all the years of doing this is that the single STUPIDEST term i have ever seen written ANYWHERE is "NORMAL Agricultural Practices/Purposes"

[drwilly]

trad,

based on those observations, in YOUR opinion, what should be down legislatively regarding doves and ducks and foods they eat?

[scduckcmdr]

I still dont understand why top sowing wheat isn't a normal ag process. When we still had our dairy farm we top sowed wheat all the time and covered it with the drag harrow. Oh well, shit changes everyday.

[Murray]

The duplicitous-ness of this law is glaring to any unbiased observer. With that said, if I had full pockets and a chunk of propertly along the river, then I would have a pond full of golden delicious too

[tradorion]

DOC- my opinion is EXACTLY that-- AN OPINION and MINE.... it's tempered by aspects of life as i have seen it....

i always liked what an old GW told me years ago... "make it all legal and charge $100 for the first bird over and $250 for the next one then modify the legth of seasons and bag limits to manage the population NOT the hunter numbers"