Do Baiting Laws Need to Be Changed?

[Mwill29]

No way it should be legal… But being it is can we place corn on the dry land ?

[TSB91]

On 12/19/2006 at 6:01 PM, tucker301 said:

Currently, the law allows waterfowlers to add water to grain fields, but does not allow for the adding of grain to water.

 

What's the difference?

There isn't any.

 

When these laws were written, the flooded crops allowance meant that hunters could shoot birds over harvested or unharvested grain fields that had become flooded due to natural occurences.

 

These days, however, big money duck clubs are building huge impoundments designed and engineered to allow for the easy flooding of grains that were never meant to be harvested, but merely planted for the purpose of flooding to attract waterfowl in droves.

 

These crops are planted for no other reason than to be flooded later on when the grains have matured.

The fields have dams, drains, and pumps to make sure that the "crops" get flooded just in time for duck season.

 

In my opinion, this is baiting, and therefore should be just as illegal as tossing a five gallon bucket of corn into a swamp.

 

What do you say?

It’s definitely created a problem not only for the public Hunter but also for the private/club owners. I’ve witnessed with my own eyes hundreds upon hundreds of ducks leaving a flooded corn field before legal shooting hours and returning after legal shooting hours. They will go to refuges or the club owners private rest area and sit all day. These big money hunting clubs aren’t doing near as good as when the law first came into place and they know it but as long as the fools keep paying the money to stare at empty skies they will continue. This practice has not only changed the feeding patterns but also the natural migration patterns.