Geese & Corn.... What to plant?

Discussion in 'Habitat Forum' started by DUCKDIGGLER, Apr 20, 2003.

  1. MALLARD MAGICIAN

    MALLARD MAGICIAN Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,948
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Location:
    Cache River Bottoms, AR
    SilverMallard, thanks(and I truly mean it) for that last reply. It puts a lot more white&black into a very gray matter, for ME. I have read all of your post, and knew the context & point of your post. Though I am sure we are all still a lil' confused,;) all a man can do is follow the law to the best of his ability & knowledge, and if "the LAW" see a little different color of gray, either stick up for yourself or face the fines and go on...:nutz
     
  2. eastwoods

    eastwoods Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    194
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    bottoms
    Sounds like the gospel has changed from Smiling Mallard.

    Earlier Quote and general theme of several posts:
    BUT...the GENERAL RULE is that it is NOT legal to hunt migratory waterfowl if a field was planted with ag crops WITHOUT the INTENT of harvest.

    "Leaving some standing"
    You say you do it all the time, will do it this year, sounds predetermined to me. Even got photos of yourself doing it.

    I don't believe it's wrong either, but you, Gringo, Beanpole, etc. can't have it both ways. Sorry if I'm black or white on this issue.

    I am of the opinion if you leave it standing, you can flood it even though you harvested whatever portion of the field.

    "Normal ag planting" is not only for gathering a crop but just as important "PRODUCING" a crop that equates to producing for the ducks and wildlife. Thats the first sentence in my Fed quote 3 reply's ago.

    "Intent to harvest" has no bearing on why you plant something in the first place. It has only to do with cutting it down and gathering seeds. It is very legal to plant for the ducks. That's the third paragraph in the Fed Quote.

    There is absolutely to much BS on this topic. It is pretty easy to understand. Now can we just all go plant something for the ducks.
     
  3. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Eastwoods,

    In any ONE specific locale, there IS a "black-n-white" set of rules to go by. The problem is finding the rules that are universally true in each county of all 50 states. That forces one to generalize in such a way that creates dozens of exceptions...either way. And I'd rather err on the conservative side. This post I've quoted above goes into the most in-depth explanation I tried to give on the subject. My "tune" is NOT changing.

    In the example above, NO club has ever been cited for planting corn for the sole purpose of hunting waterfowl, but the reg pamphlet passed out by FED WARDENS and available at most FSA offices around the country DOES say quite specifically that it is illegal to plant ag crops for the SOLE PURPOSE of hunting waterfowl over them. I goes on to say that there can be several exceptions to this rule, the most common of which is a state waterfowl mgmt plan on file with USFWS which authorizes such practices.

    You can be as "black-n-white" as you want to be, but I think it is a disservice to folks from around the country who ask questions here when we don't give them the full and accurate answer, so I won't answer questions that way. And there is no one answer that is true everywhere when it comes to baiting regs due to the regional/local changes in acceptable planting dates, customary ag practices, and various ways the states relate to the feds in terms of managing for waterfowl. And THAT is why you get equally-knowledgeable fellows arguing on here about what can/can't be done legally. In their own "neck o the woods," I would venture to say that each guy is right.

    And that is why it all comes down to this: ask your county extension agent from the FSA. You can even get these guys (or state private land biologists, etc.) to write a certified wildlife management plan for your property. If you have that, and are following it, there is not a judge in the land that will hear a baiting case against you. And why we would try to tell anyone here anything other than his first step is to talk to the Extension Agent/private land biologist in his area is beyond my comprehension. Heck, I've even had a federal warden tell me how to "cheat" and manipulate 1st-year millet plantings! ;) I don't think you can go wrong if you start there...and that was my point all along: before you start doing anything, find out what the rules are in YOUR county.

    Can we agree on THAT?

    P.S. The KEY to that whole "for the sole purpose of hunting waterfowl" is what you SAY or WRITE. Otherwise, it is very difficult to prove intent in a courtroom and most "cops" wouldn't mess with it because it is a losing battle for them. THAT is why it is important to be careful what we write on this forum. And that came straight from the mouths of SEVERAL fed enforcement agents I've spoken with on this subject over the years. That was THEIR advice to us...and I'm just passing it on.
     
  4. eastwoods

    eastwoods Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    194
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    bottoms
    I like your last post. Guess your earlier ones just rubbed me the wrong way. I think you explained your "ultra conservative" side a little better.

    Anyhoo'
    I don't really care what some tree hugger PETA supporter Public Affairs committee for the US FISH AND WILDLIFE wrote on a pamphlet and had passed out. I just care about what the law states. One office doesn't represent the whole agency or the General Council that wrote the law and put it in the Federal Register for Comment and then passed the bill before Congress. I wouldn't recommend being "ultraconservative" cuz they gonna put you and me and everybody else in that box if you start believin' that way of thinkin'. I say push, bite, and kick against it so it doesn't tighten up anymore.

    The last 404 permit I put in with the Corps also said you can't flood crops. BS. If you let the law reach further than it does it will eventually actually be ammended to cover it.

    The next post we go back and forth for days about ought to be about those that think planting for ducks actually hurts more ducks than it helps. That way more will plant and not be scared off by posts like many of yall have made. Go buy a $25/50# sack of millet today, you got a whole month to spread it.
     

Share This Page