Corn complexes in the Columbia basin

Billy Bob

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,846
Location
Washington
If 1 state outlaws it as baiting it would have to ok'ed by the feds right because ultimately when baiting chargés are filed in my state it is always federal charges never state. A state law can not over turn à federal law the federal will always prevail from my understanding from a lawyer buddy in ks. What you do in WA will have impact on me in my state in the future and every other state and every other hunter in the US. So what you do will impact more than your state. The federal law would have to be amended to your situation if you suceed to get something done
You're wrong there, again. Hunting regs can be more restrictive at the state level but not less. I can only hope that if we can ever get bait banned here it would spread nation wide.
 

DR. DUX

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Messages
6,758
Reaction score
111
Location
Othello, WA
Doc, has anyone ever considered, no hunting over unharvested cereal grain crops after a specified date. Like in Nov
It has been but didn’t get any support due to how many hunters outside of corn complexes would be effected.
 

Mallardmasher

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
108
Location
Port Orchard, WA
It has been but didn’t get any support due to how many hunters outside of corn complexes would be effected.
Haha, most don’t like it until the river floods there crop, then a different story
 

ED Vanderbeck

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,349
Location
Columbus Ks
Well according to the usfws it is not baiting so I am not wrong good luck you better get all the anti hunters backing you going to take a semi truck load of money to get that law rewritten and they have enough but you don't I'm sorry until the feds say it's unlawful you are the one that is wrong side of this issue and the law.this law has been in effect 100 yrs going to be dam hard to change it because it opens up the international treaty between US and Canada to changes and they may not be for the best interest of US hunters so chose your battles because changes could wipe out hunting totally if open to changes that let's anti hunters and lobbiest get involved and then we all lose but you were right what have you gained then you will need a new hobby.
 

Zparalyzer

Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
35
Reaction score
24
Pretty sad we all know what baiting looks like but we can’t find the right way to spell it out to make it illegal. All of the rules and laws and yet there is a loophole being exploited and no one can figure out how to close it.
Private property in E Washington has held ducks for a long time. What is different now is they never have to leave with all the food planted for them. Refuge pond to feed pond then back to refuge on the private property. Ducks are going to fly over a flooded corn pond to get to a harvested corn field 10 miles away? Not likely. This keeps the birds from dispersing. Disease/flu will be the undoing of it all if it stays like this. Birds are losing their natural migration habits. You can’t interfere with nature this much and not have consequences.
Good conversation. I have enjoyed reading all points of view.
 

Mallardmasher

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
108
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Well according to the usfws it is not baiting so I am not wrong good luck you better get all the anti hunters backing you going to take a semi truck load of money to get that law rewritten and they have enough but you don't I'm sorry until the feds say it's unlawful you are the one that is wrong side of this issue and the law.this law has been in effect 100 yrs going to be dam hard to change it because it opens up the international treaty between US and Canada to changes and they may not be for the best interest of US hunters so chose your battles because changes could wipe out hunting totally if open to changes that let's anti hunters and lobbiest get involved and then we all lose but you were right what have you gained then you will need a new hobby.
What are you even talking about, we are talking Washington state. Enjoy your complex, good night
 

harleymc

Senior Refuge Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
274
Reaction score
36
Location
Spokane Valley, Washington
Some of the regulations can close the complexes without being liable for discrimination but it also prohibits hunting on a ton of other ducking lands including about 65% of the public lands in WA.
This is the one that I can't figure out. I am a public land hunter, and I can't imagine 5% of my public lands being affected by a regulation on hunting standing crops, let alone 65%. What are the details of this proposed change that could screw up hunting on 65% of public land?
 

Mallardmasher

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
108
Location
Port Orchard, WA
This is the one that I can't figure out. I am a public land hunter, and I can't imagine 5% of my public lands being affected by a regulation on hunting standing crops, let alone 65%. What are the details of this proposed change that could screw up hunting on 65% of public land?
The only thing, I can think of is the NWR that flood grain crops, or the wdfw property in skagit, but if anything where to be written it would have to say cereal grain crops, or rain flooded sheet water would also be coupled in. I still think the cleanest way would be to eliminate hunting over unharvested cereal grain crops From, move it to Nov 20th or hen basin starts typically to freeze over, so the migration is not held up, and we do not concentrate ducks on small over crowded ponds and roosts
 

DR. DUX

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Messages
6,758
Reaction score
111
Location
Othello, WA
This is the one that I can't figure out. I am a public land hunter, and I can't imagine 5% of my public lands being affected by a regulation on hunting standing crops, let alone 65%. What are the details of this proposed change that could screw up hunting on 65% of public land?
Again, this is a great question. So one of those super sticky legal definitions is around flooding. I understand where some look at a situation and say “that’s black and white” and it is, until you start trying to legally define it. So keep in mind that definition has to cover all possibilities to the point of allowing desired circumstances and regulating others. It can’t conflict with any standing laws (this one gets real sticky). The regulation has to be relatively easy to enforce (another sticky one).

So regulating flooding for example, you want to regulate hunting on flooded crops, so you attempt to “legally define” that practice as illegal only to find in the case of flooding that this has already established law decided by legal challenge, so you can’t do it that way. So then you tweak the language a bit and nope is already decided too. So you expand that definition a bit which will regulate the practice but it’s probably also going to effect some people and practices you really aren’t that concerned with but it’s a small amount (this is the start of things going sideways) but yet again this is something already decided by case law and you can’t do that either. So you consider expending it again and again. You finally reach a point where the thing you want regulated might hold up, however to do all hunting on flooded areas has to also be regulated or banned.

Well that’s not a very desirable end so let’s look at a different aspect like crops. You end up going through the same frustrating process only finally landing on a place where yes you can finally regulate the concern but you have to close a lot more other hunting opportunities (public and private) to accomplish it……..a lot.

From that you start debating risk/reward and is the concern worth taking away a vast majority of other people's opportunity.

Hopefully it makes sense because it took me a long time of frustrating endings to understand the complexity of trying to regulate this issue. If it doesn’t I completely understand as I had to go through the process for a long time.

I will also include this, now things have changed a bit, but the government plants a ton of food plots in this state for public hunting opportunities, much more than I ever appreciated. They get creamed when they change this management locally in any way. I can’t imagine the push back publicly that would happen if these areas were closed or a mass shift in management happened.

Like I said, if there was an easy path to regulating this issue more it would already be in place.

I realize my explanation is far from satisfying, heck I’m not satisfied with it. I’m just trying to explain the mountain you gotta climb legally to deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Mallardmasher

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
108
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Again, this is a great question. So one of those super sticky legal definitions is around flooding. I understand where some look at a situation and say “that’s black and white” and it is, until you start trying to legally define it. So keep in mind that definition has to cover all possibilities to the point of allowing desired circumstances and regulating others. It can’t conflict with any standing laws (this one gets real sticky). The regulation has to be relatively easy to enforce (another sticky one).

So regulating flooding for example, you want to regulate hunting on flooded crops, so you attempt to “legally define” that practice as illegal only to find in the case of flooding that this has already established law decided by legal challenge, so you can’t do it that way. So then you tweak the language a bit and nope is already decided too. So you expand that definition a bit which will regulate the practice but it’s probably also going to effect some people and practices you really aren’t that concerned with but it’s a small amount (this is the start of things going sideways) but yet again this is something already decided by case law and you can’t do that either. So you consider expending it again and again. You finally reach a point where the thing you want regulated might hold up, however to do all hunting on flooded areas has to also be regulated or banned.

Well that’s not a very desirable end so let’s look at a different aspect like crops. You end up going through the same frustrating process only finally landing on a place where yes you can finally regulate the concern but you have to close a lot more other hunting opportunities (public and private) to accomplish it……..a lot.

From that you start debating risk/reward and is the concern worth taking away a vast majority of other people's opportunity.

Hopefully it makes sense because it took me a long time of frustrating endings to understand the complexity of trying to regulate this issue. If it doesn’t I completely understand as I had to go through the process for a long time.

I will also include this, now things have changed a bit, but the government plants a ton of food plots in this state for public hunting opportunities, much more than I ever appreciated. They get creamed when they change this management locally in any way. I can’t imagine the push back publicly that would happen if these areas were closed or a mass shift in management happened.

Like I said, if there was an easy path to regulating this issue more it would already be in place.

I realize my explanation is far from satisfying, heck I’m not satisfied with it. I’m just trying to explain the mountain you gotta climb legally to deal with it.
Doc, everything you say is solid, but it all leads back to,, if anything can be done, flooding has to be removed. As this is where it gets sticky. Hunting over unharvested cereal grain crops, period. Is the route where the grey area’s get left behind. Pick a date yearly for it to start, say Nov 20th.
I understand there will be wet years when rivers flood before harvest, and that would be off limits. So be it, sorry.
 

Top