Corn ponds and duck patterns

[Badhabit]

I want to be the Devil's advocate. Since when did the WDFW care about increasing the quality of public waterfowl hunting? IMO they've taken away more public land than they've added. A couple of them come to mind. League Island, Gray's Harbor. Breaching the dikes for salmon smolt habitat. I don't think the WDFW has replaced these area they removed. If I understand correctly they are required to do if Duck Stamp monies were used in the initial acquisition of the properties.

[vandeman17]

I want to be the Devil's advocate. Since when did the WDFW care about increasing the quality of public waterfowl hunting? IMO they've taken away more public land than they've added. A couple of them come to mind. League Island, Gray's Harbor. Breaching the dikes for salmon smolt habitat. I don't think the WDFW has replaced these area they removed. If I understand correctly they are required to do if Duck Stamp monies were used in the initial acquisition of the properties.

The only way WDFW will give a darn is when they start losing actual revenue because of it. Until then its business as usual. 

[hunterednate]

I want to be the Devil's advocate. Since when did the WDFW care about increasing the quality of public waterfowl hunting? IMO they've taken away more public land than they've added. A couple of them come to mind. League Island, Gray's Harbor. Breaching the dikes for salmon smolt habitat. I don't think the WDFW has replaced these area they removed. If I understand correctly they are required to do if Duck Stamp monies were used in the initial acquisition of the properties.

The only way WDFW will give a darn is when they start losing actual revenue because of it. Until then its business as usual. 

Yep, I agree. And they are. Duck hunter numbers are trending down, and the most common complain is lack of access to quality hunting opportunity. Hunting license revenue will go down significantly in coming years. They can always increase the price to compensate, but again, that will probably hurt revenue long-term. Restricting flooded corn on private land will re-distribute birds and provide better opportunity on existing public lands...and happier/more hunters!

[full choke]

If you were to regulate the planting for ducks, where does it stop. Are you going to say that you can't plant a food plot for deer or elk because all the big ones are now on private property. I have land and plant for ducks and Flood my corn and kill the hell out of them. If you can afford it go for it. It just sounds like crazy everyone's a winner mentality. I suppose since I'm a better caller than most and pull birds away from others set ups when I hunt public I should put my calls away and wait till everyone has shot their fair share.

You're right that hunting will never be "fair" in the sense of everyone having equal skills/gear/etc. My hope is that reducing the  number of flooded corn ponds on private land would increase the numbers of ducks using public areas...and hopefully you'd still find a way to kill some birds on your property without the flooded corn, too.

If you took the feed and corn ponds out of the picture, it would level the field significantly.  Many spots just wouldn't hold birds without feed.  Some have done it right with good wetland investments, so birds will come without the $30k-$100K crop investments.  I think the game department weighs the outcome.  Food for birds, the state doesn't have to pay for vs. loss of habitat and potential agriculture depredation to farmers, etc.  Many high end clubs only hunt them for a short period per day.  Feeding thousands of birds vs a small percentage harvested?  The birds benefit.  All the clubs in Washington short stop a lot of birds heading south on the Pacific Flyway.  Lots of California clubs have been effected by this amongst other things.  California used to be or may still be the #1 harvester of waterfowl in the US.

Wow - I hadn't thought of the economics of it from that perspective before. However, could the state be reaping a short term benefit (cheap feeding of birds) while sacrificing long term economic benefit (the loss of overall hunter numbers/license sales due to decreased public land hunting success)? Longterm, the best thing for the birds AND the state is to retain and recruit hunters. You won't do that without increasing quality public hunting opportunity.

What about when a club keeps water open in the middle of a severe cold snap and congregates thousands of ducks into a few small acres and an avian flu wipes out thousands of them all at once? Is that good for the birds and the state? Just curious...

[hunterednate]

What about the corn ponds with the brown trout in them? They tend to pull as much ducks as the richy rich clubs do. Seriously tho baiting is baiting and the only ones allowed to plant (standing) crops for duck harvest should be the game dept.

Totally agree. Has anyone here ever communicated about this with the game department via public comment at a meeting or online? What sort of response did you get?

[h20hunter]

I hope for the sake of all hunters the planting of standing corn is never restricted. Corn is no different to me than apple trees, wheat, or any type of planted and naturally occurring food source. We should not try and restrict one unless we are ok with the same equivalent restrictions being applied across the board.

[full choke]

I hope for the sake of all hunters the planting of standing corn is never restricted. Corn is no different to me than apple trees, wheat, or any type of planted and naturally occurring food source. We should not try and restrict one unless we are ok with the same equivalent restrictions being applied across the board.

The issue isn't standing corn. The issue is standing corn that is then artificially flooded. Two very different things.

[vandeman17]

I hope for the sake of all hunters the planting of standing corn is never restricted. Corn is no different to me than apple trees, wheat, or any type of planted and naturally occurring food source. We should not try and restrict one unless we are ok with the same equivalent restrictions being applied across the board.

The issue isn't standing corn. The issue is standing corn that is then artificially flooded. Two very different things.

I will add to this that is it standing corn that is artificially flooded "for the soul purpose of hunting"

[ballstothewaal]

Are there any other states where corn ponds are illegal?

[hunterednate]

What about the corn ponds with the brown trout in them? They tend to pull as much ducks as the richy rich clubs do. Seriously tho baiting is baiting and the only ones allowed to plant (standing) crops for duck harvest should be the game dept.

Totally agree. Has anyone here ever communicated about this with the game department via public comment at a meeting or online? What sort of response did you get?

I think most hunters have given up with the public comment or meeting thing? Most have realized their opinion or concerns are invalid. Sad but true.

You might be right, sadly, but is there hope in the fact that baiting for big game has been restricted in WA state (though not eliminated)? Weren't public comments and complaints from public land hunters the driving force behind those restrictions? Maybe there's a model there for how public land waterfowlers might be able to move forward with this issue.

[royalhntr]

Maybe we can just ask Mikal Moore. She is the waterfowl biologist for the basin.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/staff/moore_mikal.html

[hunterednate]

Maybe we can just ask Mikal Moore. She is the waterfowl biologist for the basin.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/staff/moore_mikal.html

That's a great idea. Thanks royalhntr. I'm going to email her next week and see if I can get her take on all this.

[jkononen]

Yeah and put away your fancy swaros and long range guns and quit getting in shape so that it's fair for everyone else.

If you were to regulate the planting for ducks, where does it stop. Are you going to say that you can't plant a food plot for deer or elk because all the big ones are now on private property. I have land and plant for ducks and Flood my corn and kill the hell out of them. If you can afford it go for it. It just sounds like crazy everyone's a winner mentality. I suppose since I'm a better caller than most and pull birds away from others set ups when I hunt public I should put my calls away and wait till everyone has shot their fair share.

[vandeman17]

Yeah and put away your fancy swaros and long range guns and quit getting in shape so that it's fair for everyone else.

If you were to regulate the planting for ducks, where does it stop. Are you going to say that you can't plant a food plot for deer or elk because all the big ones are now on private property. I have land and plant for ducks and Flood my corn and kill the hell out of them. If you can afford it go for it. It just sounds like crazy everyone's a winner mentality. I suppose since I'm a better caller than most and pull birds away from others set ups when I hunt public I should put my calls away and wait till everyone has shot their fair share.

This has absolutely zero relevance to this thread. 100% different

[Dan-o]

Interesting topic.

I don't think I'd want to restrict a landowners rights to plant.........   but the plant and flood on purpose does seem a lot like baiting.   It essentially accomplished the same thing as just baiting.