Have corn pond complexes affected your 2018 duck season?

[h2ofowlr]

Why restrict what people can do on their private property. Sounds like some liberal hippy BS. Especially since it’s helping ducks survive and thrive.  It’s kinda like the feeding programs for elk in the winter time. Last time I check your average joe could plant corn in their local hunting spot but most people are too lazy. Hunters are there own worst enemy.

For the same reason many other waterfowl activities are restricted on private property - such as electronic decoys, baiting, etc.

Conservation is founded on restricting some activities for the good of the public resource. If that resource becomes increasingly private...it ceases to be enjoyed as a public resource.

I dunno how they do it one the east side but on the west side hunt clubs use bulldozers and plant barely and smartweed in the lowest places. Have some slope and plant corn around the lowest places the water is natural.

Some of the spots are natural on the westside, but I know several of the larger clubs that have large 4" & 6" pumps for filling them when the birds start arriving in case the ran hasn't caught up with the migration.

[hhack]

which clubs??

[EWUeagles]

Why restrict what people can do on their private property. Sounds like some liberal hippy BS. Especially since it’s helping ducks survive and thrive.  It’s kinda like the feeding programs for elk in the winter time. Last time I check your average joe could plant corn in their local hunting spot but most people are too lazy. Hunters are there own worst enemy.

I was under the assumption you can't plant anything on public land. I called about helping a project out by Moses and I was told I couldn't do anything to land and they had to do it themselves.

[Whitenuckles]

Last time I checked, public land has corn also. Haters will hate and the blame is always on someone else. I have leases from Duvall to Monroe, all have corn and barley, I've hunted 4 times this year. If I'm not hunting, people should be happy that I'm feeding thousands of waterfowl that will survive the winter and make thousands more for next year! It's only because of our feeding and refuges that we have this many birds in the sky!

[KopperBuck]

I don't think anyone here is hating on leases... or the fact that they have corn or barley. If it wasn't for agriculture, we wouldn't have the waterfowl hunting that we do. It's the little *wink wink* business of I'm not putting corn in the water, I'm putting water in the corn. At least that's my grind.

[hunterednate]

I don't think anyone here is hating on leases... or the fact that they have corn or barley. If it wasn't for agriculture, we wouldn't have the waterfowl hunting that we do. It's the little *wink wink* business of I'm not putting corn in the water, I'm putting water in the corn. At least that's my grind.

Exactly. And I think if artificially flooding crops was banned, hunting over naturally flooded crops or dry corn on private land (or even hunting unpressured private water adjacent to crops) would still be highly effective.

[HikerHunter]

I don't like the fact of how many regulations there already are. But when a public resource is being used and manipulated, to make a killing profit (pun intended), at the detriment to other hunters, I am wholeheartedly against it and think the regulations need to change.
The federal regs don't really cover crops that are being planted and manipulated solely for the purpose of attracting ducks. They only refer to normal agricultural practices and which assumes you are harvesting. Planting corn solely to attract ducks, artificially adding water to the corn, and artificially keeping water open all year using ice-eaters are not normal agricultural practices. Its somewhat "new technology" and the regs should be updated to take that into account, just like how they had to be updated when electronic decoys, drones, etc. came out.
And if you don't agree that its "at the detriment of other hunters", then why is Eagle Lakes shooting "limits for all" (1064 birds in a week) at the same time when everyone else around there is struggling to find birds?

[Snowgoose1]

HikerHunter-  Absolutely well put!!!  I've been hunting eastern Washington for 35 years and have seen the adjustment in the flights.

[EWUeagles]

I don't like the fact of how many regulations there already are. But when a public resource is being used and manipulated, to make a killing profit (pun intended), at the detriment to other hunters, I am wholeheartedly against it and think the regulations need to change.
The federal regs don't really cover crops that are being planted and manipulated solely for the purpose of attracting ducks. They only refer to normal agricultural practices and which assumes you are harvesting. Planting corn solely to attract ducks, artificially adding water to the corn, and artificially keeping water open all year using ice-eaters are not normal agricultural practices. Its somewhat "new technology" and the regs should be updated to take that into account, just like how they had to be updated when electronic decoys, drones, etc. came out.
And if you don't agree that its "at the detriment of other hunters", then why is Eagle Lakes shooting "limits for all" (1064 birds in a week) at the same time when everyone else around there is struggling to find birds?

Not totally true. This is pulled from the federal regulations

"Waterfowl Hunting on Agricultural Lands

Agricultural lands offer prime waterfowl hunting opportunities. You can hunt waterfowl in fields of unharvested standing crops. You can also hunt over standing crops that have been flooded. You can flood fields after crops are normally harvested and use these areas for waterfowl hunting. Hunting waterfowl over a crop that has not been harvested but that has been manipulated (rolled/disced) is considered baiting under current regulations"

This is why I believe they should probably re-look at the law and do a study on how it effects migration patterns and the impacts of hunters.

[HikerHunter]

I don't like the fact of how many regulations there already are. But when a public resource is being used and manipulated, to make a killing profit (pun intended), at the detriment to other hunters, I am wholeheartedly against it and think the regulations need to change.
The federal regs don't really cover crops that are being planted and manipulated solely for the purpose of attracting ducks. They only refer to normal agricultural practices and which assumes you are harvesting. Planting corn solely to attract ducks, artificially adding water to the corn, and artificially keeping water open all year using ice-eaters are not normal agricultural practices. Its somewhat "new technology" and the regs should be updated to take that into account, just like how they had to be updated when electronic decoys, drones, etc. came out.
And if you don't agree that its "at the detriment of other hunters", then why is Eagle Lakes shooting "limits for all" (1064 birds in a week) at the same time when everyone else around there is struggling to find birds?

Not totally true. This is pulled from the federal regulations

"Waterfowl Hunting on Agricultural Lands

Agricultural lands offer prime waterfowl hunting opportunities. You can hunt waterfowl in fields of unharvested standing crops. You can also hunt over standing crops that have been flooded. You can flood fields after crops are normally harvested and use these areas for waterfowl hunting. Hunting waterfowl over a crop that has not been harvested but that has been manipulated (rolled/disced) is considered baiting under current regulations"

This is why I believe they should probably re-look at the law and do a study on how it effects migration patterns and the impacts of hunters.

I see what you are saying but I guess it depends on how you interpret the federal regs:
1) Hunting unharvested standing crops --> I have no problem with this. This seems to allow you to hunt fields pre-harvest.
2) Hunting standing crops that have been flooded --> I think this was intended to allow hunting of naturally flooded standing crops because you wouldn't flood a field that you are about to harvest.
3) Hunting flooded fields after crops are normally harvested --> The wording specifically says you can flood the field (I interpret artificially), but it did not specifically say that for the previous sentence. And they are assuming that you are harvesting the crop, which is what the next few sections in the federal regs cover.
I interpret that the federal regs are assuming normal harvesting unless the fields are naturally flooded, but I understand it is not 100% clear. I think that should be clarified.

It just seems hard to blame the weather for a slow season when 152 limits were shot in a single week right next to you.

[hunterednate]

I don't like the fact of how many regulations there already are. But when a public resource is being used and manipulated, to make a killing profit (pun intended), at the detriment to other hunters, I am wholeheartedly against it and think the regulations need to change.
The federal regs don't really cover crops that are being planted and manipulated solely for the purpose of attracting ducks. They only refer to normal agricultural practices and which assumes you are harvesting. Planting corn solely to attract ducks, artificially adding water to the corn, and artificially keeping water open all year using ice-eaters are not normal agricultural practices. Its somewhat "new technology" and the regs should be updated to take that into account, just like how they had to be updated when electronic decoys, drones, etc. came out.
And if you don't agree that its "at the detriment of other hunters", then why is Eagle Lakes shooting "limits for all" (1064 birds in a week) at the same time when everyone else around there is struggling to find birds?

Not totally true. This is pulled from the federal regulations

"Waterfowl Hunting on Agricultural Lands

Agricultural lands offer prime waterfowl hunting opportunities. You can hunt waterfowl in fields of unharvested standing crops. You can also hunt over standing crops that have been flooded. You can flood fields after crops are normally harvested and use these areas for waterfowl hunting. Hunting waterfowl over a crop that has not been harvested but that has been manipulated (rolled/disced) is considered baiting under current regulations"

This is why I believe they should probably re-look at the law and do a study on how it effects migration patterns and the impacts of hunters.

Completely agree. This is a practice that is totally legal right now, but equivalent in effect to an illegal practice (other forms of waterfowl baiting).

[EKU]

I've been hunting the Basin for 30 years and lots around Basin City and have seen complete changes in migration routes.  Flooded corn is like cocaine for ducks.  They can shoot them out of the same fields everyday.

[hunterednate]

I've been hunting the Basin for 30 years and lots around Basin City and have seen complete changes in migration routes.  Flooded corn is like cocaine for ducks. They can shoot them out of the same fields everyday.

I agree. Wildfowl mag described it as "mallard candy" (Sept. '18). There's a reason the water + corn combo was deemed illegal in the first place....it's super, super effective.

[7mmCoug]

Ducks Unlimited would tell you that improving habitat is better for the birds, therefore better for everyone.  There are many documented DU projects that put members dues to use on private land.  Deer Island in Oregon is one such project.  Millions of $$$ of habitat restoration and improvement and all for a club that myself and hundreds of other card carrying members can’t even put to use?  Duck Unlimited’s arguement is birds are always moving.  By improving this habitat and bringing more birds to this location will only improve the areas around it.  Is it true....I have no idea...

[Hot Lunch]

Ducks Unlimited would tell you that improving habitat is better for the birds, therefore better for everyone.  There are many documented DU projects that put members dues to use on private land.  Deer Island in Oregon is one such project.  Millions of $$$ of habitat restoration and improvement and all for a club that myself and hundreds of other card carrying members can’t even put to use?  Duck Unlimited’s arguement is birds are always moving.  By improving this habitat and bringing more birds to this location will only improve the areas around it.  Is it true....I have no idea...

Access is the issue for hunter success and recruitment. DU's argument for a net gain in duck numbers will equal better hunting is simply not true. I haven't been to a DU banquet in a decade and will never step foot in one ever again. I dont care what anyone says legal or not corn ponds are not ethical and should not be legal. Jaimie Pierre who runs and owns the Sugar ranch south of Othello does not have any corn ponds and holds many birds. Unlike Mike Bernson North of there who makes as many corn ponds as possible.