Have corn pond complexes affected your 2018 duck season?

[vandeman17]

This whole thread sounds like a bunch of Lib supporters trying to limit what others do because they don’t like it. So sick of this thread popping, the game dept plants and floods ground also to attract and hold ducks to be hunted. My guess is this thread started by some 20 something that is use to have everything given to them prob layed  down in i5 to protest trump being elected also. Heck let’s limit the amount of property someone can own or how much money one can make. Crazy!  hunting will be doomed if hunters keep fighting each other.

Well this post just made the thread much more productive and informative. If you don't like the thread, don't read it. As for me, I enjoy an actual discussion from people with a wide range of views. 

[huntnfmly]

I really do not think that if flooded corn fields are banned that I will lose other hunting rights. Thats a fear tactic that is used IN ALL SORTS of arguments.

Sorry but that way of thinking is the problem. If it doesn't effect me personally it doesn't matter.Thats how we lost hound hunting and baiting bears that's why the restrictions on baiting deer and elk were implemented. All sportsman need to stick together wether they agree with other legal hunting methods or not
Here's a complete hypothetical .
Say the sportsman that voted against baiting and hound hunting years ago because the never bear hunted buy some property and set up these corn complexes which are legal but now there are sportsman that don't agree with them so now they are the target and think oops

[huntnfmly]

By that thinking you guys must get pretty annoyed/angry over a water hole on private ground that the land owner created that draws elk and deer to it during archery season to drink. And also that orchard on private ground that feeds the deer. And those turnips planted on Billy's land that the whitetails flock to when there is snow on the ground. All scenarios bringing OUR public resource on to a private piece of property that the owner has influenced the behavior of a public resource.  Where are you guys drawing the line?  Serious, non confrontational question here.  Where is the line of public hunter vs private land owner that does something to affect public animals that we all want to chase?

As you said it brings animals in it feeds them it helps them you learn to hunt the trails coming and going from the waterholes  and orchard.
Private lands help wildlife

those animals walk the trails, Not fly to waterhole and sit there until they are either shot or fly to a completely different area.

I totally understand where you guys are coming from and in 99% of cases, I am against restricting legal methods of hunting but I just don't think what the complexes are doing is anything other than a loophole that should be corrected. Manipulating a public resource for private gain by this method just doesn't sit well with me

I completely understand  with what you're saying about the waterfowl fly in compared to walking and earlier in this thread you educated me on how waterfowlers hunt the area as in hoping that waterways are froze up north and that waterfowl head down south where you are set up and that the ice eaters the complex have attracts them there.
 I still think that the complex benefits waterfowl with more carrying capacity and that there must be some spill over that benefits public land hunters

[vandeman17]

By that thinking you guys must get pretty annoyed/angry over a water hole on private ground that the land owner created that draws elk and deer to it during archery season to drink. And also that orchard on private ground that feeds the deer. And those turnips planted on Billy's land that the whitetails flock to when there is snow on the ground. All scenarios bringing OUR public resource on to a private piece of property that the owner has influenced the behavior of a public resource.  Where are you guys drawing the line?  Serious, non confrontational question here.  Where is the line of public hunter vs private land owner that does something to affect public animals that we all want to chase?

As you said it brings animals in it feeds them it helps them you learn to hunt the trails coming and going from the waterholes  and orchard.
Private lands help wildlife

those animals walk the trails, Not fly to waterhole and sit there until they are either shot or fly to a completely different area.

I totally understand where you guys are coming from and in 99% of cases, I am against restricting legal methods of hunting but I just don't think what the complexes are doing is anything other than a loophole that should be corrected. Manipulating a public resource for private gain by this method just doesn't sit well with me

I completely understand  with what you're saying about the waterfowl fly in compared to walking and earlier in this thread you educated me on how waterfowlers hunt the area as in hoping that waterways are froze up north and that waterfowl head down south where you are set up and that the ice eaters the complex have attracts them there.
 I still think that the complex benefits waterfowl with more carrying capacity and that there must be some spill over that benefits public land hunters

It probably does have some benefit to waterfowl as a whole as I would have to assume that more ducks sit on these thousands of acres of flooded corn and return north than are killed by hunters. I just don't believe that it is a net benefit to public land hunters because when those potentially higher number of birds return the following season, they will be attracted to and end up repeating the same cycle as the previous year. I have hunted the basin for over 20 years and have seen first hand how they attract and hold birds through the whole season. They literally will not leave unless killed or its time to fly back north.

[Sandberm]

This whole thread sounds like a bunch of Lib supporters trying to limit what others do because they don’t like it. So sick of this thread popping, the game dept plants and floods ground also to attract and hold ducks to be hunted. My guess is this thread started by some 20 something that is use to have everything given to them prob layed  down in i5 to protest trump being elected also. Heck let’s limit the amount of property someone can own or how much money one can make. Crazy!  hunting will be doomed if hunters keep fighting each other.

Lame.

People dissagree with you and you have to go to the "Must be a liberal" card.

Another argument that gets thrown around this board OFTEN is that hunters can not disagree with each other. How does anything in this world get changed if we cant have debate?

[singleshot12]

Creating a your own little honey hole is one thing but building a huge complex that changes entire flight patterns of a PUBLIC resource is what I don't care for. I don't blame the owners at all but I blame wdfw and whoever else oversees the regulations for not changing the language of the laws regarding corn and baiting. As for the money argument, that means zero to me because I could personally afford to hunt it a few times per year if I wanted but I enjoy more the challenge of having to locate and work for birds then have them spoon fed to me at the buffet line. 

You nailed it! 

[KopperBuck]

For those that think we're whining - are you ok with baiting? Should we expand the opportunity? I mean really, what's the difference?

[Samloffler]

Its not my dream to own land so i can flood a corn field. Its not ethical. So stop with the "Your just jealous because you can't hunt over flooded corn" talk.

The other argument,  that because people worked hard to buy land that they can do whatever they want is ridiculous too. Having lots of money doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to OUR resource.

It is also their resource. Just saying. Just because you dont like the arguments doesn't make them invalid.

This argument comes down to one thing. Legality. What these ranches are doing is 100% legal, regardless of how you feel about the ethics involved.

Everyone can bitch and moan all over the internet, but its not going to make one bit of difference. Someone posted the meeting dates earlier. Take a drive and tell the commission what you think. 

[WAcoueshunter]

This argument comes down to one thing. Legality. What these ranches are doing is 100% legal, regardless of how you feel about the ethics involved.

That's true, but I think what's being discussed is whether the law should be changed, in which case it would be illegal.  Everything starts out as legal, until it's not. 

[vandeman17]

This argument comes down to one thing. Legality. What these ranches are doing is 100% legal, regardless of how you feel about the ethics involved.

That's true, but I think what's being discussed is whether the law should be changed, in which case it would be illegal.  Everything starts out as legal, until it's not.

Exactly. Nobody here is arguing that what they are doing is currently illegal. We are just proposing that the verbiage be modified and updated to be up to date with modern times and technology. 

[92xj]

How about instead of creating more laws and regulations we actually go the other way and remove laws and regulations. Allow baiting on public grounds and lower the duck limit to 4 ducks a day.

Laws solve all the problems right? History shows us that in all aspects. 

[KopperBuck]

How about instead of creating more laws and regulations we actually go the other way and remove laws and regulations. Allow baiting on public grounds and lower the duck limit to 4 ducks a day.

Laws solve all the problems right? History shows us that in all aspects.

Honestly I'd rather go this route than outlaw the loophole. I believe in less regulation. These corn ponds don't bother me as I don't hunt around them. But I can see it from both sides. One side isn't allowed to put their cheerios in the milk and enjoy the breakfast, while the other person is allowed to put milk into the cereal and eat as much as they want. I think everyone should be able to eat cereal.

[vandeman17]

How about instead of creating more laws and regulations we actually go the other way and remove laws and regulations. Allow baiting on public grounds and lower the duck limit to 4 ducks a day.

Laws solve all the problems right? History shows us that in all aspects.

Honestly I'd rather go this route than outlaw the loophole. I believe in less regulation. These corn ponds don't bother me as I don't hunt around them. But I can see it from both sides. One side isn't allowed to put their cheerios in the milk and enjoy the breakfast, while the other person is allowed to put milk into the cereal and eat as much as they want. I think everyone should be able to eat cereal.

  too much truth there

[KopperBuck]

Sounds pretty socialist though... makes me icky.

[EWUeagles]

huntnfamily I don't get why you keep bringing up the new regulations for baiting for deer and elk. I 100% agree with it. Someone shouldn't be able to bring in two dump truck loads of apples and place them on their property or state land. I think that takes away from fair chase and is just plain silly. I'm not sure if 10 gallons is too little since I have never had to bait deer or elk but I'm fine with limiting it. It is about fair chase and at what point is too much bait that takes away from fair chase. It looks like the commission found that to be 10 gallons of bait.

I don't believe corn complexes should be shut down day 1 but I do believe more research should be done and reviewed. I have my gut feeling that they aren't good for waterfowl because they aren't improving habitat but they are creating a barrel to shoot fish in. This is a federal law and not a state law so I'm not 100% sure what can be done at the state level but I do plan on finding on on March 1st.