Have corn pond complexes affected your 2018 duck season?

[hunterednate]

I haven’t seen a response from the WDFW regarding my questions about corn pond operations but a buddy did.

“Important to note; there is nothing illegal by federal or state definitions about the practice regarding the baiting regulations, however several conversations are occurring regarding this topic, and in fact the next meeting of the Waterfowl Advisory Group has been tasked with taking up this topic for discussion (date to be determined, but sometime in April) and has been a requested briefing item to the WDFW Fish and Wildlife Commission during the September 2019 meeting.
 
So, please feel free to reach out for more information related to those conversations as we approach April and September.”

So it looks like corn ponds and the baiting rules are definitely on the radar.  And it’s nice that the state is actually responding.  I’ll share mine if/when I get one.  Again, nothing will ever change unless the issue is brought to light and they know enough of us are concerned.

Yes, that's good to hear. I'm skeptical about the ability of the WAG to represent the interests of public land hunters, however.

A friend who has interacted with WDFW extensively on this issue recently sent me this assessment of the WAG and corn ponds:

"WAG MEMBERS SHOULD ADVISE ON CORN POND ISSUE
Most Commissioners seemed to agree that gathering input from the Waterfowl Advisory Group (WAG)
is the next step to go. I agree; that is what the Committee is for. However, I attended a WAG meeting
to present the corn pond issue and was given a very cold shoulder. Only one member approached me
with support and told me he had tried unsuccessfully before to bring up this very issue but got
absolutely nowhere. He felt the reason was a good number of WAG members hunt corn ponds and
really like it.

WAG MEMBER CORN POND HUNTERS SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES
Any WAG member who hunts corn ponds should recuse themselves from making decisions on whether
or not this activity should be considered illegal baiting. Conflict of interest concepts couldn’t apply
more. People who hunt corn ponds would personally benefit from keeping this activity legal.
Remember, recusing oneself is not admitting guilt. It is preventing that outcome from potentially
happening.

RECEIVE INPUT FROM GENERAL HUNTING PUBLIC
While WAG members should provide input on corn pond hunting, the general waterfowl hunting public
should also be given a chance to weigh in. I understand that the WAG is supposed to represent this
demographic, but I’m not sure it really does. My sense is that WAG member connection to hunters who
don’t use commercial outfits or private clubs is limited. I can assure you that anyone who only hunts
public lands would be adamantly opposed to commercial corn ponds (if they were only made aware of it)."

Again, the above is his assessment, not mine, but makes me think some sort of survey of the general hunting public would be more effective than simply talking to the WAG.

If anyone here is connected to the WAG for Washington State, please correct me if the above assessment is incorrect or misleading.

[Odell]

That wouldn't surprise me at all. That's really unfortunate but the decisions and commentary that comes out of there tells me that they run off of personal opinion.

[h2ofowlr]

Pretty bad when you know some of the WAG folks are invited or routinely hunt corn ponds.  Even the past director would hunt them.  When all the decision makers are enticed to continue allowing them, it makes change very difficult or almost impossible.

[EWUeagles]

So I asked the Federal Flyway Federation about rice being flooded. It seemed in their explanation of changing the baiting laws they singled out grain crops and left a little loop hole in there for Rice crop. Here was his response.

"a rice field is drained prior to the harvest, then flooded back for second crop, crawfishing, or to provide habitat for migratory birds.

The flooding process is for 3 things. You have to do it for good rice yields, Crawfishing, and to keep the undesirable weeds growing in your fields. All of which provides habitat for migratory birds and all of which are normal agricultural practices."

I have never grown rice so maybe this is all legit and I'm missing something but to me to call a flooded rice field habitat and saying flooded grain isn't seems a little silly to me. Any one have any thoughts or input about why rice field would be habitat where corn crop wouldn't be?

[3cityhuntr]

Exactly what he said.  Rice is flooded as a part of normal ag practices with an intended goal.  Rice grows flooded, drain for harvest, reflooded to control weeds and promote growth of the next crop.  Try to grow corn under completely flooded/saturated soil conditions, it won’t work.  It’s only flooded when it reaches maturity and to only intent of the flooding is to provide waterfowl access to the corn ears.  That’s not a normal ag practice used for growing or harvesting corn.  And I don’t know for certain but if I were to venture a guess I’m betting the corn that’s flooded at these operations is likely cut and disced  into the soil when the areas are drained.  But as far as the discussion of habitat, I don’t know I agree with that call..

[EWUeagles]

Exactly what he said.  Rice is flooded as a part of normal ag practices with an intended goal.  Rice grows flooded, drain for harvest, reflooded to control weeds and promote growth of the next crop.  Try to grow corn under completely flooded/saturated soil conditions, it won’t work.  It’s only flooded when it reaches maturity and to only intent of the flooding is to provide waterfowl access to the corn ears.  That’s not a normal ag practice used for growing or harvesting corn.  And I don’t know for certain but if I were to venture a guess I’m betting the corn that’s flooded at these operations is likely cut and disced  into the soil when the areas are drained.  But as far as the discussion of habitat, I don’t know I agree with that call..

According to USDA Harvest timetables Rice is only harvested in October. Does that mean the fields are flooded 11 months out of the year? I worry that they are trying to create a loop hole for crop they have an abundance of. The calling it of a crawfish hole and duck habitat strikes a wrong key for me.

[hdshot]

Hunting corn ponds is not baiting, it is called hunting over crops.  If hunting over (CROPS) was considered baiting then we could never hunt a farmers field again, public or private.  Sorry but that is the definition and only a public or knock of the door for permission hunter myself as well.

The problem isn't the crops - it's the "crops +water" that makes it equivalent to baiting in effect (no one is arguing that it's baiting right now. It's totally legal as the law currently stands). Anyone could still hunt over dry crops or natural sheetwater if the law is revised to eliminate the corn pond loophole.

If hunting went by natural water only then there would not be an area could hunt.  Dams and irrigation are not natural water that create all the public areas we hunt. You have to be careful how you think because you could throw yourself under the bus.       

[hdshot]

Interesting post I saw on Tri city waterfowlers Facebook page this morning(thanks to whoever posted it.  These guys have put a lot of thought into modifying the regulations to close the baiting loophole.  Their page address is pasted below.

https://www.flywayfederationusa.com/who-we-are/?fbclid=IwAR15tAs30NlYsyh0-qIE_3XrreRcbI96XmKTTvTanwjqu4f63DcnEdvZE6c

Sounds like anti's to me.  Explained practice have not been done until recently, well that's because back then any puddle would hold birds because there was a lot more with more areas to hunt and no one needed a guide to get good shots a few times a year consistently.  Then he goes on about to concentrate bird?  Why do we scout for waterfowl?  So you could be hunting a farmers field with concentrated birds and if that post has their way the law now could just interpret the grain was left behind for the birds and you are hunting over bait in this public field that was harvested.  Wonderful.

[hdshot]

If they were smart, they would work a one day a week public option for those private clubs.  Possible hunt until noon scenario.  It will never happen, but it is a cool idea.

You would have to camp out for 3 weeks in their driveway to get a spot on the one day hunt  The idea is awesome though...

Not if they did a draw system that you put in your date before the season.
[/quote]
Yeah, that would be like the state telling you a homeless person has to crash out on your couch all winter long. Awesome idea fellas! 

[hunterednate]

Hunting corn ponds is not baiting, it is called hunting over crops.  If hunting over (CROPS) was considered baiting then we could never hunt a farmers field again, public or private.  Sorry but that is the definition and only a public or knock of the door for permission hunter myself as well.

The problem isn't the crops - it's the "crops +water" that makes it equivalent to baiting in effect (no one is arguing that it's baiting right now. It's totally legal as the law currently stands). Anyone could still hunt over dry crops or natural sheetwater if the law is revised to eliminate the corn pond loophole.

If hunting went by natural water only then there would not be an area could hunt.  Dams and irrigation are not natural water that create all the public areas we hunt. You have to be careful how you think because you could throw yourself under the bus.       

I may not have been clear. The problem isn't manipulating water when it's just water - it adding water to unharvested crops for the purpose of attracting waterfowl.

If the flooded corn loophole were closed, private landowners would still be able to manipulate water on their property for the purpose of hunting (dig ponds, use ice-eaters, etc.). They would also be able to hunt dry crops. They simply wouldn't be able to hunt over a water+grain combination of any sort (either adding grain to water or adding water to grain). Both would constitute baiting under the rule change I'm proposing. Only the first option is currently considered baiting, which seems pretty inconsistent.

[Shannon]

I just disagree with trying to stop what is legal today. Be careful what you wish for. Someday something you love to do will be taken from you by a rule change. Before its all said and done we will barely be able to go outside without breaking some sort of rule. Hunters taking away another law abiding hunters rights is really messed up.

[Mfowl]

I just disagree with trying to stop what is legal today. Be careful what you wish for. Someday something you love to do will be taken from you by a rule change. Before its all said and done we will barely be able to go outside without breaking some sort of rule. Hunters taking away another law abiding hunters rights is really messed up.

Hunters are already taking away from other hunters as it stands now by exploiting a loophole in the baiting laws. These corn complexes will only get bigger and more common and what once was great public land waterfowling will be a thing of the past.

[Shannon]

What will be next though? You can't hunt deer or elk over a watering hole near alfalfa. You give an inch and they want to take a mile. Corn ponds have cut into my duck hunting a bit but I'm sure not going to try to take that away from the guys that do it.

[EWUeagles]

What will be next though? You can't hunt deer or elk over a watering hole near alfalfa. You give an inch and they want to take a mile. Corn ponds have cut into my duck hunting a bit but I'm sure not going to try to take that away from the guys that do it.

Poor analogy and you're missing the point. Using fear of someone taking all your rights away doesn't add anything to the argument and isn't what this about at all. Do some research or even read some of this thread to see what people are saying. Baiting is illegal. If I put corn in a pond I'm illegal but if I put a pond in corn I'm legal? Seems weird. On the big honker podcast next week they are interview with the guys from Flyway Federation USA. The guys at big honker seem pro to corn ponds where the guys from Flyway Federation USA are apposed. It should be some good debate when it airs.

[Shannon]

I've read this thread and I'm still opposed to taking a hunter and private landowners rights away. You can justify it anyway you want but I'm still opposed. It seems like a kid wishing he had more opportunity so he wants to take away someone elses opportunity. Its not right. Its similar justification to hunters voting against hound hunting/baiting or the use of dogs for coyote hunting. It wasn't hunters that passed those bills but its still hunters trying to regulate a fellow hunters rights away. I've hunted in the corn complexes once and it wasn't for me. I'm still not going to try to take that away from someone. I won't argue this to death so I'm done commenting on this thread. Best of luck to you but be careful what you wish for.