Have corn pond complexes affected your 2018 duck season?

[Stein]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

[SuperX]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

This seems to prove that manipulating food does shift the bird's migration, or at least the state thinks so enough to invest in it.  I'm sure that before long, CPC's will start competing and growing until we have CPCs that you can see from space.  A

[vandeman17]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

Do people have to pay to hunt these or are they for profit by a private party? Nope. Big difference. That is opportunity for all, not just paying customers. 

[full choke]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

Do people have to pay to hunt these or are they for profit by a private party? Nope. Big difference. That is opportunity for all, not just paying customers. 

The State shouldn't be involved in artificially flooded grain either.

[vandeman17]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

Do people have to pay to hunt these or are they for profit by a private party? Nope. Big difference. That is opportunity for all, not just paying customers. 

The State shouldn't be involved in artificially flooded grain either.

Agreed but my point was to nullify the argument about the state doing it. Apples and oranges

[Stein]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

Do people have to pay to hunt these or are they for profit by a private party? Nope. Big difference. That is opportunity for all, not just paying customers. 

If they pass a law outlawing leaving standing grain, it would be illegal for anyone to do it.  Unless of course there is an argue made that some people can do it and some people can't.

[vandeman17]

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.

 

It is important to note that WDFW uses the same tactic of leaving grain unharvested to attract and retain waterfowl on state land as well as private land accessible through their programs for hunters to utilize.  Many, many people around Puget Sound hunt these areas extensively and would be impacted greatly.

Do people have to pay to hunt these or are they for profit by a private party? Nope. Big difference. That is opportunity for all, not just paying customers. 

If they pass a law outlawing leaving standing grain, it would be illegal for anyone to do it.  Unless of course there is an argue made that some people can do it and some people can't.

Leaving stuff standing versus flooding it is different but I agree overall. I am just not a fan of the LARGE SCALE practice of it but there in lies a whole different can of worms that I refuse to open. 

[hunterednate]

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.

I'm not convinced that hunting over flooded grain is a "right." It is a hunting tactic, not a right - and a tactic that is equivalent in effect to the already-illegal tactic of baiting.

This isn't about taking away anyone's right to hunt; it's about changing a rule to be consistent across the board and eliminate the ongoing manipulation of a public resource (ducks) for private benefit ($$$$).

[EWUeagles]

I like how everyone refers to corn complexes as "hunters". I think this is where I differ from a lot of people, these corn complexes in my eyes are BIG BUSINESS and nothing else. If Walmart was using questionable tactics to take resources from the public we would have an uproar. There's a big difference between guys who have corn fields or guys who have corn fields and has a pond from overflow water than there is big complexes who flood their standing corn or poorly harvested corn (rumors of this happening on some of these complexes) and then running water through it to keep it from freezing. We have laws for planting crop, speeding cars and food handling, why? Because they are set in place to protect the public not private individuals.

I wouldn't want this practice to end with out research. I don't think the Feds or any state will even consider research being done unless enough people stand up and ask for it. Laws change all the time with advancements in technology, why not review this one?

[eastsidemallard74]

next year when the migration changes it will be a different story and mood point. And haven't all the Eagles Lake, Burbank ,etc. been doing this for year. This year just sucked for waterfowl in the Basin.

[hunterednate]

I like how everyone refers to corn complexes as "hunters". I think this is where I differ from a lot of people, these corn complexes in my eyes are BIG BUSINESS and nothing else. If Walmart was using questionable tactics to take resources from the public we would have an uproar. There's a big difference between guys who have corn fields or guys who have corn fields and has a pond from overflow water than there is big complexes who flood their standing corn or poorly harvested corn (rumors of this happening on some of these complexes) and then running water through it to keep it from freezing. We have laws for planting crop, speeding cars and food handling, why? Because they are set in place to protect the public not private individuals.

I wouldn't want this practice to end with out research. I don't think the Feds or any state will even consider research being done unless enough people stand up and ask for it. Laws change all the time with advancements in technology, why not review this one?

So well put.

And I agree - there needs to be a study done on the effect of flooded corn on local duck concentrations. In-season aerial surveys would be a great place to start.

[EWUeagles]

next year when the migration changes it will be a different story and mood point. And haven't all the Eagles Lake, Burbank ,etc. been doing this for year. This year just sucked for waterfowl in the Basin.

I have been talking about this for 10 years and there's article out there about it in the 80's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1980/12/14/legal-baiting-operation-makes-sitting-ducks-of-waterfowl/fe4e1d98-efe4-4d0c-b502-8a012e6a599b/?utm_term=.eb388f1acef5). It's not a new topic and not something that is going away. This year it seems more whiny because the year was so poor for a lot of people (I did actually pretty decent this year). I believe that these places have gotten more sophisticated in their practices and have also grown in size.

[singleshot12]

Best way to solve the problem is to change the term "Baiting" to "supplemental feeding" and make it legal. Waterfowl would flourish and everyone would have equal opportunity again.

[hunterednate]

next year when the migration changes it will be a different story and mood point. And haven't all the Eagles Lake, Burbank ,etc. been doing this for year. This year just sucked for waterfowl in the Basin.

The first advertisements for corn pond hunting begin around the year 2002. As you can see from Eagle Lakes' own ads in the regs, the number and size and sophistication of corn ponds has increased every year since then as they compete with other corn pond complexes to hold birds.

The ads for Eagle Lakes in the regs show this progression (all direct quotes from the print regulations):

2006: "15 flooded corn ponds that provide unbelievable shooting"

2008: "Over 20 new flooded corn ponds"

2012: "Five New corn ponds to bring our total over 25!"

2014: "Over 30 flooded corn ponds for 14-15 season."

2018: "Over 40 flooded corn ponds for 18-19 season."

Notice a trend? I don't expect it to reverse.

What we are seeing right now is a corn pond arms race that will continue to increase with no cap in sight other than the amount of money private clubs are willing to spend...fueled by clients paying $350 a day for 7 ducks or private memberships costing thousands of dollars. The capital can pile up quick!

Whatever effect corn ponds have on public hunting right now, it will only be bigger in the future.

[aaronoto]

There was a really well produced video on YouTube a couple years ago filmed at a private corn complex on Lower Crab Creek.  The video has since been pulled, somewhat odd since all the other videos in their series (not all hunting related) are still up.  They had some footage in that video that made Paul's Pond look small time...  It you weren't against corn complexes before you saw this video, you sure would be questioning them afterwards, which is why I'm guessing they pulled it down.  Absolutely unreal the number of ducks and geese this place drew in.