Have corn pond complexes affected your 2018 duck season?

[HikerHunter]

This was an interesting read. The question is: are corn ponds any different in effect than what this report wanted to get banned?

https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1935/19350809.pdf

[Stein]

It is interesting me how different big game and waterfowl hunters are.  Don't shoot at a moving animal vs don't shoot at a bird on water.  We need to protect or ability to bait bears vs. baiting is unethical and not fair chase.

Just in case it isn't coming through, I'm not arguing or supporting either way, I think they both have very valid arguments from people who have thought it through.  It is just interesting to me how the two groups that are both hunters can view things so differently.

I don't think big game vs waterfowl hunters look at things differently and a lot of us do both. They are different animals and different topics so comparing isn't really fair. Apples to oranges.

Baiting animals is baiting animals.  You are putting something out there to artificially attract animals to an area so you can shoot them.  I could go either way, I just don't understand the argument for baiting X is ethical but baiting Y isn't.

[full choke]

It is interesting me how different big game and waterfowl hunters are.  Don't shoot at a moving animal vs don't shoot at a bird on water.  We need to protect or ability to bait bears vs. baiting is unethical and not fair chase.

Just in case it isn't coming through, I'm not arguing or supporting either way, I think they both have very valid arguments from people who have thought it through.  It is just interesting to me how the two groups that are both hunters can view things so differently.

I don't think big game vs waterfowl hunters look at things differently and a lot of us do both. They are different animals and different topics so comparing isn't really fair. Apples to oranges.

Baiting animals is baiting animals.  You are putting something out there to artificially attract animals to an area so you can shoot them.  I could go either way, I just don't understand the argument for baiting X is ethical but baiting Y isn't.

The most compelling argument to baiting bears is that it allows you a longer time to assess the animal and perhaps determine if it is a sow that may have cubs hidden at the time. At least as I understand it.

The only reason to bait waterfowl is laziness. Just want to shoot something without actually putting in the work.

So I think there is a bit more of a difference than just baiting is baiting. Maybe not. Maybe it is all up to the end user?

[Stein]

It is interesting me how different big game and waterfowl hunters are.  Don't shoot at a moving animal vs don't shoot at a bird on water.  We need to protect or ability to bait bears vs. baiting is unethical and not fair chase.

Just in case it isn't coming through, I'm not arguing or supporting either way, I think they both have very valid arguments from people who have thought it through.  It is just interesting to me how the two groups that are both hunters can view things so differently.

I don't think big game vs waterfowl hunters look at things differently and a lot of us do both. They are different animals and different topics so comparing isn't really fair. Apples to oranges.

Baiting animals is baiting animals.  You are putting something out there to artificially attract animals to an area so you can shoot them.  I could go either way, I just don't understand the argument for baiting X is ethical but baiting Y isn't.

The most compelling argument to baiting bears is that it allows you a longer time to assess the animal and perhaps determine if it is a sow that may have cubs hidden at the time. At least as I understand it.

The only reason to bait waterfowl is laziness. Just want to shoot something without actually putting in the work.

So I think there is a bit more of a difference than just baiting is baiting. Maybe not. Maybe it is all up to the end user?

So, you can't spot and stalk a bear and tell if it has cubs, but you can spot a bird flying  overhead at mach 2 and assess exactly what type of duck and the sex and the limits compared with what you have already shot before it gets farther than 30 yards away?    We can also bait deer in this state and they don't have cubs.

I hold that baiting is baiting.  Again, I'm not arguing for or against, but at the end of the day we are putting out bait to make hunting more efficient.  Whether you grow corn, haul boxes of apples or barrels of donuts, you are engaged in the same activity for the same reason.

[lokidog]

Stein, 95% of the time I can tell what species of duck it is I am shooting at as well as gender. The other 5%, I can tell that it is a duck and I know whether or not I still have space in my limit for any duck.

100% of the time I can tell that they do not have chicks with them.    I also have no problem with shooting birds on the water. I have much bigger issues with shooting at them out of effective range.

[EWUeagles]

It is interesting me how different big game and waterfowl hunters are.  Don't shoot at a moving animal vs don't shoot at a bird on water.  We need to protect or ability to bait bears vs. baiting is unethical and not fair chase.

Just in case it isn't coming through, I'm not arguing or supporting either way, I think they both have very valid arguments from people who have thought it through.  It is just interesting to me how the two groups that are both hunters can view things so differently.

I don't think big game vs waterfowl hunters look at things differently and a lot of us do both. They are different animals and different topics so comparing isn't really fair. Apples to oranges.

Baiting animals is baiting animals.  You are putting something out there to artificially attract animals to an area so you can shoot them.  I could go either way, I just don't understand the argument for baiting X is ethical but baiting Y isn't.

The most compelling argument to baiting bears is that it allows you a longer time to assess the animal and perhaps determine if it is a sow that may have cubs hidden at the time. At least as I understand it.

The only reason to bait waterfowl is laziness. Just want to shoot something without actually putting in the work.

So I think there is a bit more of a difference than just baiting is baiting. Maybe not. Maybe it is all up to the end user?

So, you can't spot and stalk a bear and tell if it has cubs, but you can spot a bird flying  overhead at mach 2 and assess exactly what type of duck and the sex and the limits compared with what you have already shot before it gets farther than 30 yards away?    We can also bait deer in this state and they don't have cubs.

I hold that baiting is baiting.  Again, I'm not arguing for or against, but at the end of the day we are putting out bait to make hunting more efficient.  Whether you grow corn, haul boxes of apples or barrels of donuts, you are engaged in the same activity for the same reason.

I have never baited anything so my assumption would be it's how the animals are harvested ethically. With waterfowl they are most commonly shot on the wing and with big game you want them not be standing still for the most ethical shot. Especially when hunting with a bow the more time you have an animal in close and not moving gives it a more ethical shot. I have always been a spot and stalk guy so maybe my assumptions are wrong.

[h2ofowlr]

When I am chasing ducks I am putting on a lot of miles looking for them.  Sometimes up to a 150 miles a day.  With corn complexes you can take the travel out of the equation as the birds come to you.

[Stein]

My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting, i.e. they don't have a chance to get away.  When shooting them on the wing, they are fleeing, so it is more sporting.  Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical.

That is very different from big game.  Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed.  Nobody wants them to have a "fair chance" to get away and nobody would call shooting a stationary elk as unethical.

Different animal, different set of ethics rules.  Same holds with baiting, there are threads on here about how we need to band together to maintain rights to bait deer and bear while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting.

I didn't grow up a hunter of big game or waterfowl, so I don't have the historical background but do find it interesting that the different groups hold baiting in such a different light.

[Sandberm]

This was an interesting read. The question is: are corn ponds any different in effect than what this report wanted to get banned?

https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1935/19350809.pdf

Thats interesting

[huntnfmly]

As earlier in this thread I'm not a waterfowler so I apologize for my nieve questions.
I see all these posts about the corn complexes being unethical
How many of you count cripples on your daily bag limit?
And I am assuming that those are waterfowl that are not recovered

[vandeman17]

My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting, i.e. they don't have a chance to get away.  When shooting them on the wing, they are fleeing, so it is more sporting.  Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical.

That is very different from big game.  Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed.  Nobody wants them to have a "fair chance" to get away and nobody would call shooting a stationary elk as unethical.

Different animal, different set of ethics rules.  Same holds with baiting, there are threads on here about how we need to band together to maintain rights to bait deer and bear while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting.

I didn't grow up a hunter of big game or waterfowl, so I don't have the historical background but do find it interesting that the different groups hold baiting in such a different light.

I will shoot the piss out of birds on the water if they are in range. They are just as dead that way as they are when I kill them flying by. I also view it as sometimes more of a feat if I was able to get a bird to fully decoy into my spread and land instead of just shooting one as they fly by. 

[Mfowl]

As earlier in this thread I'm not a waterfowler so I apologize for my nieve questions.
I see all these posts about the corn complexes being unethical
How many of you count cripples on your daily bag limit?
And I am assuming that those are waterfowl that are not recovered

I have always counted crippled or lost birds against my limit. Its how I was taught and others I hunt with do the same.

[HikerHunter]

My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting, i.e. they don't have a chance to get away.  When shooting them on the wing, they are fleeing, so it is more sporting.  Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical.

That is very different from big game.  Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed.  Nobody wants them to have a "fair chance" to get away and nobody would call shooting a stationary elk as unethical.

Different animal, different set of ethics rules.  Same holds with baiting, there are threads on here about how we need to band together to maintain rights to bait deer and bear while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting.

I didn't grow up a hunter of big game or waterfowl, so I don't have the historical background but do find it interesting that the different groups hold baiting in such a different light.

"My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting...Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical."
As far as stationary versus moving big game and waterfowl animals, you aren't comparing apples to apples. First off, you use completely different firearms for ducks than for big game. Most deer/elk firearms are a single projectile and a stationary target allows better vital placement of the shot. Second, stationary waterfowl (sitting on the water) have less of their vitals exposed, which in my opinion, requires a closer shot than a flying target. And those that think its unethical to shoot ducks on the water is an ethical opinion, its still legal. No one is calling for making that illegal. It is not comparable to this discussion because it does not have a similar practice that is already illegal (adding water to corn vs corn to water).

"Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed."
Actually, you will find plenty of hunters and probably a few threads that balk about shooting big game animals in their beds, but again, that's not comparable to this discussion because no one is calling for making that practice illegal because there isn't something similar that's already illegal. Its an ethical opinion.

"...while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting."
I've read every response in this thread and don't recall anyone requesting to ban all forms of baiting. Most of the requests were for studies of the affects of corn complexes or for the ban of artificially flooded corn for the purpose of hunting waterfowl.

[hunterednate]

This was an interesting read. The question is: are corn ponds any different in effect than what this report wanted to get banned?

https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1935/19350809.pdf

Excellent link and superb historical perspective on all this. Will our kids look back on the "corn pond era" with as much of the head-scratching bewilderment as we do at the market gunning era? You know, "Holy cow - they just let you flood unlimited-sized plots of grain and shoot ducks in there all season long back in the day? Really??"

The WA state statistics in that article are fascinating. I'd be shocked if corn complexes today aren't having the exact same effect as the baiting described in 1934.

[EWUeagles]

My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting, i.e. they don't have a chance to get away.  When shooting them on the wing, they are fleeing, so it is more sporting.  Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical.

That is very different from big game.  Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed.  Nobody wants them to have a "fair chance" to get away and nobody would call shooting a stationary elk as unethical.

Different animal, different set of ethics rules.  Same holds with baiting, there are threads on here about how we need to band together to maintain rights to bait deer and bear while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting.

I didn't grow up a hunter of big game or waterfowl, so I don't have the historical background but do find it interesting that the different groups hold baiting in such a different light.

"My understanding about waterfowl is that some don't shoot them on the water because it isn't sporting...Some even call shooting ducks on the water unethical."
As far as stationary versus moving big game and waterfowl animals, you aren't comparing apples to apples. First off, you use completely different firearms for ducks than for big game. Most deer/elk firearms are a single projectile and a stationary target allows better vital placement of the shot. Second, stationary waterfowl (sitting on the water) have less of their vitals exposed, which in my opinion, requires a closer shot than a flying target. And those that think its unethical to shoot ducks on the water is an ethical opinion, its still legal. No one is calling for making that illegal. It is not comparable to this discussion because it does not have a similar practice that is already illegal (adding water to corn vs corn to water).

"Nobody will balk at shooting a stationary animal or one in it's bed."
Actually, you will find plenty of hunters and probably a few threads that balk about shooting big game animals in their beds, but again, that's not comparable to this discussion because no one is calling for making that practice illegal because there isn't something similar that's already illegal. Its an ethical opinion.

"...while at the same time this thread about how we need to band together to completely ban all forms of baiting."
I've read every response in this thread and don't recall anyone requesting to ban all forms of baiting. Most of the requests were for studies of the affects of corn complexes or for the ban of artificially flooded corn for the purpose of hunting waterfowl.

 
They are different animals and need different set of ethics and rules. Roads are all road but they need different speed limits depending on use. It's kind of similar to that.

I do count cripples toward my daily bag limit. I actually have journal that I track all that stuff. This is a big reason why I cringed when I hear people's retrieving methods are a fishing pole but that's a different debate.