Hunting Washington Forum
Other Hunting => Waterfowl => Topic started by: hunterednate on January 02, 2019, 02:06:00 PM
-
In case you missed it, Eagle Lakes ranch posted on their facebook page that they killed 152 limits of ducks this last week (1064 birds dead - not counting cripples). They also claim on their ad on the back page of the regs that they now have "over 40 flooded corn ponds for the '18-'19 season." If you use google earth, you can see that the term "pond" is a bit too quaint for these duck magnets: they're huge, and water levels are manipulated to keep new feed available all season long. Also, as hunters keep paying $350 per day for their seven birds, big operations like Eagle Lakes are able to keep adding more corn ponds every year - exponentially increasing the number of birds they hold.
There are many factors that influence a hunter's success on public land: weather, competition, scouting, etc. And yes, you can still kill birds on public land in 2018. My question is this: are these corn ponds becoming an inordinately large factor on a season like this one?
And if the practice of adding water to corn is banned (ironically, adding corn to water is already considered illegal baiting), would that increase opportunity for public land hunters in WA state?
Just curious to see if any of you other public hunters in the Basin have noticed the decline in the sheer numbers of birds they see in the air or on the water over public ground over the last several years....and whether you think the massive tornadoes of birds roosting, feeding, and loafing on private corn complexes has anything to with it.
-
It has been a slow year for me/us in the basin this year but I am curious if it is the warm weather and amount of open water or not.
-
This again? Come on man. :bash:
-
I hadn't attributed my lack of success this year to the private flooded corn complexes. More to the odd weather and seemingly lower numbers of birds in general in the basin. I suppose it is entirely possible that with fewer birds around the corn complexes are attracting and holding a larger percentage of birds and leaving less available to the public land hunters.
-
Had a buddy hunt at Eagle this year and never saw a bird or shot the gun :dunno: hasn't affected my season, I only have gotten out once. :bash:
-
I will be honest I never gave much credence to this in the past. I have had a very slow year so far. I live here and have a lot of private land I can hunt. I wanted to know what was up so I had a buddy fly me around the basin in his plane. I'm sure the weather had an impact but the fact of the matter was that I was shocked to see how many birds were hanging out on the corn pond complexes.
-
Been killing good amounts of green in my flooded corn. Life is good
-
I will be honest I never gave much credence to this in the past. I have had a very slow year so far. I live here and have a lot of private land I can hunt. I wanted to know what was up so I had a buddy fly me around the basin in his plane. I'm sure the weather had an impact but the fact of the matter was that I was shocked to see how many birds were hanging out on the corn pond complexes.
Exactly. There's nothing like seeing it with your own eyes. They are magnets and getting bigger every year. Simple math says more birds concentrated in one (very small) area....fewer birds elsewhere.
-
It has been a slow year for me/us in the basin this year but I am curious if it is the warm weather and amount of open water or not.
I think those are huge factors, too. Maybe the biggest factors. But corn ponds will also have a bigger impact on years like this.
The question is: are weather years like this the new normal? As corn ponds continue to increase in size and effectiveness (via ice eaters, more irrigation investment/infrastructure, will they continue to have a bigger impact?
-
Are these complexes illegal?
-
Had a buddy hunt at Eagle this year and never saw a bird or shot the gun :dunno: hasn't affected my season, I only have gotten out once. :bash:
To quote Eagle Lake's own ad in the reg's: "Limit shooting is the rule - not the exception." Your buddy's experience was unusual! Especially never to see a bird or shoot his gun...are we talking bout the same Eagle Lakes??? I can't even drive past their driveway without seeing birds!
-
Are these complexes illegal?
No. Adding corn to water is illegal - but adding water to corn is not. Very legal. Just like live decoys used to be legal!
-
I hadn't attributed my lack of success this year to the private flooded corn complexes. More to the odd weather and seemingly lower numbers of birds in general in the basin. I suppose it is entirely possible that with fewer birds around the corn complexes are attracting and holding a larger percentage of birds and leaving less available to the public land hunters.
I think you're right on those being the biggest factors. I think the corn ponds have an impact though. When you see the number of birds on them, it's hard to imagine that they CAN'T have an impact.
Wonder what it will be like for hunter recruitment/retention when we have a really tough year....
-
Sounds like some of the same sort of issues that some say caused the WDFW to change the law regarding baiting of deer and elk.Specifically some folks up in North Central WA dumping big enough piles(dump truck loads) of apples to change the migration routes of the mule deer to their winter ranges if I remember correctly.
-
Sounds like some of the same sort of issues that some say caused the WDFW to change the law regarding baiting of deer and elk.Specifically some folks up in North Central WA dumping big enough piles(dump truck loads) of apples to change the migration routes of the mule deer to their winter ranges if I remember correctly.
Great comparison.
-
I am a believer that the ponds have effected bird travel habits and thus, bird hunting, in the basin. It would be different if the ducks had to walk to the ponds but considering their flight paths, it is a completely different set of circumstances.
-
I know a guy who leases duck hunting land by my house who openly says he's changed waterfowl flight patterns with his corn ponds in the valley.
:dunno:
-
I know a guy who leases duck hunting land by my house who openly says he's changed waterfowl flight patterns with his corn ponds in the valley.
:dunno:
How do you feel about that?
-
I know a guy who leases duck hunting land by my house who openly says he's changed waterfowl flight patterns with his corn ponds in the valley.
:dunno:
How do you feel about that?
I don't duck hunt much anymore, but I did in the past. Duck hunting has sucked in the valley as long as I've lived there unless you have access to private ground. Tons of people, not many birds, etc. I'm not sure if this is anything new. I'm not entirely opposed to baiting, but changing wildlife's flight/migration paths is another story. I guess if I had to choose how I felt about it, I'd say I'm not a supporter. The corn complexes do seem like baiting to me. It's illegal to put corn in the water but it's totally legal to put water in the corn just seems like you're finding a loophole to get around a law.
-
It seems like water is the bait. If the corn was dry and still standing would the ducks land in it?
Add water and the ducks magically like it more?
Ban water.
What about solid water in a dry field?
-
I'll quote from the signature line of this forum's owner: "Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!".
Don't like private property owners flooding corn? Let's ban it so everyone gets a better shot at having birds! Yay! First no corn or water manipulation. Then no planting of crops in plots over 20 acres. Then no planting of crops at all. Once you lose the right to do something, it will never come back. Just because you don't like this one thing does not mean should get to stop all landowners from operating on their land within the boundaries of the law as it's currently written.
-
It seems like water is the bait. If the corn was dry and still standing would the ducks land in it?
Add water and the ducks magically like it more?
Ban water.
What about solid water in a dry field?
We are talking about guys growing acres and acres of corn in the field and then flooding it for no other reason then to attract ducks. It’s not just water. There is tons and tons of water in the Snoqualmie Valley but the ducks are all on the cornfields. They are not growing corn for cows or for human consumption. They are growing corn for no other purpose than to attract ducks. Like I said. I don’t duck hunt much and this doesn’t really affect me much at all. Just calling out what I see.
-
Spot on Coug.
-
I'll quote from the signature line of this forum's owner: "Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!".
Don't like private property owners flooding corn? Let's ban it so everyone gets a better shot at having birds! Yay! First no corn or water manipulation. Then no planting of crops in plots over 20 acres. Then no planting of crops at all. Once you lose the right to do something, it will never come back. Just because you don't like this one thing does not mean should get to stop all landowners from operating on their land within the boundaries of the law as it's currently written.
+1
We are seriously our worst enemy
-
It cuts both ways...if you don't have a level playing field, people are discouraged and leave the sport. In a sense, flooded corn fields are not unlike auction tags, the guys that can pay the freight get better opportunities. Need a balance.
-
It cuts both ways...if you don't have a level playing field, people are discouraged and leave the sport. In a sense, flooded corn fields are not unlike auction tags, the guys that can pay the freight get better opportunities. Need a balance.
That’s a good way of putting it.
-
Yes, same Eagle Lakes...I have hunted there a handful of times over the years and agree it is not normal to get skunked. They priced me out of going but they are running a business and people will pay what they are asking. Many things have impacted the quality of hunting here on the westside over the last 30 years, no doubt about it. To be honest, if I could afford to have a private duck hunting Mecca, I would do it in a heartbeat.
-
It cuts both ways...if you don't have a level playing field, people are discouraged and leave the sport. In a sense, flooded corn fields are not unlike auction tags, the guys that can pay the freight get better opportunities. Need a balance.
There is a balance. There aren't many people that can afford to own land and load it up with corn to begin with. I know I'll never be able to buy a governer's tag. I also know that I don't want that option for those that can to go away. When is there ever a level playing field for anything?
-
I'll quote from the signature line of this forum's owner: "Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!".
Don't like private property owners flooding corn? Let's ban it so everyone gets a better shot at having birds! Yay! First no corn or water manipulation. Then no planting of crops in plots over 20 acres. Then no planting of crops at all. Once you lose the right to do something, it will never come back. Just because you don't like this one thing does not mean should get to stop all landowners from operating on their land within the boundaries of the law as it's currently written.
how is allowing a business to concentrate and kill a migratory public resource supporting opportunity for anyone but the business? That is what is occurring here. This isn't about land rights, its about public resource abuse to MAKE MONEY and piles of it.
There is already a law against baiting waterfowl. As with any wildlife regulation, loopholes are found and abused until legislation can catch up. A good recent example is the use of drones for hunting. Technology and innovation will always outpace conservation measures because conservation can only react to current events. This is baiting waterfowl - no two ways about it - and should not be legal based on issues of fairness to public hunters and conservation of the resource
To put this in perspective, 1,064 ducks is 152 limits. Thats $53,200 at $350 a gun that can be re-invested to buy more land, more corn, more pumps...whats the limit? there is none. What started with a single pond and a really good idea to concentrate and kill ducks has grown to 40 by one outfitter alone. Public opportunity is suffering. Hunting ducks is becoming pay to play and profiteers aren't taking their foot off the gas anytime soon.
It's also worth mentioning the disaster in burbank a couple years back where one guide service artificially flooded and hunted a standing crop and had to get in the pond early to pick up all the dead ducks before his clients showed up.... Avian Cholera...in 20+ years of hunting waterfowl never heard of it until it happened down south. These operations concentrate publicly owned ducks in a manner that is both unfair and unhealthy for birds.
-
Imo it benefits the public also they have great habitat for allot of ducks and they will spill over to public ponds
I know that might not explain it well but you get what I'm saying I hope
-
Imo it benefits the public also they have great habitat for allot of ducks and they will spill over to public ponds
I know that might not explain it well but you get what I'm saying I hope
They don't spill over. Thats the whole point of flooded corn vs. dry corn. The ducks literally don't have to move. They can loaf and feed in the same spot. That is why Eagle Lakes and others went to all the effort to abuse a loophole in the baiting law by growing corn in low spots and artificially flooding it. They even brag in youtube videos that they stop the migration from happening....
Private dry corn, however, immensely helps public land areas that have water because ducks travel from feed areas to loafing areas. So there is a definite partnership that used to happen between farmers and sportsmen. But this isn't about agriculture - its about Bernsen and others making a literal killing
-
Imo it benefits the public also they have great habitat for allot of ducks and they will spill over to public ponds
I know that might not explain it well but you get what I'm saying I hope
They don't spill over. Thats the whole point of flooded corn vs. dry corn. The ducks literally don't have to move. They can loaf and feed in the same spot. That is why Eagle Lakes and others went to all the effort to abuse a loophole in the baiting law by growing corn in low spots and artificially flooding it. They even brag in youtube videos that they stop the migration from happening....
Private dry corn, however, immensely helps public land areas that have water because ducks travel from feed areas to loafing areas. So there is a definite partnership that used to happen between farmers and sportsmen. But this isn't about agriculture - its about Bernsen and others making a literal killing
You may have missed my point
Do the ducks live and die there?
Do they travel from other areas?.
To me it's the same as private ranches with deer and elk it benefits the animal
-
concentrating the ducks by the tens of thousands does not benefit the animal.
You can talk all you want about habitat but killing over 1k ducks in a week doesn't make more ducks for anybody ever.
I guess I can agree with you in the sense that at least the land isn't made into a parking lot? Otherwise there is no benefit to the public or the ducks. There were as many or more birds 15 years ago than there are now.
-
Imo it benefits the public also they have great habitat for allot of ducks and they will spill over to public ponds
I know that might not explain it well but you get what I'm saying I hope
They don't spill over. Thats the whole point of flooded corn vs. dry corn. The ducks literally don't have to move. They can loaf and feed in the same spot. That is why Eagle Lakes and others went to all the effort to abuse a loophole in the baiting law by growing corn in low spots and artificially flooding it. They even brag in youtube videos that they stop the migration from happening....
Private dry corn, however, immensely helps public land areas that have water because ducks travel from feed areas to loafing areas. So there is a definite partnership that used to happen between farmers and sportsmen. But this isn't about agriculture - its about Bernsen and others making a literal killing
You may have missed my point
Do the ducks live and die there?
Do they travel from other areas?.
To me it's the same as private ranches with deer and elk it benefits the animal
Vast majority of the ducks don’t have to travel. They migrate to ponds and either sit there all season and migrate back north after or get killed there. This is especially true when you have 40 ponds. A few ponds is different but that many...
-
I'll quote from the signature line of this forum's owner: "Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!".
Don't like private property owners flooding corn? Let's ban it so everyone gets a better shot at having birds! Yay! First no corn or water manipulation. Then no planting of crops in plots over 20 acres. Then no planting of crops at all. Once you lose the right to do something, it will never come back. Just because you don't like this one thing does not mean should get to stop all landowners from operating on their land within the boundaries of the law as it's currently written.
how is allowing a business to concentrate and kill a migratory public resource supporting opportunity for anyone but the business? That is what is occurring here. This isn't about land rights, its about public resource abuse to MAKE MONEY and piles of it.
There is already a law against baiting waterfowl. As with any wildlife regulation, loopholes are found and abused until legislation can catch up. A good recent example is the use of drones for hunting. Technology and innovation will always outpace conservation measures because conservation can only react to current events. This is baiting waterfowl - no two ways about it - and should not be legal based on issues of fairness to public hunters and conservation of the resource
To put this in perspective, 1,064 ducks is 152 limits. Thats $53,200 at $350 a gun that can be re-invested to buy more land, more corn, more pumps...whats the limit? there is none. What started with a single pond and a really good idea to concentrate and kill ducks has grown to 40 by one outfitter alone. Public opportunity is suffering. Hunting ducks is becoming pay to play and profiteers aren't taking their foot off the gas anytime soon.
It's also worth mentioning the disaster in burbank a couple years back where one guide service artificially flooded and hunted a standing crop and had to get in the pond early to pick up all the dead ducks before his clients showed up.... Avian Cholera...in 20+ years of hunting waterfowl never heard of it until it happened down south. These operations concentrate publicly owned ducks in a manner that is both unfair and unhealthy for birds.
A better perspective is Eagle Lakes posts 25-38 limits a day. Do the math on that one. Turn on the pumps and the decoys are dancing in the flooded corn. The ducks drop in at 10-25 yards like nothing. It’s a turkey shoot most days and limits for most. If you don’t limit, it’s due to you blowing off the dust and not able to hit the side of a barn! The clubs have shifted the flyways and hold tons of birds in the tens of thousands and more. You shoot and they fly to the next pond and get whacked at by the next group. It’s a fun experience and one many never get to experience outside of that type of hunt. I do see where some sort of restrictions are the only way to level the field. They short stop a lot of birds and it is turning into big business.
-
I guess I'm coming at it differently than others.If it's truly illegal then obviously it needs to be stopped but I wouldn't think such a big outfit running illegally would be allowed to continue. So if they found a loophole and it is detrimental to the flocks then that need a to be addressed but sportsman bashing sportsman just leads to everybody losing.
I would think that the feed benefits the ducks before heading back North
-
Like others have mentioned - - concentrating flocks, pulling migraters off of their natural flyways, and limiting hunting opportunity only to a select few are 3 of the main reasons to change the loop-hole.
-
According to their website, as 'Stewards', they must put back more than they take. If true, that is a lot of duck production. Win Win for everyone, right? Their land, do what they want. I still kill plenty of birds through many years of trial and error, even near Refuge areas. Environmental laws will probably be their downfall.
-
According to their website, as 'Stewards', they must put back more than they take. If true, that is a lot of duck production. Win Win for everyone, right? Their land, do what they want. I still kill plenty of birds through many years of trial and error, even near Refuge areas. Environmental laws will probably be their downfall.
A refuge is a totally different thing than a flooded corn pond well especially in the north basin. The birds must still leave traveling over public ground to find feed. Then travel back over public to get to the refuge we get a whack at them. 40 flooded corn ponds and a huge refuge lake acts as it's own zone the ducks can stay within. But wait if it all freezes then you may get a shot at them..nope they pay sagehill electric to wire in hard wired aerators... It's not great for the public land guy.
-
152 limits last week was probably more than the entire Eastside combined
-
I'll quote from the signature line of this forum's owner: "Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!".
Don't like private property owners flooding corn? Let's ban it so everyone gets a better shot at having birds! Yay! First no corn or water manipulation. Then no planting of crops in plots over 20 acres. Then no planting of crops at all. Once you lose the right to do something, it will never come back. Just because you don't like this one thing does not mean should get to stop all landowners from operating on their land within the boundaries of the law as it's currently written.
how is allowing a business to concentrate and kill a migratory public resource supporting opportunity for anyone but the business? That is what is occurring here. This isn't about land rights, its about public resource abuse to MAKE MONEY and piles of it.
There is already a law against baiting waterfowl. As with any wildlife regulation, loopholes are found and abused until legislation can catch up. A good recent example is the use of drones for hunting. Technology and innovation will always outpace conservation measures because conservation can only react to current events. This is baiting waterfowl - no two ways about it - and should not be legal based on issues of fairness to public hunters and conservation of the resource
To put this in perspective, 1,064 ducks is 152 limits. Thats $53,200 at $350 a gun that can be re-invested to buy more land, more corn, more pumps...whats the limit? there is none. What started with a single pond and a really good idea to concentrate and kill ducks has grown to 40 by one outfitter alone. Public opportunity is suffering. Hunting ducks is becoming pay to play and profiteers aren't taking their foot off the gas anytime soon.
It's also worth mentioning the disaster in burbank a couple years back where one guide service artificially flooded and hunted a standing crop and had to get in the pond early to pick up all the dead ducks before his clients showed up.... Avian Cholera...in 20+ years of hunting waterfowl never heard of it until it happened down south. These operations concentrate publicly owned ducks in a manner that is both unfair and unhealthy for birds.
A better perspective is Eagle Lakes posts 25-38 limits a day. Do the math on that one. Turn on the pumps and the decoys are dancing in the flooded corn. The ducks drop in at 10-25 yards like nothing. It’s a turkey shoot most days and limits for most. If you don’t limit, it’s due to you blowing off the dust and not able to hit the side of a barn! The clubs have shifted the flyways and hold tons of birds in the tens of thousands and more. You shoot and they fly to the next pond and get whacked at by the next group. It’s a fun experience and one many never get to experience outside of that type of hunt. I do see where some sort of restrictions are the only way to level the field. They short stop a lot of birds and it is turning into big business.
:yeah:
If a number near 20k is coming from one operation it definitely has the potential to, at the minimum shorten statewide seasons.
-
Do the math if you got 33 people to pay 350$ a trip even half the season that's over $600,000 crazy money to be made. We can all come on here and talk talk all we want but when the public comment period comes out for waterfowl seasons you have to go online and voice your opinion some place other than here.
-
Do the math if you got 33 people to pay 350$ a trip even half the season that's over $600,000 crazy money to be made. We can all come on here and talk talk all we want but when the public comment period comes out for waterfowl seasons you have to go online and voice your opinion some place other than here.
What kind of math?
-
Do the math if you got 33 people to pay 350$ a trip even half the season that's over $600,000 crazy money to be made. We can all come on here and talk talk all we want but when the public comment period comes out for waterfowl seasons you have to go online and voice your opinion some place other than here.
What kind of math?
33 limited shooters paying 350$ each for half the season 55 days.
My point is it's not for the ducks.. It's not for conservation.....It's to make money.. Money is power.. Power to control the migration.
-
:tup:
-
My point is it's not for the ducks.. It's not for conservation.....It's to make money.. Money is power.. Power to control the migration.
[/quote]
:yeah:
-
Where do they get the water?
-
It seems like every slow (public land) year this topic comes up. The main factor is the weather. If you tell these guys to stop flooding corn they will just leave dry corn standing and put a pond right next to it same result. Does it suck yeah, but maybe we should outlaw hunting ducks from a boat because it gives the guys who can afford a boat better opportunity. If guys in boats didnt short stop the ducks from the shore hunters like me I'd have a much better season.
As for corn complexes changing migration patters who knows. Maybe all the farm land going from corn, wheat, potatoes, etc to wine grapes has something to do with it at lease in places.
There is a saying if you want a great hunt, hunt the X. If you want a great season hunt around the X. I know a lot of guys have had great seasons hunting next to a property of a friend of mine who keeps flooded corn.
-
My point is it's not for the ducks.. It's not for conservation.....It's to make money.. Money is power.. Power to control the migration.
:yeah:
[/quote]
Duck Dynasty We'll see how long it lasts..
-
It seems like every slow (public land) year this topic comes up. The main factor is the weather. If you tell these guys to stop flooding corn they will just leave dry corn standing and put a pond right next to it same result. Does it suck yeah, but maybe we should outlaw hunting ducks from a boat because it gives the guys who can afford a boat better opportunity. If guys in boats didnt short stop the ducks from the shore hunters like me I'd have a much better season.
As for corn complexes changing migration patters who knows. Maybe all the farm land going from corn, wheat, potatoes, etc to wine grapes has something to do with it at lease in places.
There is a saying if you want a great hunt, hunt the X. If you want a great season hunt around the X. I know a lot of guys have had great seasons hunting next to a property of a friend of mine who keeps flooded corn.
If this is true, then the corn complexes won't oppose banning the practice. Win-win!
-
I guess I'm coming at it differently than others.If it's truly illegal then obviously it needs to be stopped but I wouldn't think such a big outfit running illegally would be allowed to continue. So if they found a loophole and it is detrimental to the flocks then that need a to be addressed but sportsman bashing sportsman just leads to everybody losing.
I would think that the feed benefits the ducks before heading back North
It's not illegal - that's the point. It's equivalent to a practice that IS illegal (baiting). Therefore, it should be banned for the sake of consistency.
-
I am a believer that the ponds have effected bird travel habits and thus, bird hunting, in the basin. It would be different if the ducks had to walk to the ponds but considering their flight paths, it is a completely different set of circumstances.
Bingo.
-
Imo it benefits the public also they have great habitat for allot of ducks and they will spill over to public ponds
I know that might not explain it well but you get what I'm saying I hope
They don't spill over. Thats the whole point of flooded corn vs. dry corn. The ducks literally don't have to move. They can loaf and feed in the same spot. That is why Eagle Lakes and others went to all the effort to abuse a loophole in the baiting law by growing corn in low spots and artificially flooding it. They even brag in youtube videos that they stop the migration from happening....
So so true. Spill over effect is minimal compared to the number of birds that would need to find water on public land after feeding in dry corn.
Private dry corn, however, immensely helps public land areas that have water because ducks travel from feed areas to loafing areas. So there is a definite partnership that used to happen between farmers and sportsmen. But this isn't about agriculture - its about Bernsen and others making a literal killing
-
Do the math if you got 33 people to pay 350$ a trip even half the season that's over $600,000 crazy money to be made. We can all come on here and talk talk all we want but when the public comment period comes out for waterfowl seasons you have to go online and voice your opinion some place other than here.
For sure! Let's get the link posted for public comment when it comes out. If enough public hunters make their voice heard, change might happen (e.g. big game baiting). But like you said, drk9988....money is power. Big corn complexes have a lot of money.
-
Do the math if you got 33 people to pay 350$ a trip even half the season that's over $600,000 crazy money to be made. We can all come on here and talk talk all we want but when the public comment period comes out for waterfowl seasons you have to go online and voice your opinion some place other than here.
What kind of math?
33 limited shooters paying 350$ each for half the season 55 days.
My point is it's not for the ducks.. It's not for conservation.....It's to make money.. Money is power.. Power to control the migration.
Can't say it better.
-
Do you also want to ban (water in corn) the practice on public land? Why not get WDFW to do a much better job of making good habitat on public ground?
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
As many have stated it's a bigger problem than what's fair. It could potentially be very detrimental in several ways, one being disease. A huge threat when you congregate any species.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
As many have stated it's a bigger problem than what's fair. It could potentially be very detrimental in several ways, one being disease. A huge threat when you congregate any species.
They congregate in large numbers already along thier migration so I don't see that as a valid argument.
What this really comes down to is people feeling that it's not fair so let's stop somebody else that's only going to shoot all sportsman in the foot
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
-
I don't like more rules than the next guy, but common sense needs to apply. It's a way around to achieve the same thing that is illegal. Can anyone deny that with a straight face? Seriously, that's exactly what this is. EXACTLY.
If this was elk or deer we were talking about with such grey lines it wouldn't be the same discussion.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
As many have stated it's a bigger problem than what's fair. It could potentially be very detrimental in several ways, one being disease. A huge threat when you congregate any species.
They congregate in large numbers already along thier migration so I don't see that as a valid argument.
What this really comes down to is people feeling that it's not fair so let's stop somebody else that's only going to shoot all sportsman in the foot
https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/state_news/disease-killing-hundreds-of-ducks-other-birds-near-tri-cities/article_d92fe75e-e416-11e6-bafd-1b0d4df39e88.html
-
I don't like more rules than the next guy, but common sense needs to apply. It's a way around to achieve the same thing that is illegal. Can anyone deny that with a straight face? Seriously, that's exactly what this is. EXACTLY.
If this was elk or deer we were talking about with such grey lines it wouldn't be the same discussion.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
As many have stated it's a bigger problem than what's fair. It could potentially be very detrimental in several ways, one being disease. A huge threat when you congregate any species.
They congregate in large numbers already along thier migration so I don't see that as a valid argument.
What this really comes down to is people feeling that it's not fair so let's stop somebody else that's only going to shoot all sportsman in the foot
https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/state_news/disease-killing-hundreds-of-ducks-other-birds-near-tri-cities/article_d92fe75e-e416-11e6-bafd-1b0d4df39e88.html
Thanks for the link but that makes a point that they congregate in great numbers already
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
EWU my points are all spot on :IBCOOL: At the end of the day this is wanting what someone else has plain and simple. Corn Complexes are not new and dont have an effect on season 2018 any more or less than they did on season 2017, 2016 etc etc. The reason 2018 is so poor is the weather. If Canada was locked in snow and ice things would be much different for the public land hunter regardless of corn complexes. Take away the complexes and public areas will still be poorly managed, over pressured, with less birds in the general area.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
EWU my points are all spot on :IBCOOL: At the end of the day this is wanting what someone else has plain and simple. Corn Complexes are not new and dont have an effect on season 2018 any more or less than they did on season 2017, 2016 etc etc. The reason 2018 is so poor is the weather. If Canada was locked in snow and ice things would be much different for the public land hunter regardless of corn complexes. Take away the complexes and public areas will still be poorly managed, over pressured, with less birds in the general area.
I will give you two things, 1) waterfowl hunting is very weather dependent 2) our public lands in this state is very poorly managed and that won't ever change. You have to admit though that corn complexes hold more birds than that would naturally go to those areas. This does effect where birds go and effect if they would go to public land. Once you see a mile long stretch of ducks on a private corn complex it may change your mind. I understand you're trying to call everyone jealous but I don't think that's the case with everyone. I don't want to see everyone's hard work go down the crapper but there has to be a middle ground with these complexes. Do I know what it is? Nope but I'm sure there's something out there.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
EWU in your big game scenario is there anything stopping the public from putting out feed to draw the elk/deer back to public land? If not why dont we get more public habitat that matches private habitat and level the playing field in that manner?
Has anyone here hunted Sauvie Is Oregon? It has a great public area that has flooded corn and it is surrounded by private clubs with flooded corn. At times the WA shoots way better than the private clubs. Depends on wind and hunting pressure.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
I agree EWU but to add to your point, at least the elk on those private grounds have to walk to get to where they are going and that could bring them over places that can be hunted. Birds are different in that they can fly directly to these ponds and be there all season. Huge difference.
If anyone can honestly say that this large of a scale doesn't influence where birds want to go and thus effecting the surrounding area's hunting opportunities, I don't know what to say. This has nothing to do with taking away other's rights but more so leveling the playing field based on the INTENTION of a rule/law and not how to get around it.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
EWU in your big game scenario is there anything stopping the public from putting out feed to draw the elk/deer back to public land? If not why dont we get more public habitat that matches private habitat and level the playing field in that manner?
Has anyone here hunted Sauvie Is Oregon? It has a great public area that has flooded corn and it is surrounded by private clubs with flooded corn. At times the WA shoots way better than the private clubs. Depends on wind and hunting pressure.
Yes the public can't put out 1000 acre corn complex with 40 ponds haha. Our state land management will never be able to match what a private business with unlimited money can do. I'm for bringing the playing field level in a way that is actually doable.s.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
With Elk you're right and they do have a chance to walk past but with waterfowl they can move past you with out ever seeing them.
I think most people's problem with corn complex is, is it actually legal? They stay right on the edge of the law. It's not baiting if it's in a normal agricultural practice. Is it standard practice to leave standing rows? Is it standard to flood your crop? Is it standard to move the screen that lets more corn fall on the ground? That's where I have a problem is that it really normal agricultural practice? In my eyes it isn't and is actually illegal.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
-
The difference too, if this was Johnny bravo and he had his private field that he was doing whatever in, that’s his deal. This situation is very different. They are making very good money off a public resource. Changing and/or stopping natural migration patterns. Creating a monopoly of a public resource by finding a legal loophole. Bait is bait, doesn’t matter if you add water before or after. It’s still baiting.
-
I don't think many people have a good understanding of waterfowl laws and regulations. @Bigtex, the MBTRA, CFR along with flyway frameworks.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
Understood
With the technology of keeping the corn ponds ice free doesn't that benefit the waterfowl?
Where would they go if all waterways were froze up?
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
Understood
With the technology of keeping the corn ponds ice free doesn't that benefit the waterfowl?
Where would they go if all waterways were froze up?
They would continue south until they found open water like they had been doing previously.
-
Can anyone point to some public land harvest statistics that show the negative impact of the corn complexes? It seems all the stats are both public/private self reporting. I'd bet more and more ducks are killed on public land each year or they at least mirror overall duck numbers in the area. It would be great to see some historical data that would show a significant drop off in public land hunter success at the same time corn complexes started.
I feel that if the complexes werent there neither would the ducks. Each area only has so much carrying capacity its not like the birds concentrated on Eagle Lakes would magically show up at the Winchester QHA or Desert Unit. They would probably just not be as many ducks.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
Understood
With the technology of keeping the corn ponds ice free doesn't that benefit the waterfowl?
Where would they go if all waterways were froze up?
They would continue south until they found open water like they had been doing previously.
Understood.
But you missed my point
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
Understood
With the technology of keeping the corn ponds ice free doesn't that benefit the waterfowl?
Where would they go if all waterways were froze up?
They would continue south until they found open water like they had been doing previously.
Understood.
But you missed my point
What was the point then? honest question
-
Can anyone point to some public land harvest statistics that show the negative impact of the corn complexes? It seems all the stats are both public/private self reporting. I'd bet more and more ducks are killed on public land each year or they at least mirror overall duck numbers in the area. It would be great to see some historical data that would show a significant drop off in public land hunter success at the same time corn complexes started.
I feel that if the complexes werent there neither would the ducks. Each area only has so much carrying capacity its not like the birds concentrated on Eagle Lakes would magically show up at the Winchester QHA or Desert Unit. They would probably just not be as many ducks.
I might be wrong but all the waterfowl surveys I have ever filled out it never asks if it was public or private. You can find harvest records by county but you would be making assumptions and I don't know if those surveys even ask big ranches like Eagle Lakes.
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
JBG comparing corn complexes to owning a boat is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Most people who boat hunt still hunt from shore haha. Boat hunting only allows you to get to a spot faster and maybe with less work. It doesn't physically draw ducks to you or keep ducks in an area because you are using a boat. I'm not saying I'm against corn complexes but his points are all pretty bad. Ducks do move their migration patterns because of these complexes. Last year there was a huge duck die off because ducks changed their natural migration patterns and stayed in one area because they had food and water. It made it a perfect breeding ground for Avian Cholera.
Personally I'm not really for limiting what other hunters can do just because I can't afford it but I do believe they have an unfair advantage. It would be nice to see the playing field a little more equal. Also JBG dry field duck hunting is way different than a flooded field.
You're actually missing the point
Maybe not being a waterfowl hunter you don't really understand what's going on. Let's say you hunt elk. All year elk feed and breed on hunt able land but then come hunting season LARGE land owners put out some feed or whatever that draws most of the elk to that one land. The herd you used to hunt year after year is now 1/5, 1/10 or maybe even less than it used to be. This feed isn't "illegal" but it marches a very tight line of being legal or not. How would you feel? Would you want people talking about it? Would you do anything?
And my original point of comparing boat hunting to corn complexes is dumb. I get JBG was trying to say it's the have not's trying to take from the the haves but I don't believe this is the case here at all.
Not being a waterfowler I still understand what's going on and your elk example is spot on and that would suck but there would still be elk in the area and actually might bring more in therefore I would just hunt the area different.
That looks like what is going on with this corn complex and so I understand people's feelings about it but once again back to the bigger picture we cannot keep trying to take away legal hunting practices regardless of how we feel.
Look at hound hunting/baiting bears how about the baiting deer and elk changes that just took place
I never said there would be more elk. There would be more less elk for the same amount of people who hunted it. Would you as an individual still harvest an elk? Probably but would the size of the success rate go down for you? Very likely. The success rate the whole would also go down. That's what I believe corn complexes are doing.
I think limiting the size of your bait for deer and elk isn't a bad thing. I have never hunted over bait so maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in your elk scenario that more elk may travel thru public land to get to the private ranch which in many areas they already do and the feed helps.
I actually agree with you about the corn complex you guys are talking about it doesn't seem fair but this is a big but it's legal and once again we cannot take away legal hunting practices from others just because we don't like it.
Private lands benefit all wildlife.
Here's a really stupid example but it might make sense.
Say the whole basin you guys hunt dried up and the only place that has water were these corn complexes do we take away their ability to attract waterfowl to the area which would keep them coming into the area or just make it so no birds come in at all.
I know that is a really stupid and impossible scenario but I think it makes point. So don't laugh too hard at me for that😆😆
In general, I agree with that statement 100%. An exception, though, would be banning previously legal hunting practices that are the result of new advances in technology or innovation.
For example, drone scouting for big game. Previously legal...because drones weren't invented! These corn ponds are not a natural resource hunters are taking advantage of. They are MASSIVE infrastructure undertakings - made with heavy equipment, the size of major ag crop circles, flooded with fresh water through regulated irrigation, and kept ice-free all season long through the use of hard wired aerators.
Game laws need to keep pace with advances in technology - especially those advances that concentrate a public resource on private land and reduce opportunity for public hunters.
Understood
With the technology of keeping the corn ponds ice free doesn't that benefit the waterfowl?
Where would they go if all waterways were froze up?
They would continue south until they found open water like they had been doing previously.
Understood.
But you missed my point
What was the point then? honest question
My point is without the open water the waterfowl will just continue on the migration and not even stop in the area.And the corn complex should be looked at as additional carrying capacity
-
Do you also want to ban (water in corn) the practice on public land? Why not get WDFW to do a much better job of making good habitat on public ground?
Last I heard, WDFW wasn't charging $350 a gun for waterfowl hunts and had budget strains.
-
Yea it would be pretty simple for them to put a box saying public or private land. Anyhow this horse seems dead. I think everyone who is a public land hunter needs to support the groups and politicians who have their best interests at heart. (Dems are a pain in the ass but I am sure there are very few Republicans that support expansion of government for sportsman benefits in addition to imposing regulations on private entities)
Also as an aside I have access to private land (a west side version of a corn complex)all season long but I am currently boat shopping so I can hunt the big rivers and bays, I guess the grass is always greener :dunno:
-
Do you also want to ban (water in corn) the practice on public land? Why not get WDFW to do a much better job of making good habitat on public ground?
Last I heard, WDFW wasn't charging $350 a gun for waterfowl hunts and had budget strains.
Maybe they should start!
-
JBG made a good point do we start banning hunting from boats because it effects shore hunters.
Like he mentioned hunt around point X. I'm not a waterfowler so this doesn't effect me as much as some of you but what does effect all of us is the let's ban it because I can't or don't agree with the way someone is doing it way of thinking
As many have stated it's a bigger problem than what's fair. It could potentially be very detrimental in several ways, one being disease. A huge threat when you congregate any species.
They congregate in large numbers already along thier migration so I don't see that as a valid argument.
What this really comes down to is people feeling that it's not fair so let's stop somebody else that's only going to shoot all sportsman in the foot
https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/state_news/disease-killing-hundreds-of-ducks-other-birds-near-tri-cities/article_d92fe75e-e416-11e6-bafd-1b0d4df39e88.html
Thanks for the link but that makes a point that they congregate in great numbers already
Actually, the point is that they were congregating in harder numbers because of the winter causing the problems. In theory, you'd like the birds spread out a little more on the open water.
Whereas you get enough ice eaters going, you're concentrating birds in a much smaller area than would normally occur because they would spread out looking for big water.
-
Yea it would be pretty simple for them to put a box saying public or private land. Anyhow this horse seems dead. I think everyone who is a public land hunter needs to support the groups and politicians who have their best interests at heart. (Dems are a pain in the ass but I am sure there are very few Republicans that support expansion of government for sportsman benefits in addition to imposing regulations on private entities)
Also as an aside I have access to private land (a west side version of a corn complex)all season long but I am currently boat shopping so I can hunt the big rivers and bays, I guess the grass is always greener :dunno:
The state doesn't care where the birds are shot. They want to brag about harvest rates going up even if it is all on private land, that way they get to pat themselves on the back. No politician is good, especially Washington Dems. Just look at the gun laws that get passed every year.
You don't really think hunting fees should be 350 bucks to shoot ducks?
-
[/quote]
My point is without the open water the waterfowl will just continue on the migration and not even stop in the area.And the corn complex should be looked at as additional carrying capacity
[/quote]
And my answer is that is NATURAL and not influenced by man so I would not complain. That is the big difference here. You keep bringing up natural occurrences but what is happening is totally artificial. Before these complexes, we hoped for cold weather up north to push birds here and then hoped it was just cold enough for bigger water to freeze but not so cold everything froze. If it did, tough luck, that's part of the deal. Now, even if everything in the basin freezes up tight, the complexes can stay open and kill birds that would have otherwise left.
-
Yea it would be pretty simple for them to put a box saying public or private land. Anyhow this horse seems dead. I think everyone who is a public land hunter needs to support the groups and politicians who have their best interests at heart. (Dems are a pain in the ass but I am sure there are very few Republicans that support expansion of government for sportsman benefits in addition to imposing regulations on private entities)
Also as an aside I have access to private land (a west side version of a corn complex)all season long but I am currently boat shopping so I can hunt the big rivers and bays, I guess the grass is always greener :dunno:
The state doesn't care where the birds are shot. They want to brag about harvest rates going up even if it is all on private land, that way they get to pat themselves on the back. No politician is good, especially Washington Dems. Just look at the gun laws that get passed every year.
You don't really think hunting fees should be 350 bucks to shoot ducks?
I think most of the new gun laws have been passed via popular vote. NO fees should not be $350 to shoot ducks but If say the state of WA wanted to buy Rasor Farm and charge $350 a gun for a hunt I would support it.
-
Can't wait till the feds show up after Oregon claims their Federally managed ducks are being stopped short.
Love me some additional regulations!
Then we'll have something real to bitch about.
-
My point is without the open water the waterfowl will just continue on the migration and not even stop in the area.And the corn complex should be looked at as additional carrying capacity
[/quote]
And my answer is that is NATURAL and not influenced by man so I would not complain. That is the big difference here. You keep bringing up natural occurrences but what is happening is totally artificial. Before these complexes, we hoped for cold weather up north to push birds here and then hoped it was just cold enough for bigger water to freeze but not so cold everything froze. If it did, tough luck, that's part of the deal. Now, even if everything in the basin freezes up tight, the complexes can stay open and kill birds that would have otherwise left.
[/quote]
I understand what you are saying but do you not agree that the corn complexes could be looked at as more carrying capacity for the area and is good for waterfowl?
The only reason I brought up naturally occurring things was to point out that the argument against the corn ponds congregating them in 1 area was that it happens anyways and that isn't a valid argument.
Once again I completely understand everybody's opposition.
The only reason I responded was to express my opinion on taking away other sportsmans way of hunting will hurt us all.
I have enjoyed the discussion
-
Yea it would be pretty simple for them to put a box saying public or private land. Anyhow this horse seems dead. I think everyone who is a public land hunter needs to support the groups and politicians who have their best interests at heart. (Dems are a pain in the ass but I am sure there are very few Republicans that support expansion of government for sportsman benefits in addition to imposing regulations on private entities)
Also as an aside I have access to private land (a west side version of a corn complex)all season long but I am currently boat shopping so I can hunt the big rivers and bays, I guess the grass is always greener :dunno:
The state doesn't care where the birds are shot. They want to brag about harvest rates going up even if it is all on private land, that way they get to pat themselves on the back. No politician is good, especially Washington Dems. Just look at the gun laws that get passed every year.
You don't really think hunting fees should be 350 bucks to shoot ducks?
I think most of the new gun laws have been passed via popular vote. NO fees should not be $350 to shoot ducks but If say the state of WA wanted to buy Rasor Farm and charge $350 a gun for a hunt I would support it.
They have been passed by popular vote, it makes me want to move to Idaho. It also doesn't help when Inslee comes out and supports them. Rasor Farm is interesting and I hope the state can actually get it. It's does has a pretty hefty price tag.
-
My point is without the open water the waterfowl will just continue on the migration and not even stop in the area.And the corn complex should be looked at as additional carrying capacity
And my answer is that is NATURAL and not influenced by man so I would not complain. That is the big difference here. You keep bringing up natural occurrences but what is happening is totally artificial. Before these complexes, we hoped for cold weather up north to push birds here and then hoped it was just cold enough for bigger water to freeze but not so cold everything froze. If it did, tough luck, that's part of the deal. Now, even if everything in the basin freezes up tight, the complexes can stay open and kill birds that would have otherwise left.
[/quote]
I understand what you are saying but do you not agree that the corn complexes could be looked at as more carrying capacity for the area and is good for waterfowl?
The only reason I brought up naturally occurring things was to point out that the argument against the corn ponds congregating them in 1 area was that it happens anyways and that isn't a valid argument.
Once again I completely understand everybody's opposition.
The only reason I responded was to express my opinion on taking away other sportsmans way of hunting will hurt us all.
I have enjoyed the discussion
[/quote]
I have enjoyed the discussion as well. If the complexes are good for waterfowl or good for waterfowl hunting are two separate issues and I think the one being discussed here, for the most part, has to do with how it effects hunting. Larger bird numbers overall just means larger bird numbers on the ponds and not in the surrounding areas. Birds that used to migrate here and continue on are now able to stop here and either get killed or get fat on corn and head back north in the spring. If that's good for overall bird health and numbers, I don't know, but for hunting in the area it isn't.
As for taking away from other sportsman, that is not what I am advocating. It is more about closing the loophole of baiting so its an even playing field. Like has been said, add corn to water, illegal, add water to corn, legal. Only in America.
-
If a law passed to outlaw flooded corn and I owned Eagle Lakes I would still flood the corn (but not hunt it) and keep the birds on my property. Then dig out some ponds without corn, plant duck weed and still shoot limits every day aanndd hold thousands of birds. I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. I feel like there is no way to level the playing field other than making the playing field the public land guys are on better. Private land if managed for ducks will always attract them.
-
I think there should be some sort of a limit to corn patches, say about 1 acre per 100
-
If a law passed to outlaw flooded corn and I owned Eagle Lakes I would still flood the corn (but not hunt it) and keep the birds on my property. Then dig out some ponds without corn, plant duck weed and still shoot limits every day aanndd hold thousands of birds. I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. I feel like there is no way to level the playing field other than making the playing field the public land guys are on better. Private land if managed for ducks will always attract them.
...and you wouldn't shoot many ducks. That is the whole point of why everybody is bitching about the flooded corn ponds. The ducks stay in the corn.
Every corn complex in the state already has habitat like you describe surrounding them- the ducks stay in the corn.
Do you really think any of these big operations would go through the expense/hassle of flooding their corn if it didn't do exactly what everyone says it does?
-
Ban pumps, gates, hoses, gravity fed water basins, dikes and ditches.
-
And corn.
-
If a law passed to outlaw flooded corn and I owned Eagle Lakes I would still flood the corn (but not hunt it) and keep the birds on my property. Then dig out some ponds without corn, plant duck weed and still shoot limits every day aanndd hold thousands of birds. I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. I feel like there is no way to level the playing field other than making the playing field the public land guys are on better. Private land if managed for ducks will always attract them.
...and you wouldn't shoot many ducks. That is the whole point of why everybody is bitching about the flooded corn ponds. The ducks stay in the corn.
Every corn complex in the state already has habitat like you describe surrounding them- the ducks stay in the corn.
Do you really think any of these big operations would go through the expense/hassle of flooding their corn if it didn't do exactly what everyone says it does?
You wouldnt shoot ducks? Ok what i posed was a hypothetical that if you outlawed hunting flooded corn the complexes would still flood it but not hunt it. They would shoot the ducks staying on the property on other water without corn. Ducks move around a lot Im sure the clubs would still slay.
-
And corn.
NO CORN FOR YOU!
-
Someone has something you want. You can't or won't work to get it, so let's remove it as an option for everyone else. My word.
Let's apply the same logic to something else. I can't afford /don't want to spend the money on a Nightforce scope. Let's ban them since I can't have it. I want to hunt a bunch of out of state tags but can't afford to do that. No more out of state tags! I can't afford to spend $10k to have someone plant a bunch of corn on my land. So let's ban it for everyone!
Come on you guys. You give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Don't remove opportunities for others to have simply because you're being selfish and want more opportunities for yourself. This is a way bigger issue than simply wanting to shoot another bird or two every time you go out into the marsh.
-
Someone has something you want. You can't or won't work to get it, so let's remove it as an option for everyone else. My word.
Let's apply the same logic to something else. I can't afford /don't want to spend the money on a Nightforce scope. Let's ban them since I can't have it. I want to hunt a bunch of out of state tags but can't afford to do that. No more out of state tags! I can't afford to spend $10k to have someone plant a bunch of corn on my land. So let's ban it for everyone!
Come on you guys. You give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Don't remove opportunities for others to have simply because you're being selfish and want more opportunities for yourself. This is a way bigger issue than simply wanting to shoot another bird or two every time you go out into the marsh.
I wouldn't make the argument to ban Nightforce scopes because I can't or won't afford one and someone els will. Someone could make the argument that long range hunting is not sporting or even unethical and then we could carry on and on about it.
As for corn ponds, I don't see any private owners expressing any remorse over taking opportunity away from the public land guy. Just greedily hogging a public resource for their own profit. I don't have a problem with naturally occuring sheet water in a corn field or flood events creating a great opportunity for someone. I do have a problem with manipulating a public resource for profit while diminishing it for others.
-
Someone has something you want. You can't or won't work to get it, so let's remove it as an option for everyone else. My word.
Let's apply the same logic to something else. I can't afford /don't want to spend the money on a Nightforce scope. Let's ban them since I can't have it. I want to hunt a bunch of out of state tags but can't afford to do that. No more out of state tags! I can't afford to spend $10k to have someone plant a bunch of corn on my land. So let's ban it for everyone!
Come on you guys. You give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Don't remove opportunities for others to have simply because you're being selfish and want more opportunities for yourself. This is a way bigger issue than simply wanting to shoot another bird or two every time you go out into the marsh.
If you are going to make a comparison, at least make one that works. It is not about "I want what they have". Have you ever hunted in Eastern Washington where the large complexes are?
Have all the ponds you want on private property. Have all the cornfields you want- just don't flood the corn. It is the two together that makes the difference.
I won't even comment on the selfish thing...
-
Guess what guys. I did some research on harvest statistics for some federal wildlife refuges south of Eagle Lakes in Washington and Oregon. The stats go back to 2010 which was a time when there were complexes. Harvest numbers in one refuge has either varied by +/- 600 year to year so pretty consistent and highest numbers in the last 3 years. In the case of the other refuge harvest numbers have almost gone up 2.5x. So rest assured that the corn complexes making your hunting worse than what it was are unfounded at least within the last 7 or 8 years.
-
Guess what guys. I did some research on harvest statistics for some federal wildlife refuges south of Eagle Lakes in Washington and Oregon. The stats go back to 2010 which was a time when there were complexes. Harvest numbers in one refuge has either varied by +/- 600 year to year so pretty consistent and highest numbers in the last 3 years. In the case of the other refuge harvest numbers have almost gone up 2.5x. So rest assured that the corn complexes making your hunting worse than what it was are unfounded at least within the last 7 or 8 years.
Thanks JBG that goes straight to my point I've been saying all day that the complex benefits the waterfowl and hunting
-
Someone has something you want. You can't or won't work to get it, so let's remove it as an option for everyone else. My word.
Let's apply the same logic to something else. I can't afford /don't want to spend the money on a Nightforce scope. Let's ban them since I can't have it. I want to hunt a bunch of out of state tags but can't afford to do that. No more out of state tags! I can't afford to spend $10k to have someone plant a bunch of corn on my land. So let's ban it for everyone!
Come on you guys. You give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Don't remove opportunities for others to have simply because you're being selfish and want more opportunities for yourself. This is a way bigger issue than simply wanting to shoot another bird or two every time you go out into the marsh.
If you are going to make a comparison, at least make one that works. It is not about "I want what they have". Have you ever hunted in Eastern Washington where the large complexes are?
Have all the ponds you want on private property. Have all the cornfields you want- just don't flood the corn. It is the two together that makes the difference.
I won't even comment on the selfish thing...
I really am not trying to ruffle feathers (hey oh! :chuckle:) too badly. If your hunts have been impacted by neighboring complexes then that's a bummer.
The property next to me is a big gun club. They can afford to plant and flood a huge amount of corn. Guess what. It borders public. They shoot birds that spill off the the club that didn't use to be there until the corn was planted. I shoot more birds that come off there too.
-
Anyone here have any experience hunting the Sacremento valley? It has a massive rice complex. How has it affected public lands, or migration patterns?
-
And corn.
And hunting on windy days
-
And corn.
And hunting on windy days
In dry fields during snow!! Talk about unfair for the mallards
-
Loophole this, loophole that. We all agree that hunting most public land isn't much fun. Lots of people, and it seems like so few birds. We've all been frustrated this year. Eagle lakes and others like them are just a business. There is nothing stopping you from working out a hunting lease with a farmer in the basin. start a business and undercut eagle lakes and you'll be golden.
I'm not saying I totally disagree with you though. I always shake my head when I drive by and see the clouds of ducks over sugar ranch.
Calling out eagle lakes is a little unfair. They're far from the only offender in the area. Every wet spot from connell to the Columbia is private and managed for waterfowl. Eagle lakes is just better at slinging it all over the internet.
-
You guy are just noticing? I have had large concerns for 20 years. When you see these places first hand you will start to understand. And there are more now and will be more in the future. Now it almost seems like the corn complexes have got to a point that they are competing with each other and aren’t as good as they once were. All the while public areas have become void of ducks. I would say 90% of them are in the Othello- Basin city area out to Royal city. Just wait as they continue to expand out Skagit, Umatilla etc. I don’t see how this is good for hunting and utilizing the resources.
-
Maybe something will finally be done after a massive die-off and that it can be proven that concentrating birds off of their natural flyway was the cause. :dunno:
Hunting is loosing it's meaning more and more each year. These big operations don't care about spreading the wealth. They are basically stealing a public resource to fatten their bank accounts regardless of any negative impact it has on birds and other hunters. :twocents:
-
Aren't waterfowl populations trending up over the past 30 years? :dunno: I know people who still do just fine hunting in the middle of all that country.
I get that it sucks as a waterfowler and it's a feast or famine game already even without flooded crop fields. How private land managers elect to manage affects all kinds of hunting and it's just the way it is. Also I doubt it's going to cause any massive die-off :twocents:
-
Sure populations have gone up, problem is 90% of them are currently only available to about 10% of the hunters who are willing to pay big bucks to shoot an easy limit.
-
I hate the thought of telling people how they can utilize their own land......
(But I do understand there's an issue.)
-
Guess what guys. I did some research on harvest statistics for some federal wildlife refuges south of Eagle Lakes in Washington and Oregon. The stats go back to 2010 which was a time when there were complexes. Harvest numbers in one refuge has either varied by +/- 600 year to year so pretty consistent and highest numbers in the last 3 years. In the case of the other refuge harvest numbers have almost gone up 2.5x. So rest assured that the corn complexes making your hunting worse than what it was are unfounded at least within the last 7 or 8 years.
Care to post the link? I do have some concern about the stats. You have to look at more than just harvest rates and you would need stats pre-corn complexes. Birds populations during that time should also come into play when looking at those numbers. Also looking at refuges is a very small sample size of the overall public land ground. I'm not saying you're wrong but I know stats lie (first lesson taught is stats class).
-
So who is going to step up and run the waterfowl Bernie campaign for governor? Redistribution of ducks evenly and fairly for everyone.
You guys keep referencing the "fairness" of the birds being concentrated. That's life. Sorry. Like I said before, there is nothing stopping you from paying to hunt one of these spots, or building your own, but money. Again, get used to it. There is always going to be someone with more money and cooler toys than you. I know for a fact that all these ranches in the basin are trying to compete with each other. At least eagle lakes will let you hunt theirs. Most of the ranches are purely private and only hunted by people with the same last name.
-
That's life.sorry.get used to it? I do suppose though if I ran a corn complex or member of one I would also share a similar shortsightedness.
I hate to see all hunting become a pay and play or rich man's sport.So who is going to step up and run the waterfowl Bernie campaign for governor? Redistribution of ducks evenly and fairly for everyone.
You guys keep referencing the "fairness" of the birds being concentrated. That's life. Sorry. Like I said before, there is nothing stopping you from paying to hunt one of these spots, or building your own, but money. Again, get used to it. There is always going to be someone with more money and cooler toys than you. I know for a fact that all these ranches in the basin are trying to compete with each other. At least eagle lakes will let you hunt theirs. Most of the ranches are purely private and only hunted by people with the same last name.
-
So who is going to step up and run the waterfowl Bernie campaign for governor? Redistribution of ducks evenly and fairly for everyone.
You guys keep referencing the "fairness" of the birds being concentrated. That's life. Sorry. Like I said before, there is nothing stopping you from paying to hunt one of these spots, or building your own, but money. Again, get used to it. There is always going to be someone with more money and cooler toys than you. I know for a fact that all these ranches in the basin are trying to compete with each other. At least eagle lakes will let you hunt theirs. Most of the ranches are purely private and only hunted by people with the same last name.
Sounds like what you are saying is,....Everything is for sale and can be bought, including ethics.
-
To me, it comes down to a simple question:
1. Are flooded corn complexes equivalent to baiting waterfowl?
Not "are" baiting by the law as it currently stands - but equivalent in terms of effect on the public resource.
If yes, then they should be banned for exactly the same reasons that other forms of waterfowl baiting are already banned.
-
To me, it comes down to a simple question:
1. Are flooded corn complexes equivalent to baiting waterfowl?
Not "are" baiting by the law as it currently stands - but equivalent in terms of effect on the public resource.
If yes, then they should be banned for exactly the same reasons that other forms of waterfowl baiting are already banned.
"effect on public resource" you would have to show that and if you look at the harvest statistics from federal refuges south of Eagle Lakes their numbers have remained consistent since 2010 in the case of one refuge and in the case of another the harvest rates have increased 2.5x and birds per hunter has gone from 2.3 in 2010 to 3.0 in 17-18 a 30% increase! National average on fed refuges is like 2.5.
EWU yes it is a small sample size but it does prove a point that hunting at these public areas has not been on the decline in the last 7 or 8 years. If you were to go to WDFW or your local politician and ask for a rule change they would ask "where is the detrimental effect to the public or to the resource?" Im not saying that the corn complexes house a bunch of birds, they do but you cant say hunting in the public refuges where data is available that hunters are worse off than before 2010. If anyting hunter success has remained consistent or increase by 30%. All of this data can be found using google Im not going to do your homework for you :sry:
-
"effect on public resource" you would have to show that and if you look at the harvest statistics from federal refuges south of Eagle Lakes their numbers have remained consistent since 2010 in the case of one refuge and in the case of another the harvest rates have increased 2.5x and birds per hunter has gone from 2.3 in 2010 to 3.0 in 17-18 a 30% increase! National average on fed refuges is like 2.5.
EWU yes it is a small sample size but it does prove a point that hunting at these public areas has not been on the decline in the last 7 or 8 years. If you were to go to WDFW or your local politician and ask for a rule change they would ask "where is the detrimental effect to the public or to the resource?" Im not saying that the corn complexes house a bunch of birds, they do but you cant say hunting in the public refuges where data is available that hunters are worse off than before 2010. If anyting hunter success has remained consistent or increase by 30%. All of this data can be found using google Im not going to do your homework for you :sry:
I have no problem doing the home work since you clearly didn't see the whole picture. First lets take apart the data. The data for the refuges you brought up only go to 2010 and doesn't give an accurate time frame of what pre-corn complexes show. Was the hunter averages in the early 2000's closer to 4 or 5 birds? Who knows the data doesn't exist so your argument about corn complexes holding birds is moot. Second, bird harvest data doesn't care what type of bird it is. Puddle ducks are normally found in corn but not divers. If a group goes out and shoots 28 buffleheads and mark down 28 ducks it changes the data we really want to look at since we are worrying about corn complexes.
But let's assume your data is iron clad and nobody has a problem with the two points above and we are seeing the increase of duck kills, it has to be the corn complexes holding more ducks right? Nope! When you look at harvest rates vs duck population there is a direct correlation in the data. When there are more ducks, more ducks get killed. The increase in duck harvest is solely due to the fact there are more ducks and has nothing to do with corn complexes holding more ducks in the area. This year the ducks numbers dropped 13%. I'll bet you we will see a drop in harvest numbers because of the population going down.
I don't want to shut down all the corn complexes and I'm not really jealous of any of them. I do think however that how the complexes are run should be re-evaluated.
-
"effect on public resource" you would have to show that and if you look at the harvest statistics from federal refuges south of Eagle Lakes their numbers have remained consistent since 2010 in the case of one refuge and in the case of another the harvest rates have increased 2.5x and birds per hunter has gone from 2.3 in 2010 to 3.0 in 17-18 a 30% increase! National average on fed refuges is like 2.5.
EWU yes it is a small sample size but it does prove a point that hunting at these public areas has not been on the decline in the last 7 or 8 years. If you were to go to WDFW or your local politician and ask for a rule change they would ask "where is the detrimental effect to the public or to the resource?" Im not saying that the corn complexes house a bunch of birds, they do but you cant say hunting in the public refuges where data is available that hunters are worse off than before 2010. If anyting hunter success has remained consistent or increase by 30%. All of this data can be found using google Im not going to do your homework for you :sry:
I have no problem doing the home work since you clearly didn't see the whole picture. First lets take apart the data. The data for the refuges you brought up only go to 2010 and doesn't give an accurate time frame of what pre-corn complexes show. Was the hunter averages in the early 2000's closer to 4 or 5 birds? Who knows the data doesn't exist so your argument about corn complexes holding birds is moot. Second, bird harvest data doesn't care what type of bird it is. Puddle ducks are normally found in corn but not divers. If a group goes out and shoots 28 buffleheads and mark down 28 ducks it changes the data we really want to look at since we are worrying about corn complexes.
But let's assume your data is iron clad and nobody has a problem with the two points above and we are seeing the increase of duck kills, it has to be the corn complexes holding more ducks right? Nope! When you look at harvest rates vs duck population there is a direct correlation in the data. When there are more ducks, more ducks get killed. The increase in duck harvest is solely due to the fact there are more ducks and has nothing to do with corn complexes holding more ducks in the area. This year the ducks numbers dropped 13%. I'll bet you we will see a drop in harvest numbers because of the population going down.
I don't want to shut down all the corn complexes and I'm not really jealous of any of them. I do think however that how the complexes are run should be re-evaluated.
:yeah:
-
Why do they need to be changed if public land success is unchanged or even up by 30% in some areas. Seems like a good thing tell me what I am missing.
Also is you look at survey data puddle ducks far out number divers. At one refuge in 2015 there were 7k puddlers and 140 divers.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regions/region3/waterfowl_surveys.html
-
Also is you look at survey data puddle ducks far out number divers. At one refuge in 2015 there were 7k puddlers and 140 divers.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regions/region3/waterfowl_surveys.html
That's because public hunters shot all the divers. :chuckle:
-
Not sure what the duck numbers where back in the 80's but to us it didn't matter. We would jump in the truck and head east. It didn't matter what the weather was doing or really time of year. We were going to shoot ducks on public land. Big groups of birds would leave the fields and head to the refuges where the public land guys would have a chance at getting some awesome shooting in. There where many time we would fill 4 limits by 11 while another group of guys waited in the brush for us to pick up so they could take over. The birds would move back and forth a couple times of day. Sometimes more depending on the weather. The private clubs would still get there guiding in and fill limits in the corn while the public land guys would hunt the water. Let me tell you. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE! Don't get me wrong, you can still scratch out a limit or two but it is not the norm and it's pretty rare. Sure maybe the bird numbers are up but these bird don't have to leave. That is the kicker here. Check out Pauls ponds. They limit the shells to 2 3/4" so the birds don't leave. They just keep coming back and back and back. Something needs to be done. Grow the corn, hell hunt it, just eliminate the ice eaters or the flooding. Limit the size or quantity of your corn ponds. Complaining on this forum isn't going to make this go away. I really don't know where to start to even get it headed in the right direction, but if you think the big money operations are not changing the migration keep telling yourself that and enjoy the many duck less days sitting in the blind wondering where all the ducks are.
-
I have believed that the sheer corn acreage and large guiding operations in the basin has affected the migration patterns of ducks within the last few years. I hunt the Yakima valley 90% of the time and everyone will say that there is fewer birds around on average than there use to be. However, we still seem to get our birds more often than not. This year I have been fortunate enough to have had several really good public land hunts and a few days where 3 or 4 of us would kill limits of greenheads, all on public land. With all of that said I think I would attribute the relatively poor waterfowl hunting year to the warm winter. The ducks simply have not been stressed enough to need to move around much between feed sources.
In the 2016 season we were hammering the birds pretty good on rivers and sloughs until late December and then killed them in the dry corn almost every single day we went, but we had lots of snow and it was unseasonably cold. I think the weather has more to do with it than anything.
-
Not sure what the duck numbers where back in the 80's but to us it didn't matter. We would jump in the truck and head east. It didn't matter what the weather was doing or really time of year. We were going to shoot ducks on public land. Big groups of birds would leave the fields and head to the refuges where the public land guys would have a chance at getting some awesome shooting in. There where many time we would fill 4 limits by 11 while another group of guys waited in the brush for us to pick up so they could take over. The birds would move back and forth a couple times of day. Sometimes more depending on the weather. The private clubs would still get there guiding in and fill limits in the corn while the public land guys would hunt the water. Let me tell you. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE! Don't get me wrong, you can still scratch out a limit or two but it is not the norm and it's pretty rare. Sure maybe the bird numbers are up but these bird don't have to leave. That is the kicker here. Check out Pauls ponds. They limit the shells to 2 3/4" so the birds don't leave. They just keep coming back and back and back. Something needs to be done. Grow the corn, hell hunt it, just eliminate the ice eaters or the flooding. Limit the size or quantity of your corn ponds. Complaining on this forum isn't going to make this go away. I really don't know where to start to even get it headed in the right direction, but if you think the big money operations are not changing the migration keep telling yourself that and enjoy the many duck less days sitting in the blind wondering where all the ducks are.
On a national level there were probably about 1/2 as many ducks around in the 80's as there are now. Also bag limits in the 80's were what 3 mallards and one other?
It would be great if as hunters we could get the state to plant more food crops on public land like they do in some places in Oregon.
-
Honest question, JBG: much of a negative effect do you think banning flooded corn would have on private land hunters? If you planted those same flooded areas with dry cereal crops or kept them filled with water and smartweed, how big would the drop off be?
My guess is that Eagle Lakes and other clubs could still kill plenty of birds to keep members happy and run a profitable business, while public land hunters over water would see their opportunity increase (as more really thirsty ducks would need to find water after filling up with dry corn).
I would hate to ruin hunting opportunity for anyone. I teach hunter ed, so I'm big on hunter recruitment. If flooded corn is banned, my guess is the guys hunting Eagle Lakes and elsewhere would still hunt, and it would be easier to introduce new guys to hunting on public land.
-
Can we just ban the big corn hole on the north side of Everett so some birds will fly up the valley? :chuckle:
-
Can we just ban the big corn hole on the north side of Everett so some birds will fly up the valley? :chuckle:
He he
He he you said corn hole😆😆
-
Can we just ban the big corn hole on the north side of Everett so some birds will fly up the valley? :chuckle:
It's not a corn hole, we just fill our pockets with dried corn and walk around the Samish unit like the guy did in Shawshank Redemption.
-
Guess what guys. I did some research on harvest statistics for some federal wildlife refuges south of Eagle Lakes in Washington and Oregon. The stats go back to 2010 which was a time when there were complexes. Harvest numbers in one refuge has either varied by +/- 600 year to year so pretty consistent and highest numbers in the last 3 years. In the case of the other refuge harvest numbers have almost gone up 2.5x. So rest assured that the corn complexes making your hunting worse than what it was are unfounded at least within the last 7 or 8 years.
Have noticed since about 2000 hunting in the upper basin has been very poor puddler wise than it was in the 80s and 90s... Not nearly the amount of ducks and drastic change in duck patterns. Is it these huge complexes pulling the birds through before weather pushes them through?? So south of Othello/tricities may be as good or better with the complexes and I see potholes north is not as good as it was in the past. Just my observations and could very well be due to these complexes in my eyes
-
Honest question, JBG: much of a negative effect do you think banning flooded corn would have on private land hunters? If you planted those same flooded areas with dry cereal crops or kept them filled with water and smartweed, how big would the drop off be?
My guess is that Eagle Lakes and other clubs could still kill plenty of birds to keep members happy and run a profitable business, while public land hunters over water would see their opportunity increase (as more really thirsty ducks would need to find water after filling up with dry corn).
I would hate to ruin hunting opportunity for anyone. I teach hunter ed, so I'm big on hunter recruitment. If flooded corn is banned, my guess is the guys hunting Eagle Lakes and elsewhere would still hunt, and it would be easier to introduce new guys to hunting on public land.
I’m glad you teach hunters Ed as it’s a very important part of the hunting journey.
We need to deal with reality on reality’s terms. Corn complexes wil not be outlawed on a state for federal basis. As stated before there is big money behind them also you would be taking opportunity away from public hunters who hunt public land that has flooded corn. I don’t know for a fact but I bet some feel free to hunt and QHA at least in western Washington have flooded corn. Hunter success has been up in the areas to the south of EL so really you are sending new hunters out into a world of great waterfowling opportunity. Manage expectations and tell them limits are the exception and 2-3 per hunt is the norm. I do agree that artificial means like ice eaters or even water pumps could be regulated as they would not infringe on naturally flooded public land that has been planted.
Everyone should just remember that we are living in the golden years of duck hunting despite personal experiences. Not since the 60-70’s have we had these number of ducks. Got get yours.
-
Why not just allow pub land hunters the ability to bait then? At least would give them an equal opportunity of enticing waterfowl back on to pub land.
My hunting partner and I were discussing this thread the other day. We used to hunt exclusively in the othello area, sometimes on pub lands bordering eagle lakes. I will say, 10 years ago from day one of the season to the end, we could scratch two limits out no problem most days. If we didn’t, it was because our shooting was poor that day. Anymore, the ponds we used to hunt, you are lucky to scratch out a one man limit between 2-3 guys sometimes. The bird numbers are just not like they used to be. What would entice a bird to stay away from a golden buffet like these corn complexes put on? There is nothing on the public side you can do to compete with them, thus creating a monopoly for them. they are making very good money on a public resource.
To whoever said that ‘just hunt the land adjacent if it’s available to the complexes’ we used to, until the guide service cut every inch of reed/brush on the public side, leaving nothing to conceal yourself in. Was pretty cool when they didn’t that. I’ve had a sour taste in my mouth since that time and will never support them. Not when shenanigans like that are being pulled to further manipulate a public resource
-
Yet in the public areas south of you hunter success increased in that time by 30% and it’s not all divers when puddlers our number them 700 to 1. The duck counts showed in one instance 82,000 birds on the refuge complex south of potholes and 13000 at Eagles Lakes. Ducks are a s show which I why it’s fun to chase them I guess. And anyone who says the 80’s duck hunting was better than now is high. I guess if you like 45 day seasons and 3 mallard limits you can have it.
-
Yet in the public areas south of you hunter success increased in that time by 30% and it’s not all divers when puddlers our number them 700 to 1. The duck counts showed in one instance 82,000 birds on the refuge complex south of potholes and 13000 at Eagles Lakes. Ducks are a s show which I why it’s fun to chase them I guess. And anyone who says the 80’s duck hunting was better than now is high. I guess if you like 45 day seasons and 3 mallard limits you can have it.
But 79,500 of those ducks on that refuge only leave that refuge to head over to the flooded corn complex right near by. Before they FLOODED the corn, those same ducks ventured out to MANY different fields and marshes to feed. That is why everyone is bitching.
-
Well good luck with that. I hope weather comes in to turn your season around and that your new hunters are safe and greenhearts limits are the norm not the exception for them as it supposedly ought to be.
-
I don’t hunt out there anymore. We moved to the river about the time it all went to hell. And I don’t need limits to be happy, thanks for the well wishes though.
-
Seems like a complex issue, no pun intended. Nobody wants to tell someone what they can or cant do on their own private land. Its un-american right? Okay. But everyone also seems to feel like these same landowners are using said land to abuse or monopolize a PUBLIC recource for PROFIT. Okay. So what could be done about it? Heres an abstract idea that could be developed by people smarter than I. What if in return for profiting from a public recource, these outfits paid a modest “public recource tax” of some form, that was required to be used by wdfw to reinvest into improving the quality of public lands open to waterfowl hunting. This is a multi-faceted issue but an issue nonetheless. Personally, I feel like its a baiting loophole, that should just be closed. Close the loophole and let the outfits manipulate their land in a slightly different way to still have success and make money but not be blatantly skirting a law. But I like listening to other ideas on how to approach the situation.
-
Oops had a typo in the above but just fixed it
-
Yet in the public areas south of you hunter success increased in that time by 30% and it’s not all divers when puddlers our number them 700 to 1. The duck counts showed in one instance 82,000 birds on the refuge complex south of potholes and 13000 at Eagles Lakes. Ducks are a s show which I why it’s fun to chase them I guess. And anyone who says the 80’s duck hunting was better than now is high. I guess if you like 45 day seasons and 3 mallard limits you can have it.
But 79,500 of those ducks on that refuge only leave that refuge to head over to the flooded corn complex right near by. Before they FLOODED the corn, those same ducks ventured out to MANY different fields and marshes to feed. That is why everyone is bitching.
:yeah:
Anything that alters the natural behavior of mass amounts of wildlife should be looked at closely.
-
I sure wouldn't think these corn complexes would fall under the legal category of "normal or standard agricultural practices"? There is no question that's it's being planted for the sole purpose to "bait" waterfowl. But I suppose they could claim "cover crop"? Definitely a grey area if anything.
But does make the outlaw guy who dumps a sack of cracked corn for a days hunt seem like a drop the bucket.
-
Honest question, JBG: much of a negative effect do you think banning flooded corn would have on private land hunters? If you planted those same flooded areas with dry cereal crops or kept them filled with water and smartweed, how big would the drop off be?
My guess is that Eagle Lakes and other clubs could still kill plenty of birds to keep members happy and run a profitable business, while public land hunters over water would see their opportunity increase (as more really thirsty ducks would need to find water after filling up with dry corn).
I would hate to ruin hunting opportunity for anyone. I teach hunter ed, so I'm big on hunter recruitment. If flooded corn is banned, my guess is the guys hunting Eagle Lakes and elsewhere would still hunt, and it would be easier to introduce new guys to hunting on public land.
I’m glad you teach hunters Ed as it’s a very important part of the hunting journey.
We need to deal with reality on reality’s terms. Corn complexes wil not be outlawed on a state for federal basis. As stated before there is big money behind them also you would be taking opportunity away from public hunters who hunt public land that has flooded corn. I don’t know for a fact but I bet some feel free to hunt and QHA at least in western Washington have flooded corn. Hunter success has been up in the areas to the south of EL so really you are sending new hunters out into a world of great waterfowling opportunity. Manage expectations and tell them limits are the exception and 2-3 per hunt is the norm. I do agree that artificial means like ice eaters or even water pumps could be regulated as they would not infringe on naturally flooded public land that has been planted.
Everyone should just remember that we are living in the golden years of duck hunting despite personal experiences. Not since the 60-70’s have we had these number of ducks. Got get yours.
Why don't you think corn ponds will ever be outlawed? Game laws are revised every year, on state and national levels. Too much money at stake/lobbying power by corn complex owners?
And you're right about living in the golden years of duck hunting. It makes me wonder what the effect of these corn ponds will be on years when ducks are scarce. My guess is whatever "spill over" effect is happening now will be greatly reduced.
Those low duck number years might be what it takes to make enough hunters aware of this issue to make a legal change happen.
-
The reality is that these places are legal. You can talk about loopholes and skirting all you want, but until you decide to do something substantial about it nothing is going to change. Complaining about it on an internet forum is useless. Write a letter to your congressman, send an email to wdfw, call a biologist.
Frankly, I agree with most of this thread. I think the flooded corn should be considered baiting, but at this point it isn't. I also think that they benefit everyone in the big picture. More birds around and being held in the area on the whole.
I know a lot of you have to dive 4 or 5 hours to get down here and be frustrated. I'm lucky enough to live in the basin so maybe I have a different perspective. For the record, I refuse to pay that kind of money for some ducks.
-
For what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
-
The reality is that these places are legal. You can talk about loopholes and skirting all you want, but until you decide to do something substantial about it nothing is going to change. Complaining about it on an internet forum is useless. Write a letter to your congressman, send an email to wdfw, call a biologist.
Frankly, I agree with most of this thread. I think the flooded corn should be considered baiting, but at this point it isn't. I also think that they benefit everyone in the big picture. More birds around and being held in the area on the whole.
I know a lot of you have to dive 4 or 5 hours to get down here and be frustrated. I'm lucky enough to live in the basin so maybe I have a different perspective. For the record, I refuse to pay that kind of money for some ducks.
True, but the benefit of discussions like this is spreading awareness to other hunters. Most of the corn complexes are out of sight and out of mind for the average hunter - especially the private clubs. If more public hunters could see this firsthand, they would be more likely to contact wildlife management agencies when the comment period reopens.
Satellite imagery on Google Earth really helped open my eyes. I encourage all WA duck hunters to take a virtual aerial tour of the Basin north of the Tri Cities to see the scope and scale of some of these flooded corn operations. "Pond" is much too quaint a word!
-
For what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
Yes, they might have to change those practices.
As for losing waterfowl in the area, I don't buy it. There's plenty of dry corn and other cereal crops to hold birds in the region. The primary difference is that the ducks would have to find their food and water in two different places - thereby increasing bird movement, local distribution, and opportunity for public land hunters.
-
Since we can’t use battery power anything to hunt waterfowl. Why not make the law geared toward manually manipulating water levels in the effort to expose feed and hunt ducks. If things naturally flood it’s ok. Then you can still plant feed for the ducks.. But can’t be changing water levels or flooding it on purpose. You have to rely on Mother Nature, ect.
I believe these big places all have water control so they are constantly changing the water level and exposing new feed. Birds will eat through feed fast.
-
Since we can’t use battery power anything to hunt waterfowl. Why not make the law geared toward manually manipulating water levels in the effort to expose feed and hunt ducks. If things naturally flood it’s ok. Then you can still plant feed for the ducks.. But can’t be changing water levels or flooding it on purpose. You have to rely on Mother Nature, ect.
I believe these big places all have water control so they are constantly changing the water level and exposing new feed. Birds will eat through feed fast.
This is an excellent solution, I think. Private clubs would still be able to hunt some flooded crops, but it would dramatically reduce the effect of the largest corn pond complexes.
-
I was under the impression with pub land hunters not being allowed to use anything electronic, including ice eaters, that neither could private. Is there something I’m missing on that too?
-
I was under the impression with pub land hunters not being allowed to use anything electronic, including ice eaters, that neither could private. Is there something I’m missing on that too?
You can use ice eaters all day long to keep water open.HOWEVER, if the decoys are moving at all, due to the effect of the ice eater moving the water, than you would be in violation of the electronic/battery decoy rule. Better yet, you run the ice eater all night, turn it off for your hunt, then turn it back on.
I think a lot of private pond guys get away with the ice eater running and moving decoys though. Pretty hard thing for a GW to catch them at I would suppose.
-
For what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
Yes, they might have to change those practices.
As for losing waterfowl in the area, I don't buy it. There's plenty of dry corn and other cereal crops to hold birds in the region. The primary difference is that the ducks would have to find their food and water in two different places - thereby increasing bird movement, local distribution, and opportunity for public land hunters.
If WDFW stopped planting public sites, ducks absolutely would leave. How many do you see in natural weed fields?
You have to look beyond your neighborhood. In Puget Sound, thousands of hunters rely on crops to hunt public land.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
Yes, they might have to change those practices.
As for losing waterfowl in the area, I don't buy it. There's plenty of dry corn and other cereal crops to hold birds in the region. The primary difference is that the ducks would have to find their food and water in two different places - thereby increasing bird movement, local distribution, and opportunity for public land hunters.
If WDFW stopped planting public sites, ducks absolutely would leave. How many do you see in natural weed fields?
You have to look beyond your neighborhood. In Puget Sound, thousands of hunters rely on crops to hunt public land.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Relying on standard agricultural practices is one thing. Artificially manufacturing superior habitat for profit is another.
-
I got the invite to my buddies hunt club and we got our limits of green heads and a couple drake pintails. Flooded corn rules!!!!
-
For what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
Yes, they might have to change those practices.
As for losing waterfowl in the area, I don't buy it. There's plenty of dry corn and other cereal crops to hold birds in the region. The primary difference is that the ducks would have to find their food and water in two different places - thereby increasing bird movement, local distribution, and opportunity for public land hunters.
If WDFW stopped planting public sites, ducks absolutely would leave. How many do you see in natural weed fields?
You have to look beyond your neighborhood. In Puget Sound, thousands of hunters rely on crops to hunt public land.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Relying on standard agricultural practices is one thing. Artificially manufacturing superior habitat for profit is another.
WDFW gets to do all kinds of things us poor folk can't, this would not be an issue if it was banned on private land.
-
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 what it is worth, WDFW plants a ton of crops and I don't believe they own a combine. If the law was changed to not allow hunting over standing crops, a bunch of public land hunters would suffer as would those hunting around those crops on private and the waterfowl in general as there would be less feed.
Yes, they might have to change those practices.
As for losing waterfowl in the area, I don't buy it. There's plenty of dry corn and other cereal crops to hold birds in the region. The primary difference is that the ducks would have to find their food and water in two different places - thereby increasing bird movement, local distribution, and opportunity for public land hunters.
If WDFW stopped planting public sites, ducks absolutely would leave. How many do you see in natural weed fields?
You have to look beyond your neighborhood. In Puget Sound, thousands of hunters rely on crops to hunt public land.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you're missing the idea. Everyone could still plant as many crops as they want - they just wouldn't be allowed to artificially flood them. So the ducks would still feast on private land corn all they want...they would just need to find water on public land to digest it.
-
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.
-
Quite the discussion. It sucks that the average hunter is being shorted. It reminds me of the ma & pa grocery stores getting walloped by the mega chain stores. The truth is people pay for convenience. Not many hunters left that are willing to put in the hard work for their hunt. How many people do you see road hunting a season? Drive around til they see something and then go from there. I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong but we live in an age of convenience. I don’t know if there is an amicable solution for all parties in this debate but you can’t fault a man for creating a product that people want to buy. It sounds like they must be doing things according to the law otherwise they would have been closed down by now or so you would think.
-
This corn complex debate goes on forever on all the waterfowl chat sites. It's a hard pill to swallow if your not all playing the same game. These big money corn complexes definitely dominate over everything unfortunately. Corporate or big money duck hunting at it's finest. I don't see it changing when these outfits make sure they take care of, invite out or have those that pull the strings as part of their establishment or invite them out frequently. You have some very influential folks that rub elbows at these locations, so I don't see these going away anytime soon. Well greased machines!
I even bought $20 worth Powerball tickets on the last large payout. If I won, I would be building one of these complexes as well. I would probably shooting 104 limits of greenheads per season.
-
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.
-
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.
-
which clubs??
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
HikerHunter- Absolutely well put!!! I've been hunting eastern Washington for 35 years and have seen the adjustment in the flights.
-
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 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.
-
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).
-
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'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.
-
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 $$$ of habitat restoration and improvement and all for a club that myself and hundreds of other card carrying members can’t even put to use? Duck Unlimited’s arguement is birds are always moving. By improving this habitat and bringing more birds to this location will only improve the areas around it. Is it true....I have no idea...
-
Ducks Unlimited would tell you that improving habitat is better for the birds, therefore better for everyone. There are many documented DU projects that put members dues to use on private land. Deer Island in Oregon is one such project. Millions of $$$ 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.
-
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 $$$ of habitat restoration and improvement and all for a club that myself and hundreds of other card carrying members can’t even put to use? Duck Unlimited’s arguement is birds are always moving. By improving this habitat and bringing more birds to this location will only improve the areas around it. Is it true....I have no idea...
Access is the issue for hunter success and recruitment. DU's argument for a net gain in duck numbers will equal better hunting is simply not true. I haven't been to a DU banquet in a decade and will never step foot in one ever again. I dont care what anyone says legal or not corn ponds are not ethical and should not be legal. Jaimie Pierre who runs and owns the Sugar ranch south of Othello does not have any corn ponds and holds many birds. Unlike Mike Bernson North of there who makes as many corn ponds as possible.
I can’t speak for the Eagle Lakes area but I certainly haven’t seen my hunting improve near Deer Island. The thing that makes the Eagle Lakes dilemma so tough is - it’s their land. What they are doing is technically legal. I’m really torn on this issue.
-
Ducks Unlimited would tell you that improving habitat is better for the birds, therefore better for everyone. There are many documented DU projects that put members dues to use on private land. Deer Island in Oregon is one such project. Millions of $$$ 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...
Flooding corn is NOT habitat.
Ducks Unlimited is NOT a hunting organization. Ducks Unlimited is a CONSERVATION organization. Their sole focus is more ducks- not places to hunt ducks. Rubs hunters wrong sometimes, but what they do is actually good for ducks. Sure, sometimes that is on private ground and public guys get mad, but net gain is for ducks. Entirely different situation than flooding corn though.
-
I know Ducks Unlimited has helped flood farm land and create estuaries, but do they have anything to do with these commercial corn complexes?
-
Sugar ranch and the Pierre's should not be propped up as sportsmen. They're nothing close to that. The only reason they still have any hunting privileges is because they are so huge the game wardens can't see far enough to see most of the illegal crap they do. For the record, they absolutely have flooded corn. I've witnessed all of the above.
-
I know Ducks Unlimited has helped flood farm land and create estuaries, but do they have anything to do with these commercial corn complexes?
As far as I know, DU doesn't have an "official" position on flooded corn ponds. I emailed them two years ago on the subject and never got a reply. I'm curious to know if anyone else has heard otherwise.
-
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...
Flooding corn is NOT habitat.
Ducks Unlimited is NOT a hunting organization. Ducks Unlimited is a CONSERVATION organization. Their sole focus is more ducks- not places to hunt ducks. Rubs hunters wrong sometimes, but what they do is actually good for ducks. Sure, sometimes that is on private ground and public guys get mad, but net gain is for ducks. Entirely different situation than flooding corn though.
:yeah:
-
I know Ducks Unlimited has helped flood farm land and create estuaries, but do they have anything to do with these commercial corn complexes?
As far as I know, DU doesn't have an "official" position on flooded corn ponds. I emailed them two years ago on the subject and never got a reply. I'm curious to know if anyone else has heard otherwise.
Well then if you didn't get a reply then that helps answer the ?. thx I hate politics ;)
Something has to eventually be done. I and many others are at the point of giving up waterfowl hunting because of the lack of birds on traditional migration routes.
And it's not the weather either. 90% of the waterfowl are locked up in these bait stations and won't leave till the corn is gone which is usually after the season.
-
Anyone doing anything about this hate besides posting on the internet?
-
Anyone doing anything about this hate besides posting on the internet?
I am feeling sorry for myself. Does that count?
-
Anyone doing anything about this hate besides posting on the internet?
"Hate" is an awfully strong word!? If you know of anyone or any groups who are not affiliated with the corn complexes who could change things please let us know.
-
Call it whatever you want.
I'm just curious if anyone is or has actually done anything to try and change this current practice.
-
Personally I'm just gonna B-itch about it for a while till enough folks wake up and smell the roses :chuckle: and then maybe then something can be done to change things :dunno:.
-
Fair enough :chuckle:
-
Anyone doing anything about this hate besides posting on the internet?
The best thing is for all hunters to submit comments to WDFW during the comment proposal period (this year, they're accepting public comments from Jan. 23 to Feb. 13). This will keep the issue in front of policy makers eyes, at least, and let them know there is some frustration among hunters.
Realistically, these sort of rule changes take time, but as the recent modifications of deer/elk baiting prove, WDFW will act on these things if they fear a drop in license holders or new hunter recruitment will occur if they don't. I think corn ponds will have this effect.
I recently submitted an email to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov, and received a response today that my comment was forwarded to the appropriate wildlife manager. I encourage anyone with an opinion about corn ponds (for or against) to do the same.
You can find more info about how to submit comments here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/how_to_participate.html
-
If everyone who feels taken advantage of or is thinking about quitting hunting because of these complexes could hurry up and quit hunting i would appreciate it very much. more birds for me to shoot [/size]
Thanks :IBCOOL:
-
Make no mistake about it, corn pond hunting will eliminate free public waterfowl hunting within the very near future if the practice isn't stop. You can stack a million birds on a ten acre sanctuary lake if there's enough feed to keep them around. Corn ponds provide this feed. If not stopped, 90-95% of the mallards and geese harvested in Washington State in the future will be shot on commercial outfits or private clubs with corn ponds and sanctuary lakes. Successful, free public hunting will cease.
I have actually been privately working on the corn pond issue for a couple years now. I've testified at Wildlife Commission meetings 4-5 times, and may be making some headway. Hopefully there will be a public hearing arranged for this spring or summer where hunters can have their say. I have also produced three documents detailing the corn pond issue that I also submitted to the Wildlife Commission. These documents provide a concise, articulate evaluation of the situation and are a very easy read. I can email the pdf files to anyone who wants them.
-
Make no mistake about it, corn pond hunting will eliminate free public waterfowl hunting within the very near future if the practice isn't stop. You can stack a million birds on a ten acre sanctuary lake if there's enough feed to keep them around. Corn ponds provide this feed. If not stopped, 90-95% of the mallards and geese harvested in Washington State in the future will be shot on commercial outfits or private clubs with corn ponds and sanctuary lakes. Successful, free public hunting will cease.
I have actually been privately working on the corn pond issue for a couple years now. I've testified at Wildlife Commission meetings 4-5 times, and may be making some headway. Hopefully there will be a public hearing arranged for this spring or summer where hunters can have their say. I have also produced three documents detailing the corn pond issue that I also submitted to the Wildlife Commission. These documents provide a concise, articulate evaluation of the situation and are a very easy read. I can email the pdf files to anyone who wants them.
I'll take them! I have never seen actual facts about corn ponds (pro or con) but would love to see some real data! Do you know if anyone has looked at banding data? It might be able to show where birds have moved.
-
Here is my take on this. I don't own flooded ponds but have paid to hunt on Eagle Ranch once. I'm all for equal opportunity but I'm also against people taking rights away from someone else who is legally doing what they do. How would you like it if you saved up a ton of money to buy your own property to plant corn and then flood it to hunt over privately-then sportsman get something passed where you can't do it? Most guys complaining on here would love to have their own set up of a flooded corn field and would do it if given the chance. Why would you take that right from someone else just because you can't afford to do it yourself? Life sucks but there is all kinds of things I'd like to do but can't afford. I'm not asking for anyone else not to do it because I can't. Flame away but that is my two cents. I know most people on here are complaining about the huge complexes but once government starts to screw things up it will be a small pond surrounded by an acre of corn on a local farmers 20 acres that they ban. Its how it works usually. I'm just tired of losing my rights and I'm not going to ask someone else to lose theirs because I can't do it myself.
-
Here is my take on this. I don't own flooded ponds but have paid to hunt on Eagle Ranch once. I'm all for equal opportunity but I'm also against people taking rights away from someone else who is legally doing what they do. How would you like it if you saved up a ton of money to buy your own property to plant corn and then flood it to hunt over privately-then sportsman get something passed where you can't do it? Most guys complaining on here would love to have their own set up of a flooded corn field and would do it if given the chance. Why would you take that right from someone else just because you can't afford to do it yourself? Life sucks but there is all kinds of things I'd like to do but can't afford. I'm not asking for anyone else not to do it because I can't. Flame away but that is my two cents. I know most people on here are complaining about the huge complexes but once government starts to screw things up it will be a small pond surrounded by an acre of corn on a local farmers 20 acres that they ban. Its how it works usually. I'm just tired of losing my rights and I'm not going to ask someone else to lose theirs because I can't do it myself.
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. :twocents:
-
Where does it end though? Large ranches hold a lot of deer and elk. People complain that these properties hold a lot of public game. They are but if you don't like it go buy one for yourself. I'm not sure how you legislate changes without screwing over someone in the process. They bought the property and have the right to do what they want on it legally. We already basically rent our land from the state with high property taxes and a long list of what we can and can't do on that property. I'm not going to ask to add anything more to that long list via legislation. Someone worked hard for the funds to buy these properties and many started with nothing many years ago. I'm just tired of people complaining of lost opportunities. Go make your own opportunity just like these land owners did.
-
According to WDFW's website the Commission meets March 1-2 in Spokane and April 5-6 in Olympia. These are open to public comment. You can also make a public comment on their website between Jan. 23 and Feb 13.
-
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.
-
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.
You said what I wanted to try and say but couldn't find the words :tup:
-
Its unethical is your opinion. Some people view bow hunting as unethical. Some think baiting deer/elk is unethical. Do you want to try to prevent them from doing that? That's how we lost our bear baiting and hound hunts. I'm just tired of people trying to take away someones rights because they don't think its necessary to do something.
-
Here is my take on this. I don't own flooded ponds but have paid to hunt on Eagle Ranch once. I'm all for equal opportunity but I'm also against people taking rights away from someone else who is legally doing what they do. How would you like it if you saved up a ton of money to buy your own property to plant corn and then flood it to hunt over privately-then sportsman get something passed where you can't do it? Most guys complaining on here would love to have their own set up of a flooded corn field and would do it if given the chance. Why would you take that right from someone else just because you can't afford to do it yourself? Life sucks but there is all kinds of things I'd like to do but can't afford. I'm not asking for anyone else not to do it because I can't. Flame away but that is my two cents. I know most people on here are complaining about the huge complexes but once government starts to screw things up it will be a small pond surrounded by an acre of corn on a local farmers 20 acres that they ban. Its how it works usually. I'm just tired of losing my rights and I'm not going to ask someone else to lose theirs because I can't do it myself.
Where does it end though? Large ranches hold a lot of deer and elk. People complain that these properties hold a lot of public game. They are but if you don't like it go buy one for yourself. I'm not sure how you legislate changes without screwing over someone in the process. They bought the property and have the right to do what they want on it legally. We already basically rent our land from the state with high property taxes and a long list of what we can and can't do on that property. I'm not going to ask to add anything more to that long list via legislation. Someone worked hard for the funds to buy these properties and many started with nothing many years ago. I'm just tired of people complaining of lost opportunities. Go make your own opportunity just like these land owners did.
100% spot on.
I've said it before as sportsman we need to quit shooting ourselves in the foot by saying we don't agree with the way someone else is legally hunting so let's take it away.
I'll go back to the example of baiting deer and elk it's a real slippery slope we've started down
-
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?
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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. :twocents:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :twocents:
You nailed it! :tup:
-
For those that think we're whining - are you ok with baiting? Should we expand the opportunity? I mean really, what's the difference?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:chuckle: too much truth there
-
Sounds pretty socialist though... makes me icky.
-
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.
-
If there is a change to hunting in/over a flooded corn field, the corn "complexes" will still exist. They will build even more flooded corn fields, drawing every bird to them, then hunt none corn ponds and fields on their property. Someone will kick the birds out of the flooded corn and they will fly around and go to the spot they are set up on on their private property.
Be careful what you wish for.
Again, do not add more restrictions to the private land owner/operator, there is always a work around, instead give the public land guy more options to go about his legal hunt.
-
If there is a change to hunting in/over a flooded corn field, the corn "complexes" will still exist. They will build even more flooded corn fields, drawing every bird to them, then hunt none corn ponds and fields on their property. Someone will kick the birds out of the flooded corn and they will fly around and go to the spot they are set up on on their private property.
Be careful what you wish for.
Again, do not add more restrictions to the private land owner/operator, there is always a work around, instead give the public land guy more options to go about his legal hunt.
I believe harassment of wildlife is illegal haha.
They won't go anywhere at all but I also don't foresee your scenario happening either. It would take too much land and money to make that financially feasible. They will figure out how to do moist soil management, line ponds to hold water so they don't have to flood it or even simply just hunt corn. Waterfowl love corn wither it is dry or wet but wouldn't you be slightly interested in seeing a full scale study done on their affect on waterfowl or if they even do?
-
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.
Completely false. I turned 30 this year. AND I laid down on I-90, not I-5.
-
Make no mistake about it, corn pond hunting will eliminate free public waterfowl hunting within the very near future if the practice isn't stop. You can stack a million birds on a ten acre sanctuary lake if there's enough feed to keep them around. Corn ponds provide this feed. If not stopped, 90-95% of the mallards and geese harvested in Washington State in the future will be shot on commercial outfits or private clubs with corn ponds and sanctuary lakes. Successful, free public hunting will cease.
I have actually been privately working on the corn pond issue for a couple years now. I've testified at Wildlife Commission meetings 4-5 times, and may be making some headway. Hopefully there will be a public hearing arranged for this spring or summer where hunters can have their say. I have also produced three documents detailing the corn pond issue that I also submitted to the Wildlife Commission. These documents provide a concise, articulate evaluation of the situation and are a very easy read. I can email the pdf files to anyone who wants them.
Man, that's awesome. Thank you for working on this. I'll pm you to get those doc's, and I expect I'll see you at some meetings coming up.
I actually ran into a WDFW biologist/wildlife area manager while afield yesterday, and he VEHEMENTLY opposes corn ponds. He says he works his tail off year round to improve public hunting areas, but cannot compete with the complexes. He has maintained duck surveys at the units he manages over the years and he thinks the data backs up his perception. I'd love to see a formal study conducted on the effect of these complexes.
-
If there is a change to hunting in/over a flooded corn field, the corn "complexes" will still exist. They will build even more flooded corn fields, drawing every bird to them, then hunt none corn ponds and fields on their property. Someone will kick the birds out of the flooded corn and they will fly around and go to the spot they are set up on on their private property.
Be careful what you wish for.
Again, do not add more restrictions to the private land owner/operator, there is always a work around, instead give the public land guy more options to go about his legal hunt.
I believe harassment of wildlife is illegal haha.
They won't go anywhere at all but I also don't foresee your scenario happening either. It would take too much land and money to make that financially feasible. They will figure out how to do moist soil management, line ponds to hold water so they don't have to flood it or even simply just hunt corn. Waterfowl love corn wither it is dry or wet but wouldn't you be slightly interested in seeing a full scale study done on their affect on waterfowl or if they even do?
Absolutely. I think a formal study needs to happen ASAP.
-
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.
Ha! Perfect summary of the inconsistency in current waterfowl baiting regulations.
-
If there is a change to hunting in/over a flooded corn field, the corn "complexes" will still exist. They will build even more flooded corn fields, drawing every bird to them, then hunt none corn ponds and fields on their property. Someone will kick the birds out of the flooded corn and they will fly around and go to the spot they are set up on on their private property.
Be careful what you wish for.
Again, do not add more restrictions to the private land owner/operator, there is always a work around, instead give the public land guy more options to go about his legal hunt.
That gets pretty expensive for worse shooting. I'm sure that scenario would work somewhat but its hard to keep birds out of corn when they want in there. Not sure why they would decoy into another pond if there are giant corn ponds to hop over into. Besides, the careful wording of the law can eliminate most loopholes. In the same way you can't hunt open water near a baited spot, you would not be able to hunt in the situation you suggest.
Also, it can't be any worse than it is now.
Very few people will be willing to plant and flood corn if they can't hunt the birds it attracts. More likely is that these corn complexes become moist soil with natural feed.
-
Very few people will be willing to plant and flood corn if they can't hunt the birds it attracts. More likely is that these corn complexes become moist soil with natural feed.
Which if that happened they would be building habitat for wildlife and actually helping everyone.
-
Sounds like mostly sour grapes....
What is the issue?
-That they kill a lot? If so, why the talk about water being the issue because they don't leave? If no water and they went back and forth (yes, I see your point about the public having a better chance) but then it erases your argument about too many being killed. It then makes one to believe that it's not about the number of ducks killed, but the fact you aren't the one killing them.
As for the speculation on flyways changing and whatnot....seems there are more accusations vs hard data. IF there is a change needed, data first is probably better than a bunch of flaming on how it's not fair or it's about the ducks.
I don't have a dog in this fight really. I hunt a few ducks because of my kids but we do so on public and do fine. I will say, cold winter=more ducks....and this winter was warm. .02
-
Sounds like mostly sour grapes....
What is the issue?
-That they kill a lot? If so, why the talk about water being the issue because they don't leave? If no water and they went back and forth (yes, I see your point about the public having a better chance) but then it erases your argument about too many being killed. It then makes one to believe that it's not about the number of ducks killed, but the fact you aren't the one killing them.
As for the speculation on flyways changing and whatnot....seems there are more accusations vs hard data. IF there is a change needed, data first is probably better than a bunch of flaming on how it's not fair or it's about the ducks.
I don't have a dog in this fight really. I hunt a few ducks because of my kids but we do so on public and do fine. I will say, cold winter=more ducks....and this winter was warm. .02
It's definitely NOT about the number of ducks being killed - it's about the manipulation of a loophole in current baiting regulations that reduces opportunity for most hunters.
I actually think more ducks overall will be killed if corn ponds are banned. Private land managed for ducks will still kill lots of birds - they just won't hold the concentration of ducks they do right now. Public harvest will increase as more ducks seek water on public lands after feeding in dry corn.
But I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be some hard data on this first before any rules are changed. A detailed study would be step #1.
-
Sounds like mostly sour grapes....
What is the issue?
-That they kill a lot? If so, why the talk about water being the issue because they don't leave? If no water and they went back and forth (yes, I see your point about the public having a better chance) but then it erases your argument about too many being killed. It then makes one to believe that it's not about the number of ducks killed, but the fact you aren't the one killing them.
As for the speculation on flyways changing and whatnot....seems there are more accusations vs hard data. IF there is a change needed, data first is probably better than a bunch of flaming on how it's not fair or it's about the ducks.
I don't have a dog in this fight really. I hunt a few ducks because of my kids but we do so on public and do fine. I will say, cold winter=more ducks....and this winter was warm. .02
It's definitely NOT about the number of ducks being killed - it's about the manipulation of a loophole in current baiting regulations that reduces opportunity for most hunters.
I actually think more ducks overall will be killed if corn ponds are banned. Private land managed for ducks will still kill lots of birds - they just won't hold the concentration of ducks they do right now. Public harvest will increase as more ducks seek water on public lands after feeding in dry corn.
But I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be some hard data on this first before any rules are changed. A detailed study would be step #1.
A study would be great but not sure what it would prove or dis-prove. I think the goal of WDFW is firstly to manage wildlife populations then allow for public/private opportunity for individuals. I think for them to make a move against corn ponds state wide you would have to prove they decrease numbers and decrease opportunity at the resource. A public area in Oregon that has flooded corn and is surrounded by private clubs that have flooded corn killed as many ducks maybe even more than Eagle lakes did when they made their facebook post. So maybe its just poor management of public areas that is the problem and not what private groups are doing on their own land. Also the public areas south of EL average at least 2.3 and now 3. ducks per hunter for the year. Pretty hard to argue that the public hunting is on a downward trend with the available hard facts. There may be some areas more adversely affected by the complexes but to conduct a study you would also need a baseline to compare it to and I dont think we have one of those. Need cold weather
-
Sounds like mostly sour grapes....
What is the issue?
-That they kill a lot? If so, why the talk about water being the issue because they don't leave? If no water and they went back and forth (yes, I see your point about the public having a better chance) but then it erases your argument about too many being killed. It then makes one to believe that it's not about the number of ducks killed, but the fact you aren't the one killing them.
As for the speculation on flyways changing and whatnot....seems there are more accusations vs hard data. IF there is a change needed, data first is probably better than a bunch of flaming on how it's not fair or it's about the ducks.
I don't have a dog in this fight really. I hunt a few ducks because of my kids but we do so on public and do fine. I will say, cold winter=more ducks....and this winter was warm. .02
It's definitely NOT about the number of ducks being killed - it's about the manipulation of a loophole in current baiting regulations that reduces opportunity for most hunters.
I actually think more ducks overall will be killed if corn ponds are banned. Private land managed for ducks will still kill lots of birds - they just won't hold the concentration of ducks they do right now. Public harvest will increase as more ducks seek water on public lands after feeding in dry corn.
But I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be some hard data on this first before any rules are changed. A detailed study would be step #1.
A study would be great but not sure what it would prove or dis-prove. I think the goal of WDFW is firstly to manage wildlife populations then allow for public/private opportunity for individuals. I think for them to make a move against corn ponds state wide you would have to prove they decrease numbers and decrease opportunity at the resource. A public area in Oregon that has flooded corn and is surrounded by private clubs that have flooded corn killed as many ducks maybe even more than Eagle lakes did when they made their facebook post. So maybe its just poor management of public areas that is the problem and not what private groups are doing on their own land. Also the public areas south of EL average at least 2.3 and now 3. ducks per hunter for the year. Pretty hard to argue that the public hunting is on a downward trend with the available hard facts. There may be some areas more adversely affected by the complexes but to conduct a study you would also need a baseline to compare it to and I dont think we have one of those. Need cold weather
Doesn't WDFW also care about hunter recruitment? Hunting numbers are going down and less animals on public land isn't going to help those numbers go up. What if a study shows that concentrating a large number of animals over the natural carrying capacity leads to diseases? I'm not saying they will find that but I wouldn't discredit it before research can be done. I agree a baseline is needed to know a lot but I have no clue what data they have and don't have, do you? Of course we need cold weather but this isn't the first time this conversations has been brought up and it's not brought up only on poor seasons.
Gringo, it's not about you have something I want so we need to get rid of it. I have brought up some concerns and valid reasons but if you want to have a more in depth discussion please PM, who doesn't love a good debate!
-
What about bringing this up with the Feds. Don't they ultimately have the final say regarding migratory waterfowl regulations?
-
I believe in a live and let live approach. I do not own land but I can't blame people who do for trying to improve their property to attract ducks. If I had land I would want ducks on it. I know lots of people on this discussion feel differently but in my opinion, if those guys shell out the money and time to buy land and keep it in good shape for ducks it's okay with me. I think this season was bad for a lot of reasons - weather didn't help us much. If lots of ducks were hanging out in these corn ponds then it seems like there should be a bumper crop of birds next year and they should spill out all over the place. I just think some years are up and some are down. Can't fault someone for wanting to make a sweet duck hunting pond on their land - that seems okay to me.
-
What about bringing this up with the Feds. Don't they ultimately have the final say regarding migratory waterfowl regulations?
This issue is definitely on the federal radar. There are some huge corn pond complexes in the midwest, and plenty of hunters are voicing their concerns (see Wildfowl mag, Sept. 18 issue for a report on this).
Current waterfowl baiting regulations are all federal, so it wouldn't surprise me if at some point they modify the language in the present rules to close the flooded corn loophole.
That being said, individual states also have the right to restrict certain hunting activities that may be legal elsewhere (e.g. electronic decoys). The state route is probably more realistic at this point than a federal rule change.
-
I believe in a live and let live approach. I do not own land but I can't blame people who do for trying to improve their property to attract ducks. If I had land I would want ducks on it. I know lots of people on this discussion feel differently but in my opinion, if those guys shell out the money and time to buy land and keep it in good shape for ducks it's okay with me. I think this season was bad for a lot of reasons - weather didn't help us much. If lots of ducks were hanging out in these corn ponds then it seems like there should be a bumper crop of birds next year and they should spill out all over the place. I just think some years are up and some are down. Can't fault someone for wanting to make a sweet duck hunting pond on their land - that seems okay to me.
Please read the rest of the thread :rolleyes: This is about big operations making big profits on a public resourse leasing thousands of acres and planting corn with water added. Locking up 90% of the ducks to an elite few. Regardless of the weather the ducks will stay in these corn stations.
I wish it was only about the guy planting an acre or two on his land so him and his buddies could have a successful season.
-
There are a lot of numbers being thrown around with nothing to back it up. I'm pretty confident that that relative few who hunt these ranches aren't killing, or even holding, 90% of the ducks. I don't know what the numbers are, but I would bet there are more ducks off the ranches than on them. It just looks like they're all there when you see them concentrated that much.
Obviously there are a few of us that are keeping this discussion going. I'd like to hear exactly what all your issues are. Is it that you think the flooded corn practice should be illegal or is that these clubs are making money off duck hunting?
-
Flooded corn for me. I want to bait too! Let's open it up.
Remember this? If ole Huey decided to flood his imaginary corn fields he'd probably attract wayyyy more birds, but because they're "feeders" it's much more serious and you can't hunt next to it. LOL
https://missoulian.com/news/local/huey-lewis-others-bait-ducks-to-end-hunting-along-bitterroot/article_032a9d84-d97e-11de-a5a9-001cc4c002e0.html
-
Flooded corn for me. I want to bait too! Let's open it up.
Remember this? If ole Huey decided to flood his imaginary corn fields he'd probably attract wayyyy more birds, but because they're "feeders" it's much more serious and you can't hunt next to it. LOL
https://missoulian.com/news/local/huey-lewis-others-bait-ducks-to-end-hunting-along-bitterroot/article_032a9d84-d97e-11de-a5a9-001cc4c002e0.html
Oh man - as that article shows, the inconsistency of current regulations is ludicrous.
I understand your position: either close the loophole, or allow all forms of baiting.
For the sake of public hunting, I'd suggest closing the loophole. Corn ponds would be replaced with daily dump truck loads of corn into private ponds if all waterfowl baiting were legalized.
-
"loophole" - (noun), a method of obtaining a result not consistent with the speaker's point of view. :chuckle:
-
Sorry if this was brought up already, but I wasn't able to read the whole thread because it's reeally long.
I do water rights for a large farm in Oregon. At least down here, it's illegal to retain water without water rights that specifically allow it. If there's a particular operation that you're concerned with and that operation is flooding fields using a gate that closes or some sort of built up berm, then you can look up their water rights and see if it's legal. I would be shocked if these guys are operating legally. I just don't see them getting this much water in a dry region, in a time when there's a lot of concern for river and groundwater levels.
If you care about this: Look it up, find the violations, and put pressure on the water master.
-
I believe in a live and let live approach. I do not own land but I can't blame people who do for trying to improve their property to attract ducks. If I had land I would want ducks on it. I know lots of people on this discussion feel differently but in my opinion, if those guys shell out the money and time to buy land and keep it in good shape for ducks it's okay with me. I think this season was bad for a lot of reasons - weather didn't help us much. If lots of ducks were hanging out in these corn ponds then it seems like there should be a bumper crop of birds next year and they should spill out all over the place. I just think some years are up and some are down. Can't fault someone for wanting to make a sweet duck hunting pond on their land - that seems okay to me.
Please read the rest of the thread :rolleyes: This is about big operations making big profits on a public resourse leasing thousands of acres and planting corn with water added. Locking up 90% of the ducks to an elite few. Regardless of the weather the ducks will stay in these corn stations.
I wish it was only about the guy planting an acre or two on his land so him and his buddies could have a successful season.
I’ve read the thread. To me there is no difference between a guy with a few acres or a guy with a thousand (owned or leased). These guys love hunting and they decided to make it their business. No problem. Live and let live. But you know what really gets me angry is the sewage treatment ponds. They are packed with ducks. Elite sewage plant people taking all my ducks. Hahaha - man it’s tough driving past those sewage ponds after a rough day of hunting.
-
Like the ones in Marysville? :bash: I always hope for a few eagles to fly over and kick them out.
-
From what I see, and I hunt ducks or am looking for them 3 to 4 days a week, is the amount of hunting pressure that effects duck movements. From what I understand is they rotate the fields they hunt so there not moving the birds. That has a big impact on them staying where they are. They just get shot at way to much on public ground. An example from the last two weeks, I found an area on state ground that was holding, what we figured was 10,000 mallards. all on a big body of water with lots of smaller ponds around. We didn't hunt the large body, just the adjacent ponds, just far enough away as to not spook the area they were all staging in. It was fantastic hunting the first week, but as you could imagine, people started to figure out what was going on. It was still good for a few more days until someone though it would be a good idea to shot at the swarm of birds on the big body, Now I need to go find more birds. they are all but gone. Im convinced those birds would have stayed right where they were if not shot at. Its been this way for several years now. find birds, 2 or 3 good days and there gone from the pressure. then go and try and find them again.
-
I guess I would fall into the camp that would leave them to their business. Sure I’m jealous as I am of their good fortune of being able to own property like that and kill all those birds I just don’t think that anybody should be able to tell them what they can do with their property.
I also don’t see how what they have done doesn’t improve the habitat for the ducks. Ultimately, for me, I like to see a benefit to the resource, not necessarily for hunters.
Maybe what we should do is lobby the State for some public corn ponds that are managed for better hunting. Of course that takes money but I’m sure people smarter than me can figure out plenty of ways to make that happen
-
Corn pond hunting is not a private property issue. The issues are fair chase and the threat to free public hunting. It makes no sense that knocking the feed down to the water is illegal because it creates an overly attractive condition for hunting but that raising the water up to the feed which creates the same condition is not. Baiting rules should shift focus to defining what conditions are overly attractive for hunting and move away from focusing on how the condition was created.
And to those who think commercial hunting outfits with large sanctuary lakes can't capture significant portions of the wintering waterfowl in Washington State, you simply do not understand waterfowl behavior. Waterfowl will move to wherever they find safety and food, and the more you have of both, the more waterfowl you will attract and the numbers will not cease increasing until either the safety or food get maxed-out, or there are no more birds to attract. All it takes are corn ponds, safety and money.
-
Here is my take on this. I don't own flooded ponds but have paid to hunt on Eagle Ranch once. I'm all for equal opportunity but I'm also against people taking rights away from someone else who is legally doing what they do. How would you like it if you saved up a ton of money to buy your own property to plant corn and then flood it to hunt over privately-then sportsman get something passed where you can't do it? Most guys complaining on here would love to have their own set up of a flooded corn field and would do it if given the chance. Why would you take that right from someone else just because you can't afford to do it yourself? Life sucks but there is all kinds of things I'd like to do but can't afford. I'm not asking for anyone else not to do it because I can't. Flame away but that is my two cents. I know most people on here are complaining about the huge complexes but once government starts to screw things up it will be a small pond surrounded by an acre of corn on a local farmers 20 acres that they ban. Its how it works usually. I'm just tired of losing my rights and I'm not going to ask someone else to lose theirs because I can't do it myself.
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. :twocents:
Nailed it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"loophole" - (noun), a method of obtaining a result not consistent with the speaker's point of view. :chuckle:
I’ve never looked that up. Guess I got swooped in. Thanks for that, seriously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sorry if this was brought up already, but I wasn't able to read the whole thread because it's reeally long.
I do water rights for a large farm in Oregon. At least down here, it's illegal to retain water without water rights that specifically allow it. If there's a particular operation that you're concerned with and that operation is flooding fields using a gate that closes or some sort of built up berm, then you can look up their water rights and see if it's legal. I would be shocked if these guys are operating legally. I just don't see them getting this much water in a dry region, in a time when there's a lot of concern for river and groundwater levels.
If you care about this: Look it up, find the violations, and put pressure on the water master.
The Basin is either blessed or unblessed with the H20. All about what side you ended up on with the Fed Rec. There is a severe difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’m not implying that anyone is over stepping their bounds. Just that it’s easier in some parts of Adams/Grant counties than others to get the liquid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Corn pond hunting is not a private property issue. The issues are fair chase and the threat to free public hunting. It makes no sense that knocking the feed down to the water is illegal because it creates an overly attractive condition for hunting but that raising the water up to the feed which creates the same condition is not. Baiting rules should shift focus to defining what conditions are overly attractive for hunting and move away from focusing on how the condition was created.
And to those who think commercial hunting outfits with large sanctuary lakes can't capture significant portions of the wintering waterfowl in Washington State, you simply do not understand waterfowl behavior. Waterfowl will move to wherever they find safety and food, and the more you have of both, the more waterfowl you will attract and the numbers will not cease increasing until either the safety or food get maxed-out, or there are no more birds to attract. All it takes are corn ponds, safety and money.
This is one of the main concerns to me. There is no ceiling to corn ponds. We are witnessing a corn pond arms race in the Columbia Basin as the larger complexes compete with each other for birds. There's no end in sight to this. As clubs get more money from more hunters shooting ducks, they have the power to create more and larger and better conditions for holding birds.
If we ever get a year when duck numbers are below the long term average, public hunters will feel the pinch like never before.
-
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.
-
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.
Flooding standing corn with fluctuating water levels to maximize use of the unharvested crop is not a standard agricultural practice. The corn is grown for no other reason than to attract waterfowl for the purposes of hunting and making money off of it.
-
Same as the state does on public land, plant tons of crops and never harvest. That isn’t standard agricultural practice either. As long as you don’t spread it around or drop seed it is not considered baiting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Corn complexes on the east side in the triangle definitely suck the birds in. Just can't compete with the feed, habitat, ponds, warm springs and flowing water. It is definitely where the birds want to be. You just need to hunt away from that particular location or the influence of it.
Sugar Ranch is 7k +acres, Black Dog is 6K + acres, Eagle lakes 4k + acres along with what they have tied up and one other big club. Your talking over 200 natural or planted ponds plus all the lakes. The state just doesn't have anything that competes with it.
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.
-
As stated earlier. Discussing on this forum won’t change anything. Public comment period is open on the current proposed regulation changes at the following link:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
There are currently no proposed changes for the baiting regulations.
You can submit general comments at the following email:
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Comment period close February 13th.
-
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.
[/quote]
You would have to camp out for 3 weeks in their driveway to get a spot on the one day hunt :chuckle: The idea is awesome though... :tup:
-
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 :chuckle: The idea is awesome though... :tup:
[/quote]
Not if they did a draw system that you put in your date before the season.
-
As stated earlier. Discussing on this forum won’t change anything. Public comment period is open on the current proposed regulation changes at the following link:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
There are currently no proposed changes for the baiting regulations.
You can submit general comments at the following email:
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Comment period close February 13th.
Amen! Thanks for posting the link. I commented. Hopefully guys on both sides of this comment as well. My hope is that at the least the commission will see the need for some sort of formal study to assess the on the effect of corn ponds on local duck movement and public hunting opportunity.
-
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.
-
Corn complexes on the east side in the triangle definitely suck the birds in. Just can't compete with the feed, habitat, ponds, warm springs and flowing water. It is definitely where the birds want to be. You just need to hunt away from that particular location or the influence of it.
Sugar Ranch is 7k +acres, Black Dog is 6K + acres, Eagle lakes 4k + acres along with what they have tied up and one other big club. Your talking over 200 natural or planted ponds plus all the lakes. The state just doesn't have anything that competes with it.
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.
I completely agree with this. It's amazing the difference when you hunt outside the sphere of influence of these corn ponds - and that's definitely the smart play right now for public hunters.
The problem is that the footprint is growing every year as corn complexes increase in size and sophistication (increased wiring for ice eaters, improved pump infrastructure, etc.). It's a shame that the state has lots of money invested in public lands close to these complexes that no longer provide consistent quality hunting opportunity to the extent they did pre-corn ponds.
-
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
-
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
I contacted them and had some questions for them. I hope they can get back to me.
-
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
Wow! That is awesome. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know this group existed. I will be contacting them, too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :chuckle: The idea is awesome though... :tup:
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! :tup:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'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.
:yeah:
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.
-
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.
:yeah:
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
-
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.
:yeah:
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. :twocents:
-
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.
:yeah:
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. :twocents:
The State shouldn't be involved in artificially flooded grain either.
-
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.
:yeah:
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. :twocents:
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
-
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.
:yeah:
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. :twocents:
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.
-
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.
:yeah:
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. :twocents:
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. :yike:
-
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 ($$$$).
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I saw the same video. And you are probably correct in your assumption on why it was pulled. Those ducks never left- just went to the other side of the complex that they weren't shooting.
-
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.
https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/792-acres-in-Grant-County-Washington/5645023
Something like this?
-
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.
Here's how I fix this issue, I don't, vote for a new person to be paid off by big companies? Money rules EVERYTHING> Changes like this will never occur, always a grey area, and someones palm getting greased. That's the biggest issue above all.
-
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.
https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/792-acres-in-Grant-County-Washington/5645023
Something like this?
Rumor is the State is looking at buying that place.
-
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.
https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/792-acres-in-Grant-County-Washington/5645023
Something like this?
Yep, that's the place. I remember hearing Rasor Ranch and/or Echo Valley when it came out.
-
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.
Here's how I fix this issue, I don't, vote for a new person to be paid off by big companies? Money rules EVERYTHING> Changes like this will never occur, always a grey area, and someones palm getting greased. That's the biggest issue above all.
Isn't it better to fight than to give up before it starts? I agree it's an uphill battle especially when the people who make the rules hunt private corn ponds or get yearly free invites to them.
-
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.
https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/792-acres-in-Grant-County-Washington/5645023
Something like this?
Rumor is the State is looking at buying that place.
I read some stuff on the Fuge about it but it was all hints and promises and I haven't heard anything new since.
-
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.
Yep, I know the video you're talking about. They called it "Echo Valley" in the video. It's been pulled and scrubbed. These clubs are EXTREMELY secretive about what they are doing...with good reason. If hunters could see the sheer numbers of birds on these complexes and their refusal to leave, it would change a lot of minds about the legality (and ethics) of hunting flooded corn.
I'll be surprised if Eagle Lakes continues to post the number of corn ponds in their ads every year given increasing public opposition to the practice.
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
I would agree but there are some that pay a lot more. I know of one club in the basin the buy is around 200k right now with yearly fees. Weird that they also have flooded corn. I know eagle lakes said something like they shot 150 limit in just one week this season and at 350 a person (not including lodging) that's $52,500 for a week. Ducks are big business and it isn't going away anytime soon.
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
Similar price to a charter fishing trip and a bunch of middle class people do that.
For a guy making $300k+ a year, that is a great way to get out with your buddies and shoot some ducks. Usually, guys making that kind of money don't have time to go out and figure it out for themselves, they would rather pay a guy and show up to someone that has done all the work.
The crazy part isn't the $300 a day for a couple of days, it is the number of people that pay $200k to buy in plus annual fees for a private club and then hunt it 2-3 days a year.
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
If you go only 5 times a year, beats buying a boat, gear,scouting, trying to find land,etc.... And majority of the time their good hunts with guides. Alot of time and money to get good hunting ground.
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
If you go only 5 times a year, beats buying a boat, gear,scouting, trying to find land,etc.... And majority of the time their good hunts with guides. Alot of time and money to get good hunting ground.
Depends if you want to go shooting or go hunting.....
-
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.
I didn't mean to imply that paying to hunt is lame - I've hunted with outfitters myself from time to time and had a blast. You're paying for an experience, not just seven ducks. I get it.
What I was trying to point out is that there is big time money involved in the corn pond discussion. And as flooded corn complexes pile up more revenue (either through member fees or revenue from paying clients), a big portion of that revenue goes toward building more corn ponds, hardwiring in more ice eaters, etc.
Whatever effect these complexes have on local duck patterns and distribution right now, we can expect the impact to increase exponentially in the future.
-
Who pays this kind of money to shoot ducks? $250? $350 a day? IMO that's just nucking futs....
Similar price to a charter fishing trip and a bunch of middle class people do that.
For a guy making $300k+ a year, that is a great way to get out with your buddies and shoot some ducks. Usually, guys making that kind of money don't have time to go out and figure it out for themselves, they would rather pay a guy and show up to someone that has done all the work.
The crazy part isn't the $300 a day for a couple of days, it is the number of people that pay $200k to buy in plus annual fees for a private club and then hunt it 2-3 days a year.
Guess I'm just a cheap arse middle class guy and would rather not shoot a duck than pay that kind of money. I also don't pay that for fishing. ;) Now, if I could be given a pretty good guarantee of shooting 20 geese, maybe.... :chuckle:
-
I hear you on the $/pound calculation.
Growing up, I couldn't believe guys would pay huge bucks to catch a few hatchery planted trout in MT rivers. It's all what you are into I guess.
It sounds like there are so many ducks that I'm tempted to pony up $350 next year just to see the spectacle.
-
I hear you on the $/pound calculation.
Growing up, I couldn't believe guys would pay huge bucks to catch a few hatchery planted trout in MT rivers. It's all what you are into I guess.
It sounds like there are so many ducks that I'm tempted to pony up $350 next year just to see the spectacle.
Ethics and fair chase aside, I agree in being tempted to see the spectacle but I'm afraid of it all unfolding and being done in 30 minutes though...That's an expensive half hour!
-
I hear you on the $/pound calculation.
Growing up, I couldn't believe guys would pay huge bucks to catch a few hatchery planted trout in MT rivers. It's all what you are into I guess.
It sounds like there are so many ducks that I'm tempted to pony up $350 next year just to see the spectacle.
Ethics and fair chase aside, I agree in being tempted to see the spectacle but I'm afraid of it all unfolding and being done in 30 minutes though...That's an expensive half hour!
You guys should do it and post the videos!
-
I hear you on the $/pound calculation.
Growing up, I couldn't believe guys would pay huge bucks to catch a few hatchery planted trout in MT rivers. It's all what you are into I guess.
It sounds like there are so many ducks that I'm tempted to pony up $350 next year just to see the spectacle.
Ethics and fair chase aside, I agree in being tempted to see the spectacle but I'm afraid of it all unfolding and being done in 30 minutes though...That's an expensive half hour!
It doesn't always go fast and it's still hunting. I know of 3 guys who did hunts with Eagle lakes this year and even though they all shot limits it was far from a 30 minute event. I know one guy who went and didn't shoot the gun till 11:30 am. They hold a ton of birds but they have roasting ponds and spots they don't hunt so the birds can sit but sooner or later they do start moving around. It's a little steep for me to pay that price but to each their own.
-
Since we finally got our winter in the basin...... What I’d be curious to know is whether or not these outfits continued to flood their corn and keep water open for the ducks to feed, or if they shut off everything and let the ponds drain or freeze. With these temps and snow anything but moving water would freeze up and the snow will have covered any accessible food.
What I’m getting at here is the “habitat” argument. Sure these guys might “feed” the birds when the season is open and they can profit from it but once the profit factor is gone they could care less what the birds do. Just speculating here, for all I know they could still be running everything. That would certainly lead to the argument of helping feed and sustain more birds for the migration north in the spring. But if they shut off then ducks in the area would have headed south or starved, at least in the conditions we’ve had in the south basin.
If anyone knows the answer please chime in.
-
I dont know if the duck clubs keep water moving after the season or not. I do know they all keep standing water all year.
I was out running around connell/mesa that Saturday we got all the snow and there were ducks everywhere -on the ground and in the air- on public and private non-corn pond ground. You could have killed a limit standing in the middle of highway 260. Any open water on mesa lake was covered in birds, and the private corn pond place by the worth lake parking lot had nothing in the air.
You're free to interpret that information however you like. I think it shows that this season was crap all around. No weather, no ducks.
-
I dont know if the duck clubs keep water moving after the season or not. I do know they all keep standing water all year.
I was out running around connell/mesa that Saturday we got all the snow and there were ducks everywhere -on the ground and in the air- on public and private non-corn pond ground. You could have killed a limit standing in the middle of highway 260. Any open water on mesa lake was covered in birds, and the private corn pond place by the worth lake parking lot had nothing in the air.
You're free to interpret that information however you like. I think it shows that this season was crap all around. No weather, no ducks.
Except that it wasn't "crap all around. No weather, no ducks." for those hunting the corn pond complexes. Eagle Lakes posted 152 duck limits (1,064 ducks) in one week in late December (limits for every hunter). They also stated they were on pace to "shatter all previous (goose) harvest records" and this was their "best year on snow geese".
I'd call that "No weather, plenty of birds concentrated on the corn pond complexes."
-
So birds go to easy food first? Weird. I still just see everyone complaining that they didnt get to shoot anything because eagle lakes did. Rationalize it all you want, but that's what it boils down to.
I'll say it again, there is nothing stopping anyone on here from paying to hunt these clubs or starting their own. Most of the complexes started with just a couple fields. Don't get mad, get even.
Every guide that doesn't have access to pond complexes does most of their hunting on ground they own or have exclusive hunting rights on. Are they also exploiting public resources for personal gain? I don't see anyone railing against them.
What about hunting corn fields? The birds have to eat, and you're hunting over the food that attracts them. In no other instance is "give an inch, take a mile" more true than when it comes to government. They can outlaw hunting over flooded corn and hunting over water you add corn to is already illegal, don't be surprised when they outlaw hunting food sources all together.
-
I dont know if the duck clubs keep water moving after the season or not. I do know they all keep standing water all year.
I was out running around connell/mesa that Saturday we got all the snow and there were ducks everywhere -on the ground and in the air- on public and private non-corn pond ground. You could have killed a limit standing in the middle of highway 260. Any open water on mesa lake was covered in birds, and the private corn pond place by the worth lake parking lot had nothing in the air.
You're free to interpret that information however you like. I think it shows that this season was crap all around. No weather, no ducks.
I didn't realize they could plant corn in standing water? haha
Fear mongering isn't an argument. The Feds already have laws about baiting and have large parts of the Columbia shut down because of grain bins. I get you're point about don't get mad but get even but it's not that simple for one and it's more about birds than just shooting more.
Why isn't it that simple? Because it's a big business simple as that. When you talk to clubs that take 200k plus to buy into it how can you compete. I have access to fields that could be flooded but when talking to farmers it costs a king ransom to keep water in most fields and keep it from freezing. So to do that you have to open your own clubs or guide service which in my opinion compounds the problem.
It's not about just shooting birds. In my opinion waterfowl is a public resource there for the public not private enterprise. Grain complexes have seemed to change migration patterns and hold more birds than their natural carrying capacity. This leads to disease spread and we have seen this in recent years. Also all we talk about is hunter recruit and bringing new hunters into the sport. Why would someone get into the sport when it's turning into a sport about who has the most money?
I get that the guys who think everyone is whining will always think that and that's fine but until someone shows me some actual proof that grain complexes are good for the hunting community and good for ducks than I'll keep beating the drum of getting research done to show the affects of these areas. Lastly I'm not a big fan of guides but nobody wants to hear that haha. I think some are good for the sport and some are bad and probably should be regulated more but that's a topic for a different day.
-
I'll say it again, there is nothing stopping anyone on here from paying to hunt these clubs or starting their own. Most of the complexes started with just a couple fields. Don't get mad, get even.
I'd venture to say there are plenty of people here that would never hunt a corn complex or want to start one on their own for many reasons including ethics, fair chase, etc. Baiting was made illegal for the benefit of waterfowl. It reduces the ability to slaughter massive amounts of birds and reduces concentrations that can easily and quickly spread disease as EWUeagles pointed out.
The US Dept. of Agriculture found that baiting pulled birds from good natural sources of food, reduces the urge to migrate, holds birds in areas that were not naturally adapted for wintering, and increased die-off from cold and starvation. It also found that baiting can tame birds to the point that they weren't afraid of blinds and would circled back after being fired on two or three more times.
The corn complexes are currently baiting, but legally through a loophole in a way that the regulations couldn't have anticipated. I don't think baiting waterfowl allows for fair chase, so that's what's stopping me from paying to hunt these clubs or starting my own. I doubt I'm alone in that boat.
-
I'll say it again, there is nothing stopping anyone on here from paying to hunt these clubs or starting their own. Most of the complexes started with just a couple fields. Don't get mad, get even.
I'd venture to say there are plenty of people here that would never hunt a corn complex or want to start one on their own for many reasons including ethics, fair chase, etc. Baiting was made illegal for the benefit of waterfowl. It reduces the ability to slaughter massive amounts of birds and reduces concentrations that can easily and quickly spread disease as EWUeagles pointed out.
The US Dept. of Agriculture found that baiting pulled birds from good natural sources of food, reduces the urge to migrate, holds birds in areas that were not naturally adapted for wintering, and increased die-off from cold and starvation. It also found that baiting can tame birds to the point that they weren't afraid of blinds and would circled back after being fired on two or three more times.
The corn complexes are currently baiting, but legally through a loophole in a way that the regulations couldn't have anticipated. I don't think baiting waterfowl allows for fair chase, so that's what's stopping me from paying to hunt these clubs or starting my own. I doubt I'm alone in that boat.
:yeah: I have no desire to hunt, own, build or manage corn ponds for pay or for free.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I dont know if the duck clubs keep water moving after the season or not. I do know they all keep standing water all year.
I was out running around connell/mesa that Saturday we got all the snow and there were ducks everywhere -on the ground and in the air- on public and private non-corn pond ground. You could have killed a limit standing in the middle of highway 260. Any open water on mesa lake was covered in birds, and the private corn pond place by the worth lake parking lot had nothing in the air.
You're free to interpret that information however you like. I think it shows that this season was crap all around. No weather, no ducks.
I actually talked to a WDFW biologist and property manager about this a couple months ago (he hates corn ponds, by the way - says it's IMPOSSIBLE for public land to compete, and says he's seen major changes in bird patterns as these ponds have more than doubled in volume in the last 15 years).
He said that ducks stop hitting grain sources as hard in February as they seek out invertebrate protein in marshlands. Apparently, the hens need the change in diet to prepare for egg formation as they pair up for nesting/breeding (and when private clubs stop running the ice eaters).
He says the same public lands that are vacant in January are covered up with birds in March every year (I'm sure hunting pressure is a big factor in this shift, too, by the way - probably the biggest factor. But corn ponds are still *a* factor, for sure).
-
So birds go to easy food first? Weird. I still just see everyone complaining that they didnt get to shoot anything because eagle lakes did. Rationalize it all you want, but that's what it boils down to.
I'll say it again, there is nothing stopping anyone on here from paying to hunt these clubs or starting their own. Most of the complexes started with just a couple fields. Don't get mad, get even.
Every guide that doesn't have access to pond complexes does most of their hunting on ground they own or have exclusive hunting rights on. Are they also exploiting public resources for personal gain? I don't see anyone railing against them.
What about hunting corn fields? The birds have to eat, and you're hunting over the food that attracts them. In no other instance is "give an inch, take a mile" more true than when it comes to government. They can outlaw hunting over flooded corn and hunting over water you add corn to is already illegal, don't be surprised when they outlaw hunting food sources all together.
Man, I had a blast hunting ducks this year - and the last few years...and have killed more than enough to keep me happy.
I'm just concerned about the trend corn ponds are setting for the future of our sport. I'm only 30, but I've seen big changes in the state of public duck hunting in WA over the last 15 years. What will it be like when I'm 45? or 60?
More corn ponds, holding more birds...effectively strangling hunter recruitment. Not a positive trend for waterfowling's future.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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? :chuckle: 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.
-
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.
-
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? :chuckle: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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. :tup:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:yeah:
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.
-
Wildfowl mag just posted this article online yesterday: "Is Hunting Flooded Corn Fair Chase?"
http://www.wildfowlmag.com/editorial/is-hunting-waterfowl-in-flooded-corn-fair-chase/357662
Two interesting tidbits:
1. A bill was introduced in Idaho last year to ban the hunting of flooded corn in their state (never made it out of committee).
2. The Canadian Wildlife Service is considering a similar ban.
Will be interesting to see watch how these things develop.
-
A couple things I found interesting about that article
1) Josh Goins is bad for the movement of stopping flooding grain fields. He is the baby whining he doesn't have enough ducks. His statement is let's shut down corn but keep flooding rice because rice is habitat. I tried reaching out multiple times and tried to get clarification on his points but he won't reach back out if your opinion differs than his. In the research I have found rice doesn't need to be flooded during waterfowl season other than to hunt over. If someone has different information on this I would love to hear it because I have never grown rice so I could be missing something.
2) Dr. Brian Davis should have his doctorate stripped. He states “Snow coverage and temperatures influence mallard distribution more than anything. If they don’t have access to food and open water, they’ll fly south”. He also said that flooding corn doesn't have an impact. How does keeping water and food open from October 1st through Jan 31st not impact mallards when you state they moved based on if they have open water and food?
3) A study was done that just the waste from natural ag practices would feed 100 million mallards. If that is true then we don't need to even have the discussion about flooding grain crop is habitat needed to support ducks. Just with corn alone we would have enough and that doesn't take in account all the other grain and natural food sources.
-
A couple things I found interesting about that article
1) Josh Goins is bad for the movement of stopping flooding grain fields. He is the baby whining he doesn't have enough ducks. His statement is let's shut down corn but keep flooding rice because rice is habitat. I tried reaching out multiple times and tried to get clarification on his points but he won't reach back out if your opinion differs than his. In the research I have found rice doesn't need to be flooded during waterfowl season other than to hunt over. If someone has different information on this I would love to hear it because I have never grown rice so I could be missing something.
2) Dr. Brian Davis should have his doctorate stripped. He states “Snow coverage and temperatures influence mallard distribution more than anything. If they don’t have access to food and open water, they’ll fly south”. He also said that flooding corn doesn't have an impact. How does keeping water and food open from October 1st through Jan 31st not impact mallards when you state they moved based on if they have open water and food?
3) A study was done that just the waste from natural ag practices would feed 100 million mallards. If that is true then we don't need to even have the discussion about flooding grain crop is habitat needed to support ducks. Just with corn alone we would have enough and that doesn't take in account all the other grain and natural food sources.
Completely agree with all those observations.
This quote intrigued me, too:
"Raedeke says even if flooded crops are not the best habitat, they can be an important ingredient in the overall habitat equation, especially if landowners include moist-soil impoundments in their management efforts. Many do. The 10 clubs surveyed for the Ontario study planted 560 acres of corn and managed 1,775 acres of moist-soil habitat. However, all of them said they would not only no longer plant corn, they would likely close down and stop managing non-crop wetlands if hunting that corn was banned."
I wonder if private clubs in the Columbia Basin or Western Wa river valleys would voice a similar threat?
I suspect they would, given the amount of money and resources they've invested in corn ponds. But I also doubt they'd go through with shutting down their operations altogether. Too much good duck hunting to be had on those properties even without flooded crops, and I bet hunters would still be willing to pay for it.
-
A couple things I found interesting about that article
1) Josh Goins is bad for the movement of stopping flooding grain fields. He is the baby whining he doesn't have enough ducks. His statement is let's shut down corn but keep flooding rice because rice is habitat. I tried reaching out multiple times and tried to get clarification on his points but he won't reach back out if your opinion differs than his. In the research I have found rice doesn't need to be flooded during waterfowl season other than to hunt over. If someone has different information on this I would love to hear it because I have never grown rice so I could be missing something.
2) Dr. Brian Davis should have his doctorate stripped. He states “Snow coverage and temperatures influence mallard distribution more than anything. If they don’t have access to food and open water, they’ll fly south”. He also said that flooding corn doesn't have an impact. How does keeping water and food open from October 1st through Jan 31st not impact mallards when you state they moved based on if they have open water and food?
3) A study was done that just the waste from natural ag practices would feed 100 million mallards. If that is true then we don't need to even have the discussion about flooding grain crop is habitat needed to support ducks. Just with corn alone we would have enough and that doesn't take in account all the other grain and natural food sources.
Completely agree with all those observations.
This quote intrigued me, too:
"Raedeke says even if flooded crops are not the best habitat, they can be an important ingredient in the overall habitat equation, especially if landowners include moist-soil impoundments in their management efforts. Many do. The 10 clubs surveyed for the Ontario study planted 560 acres of corn and managed 1,775 acres of moist-soil habitat. However, all of them said they would not only no longer plant corn, they would likely close down and stop managing non-crop wetlands if hunting that corn was banned."
I wonder if private clubs in the Columbia Basin or Western Wa river valleys would voice a similar threat?
I suspect they would, given the amount of money and resources they've invested in corn ponds. But I also doubt they'd go through with shutting down their operations altogether. Too much good duck hunting to be had on those properties even without flooded crops, and I bet hunters would still be willing to pay for it.
I took that as Raedeke hunts or has stock in some big complex.
I believe the west side of the state uses a lot more moist soil management than the east side does but I could see them threaten to stop using their properties for waterfowl if they couldn't flood. I was never under the impression that waterfowl ever lacked food while migrating. I always hear about loss of breeding habitat not about migrating habitat.