Should planted impoundments be banned?

[Mexican Squealer]

The Flyway Federation is a group based out of Louisiana that working to change laws in regards to planting and flooding crops for ducks. They believe that this is causing major short stopping and is changing traditional migratory flyways. Should it be illegal to plant and flood food for ducks? Thoughts?

 

[rnelson5]

That group is a joke man. They are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Flooded Ag fields are a drop of water in a full full bucket when it comes to the amount of waste grain left behind by normal farming practices. The same guys that believe that type of stuff also believe that DU and Delta have heated ponds to keep ducks from migrating..... There are two main factors in my opinion that have led to a decrease of Waterfowl productivity in the state of LA. One is weather or lack thereof and the other is habitat loss and or habitat change. I heard a podcast with the guy from Vanishing Paradise that said that the state of LA has lost around 40% of its habitat to hold ducks. Ironically, the state only holds about 60% of the birds that it once did...... I think flooded impoundments can alter localized bird movements, but it is not stopping a migration.

 

[T-N-T]

I agree with robbie.
Planted for waterfowl crops is nothing compared to actual crops planted for farming practices.

 

[across the river]

Go read what they publish about themselves and you will realize they are a joke pretty quickly. When you use the terms "social fairness" regarding ducks, you quickly realize they are the Alexandri Ortiz Cortez of duck hunting. Mad at others because they don't think they have as much as they think they should, while at the same time being completely clueless as to why they are in the situation they are in to begin with. The FWS will laugh them out of the building if they show up with that non-sense.

 

[jakebuddy]

So they are mad that the ducks are short stopping at flooded impoundments that are a few states north of “their” flooded impoundments.

 

[flatsmaster]

Legally feed them and kill them if u can....

 

[hrstille]

Ducks need food and water. Migration is based on the water freezing. Once the water freezes the ducks will move regardless of how much food is in the area. If the water doesn't freeze, the ducks wont move south. Plain and simple. They don't want to migrate. They migrate because they have to have water. You can watch the birds move south and north based on the ice line. Banning impoundments or flooding of crops is irrelevant to migration.

 

[Duckbuster82]

No, if they would stop killing all the grass and other vegitation the birds may come.

 

[JWF III]

If you go by the letter of the law, as published by USFWS, it is already illegal. They say that the crop must be harvested. That planting and flooding (without harvesting) is the same as baiting. They also say that hunting along a flyway going to bait, no matter how far away, is hunting over bait.

Section #6, paragraph 2
Section #12 for distance
https://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

Most state agencies won’t take it to that extreme. Enforcement is the problem. But if you aggravate the wrong warden, they could make you miserable.

Wyman

 

[cowhornedspike]

Clearly says flooded standing crops are legal but not manipulated crops. Flooding is not listed as manipulation. All this copied directly from your link above.

What is Legal?

You can hunt waterfowl on or over or from:

• Standing crops or flooded standing crops, including aquatic plants.
• Standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation.
• Flooded harvested croplands.
• Lands or areas where grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, or post-harvest manipulation.
• Lands or areas where top-sown seeds have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, or a planting for agricultural soil erosion control or post-mining land reclamation.
• A blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with natural vegetation.
• A blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops, provided your use of such vegetation does not expose, deposit, distribute or scatter grain or other feed.
• Standing or flooded standing crops where grain is inadvertently scattered solely as the result of hunters entering or leaving the area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds. Hunters are cautioned that while conducting these activities, any intentional scattering of grain will create a baited area.

Manipulation of Agricultural Crops
You cannot legally hunt waterfowl over manipulated agricultural crops except after the field has been subject to a normal harvest and removal of grain (i.e., post-harvest manipulation).

Manipulation includes, but is not limited to, such activities as mowing, shredding, discing, rolling, chopping, trampling, flattening, burning, or herbicide treatments. Grain or seed which is present as a result of a manipulation that took place prior to a normal harvest is bait. For example, no hunting could legally occur on or over a field where a corn crop has been knocked down by a motorized vehicle. Kernels of corn would be exposed and/or scattered.

If, for whatever reason, an agricultural crop or a portion of an agricultural crop has not been harvested (i.e., equipment failure, weather, insect infestation, disease, etc.) and the crop or remaining portion of the crop has been manipulated, then the area is a baited area and cannot be legally hunted for waterfowl. For example, no waterfowl hunting could legally occur on or over a field of sweet corn that has been partially harvested and the remainder mowed.

 

[Mexican Squealer]

Clearly states that hunting over flooded standing crops is legal. Doesn’t it??

 

[JWF III]

It also specifies “normal agriculture practice”. With the exception of rice, what planted crop is flooded as a normal agricultural practice? If your county extension office doesn’t say it’s a normal agricultural practice, it’s baiting.

Wyman

 

[Mexican Squealer]

Call it baiting all you want but it’s perfectly legal.

 

[JWF III]

Was trying to add, but having issues with iPad... I’m not saying I don’t do it. Heck, I’ve done much worse chasing those little suckers. But that is what the USFWS stand is.

Also, if you study that link, it contradicts itself several times.

Wyman

 

[jdgator]

That group is a joke man. They are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Flooded Ag fields are a drop of water in a full full bucket when it comes to the amount of waste grain left behind by normal farming practices. The same guys that believe that type of stuff also believe that DU and Delta have heated ponds to keep ducks from migrating..... There are two main factors in my opinion that have led to a decrease of Waterfowl productivity in the state of LA. One is weather or lack thereof and the other is habitat loss and or habitat change. I heard a podcast with the guy from Vanishing Paradise that said that the state of LA has lost around 40% of its habitat to hold ducks. Ironically, the state only holds about 60% of the birds that it once did...... I think flooded impoundments can alter localized bird movements, but it is not stopping a migration.

This x 1000. Louisiana hasn't gotten its act together to rebuild/stabilize lost marsh with the Federal money its received. It is so corrupt.

And to a lesser extent I think mud motors contribute to their lack of ability to hold ducks. It wasn't but 15 - 20 years ago that there were tons of places in the marsh that were off limits to most hunters. You had to push a pirogue a long way if you wanted to hunt them. Most of the marshes were a safe haven for waterfowl.

 

[across the river]

If you go by the letter of the law, as published by USFWS, it is already illegal. They say that the crop must be harvested. That planting and flooding (without harvesting) is the same as baiting. They also say that hunting along a flyway going to bait, no matter how far away, is hunting over bait.

Section #6, paragraph 2
Section #12 for distance
https://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

Most state agencies won’t take it to that extreme. Enforcement is the problem. But if you aggravate the wrong warden, they could make you miserable.

Wyman

You are 100% wrong, even by the link you yourself posted. There is nothing that says the crop must be harvested. They also themselves bold "freshly" when referring to wildlife food plots, as to prevent someone from flooding corn that was "planted" in November. There is nothing illegal about planting crops to flood, nothing. Even by the "letter of the law" as you say.

Planting
A normal agricultural planting is undertaken for the purpose of producing a crop. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not make a distinction between agricultural fields planted with the intent to harvest a crop and those planted without such intent so long as the planting is in accordance with recommendations from the Cooperative Extension Service.



Wildlife Food Plots
You cannot legally hunt waterfowl over freshly planted wildlife food plots where grain or seed has been distributed, scattered, or exposed because these plots are not normal agricultural plantings or normal soil stabilization practices. Wildlife food plots may be considered a normal agricultural practice, but they do not meet the definition of a normal agricultural planting, harvest, post-harvest manipulation, or a normal soil stabilization practice.

 

[Duckbuster82]

Even if you have a corn pond, It doesn’t mean you will have, hold or much less kill ducks.