Ethical Question Regarding Bait

[Dog's Eye]

Good question.

It think your right PML, it comes back to what makes us feel good.

[crow]

Within the tribe of hunters to which I belong, both formally and informally, and many on this site are in that group even though I have never met them foramally or hunted with them, it is inconceivable that an act could be "ethical" if it falls outside of "legal" practice. I will not be involved in any act that violates the laws that govern the act of hunting. (don't go talking about speeding on the highway because that is another issue and another set of ethics)

Within the group of hunters with whom I hunt and associate closely, it would absolutely be ethical to hunt over a flooded field planted and flooded for the express purpose of hunting waterfowl. It would not be ethical, nor would we tolerate the behavior from those with whom we hunt, to scatter bait and hunt over it. If someone insisted on it, we would dissassociate ourselves from him. We would also probably report him.

Fair chase is a changing paradigm based on population, law, and personal values, much like ethics in general. The line moves when any part of the balance shifts. What can be considered fair chase today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa. I give you the light goose conservation order as a case in point. I would not think of hunting ducks with no plug or e-caller (even though those who have heard me call might differ), but I have no fair chase reservations with the conservation order. I respect those who have a problem with it and won'd do it. But it conforms to the ethical consideration of fair chase as it exists within my conscience and with the group with which I hunt.

So, is any situation ethical...it all depends on the conscience and considerations of the individual and how he relates with a group with which he chooses. As considerations change, so might the group or the individual as to how they conduct themselves.

As individuals and groups are a dynamic thing, there will never be a universal agreement on ethics.

[Double R 2]

Jeff, it's gotta be a normal ag practice. That is a broad definition, but one way or the other, whatever you do you gotta be able to prove it was a normal ag practice. Technically, cutting unharvested corn and hunting waterfowl over it is illegal, unless you can prove it was done as a normal ag practice. To get down to the nitty gritty, you have to look at each field on a case by case basis.

Rob, I wish it were really that simple. Last fall, North Dakota agricultural producers experienced crop devestation and, from what I understand, the insurance companies mandated that crops be "manipulated" per "normal agricultural practices". It becamse a major concern to ND waterfowlers because the birds flocked into these areas that were declared "baited" by the feds, per the public release that was issued (empahsis mine):

HUNTERS MUST AVOID BAITED FIELDS, SAYS USFWS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reminds waterfowl and sandhill crane
hunters to avoid hunting in fields that have been manipulated prior to
being harvested.

Manipulation of agricultural crops may come in the form of rolling,
burning, discing, flattening, mowing, brush-hogging or other similar
actions. Hunting in such fields constitutes a violation of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act's baiting regulations, which have been in effect since
1935. Manipulation of agricultural crops before harvest increases the
availability of grain and creates an unfair advantage to the hunter.
Agricultural crops include, but are not limited to wheat, corn, barley,
oats, flax, beans, peas and other similar crops.

North Dakota has a well documented history of agricultural crops being all
or partially destroyed by disease, drought, flood, hail, wind, insects or
other natural destructive forces. The Service does not dictate or control
what a farmer or rancher may do with their agricultural crops, nor does the agency control or regulate state and/or federally based agricultural
programs that compensate farmers and ranchers for lost or destroyed crops.
However, the Service does regulate the hunting on or over agricultural
fields that have been manipulated prior to being properly harvested even
when the field is enrolled in an agricultural program. If a hunter is
unsure if a field has been manipulated prior to being harvested, the hunter
should talk with the landowner before going afield. If the hunter is
unable to locate the landowner, and is unsure of the field's status, the
hunter should "play it safe" and not hunt the field.

Hunters may hunt on or over agricultural crops that are not manipulated and remain standing, provided they have received permission from the respective landowner. Hunters may hunt on or over flooded standing or harvested crops and may hunt on or over natural vegetation whether flooded or not.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people. For more information, visit the Service's home page at http://www.fws.gov

Many here may remember a few years back seeing 60+ thousand ducks, mostly mallards, flocking to a corn field along HWY 8, just west of Holcombe...the field had been declared disaster due to some kind of infestation, was subsequently "manipulated" per "normal agricultural practices" for that particular blight - burned - and when the ducks got into that field, truckloads of obervers were parked along the highway...and a few lucky locals, unforunately not me, got to hunt it with great success. They weren't issued citations, I suppose, because of the normal ag qualifier. But look closely at how manipulation is described below...Plain and simple if the field has been harvested or partially harvested it can be hunted, if it is being knocked down without harversting it is considered baited.


From the USFWS Site...

What Is Baiting?

You cannot hunt waterfowl by the aid of baiting or on or over any baited area where you know or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited.

Baiting is the direct or indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could lure or attract waterfowl to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them.

A baited area is any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or feed could serve as a lure or attraction for waterfowl.

The 10-Day Rule

A baited area remains off limits to hunting for 10 days after all salt, grain, or other feed has been completely removed. This rule recognizes that waterfowl will still be attracted to the same area even after the bait is gone.

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 harvested and use these areas for waterfowl hunting.

The presence of seed or grain in an agricultural area rules out waterfowl hunting unless the seed or grain is scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, normal agricultural harvesting, normal agricultural post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice.

These activities must be conducted in accordance with recommendations of the State Extension Specialists of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Cooperative Extension Service).

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.

Normal agricultural plantings do not involve the placement of seeds in piles or other heavy concentrations. Relevant factors include recommended planting dates, proper seed distribution, seed bed preparation, application rate, and seed viability.

A normal soil stabilization practice is a planting for agricultural soil erosion control or post mining land reclamation conducted in accordance with recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service.

Lands planted by means of top sowing or aerial seeding can only be hunted if seeds are present solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting or normal soil stabilization practice (see section on wildlife food plots).

Harvesting & Post-Harvest Manipulation
A normal agricultural harvest is undertaken for the purpose of gathering a crop. In general, the presence of long rows, piles, or other heavy concentrations of grain should raise questions about the legality of the area for waterfowl hunting.

A normal post-harvest manipulation first requires a normal agricultural harvest and removal of grain before any manipulation of remaining agricultural vegetation, such as corn stubble or rice stubble.

To be considered normal, an agricultural planting, agricultural harvesting, and agricultural post-harvest manipulation must be conducted in accordance with recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service (i.e., planting dates, application rates, etc.). However, the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to make final determinations about whether these recommendations were followed.

Hunters should be aware that normal harvesting practices can be unique to specific parts of the country. For example, swathing wheat crops is a part of the normal harvesting process recommended by the Cooperative Extension Service in some areas of the upper Midwest. During this process, wheat is cut, placed into rows, and left in the field for several days until it dries. Hunting waterfowl over a swathed wheat field during the recommended drying period is legal. It is illegal to hunt waterfowl over swathed wheat that becomes unmarketable or that is left in the field past the recommended drying period because these situations are not normal harvests.

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.

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.

Other Agricultural Concerns
You cannot hunt waterfowl on or over areas where farmers feed grain to livestock, store grain, or engage in other normal agricultural practices that do not meet the definition of a normal agricultural planting, harvest, or post-harvest manipulation.

Hunting Over Natural Vegetation

Natural vegetation is any non-agricultural, native, or naturalized plant species that grows at a site in response to planting or from existing seeds or other propagules.

Natural vegetation does not include planted millet because of its use as both an agricultural crop and a species of natural vegetation for moist soil management. However, planted millet that grows on its own in subsequent years is considered natural vegetation.

If you restore and manage wetlands as habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, you can manipulate the natural vegetation in these areas and make them available for hunting.

Natural vegetation does not include plants grown as agricultural crops. Under no circumstances can you hunt waterfowl over manipulated crops prior to a normal harvest. Nor can you hunt waterfowl over manipulated wildlife food plots or manipulated plantings for soil stabilization.

Problem Areas

Feeding Waterfowl and Other Wildlife
Many people feed waterfowl for the pleasure of bird watching. It is illegal to hunt waterfowl in an area where such feeding has occurred that could lure or attract migratory game birds to, on, or over any area where hunters are attempting to take them. The 10-day rule applies to such areas, and any salt, grain, or feed must be gone 10 days before hunting. The use of sand and shell grit is not prohibited.

In some areas, it is a legal hunting practice to place grain to attract some State-protected game species (i.e., white-tailed deer). But these areas would be illegal for waterfowl hunting, and the 10-day rule would apply.

Distance
How close to bait can you hunt without breaking the law? There is no set distance. The law prohibits hunting if bait is present that could lure or attract birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them. Distance will vary depending on the circumstances and such factors as topography, weather, and waterfowl flight patterns. Therefore, this question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis.

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.
What is Illegal?

Some examples of areas where you cannot hunt waterfowl include:

Areas where grain or seed has been top-sown and the Cooperative Extension Service does not recommend the practice of top sowing (see section on wildlife food plots).
Crops that have been harvested outside of the recommended harvest dates established by the Cooperative Extension Service (including any subsequent post-harvest manipulations).
Unharvested crops that have been trampled by livestock or subjected to other types of manipulations that distribute, scatter, or expose grain.
Areas where grain is present and stored, such as grain elevators and grain bins.
Areas where grain is present for the purpose of feeding livestock.
Freshly planted wildlife food plots that contain exposed grain.
Croplands where a crop has been harvested and the removed grain is redistributed or “added back” onto the area where grown.
These examples do not represent an all-inclusive list of waterfowl baiting violations.

Much to the chagrin of a former co-worker, I've often asked but yet been told a satifactory justification: dove and waterfowl are both migratory birds that respond similarly to "manipulated" ag crops, so why the different baiting regs?!

[qckmstr]

well i don't know why this really matters.. my advise/thoughts is this" take full advantage of all the loop holes of the law"

[tunica]

well i don't know why this really matters.. my advise/thoughts is this" take full advantage of all the loop holes of the law"

but most of the time dont those loop holes become useful for hanging those caught trying to quote a loophole...

[BeastMaster]

BUT WHAT DID THAT CORN EVOLVE FROM? ah ha.... got ya on that one.

[qckmstr]

LOOKS TO ME LIKE SOMEBODY DONE GOT SOME MASTERBAITERS ATTENTION WITH THIS TOPIC HUH?

[hillhunter]

another thing, if you roll rice or other crops down then it will be considered baited for the year, not just ten days, I know b/c it happened to some friends of mine a couple years ago. They spent some money to fix a place and then rolled the rice. The whole place was considered baited for the entire year.

[crow]

Rolling stubble after the rice has been harvested is perfectly legal as it is "normal agricultural practice." Rolling unharvested rice is definitely "manipulating" a crop and an no-no. My guess is they were rolling unharvested?

crow

[Wingman]

Ramsey, that's why I say it's got to be looked at on a case by case basis. It's a tricky thing with nature, crops and hunting.

A manipulated field, by federal migratory bird hunting standards, is considered baited until 10 days after all bait has been removed. In the case of a manipulated crop, it's pretty much impossible to remove all of the grain that has been knocked down, but it can be done.

[Nabby]

This is a great thread that I've tremendously enjoyed reading. Thanks guys!