DuckSouth.com

eSJay wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:If we are being honest, it is not normal to leave 50 to 100 acres of corn uncut or to harvest a strip through the middle of standing corn in an ag field. There is nothing normal about it. That is the basis of my question and I still don't have an answer from the OP. I would like to know though...not to flame but just to make sure I am legal.

DM - I know you want an answer from Rob, but my take on your scenario is that you are legal to hunt & kill ducks as long as you or your dog do not trample the standing corn on the way to retrieve a downed duck. Leaving standing corn for hunters has actually become "normal" these days.

I would like to know if my thought process aligns with Rob's answer.

Actually, I don't think that is correct. You are allowed to trample standing corn to retrieve a downed duck.
From Rob's link:

"You can hunt waterfowl on or over or from:

•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. "


Apparently, using a UTV to retrieve birds while knocking down corn with said UTV is considered "intentional". I would tend to agree.

As I was reading up on the link in the OP, I noticed a regulation I've never noticed before:

"Rallying. You cannot hunt waterfowl that have been concentrated, driven, rallied, or stirred up with a motorized vehicle or sailboat."

I hunted some public land Saturday and had never seen it so bad. Not even an early flight of ANYTHING. We were on our way out, powered by a 2.5HP mercury 2-stroke, when we flushed some woodies about 200 yards away. I shut the engine down, and we came to a complete stop. I understand that we were legal as it pertains to "hunting from a motorized vehicle" as we were not under any motion as a result of a motor. BUT I didn't know it would have been illegal to shoot those ducks had they flushed towards us.

Our guns were unloaded and cased, so it wasn't an issue. But at the distance the birds flushed, I would have easily been able to uncase, load up, and fire had I wanted to. Personally, I just don't think that's very much fun or sporting. But I didn't know until now that it would have been illegal.

Learn something new every day!

Deltamud77 wrote:If we are being honest, it is not normal to leave 50 to 100 acres of corn uncut or to harvest a strip through the middle of standing corn in an ag field. There is nothing normal about it. That is the basis of my question and I still don't have an answer from the OP. I would like to know though...not to flame but just to make sure I am legal.

I answered your question yesterday. Check your messages. I am through publicly answering questions on this forum. Those of you who know me, feel free to call or stop by and I'll help you in any way I can.

Smoke68 wrote:

eSJay wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:If we are being honest, it is not normal to leave 50 to 100 acres of corn uncut or to harvest a strip through the middle of standing corn in an ag field. There is nothing normal about it. That is the basis of my question and I still don't have an answer from the OP. I would like to know though...not to flame but just to make sure I am legal.

DM - I know you want an answer from Rob, but my take on your scenario is that you are legal to hunt & kill ducks as long as you or your dog do not trample the standing corn on the way to retrieve a downed duck. Leaving standing corn for hunters has actually become "normal" these days.

I would like to know if my thought process aligns with Rob's answer.

Actually, I don't think that is correct. You are allowed to trample standing corn to retrieve a downed duck.
From Rob's link:

"You can hunt waterfowl on or over or from:

•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. "


Apparently, using a UTV to retrieve birds while knocking down corn with said UTV is considered "intentional". I would tend to agree.

I agree, now that I went back & read the whole thing. I saw trampling listed as not legal, but i suppose that's only if done by a motorized vehicle. I had always considered "trampling" to be done by feets. Heck, I know some folks that could knock down more corn stalks by accident chasing a duck than a Ranger or 4-wheeler could do on purpose

Wingman wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:If we are being honest, it is not normal to leave 50 to 100 acres of corn uncut or to harvest a strip through the middle of standing corn in an ag field. There is nothing normal about it. That is the basis of my question and I still don't have an answer from the OP. I would like to know though...not to flame but just to make sure I am legal.

I answered your question yesterday. Check your messages. I am through publicly answering questions on this forum. Those of you who know me, feel free to call or stop by and I'll help you in any way I can.

My bad...you certainly did. I appreciate it.

Bercy wrote:A lot of these questions seem to be answered by the link Wingman provided above. It uses the word "normal" 38 times in a lot of different circumstances explaining things.

"Normal" doesn't have anything to do with leaving unharvested grain as it is perfectly legal to leave and hunt non-harvested grain.

As far as the strip through 50 acres of corn - not normal would be to run a combine and just disburse and not collect the grain; thus, one strip that is cut and grain collected is perfectly "normal".

Of course, I saw something recently where a farmer/hunter up north left some corn late into the season and it was deemed to not be "normal" because 98% or so of the farmed corn had already been harvested.

So yes, the interpretation of "normal" is not always, well, normal.

Why be "normal"? "Normal" is boring. No one wants to go through life just being "normal" anyway.

Don Miller wrote:

Bercy wrote:A lot of these questions seem to be answered by the link Wingman provided above. It uses the word "normal" 38 times in a lot of different circumstances explaining things.

"Normal" doesn't have anything to do with leaving unharvested grain as it is perfectly legal to leave and hunt non-harvested grain.

As far as the strip through 50 acres of corn - not normal would be to run a combine and just disburse and not collect the grain; thus, one strip that is cut and grain collected is perfectly "normal".

Of course, I saw something recently where a farmer/hunter up north left some corn late into the season and it was deemed to not be "normal" because 98% or so of the farmed corn had already been harvested.

So yes, the interpretation of "normal" is not always, well, normal.

Why be "normal"? "Normal" is boring. No one wants to go through life just being "normal" anyway.

Good question...in this case being "normal" can save you $30K.

Wingman, I believe you help the sport by answering questions on a public forum.

I had always been under the misconception that a hunter could be ticketed for hunting over bait simply by having brushed up against cornstalks and knocking kernels to the ground. This idea always seemed to me to be unfair and simply intended to provide a ticket-happy game warden an opportunity to write citations.

I was much relieved to read the linked USFWS bulletin that clarified the point with the following language that has already been mentioned:

It is legal to hunt over "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. "

I never had a problem with the regulation prohibiting hunting over corn that was intentionally knocked down for the sole purpose of making bait, but inadvertence was another story.

On another regulatory note, there is a compelling argument that the existing tagging and transport regulations are written, and can be enforced, in a way that tends to penalize well-meaning and otherwise legal hunters.

What about beans that were left in front of the pit by the farmer to "leave some food"? Obviously, by now every single bean has popped out, so there is no grain to manipulate. There is nothing but a stalk there. Can those stalks be manipulated so that we can hunt the pit? Open water is out of gun range.