Ethical Question Regarding Bait

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Time to stir the pot a little.

Scenario One: 300 acre unharvested corn field is artificially flooded. Cornfield is next to a timber brake. Hunters do not hunt the field, but just the timber brake.

Scenario Two: 300 acre field is artificially flooded. Bagged corn is spread out over the field at periodic intervals for generally the same period of time that the unharvested corn field in scenario one is left standing. Assume that approximately the same amount of corn is in the field for the same period of time in each scenario. This field is next to a timber brake. Hunters do not hunt the field, but just the timber brake.

Scenario One is currently legal. Scenario Two is not legal. Each scenario provides the same advantage to the hunters in the timber brake. Why is one legal and the other not? Are either of these scenarios ethical? If you think one is ethical and the other not, please explain.

[Don Miller]

Because the law says so. I thought you were a lawyer?

[Po Monkey Lounger]

"Because the law says so"?? Now Don, you know that the ethical experts on this board do not agree that something is ethical just because it is legal.

So, answer the questions?

[Wingman]

Who is your client and which county did he receive the citation in?

[Po Monkey Lounger]

No client Rob. Just a hypothetical. Give it your best shot. Nothing you say will be quoted later ----I promise.

[Wingman]

Riight.

I'm not going to offer an answer, but I will say that I don't see how it's fair to legally manipulate dove fields but not duck holes. Maybe because the life expectancy of doves is only 2 years and something like 80% of them die their first year.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Dang Rob, first you cop out and then try to change the subject.

Come on all you ethical experts, lets hear the answers.

[Double R 2]

Riight.

I'm not going to offer an answer, but I will say that I don't see how it's fair to legally manipulate dove fields but not duck holes. Maybe because the life expectancy of doves is only 2 years and something like 80% of them die their first year.

But they are both migratory bird and they both respond to "manipulated" crops in exactly the same way. Doesn't make sense.

[dawg-n-duck]

Somebody done gone and opened a can o worms

[Greenhead22]

Here's what I want to know about a cornfield. Same scenario....300 acre field.

Field A - All 300 acres harvested - legal
Field B - All 300 acres unharvested - legal
Field C - 150 acres of 300 harvested - illegal

Now what's the difference in hunting a cut field, uncut field, and a half cut field? You can do it with sunflowers for doves....sounds like a double standard to me.

And to be honest I know more people that hunt half cut corn fields than anything else.

And I know the reasoning.....can't allow half the field to be cut then allow the other half to be cut when duck season kicks in full gear. Well how's that combine going to get into that field with 2' water and mud to contend with?

[Po Monkey Lounger]

You guys are dodging the ethics question ---just like a bunch of politicians.

Answer the question. Is either scenario ethical?? If so, why?

[Wingman]

Field C - 150 acres of 300 harvested - illegal

Jeff, that is perfectly legal.

My answer to your original question, Mr. Attorney, is that I think it's ethical to hunt over anything that has been planted and/or has produced a seed...and that has not been manipulated and deemed illegal by state or federa law. Whether that be an oak tree, a millet plant or a corn plant. There is no guarantee when you plant that seen in March that it will produce an ear that will be good in December.

Man, why do I think this is gonna come back and bite me?

[BAY KINGFISHER]

doesnt normal agricultural practice come into play, funny how not cutting something after you plant it is a normal agricultural practice,
oh, I know you leave the corn standing so the cows can eat it,
and you flood it because the cows like the water logged corn,
loop holes, in the laws, is my opinion, loop holes,
Just seems like baiting in both circumstances,
ethical?, that up to you, Id hunt it for sure,
but I guess you got to have some laws that slow down the baiting, if not, everyone would just sign up for crp, cut out holes and pour the corn to em, so at least right now if your going to legally "bait" the hole you have to plow, plant , fertilze, kill weeds, pray for rain, hope the seed pops out, just a lot of variables in it and no quarantee..
but if there wasnt any laws all you would need is a knife to cut open the sacks.....just my opinion.

[jdbuckshot]

sombody worked and sweated to grow that bumper corn crop. instead of pouring some in a hopper and riding around!

[Cotten]

[quote="Po Monkey Lounger"]You guys are dodging the ethics question ---just like a bunch of politicians.

Answer the question. Is either scenario ethical?? If so, why?[/quote]

Both of the scenario's you listed are ethical. It's legal to hunt the 300 acres of planted corn. In your scenario you are not hunting the bagged corn field, just the brake. You still have to be good enough to call em in to the brake away from the corn, whether planted, or bagged.