Please Sign In

New To Sportsman Network?

something bugging me

i am just curious about something i can understand if you harvest corn weat or soy beans and ducks come in the field and eat the remnants how that could be legal and not really baiting given the fact that the guy operating the combine didnt keep missing the supply truck everyother pass this was done for agricultural purposes

but if you know the corn etc. is there and then you build a levee and flood it just for ducks to come eat the seeds whats the diffrence between flooding something and pouring in the corn.

2nd and even more confusing to plant corn weat soy etc.just for ducks build a levee around it and flood it theres no agricultural purpose its plainly said this corn, soy,weat etc is for ducks whats the diffence between flooding something and pouring corn in it for ducks

after rice is harvested is the field replanted and flooded for agricultural purposes or flooded to draw ducks to the rice seed but you cant flood something and dump rice in it.

just dont make since to me

stan thomas

The first is a normal agricultural practice, that occurs in every agricultural field; while dumping sacks corn isn't. The first allows farmers to earn extra income from their land, and it can be tough to make it as a farmer with weather problems and crop prices. The basic response to your question is that whoever makes the policy discourages the easy route, but allows the more diffiuclt one.
This is legal because it allows the rich and political people to enjoy hunting easily.
We have this type post EVERY YEAR. Instead of complaining here, write the LDWF or your Senators and Representatives. Quit griping here and do something. ATTEND a meeting.
well mr mafia i do go to the meeting i do talk to wlf
but no one seems to have a answer so i thought i would just throw it out there. i guess ill check with you before i ask a question again

you will find my name on the check in sheet at wlf meetings this year

it would be nice just to discuss something like adults

stan thomas
   Capt Bob
One thing for sure, you are not a farmer !!lol Left over in the fields is normal! even the US Govt do it on there wild life refuges that farmers lease for farming!! They require that farmers leave at least 10% of the crop on the ground for Birds!! Read a little, it might help your understanding of WHATS GOING ON OUT THERE!! Farmers got to live To!! Capt Bob
I dont care what anybody says.Flooded corn is done just to attract ducks.Unfair advantage.
left over for birds??? ok ill bite your right i am not a farmer. there was not a question about residue left over being able to hunt over the field, but flooding it to make the ducks eat the seed was the question.

i did check on the webb for goverment requiring farmers to leave 10percent of crops for birds i didnt find it(not saying it was not there,not saying you dont know what your talking about either,if you do know were to find this could you tell me,are you a farmer? or is this what someone told you.
but i did find some fedral rules about intentionaly disturbing crops for ducks some how i would think leaving 10percent for birds then flooding it would fall under that

i am not against farmers makeing a living. but if were gonna bend the rules for farmers why not bend them for a sheet rock hanger,they got to eat to, ill tell you why because it would not benifit

anyone makeing the rules governing hunting and allow people that could afford it to hord up ducks,its not really about bending it for farmers i think the underlineing factor is were bending it so certain well off people can enjoy a nice cornfield full of ducks. it then allows farmers to make extra money which makes them happy them upper middleclass can also profit to some degree. and the average guy well what ever the fields want hold it filters on down

i think that the more money someone makes the better they should be able to live if they choose i think if they want they should be able to have bigger houses cars able to pay for reall nice hunting trips. they worked hard they deserve it.

but rules should not be bent for anybody when it concerns something like duck hunting.

be that as it may,,, planting corn or what ever, never harvesting it, and flooding it then advertising come hunt our corn fields or whatever fields is baiting, but it is legal

why is it legal we all know why

the thought that it discourages the easy does hold some water mr e .. but its shallow water, but very true

because then why couldnt some poor guy that has to drive 30mins by boat then paddle in, blind up just to hunt be able to fill his pot hole up with corn to. it wasnt easy,
can we make a easy baiting law and then a difficult baiting law

we all know why because it wouldnt benifit anyone that would be able to change any of the laws

so were am i going with all this just shining the light on what is and what ant

in my openion which dosnt amout to squat nor should it
ducks should not be allowed to be hunted in any field that has been flooded after grain has been harvested

nor should ducks be allowed to be hunted in any field that has been planted and flooded with unharvested grain in it

will it ever happen no but it felt good to whine about it lol
i am done i feel better stan

Ok I dont hunt any private land or anything like that but have you ever actually look around a field after it has been harvist there's not much left at all! Im not sure on the number but only like a small percent is left from modern harvisting pratcises. From what I understand a field has more actracting power just left Idel with nuthing but grass and natural wetland plants it provides the ducks with much more nutrience and food. And if the rice belt was gone there wouldn't be half the ducks in the state that they have. Thats all they would have to do is stay up north and feed and dry fields that probly isn't coverd by snow most years. Im not to sure about planting for ducks only and not part of a agricultural opperation but I think thats allready a no no I could be wrong though. They have alot of agricultural stuff where I live and I promise you that not even half have ducks most of the time. Yea just because people put in a pitblind and charge 5000 to hunt there doesn't mean they kill anything. I know a few place's like this and there lucky to kill a few spoonie's and teal and if they wanna pay to do that I say letumm there the one's wasing there mony, most duck probly feed in the fields at night and go to marsh to rest anyways. On any given day I bet people with a good marsh lease kill more ducks than sombody thats hunts in a field. If your looking for a reason to blame about not killing ducks I dont think this is your silver bulit if your not happy about riding in a boat for 20min then padeling I sugjest you find another spot to hunt complaning wont get you anymore ducks.
i dont paddle in i hunt out of a boat i do kill ducks
i dont wont to dump corn. but have your ever seen a flooded corn field flooded just for ducks look unless there is a lot of pressure here not going to pass up grain for grass and yep your right under normal harvest theres not much left key word normal harvest

but what is the diffrence between planting corn and flooding it and just dumping it flooded corn is flooded corn and if baiting didnt make a diffrence why is there even a baiting law one is legal and one is not why is that is the question

as far as more ducks being killed in the marsh than ag fields i think if you start at canada and work down i think you will find most of the big duck hunts are in fields some flooded some just with a lot of grain some how left over

nope not looking for a silver bullet and i do move with the ducks,
Why every year do people have to cry like baby's cause someone else is doing something different. I grew up out side of Monroe, La and for 10 years now we have hunted standing flooded corn. You can grow it and hunt it as long has you do not knock it down in anyway. Just like dove fields and hunting over sunflowers or milo.

I would think some of you guys in this post have to be in there 30's to 40's and have been hunting at least 15-20 years and by now should knows Louisiana hunting laws and regulations.

I have also hunted the marsh which is nothing wrong with that but I can promise you that a bunch of teal, spoonbills, grey's and maybe a mallard or two every year out the marsh does not hold up to the number of mallards we kill every year in corn fields. I can name 3 other hunting places in north La that also hunt flooded corn/soybean fields that are not harvest and they also hammer mallards all year.

Info spoonies and teal never land in our corn fields never seen one and three fields over from our corn we have millet that we plant and the spoonies and teal wrapup over there. We kill mallards, widgeon, pintails, and woodies out the corn fields.

We have 4 fields 32 acers of flooded corn that is standing and last year was our worst year due to weather and we still killed 462 mallards out of it. 6 to 8 guys and thats it in our club no pit blinds you stand and hunt

So you marsh hunters good luck I hope you guys have a great year btu I rather stick to corn fields and timber

When I said spoonies and teal I was kinda giving a refrence to that alot of place's you dont get what you pay for. heck Ill shoot spoonies and teal all day long with a ear to ear smile on my face. I was just saying someplace's are like that not all, I know of good place's and bad one's. I know some place's smoke the ducks. Im not trying to nock the way anybody hunts Ive hunted in field not standing corn but milo and beans and rice,I guess it just didnt come out the way I ment it. And FYI im not a marsh hunter I may hunt it a little bit ,but I spend most of my hunts In north LA In the Timber.
you made my point green head getter i will never cry over a stupid duck, but still you are avoiding the question whats the diffrence between planting corn and throwing it out you think the ducks are in your field to eat the corn stalks no there eating the corn if there was no corn or milo there would be no were near the ducks and if you didnt flood it there would be no ducks because the corn would just stay upright and on the stalks the water causes the stalks to fall into the water. thank you for makeing my point

its legal alright but the question is why
Waterfowl Hunting and Baiting

Waterfowl and other migratory birds are a national resource protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Hunting waterfowl is a popular sport in many parts of the country. Federal and State regulations help ensure that these birds continue to thrive while providing hunting opportunities.

Federal baiting regulations define key terms for hunters and land managers, and clarify conditions under which you may legally hunt waterfowl. As a waterfowl hunter or land manager, it is your responsibility to know and obey all Federal and State laws that govern the sport. State regulations can be more restrictive than Federal regulations.

Waterfowl baiting regulations apply to ducks, geese, swans, coots, and cranes.

Federal regulations are more restrictive for waterfowl hunting than for hunting doves and other migratory game birds. You should carefully review the Federal regulations. You may also want to check our information on dove hunting and baiting .

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).

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.

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. For More Info...... If Ya Need It...
we talked to a wildlife and fisheries agent last year after one of our hunts and he explained that we could hunt the rice fields that still had rice in them as long as it was the second crop, meaning the farmer gets one crop and usually the rice regrows for the farmer to get a second crop. it was at the beggining of the season and the farmer had not got to some fields yet. but if it is the orginal crop, it is considered baiting. this is what the wlf agent told us
I'm okay with the ag practice of hunting ducks over "harvested grain". I've shot geese and ducks over harvested fields. I had to "drive", "scout",
"obtain permission" and "hunt" in order to find what fields the birds were using. I try to subscribe to "fair chase". I don't consider growing and flooding corn to the ears as a normal agricultural practice, but I don't write the laws.

We all have different opinions of "ethical and fair chase". I chose to "hunt" rather than "shoot" my birds. There's no difference regarding ducks as there is deer hunting. Who here hasn't poured corn to deer? Some folks prefer to "hunt", "scout" and "pattern" their deer. Pouring corn is "shooting" or "harvesting" deer, to some its hunting. I have deer on "welfare" feeding in my backyard every night, I'm not going to shoot or "hunt" them. I like to watch them.

I have chosen to abstain from any invites to "duck shoots" on corn ponds. The law allows them but it doesn't mean I have to support them with my attendance. It's no different than going to a strip club or Jena 6 rally, sure it's legal but I don't have to attend.

If someone hunts over a corn pond, that's their choice, right and privilege. If they can sleep in peace at night and know they have "hunted" and contributed to "fair chase" so be it. Fighting about it isn't going to change a thing, voting about it might.