# HUNTERS MUST AVOID BAITED FIELDS, SAYS USFWS



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

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 www.fws.gov


----------



## Booster (Sep 8, 2003)

WOW! I didn't know that rolling a field or even burning was against the law??? That is news to me I guess. If more people realize that it is against the law then that will just leave more fields for me to hunt then! (Just Kidding) :lol:


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

It's not against the law for the farmer to do these things, it is against the law to hunt in fields that have been manipulated in these ways without it being harvested.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Very poorly written regulation. Confusing, difficult to interpret and/or enforce and lacks common sense. I realize the intent of this regulation however common sense would say what is the difference between a grain field that is left standing and naturally dropping grain on the ground and one that has been mowed, burned or disced under without harvesting. The SAME amount of grain is available in either case. Did they (USFWS) not rule several years ago that we COULD hunt in swathed fields? Wouldn't that fit under the classification of pre-harvest manipulation? It doesn't address any manipulation that may take place during harvest. A farmer could grow a food plot and blow 1/2 the grain out the back of a combine if he chose and as long as he had some record of harvest of the field (grain in the bin) what could be done? If a farmer cuts his hailed out field, harrows the straw into rows and burns it how does the USFWS determine if it was pre or post harvest as many farmers do this post harvest? How about the same field bailed? Is that considered harvesting. If not, why? I know of farmers who often bale their barley crops. Another law in need of change.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Ummmmmmmm could someone clarify those terms for us agriculturally ignorant? Some of them are obvious by the names, but maybe more specifically, what do the fields look like in comparison to being harvested??

Rolling:
Burning:
Discing:
Flattening
Mowing:
Brush-hogging:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Disced fields???In normal years almost all are disced or chisel plowed or drug to get the spilled grain to germinate.

I guess we are all breaking the law then????


----------



## Goosepride (Sep 29, 2003)

I agree with you Ken. Remmi makes a good point too. Not every person knows what all that stuff means. They need to make it a little bit clearer. I grew up in NW ND and most of my buddies are farmers, and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be confused by some of that or understand the logic behind it.

If discing is what I think it is, then I would have to say that I've violated this law as well. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Can anybody clarify for us Ag-ignorant people??? :huh:


----------



## duckslayer (Oct 30, 2003)

:sniper:


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

So if a field that has been disced or turned over, we can still hunt if it has been harvested? Right? If not, somebody want to buy my Big foots?


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

What this means is if the above (discing, rolling, cultivating etc.) are done instead of harvesting. You fine if it has been harvested, then cultivated or rolled!


----------



## duckslayer (Oct 30, 2003)

:sniper:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

dbl and ds are right on track as to disced corn - if it's been harvested, no problem - if it's disced instead of harvested, no go. And man if the rules are followed are there a lot of feeding refuges in the northern tier of the state.

Think this a "toss the baby out with the bathwater" thing. Because some would be tempted to disc a perfectly good corn patch just to attract waterfowl, they're off limits even when it occures in the norm. But, why is that more worthy of prohibiting than intentionally flooded crops? Think that's one of those southern rice tradition things that essentially got grandfathered. Doesn't hunting something that's intentionally manipulated for hunting seem worse, though, than hunting a half-matured and normally disced corn field?

The one that stumps me is ds2's point about bailing crops. Is the field "havested" when the bails are formed or only after they're removed? I would lean towards the latter, only because the "crop" is still in the field.

And, anything burned, bailed, disced, etc that is "baited" for the Fall I assume remains so for the spring goose deal too. Going to be a lot of feeding refuges up north next spring too.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I think this is going to require a call to the office for a clarification! See the things they are saying are illegal all fall under normal Ag practices regardless if it scatters more grain and such. Failed crops have to be turned down to reduce residue. I remember this issue surfacing back in 93 and I do believe that a Fed Judge ruled this way when the grain fields where burned back then!

Seems inconsistent at best, but until I find otherwise I will respect the notice!


----------



## Niles Short (Mar 18, 2004)

so burned fields would be considered baited as well....


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

God, we used to hunt burned fields all the time in the early 90's. The snows loved that stuff-------smelled like popcorn!!!! :lol:


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

Burned fields that have been harvested can be hunted the way i understand it. You should be able to tell the difference.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This from the US Fish and Wildlife Website!

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.

The Hunter's Responsibility

As a waterfowl hunter, you are responsible for determining whether your proposed hunting area is baited. Before hunting, you should:

Familiarize yourself with Federal and State waterfowl hunting regulations. 
Ask the landowner, your host or guide, and your hunting partners if the area has been baited and inspect the area for the presence of bait. 
Suspect the presence of bait if you see waterfowl feeding in a particular area in unusually large concentrations or displaying a lack of caution. 
Look for grain or other feed in the water, along the shore, and on the field. Pay particular attention to the presence of spilled grain on harvested fields and seeds planted by means of top sowing. 
Confirm that scattered seeds or grains on agricultural lands are present solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, normal agricultural harvesting, normal agricultural post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice by consulting the Cooperative Extension Service. 
Abandon the hunting site if you find grain or feed in an area and are uncertain about why it is there. 
Other Responsibilities

If you prepare lands for hunting, participate in such preparations, or direct such preparations, it is important for you to know and understand what practices constitute baiting. You should know what activities constitute baiting and when lands or other areas would be considered baited before such areas are hunted. If you bait or direct that an area be baited and allow waterfowl hunting to proceed, you risk being charged with an offense that carries significant penalties.


----------



## Ithaca1 (Nov 24, 2003)

"bandon the hunting site if you find grain or feed in an area and are uncertain about why it is there."

Well thats a good explanation USFW!! Why would birds be in a field if there was not grain present??? The way they word it lots of pea fields would be considered baited because they shell out while being harvested some more than others which depends on maturity and moisture. WHAT IF THE FARMER USES A GLEANER COMBINE THAT"S JUST AS BAD AS BAITING. THIS IS NO JOKE!!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Thanks for posting that Ron !!


----------



## Niles Short (Mar 18, 2004)

buddy just got back from around DL area and said they are knocking down corn feilds and just leaving them without havesting and plowing - birds will stay put for awhile there


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

20-30,000 acres of downed corn in ramsey county effected by this. Word on the street is that the G&F will not be enforcing. I say Fock it and shootem thats why we buy a license. US F&W should pull their heads out their arce.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

how in the he&% are we supposed to know if the fields been harvested or just tilled down. i think they should maybe sit down and re think those regulations.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I guess that is the point I tried to make. If grain stands long enough the stalks will bend/break, it will lodge and the seeds will fall on the ground or water in a flooded field. In actuality more grain would be on the ground than if the crop was just tilled under. But that is legal. It defies logic. In the same thought the practices for post harvest and unharvested crops are generally the same. When a crop is un-harvistable isn't the next step post harvest manipulation? I know some farmer who drop the straw from the combine then burn it later. Who's to know (including the USFWS) if it was a harvested or unharvested field(swaths) that was burned. If the birds feed on the field for 10 days is the bait considered to be removed? It doesn't specify method of removal. Once most of the excess grain has germinated is it still baiting? I question how many judges would find guilt without some evidence of intent to bait.


----------



## Gilly (Dec 15, 2002)

I just talked to a farmer yesterday afternoon and he said that on Tuesday you will be able to hunt these fields. If the game and fish should ban anything it should be these damn boats out on the roosts. Just my opinion.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

:beer: :beer: . Im with you Gilly!!


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

tell you what if it is land that you own i would like to see them try to do something about it. Many that i know are going to test the waters as will I, oh yeah i already have, but i won't give the details.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If the corn did not make corn and the farmer ploughs it down because it is not worth harvesting it is not baiting. He isn't plowing it down because he wants to hunt it, he is plowing it down because it didn't make corn. Nobody is going to come and get you for baiting. Some of you must be city slickers. Wardens aren't out to put a rap on you they are there to enforce the laws. Seems to me the intent is the kicker. If you do it because you intend to hunt it then yes it is baiting.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> If the corn did not make corn and the farmer ploughs it down because it is not worth harvesting it is not baiting. He isn't plowing it down because he wants to hunt it, he is plowing it down because it didn't make corn. Nobody is going to come and get you for baiting. Some of you must be city slickers. Wardens aren't out to put a rap on you they are there to enforce the laws. Seems to me the intent is the kicker. If you do it because you intend to hunt it then yes it is baiting.


Are you sure about that? The regulation doesn't read as you say. And what constitutes a city slicker in your mind?


----------



## Ithaca1 (Nov 24, 2003)

I think I would get the federal game warden's opinion on the field if there is a doubt in your mind about the field considered to be baited.


----------



## kingme88 (Sep 22, 2004)

I believe that you cannot even hunt they flyway to a baited field. I heard that last year in MN. What a joke! Warden said it is our responsibility to know the area. So if some little old lady is throwing out corn in her yard and you are shooting birds on the way to her yard it is unlawful. WOW! That means every bird out there is baited. We need better rules.


----------



## Gilly (Dec 15, 2002)

Kingme is right. They say that you cannot hunt the field adjacent to a downed corn field. It realy doesn't matter, a farmer northwest of DL told me Saturday afternoon the the ban is going to be lifted tomorrow (Tuesday). If I were going to do it would double check this though. On Friday night I talked to 2 or three farmers from up that way and none of them are happy about the ban either.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ah, yes the common sense approach. With thousands of acres of corn that did not make corn found throughout N. Dak. they will not be picking hunters up for hunting baited fields. If all the corn were harvested and there is one field that appears to not get harvested and then put under I would say red flag! Comon sense says...


----------

