# Baiting



## FINAL_APPROACH_7 (Oct 21, 2006)

Any thoughts on the rolled cornfields that the DNR are considering baiting. I know there arresting people who hunt them.


----------



## MNgoosekiller (Aug 21, 2006)

what do they mean by 'rolling cornfields?' I'm wondering if its legal to hunt corn fields that arent completely harvested. thanks


----------



## FINAL_APPROACH_7 (Oct 21, 2006)

The farmers roll the corn over when they want to get insurace coverage on it, either it froze or just turned out crappy. they call it baiting because all of the corn is just rolled over in the field and not harvested. So the DNR who are still trying to find ways so no one shoots any more ducks in ND and MN are arresting people, who hunt them.


----------



## FINAL_APPROACH_7 (Oct 21, 2006)

u can hunt a field that isnt completely harvested in ND and sometimes u can hide in the standing corn shocks :wink:


----------



## MNgoosekiller (Aug 21, 2006)

Thanks for the info, I haven't found any MN regulation against hunting fields with corn still standing, so I assume that its ok. Thanks again! happy hunting!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> u can hunt a field that isnt completely harvested in ND and sometimes u can hide in the standing corn shocks


Kind of.............. In all honesty the law seems to be pretty unclear dispite the fact that they just rewrote it a couple of years back to clarify it.

It used to be that any such field was considered baited only for a period of ten days. Now I don't see that reference. It also references "post harvest manipulation" but as interpreted... anything that is manipulated but not "harvested" (such as rolling crops that have been damaged) is not legal. At the same time hunting a standing crop (unharvested or otherwise touched) appears to be legal. Which when looked at logically privides the same "draw" to birds as a rolled or otherwise manipulated field. It is really a poorly written regulation. The intent was to prohibit the intentional spreading of food for bait but is more effective in getting honest hunters in trouble than bagging bad guys. I'm not really sure there is a way to right a good law that serve the intended purpose.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

I have heard of the same thing happening around in several areas. If I remember right our proc here in ND says that rolled corn is a no no. Plus it could be considered hunting in unharvested crop.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

You can hunt standing crops, that is legal. But you can NOT hunt crops that have not been harvested AND then plowed, disked, or rolled. Basically some how "manipulated", (that is the key word), it is off limits. This goes for wheat, corn, beans or whatever crop is planted.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Right on the head H20.
You CANNOT hunt fields that HAVE NOT been harvested and than worked.
The key is being harvested. If they didnt run a combine over it, its off limits. I believe. And technically, you cannot hunt birds that are on their way to that field either, even if your a half mile away. Because their heading to a "baited" field.

Its stupid.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

You are right on the standing crop, which I believe is a bogus rule as well.

The big wigs just dont understand that in a failed crop year, (like corn in 2004) not harvesting it and just knocking it down is a viable farming practice.

And I just dont understand why theyd let you hunt standing crop, thats a good way to piss off a landowner.


----------



## goosehunter21 (May 18, 2004)

The thing that I don't understand is how you can flood a corn field and hunt that!! How is that not baited. My dad farms and in my opinion you should be able to hunt any rolled corn field in Nodak, because it is a natural farming practice. This law is a bunch of BS!!


----------



## duckbuster434 (Apr 11, 2005)

We had to roll our corn in 04 also and we couldn't even hunt our own fields. I also don't understand why the feds were enforcing the baiting rule during the spring light goose season because I thought the point of the spring season was to reduce light goose numbers. I also think this law is a bunch of BS


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

The reason you can flood a field and hunt it is because down south where all the rich congressman hunt on duck clubs, thats exactly what they do. The field is unharvested and than flooded. That is why it is legal to hunt standing crop.

Its a stupid a** rule, and I honestly have not heard of anyone being cited for hunting on "baited" land. I know I would fight it tooth and nail.


----------



## goosehunter21 (May 18, 2004)

I would definately fight it as well, and I know for damn sure I wouldn't quit till I won! Cuz it is a bunch of BS!!!


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

goosehunter21 said:


> I would definately fight it as well, and I know for damn sure I wouldn't quit till I won! Cuz it is a bunch of BS!!!


You must be rich to hire and pay all those attorney fees and to piss away that kind of money, as you would loose.

FYI, it is a Federal law. Do I necessarilly agree with it when hunting Snows, no, but I will none the less abide with the law.

Here is what would happen if there was not such a law, the guides and other people would intentionally leave 20-40 acres unharvested and them disk the whole field to intentionally lure waterfowl to the field and thus gain an advantage being it is baited. Heck big outfitts would till the whole field under for their clients shooting pleasure. That is why the law exists---to prevent intentional abuses. Thus manipulated unharvested fields are off limits and ALL waterfowl going to and from the field are off limits too, meaning if the geese are roosting 8 miles away, every field from the roost to the baited field is off limits too. That is how the law reads. Remember many hunters are already unhappy with the G/O, imagine if they were hunting a baited field and where you had access tp on the next field over it was not baited, and they were slaughtered then and you got zip? This law evens out the playing field to some degrees so average Joe hunters can get decent shooting too, otherwise the rich guys would definately hunt over baited fields. Don't think so, you should ask the hunters living down on the Mason-Dixie line and south of it why they flood the unharvested fields? It is perfectly legal because the crop was not manipulated according to the USFWS. And my opinion is that is dandamount to hunting a baited field as they maniplulated the field by pumping water into it. But that is my personal opinion---and not the law, and thus legal to flood standing crops and hunt it. Meanwhile we northern state hunters get the shaft IMHO. But nothing that I or you can do about it, accept write a letter to the USFWS and complain about the law and ask them to rewite it NOT allowing intentionally flooded fields to be hunted.

Guys, here read this to get better educated on baited fields per the USFWS 
http://www.fws.gov/le/HuntFish/waterfowl_baiting.htm


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

Great post h20fwlr! I could not have stated it better. Oh, and the precedent had already been set. I believe it was in Pierre, South Dakota last year where they pressed the issue towards some outfitters. They lost, appealed the charge, and lost in appellate court. Remember the rules say that you, and only you, are responsible for making sure the field is not baited before hunting it. If one is unsure, ask the land owner if anything might be amiss with the field. Also find out what normal farming practices are in your are by talking the local county agent. Fight it you may, but I say you will loose! Or it might end up costing more than it is worth.

Ima870man


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

Oh, I forgot to mention this too, but those flooded grain fields become baited once one walks through the corn or millet knocking any of it out of the stock into the water. Thats what it states in the rules on the Feds web page. So take it what it's worth.

Ima870man


----------



## goosehunter21 (May 18, 2004)

Im not rich by any means, and im not looking to start an argument over whether it is right or wrong, because it is wrong and i know that. The only thing i don't understand is that it is a natural farming process so it shouldn't be considered bated.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Hmmmm, I dont think many farmers in this area would intentionally plow under 20-40 acres of crop just so some g/o could have better hunting.

I know that in 2004 (the last time this was a HUGE issue) certain key people (ag experts) testified to the feds that rolling corn that year was a viable farming practice given the conditions of the mostly failed crop. And that was the last anyone heard of it, I know guys that hunted rolled corn all year, never got busted, and I never heard of anyone getting cited for hunting a "baited" field. I could be wrong, but I never heard of anyone in ND getting nailed.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

If a the G/O paid the farmer enough $ so it was ecnomical, certainly a farmer would do it. The key is many G/O would lease the land and farm it with the intention of doing it. As mentioned, SD there was a case about intentional delayed harvest, as it was deemed as baiting and the Feds won this summer in court.

As for the ND guys hunting rolled corn 1.5 years ago, yes it was illegal, and yes the Feds were citing hunters when they encountered them. It was even in the Devils Lake newspaper that about 36 tickets were given out the week before, that was in April of 05.

The question is this. Even when you disagree with the law, do you abide by the law? If you want to know about a persons real character, if they know they would not get caught, what in fact would they do? As that is that persons real ethics in life are. No different if it is hunting a rolled field, or they find a truck unlocked with valuables on the front seat, or the farmers machine shed open and easy taking of tools can be done, or what ever the circumstances are. So what do you do? Whatever is your action or inaction is, is in fact what you are and the character that you are.


----------



## goose0613 (Oct 24, 2003)

I guess I don't disagree with the law entirely. I can see outlawing the intentional baiting of waterfowl, but for somebody to be ticketed for running traffic that is considered 'baited birds' -- that is just not reasonable to me.

We ran into this situation hunting early season honkers this year in Barnes county. We avoided the unharvested fields and hunted geese that were obviously not in that flight path. We did get checked by a ND CO. The first thing I asked him about were these fields. I can't repeat his exact words, but he let us know that the ND game and fish did not agree with the law either. He warned that the Feds would be watching it closely this year. Any ND COs here that can elaborate on that?


----------

