# 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


----------



## Draker16 (Nov 23, 2004)

I recently confronted some people hunting my Granparents field who were goose hunting in the corn field that was just knocked down. No corn was taken from the field the farmer just knocked it down so in my interpretation this would be illegal to hunt ducks and geese in. I told the hunters this, but they said that they would take their chances. Wouldn't you know about an hour later a warden drives by so i stop to talk to him and I tell him about the hunters in the corn field, and he says to me " thats basically just smoke in glass, and I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for that" end quote. I was pretty floored by his response because I've heard of people getting in trouble for it, but what can you do when the warden won't enforce the rules. (I personally think the rule is stupid to begin with, and apparently so did he since he was unwilling to enforce it), but I am wondering about accounts where people have actually gotten in trouble for this action.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

D16,

This is the difference between Fed and State rules and enforcement of those rules. The baiting rules were created by the Feds, and it's the Feds who have been sticklers about applying those rules in situations, like this year, where customary and normal farming practices create technically "baited" fields. Had these guys been spotted by or reported to USFWS officers, they'd have been popped. I'd guess most G&F wardens take a more pragmatic approach when there is clearly no intent to bait.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Yep I've heard the same thing from a couple of different sources this fall. If a state warden catches you doing it you'll probably be ok, If a federal warden catches you, your a$$ is grass. I'd rather not take the chance, I've heard the penalties can be pretty steep by the letter of the law???


----------



## Nodak Duke (Oct 14, 2003)

This law is stupid in my opinion... The idea of it is right on track, but certain conditions call for a warden to indeed to a more pragmatic approach. There are so many people that bait intentionally up and down the flyways that they really are only being sticklers in cracking down on someone who is hunting a field that has been rolled over simply because the crop is unusable.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Not only is this law stupid but completely unenforcable under the new baiting guidelines that were passed a few years ago. Before, all the feds had to do was to prove you were hunting over bait and you were guilty. It didn't matter if you knew that you were hunting over bait or not (remember Bud Grant and the guided snow goose hunt in Nebraska years back...). Now they have to prove that you were fully aware that you were hunting over bait.

Unless you're online a lot (like most of us :roll: ), I doubt there's many hunters who know about the situation this year with the corn and therefore could not be found guilty.

I'd like to know if anyone has heard of anyone getting busted for hunting in a rolled over corn field?

Also, is it true that if the field is tilled it is then no longer considered baiting? Someone was trying to tell me this.


----------



## Goose Guy350 (Nov 29, 2004)

I plant at least 15 acres of oats every year around a pond on our farm, we combine the oats but every year I brushhog some of it down because its too rough around the pond for the combine. I hunt the field after its harvested and I never have had a problem with the warden or anyone else for that matter about that being a baited field. I heard the fine for baiting is $5000 plus your gun, hunting rights for at least a year plus a few other fines, I don't know why they consider it baiting if you are not actually placing bait where you intend to hunt, they shouldn't fine you for it, the birds want to be there and you should be allowed to be there too.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt go to the USFWS web site. If after reading that you still have the same opinion go ahead and hunt a rolled field. Until the grain is removed from the field it remains baited! Many acres of corn will be off limits come the spring goose hunt.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this law, my only thought is that it be applied fairly instead of favoring commercial operation farther down the flyways.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

http://www.le.fws.gov/pdffiles/Waterfow ... aiting.pdf

Ron, I never said that I was planning on hunting a rolled corn field. I was pointing out the fact that it would be very hard for the Feds to prove that someone who was hunting a rolled field knew they were indeed in violation of the baiting laws. The law states that a person can't hunt over a baited area "where the person knows, or reasonably should know the area is or has been baited." If you look at the waterfowl regs issued by ND G&F and their summary on federal regulaions it'd be very hard for them to prove that a person should be aware that a rolled over corn field is baiting.

Furthermore, when it's legal for someone to plant a cornfield, and then flood it for the sole purpose of shooting ducks and that IS legal, and hunting a rolled cornfield that was the result of agricultural practices isn't legal...well, something is wrong with the law IMO.


----------



## wmcpartland (Dec 13, 2004)

What has it come to when we feel we need to point out a violation to the man on a fellow hunter in such a gray area? I can understand something as cut and dry as road hunting or something stupid like that but lets get back in check. Is it really that competitive to hunt waterfowl in ND or am I missing something...uh, oh...I can already hear the replys :box:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt I have had numerous talks with Fed wardens about this law for a number of years. Like you I do not see what difference it makes if you plant barley and flood it up to the head or a farmer zeroing out the field and discing it down.

However the way the regulations are stated and currently enforced the disc field is not legal. If a combine or baler had been run through the field then it is OK.

Back a few years, my father in-law had wheat still in the field the 8th of Oct laying in swaths. The grain had sprouted and was not even feed quality. He decided to harvest the grain to get rid of the straw. He had tried to burn it but had no success. We where legal hunting this field as he was attempting to harvest, yet others where ticketed for hunting similar fields. The charges where dropped when the grain was rolled up! Hence the intent to harvest rule came into play.

Simply put, either make manipulated flooding if it is not part of the Ag practice illegal also or allow fields to be hunted that are zeroed out like this year.

Once again this is an issue that Dorgan and Conrad and Pooperboy could be helping with. The current rules are written for commercial interests. Joe Hunters is the victim as a result.


----------

