# USFWS warns hunters about baited fields



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

USFWS warns hunters about baited fields

Bismarck Tribune

By RICHARD HINTBy RICHARD HINTON

As the early Canada goose season nears its Friday opener, migratory game bird hunters need to make sure they aren't set up in a baited field.

That's the word in this drought year from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Many farmers' fields yielded stunted small grains that weren't harvested, especially in the southern part of North Dakota, Rich Grosz, the USFWS special agent in Bismarck, said Wednesday.

"If the farmer doesn't harvest and goes typically to discing, tilling or things of that nature, it makes a baited field because it was never harvested," he said.

Manipulating a field increases loose grain availability on the ground and creates an unfair advantage to the hunter, Grosz explained. Agricultural crops include wheat, corn, barley, oats, flax, beans, peas and similar crops. Manipulation practices can be rolling, burning, discing, flattening, mowing, brush-hogging or similar actions, he said.

Species covered by the baiting regulations are ducks, geese, cranes, swans and coots. Resident game birds, such as pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse or Hungarian partridges, are not affected by baiting, Grosz said.

Wheat and other small grain crops were especially affected by heat and drought in the southern portions of North Dakota and much of South Dakota, Grosz added.

"The primary focus is small grains, but it could be corn up in northern North Dakota that did not produce and was zeroed out," he said.

Hunters should inspect a field to see if it has been harvested or just knocked down, Grosz said.

"If hunters still are not sure, contact the landowner or whoever has control over that land and ask them, 'Did you harvest that crop?' Do some homework," he continued. "If hunters do that, a lot of these concerns or questions will be abated."

Grosz compares an agricultural cycle not impacted by perverse weather conditions to three links to a chain.

"First there's normal agriculture planting, then there is a normal agriculture harvest at the right time of year and with the right type of machinery to remove grain from the field. Then there's normal post-harvest manipulation," he said.

For many producers this year, the sequence was broken because the harvest didn't happen.

"That's causing the baiting situation," he said. "We're trying to get sportsmen and women to keep those three things in mind. You have to form a circle."


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I think they need to reevaluate what they consider a baited field.

Under these circumstances, alot of fields are going to be off limits! :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This has been an issue ever since I can remember. It is the law, and we have to abide by it. Does not mean we have to like it!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Is it kind of like hunting in a flooded rice field?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Yes Old Hunter that was one of the original reasons for the very existence of the law.

The problem is every year seemingly well intentioned guys who aren't trying to break the law get caught in this Fed trap. The G&F hates the way the law is worded as well as there is so much ambiguity.

The USFWS needs to make a drought exception to the law. In other words, if a given county has had a drought declaration and is receiving federal crop insurance assistance, then that county is exempted from the baiting provision of the USFWS for purposes of hunting, so long as the hunting taking place is not a guided/paid hunt.

The logic being for this is that hunting clubs/outfitters might intentionally roll their fields to increase bird usage. A farmer would always do what is required by law to qualify for the assistance and/or minimize any additional costs to his operation by not touching the field.

This would leave the average hunter not have to worry about being an expert on the "status" of the field, while providing opportunities to hunt on fields that would otherwise consequently be off limits due to the farmer just leaving his field "as is".

My .02

Ryan

edited by me for clarity.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

It is legal with permission to hunt standing crops.

Federal Register USFW

(i) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a 
person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been 
baited. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits:
(1) the taking of any migratory game bird, including waterfowl, 
coots, and cranes, on or over the following lands or areas that are not 
otherwise baited areas--
(i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); 
standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice;

Bob


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

And these fields will be deemed baited next spring too for S&Bs.

Being the drought is from TX to the CA border, and this is a Federal law, beware in the other states too.

And remember--it is not just the feed field that is off limits, but their travelling to and from their roost to the feed field are off limits too per the Federal laws on baited fields. So running traffic if they are headed to the baited field is not legal either.


----------



## 495hp (Aug 20, 2006)

Seems logical (NOT) to me that you can grow corn, bean, milo, ect. when your only intention is to flood it and kill waterfowl and that is not baiting. Yet in drought year can't hunt a rolled field, which would be regular farming practice if recieving crop insurance. Give me a break! On top of that I will be hunting Missouri Conservation land in mouring for dove (Opener for us). Consevation Dept. plants sunflowers and mows them down to attract birds before the season. I understand the laws are to protect the resource but that is rediculous.


----------



## davenport wa. (Feb 11, 2006)

has any body checked the vilidy of this letter?? out in wa. we can hunt over winter wheat, when its growing , so what the differance just wondering if this baited field issue is really true in ND>>>bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Yup it is true. The federal regs do not prohibit hunting a standing unharvested crop as long as you do not purposely shell grain and as long as you have permission from the landowner

Bob


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

I have discussed this topic on another web page, and I will state it here again. First of all go to the USFW page and read the rules as listed: http://www.fws.gov/le/HuntFish/waterfowl_baiting.htm. One can form varying opinions from this literature with several items being ambiguous or vague. It really does not matter what one thinks, or the opinions you form. If the Federal Warden finds one hunting a field considered baited, you will find yourself cited and headed to court. It states that you have to be responsible and know if the field is baited before hunting it.

The easiest way -- I have found -- to think of it is as a three link chain. The first link is a normal agricultural planting of a crop. This in turn is linked to a normal agricultural harvest with the removal of crop from the field. This in turn is linked to a normal agricultural post harvest manipulation of the field the crop was raised in. This in turn is linked back to the first link of a normal agricultural planting of a new crop either in the fall or spring. Break the chain from link one to link three, and the field will be considered baited.

I do believe it states this quite well within the feds regulations. I do not necessarily agree with everything and the way it is stated, but I will ask first before I hunt a field. What is considered normal agricultural practices does vary from region to region in this country, and there are some exsamples listed in the F&W literature.

It is like gaining permission to access someones land, one asks first to gain access so as not to get kicked off and/or into trouble. If in doubt, do the same with a field one is unsure of, ask the landowner so as not to get into trouble. There has to be a harvest and removal of the crop for the entire field -- the way I see it -- so it is not considered baited.

I have seen a lot of corn -- as well as other crops -- this year mowed down and bailed. I have also heard of hunters using these fields and hunting migratory birds in them. I hope all goes well with them.

I myself do not want to loose any of my hunting privileges, so I am being very careful out there in the great outdoors.

Thanks

Ima870man


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> I have seen a lot of corn -- as well as other crops -- this year mowed down and bailed. I have also heard of hunters using these fields and hunting migratory birds in them. I hope all goes well with them


.

This constitutes harvest, Iman, bailing combining and even grazing meet the harvest standard. But your advice to ask first makes the most sense to avoid possible issues. I have a few places that had hail damage and where bailed then tilled. These are legal.

In the same area there where fields hailed out and not bailed but tilled down. These are considered baited fields!!


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

Hrmmmm, the web page I listed is down at this time 2:49 P.M. 09/27/2006.

Ron, you said bailing is an ok practice for harvesting, but in the literature it states any mowing is a manipulation of the crop. How does one bail a crop without mowing it. I am fairly sure you have read the literature before, and I am not trying to create an argument, but rather just create a more clear picture of what I can and cannot do. Hopefully, this will inform others too. I pasted part of the literature below, and the last paragraph is where I get confused on the bailing scenerio.

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.

Thanks,
Ima870man


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Iman, the cutting of grain be it to combine or bale is not the mowing they are referring to. Mowing they are referring to is using a bush hog or rotary mower to knock down the foliage with no intent to remove the grain from the field.

The key to this is removal of the grain from the field prior to disking,or tilling etc... It is not uncommon when grain becomes damaged from hail or in many cases lack of moisture to produce a sellable commodity that farmers are allowed to cut those fields for forage. The act of removing the crop in the form of a bale is no different than if they had run it through a 9600 JD combine. The bulk of the cereal grain is removed from the field.

If you are unclear or uncertain about this issue, call the USFWS and talk to the enforcement people. Hey I have called on various issues regarding the baiting rules and they are very helpful. In 02 the guys who rent my dads land had their barley crop heavily damaged from hail and wind. They tried to harvest what was left but where not getting much of the grain. So they went in with a hay bind and cut it down and then took a wheel rake and rolled the swaths together and baled it for feed.

The ground was covered in shelled out barley and broken off heads. I called told them exactly what they did and was given the green light to hunt those fields. The Fed warden stated very clearly that removal of the grain via baling or combining or even grazing for a appropriate amount of time constitutes harvest. Accidental spillage and shelled out grain from these activities is considered normal Ag practice.


----------



## bighunter (Oct 25, 2005)

i was in tis situation last year..We scouted the night before and there were over 2000ducks and about 500geese in a corn feild,not thinking anything of it it was baited.We had 7 guys and over 200 fullbodies out and we had about 6 or 7 good flocks come in and we downed some birds but then we look over a half mile away and see a game warden driving out into are field he pulled up to us very nice guy and said we have to leave b/c this field was baited ..He said himself that it is a dumb rule and that it is very hard to tell what is and isnt baited but he said he waited for a few flocks to come in to are decs so we could get some shooting..He showed us what a baited field will have in it and be considered baited,but all in all a very nice guy..I myself think that is a pathedic rule when ppl complain about all the geese and ducks being around.But least he was a nice guy about it.Good Luck to ALL
bigHunter


----------



## davenport wa. (Feb 11, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Iman, the cutting of grain be it to combine or bale is not the mowing they are referring to. Mowing they are referring to is using a bush hog or rotary mower to knock down the foliage with no intent to remove the grain from the field.
> 
> The key to this is removal of the grain from the field prior to disking,or tilling etc... It is not uncommon when grain becomes damaged from hail or in many cases lack of moisture to produce a sellable commodity that farmers are allowed to cut those fields for forage. The act of removing the crop in the form of a bale is no different than if they had run it through a 9600 JD combine. The bulk of the cereal grain is removed from the field.
> 
> ...


question for you guys in ND, what does your state game regs say about hunting over fields usually the local aurthority being your state fish and game should have the final word i'd think my 02 bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

bob

Here is the info from the NDGF Website



> In addition to state regulations, these federal rules apply to the taking and possession of migratory game birds.
> 
> No one shall take migratory game birds by the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited. You may hunt migratory game birds, including waterfowl, on, over, or from standing crops or flooded standing crops; flooded, harvested cropland; lands where grain has been scattered solely as a result of a normal agricultural planting, harvest or post-harvest manipulation; or from a blind or place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops, provided that use of such vegetation does not expose, deposit or scatter grain or other feed.
> Motor-driven vehicles may not be used off established roads or trails on federal waterfowl production areas.
> More restrictive regulations may apply to National Wildlife Refuges open to public hunting. For additional information on federal regulations, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Bismarck (701-250-4418), in Denver (303-236-7890), or a local National Wildlife Refuge office.


----------

