I’ve seen some of those videos and I lean towards those being way more accurate and relevant than what the FF has been squawking about.

Nobody has mentioned why it is legal to hunt over flooded corn but illegal to hunt over dumped corn. The reason is agriculture is way more important than ducks on our straps. It is one of, if not the most important production we have. Comparing that production to the ducks we kill is a minuscule comparison to say the least. We care about what we get to kill. The rest of the world cares about what is grown.

Now think of the legal nightmare it would create if all of a sudden farmers and ranchers are allowed to lease flooded agriculture lands. Where is the line drawn? When does a field of corn that's been harvested become legal? We all know there is quite a bit left in the field after harvest. Rice fields? Same thing as corn. You going to outlaw hunting rice fields? Outlaw milo for doves? Where does it stop? Second off, leave the ranchers and farmers alone. They got enough crap to worry about just trying to stay afloat. Why add another law to hamper their ability to make a little something extra. Ask for what you want and you just might get it. To stop hunting on farmlands would put a serious bender on a lot of hunting.

I could present a dozen scenarios but don't think I need to.

I didnt realize so many democrats hunted ducks, government involvement is never the answer kids

Yeah, because market hunting was really good for the ducks right. Can't believe the government shut that down.

Are you saying there should not be a government? To say government has its place does not mean you are a democrat. Or to even say there should be more regulation does not mean you are a democrat. To say there should be no government means you are pure capitalist, and no one in their right mind thinks that. Regulations or laws that transfer wealth from rich to poor is a democrat thing. Don't confuse the 2.

I don't know the answer, and I probably don't know the regulations that well either, but here is my take and my interpretation of all this..

Hunting flooded crop is ok as long as it follows "normal agricultural practice". The "spirit" of law makes sense to me, what it says is farmers can make money selling hunts if his crop gets flooded, and probably ruined if flooded. To say you cannot hunted flooded crop period, would deprive farmers from making money if their crop gets flooded. That is the spirit of this reg, to put money in the farmers hand in the event their crop gets flooded, they have a hard enough time as it is.

But when you plant a crop for the sole purpose of hunting it with no intention to harvest it but you follow "normal agricultural practice" to circumvent the spirit if the regulation, that is just stupid, why even have the reg, what is the point, it is no different than just dumping bait on the ground, it is more efficient to just put out a feeder and more economical . I personally would like to see a better regulation because what is in place now makes no sense.

This reg should be replaced with regs that make sense for building natural duck habitat.

Yes everyone knows for centuries farmers have levied off fields planted it with corn not harvested it and flooded it. . I think age is catching up with some. To draw a line between agriculture importance and flooding corn for ducks is as weak wristed as I've seen.

Oh I'm 1000% serious. There is no reason tax dollars should go to land that can not be accessed and utilized by the public. There's already been movements in other states that are starting to open up refuge's to hunting.

What's truly retarded is your hunting ability. It's extremely obvious you've learned everything on youtube and ain't touched a limit of ducks in your life. Get at me when you can post a picture of a half decent hunt. I'll wait.

Since I don't post pictures I don't kill ducks, noted.
I don't hunt for limits anyways, I hunt for fun. I hunt because I like watching ducks work, and trying to fool them. Sure a limits nice, but I don't care about having one every time I go out.

And there is a reason, it's called hunting pressure, and ducks need a safe place to rest
What happens when you go into a deer's bedroom, they leave. Same thing with ducks since most refuges are roosts.
So go ahead, spread the ducks out to kingdom come and they won't decoy because you think it's okay to hunt refuges. Stupid thing to even consider

You misspelled anarchist.

As far as the migration change goes, like most things it isn't due to singular reason. I do think that flooded crops and heated ponds up north are one of the smallest factors and weather is the biggest.

All I know is that folks should quit bitching and be willing to adjust. It's what most of us do to some extent every season. Figure it out and move on.

Right

Then you tell me. How would you regulate the difference between flooding and normal ag procedures across the entire United States? Rice crops are flooded all the time. Once cut, they often have 2 and even up to 3 cuts. How would you suggest regulating that? Corn doesnt always get harvested. Sometime they can't harvest it. So you're a fed and you say I planted the corn strictly for hunting. I say I planted it to harvest but some natural event stopped me. Who will lose? The farmer.

You can't regulate it because it would be impossible. But while your at it, let's outlaw feeding deer. Let's outlaw planting winter oats for a deer food plot. You fellas against food plots can cry all you want. When the numbers generated by farmers nationwide are compared to what ducks produce, they won't/can't even consider outlawing flooded food crops. I am on the farmers side!

market hunting would have died shortly after it was outlawed due to the invention of boxed meat

I'll let you in on a little secret KWood, you can shoot limits, decoy ducks and have fun all at once. You should try it sometime.

Now THAT is capitalism.

Old hand. I'm pretty sure if you look back through my original response I said it's a slippery slope I said that outlawing flooded corn is not going to change anything because of moist soil units you can add rice into that it's not going to change the outcome but acting like outlawing flooded corn is going to affect a farmer's bottom Dollar is likely the dumbest thing anyone will write on this forum all day and that's including the off-topic area.

My nose started bleeding from reading this....

Lay off the booger sugar it will do that to you

Isn't it already against the law to flood corn? That is not normal farming practice. Flooding rice is, but not corn.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I am sure you missed my point. I was not speaking of corn specifically reducing the pocketbook of a farmer. I'll try another way. I've hunted the katy prairie since I was a child. Every inch of it was rice. If somehow hunting flooded crops was outlawed, then yes it would have a massive impact on farmers across the nation. I know of one small 40 miles from downtown Houston that is leased for 20,000 a year. I am not rich nor am I poor, but I don't care who you are, losing 20,000 would be a big deal.
You and I both know to hunt ducks you have to change with the times. Where I used to hunt the Katy prairie is all covered in Cinco Ranch and the likes. Did I cry and try to take the builder to court like these " they won't let my ducks fly south anymore" people. I am still killing ducks. Less now than before but that's only because they switched from a 10 bird limit to now 6.

No

What, no way?!

Btw, thanks for looking me up so you could try and shame me. I hope it was a waste of your time

tdogg, take it easy on the dude, he's from Florence, he cant help it

I feel bad now. I'll send him a box of crayons to munch on, and a bottle of windex so his momma can clean that window he loves to lick so much.

I guess that make sense, like millet first year, you can flood it but not manipulate it.