Preseason 2018-2019

[DComeaux]

https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/whitepapers/1998_sitting_ducks.pdf

[Ducaholic]

Dave from what I read it was legal to hunt over flooded unharvested crops in 1998. Am I missing something?

[DComeaux]

Dave from what I read it was legal to hunt over flooded unharvested crops in 1998. Am I missing something?

Yes, flooded standing crops have been around for some time. I read it last night after posting it and I'm not sure what exactly he was looking at in this paper. He may be tying baiting with the standing corn issue, which is growing by leaps and bounds. I honestly don't see the difference in the two scenarios other than the fact that some can and some can't. I'm still leaning to stopping this practice on refuges, and I think a lot of Wildlife biologist and USFWS employees agree.

[DComeaux]

Dave from what I read it was legal to hunt over flooded unharvested crops in 1998. Am I missing something?

Yes, flooded standing crops have been around for some time. I read it last night after posting it and I'm not sure what exactly he was looking at in this paper. He may be tying baiting with the standing corn issue, which is growing by leaps and bounds. I honestly don't see the difference in the two scenarios other than the fact that some can and some can't. I'm still leaning to stopping this practice on refuges, and I think a lot of Wildlife biologist and USFWS employees agree.

If you read this you may understand what he's pulling from this, and that is what influence can do to our baiting regulations and ethics when it comes to fair chase.

Doc1.jpg

[DComeaux]

Doc1.jpg

[Ducaholic]

Dave I don't think there was ever any consideration being given to stopping legal baiting meaning the process of hunting over flooded unharvested crops. Much of this was about standardizing illegal baiting rules and regs so both the hunter and the enforcement community were better able to understand and enforce the rules. Now I am sure that there are enforcement agents who think it should be illegal but as I know some think it should be illegal to plant and shred crops for doves.

Goins reads this stuff and puts a twist to it in his mind to fit his agenda.

I will support any measure to remove legal baiting/planting of unharvested crops that are flooded and hunted over on public land both State & Federal.

But I refuse to join in on this grand conspiracy theory that proposed changes in the MBT in 1998 included the outlawing of hunting over flooded unharvested crops or that this proposal was secretly derailed by political influence. I just don't see any evidence of that in anything that I have read.

[DComeaux]

Dave I don't think there was ever any consideration being given to stopping legal baiting meaning the process of hunting over flooded unharvested crops. Much of this was about standardizing illegal baiting rules and regs so both the hunter and the enforcement community were better able to understand and enforce the rules. Now I am sure that there are enforcement agents who think it should be illegal but as I know some think it should be illegal to plant and shred crops for doves.

Goins reads this stuff and puts a twist to it in his mind to fit his agenda.

I will support any measure to remove legal baiting/planting of unharvested crops that are flooded and hunted over on public land both State & Federal.

But I refuse to join in on this grand conspiracy theory that proposed changes in the MBT in 1998 included the outlawing of hunting over flooded unharvested crops or that this proposal was secretly derailed by political influence. I just don't see any evidence of that in anything that I have read.

I agree with you, and I haven't either. My take on this is that it lessened the chances of people getting caught and fined for baiting. It's an enforcement agents nightmare. Some have, and will push this to the limit.

[SpinnerMan]

Here's my problem with much of the game laws. We are supposed to be given the presumption of innocence. If you own rural property and they find marijuana growing on it, you are not immediately guilty of being a drug dealer. They must prove it was you that was growing it. This is how it should be. This is justice.

However, if someone pickups up a bunch of rotten apples and happens to dump them near your deer stand because they didn't want to throw them in the garbage, but wanted to feed the wildlife, you are guilty of baiting even if you have no clue. While I did not get caught, I did have this happen. I about $hit my pants when I saw all the apples dumped off the side or the dirt road about 50 yards from one of my deer stands Had a warden driven by, both the apples and my deer stand were visible from the road. I didn't happen by and see them and pick them all up, but instead show up in the dark and go hunting, I'm guilty, period, end of story. That is not how it should be. That is injustice.

It is a very effective way to screw somebody you don't like. I don't like Dave's position on baiting, so I'll go dump a couple 50 lb bags of corn near his blind and call the warden and tell him I saw him baiting. What's your defense? I don't know. Doesn't matter, your guilty, fined, maybe lose your license, ... No proof required that you had any clue.

And once the anti's figure this out, they can really wreak havoc. Go to any popular hunting area and spread $100 worth of corn around and any hunter shows, they are a criminal.

And this does happen. A farmer back where I grew up. He had some apple trees around his house. He cleaned up the rotten apples and threw them in his manure spread. He spread them on a field near where one of his buddies had a tree stand. The warden busted the guy and fined him. After that the farmer closed his property to hunting and shot every deer he saw for crop damage and called the warden to come pick them up as required by law.

They should have to prove you were aware. And having to scout the area before a hunt for baiting is not a reasonable expectation of hunters that mostly show up in the dark. And it gets especially problematic when the debate is over normal and atypical farming practices. If you are not a farmer, how the hell do you know what normal is and whether or not the farmer actually followed it. Was the field mowed for insurance losses? How would you know?

It is supposed to be hard for the government to punish people. The burden must be on them to prove you are guilty and not on you to prove you are innocent. And to be guilty when there was no way to know short of scouring the property frequently is truly absurd. And yes this means the criminals get away often.

However, most of the examples in the article include hunters wayyyyyyyyy over the bag limit. If you are one over, OK $hit happens and was it more ethical to toss the accident in the weeds or take it home an eat it risking punishment? Minor fine like going 10 mph over the speed limit. When you are double the limit, punish them harshly. Some examples were like 10 times the limit. There is no ambiguity here. There is no way they are not guilty. There is no plausible explanation giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. The article even says that when actually baiting, they nearly always break a bunch of other laws. I suspect that is true. Hammer them for that and if you can catch them dead to rights for baiting, I'm fine with that, but the burden of proof should be on the government. Why are game laws different?

[DComeaux]

Here's my problem with much of the game laws. We are supposed to be given the presumption of innocence. If you own rural property and they find marijuana growing on it, you are not immediately guilty of being a drug dealer. They must prove it was you that was growing it. This is how it should be. This is justice.

However, if someone pickups up a bunch of rotten apples and happens to dump them near your deer stand because they didn't want to throw them in the garbage, but wanted to feed the wildlife, you are guilty of baiting even if you have no clue. While I did not get caught, I did have this happen. I about $hit my pants when I saw all the apples dumped off the side or the dirt road about 50 yards from one of my deer stands Had a warden driven by, both the apples and my deer stand were visible from the road. I didn't happen by and see them and pick them all up, but instead show up in the dark and go hunting, I'm guilty, period, end of story. That is not how it should be. That is injustice.

It is a very effective way to screw somebody you don't like. I don't like Dave's position on baiting, so I'll go dump a couple 50 lb bags of corn near his blind and call the warden and tell him I saw him baiting. What's your defense? I don't know. Doesn't matter, your guilty, fined, maybe lose your license, ... No proof required that you had any clue.

And once the anti's figure this out, they can really wreak havoc. Go to any popular hunting area and spread $100 worth of corn around and any hunter shows, they are a criminal.

And this does happen. A farmer back where I grew up. He had some apple trees around his house. He cleaned up the rotten apples and threw them in his manure spread. He spread them on a field near where one of his buddies had a tree stand. The warden busted the guy and fined him. After that the farmer closed his property to hunting and shot every deer he saw for crop damage and called the warden to come pick them up as required by law.

They should have to prove you were aware. And having to scout the area before a hunt for baiting is not a reasonable expectation of hunters that mostly show up in the dark. And it gets especially problematic when the debate is over normal and atypical farming practices. If you are not a farmer, how the hell do you know what normal is and whether or not the farmer actually followed it. Was the field mowed for insurance losses? How would you know?

It is supposed to be hard for the government to punish people. The burden must be on them to prove you are guilty and not on you to prove you are innocent. And to be guilty when there was no way to know short of scouring the property frequently is truly absurd. And yes this means the criminals get away often.

However, most of the examples in the article include hunters wayyyyyyyyy over the bag limit. If you are one over, OK $hit happens and was it more ethical to toss the accident in the weeds or take it home an eat it risking punishment? Minor fine like going 10 mph over the speed limit. When you are double the limit, punish them harshly. Some examples were like 10 times the limit. There is no ambiguity here. There is no way they are not guilty. There is no plausible explanation giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. The article even says that when actually baiting, they nearly always break a bunch of other laws. I suspect that is true. Hammer them for that and if you can catch them dead to rights for baiting, I'm fine with that, but the burden of proof should be on the government. Why are game laws different?

If you're going to feed my pond please use a dark grain, and give me a couple of days to play in it...

I think I'd know pretty quick that my pond had been baited, and I'd call the warden myself. I watched an episode of North Woods Law this week where a guy shot a hen turkey by mistake and called it in. He was given a warning and he wanted to make sure the bird wasn't going to be wasted. The warden told him it was going to a soup kitchen. He was new to turkey hunting and he called the warden when he got home. He went through the process with his young son and wife by his side. There's at least one honest person left in this world. I don't think any of us can say we've never had an oops in the field.

[SpinnerMan]

I think I'd know pretty quick that my pond had been baited

How would you know? You show up in the dark, right?

Do you run the whole area every morning before you?

It doesn't need to be dumped on the steps of your blind. Anywhere within quite a distance and it is technically baiting.

And if by chance you did and you called the warden, you are still out of business until it is all cleaned up and then for I think 10 days after that.

It would be a very effective way to shut down your neighbors that you don't want to hunt. You all may not have that problem down there, but up here I worry about it. Much of my hunting is IN the suburbs. My dog chased a crippled through somebody's back yard There is a lot of friction where many people hunt. One town wanted to ban hunting outside of their jurisdiction. Technically, they can't ban it within their jurisdiction, but the state decided state law no longer applies without repealing it, but simply telling the local governments they will turn a blind eye to punishing legal hunters. We get some a$$hole neighbors to our club and they simply row on to our property, which legally they can do as long as they stay in the water, and dump bags of corn and we are done. Years ago we did have someone's decoys vandalized, but have been lucky that we haven't had a lot of problems.

[DComeaux]

I think I'd know pretty quick that my pond had been baited

How would you know? You show up in the dark, right?

Do you run the whole area every morning before you?

It doesn't need to be dumped on the steps of your blind. Anywhere within quite a distance and it is technically baiting.

And if by chance you did and you called the warden, you are still out of business until it is all cleaned up and then for I think 10 days after that.
.

Tame duck activity. That what you see in the so called "hunting" videos of today. I would just suck it up and work with the warden and let them give me the all clear.

It would be a very effective way to shut down your neighbors that you don't want to hunt. You all may not have that problem down there, but up here I worry about it. Much of my hunting is IN the suburbs. My dog chased a crippled through somebody's back yard There is a lot of friction where many people hunt. One town wanted to ban hunting outside of their jurisdiction. Technically, they can't ban it within their jurisdiction, but the state decided state law no longer applies without repealing it, but simply telling the local governments they will turn a blind eye to punishing legal hunters. We get some a$$hole neighbors to our club and they simply row on to our property, which legally they can do as long as they stay in the water, and dump bags of corn and we are done. Years ago we did have someone's decoys vandalized, but have been lucky that we haven't had a lot of problems.

I hate that for you man, I really do. I think things would get pretty ugly down here dealing with the situations you mention.

[SpinnerMan]

I think I'd know pretty quick that my pond had been baited

How would you know? You show up in the dark, right?

Do you run the whole area every morning before you?

It doesn't need to be dumped on the steps of your blind. Anywhere within quite a distance and it is technically baiting.

And if by chance you did and you called the warden, you are still out of business until it is all cleaned up and then for I think 10 days after that.
.

Tame duck activity. That what you see in the so called "hunting" videos of today. I would just suck it up and work with the warden and let them give me the all clear.

Why would there be tame duck activity? The ducks wouldn't have even had time to find it. Remember I dumped it the night before and called the warden and reported you for baiting.

It's just the burden of proof has got to be on the government and it is not in a lot of cases when it comes to game laws. You are presumed guilty. It just should not be that way.

[DComeaux]

What you describe is really dirty and despicable behavior. It's unimaginable to me. If that's what I had to deal with every year, I'd quit hunting, it's not worth it.

[SpinnerMan]

What you describe is really dirty and despicable behavior. It's unimaginable to me. If that's what I had to deal with every year, I'd quit hunting, it's not worth it.

My point is that you are guilty even though you did nothing wrong and had no reason to know that you were. That is my problem with the current laws. I simply think it should be unconstitutional. The burden of proof should be on the government.

I'm unaware of it ever happening, but really worry that it could. The anti's do some crazy things. And yes they are dirty and despicable people.

The only issue around here is typically people calling the cops because people are legally hunting. I know people that every opening day they get a visit from the cops. Some jurisdictions put notices in the paper. Tomorrow duck season starts if you here shooting don't call the cops or something to that effect.

[DComeaux]

What you describe is really dirty and despicable behavior. It's unimaginable to me. If that's what I had to deal with every year, I'd quit hunting, it's not worth it.

My point is that you are guilty even though you did nothing wrong and had no reason to know that you were. That is my problem with the current laws. I simply think it should be unconstitutional. The burden of proof should be on the government.

I'm unaware of it ever happening, but really worry that it could. The anti's do some crazy things. And yes they are dirty and despicable people.

The only issue around here is typically people calling the cops because people are legally hunting. I know people that every opening day they get a visit from the cops. Some jurisdictions put notices in the paper. Tomorrow duck season starts if you here shooting don't call the cops or something to that effect.

I agree with you, and now you just gave them a good idea...... SHHHHH!!

[SpinnerMan]

What you describe is really dirty and despicable behavior. It's unimaginable to me. If that's what I had to deal with every year, I'd quit hunting, it's not worth it.

My point is that you are guilty even though you did nothing wrong and had no reason to know that you were. That is my problem with the current laws. I simply think it should be unconstitutional. The burden of proof should be on the government.

I'm unaware of it ever happening, but really worry that it could. The anti's do some crazy things. And yes they are dirty and despicable people.

The only issue around here is typically people calling the cops because people are legally hunting. I know people that every opening day they get a visit from the cops. Some jurisdictions put notices in the paper. Tomorrow duck season starts if you here shooting don't call the cops or something to that effect.

I agree with you, and now you just gave them a good idea...... SHHHHH!!

Trust me, it crossed my mind. But I'm guessing they probably don't read a duck hunting site.

[DComeaux]

Live Decoys

[Rick]

Probably couldn't find a kitten.

[Deltaman]

......but gunpowder behind shot works so much better JK

[DComeaux]

We will no longer need the thatch we purchased for the boat hide and would like to sell it. We have a 60' x 32" or 36", and (6) 4 x 4 mats. Anyone interested just let me know.

[DComeaux]

We will no longer need the thatch we purchased for the boat hide and would like to sell it. We have a 60' x 32" or 36", and (6) 4 x 4 mats. Anyone interested just let me know.

I’d be interested in the 4x4 mats but I’m betting shipping would eat up any savings that might be had. If I get sent your way on a paper mill visit I’ll let you know.

Just let me know. I'm going to bring it all back from the camp this weekend.

[DComeaux]

Bill and I were able to get a start on things on Friday afternoon. All went well and the move was easy. We were just us two working to get the blind moved this weekend. The others had prior engagements.

We detached the "island" from the carrier USS barnicle and floated her to its new location. The only thing that remains in that location is the flight deck.

20181005_174314.jpg

Once we got it on shore Bill scraped all of the barnacles from the blind.

20181005_175329.jpg

This is a shot of the pond on our back (east) side.

20181005_175334.jpg

Bill and I decided to layout the blind dimensions with small poles and string and drove the 12' 4x4's with a "mother in law". We were able to hold pretty close to those dimensions so we nailed nailed in the bottom board for the blind rim support.

20181006_094417.jpg

Well, we both walked around in the hole breaking the crust getting the hole soft enough, we'd thought, to get blind down to the level we wanted.

20181006_125040.jpg

[DComeaux]

We had a generator and a pump to get water in and out of the blind but the generator didn't want to run. We had to use five gallon buckets to fill and empty the blind. We had to do this for the weight to get her down, and had to do it twice, as we didn't get far enough down on the first try. The ground was firmer than we'd thought. We still missed our depth by a few inches even after we got back in to wallow around more in the hole. Bill worked his butt off in that hole.

We were both burnt out when we finally got the blind down and secured. We left the water in and will return next weekend to finish it up. I would like to transplant some grass and fluff up what we have there. The water is really high at the momnet and most grass around our work area got pushed under. I didn't think about getting a shot of the pit in the ground when we left, and only remembered when we got back to the truck.

It was hot and steamy and we were sweating profusely, making our waders seen as if we had filled them with water. I'd sure like some cooler weather for this work. Bill and I had to strip for a bit to cool off.

20181006_094432.jpg

I will have more pics next weekend of the blind down and the finished product.

[Rick]

Better too high than too low, and I'm liking your little back pond for windy day birds.

[DComeaux]

The "cove" we're facing (west) is protected from all directions except the west, which we seem to never have winds from that direction. There was always slack water there last season and they did pile up there.

[Rick]

Sweet deal. West winds draw a lot of our marsh's little ducks to its west end - but I can vouch for their rarity in our part of the country. Only seem to see west winds before fronts and then only briefly.