WaterfowlForum.Net

Darren wrote:

Rick wrote:

DComeaux wrote:

Ducaholic wrote:Well?

Meaning, if you plant 100 acres and harvest 25, HARVEST not buffalo, It's illegal to hunt that field. Rolling any part of that field with standing crops is illegal. So this would tell me that the worry of hunting near a crawfish pond on a different property, meaning it's not part of your lease, with standing rice as crawfish feed is legal under todays law as written.
If you lease an x amount of rice land and you harvest only a few cuts and leave the remainder standing this is illegal today.

Having sat with a copy of the law and gone over it with Federal Agent Philip Siragusa, I'm pretty dang sure you or your informant are badly confused, as it was he who told me we had to combine, rather than buffalo (as had been the custom), sections of headed out rice past milk stage that we wanted to clear for hunting. And the trafficking to or from "bait" part of the law is what got so much of Delta Plantation shut down some years back (though not too long after my conversation with Flip), when failed/flooded crops on just some of it had to be plowed under for insurance purposes. Not to mention why California clubs had to abandon their previously accepted practice of baiting a central portion of their property X-number of yards from their blinds.

All of which points to why I'd hate to see the law rewritten with lord knows what result beyond that your group claims to target. And perhaps the reason why a state agent through my blind a few years ago told me they don't even think about making baiting cases unless working with the feds on one.

From Goins' discussion on the radio show i'd mentioned, it is such a slippery dance he's undertaking, and could really end up angering the La (and Ark) hoardes, if not others. In the radio discussion it seemed his biggest gripe was about the quantity of birds a given crop is able to sustain, and leveraging that as the reason a particular crop being banned, not simply that it was a crop. Someone said "What about all the acres of unnaturally flooded hardwoods/acorns?" To which he responded with "well according to this book........it only can sustain X amount so it's OK, but CORN can sustain X amount plus 1 billion so it's a problem".

DComeaux wrote:

Ducaholic wrote:Well?

Anti climatic. They held the comments to the reason for the meeting. There were some off topic discussions though, and one interesting one that raised a few eyebrows on flooded crops, and something Josh has mentioned over and over on his page. He was not the one to bring it up, it was a guy that was concerned about the many acres of rice he plants with no intent to harvest and hunts over it. They actually told him to be sure to get with the feds and state enforcement for an evaluation. With flooded crops it's all or nothing when it comes to hunting. Meaning, if you plant 100 acres and harvest 25, HARVEST not buffalo, It's illegal to hunt that field. Rolling any part of that field with standing crops is illegal. So this would tell me that the worry of hunting near a crawfish pond on a different property, meaning it's not part of your lease, with standing rice as crawfish feed is legal under todays law as written.
If you lease an x amount of rice land and you harvest only a few cuts and leave the remainder standing this is illegal today.

This a Fed law and after hearing this, I've seen many pictures this season of corn operations that were not legal.

Ducaholic wrote:I applaud him for his energy. I only wish he chose to inform himself more thoroughly and and accurately while relying more on someone that could successfully guide him through the process. He would undoubtedly garner more of the support he needs to be successful if he were to change his script.

Johnc wrote:Making ponds or clearing areas in second crop,yes they allow,pretty lenient