DComeaux wrote:https://youtu.be/CvIGwmbj7Vk?t=1019
Rick wrote:DComeaux wrote:https://youtu.be/CvIGwmbj7Vk?t=1019
That's who you're going to be making some speck hunts with? Don't know the owner, but the SWLA club guide in that piece, Garret Cole, is a great guy and strong speck hunter.
DComeaux wrote: I may be hunting out that way, just a little SW of their location, with others.
BGcorey wrote:Usually bigger and better means safer too... atleast that’s what I’m telling the wife
johnc wrote:Rick wrote:I bought make up brushes today so I could possibly have lost itDComeaux wrote: I may be hunting out that way, just a little SW of their location, with others.
johnc wrote:Is that space age looking edifice to the east of the 99/14 junction what you are referring too? Lyons farm on North side
Darren wrote:Thanks for jumping in here, Larry. Hope (and I'm certain you will) you find it a much more civilized panel of discussion that heads in the right direction, versus other places I've seen the discussion going on lately. DComeaux and I got to kick it around a bit on the closing day of the east zone enjoying a morning in the blind that was slower than we'd hoped yet we still saw a lot of ducks........and that was quite a bit less than we had been seeing for most of the season there. As you saw in the logs on here, many of us in Louisiana, top to bottom, had our share of great hunts this season so we're not here ranting with pitchforks. But this is also a gathering of (civilized, I think ) and passionate waterfowl hunters that have taken notice of changes over the last 10-15 years.
My take on this, which has been touched on by others, is yes you have climatological changes in play for sure. But even with that removed from the equation, we would still be seeing discernible impacts from enhanced habitats north of us in Ark and MO. Duck hunting is simply big business now for many more people. Overall hunter numbers may be down, but money invested per hunter has to be way up, and is becoming the have's and the have-not's. Look at Habitat Flats in MO, literally farming for ducks, with tremendous success. They are not alone in that region. People are investing in the land and giving the birds more options, thus spreading them wider and holding them longer.On a local level, Little Pecan Island club is a glaring local example of this very practice. Big bucks are paying off for the have's, and they held a significant chunk of SW La marsh birds for much of this season, good for them. A friend of mine who grew up hunting the region made a hunt there this season, described it as "the most birds hes ever seen anywhere, the best hunting I've ever experienced, just indescribable". I'd do the same had I the means to do so. Lottery hits this weekend? Better believe I'm buying up all I can to build my own farm/duck haven. Short of that, I'll keep doing what I'm doing now that's been just fine. But not without an awareness of what's become undeniable.
I've seen the data, as you've shared to all who would listen (or not), and am certainly not one to disregard it. The numbers just don't lie, even when what is perceived on a given day at a given blind might attempt to temporarily discredit it. So that's what we have now, some have big hunts and think all is well, others have slow hunts and think sky has already fallen. Answer is somewhere in between, I suppose.
Keep the civil discussion rolling, gents
What Is Baiting?
You cannot hunt waterfowl by the aid of baiting or on or over any baited area where you know or reasonably should know that the area is or has been baited.
Baiting is the direct or indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could lure or attract waterfowl to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them.
A baited area is any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or feed could serve as a lure or attraction for waterfowl.
Waterfowl Hunting on Agricultural Lands
Agricultural lands offer prime waterfowl hunting opportunities. You can hunt waterfowl in fields of unharvested standing crops. You can also hunt over standing crops that have been flooded. You can flood fields after crops are normally harvested and use these areas for waterfowl hunting. Hunting waterfowl over a crop that has not been harvested but that has been manipulated (rolled/disced) is considered baiting under current regulations.
The presence of seed or grain in an agricultural area rules out waterfowl hunting unless the seed or grain is scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, normal agricultural harvesting, normal agricultural post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice.
The Service’s regulations on baiting specifically recognize the role of USDA’s State Cooperative Extension Specialists (CES) in recommending to farmers the normal planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation, and soil stabilization practices for each crop grown in their state. Hunting over crop fields managed in accordance with these CES recommendations is generally not considered baiting.
The CES provides to farmers a wide range of recommendations on a case-by-case basis, but not all of their recommendations may be considered “normal” planting, harvest, post-harvest manipulation or soil stabilization practice for the purposes of determining whether or not hunting over crop fields could be considered baiting. Please contact USFWS Law Enforcement for further clarification.
Problem Areas
Feeding Waterfowl and Other Wildlife
Many people feed waterfowl for the pleasure of bird watching. It is illegal to hunt waterfowl in an area where such feeding has occurred that could lure or attract migratory game birds to, on, or over any area where hunters are attempting to take them. The 10-day rule applies to such areas, and any salt, grain, or feed must be gone 10 days before hunting. The use of sand and shell grit is not prohibited.
Issue 1: Bait Authorizations
Bait authorizations are issued primarily for the benefit of migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, and people. To date, these authorizations have been issued to only a few landowners across Canada (fewer than 50 annually) mostly occurring on private lands. This raises the issue of social fairness and equitable access to the resource, as a broader group of people have recently expressed an interest in receiving a bait authorization. Issuing a larger number of bait authorizations than it is currently the case, however, has the potential to result in conservation concerns as harvest increases due to the presence of bait (see above). It is proposed to discontinue the issuance of bait authorizations as the recommended option going forward (please see Table 1). Consequently, subsection 14(3) of the Regulations would be amended to reflect this policy change.
Issue 2: Bait and Agricultural Operations
The Regulations currently allow the intentional flooding (i.e., deliberate modification) of a standing agricultural crop for the purpose of attracting and hunting migratory birds within it (i.e., not 400 metres from it). While this practice is uncommon, it does occur. It results in inconsistency in the prohibitions within the bait restrictions set out in subsection 14(1) of the Regulations. For example, a hunter is not allowed to hunt within 400 metres of where bait has been deposited in water, but is allowed to hunt where bait is present in an intentionally flooded standing cornfield. As mentioned previously, the presence of food in a specific area attracts and concentrates a large number of birds. If this specific area is located on private land, the opportunity to harvest migratory birds would be limited to a select group of hunters, thereby creating a situation of unequal access to migratory birds among hunters.
Darren wrote:What constitutes a standing agricultural crop? Corn? Millet? Rice? Would rice's inherent need to grow in the floods exempt it from this whereas corn is naturally a dry field crop?
DComeaux wrote:Darren wrote:What constitutes a standing agricultural crop? Corn? Millet? Rice? Would rice's inherent need to grow in the floods exempt it from this whereas corn is naturally a dry field crop?
...If a second crop rice is in the field it would be during teal season, and the farmers wouldn't let you create a pond anyway.
Darren wrote:Sure appears as a slippery slope for AR and LA hunters and their rice to go chasing this down
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests