Ethical Question Regarding Bait

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Each of the above scenarios provide the hunter with the exact same advantage.

Each of the above scenarios provide the same benefit to the ducks and other wildlife.

The ONLY difference between the two is how the corn was put into the field. In one scenario, it was planted and grown. In the second, it was spread from bags of corn (which at one point was planted and grown somewhere). The first supposedly took more time and effort. However, it would take considerable time and effort to spread bagged corn evenly over a 300 acre field at periodic intervals.

Is it logical to make the distinction between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical, solely on the amount of time and work involved?

[Greenhead22]

Rob, why is that legal when I've always been told it's either harvest all or none? I had a gw tell me this one day so I didn't just think it up or anything.

[Wingman]

However, it would take considerable time and effort to spread bagged corn evenly over a 300 acre field at periodic intervals.

Not really, a spreader or an airplane could do it in no time.

Jeff, I don't know what somebody else told you, but duck laws are a confusing thing. However, harvesting a portion of a field and leaving the rest standing is legal.

[Greenhead22]

Harvesting a portion of the field might be legal, but what about cutting or running over the stalks without harvesting the corn? That's what most of them do around here. If they start harvesting corn in a field, they are doing to do the whole field that way.

[BAY KINGFISHER]

I thought about your question a lot, and the only thing I could figure is that with the laws as they are now they limit the amount of legal "baiting" that can occur, if it was legal to spread corn, every tom dick and harry would be doing it, but under todays laws, fare or not, one has to do a normal ag practice to get bait to head out, so there is no gaurantee, but if baiting was legal I would gurantee a bumper crop of millet, corn, millo, wheat, in my saltwater marsh, and it would all come from brown sacks, so the way I see it the legal "baiting" law probably protects as much as it prohibits,
I m not sure of the ethics question, Do you deer hunt over a green patch? how many green patches you see growin wild? I kind of look at it this way, Are you being a steward of the land? Well, if you plant crops for the benefit of harvesting wildlife, you are, Lots of animals benefit from the fields planted for wildlife, both before, after and during the season, I guess its a question of ethics to me, if the guy with the ag field kills everthing that flies, doesnt observe limits, hunts everyday, or drains the field after season lets out, Kinda like the guys that shoot every deer that comes in the field. like I said be a steward of the earth, lot of reward in it

[Po Monkey Lounger]

So, is that it? The dividing line between ethical and unethical in the above two scenarios is work and sweat?


Well, suppose I grew the corn on a separate field, harvested it, and then spread it out on the field in scenario two. Now what? I put in the sweat and work to get the corn. And I had to bag it, transport it, and spread it too.

[Wingman]

Jeff, it's gotta be a normal ag practice. That is a broad definition, but one way or the other, whatever you do you gotta be able to prove it was a normal ag practice. Technically, cutting unharvested corn and hunting waterfowl over it is illegal, unless you can prove it was done as a normal ag practice. To get down to the nitty gritty, you have to look at each field on a case by case basis.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

But, my question goes beyond legal and illegal. It asks whether the scenarios are ethical.

Not harvesting a corn crop and artificially flooding it is clearly NOT a normal agricultural practice. I respectfully submit that a farmer that does such as his normal practice will not be in business very long.

The folks that flood unharvested crop fields do it to attract game animals ---in this case ducks ---for the purpose of killing them. There is no agricultural purpose to it at all.

In either scenario above, the hunters are not hunting over the corn (the bait). In each scenario they are using the corn to attract ducks to their hunting area to hold them and hopefully shoot them when they leave the fields to go to the timber.

I see little or no distinction between the two scenarios in terms of providing an advantage to the hunter. To answer the ethics question, one must ask, is this advantage unfair? If you think the spread corn is unfair, and thus unethical, then by logic, the grown corn must be unfair as well and unethical. Yet, this unethical practice in the first scenario is legal, while the second is illegal. Hmmmmmmmm.

[BAY KINGFISHER]

yep then you would be baiting, the law is set up like that so you cant just spread it out where you want, Whether you grew it or not ,you cant spread it, because that would give me the right to spread it to, you see the stuff i hunt down here can never be farmed, so hunting over an ag field would never be likely, so if they made baiting legal, I could spread the bait out, along with everyone else, and the guy going through the effort to plant etc, would quit and he would go to spreading, no doubt it easier, so now everone is baiting.... under the law we have, the losers are the ones that cant flood a normal ag fields cause they dont own them.

I spoke with a guy that I work with from Gueydan LA about hunting the rice fields, he told me its basically hunting baited water, cause we all know a combine is going to spill rice and chaff,
so if the laws said that these fields are baited cause they had spilled rice in them would this be fare to say no hunting to the farmers, theoretically placing 1000s of acres into no hunt zones
3

[Po Monkey Lounger]

I'm not claiming to know the "right" answer to these difficult questions. Just throwing them out for discussion and to listen to others' thoughts about the same.

We see the word "ethics" and "unethical" used so much on this board that I thought I would use these scenarios and questions to see if we could collectively come to some agreed definition of these terms.

For many, "ethical", in terms of hunting, is equal to "fair chase". For example, how many times have we heard on this board that hunting with robos is "unethical" because it gives the hunter an unfair advantage, or does not constitute "fair chase" ? Too often to count.

With respect to "bait", in terms of spreading some type of harvested crop or seed on the ground to attract game animals, most would automatically say such is "unethical" because it is not "fair chase", or gives the hunter an unfair advantage.

The legality of these examples given above obviously had nothing to do with the conclusions reached on ethics. The robo, while legal, is deemed by many as "unethical", while the illegal "bait" is also deemed "unethical". It is the lack of fair chase that appears to trigger the unethical judgement.

Now, going back to the artificially flooded unharvested corn crop example. It occurs to me that if such provides the EXACT same advantage as the "bait" above, then such would not constitute "fair chase" and logic would dictate that it MUST be unethical, regardless of whether it is legal or not. So, why does everyone accept this "unethical" hunting practice, while condemning the others? Is it the "feel good" factor in rationalizing that the grown bait will help wildlife more than these other practices? So, because of that, unfair chase is ok. What if the guy using the robo in timber planted an entire field of corn, flooded it, and never hunted it, just to provide food for the ducks. Shouldn't he then have the benefit of the "feel good" exception to ethics and be able to ethically use his robo? And what about the spread corn in the example I initially gave ---doesn't it provide the same amount of food for the ducks for the same period of time? Does doing something good "entitle" us to engage in hunting practices that do not constitute "fair chase"? It shouldn't.

Like I said. I struggle with all these type questions. Unlike some who are so judgmental of others and only see things in black and white, it being either this or that, there is much more nuance in the answers to these difficult questions. What we often see labeled as "ethical" or "unethical" is often a reflection of whose ox is being gored ---we see things the way WE want to see them, to serve our own interests.

I'm getting in so deep now, I can barely climb out. Time to turn in. I look forward to hearing some more of your thoughts on these things.

[BAY KINGFISHER]

So if a guy in Gueydan LA is hunting ducks in a rice field he is being unethical, because it is not fair chase like some poor south ms coastal duck hunter like myself as to pursue waterfowl. I understand your questions on ethics but how do you draw the line. What about the guy who is hunting a roost, shooting his limit because ducks like to sleep at his particular hole. or the guy who hunts Mahanah management area because he knows the ducks are attracted to the ag fields in the refuge section of the mgt area and he happens to get some ducks on the way to the legal "bait". or the ducks that just happen to fill up flowing water because all the duck holes are frozen over so a group of guys goes and hammers their booty. Seems to me a PETA rep could find unethical activity in all events. But a hunter would say he placed himself in the right place. In duck hunting it still comes down to, you have to be where the ducks want to be, whether its at the roost, the resting spot, the feeding spot, the sanctuary from the frozen lakes, etc etc. I say ethics comes in when you tackle harvest numbers, days hunted, time of hunts, and what you are teaching kids and new hunters. I would say if you are taking the time to plant and mgt for waterfowl, than the harvesting of the waterfowl is just and added bonus to the joy of the process. I am certain thses people spend many days planning, brushing blinds, practicing calling, looking at DU mags, repairing tractors, fueling pumps, fixing levees, rigging dekes, etc etc, the only difference is they dont have to scout as much as me and they probably have deeper pockets, as far as ethics, I would bet theres arent any different than mine,
And this is coming from someone who should be more jealous of them old rich impoundment haveing duck shooting son of a guns...... but I aint...

[Wingman]

What you are failing to mention is that one crop of corn is on an ear, wrapped in a husk and on a standing stalk...the other is loose grain placed directly in the water.

One has been out there 8 months, has weathered storms and insects, has been fertilized, plowed, sprayed, etc, has made it thru hail, drought and the like. It may make 140 bushels, it may make 2.

The other, while it initially went through the same process as above, came from a sack in a store, or was moved from another location and was put directly into the path of feeding ducks, only days before they ate it.

I feel that the sack corn is more readily accessible to the birds than the planted crop. Thus there is a greater possibility for overharvest. Whether one is more "ethical" than the other is relative. Both cases provide grain for waterfowl.

Good topic.

[tunica]

Here's what I want to know about a cornfield. Same scenario....300 acre field.

Field A - All 300 acres harvested - legal
Field B - All 300 acres unharvested - legal
Field C - 150 acres of 300 harvested - illegal

Now what's the difference in hunting a cut field, uncut field, and a half cut field? You can do it with sunflowers for doves....sounds like a double standard to me.

And to be honest I know more people that hunt half cut corn fields than anything else.

And I know the reasoning.....can't allow half the field to be cut then allow the other half to be cut when duck season kicks in full gear. Well how's that combine going to get into that field with 2' water and mud to contend with?

Your right its hard to combine corn in 2 foot of water but you sure can roll it into the mud and let the ducks eat the crop that was ruined by the beavers that put those risers in.

[crow]

Awright, let me take a stab at this one...

Ethos, the Greek root of the word "ethics" was originally used to describe a code of conduct that governed a group of people. The code was based on a defined set of principles agreed upon by those who follow the code.

Law is from a scandinavian concept of a formal code that is adopted and can be enforced. That enforcement is the difference between legal and ethical.

The law mandates conduct and provides a consequence for failure to abide by the code. Ethics is a code that is self enforced and there are no formal consequences for failure to comply. Ethics, by its nature, is set up for debate and the debate creates the need and understanding for change or adherance.

Ethics are an internal code, and law is an external code. I must adhere to the law or suffer external consequences. A failure to adhere to ethical considerations cause internal conflicts with which I must deal as an individual if I am to maintain my place in a group that values the ethical conduct involved.

That, my friends, is the condtruct with which we are wrestling. Is it more important that I belong to a group with a certain set of ethical understandings ofwht is appropriate or not, or should I find another group with whom I am more in tune.

Or, am I a total individual with my own set ethics...that way, I don't have to agree with anyone!


Deep thoughts by Bobby!

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Good observations by all. Thanks crow --- good analysis of ethical v legal.

For those who think the robo is "unethical" because it violates "fair chase" principles, why are the hunters in scenario one above not "unethical" for hunting that timber next to the artificially flooded unharvested corn crop (which has the same effect as illegal bait and is NOT part of a normal Ag practice and which sole intent is to attract game)?

Can we further define "fair chase"?