# The most wicked news from Indiana!



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

I had the wonderful pleasure of hunting with one of my very best friends yesterday. "Bo" and his group have come to Michigan from Indiana for 6 years now and have typically enjoyed great hunting. Not so yesterday but we had a great day as only long time buddies can.

Anyhow, we talked about a IDNR group e-mail sent to ALL INDIANA HUNTERS who are tied into their e-mail list.

The e-mail went along this line-
*Due to the drought this season, many crop fields will be brushhogged without harvesting crops in compliance with crop insurance programs. Please note, THESE FIELDS WILL BE CONSIDERED BAITED FIELDS AND HUNTING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. CONSERVATION OFFICERS WILL BE WRITING TICKETS FOR THOSE HUNTING OVER THESE FIELDS. *

My friends were concerned about deer (as baiting is not allowed in Indiana). My attention quickly turned to waterfowl, as did theirs!

Now, I don't know about our situation but it made for some interesting conversation yesterday. I will not be affected in my immediate area of interest but I could see if I were to chase birds it could become an issue.

Thoughts?


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

That could make for the most dismal season ever.. I guess even if you kept after um scaring them off the field you would get harassing wildlife


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Hmmm sound way too weird, this is why farmers have crop insurance. Just spoke to a good farmer friend, one farmer only yielded 3 loads on 80 acres :tdo12:


----------



## PhilBernardi (Sep 6, 2010)

My limited discussions with 2 local farmers suggests that most around me are gonna get lower yields, but they won't be plowing under or any such thing.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

PhilBernardi said:


> My limited discussions with 2 local farmers suggests that most around me are gonna get lower yields, but they won't be plowing under or any such thing.


Would seem kind of crazy to do such...I'd have to believe it to see it...Watch corn sky rocket...But of course all seed produced has to be irrigated.


----------



## lilsean95 (Mar 6, 2007)

So what is the difference when they flood a field that has been disc over and leave it for us to hunt? So, if you hunt a field that the DNR floods and it has food in it....that is okay. But, if you hunt a field that insurance has deemed not worthy of harveat it is baiting!!!!!!!!! This is laughable, because then if you ever hunt over a field with corn and soy beans then it all should be baiting because this isnt the natural forage that the duck would be eating it is plant and harvested by farmer:yikes:. Man, we better start protecting are rights or they will take them from us and we will have nothing. Good luck in Indiana


----------



## backroadstravler (Jul 12, 2006)

I am pretty sure this issue originally came from the Feds. to state DNR. I saw this same discussion on the Illinois DNR site.


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

Whenever a dnr officer comes across such field they should post it instead of laying in hiding to write some tickets. Such a grey area and I'm sure a LOT of waterfowlers don't have a clue.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

lilsean95 said:


> So what is the difference when they flood a field that has been disc over and leave it for us to hunt? So, if you hunt a field that the DNR floods and it has food in it....that is okay. But, if you hunt a field that insurance has deemed not worthy of harveat it is baiting!!!!!!!!! This is laughable, because then if you ever hunt over a field with corn and soy beans then it all should be baiting because this isnt the natural forage that the duck would be eating it is plant and harvested by farmer:yikes:. Man, we better start protecting are rights or they will take them from us and we will have nothing. Good luck in Indiana


brush hogging a field to drop seed on the ground and hunting a flooded cornfield are way, way different.

there is nothing out of normal on the rules, its just a matter of how farming practices are changing (insurance). 

normal farming practices are allowed (huntable). anything that breaks from the norm (brushhoggin) is not. its pretty black and white and you have to draw the line or you will have guys literally planting fields to brushhog later...slippery slope.


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

lilsean95 said:


> So what is the difference when they flood a field that has been disc over and leave it for us to hunt? So, if you hunt a field that the DNR floods and it has food in it....that is okay. But, if you hunt a field that insurance has deemed not worthy of harveat it is baiting!!!!!!!!! This is laughable, because then if you ever hunt over a field with corn and soy beans then it all should be baiting because this isnt the natural forage that the duck would be eating it is plant and harvested by farmer:yikes:. Man, we better start protecting are rights or they will take them from us and we will have nothing. Good luck in Indiana


Or flooding a standing crop field to hunt over.....that's not a normal farming practice. 

Beat me to it Kid. How is flooding a standing field considered normal? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Huntermax-4 said:


> Whenever a dnr officer comes across such field they should post it instead of laying in hiding to write some tickets. Such a grey area and I'm sure a LOT of waterfowlers don't have a clue.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


its pretty easy to identify. If you have suspicion or doubts, then don't hunt it.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Huntermax-4 said:


> Or flooding a standing crop field to hunt over.....that's not a normal farming practice.
> 
> Beat me to it Kid. How is flooding a standing field considered normal?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Yep and controlling the water level to meet the ear of the corn...


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

I have seen tickets wrote too when a farmer spilled a good pile of corn in a field and a guy was deer hunting near it during the no baiting ban.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

I agree that it would be easy to identify. I don't have a rule book in front of me, how is it worded in there? It won't be an issue in my areas this year, but I see a lot of tickets being written if its not clearly stated in the rule book.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

its so normal, it says it right in the federal guidelines. thats how normal it is. hunting flooded crops is legal. crops have been flooded by nature or man made structure since day 1. its a legal practice. 

if you think spreading food on the ground is the same as flooding a standing cornfield, then thats your prerogative and you guys should lobby to get baiting legalized.

this is very similar to planting a food plot or dumping sugar beats on the ground. I think you can figure out the difference.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Huntermax-4 said:


> I agree that it would be easy to identify. I don't have a rule book in front of me, how is it worded in there? It won't be an issue in my areas this year, but I see a lot of tickets being written if its not clearly stated in the rule book.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


this has been discussed on the fuge to great lengths. i'll try to find the thread as this was a hot topic obviously because all the insurance claims.


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> its so normal, it says it right in the federal guidelines. thats how normal it is. hunting flooded crops is legal. crops have been flooded by nature or man made structure since day 1. its a legal practice.
> 
> if you think spreading food on the ground is the same as flooding a standing cornfield, then thats your prerogative and you guys should lobby to get baiting legalized.
> 
> this is very similar to planting a food plot or dumping sugar beats on the ground. I think you can figure out the difference.


I agree that a standing flooded crop field is different than spreading seed on the ground. I have just never understood how flooding standing corn is a normal farming practice. Trust me, I have nothing against it and love hunting it.

Would there be a reason to flood a.corn field other than to attract wildlife? I'm beeing serious because there may be a reason that I'm not aware of. That is why I'm saying its not normal.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

heres 9 pages of fun. lol




> You cannot legally hunt waterfowl over manipulated agricultural crops except after the field has been subject to a normal harvest and removal of grain (i.e., post-harvest manipulation).
> 
> Manipulation includes, but is not limited to, such activities as mowing, shredding, discing, rolling, chopping, trampling, flattening, burning, or herbicide treatments. Grain or seed which is present as a result of a manipulation that took place prior to a normal harvest is bait. For example, no hunting could legally occur on or over a field where a corn crop has been knocked down by a motorized vehicle. Kernels of corn would be exposed and/or scattered.
> 
> *If, for whatever reason, an agricultural crop or a portion of an agricultural crop has not been harvested (i.e., equipment failure, weather, insect infestation, disease, etc.) and the crop or remaining portion of the crop has been manipulated, then the area is a baited area and cannot be legally hunted for waterfowl*. For example, no waterfowl hunting could legally occur on or over a field of sweet corn that has been partially harvested and the remainder mowed.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> brush hogging a field to drop seed on the ground and hunting a flooded cornfield are way, way different.
> 
> there is nothing out of normal on the rules, its just a matter of how farming practices are changing (insurance).
> 
> normal farming practices are allowed (huntable). anything that breaks from the norm (brushhoggin) is not. its pretty black and white and you have to draw the line or you will have guys literally planting fields to brushhog later...slippery slope.


Actually it's not black and white.If the crop is not suitable for harvest and brush hogging it is the normal way of dealing with it then it should fall under normal agricultural practices. I wonder if anyone will have to will power to challenge it in court if they get ticketed.

Griff


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Growing crops to only brushhog them is one thing. Making an insurance claim for failed crops and then brushhogging them as directed by the claims dept. is another.

This should be brought before the court. I hope sportsman's groups are acting on it!


----------



## lssu-laker (Feb 24, 2009)

Flooding is not a normal agriculture practice, but it comes down to manipulation of the UNHARVESTED crops. You can flood or hunt the crop it has to remain unaltered. 

No brush hogging or stalk chopping AFTER harvest is a normal practice here.

JW


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> this is very similar to planting a food plot or dumping sugar beats on the ground. I think you can figure out the difference.


Hopefully none of the deer hunters from those baiting threads read in here, Kid would have to duke this out for 20 pages:lol:


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

lssu-laker said:


> Flooding is not a normal agriculture practice, but it comes down to manipulation of the UNHARVESTED crops. You can flood or hunt the crop it has to remain unaltered.
> 
> No brush hogging or stalk chopping AFTER harvest is a normal practice here.
> 
> JW


Not according to the above statement. Because typically where it's been flooded it's been partially harvested, so such as the sweet corn example your now hunting partial...


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

So, technically you can get a ticket for setting up between the roost and the "baited" field and trafficing birds? 

Does it state how far away from the baited field that you can legally hunt? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## NOLIMIT (May 13, 2004)

food plots and baiting are the samething they both were not there. then put there by man to harvest some kind of animal or bird like em both who cares let us be so we can hunt.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

DEDGOOSE said:


> Hopefully none of the deer hunters from those baiting threads read in here, Kid would have to duke this out for 20 pages:lol:


yeah i know, lol. good for 20 pages.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

griffondog said:


> Actually it's not black and white.If the crop is not suitable for harvest and brush hogging it is the normal way of dealing with it then it should fall under normal agricultural practices. I wonder if anyone will have to will power to challenge it in court if they get ticketed.
> 
> Griff


actually it is. go read the law. its black and white. and people HAVE been ticketed at fought it. mixed results on the fight, most that i have read lost.



> *If, for whatever reason, an agricultural crop or a portion of an agricultural crop has not been harvested (i.e., equipment failure, weather, insect infestation, disease, etc.) and the crop or remaining portion of the crop has been manipulated, then the area is a baited area and cannot be legally hunted for waterfowl*


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

Natural farming practices is a very fine line when it comes to the Feds. We've had this same issue in ND once before. I basiclly told him I would fight it as long and hard as I had to, to prove my inocence. He left us alone. 

It was a corn field that had flooded early and all but stunted the corn. So the farmer decided to plant potatos in the field. He tilled under the 2-3' corn and planted the spuds; the ground became saturated with water again and to what resulted was 1000's of little 3/4"-1" potatos. He rolled them over too. So here we come, riding around scouting and Holy schnikes duckman!!!!!!!!! We hunted it 4 days in a row and were done by 8:30 everyday ducks and geese. On the 5th day federally was waiting! Said it was a baited field, I said bull shiat. Got a bit heated but when he relized I was not going to quit he sort of smiled and said have a nice day?!!!!!!! Richard Noggin! It was near Penngerie where it happened. 

It's up to the descretion of the officer and his reading of the law. Good luck to all in this battle and it will happen in Michigan this year for sure.
S


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Big Frank 25 said:


> Growing crops to only brushhog them is one thing. Making an insurance claim for failed crops and then brushhogging them as directed by the claims dept. is another.
> 
> This should be brought before the court. I hope sportsman's groups are acting on it!


what do you want them to ACT on? lol. if a field is claimed and the insurance tells them to hog the field down, its off limits. whats so hard to understand about that?


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

For the record....

I posted this up to make sure guys were aware of the issue that may or may not be out there this hunting season. CO's will likely know the condition exists.

Hopefully, Michigan crops will be harvested and we will not have the potential problems. However, from the looks of some of the fields I pass in Lenawee County on the way to Hillsdale, there will be some brushhogging going down.

BTW, baiting and food plots are different in many ways and therefore should not be categorized as the same (IMO). Likewise, brushhogged fields and flooded crop fields are very different as well (IMO).

From the sounds of it, Indiana will have HUGE areas off limits to deer and waterfowl hunting this coming fall.:sad:


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

This issue has been beat to death on several other forums. To my knowledge Indiana is following the direction that Illinois and Kansas took a couple weeks ago.

I've seen some photos of harvested fields that are lousy with grain. The drought has affected the ear size to the point (in some places) that it just falls through/out the combines. You will see more grain on the ground this year.

Flooding is a normal irrigation practice for most row crops, and is essential to growing rice/millet & cranberries. I'm not aware of any normal practice where mature grain crops are flooded prior to harvest.


But it begs the question. 

Since flooding standing corn is legal to hunt, couldn't knocking down rows of corn to while hiding a boat be considered manipulating the crop/baited area?


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

NOLIMIT said:


> food plots and baiting are the samething they both were not there. then put there by man to harvest some kind of animal or bird like em both who cares let us be so we can hunt.


Go post that exact thing in the deer forum and let um know how it is


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

backroadstravler said:


> I am pretty sure this issue originally came from the Feds. to state DNR. I saw this same discussion on the Illinois DNR site.


It's been beat to death on DHC also.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

KLR said:


> Since flooding standing corn is legal to hunt, couldn't knocking down rows of corn to while hiding a boat be considered manipulating the crop/baited area?


technically yes it is. obviously this is up to the discretion of an officer and if he thinks someone is doing just that on purpose he probably could stick a ticket if he wanted.

i seen CO warn a guy for taking his go-devil thru the buckwheat to retrieve a cripple...warning issued.


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

If a lot of fields around here are deemed not huntable, it will make me feel a whole lot better about those deep pocket richard noggins (awesome saying Smoke)that pay 3K to lease a field and not being able to hunt it. Most leasees have already paid and have sole custody of the fields already this year. Would make my day if they were out some cash. In fact, I think I will bring this up to the owner of the property I had permission to hunt for free for the last 5 or more years to only loose it to some richard who offered $3800 to lease it.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Big Frank 25 said:


> Growing crops to only brushhog them is one thing. Making an insurance claim for failed crops and then brushhogging them as directed by the claims dept. is another.
> 
> This should be brought before the court. I hope sportsman's groups are acting on it!


By definition, insurance claims would not be considered "normal" farming practice. Claims happen but it is not the norm to have to destroy your crop.


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

Yup, this is a federal law and their written rule. Bush hogging is not a normal farming practice by thier definition (who cares what you think, its thier written definition). When dealing with the feds its their rules, like it or leave it (or chance it like smoke did). And yes, guys were/have been getting pinched for knocking over corn with their boats in river flooded fields (as Shikid stated, its up to the discretion of the officer). Dont think anyone has been pinched by the feds at a state MI GMU while knocking over corn in flooded fields while trying to conceal their 20ft alaskan.

Regarding baiting for deer vs waterfowl. I had this very discussion with a CO on this site on why it was legal to bush hog rows of corn while hunting deer and you could not do this for waterfowl (on the MS habitat form, guys were all talking about how great this tactic is for taking deer in the fall). His answer was because it was a FEDERAL law regarding waterfowl and was deemed illegal and this was not stated so for deer. Thus it was not considered baiting for deer. Deer and duck, apples and oranges.

You want to push your luck, its your choice. But you remember this is not fought in a district court but federal court. I am sure we will hear some stories by the end of the season.


----------



## spartansfan (Nov 8, 2011)

Ok but in all seriousness guys. How often do some of you even see CO's when youre out hunting fields? For me it has been never. granted ive only been field hunting for 4 years now but still. This will be nearly a mute point by the end of the season for the majority of you i feel. and btw, from the numbers i've heard from farmers on silage so far they are getting 70-110 bushells/acre. compared to the 180-200


----------



## PhilBernardi (Sep 6, 2010)

TSS Caddis said:


> By definition, insurance claims would not be considered "normal" farming practice. Claims happen but it is not the norm to have to destroy your crop.


Insurance claims ought to be thought about as being distinct from any crop related practices per said claims.

Feds only care about "normal" as they define it. And brushhogging a field related to an insurance claim is not "normal" by their definition; ergo, unhuntable.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Crops? What crops?


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> you'll have to read that thread that waterhazard posted. that is covered in that thread. If a fed wanted to split hairs he can go after you for it i believe. be harder to stick at what cost are you gonna defend it you know. I guess a lot of birds will be traveling to a baited field at some point this year so hunting them along the way will be inevitable...i guess how close you are and your intent would be decided by the CO. obviously setting up in the ditch across from the baited field would be pretty consistent with breaking the law.


I just want to take out my Minnesota canoe and shoot up the roost.  

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Timber (Jan 1, 2009)

wavie said:


> What do the feds think if you hunt a brush hogged field. They'll do their best to......................................


WOW

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## 7Wings (Jul 24, 2011)

If anyone is cited for Hunting over bait (and the field was mowed per an insurance claim) I would be happy to take the case....at a substantial discount with the intent that we would run a jury trial. I still think the issue hinges on a question of fact and that a jury would be hesitant to convict. 

It gets my blood boiling. I used to have a farm that I hunted where the farmer had a contract with Gerber for Gerber to dump its pulp waste in pastures. The cattle consumed it and it was a magnet for pigeons and ducks. This was regular practice in the area. I pigeon hunted it.....and killed tons....was patiently waiting for duck season and a friend reminded me that it may be baiting. I decided it wasn't worth the risk but am still disappointed. If it is a farming practice then I think the government needs to back off. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## highcaliberconsecrator (Oct 16, 2009)

7Wings said:


> If anyone is cited for Hunting over bait (and the field was mowed per an insurance claim) I would be happy to take the case....at a substantial discount with the intent that we would run a jury trial. I still think the issue hinges on a question of fact and that a jury would be hesitant to convict.
> 
> It gets my blood boiling. I used to have a farm that I hunted where the farmer had a contract with Gerber for Gerber to dump its pulp waste in pastures. The cattle consumed it and it was a magnet for pigeons and ducks. This was regular practice in the area. I pigeon hunted it.....and killed tons....was patiently waiting for duck season and a friend reminded me that it may be baiting. I decided it wasn't worth the risk but am still disappointed. If it is a farming practice then I think the government needs to back off.
> 
> ...


Glad you are reading this thread. Very interesting indeed and I still have not formulated a personal opinion on the entire subject. The "normal farming practice" definition must be revisited in my opinion. On a another note, the USGBC has an impact on this currently, and will continue to in the future.

Curious to know your angle in court.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

7Wings said:


> If anyone is cited for Hunting over bait (and the field was mowed per an insurance claim) I would be happy to take the case....at a substantial discount with the intent that we would run a jury trial. I still think the issue hinges on a question of fact and that a jury would be hesitant to convict.
> 
> It gets my blood boiling. I used to have a farm that I hunted where the farmer had a contract with Gerber for Gerber to dump its pulp waste in pastures. The cattle consumed it and it was a magnet for pigeons and ducks. This was regular practice in the area. I pigeon hunted it.....and killed tons....was patiently waiting for duck season and a friend reminded me that it may be baiting. I decided it wasn't worth the risk but am still disappointed. If it is a farming practice then I think the government needs to back off.
> 
> ...


7wings, being that you are in that profession, did you read the part from the fuge where and how the cases get tried? whats your opinion on it (believe it goes to US district court on a fed violation). here is what another guy posted on that forum.



> Error on the side of caution, 1988 got somewhat ugly for a lot of hunters. Some thought that they would fight it based upon some of the things above. They found out the hard way that.......
> 
> 1. Their day in court was not at the local court house, it was in US District Court.
> 2. That their favorite local attorney was not certified to practice in District Court, and the ones that can represent you are a higher hourly rate
> ...


as posted above, i'm glad you chimed in, always good to hear it from your angle.


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

Fair warning to those that hunt Gun Lake...it's a baited area.


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

wavie said:


>


I was informed the above young lady did get her permission slip signed to hunt Lake Santiago on the UP opener. She was looking forward to the sweat lodge.


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

Huntermax-4 said:


> So, technically you can get a ticket for setting up between the roost and the "baited" field and trafficing birds?
> 
> Does it state how far away from the baited field that you can legally hunt?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Boone
Taken directly from the USFWS website on law enforcement regarding baiting for waterfowl:

Distance
How close to bait can you hunt without breaking the law? There is no set distance. The law prohibits hunting if bait is present that could lure or attract birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them. Distance will vary depending on the circumstances and such factors as topography, weather, and waterfowl flight patterns. Therefore, this question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. 


Hope that clears it up for ya!


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

wavie said:


> I was informed the above young lady did get her permission slip signed to hunt Lake Santiago on the UP opener. She was looking forward to the sweat lodge.



It's gonna be awkward when JD comes back from his duck hunt and has to put his blindfold on.


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

DEDGOOSE said:


>


Good gawd I love womens volleyball inside or beach either works for me. Now back to your regularly scheduled disection of the law! LMAO 

Smoke 

PS: Yes we did argue the point of being natural farming practices. Obviously it was a natural farming practices the damn farmer rolled it over himself didn't he? LOL So how much more of a natural farming practice do you want?!! It was argue/plead my case or pay a huge fine! I'm going to plead my case nuff said about that!


----------



## 7Wings (Jul 24, 2011)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> 7wings, being that you are in that profession, did you read the part from the fuge where and how the cases get tried? whats your opinion on it (believe it goes to US district court on a fed violation). here is what another guy posted on that forum.
> 
> 
> 
> as posted above, i'm glad you chimed in, always good to hear it from your angle.


Kid,

I did not read the post from the Fuge however I realize this would likely be tried in a Federal Court. I can also affirmatively state that I am by no means an expert on this issue....as the only time it came across my radar was the time I mentioned it in my post. 

I also admit I should have read the statute before posting and will likely do so when I have some time. These cases are always won or lost in the gray areas and will depend on the facts of the case. If the statute states that hunting over a brush hogged field following an insurance claim....then it is a tough case to win. On the other hand if it was done to comply with federal crop insurance claim.....i think there is a strong argument for regular farming practices .

As stated I would absolutely take this type of case at a substantial discount. I am always an advocate for Sportsman/women rights. 





Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bfaber (Apr 17, 2010)

In my eyes baiting and brushoggin a field are two different things. baiting is deliberatly putting and actractint out for the sole purpose of killing. I can see if the field was hogged for the sole purpose of actracting a game bird or deer for harvest than it would be considered baiting. An insurance company forcing a farmer to hog a field is not intended for wildlife. That hole story is bs and another way for co's to right more tickets witch im gona go out on a limb and guess that most co's wouldnt agree with. I would also add that the insurance companies forcing this should pay the increase in our food bill that hoggin these fields will cause. If there is enought food in a field to consider it baited there enough to harvest it. The hole thing is ignorant


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

The insurance companies do not force the farmer to brush hog the field. The insurance company determines the percentage of loss and pays the farmer on that basis. The farmer decides If the field will pay enough to justify the cost of harvesting the effected field, with fuel and equipment prices where they are it takes a bit to pay off. If the farmer decides the field wont pay to harvest he will shred the field to speed up the break down of the fodder. Many times more grain will be left in the field as compared to normal havesting. Collecting insurance is not a normal practice or we would all starve to death.


----------



## 7Wings (Jul 24, 2011)

plugger said:


> The insurance companies do not force the farmer to brush hog the field. The insurance company determines the percentage of loss and pays the farmer on that basis. The farmer decides If the field will pay enough to justify the cost of harvesting the effected field, with fuel and equipment prices where they are it takes a bit to pay off. If the farmer decides the field wont pay to harvest he will shred the field to speed up the break down of the fodder. Many times more grain will be left in the field as compared to normal havesting. Collecting insurance is not a normal practice or we would all starve to death.


You sound as if you have personal knowledge. Do you? It conflicts with my experience and I own Copland that has had a crop ins claim. Crop insurance is subsidized by the Fed G ....I believe through the FARM BILL. My understanding is that shredding is necessary to optimize the yield for the following season and is accepted as standard practice. Finally collecting insurance is a regular practice.....it mitigates damages to individual farmers to keep them in business so that our food supply is stable. While i agree this leaves more grain in the field....i disagree with just about everything else you have said.....it is common/standard farming practice to insure crops and then shred after a claim. 






Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Jimw (Jul 8, 2009)

If you guys don't think a brush hogged corn field is considered baited, then why would you want to hunt it so bad? That's why guys would risk federal court troubles to shoot it. They wouldn't risk that over a regular old cut corn field would they? Doubt it. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## oldsalt mi (Oct 5, 2010)

We can only take 6. So if the fields loaded and you get 6 then game over. What about the all the duck clubs that flood corn


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

plugger said:


> The insurance companies do not force the farmer to brush hog the field. The insurance company determines the percentage of loss and pays the farmer on that basis. The farmer decides If the field will pay enough to justify the cost of harvesting the effected field, with fuel and equipment prices where they are it takes a bit to pay off. If the farmer decides the field wont pay to harvest he will shred the field to speed up the break down of the fodder. Many times more grain will be left in the field as compared to normal havesting. Collecting insurance is not a normal practice or we would all starve to death.


i dont want to say your wrong but, insurance sure will dictate how that field will get handled. they absolutlely can say brush that field as one of their options after paying a claim. When the claim is paid that farmer will have to follow terms of the claim and usually those terms include manipulating the field so that the farmer or someone else can't harvest whats left (unless they worked it into the claim). Usually the way to satisfy the ins company is to brush and roll it.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

oldsalt mi said:


> We can only take 6. So if the fields loaded and you get 6 then game over. What about the all the duck clubs that flood corn


so your saying throw the corn on the ground and shoot your 6. should be legal.


----------



## duckhtr213890 (Feb 9, 2008)

I see both sides of what everyone is saying but we all have to go by what the rule books say. If they say flooded corn is ok but brushhogged fields are off limits that's just the way things have to be. Only way to stop all this is to get the laws changed. 

And hunting near bait is no joke either, buddy of mine got busted when he was 16 and he didn't even know he was hunting over bait. A grain hopper hit a bump in the field and it spilled some wheat on the ground and the co still called it baiting. He lost all hunting rights for 3 years and never even fired a shot on that hunt. Hunting a questionable field in my eyes isn't worth losing the right to hunt. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## icefishdoug (Mar 24, 2012)

TALK ABOUT HUNTING OVER A BAIT PILE:yikes::corkysm55...what was this thread about again:lol:


----------

