Cover Crop = Baiting?

[Scott M]

Some lands considered baited and off limits to waterfowl hunters

MN DNR News Release

November 12, 2013

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reminds waterfowl hunters that some fields are considered baited and off limits to waterfowl hunting.

Due to the wet and cold spring, some farmers were not able to plant a normal crop for harvest. Instead they worked with their insurance companies or the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service office to plant a cover crop.

“These cover crops were never intended for harvest and are now being disced, tilled or plowed. The food sources such as oats, which were a common cover crop, are now an attractive food source for ducks and geese,” said Lt. Dean Olson, DNR enforcement district supervisor in Rochester. Olson noted these fields are considered baited and off limits to waterfowl hunting.

Federal regulations define a baited area “as any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or other feed could serve as a lure or attraction for migratory game birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them.”

“Any such area will remain a baited area for 10 days following the complete removal of all such salt, grain or other feed,” Olson said.

Hunters are encouraged to talk with the farmers about fields prior to hunting to assure none of them were planted as a cover crop.

Find more information on waterfowl hunting on agricultural lands.

******************************

Huh? I went past a bunch of land with cover crops (brassicas and oats mostly) and remember thinking that those would be great places for deer hunting this time of year when the rest of the crops are out and they become the next best food sources. Never once did I consider them baiting.

Here's the MN statute:

Quote:

97B.328 BAITING PROHIBITED.

Subdivision 1.Hunting with aid of bait prohibited.

A person may not take deer with the aid or use of bait.

Subd. 2.Removal of bait.

An area is considered baited for ten days after the complete removal of all bait.

Subd. 3.Definition.

(a) For purposes of this section, "bait" includes grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, hay, or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer and that has been placed by a person. "Baiting" means placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering bait that is capable of attracting or enticing deer.

( Liquid scents, salt, and minerals are not bait if they do not contain liquid or solid food ingredients.

© Agricultural crops from normal or accepted farming, forest management, wildlife food plantings, orchard management, or other similar land management activities are not bait. This exclusion does not apply to agricultural crops that have been reintroduced and concentrated where a person is hunting.

Subd. 4.Exception for bait or feed on adjacent land.

A person otherwise in compliance with this section who is hunting on private or public property that is adjacent to property where bait or food is present is not in violation of this section if the person has not participated in, been involved with, or agreed to baiting or feeding wildlife on the adjacent property.

I really believe DNR Enforcement is overstepping their bounds here by proclaiming cover crop plantings associated with Farm Bill requirements to be bait. So some guy that didn't get his corn in and hunts it is not baiting, but the guy that hunts over some oats that aren't taken in and are used for cover is?

[Jameson]

You are confusing a MN law and a federal law.

[delcecchi]

The law for Ducks and Geese is different than the law for deer.

Used to be a thing down south of here to plant a field and then, long about duck season, flood it. Made for some very productive waterfowl hunting.

[walleye18]

planting crops and then flooding the field ....and hunting over it ....and then harvesting the crop after the waterfowl season is perfectly LEGAL....

There are many clubs and hunters that do this....all legal.

[mwal]

That flooding is legal under Federal rules. This cover crop is somewhat a gray area if you read the full Fed regs as it mentions unless instructed plantings for soil conservation by Govt agency or agriculture policies which these maybe be interpreted as. Any how in the State where nothing is allowed they arrest you for hunting over harvested sweet corn as our DNR deems that the way it is harvested is not a normal agricultural process for harvesting corn. I have had friends that have gotten tickets for it.Federal Regulations allow States to be more restrictive so I am sure they will interpret this cover crop as Illegal even if mandated by Federal policy.

Mwal

[walleye18]

MWAL...you are spot on and correct.

What the "cover crop" interpretation is..is under the scutiny of the DNR...they can write you a ticket or let it slide....its up to the discretion of the Warden that stops you...BIG GREY area!

[mwal]

I would love to hear what would happen if a MN hunter intentionally flooded a corn field and hunted like all the big waterfowl clubs do to the south of which is perfectly legal as stated in Federal regulations.

Mwal

[Markula]

Never had an issue with the 40 acres I flood.

[carpshooterdeluxe]

I would love to hear what would happen if a MN hunter intentionally flooded a corn field and hunted like all the big waterfowl clubs do to the south of which is perfectly legal as stated in Federal regulations.

Mwal

I can show you 3 different properties in MN that flood crops every fall. Perfectly legal.