Migratory bird bill introduced into congress

kahunter

Eight Pointer
With little prior knowledge as to current baiting laws verbage/laws short of the obvious you cant put out corn in you duck spot or mow down your corn for ducks, what will this change?
 

shurshot

Ten Pointer
This bill/amendment apparently was initially introduced by Sen Cotton in the Senate (S. 595) over 2 years ago, referred to an environmental review committee, where it must have been tabled or something similar, and now has reappeared as a "new" amendment. It appears to do nothing more than specifically spell out/define some laws for the record that quite frankly, were already in place. Guessing his constituents wanted it on record that it was perfectly legal to flood/hunt a standing crop. I'm not here to debate that ...

I guess my question is why start a thread of potentially high interest that turns out to be nothing new? Why not take the time to read the new versus the old, then expound on it ... if there's anything worth talking about. Gee whiz.
 

Jlewis74

Old Mossy Horns
This bill/amendment apparently was initially introduced by Sen Cotton in the Senate (S. 595) over 2 years ago, referred to an environmental review committee, where it must have been tabled or something similar, and now has reappeared as a "new" amendment. It appears to do nothing more than specifically spell out/define some laws for the record that quite frankly, were already in place. Guessing his constituents wanted it on record that it was perfectly legal to flood/hunt a standing crop. I'm not here to debate that ...

I guess my question is why start a thread of potentially high interest that turns out to be nothing new? Why not take the time to read the new versus the old, then expound on it ... if there's anything worth talking about. Gee whiz.

Its just par for the course for the OP!
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
This bill/amendment apparently was initially introduced by Sen Cotton in the Senate (S. 595) over 2 years ago, referred to an environmental review committee, where it must have been tabled or something similar, and now has reappeared as a "new" amendment. It appears to do nothing more than specifically spell out/define some laws for the record that quite frankly, were already in place. Guessing his constituents wanted it on record that it was perfectly legal to flood/hunt a standing crop. I'm not here to debate that ...

I guess my question is why start a thread of potentially high interest that turns out to be nothing new? Why not take the time to read the new versus the old, then expound on it ... if there's anything worth talking about. Gee whiz.

Because it almost passed Congress once and was only killed due to election year politics?

It was never tabled. It was included in S 659

It was Section 5 of S 659.

I predict it will become law in the next 2 years now that partisan politics is off the table
 
Last edited:

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Sec. 5) The bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to revise standards for determining what constitutes baiting for purposes of the prohibition on taking migratory game birds. A baited area, in the case of waterfowl, cranes, and coots includes a standing, unharvested crop that has been manipulated through activities such as mowing, discing, or rolling, unless the activities are normal agricultural practices. An area is not considered to be a baited area if it: (1) has been treated with a normal agricultural practice, (2) has standing crops that have not been manipulated, or (3) has standing crops that have been or are flooded.

Here ya go. S 659 Bipartisan Sportsmens Act of 2016- this bill was killed only due to election year politics.
 
Last edited:
^ Isn't this what the current baiting laws are? I've only been hunting waterfowl 26 years so I might be wrong but it reads no differently than current laws, to me anyways. "Normal agricultural practice", it doesn't change anything from the status quo. Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to have our legislature waste their time voting on something that changes nothing...call me crazy I guess. You can't hunt over crops that have been rolled, disced, mowed, burned, bush hogged, etc. anyways. Saw a field that I wish I could've hunted cause of all the geese that used it everyday but the farmer had bush hogged it so it was a no-go. The darn field looked like it was made out of gold there was so much corn on the ground.
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
^ Isn't this what the current baiting laws are? I've only been hunting waterfowl 26 years so I might be wrong but it reads no differently than current laws, to me anyways. "Normal agricultural practice", it doesn't change anything from the status quo. Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to have our legislature waste their time voting on something that changes nothing...call me crazy I guess. You can't hunt over crops that have been rolled, disced, mowed, burned, bush hogged, etc. anyways. Saw a field that I wish I could've hunted cause of all the geese that used it everyday but the farmer had bush hogged it so it was a no-go. The darn field looked like it was made out of gold there was so much corn on the ground.

Congress makes the laws and they can change them.

No idea why this bill is needed but somebody in Arkansas apparently thinks its necessary.
 

shurshot

Ten Pointer
Because it almost passed Congress once and was only killed due to election year politics?

It was never tabled. It was included in S 659

It was Section 5 of S 659.

I predict it will become law in the next 2 years now that partisan politics is off the table

No scholar here but how could have S 659 "almost" passed Congress when it has been sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders for over a year now, let alone make it's way over to the House for review and approval??

A week after Cotten's bill was introduced, S. 659 was introduced to be included in the Bipartisan Sportsman Act by Sen. Sullivan (R-Ark.) Although not worded exactly the same way as Cotten had done, it was similar in purpose and basically a backup bill. But as mentioned above, it's still sitting on the calendar now for whatever reason. So I guess in the interest of time, Sen. Cotton earlier this month introduced S. 478 Hunter and Farmer Protection Act of 2017 as another way/attempt to get his wording in as law. And at the end of the day, it's the same old same old and NADA has changed! Ahhh, the world of politics....

CRC, I won't disagree with you that it's apparently very important to some in Arkansas to get this on record. But if you're going to post a bill for all to see with baited breath (pardon the pun), at least make it something worth while....
Thanks
 

darkthirty

Old Mossy Horns
The OP does not even hunt. He cares nothing about it. I guess since he doesnt deer hunt but knows everything about it, he figured it was time to dive into waterfowl........
 

wturkey01

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
The OP does not even hunt. He cares nothing about it. I guess since he doesnt deer hunt but knows everything about it, he figured it was time to dive into waterfowl........



my_book.jpg
 

nccatfisher

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
He should worry more about repealing Obamacare than some verbiage on some arbitrary bill.
No, I don't know the name nor the number of the bill but it was on the news tonight. It is being voted on this week, it will affect him probably more than any person on this site. It has to do with phone companies and .net servers selling info. about where you go on the .net etc.

Surprisingly, Odumber had stopped it a while back but the Republicans are for it and it is back up.
 
Top