So we are going to make this a conversation about legality? I have no problem with anyone operating within the confines of the law. I applaud it.
The law is what I have a very problem with. Nobody whom I have ever had this conversation with has said with a straight face “growing corn within the boundaries of a flood control structure with zero intent to harvest, but to flood with the intent to lure waterfowl for sport hunting is a natural agriculture practice!”
Let’s wipe the lipstick off the hog and call it what it’s is. BAITING plan and simple.
It’s right up there with shooting a bear over a garbage can.
Poor birds just want to eat and they get shot.
There is zero sport in that. Zero effort in regards to understanding the lay of the land, scouting, and the pure chase that puts the sport in sportsman.
I won’t argue the legality. There is no argument to be had.
As far as criticism is concerned, it’s my opinion that corn clubbers are lesser hunters. Anyone can set over a feed trough and shoot some hungry animal.
I think it’s halarious when ones defense of their stance becomes debate over the legality of the topic at hand and even more so when hunters play the scrutiny card because another hunter disagrees.
To take this a step farther, from a ethical stand point explain the differiance between Joe corn clubber and Rickie corn sack? I understand the legality side but nobody can argue the ethical side because there is zero difference in the two methods.
I absolutely agree!!!