This question comes from the DNR side of the spring hearing.
You need to take a look at the actual rule language associated with Question 9 of the DNR questions for this years Spring Hearings. Appears food plots are now in the sights of the DNR.
QUESTION 9 – Establish a definition of “normal agricultural or gardening practice” and “manipulation” for the purposes of enforcing current prohibitions of baiting wild animals (2010)
This proposal would clarify what is a “normal agricultural or gardening practice” for the purposes of Wisconsin’s baiting and wildlife feeding rules. For instance, clarification is needed because some hunters have claimed that disposing of waste pumpkins in the woods near tree stands or placing hay bales and corn out on agricultural fields is a “normal agricultural or normal gardening practice” when the intended use of the pumpkins, hay or corn was to bait or feed deer. Some courts and district attorneys have expressed to the department that there is a need to more clearly define what is and is not considered to be a normal agricultural or gardening practice for the purposes of these rules. The proposal clarifies that, fruit, nuts, grain, hay, corn or vegetable materials that have been harvested or collected and then later re-deposited where the materials are accessible to deer, bear, elk or turkeys may not be hunted over except where it is legal to place bait or feed for such animals. Placement or storage of these materials where they are being used as feed for livestock which are present within enclosed lands would not be considered baiting or feeding wildlife.
This definition would not change any rules related to baiting migratory birds as Wisconsin has adopted the federal definition and cannot be less restrictive.
To reduce confusion over what constitutes a “normal agricultural or gardening practice” do you favor establishing that feed material which has been collected or harvested is considered to be bait when it is re-deposited on the land in a manner that it is accessible to deer, bear, elk or turkeys? Under this proposal, placing feed for livestock which are present on enclosed lands would not be considered bait.
9. YES _____ NO _____
Section 36. NR 19.001(8t) and (8v) are created to read: NR 19.001( 8t) “Manipulation” means the alteration of natural vegetation or agricultural or garden crops by activities that include but are not limited to mowing, shredding, disking, rolling, chopping, trampling, flattening, burning, or herbicide treatments. The term manipulation does not include the distributing or scattering of grain, seed, or other feed after removal from or storage on the field or garden where grown.
(8v) “Normal agricultural or gardening practice” means a planting or harvesting operation undertaken for the purpose of producing and gathering a crop, or manipulation of the remaining vegetation after a crop has been harvested and removal of the fruit, grain, hay or vegetable material from the lands where grown. For the purpose of enforcement of s. NR 10.07(2) and (2m), and s. NR 19.60, placement or storage of any salt, mineral supplements, fruits, nuts, grain, hay or vegetable crops in any area accessible to deer, bear, elk or wild turkeys is not considered a normal agricultural or gardening practices unless the material has been placed for and is being used as feed for confined livestock as defined under s. ATCP 10.01(62) which are present within the enclosed lands where the feed is placed.
------------------------ end
If your paying attention, you will notice that this intends to amend the state's administrative code (which has the effect of law). Read it a little closer.
NR 19.001 ( 8t ) and ( 8v ) are BEING CREATED (new rules/laws that didn't used to exist)
In this case it speaks to what has previously been silent. That being foods used by hunters to advantage them in attracting and congregating deer (and other species) to increase that person's odds in seeing and harvesting game.
Look at NR 19.001( 8t ) for the definition of "Manipulation" and NR 19.001( 8v ) for the definition of ""Normal agricultural or gardening practice"
As some have been saying for some time (and seeking definitions) This does the job of putting the focus on plots. Lets break it down.
Manipulation" means the alteration of natural vegetation or agricultural or garden crops by activities that include but are not limited to (that's my favorite part and leaves the door wide open) mowing, shredding, disking, rolling, chopping, trampling, flattening, burning, or herbicide treatments. and then what is Normal ag or gardening. Then this part:
For the purpose of enforcement of s. NR 10.07(2) and (2m), and s. NR 19.60, placement or storage of any salt, mineral supplements, fruits, nuts, grain, hay or vegetable crops in any area accessible to deer, bear, elk or wild turkeys is not considered a normal agricultural or gardening practices unless the material has been placed for and is being used as feed for confined livestock .
I intend to vote no. I think this is a brilliant move by those that know the end game. there is no stomach for outright bans on things. They understand that wouldn't be the prudent thing to do at this time. They understand that this is not a sprint. This is a marathon. The smart move to slowly go about such a change. First, you "Define" things and leave them open with such terms as "But not limited to" They hope to do that with your permission at the spring hearing as they seek to define (for the sake of food plots) "Manipulate" and what is "Normal Agricultural practices" These definitions are then on the book allowing for the next important step "Regulation" This is followed by some small rules changes and then "Over regulation" followed by "Restrictions" followed by "Registrations and fees" this is all done for the greater good and so they have a better handle on how much of this is taking place so as to understand the effects on "The resource"
At some point it becomes difficult to put in food plots and you need a lawyer to understand if you are in violation. Some give up in frustration, then many give up. It was not banned but rather it was your choice to stop doing it. During this span of time, it's found that food plots are a source of concern in the CWDMZ and additional restrictions are employed for the greater good. These eventually become statewide restrictions making more folks drop out. Social engineering is a slow process but in the end, the choice is left up to you if you want to deal with the hassles involved with food plots but it wasn't banned and you will be reminded of that fact. It was just regulated to death.
Some here are old enough to remember that it was acceptable and legal to smoke at work. Then it was not and then you were told you could not smoke in your favorite night spot or restaurant. Then you were told you could not smoke on the grounds of your employer and then cig. taxes were raised to discourage smoking. Then your insurance rates went up if your a smoker. Then Cig taxes went up to discourage you from smoking. Then you were told that if you live in a condo, you can't smoke in your home. It became such a hassle that you just gave up. It was your choice. It was not made illegal. It simply became so restrictive and expensive that it was your choice to stop doing it.
