99 



extension service as a recommended practice. 



Normal agricultural planting or harvesting should include what is practiced for 

 agricultural purposes in the state and should not be restricted to what is 

 "recommended." Extension service recommendations represent the optimum or most 

 desired practices These recommendations do not, however, always represent the 

 most practical or feasible planting and harvesting strategies for local conditions, and 

 statewide recommendations do not always recognize practices that are employed by 

 farmers for agricultural purposes on a local or county level 



In Florida, farmers routinely employ planting practices that are outside of or not 

 included in extension service recommendations As long as these practices are being 

 employed for agricultural purposes, they should be considered to be "normal," and 

 taking migratory birds over areas similarly harvested or planted should be legal The 

 regulation should be changed to clarify that "normal" refers to planting and harvesting 

 practices employed by agricultural operators for agricultural purposes in the state or 

 hunting zone Hunters and landowners should also be provided information to let them 

 know what planting and harvesting practices are considered "normal," so that they can 

 comply with the law. 



Management of native vegetation for waterfowl has increased in recent years 

 Problems with determining what constitutes baiting where native vegetation in 

 manipulated (e.g., burning, mowing, disking) for waterfowl management and hunting 

 have increased commensurately The vagueness of the current rule has even led to 

 the absurd interpretation that mowing boat lanes and decoy pools is baiting 

 Construing such manipulations as baiting transgresses the intent of baiting regulations 

 for ducks, that intent basically being to prevent someone from carrying in and 

 depositing corn or other food as lure to concentrate birds within shotgun range 

 Management of native vegetation is beneficial for waterfowl and other wetland wildlife 

 The Fish and Wildlife Service should be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the 

 stimulation and management of native vegetation for waterfowl habitat The overall 

 benefits to waterfowl and other wetland wildlife that would derive from encouraging 

 management of native vegetation would far outweigh the minimal increase in waterfowl 

 harvest that would result. The regulations should specifically provide for the taking of 

 waterfowl over native vegetation that has been manipulated provided that the 

 vegetation was grown on the area as result of natural regeneration or site preparation 



A final point of confusion is that the current regulations provide for the taking of 

 migratory game birds, other than waterfowl, over lands where crops have been 

 manipulated "for wildlife management purposes." The intent of this provision was to 

 allow the taking of migratory game birds other than waterfowl over areas where 

 standing crops or naturally occurring vegetation has been manipulated (i e , mowed, 

 disked, or burned ). The current language suggests that the crop or other feed must 



