It was one very snowy and cold Christmas day in the mid 1950s when a local duck hunter invited two inexperienced “wanna-be” waterfowlers to go along with him on a Pamlico Sound duck hunt. I was one of the two “newbies” and loved every minute of the 45-minute cold and wet boat ride out to a marshy point that extended out into the Pamlico Sound near Hobucken.

From the blind we stared out through the snow on about 30 miles of the open Pamlico Sound. Behind us a small creek wound through the marsh for about a half-mile.

We placed about two dozen, heavy, solid wood, black and white decoys that a modern day decoy collector would pay a lot of money for. We put them out in front of the hastily cleared spot in the marsh that would serve as our blind and settled in to wait for the daylight to give us enough light to see to shoot by. We didn’t have long to wait.

The first small flocks of what we learned were “bluebills” began to fly over us within minutes. On the command of our host, we jumped up and began shooting at these fast-flying birds that were passing about 20 yards over our heads. Our host didn’t miss many shots and we youngsters managed to hit a duck with about every four shots we fired. It didn’t take long for the combined efforts of our host and us amateurs to have a few ducks drifting on the water in front of us. It was the kind of duck hunting day that we now old timers love to sit around a roaring fireplace and talk about.

I don’t remember how many of the bluebills we managed to kill that day. Since we didn’t even know what the bag limit was, it didn’t make much difference how many ducks we collected. Small flocks of these bluebills kept flying by us as they headed up into the little creek behind us. They didn’t pay much attention at all to the decoys that we’d set out in front of our makeshift blind. If we youngsters missed a lot of birds, our host made up for the kill with his experienced shooting.

In retrospect, I do remember that, as we went back into the little creek that meandered out through the marsh behind us to retrieve the drifting ducks we’d killed, there was a decided golden glow emanating from just under about two feet of water. It could have been a small spot of sandy bottom in the middle of this usually muddy little creek, but over a lot of years I think that we’d been shooting with the aid of bait. That had sent flock after flock of bluebills just over our heads as we hunkered down in that little, cleared out spot in the marsh. It was the kind of pass shooting that waterfowl hunters often dream about.

Both state and federal game wardens used to refer to our Pamlico-Albemarle coastal waters and marshes as the Gold Coast for obvious reasons. Shelled corn on the muddy bottoms gives off a very obvious golden glow.

Under our modern day North Carolina waterfowl baiting laws, I suppose that we’d have been in the clear. The questionably baited area up in the creek was well over the 300 yards that defined the distance a legitimate modern day waterfowler needs to be away from the bait. Under the federal baiting law, this is another entirely different matter.

The federal waterfowl baiting rules and regulations set defined distance a hunter has to be away from what the ”feds” define as a baited area. If an illegal waterfowl hunter should be charged with shooting (or even attempting to shoot) ducks and geese over bait the Federal Courts have defined the act of shooting waterfowl over bait as being within shotgun range.

If the charges should be shooting with the aid of bait, the regulations pretty well leave it up to the federal game wardens to make a judgment call based on their own experiences. If the birds were flying to (or from) a baited site that had lured the birds into shooting range as they passed by a hunter, the feds used to charge the hunters with “shooting with the aid of bait.”

The bait could be twenty miles away from an unsuspecting waterfowl hunter, but if the warden felt that the bird’s flight patterns were based on the presence of bait, the hunters could be charged with illegal waterfowl hunting. It didn’t matter if the hunter knew that bait was present. Under the old federal law of “strict liability,” the hunters were guilty until proven innocent (not innocent until proven guilty).

After several North Carolina waterfowl hunters (along with a lot of concerned hunters from other states) testified in Congressional Oversight Hearings several years ago, Congress dictated that the federal wardens now have to prove that a duck hunter either knew, or should have known, that an area was baited before the hunter could be charged. The strict liability rule is no more. The old and proven innocent until proven guilty rule prevails now with waterfowl baiting cases.

Several years ago some people with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) called up WRAL Radio announcer Steve Shumake in Raleigh to ask that he put the word out on his thrice-weekly outdoor radio show over the North Carolina and Virginia News Network. The PETA folks were going to throw a bucket of shelled corn in front of every waterfowl blind in the Pamlico River and Sound and then notify the game wardens that all the blinds were baited and, with the warden’s help, the hunters were to be charged with shooting over bait.

Under the old federal laws, PETA might have gotten away with it. Under the new regulations, the wardens must prove that the hunters knew (or should have known) that the area was baited. Even better, under our relatively new North Carolina law, the PETA folks could be charged with hunter harassment and face charges themselves.

It is not against any known law to bait ducks by placing food for the birds to eat. Ducks are suckers for grain in the water and nearly behave addictive to feed on it. Lots of us like to feed the wild ducks in front of our waterfront homes and can spend hours just watching the birds frolic around just off the end of our docks. If someone should shoot at these baited ducks (or geese), they can be charged under both North Carolina and Federal law.

Even if the hunters (I’m a waterfowl hunter myself) knowingly shoot at these ducks, knowing that the birds are on their way to or from the source of bait, and a warden can clearly show that the hunters he’s charged either knew (or should have known) that the birds were on their way to (or from) the bait then the hunter’s in a lot of trouble.

If waterfowl hunters want to be as sure as they can that an area is OK to hunt and no bait is present, they need to check the area out before hunting there. Some lawyers have suggested that the hunters hold a dated newspaper in front of them to document the time and date that they’re scouting for the presence of bait before hunting there. If the hunters can show that they’ve made a reasonable effort to be sure that there’s no bait there, then have a good duck hunt.