Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02566/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2566

___________

Alex Falk; Annie Falk; * 

Big Bend Ranch Hunting, Inc.; * 

Mohammed Hattum; Bob Nystrom, * 

* 

Appellants, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

United States, by and through The * 

Department of the Interior, United *

States Fish and Wildlife Service, * 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2006

Filed: July 5, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, South Dakota landowners, commenced a declaratory judgment

action challenging decisions made by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

("FWS") affecting the use of their land for goose hunting. After considering the

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-

stipulated facts, the district court1

 entered judgment in favor of FWS, finding that its

decisions were reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. We affirm. 

I. Background

Appellants Alex Falk, Annie Falk, Mohammed Hattum, and Bob Nystrom all

own land in South Dakota. They all use their land for both the planting of crops and

hunting of migratory fowl. Appellant Big Bend Ranch Hunting, Inc., leases the right

to hunt the Falks' land. Appellants receive significant income from both farming and

commercial hunting operations. For example, Big Bend Hunting Ranch normally

receives an average of $284,250 in annual gross revenue for a season of hunting, in

addition to approximately $9,000 gross revenue derived from membership charges for

its waterfowl hunting club.

To attract the maximum number of geese, the Falks and Hattum leave corn

standing in their fields, harvesting only a few rows at a time. By harvesting a few rows

of corn at a time, the appellants essentially ration the supply of corn available for the

geese to eat because the geese will not venture into the standing corn. Because

appellants' corn crop residue provides a known food source, the geese return annually

as they migrate. 

Planting and harvesting methods are permissible under FSW regulations as long

as they are considered "normal." Appellants' incremental harvesting technique often

delays their harvest beyond December 1 of any given year. In 1999, Officer Bob

Prieksat, the federal warden, informed the Falks that hunting in fields harvested after

December 1 would be illegal. Since that time, the Falks have complied with Officer

Prieksat's conclusion. Dr. Robert Hall, an agronomist for the United States

Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service ("CES") and a professor

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-3-

of plant sciences at South Dakota State University, opined that a normal harvest would

take place before December 1. Dr. Hall estimated that 95 to 100 percent of the corn

in South Dakota is harvested by December 1. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Hall

relied on a South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service publication entitled "Seeding

to Harvest" that covered years 1970–1994. Dr. Hall also estimated that nearly 90

percent of the corn harvest in South Dakota is completed by November 14 in any

given year. The earliest harvest considered in the published survey was October 29,

1991, in which roughly 100 percent of the planted corn was harvested. By contrast,

the latest harvest contained in the published survey was November 24, 1992, which

resulted in a harvest of only 50 percent of the crop planted that year. Thus, the longer

corn remains in the field, the potential for loss increases due to excessive drying,

excessive moisture, wind loss, and stalk breakage. 

In recent years, the entire goose hunting season has tended to start and end later

each year. For example, a recent goose season opened on October 24, 2004, and

closed on January 28, 2005. The appellants wish to "tailor their [corn] harvesting to

the goose hunting season in order to maximize the number of geese attracted" to their

property during the hunting season by harvesting their crop a few rows at a time and

completing their harvest after December 1. 

Although geese will not venture into standing corn, geese will feed on green

wheat growing in fields. With that goose trait in mind, the appellants wish to aerially

seed winter wheat in their standing corn crop to attract geese in addition to continuing

post-December 1 corn harvesting. Officer Prieksat informed the plaintiffs that hunting

in a field seeded in this manner would be illegal. Dr. Hall opined that aerial seeding

was not a recommended method for planting wheat in South Dakota. Aerial seeding

permits the wheat to be infected by bacteria harbored in the corn residue, resulting in

a loss of 10 to 100 percent of the wheat harvest. In addition, Dr. Hall noted that

although aerial seeding is sometimes used in emergencies, such as years in which the

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-4-

fields are too wet to support ground-driven equipment, growers are generally

disappointed with the results.

In 2001, a neighbor to the Falks' land harvested a cornfield adjacent to the

Falks' property after December 1. This neighbor, who competes with the Falks

through his own commercial waterfowl hunting operation, contacted Alex Falk and

told him that his field probably would be considered baited. If considered baited,

Falk's pits adjacent to the neighbor's baited field could not be legally hunted. Falk

contacted Officer Prieksat, who confirmed that it would be illegal to hunt waterfowl

in the Falks' fields that were influenced by the neighbor's baited area. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, the appellants challenge determinations of the FSW that: (1)

harvesting after December 1 does not constitute "normal harvesting"; (2) aerial

seeding does not constitute "normal planting"; and (3) hunting is prohibited within the

zone of influence of a baited area regardless of who baited the area. 

We review the agency decisions for an abuse of discretion. The Administrative

Procedure Act provides that "[t]he reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set

aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . ." 5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(A); see also Bradley v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, 736 F.2d

1238, 1240 (8th Cir. 1984). In Bradley, we explained that: 

The "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review is a narrow one. Its

scope is more restrictive than the "substantial evidence" test which is

applied when reviewing formal findings made on a hearing record.

"Administrative action may be regarded as arbitrary and capricious only

where it is not supportable on any rational basis." Something more than

mere error is necessary to meet the test. To have administrative action set

aside as arbitrary and capricious, the party challenging the action must

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-5-

prove that it was "willful and unreasoning action, without consideration

and in disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case[.]"

736 F.2d at 1240 (citations omitted). "Similarly, we accord substantial deference to

an agency's interpretation of its own regulation, which we are bound to uphold unless

it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or unless the interpretation is plainly

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Coalition For Fair & Equitable

Regulation of Docks on Lake of the Ozarks v. F.E.R.C., 297 F.3d 771, 778 (8th Cir.

2002) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 

FSW regulations prohibit the taking of migratory birds "[b]y the aid of baiting,

or on or over any baited area." 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i). Generally, one may permissibly

hunt "where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal

agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization

practice," provided that the area is not otherwise considered baited. § 20.21(i)(1)(i).

The regulations define "baiting" as "the direct or indirect placing, exposing,

depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could serve as

a lure or attraction for migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas where hunters

are attempting to take them." 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(k). "Normal agricultural planting,

harvesting, or post-harvest manipulation means a planting or harvesting undertaken

for the purpose of producing and gathering a crop, or manipulation after such harvest

and removal of grain, that is conducted in accordance with official recommendations

of State Extension Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture." § 20.11(g) (emphasis added).

A. Harvesting after December 1

First, the appellants seek a declaratory judgment that their preferred harvesting

methods do not constitute baiting. Specifically, the appellants argue that they have

complied with the regulations because (1) they have planted their fields for the

purpose of producing and gathering crops; and (2) the regulations do not require that

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-6-

the purpose of planting the crop is to produce the maximum yield. Therefore,

according to the appellants, they should not be penalized for harvesting their crop after

December 1 in order to increase the number of geese attracted to their fields. 

However, while the regulations do not require that a crop be harvested to

produce the maximum yield, the regulations do require that landowners use "normal

harvesting." Section 20.11(g) defines "normal harvesting" as harvesting conducted in

accordance with the official recommendations of the CES. The recommendations of

Dr. Robert Hall, an agronomist for the CES, represent the official recommendations

of the CES. Dr. Hall estimated that between 95 to 100 percent of the corn in South

Dakota is harvested by December 1. In making his estimation, Dr. Hall relied on a

South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service publication entitled "Seeding to Harvest"

that covered years 1970–1994. Dr. Hall also estimated that nearly 90 percent of the

corn harvest in South Dakota is completed by November 14 in any given year. The

CES's determination that a normal harvest is completed by December 1 was based on

substantial evidence. Accordingly, we hold that FSW's reliance upon the CES data

was consistent with the regulations and not arbitrary and capricious. As a result, we

affirm. 

B. Aerial Seeding

The appellants also challenge the agency's determination that aerial seeding of

winter wheat is not "normal planting" and represents baiting. As with the date of

harvest above, § 20.11(g) defines "normal planting" as planting conducted in

accordance with the official recommendations of the CES. Dr. Hall stated that the

aerial seeding of winter wheat into standing corn was not a recommended wheat

planting method in South Dakota. Aerial seeding often causes the wheat to be infected

by bacteria found in the corn residue and results in substantial losses of 10 to 100

percent of the wheat harvest. Dr. Hall noted that aerial seeding is sometimes used in

emergencies but that it generally produces disappointing results.

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-7-

The appellants also attempt to argue that aerial seeding should be permitted

because a FWS brochure allows for the planting of a "goose field," provided that the

seeds germinate at least ten days prior to hunting. However, in the paragraph

preceding the one highlighted by the appellants, the brochure states "Lands planted

by means of top sowing or aerial seeding can only be hunted if seeds are present

solely as the result of normal agricultural planting . . . ." (App. 82). 

Because aerial seeding of winter wheat into standing corn is not "normal

planting," the agency's prohibition of hunting pursuant to § 20.21(i)(1)(i) on land

seeded in that manner is not arbitrary and capricious.

C. Zone of Influence

Lastly, the appellants contend that the government could not lawfully close their

property to hunting because of a neighbor's baiting on adjoining land. Admittedly, the

regulations are not a model of clarity on this point; however, the agency's

interpretations of the regulations are reasonable when § 20.21(i) is considered in light

of § 20.11(j). 

Under § 20.21(i), a person is prohibited from taking migratory birds "[b]y the

aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area." A "baited area" is "any area on which

salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered,

if that salt, grain, or other feed could serve as a lure or attraction for migratory game

birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them." § 20.11(j)

(emphasis added). The italicized language describes the zone of influence of a baited

area. See United States v. Manning, 787 F.2d 431, 438 (8th Cir. 1986) ("[The FWS

Agent] determined that the geese were taken within the zone of influence of the bait

based on his firsthand observations and his eleven years of experience . . . .").

Considering § 20.21(i) and § 20.11(j) together, it is reasonable to interpret the

regulations prohibiting hunting within the zone of influence of a baited area. See

United States v. Chandler, 753 F.2d 360, 362 (4th Cir. 1985) ("The manifest intent of

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
2

The regulation at issue in Allen defined "baited area" as "any area where

shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt or other feed

whatsoever capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds is directly or indirectly

placed, exposed, deposited, distributed or scattered." Id. at 590 (citing 50 C.F.R. §

10.3(b)(9)). By contrast, 50 C.F.R. § 20.11(j), which is the relevant regulation in the

case at bar, defines "baited area" as "any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has

been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or other

feed could serve as a lure or attraction for migratory game birds to, on, or over areas

where hunters are attempting to take them." (emphasis added). 

-8-

the regulation [§ 20.21(i)] is to prohibit the taking of waterfowl that are lured to an

area by bait."). Whether an area is a "baited area" is a factual determination. Manning,

787 F.2d at 437 ("Congress must have intended for the violation to turn on the factual

determination that birds are being lured to a hunter's shooting location, no matter how

far the bait is from that location." (quoting Chandler, 753 F.2d at 363)).

In the instant case, the Falks' neighbor harvested his land after December 1,

2001. Because harvesting corn after December 1 is not "normal harvesting," the

neighbor's land was a "baited area" within the meaning of § 20.11(j). As a result, any

area within the zone of influence of the neighbor's late harvest would be precluded

from hunting. The agency's interpretation of the regulations is reasonable.

Appellants do not dispute the agency's definition of zone of influence.

However, appellants contend that the acts of third parties on land not owned or

controlled by appellants should not diminish appellants use of their own land

particularly when such acts could be done maliciously by competitors. For reversal,

appellants rely on Allen v. Merovka, 382 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1967). However Allen

is distinguishable from the case at bar. The regulation at issue in Allen defined "baited

area" more narrowly than the regulation at issue here. Id. at 590. The regulation in

Allen did not include language that gives rise to the zone of influence notion discussed

above.2 Id. Thus, Allen did not discuss the zone of influence. The Allen court's holding

pertained to the "by aid of baiting" language. Id. Allen held that the prohibition on

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847
-9-

hunting in a "baited area" required that the hunters have some part, directly or

indirectly, in the baiting or that the baiting is done for their benefit. Id. at 591.

We hold that the FWS's interpretation of the regulations as prohibiting hunting

within the zone of influence of a baited area, regardless of who baited the area, is not

plainly erroneous.

III. Conclusion

The district court correctly entered judgment for the government. The agency's

determinations were not arbitrary and capricious, and the agency's interpretation of the

regulations is not plainly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2566 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/05/2006 Entry ID: 2063847