Flooded Corn Law Gaining Steam

Eric Patterson

Eric Patterson

Administrator
Staff member
BREAKING: Senator John Kennedy Declares “War on Wet Corn,” Sparks National Debate

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what experts are calling “the most aggressively agricultural policy in modern history,” Senator John Kennedy (LA) unveiled sweeping legislation Tuesday that would make it strictly illegal to hunt over flooded corn, citing what he described as “unfair advantages granted by soggy vegetables.”

The proposed bill, officially titled the Dry Fields, Fair Chase Act, clocks in at 847 pages—312 of which are dedicated to defining what legally constitutes “too moist.”

“Corn has been wet for too long,” Kennedy declared at a press conference held in front of an inexplicably damp hay bale. “Our great nation was built on firm, dry kernels. Not… this.”

According to aides, the legislation would empower a newly formed federal agency—the Bureau of Moisture Compliance—to conduct surprise inspections of farms, fields, and “any suspiciously damp casseroles.” Violators could face fines, mandatory corn-drying seminars, or, in extreme cases, confiscation of their rubber boots.

Reaction has been swift and deeply confused. “I don’t even hunt,” said one bewildered citizen, “but I suddenly feel like I’m doing something illegal every time it rains.”

Agricultural groups are divided. The National Association of Corn Enthusiasts issued a statement reading, “We support corn in all its forms, emotional and physical.” Meanwhile, Ducks (collectively) declined to comment.

In a particularly contentious clause, the bill also proposes a “Corn Hydration Index,” which would be updated hourly using satellites, weather balloons, and what one staffer described as “a guy named Randy who just checks it.”

When pressed on enforcement challenges, Senator Kennedy remained confident. “If the corn is wet,” he said, pausing for emphasis, “we will know.”

The bill is expected to face opposition in the Senate, though insiders say several lawmakers are still trying to understand whether it’s real, symbolic, or “a very committed bit.”

At press time, a bipartisan group had already introduced a competing proposal: the Leave the Corn Alone Act.
 
Eric Patterson said:
BREAKING: Senator John Kennedy Declares “War on Wet Corn,” Sparks National Debate

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what experts are calling “the most aggressively agricultural policy in modern history,” Senator John Kennedy (LA) unveiled sweeping legislation Tuesday that would make it strictly illegal to hunt over flooded corn, citing what he described as “unfair advantages granted by soggy vegetables.”

The proposed bill, officially titled the Dry Fields, Fair Chase Act, clocks in at 847 pages—312 of which are dedicated to defining what legally constitutes “too moist.”

“Corn has been wet for too long,” Kennedy declared at a press conference held in front of an inexplicably damp hay bale. “Our great nation was built on firm, dry kernels. Not… this.”

According to aides, the legislation would empower a newly formed federal agency—the Bureau of Moisture Compliance—to conduct surprise inspections of farms, fields, and “any suspiciously damp casseroles.” Violators could face fines, mandatory corn-drying seminars, or, in extreme cases, confiscation of their rubber boots.

Reaction has been swift and deeply confused. “I don’t even hunt,” said one bewildered citizen, “but I suddenly feel like I’m doing something illegal every time it rains.”

Agricultural groups are divided. The National Association of Corn Enthusiasts issued a statement reading, “We support corn in all its forms, emotional and physical.” Meanwhile, Ducks (collectively) declined to comment.

In a particularly contentious clause, the bill also proposes a “Corn Hydration Index,” which would be updated hourly using satellites, weather balloons, and what one staffer described as “a guy named Randy who just checks it.”

When pressed on enforcement challenges, Senator Kennedy remained confident. “If the corn is wet,” he said, pausing for emphasis, “we will know.”

The bill is expected to face opposition in the Senate, though insiders say several lawmakers are still trying to understand whether it’s real, symbolic, or “a very committed bit.”

At press time, a bipartisan group had already introduced a competing proposal: the Leave the Corn Alone Act.
Click to expand...
I understand this to be comical and another April Fools Day humor post. I appreciate this.

However, look no further than the State where nothing is allowed (Minnesota), and our democratic legislators have introduced a bill to grant rights to Wild Rice.

As of March 2026, Minnesota Senator Mary Kunesh has introduced legislation (including SF3916/HF3897) aiming to grant "inherent rights" to natural, uncultivated wild rice (Manoomin). The bill seeks to protect the plant by recognizing its right to exist and thrive, requiring "wild rice risk justifications" for state permits, and adding tribal language to its description as state grain.

Key Aspects of the 2026 Proposed Legislation:
  • Inherent Rights: The bill would amend state law to recognize that wild rice, a sacred and ecologically vital plant to Indigenous communities, has the right to exist, thrive, and be protected.
  • Risk Mitigation: It requires state agencies, such as the DNR and Pollution Control Agency, to conduct a "wild rice risk justification" before issuing permits for activities that could damage wild rice waters.
  • Protection Measures: Proposals include banning pesticides and restricting motorboat activity (wake restrictions) in designated wild rice beds.
  • Tribal Consultation: The legislation mandates consultation with Minnesota Tribal governments, as wild rice harvesting is protected by treaty rights
Context and Controversy:
  • Cultural Importance: Wild rice is essential to the Ojibwe and Dakota people and is a sensitive indicator of water quality.
  • Environmental Threat: Advocates state that wild rice, essential to Minnesota's cultural heritage, is in decline due to pollution and climate change.
  • Legal Debate: Critics have questioned the definition of "inherent rights" and how such a law would be enforced, arguing it could create legal liabilities.
 

Attachments

  • 1775156992632.png
    1775156992632.png
    3 KB · Views: 2
  • 1775156992637.png
    1775156992637.png
    3 KB · Views: 2
Eric Patterson said:
Mark

Sounds like that could be a good thing for waterfowl habitat. Yes? No?
Click to expand...
Mark W said:
However, look no further than the State where nothing is allowed (Minnesota), and our democratic legislators have introduced a bill to grant rights to Wild Rice.
Click to expand...
I think what Mark is alluding to is granting rights to a plant. The same thing has happened with corporations and recent Supreme Court rulings that have granted these inanimate/nonsentient entities personhood.
I would not argue that wild rice shouldn't be protected, but granting it rights under the Constitution of the State of MN is a bit weird. Too bad our legislators and courts don't feel the same way about the unborn as they do indigenous plants. RM
 
Last edited:
RM Anderson said:
I think what Mark is alluding to is granting rights to a plant. The same thing has happened with corporations and recent Supreme Court rulings that have granted these inanimate/nonsentient entities personhood.
I would not argue that wild rice shouldn't be protected, but granting it rights under the Constitution of the State of MN is a bit weird. Too bad our legislators and courts don't feel the same way about the unborn as they do indigenous plants. RM
Click to expand...
Similar attempts to constitutionally protect the right to fish and hunt, and here in Maine, we passed a "right to food" amendment that protects the right to harvest, grow, forage, and otherwise collect plants and animals to eat. It's now been used to challenge Maine's law banning Sunday hunting, and fly fishing only regulations in the state's fishing rules. https://lawguides.mainelaw.maine.edu/c.php?g=194701&p=5660246
 
This was my thinking too:
Setting rules and protecting a keystone species / ecosystem: good idea.
Granting anything non-human "inherent rights": strange at the least, a dangerous slippery slope at best.
"Rights" are a purely human construct that doesn't exist in nature, we as a society have to agree on what perceive to be "Rights" in order to protect ourselves from ourselves.
We as a species can not even agree on a complete set of "human rights".
Let alone determine the "rights" for non-human species and/or systems.
Stepping into granting a similar construct to natural systems, plants and animals is a philosophical quagmire.
Is a muskrat eating a native rice plant violating that plant's rights? What about the fox killing a rabbit?

But then wasn't this supposed to a fun thread???
 
Mark W said:
I understand this to be comical and another April Fools Day humor post. I appreciate this.

However, look no further than the State where nothing is allowed (Minnesota), and our democratic legislators have introduced a bill to grant rights to Wild Rice.

As of March 2026, Minnesota Senator Mary Kunesh has introduced legislation (including SF3916/HF3897) aiming to grant "inherent rights" to natural, uncultivated wild rice (Manoomin). The bill seeks to protect the plant by recognizing its right to exist and thrive, requiring "wild rice risk justifications" for state permits, and adding tribal language to its description as state grain.

Key Aspects of the 2026 Proposed Legislation:
  • Inherent Rights: The bill would amend state law to recognize that wild rice, a sacred and ecologically vital plant to Indigenous communities, has the right to exist, thrive, and be protected.
  • Risk Mitigation: It requires state agencies, such as the DNR and Pollution Control Agency, to conduct a "wild rice risk justification" before issuing permits for activities that could damage wild rice waters.
  • Protection Measures: Proposals include banning pesticides and restricting motorboat activity (wake restrictions) in designated wild rice beds.
  • Tribal Consultation: The legislation mandates consultation with Minnesota Tribal governments, as wild rice harvesting is protected by treaty rights
Context and Controversy:
  • Cultural Importance: Wild rice is essential to the Ojibwe and Dakota people and is a sensitive indicator of water quality.
  • Environmental Threat: Advocates state that wild rice, essential to Minnesota's cultural heritage, is in decline due to pollution and climate change.
  • Legal Debate: Critics have questioned the definition of "inherent rights" and how such a law would be enforced, arguing it could create legal liabilities.
Click to expand...
Un-frickin'believable! The stuff politicians come up with.
 
I like Montana's approach. Their Constitution--not an amendment, but the original document--enshrines a right to "a clean and healthful environment."

(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources
 
Protecting wild rice is good for waterfowl habitat. However, it is not being done for these reasons. It will essentially eliminate hunting lakes where wild rice grows as you can't damage a "person" without inherent rights withour potential liability (meaning arrested, jailed and tired). Seondly, this is boing done for the Indian population, not the citizens. Indians harvest wild rice as do ordinary citizens. While Indian folks harvest from wild rice grown naturally in lakes, many farmers create fields to grow and harvest wild rice. Indians being sovereign, can still harvest wild rice on tribal land and waters. Wild Rice farmers will no longer be able to do so. This is part of the understanding.

There is much more behind this as well. On side of the political aisle has been trying to give more land to the indians. The land they want to give away is in the ara of Red Lake. Indians control 2/3's of the lake and no one can hut of fish this area. It ia also an area of intensice wirld rice farming. These lawmaker want to extend Indian propoerty to areas that are currently public and private. Should this succed, the wild rice farmers in the area will lose their land and livelyhood. Since this new land give away legislation is faces legal challenges, they have to come up with a different way to make it hard for private individuals to grow, harvest AND SELL their wild rice.

Lots going on behind all of this.

Mark
 
Sheer lunacy. This is what happens when we shift what used to be personal responsibility (to and for each other and community) to political responsibility. Regulating something (anything) is the shortest path to eliminating personal responsibility - well, except maybe regulating and taxing something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top