Some years I lease and others I don't. Never leased a place with standing crops purposely left for ducks, and, since I don't have any rich relatives to leave me a bunch of money, I probably never will. There's nothing special about leasing except that it's extremely common in some areas and rare in others. I'm a bit envious of those who live in areas where it is the exception, but it's been the rule in my part of the country for longer than I've been alive. Seriously, I just want to understand your position. I'm in no way opposing Canada doing whatever they believe best within confines of the treaty. I also rarely talk about these issues on a nationwide basis because conditions are so very different in other parts of the country. While I've hunted all the flyways, my depth of experience is in the MS. Not specific to anyone here, but social media debates I've seen about this issue make it obvious a lot of folks really don't grasp the habitat situation in this flyway. And there's really no reason they should since they've spent little to no time in it. Is it the lease deal that bothers you? Is it somehow worse if a crop is intentionally flooded by duck hunters, or would any flooded crops be off limits in your ideal scenario? If the latter, much of the flyway would have been closed this year since few places weren't within the zone of influence of standing beans. Is moist soil somehow more ethical to grow, flood and hunt than crops? Are you like the LA guy I corresponded with who felt that any water held back by a levee should be off limits?