Arkansas SWD Petition

[bayou pirate]

^^^ What he said. ^^^

[LabLuvR]

As I said, they will not ban them again. I know of one person who refuses to use the damn things and kills the shit out of ducks. My view is that tree topping hurts the hunting more than a spinner, though I don't care for them either.

[coot nasty]

All I know is when I was out there this year the damn homemade vortex we had hit more ducks than I did. Every morning we would cut that thing on early and you could here it hitting ducks and knocking them into the water. Kinda crazy..

[LabLuvR]

It would drive me crazy to have to watch that Vortex all morning.

[coot nasty]

We only used it firs flight then we cut it off. It works great right before light

[LabLuvR]

So does standing in the timber naked and kicking water.

[coot nasty]

Lmao!

[Catdaddy]

It causes tree topping in the woods.

Tree topping runs them out of the woods to the fields.

Field hunters are loving them.

[ndbrown213]

Thanks for the explanations.

[marsh chicken]

It causes tree topping in the woods.

Tree topping runs them out of the woods to the fields.

Field hunters are loving them.

Meh....not exactly.

[marsh chicken]

Here is the problem....the petition is relaying on redneck junk science to try and prove a certain detrimental outcome from the use of SWD. Everyone has their opinions, but there is very little research, none in this case, being cited as to the negative effects the device has on waterfowl. I can only recall reading one study on the subject, which was that the SWD was said to have a major effect on the harvest of young birds in the prairie pothole region. The study cited a much higher increase in the harvest of 1 yr old birds when hunters used a SWD vs not using them. But that's Canada and NODAK. I would love for someone to conduct a study on the use of them in the delta.

My personal opinion on the matter? They are a pain in the ass to mess with unless your dry field hunting, and it's been overused as a tool by the weekend warrior. Learn the fundamentals of working ducks if you want to "hunt" ducks. I wouldn't care if they banned them. I think they hurt your hunts much more than they help if you can call worth a shit and want to kill birds in the decoys....but that's just my opinion amongst a million.

[BOGSTER]

We don't need grant funds allocated to a grad student wearing a Delta Waterfowl hat to spend 3 years duck hunting just to verify that SWDs draw birds that would pass on by otherwise, anymore than we need to give somebody 50 thousand dollars and 3 years to see if they can run all the ducks out of Berkeley County with an air cooled engine mudboat.

The study has been conducted time and time again.
Does it need to be printed in those construction paper flyway pages of the DU magazines to be widely accepted?

The question is not whether these types of technological advances are in fact harming, it is whether or not we care enough about the resources to take a stance against them.

[Professor]

its rare that you see a GW out there.

?????? You ever hunted public in AR?
Professor

[marsh chicken]

We don't need grant funds allocated to a grad student wearing a Delta Waterfowl hat to spend 3 years duck hunting just to verify that SWDs draw birds that would pass on by otherwise, anymore than we need to give somebody 50 thousand dollars and 3 years to see if they can run all the ducks out of Berkeley County with an air cooled engine mudboat.

The study has been conducted time and time again.
Does it need to be printed in those construction paper flyway pages of the DU magazines to be widely accepted?

The question is not whether these types of technological advances are in fact harming, it is whether or not we care enough about the resources to take a stance against them.

Look I get it. But your also talking about doing away with something that puts money in people's pockets, some of whom are well connected. So to think a bunch of guys signing an online petition will get rid of the things is a bit far fetched.

We don't need grant money, federal funds, etc to be spent on this. All you need is some academic to do the research as their term paper, thesis, etc. Provide good solid scientific evidence and now your getting somewhere. Otherwise your left with printing off pages of web forums and reading people's opinion to the AGFC. I can see it now..

Cut em' all duckcommander greenhead slayer6969 wrote on July 11th:

I ain't think them thangs make no deference until my cousin Ricky brawt his mojo to tha scatters. We couldn't work ducks that day like I thout they wood. Outlaw them fuckin thangs!

[LabLuvR]

Last week I saw birds in the stratosphere drop down into a hole. Those guys either had four dozen Vortexs or corn out. Those were birds that in no way in hell would have dropped without a SWD. So draw your on conclusions from that situation.

[ndbrown213]

How can you be so sure Labluvr?

[MorningWoody]

Where our fathers and grandfathers before us just used decoys, natural surroundings, knowledge of waterfowl and weather, and the skill of a call, we use mallard machines, robotic ducks, vortexes, and any other electronic device we can to give ourselves a one up on our game.

At what point is it an unfair advantage to the game we pursue?
Where do we draw the line?

With technology developing at such a rapid pace, giving us access to literally every square inch of waterfowl habitat via surface drive engines, and electronics cohersing birds that likely wouldn't have responded to an unskilled caller, at what point is it too much?

Some will say any regulations set on these types of things are an encroachment on our freedoms, some will claim that I and those that think like me are ridiculous to think that these things are causing harm, because if they were they would be stopped.
Some know they cause harm and simply don't care as long as they have tailgate photos and chest thumping sessions with like-minded folks about how awesome they are at killing ducks.

Will we draw the line at entire decoy spreads moving and flapping? Will
We stop at quacking robotic hens luring birds from way up?

Just some things to think about....

Our forefathers used live decoys, I would love to use live ducks in my spread. They also used lead shot and no plugged guns so quit acting like the old days hunters were so much better sportsman...

[Duckman#1]

Where our fathers and grandfathers before us just used decoys, natural surroundings, knowledge of waterfowl and weather, and the skill of a call, ...

They also heat with wood burning stoves and rode horses. As much as I hate the damn things I'm afraid there here to stay. After the first couple years everyone was saying that there was a high percentage of juviniles being killed over swd. 15 years later they seem to have had no affect on ducks.

[Catdaddy]

How can you be so sure Labluvr?

Waterfowl managers in Minnesota and other states are concerned that increased kill rates associated with the use of spinning-wing decoys (SWDs) may negatively affect local breeding populations of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). I conducted 219 experimental hunts to evaluate hunting vulnerability of mallards to SWDs during the 2002 duck-hunting season in Minnesota. Following experimental hunts, I asked volunteer hunters to complete post-hunt questionnaires to document their hunting experience, and their use and opinions of SWDs. Finally, I used stable isotope methodology to determine natal origins of HY mallards killed during experimental hunts. I found that mallard flocks (≥1 duck) were 2.91 times more likely to respond (i.e., approached within 40 m of hunters) when SWDs were turned ‘ON’. Sizes of responding mallard flocks were 1.25 times larger, on average, when SWDs were turned ‘ON’ than ‘OFF’. Mallards killed/hr/hunter/hunt averaged 4.71 times higher (P < 0.05) when SWDs were turned ‘ON’ than ‘OFF’. More HY and AHY mallards were killed when SWDs were turned ‘ON’ than ‘OFF’; however, AHYs were relatively less likely than were HYs to be killed with SWDs turned ‘ON’. Based on my stable isotope analysis, more local and migrant HY mallards were killed by hunters when SWDs were turned ‘ON’ than ‘OFF’, but local HY mallards were not relatively more likely than were migrant HY mallards to be killed by hunters using SWDs in Minnesota. I found no evidence that SWDs reduced crippling nor allowed hunters to harvest relatively more drakes than hens. I estimated that if 46% and 79% of Minnesota hunters used SWDs in 2000 and 2002, respectively, Minnesota mallard harvest would increase by factors of 2. However, increasing use of SWDs may result in a partial re-distribution of annual mallard harvests if naïve ducks are harvested upon initial exposures to SWDs, and those ducks that survive migrations to wintering areas become habituated to SWDs, as suggested by my results. My study was confined to a single hunting season in Minnesota, and thus, did not assess whether vulnerability of mallards to hunters using SWDs varies among years or geographically. A multi-year, flyway-wide study is needed to make stronger and more rigorous inferences regarding potential changes in annual harvest rates of mallards due to increasing use of SWDs by hunters in North America.


http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01262004-143729

[Sportin' Woodies]

Bog have you ever used or ridden in a mudboat?