Duck season ideas

[Nab]

Anybody got any ideas that they would like to have brought up at the WAC meeting in August?
Things that could be done now - shorter seasons, lower limits, cutoff times etc.
Please keep this to ideas and not cussing each other out - if we come up with something we will need people to show up and support them also.
Thanks,
Nab.

[Catdaddy]

My two cents.


Arkansas reported better working ducks all season long last year. They put the "hunt" back into hunting by banning spinners and it made a difference on how the birds worked. I personally noticed the same thing when I was out there.....two different times. Birds not as call shy and decoy shy as in years past.

This(banning spinners) was brought up before to the WAC and they laughed.

So if they aren't going to consider that please DO NOT REDUCE our hunting opportunities with some FEEL-GOOD......not backed by science ideas......like reducing the limit on pintails or reducing the number of days to 50. If the USFWS gives us 60........then let's have 60. If they are worried about wood ducks.......then hold back the season on them until they feel it is ok.

We are looking at a liberal season with all the early reports showing the duck population up 13% from last year.

[Candor]

I very much agree with Cat. Why are they so afraid of banning spinners?

The only good thing I can find out of spinners is it makes it easy to find where everyone is on a marsh or open water.

[Duckman#1]

I agree CD! Hell I wish they would ban them in the US and Canada just so it does'nt have to be talked about anymore!

[Nab]

I agree on banning the spinners so let's get up there and raise a litle hell.
Personally, I'm for reducing the days and limits and feel it will help here in SC by reducing some pressure - won't make a hill of beans to the overall population of ducks on the contitnent, but I don't need a scientific proof to know this should help locally.
Let's get a list of things that we can get done now and show up and support them - how long of a notice do ya'll need to have to be able to make the meeting?

[DUCKMAN]

I agree with banning the spinners! I think we should have 60 and 6 with no specials on pintails and cans( It was embarassing last year to be the only state that did on pintails!)We have huge areas of prime habitat that has no ducks so cutting days and limits makes no sense(I would not be opposed to cutting the limit to 5 but only if the rest of the Atlantic flyway states did so also) Managed private habitat has become the area of choice for wild ducks in SC. Until regs are placed that equal or exceed those that the private managers use - the public waterfowler will not see any improvement except for the occasional influx of weather ducks and those will find the managed areas very quickly and stay.

What about banning all mud motors - they banned my Panther airboat in 1983 and I am still pissed!!!! LOL

[Nab]

So a few ideas - ban the spinners - a great idea - and do what the other states do and the max the FWS allows.

[Duckman#1]

Until regs are placed that equal or exceed those that the private managers use - the public waterfowler will not see any improvement

<font size="-1" face="verdana,arial,helv">Does this include planting corn on public land?

I would not be opposed to cutting the limit to 5 but only if the rest of the Atlantic flyway states did so also

<font size="-1" face="verdana,arial,helv">Now I thought you were one of the ones saying that cutting limit would do any good that we needed days off!? They cut us 10 day and that was a fuck up?! Not starting a pissin match just bring up what I read in the past.

[GobblerHntr]

I would give my $0.02 but it will do not one bit of good b/c good ole SC will do nothing to change the way it is and has been for the last few years.

Here's an idea; Ban released Mallard's.

[DUCKMAN]

DM#1 - I have absolutely no problem with planting corn on public land and hunting it....I strongly support it ...as long as it is managed like the waterfowl managers that have ducks do it!

You are right - in the last several years - pressure in the swamp has dropped dramatically and the results have been no increase in ducks - this tells me they have found superior habitat elsewhere and it is not on public land. I see no change in this until we as public hunters are willing to make the sacrifices that the private guy is doing. I have a small place - hunted it twice last year - killed mallards and blacks both hunts but I do not feel that we could have had another hunt. After each hunt, it took weeks to get the birds back in huntable numbers that would not ruin the place. Corn is king and if it is in the right place, you will kill quality ducks if you manage to what is needed and right now that can not happen on public waters in SC except for the occasional weather day or extended freeze.

We have just learned from the telemetry data from pintails that they trade back and forth with North Carolina on a daily basis. Why should we restrict our limits and seasons when the same birds are harvested somewhere else. There is similar supporting data for mallards as shown with the mallard and pintail studies in La. and Ark.

Yes, I would support FLYWAY changes but to think that SC has any impact is fooling yourself.

Our only salvation is Mother Nature and the Flyway Foundation and its efforts to improve nesting success for mallards that come to SC!

[Nab]

Here's my take -
With the explosion of corn ponds and tamies in the last 10-15yrs, the public land does not have as good a chance as it did before this occurred - also, while this was going on - and I'm talking about Santee right now - we went thru a serious drought - ducks that did come down saw the swamp as a big field with some trees and a few creeks in it - where did they go? - to the corn ponds and the tamies - when they came back next yr the same thing happened - they are creatures of habit.
The vast majority of pubic land will never be able to compete with a flooded corn pond.
What we do here in SC will not have a major affect on the overall well being of the continent's ducks -what we can do is to give them as much food as we can, shoot and harrass them as little as possible so these creatures of habit will come to see SC as a place to be.
Many people in the past have brought up closing the season to allow them imprint again on SC - now when we bring up lowering limits and shortening seasons people complain - next Feb. alot of people will be complaining again about no ducks - why wouldn't having less hunting days with lower limits help SC?
Why not 40 days and 4 ducks?
When before AHM did we have this many hunting days and high limits? Yes, overall I feel they get hunted too much, but we can't do anything about the FWS and other states right now - we can do somthing about SC in an attempt to help - is it the right thing - don't know for sure - but I do know that we can sit around bitching and nothing will ever get done - and taking away some hunting pressure can't hurt - might not help but can't hurt so why not try it?

[GobblerHntr]

Originally posted by DUCKMAN:
We have just learned from the telemetry data from pintails that they trade back and forth with North Carolina on a daily basis. Why should we restrict our limits and seasons when the same birds are harvested somewhere else. There is similar supporting data for mallards as shown with the mallard and pintail studies in La. and Ark.

<font size="-1" face="verdana,arial,helv">Yea, I never understood what rocket scientist came up with the idea of putting limits on SC when other states all around us are killing pintails when our season is closed.

[Catdaddy]

Montana Ban
January 17, 2006
Steve Doherty, Chairman
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission
1420 E. Sixth
Helena, MT 59601
Dear Chairman Doherty:
We, the undersigned hunters, and Orion - the Hunters Institute, through this letter
formally ask the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to adopt a rule
prohibiting the use of all electronic decoys for waterfowl hunting in the State of Montana.
Many studies are now available that demonstrate the lethal effectiveness of electronic
decoys to not only increase the take of waterfowl, but also to significantly alter natural
behaviors. More importantly, perhaps, we believe the use of electronic decoys is contrary
to the “fair chase” ethic that is so strongly a part of the Montana hunting tradition.
Technologies that diminish the hunting opportunity, both in the sense of what the ducks
can endure and the time people can spend afield, are contrary to both the North American
model of wildlife conservation, and our ethical relationship with the fish and wildlife we
nurture.
I. Background
The use of electronic duck decoys, particularly spinning wing decoys, has become
widespread across North America since the initial development of the devices by duck
hunters in California in the late 1990’s. The percentage of hunters using these devices has
steadily increased during the last five or six years and now exceeds 50% in some parts of
the country.1 Although no specific studies have been done in Montana, our observations
as duck hunters indicate that similar increases are happening here. Like most restrictions
on new hunting technologies, it is clear that the longer waterfowl managers wait to ban
these devices, the more difficult such action will become.
Given both their effectiveness and their implications for fair chase hunting, electronic
spinning wing decoys are similar to many other hunting devices and techniques that have
been banned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. The rapid acceptance of
spinning wing decoys by many waterfowl hunters, coupled with the generally declining
scope of influence of the USFWS, has so far prevented the USFWS from addressing this
issue. Nonetheless, it is useful to place the use of electronic spinning wing decoys in
context by reviewing the history of how duck and goose hunting has been regulated by
USFWS.
1 Review of Electronic Motorized Decoys for Taking Migratory Game Birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, February, 2005.

Next Page

[Catdaddy]

With the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918, USFWS and its precursor
agencies began regulating waterfowl hunting. While the principle tools employed by
USFWS were season lengths and bag limits, USFWS also prohibited certain hunting
practices in order to limit take, preserve populations, and promote sportsmanship and fair
chase. Among other actions USFWS prohibited:
• using guns larger than 10 gauge (1918),
• taking waterfowl from boats under power or sail (1918),
• using bait to attract waterfowl (1931),
• using sink boxes and batteries (1935),
• using live decoys (1935),
• using shotguns with a capacity of more than three shells (1935),
• taking waterfowl using livestock as a means of concealment (1941),
• using electronic calling devices (1957), and
• taking waterfowl with toxic lead shot (1991).
II. Electronic Decoys Dramatically Increase the Take of Waterfowl
To date, a number of studies have been undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of
electronic spinning wing decoys for waterfowl hunting. All of these studies have shown a
dramatic increase in waterfowl take.
• A California study conducted by the University of California-Davis showed that
in paired tests (one group using electronic decoys, the other not) harvest rates for
hunters using electronic decoys was six times higher in the early season, four
times higher during the mid season, and two times higher in the last season.
• A Manitoba study showed that mallard harvest was 5 times higher for hunters
using electronic decoys in the marsh and 24 times higher in agricultural fields.
• A study done in Missouri showed that daily success for hunters using electronic
decoys increased by 13-19% and in paired tests, harvest was 1.5 times higher in
the early and late season and 3 times higher during the mid season.
• A Nebraska study using paired tests showed that hunters using electronic decoys
harvest twice as many ducks in a marsh setting and that mallard harvest was three
to four times higher in the late season.
• Other studies have been done in Arkansas, Illinois and Minnesota. A USFWS
review of all the studies done to date concluded, “overall, about 70% of all ducks
harvested in these studies were taken using spinning wing decoys, while
approximately 30% were harvested when SWDs were not in use.2”
III. Because of their Effectiveness, Other States Have Banned Electronic Decoys
While USFWS has, to date, refused to act on the issue of electronic decoys, several states
have moved to ban them because of their negative impacts on both waterfowl and the
2 Review of Electronic Motorized Decoys for Taking Migratory Game Birds, pp 2-3, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, February, 2005.
Previous Page Next Page
3
sport of waterfowl hunting. In each state, Fish and Wildlife Commissions or Departments
recognized that electronic decoys could excessively impact the waterfowl resource, and
lead to shorter seasons and smaller bag limits, even while undermining the great
traditions of duck and goose hunting.
Since ducks are attracted to spinning wing decoys over traditional decoys, hunters not
using this equipment, for whatever reason, will be placed at a selective disadvantage at
attracting ducks. This will lead to greater use of this equipment, greater harvests of ducks
per hunter, and—ultimately—reduced populations and hunting opportunity.
Washington State acted first, in 2001, banning all use of battery-powered and motorized
waterfowl decoys. In Washington, a poll determined that hunters were evenly divided on
the issue, but the Fish and Game Wildlife Commission banned electronic decoys by a
vote of 6-2. Commissioners noted that “robotic” decoys were not in keeping with the
traditions of waterfowl hunting and because their use was a fair chase issue, it was one
the Commission should decide, not public opinion.
Oregon banned spinning decoys in 2002, again because of fair chase concerns. As one
commissioner noted, “We don’t hunt anymore because we need to hunt to survive. We do
it for other values. We have to draw a line somewhere or we’ll have flying duck decoys.”
Arkansas, one of the great duck hunting states in the country, moved in 2004 to ban
electronic decoys for the 2005-2006 hunting season. The Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission was motivated to take this step by a comprehensive report on improving the
quality of Arkansas duck hunting that was prepared by the Arkansas Wildlife Federation
[AWF]. In the report’s discussion on spinning wing decoys, AWF’s Duck Committee
wrote:
Among several startling discoveries, the AWF Duck Committee made in its
investigation of the effect of mechanical or “spinning wing” decoys on duck
populations. Various reports have been done…and they all reach the same
conclusion: Hunters using spinning wing decoys kill more ducks, especially
young ducks.
Spinners also encourage more duck hunters to go hunting and add more days in
the field per hunter. This also causes more areas to be hunted because more
shooters feel confident enough to go afield. In other words, spinners require less
hunter effort and skill…
The AWF Duck Committee believes that the use of spinning winged decoys is so
detrimental to the quality of the hunt that they should be banned through the
nation. They reduce the fair-chase aspect of the sport and they remind us of tools
used by market hunters long ago, such as baiting, live decoys and electric callers.3
3 Improving the Quality of Duck Hunting in Arkansas: Findings and Recommendations
of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation Duck Committee, pp 20-21, August, 2003. (The full
report is available at http://www.arkansaswildlifefederation.org/.)
Previous Page Next Page
4
In addition to the total bans in Arkansas, Washington and Oregon, Minnesota, beginning
with the 2004-05 waterfowl season, prohibited their use during the first week of the duck
hunting season and throughout the season on all state wildlife management areas. In
2003, California began prohibiting electronic decoys from opening day through
December 1. Pennsylvania, which bans the use of electronic devices for all hunting, has
never allowed spinning wing decoys.


Continued

[Catdaddy]

IV. Montana Should Ban Electronic Decoys
Montana sportsmen, the Legislature, the Commission and the Department have long
worked together in conserving Montana’s fish and wildlife resources and protecting the
public’s right to hunt and fish in an ethical matter. Over the decades, Montana has shown
great leadership in recognizing that hunting must occur against a backdrop of fair chase
and that the conservation ethic not only includes protecting and enhancing fish and
wildlife populations, but also respecting the resource by limiting the tools and
technologies available to the hunter.
Beginning in the 1920’s and extending until the most recent legislative sessions and
elections, Montana laws and regulations reflect a basic philosophy of providing hunting
opportunity to the broad public, but against a defined code of conduct. In Montana it is:
• unlawful for anyone to hunt or attempt to hunt any game animal or game bird:
from any self-propelled or drawn vehicle;
• unlawful to use any recorded or electrically amplified bird or animal calls or
sounds to assist in the hunting, taking, killing, or capturing of wildlife, except
predatory animals and those birds not protected by state or federal law;
• unlawful to use aircraft to drive, rally or locate game animals;
• unlawful to use any boat to drive, rally or concentrate game;
• unlawful for a person, while hunting, to possess any electronic motiontracking
device that is designed to track the motion of a game animal and
relay information on the animal's movement to the hunter;
• by Commission regulation, it is unlawful to use radios or walkie-talkies while
hunting; and
• by voter initiative, it is unlawful for an alternative livestock licensee to allow
hunting of any alternative livestock, including deer and elk, for a fee or any
other type of compensation.
In adopting these laws and regulations, the legislature, the Commission and the voters all
evidence a clear philosophy that allows wildlife to range free and rejects the use of
electronic devices and motorized vehicles to gain advantage in the hunt. Instead, hunting
skill and the individual determination of the hunter are the keys to a “fair chase” and a
successful hunt, regardless of whether game is taken.
Against this backdrop of law, and in light of this wide support for fair chase, the
Commission should clearly move to ban electronic decoys, devices that dramatically
increase hunter success, cause waterfowl to abandon traditional behaviors, and diminish
the importance of hunter skill. The studies cited in this letter unambiguously demonstrate
Previous Page Next Page
5
the effectiveness of electronic decoys. They don’t, however, convey how they change
bird behavior. Hunters better describe how ducks not only swarm to decoys, but do so
where there is no duck habitat present. Consider this report that was posted on a website
about a duck hunt in the Flathead Valley this fall.
We found a field with about 2 thousand mallards in a bunch of barley that had
been lost in the rain, but it was off limits to hunting. So our only choice was
across the road in a dirt field that used to be potatoes (there was nothing on it).
This morning we thought it would bust (why would ducks want to land in here).
At first light about 100 landed in the barley, so we scared them off. We then
turned on the mojos and started to do some loud and aggressive calling. The next
group that came was about 200, and once they saw the 2 mojos they poured right
into us. From then on, we had hundreds of ducks at a time swarming us, which
made for a quick 5-man limit of 35 mallards, 1 honker, and two bands.
Electronic decoys are legal now and many hunters with a hunting ethic to match our own
use them. But we do not believe it is a fair chase, or in best interests of waterfowlers, to
use devices where, with the push of a button, ducks will land in a dirt field. Given that
Montana has banned similar electronic devices that were also used by ethical hunters, we
urge the Commission to recognize that electronic decoys fall outside Montana’s tradition
of fair chase and adopt regulations banning their future use.
Outside concerns of fair chase and an ethical hunt, the use is undermining many
assumptions about the impact of hunting on waterfowl populations. It stands to reason
that today we could again experience unsustainable levels of additive waterfowl mortality
with more frequency and across more species because of elevated numbers of waterfowl
bagged per hunter per day through the use of electronic decoys.
With most wildlife species, when harvest mortality combined with natural mortality
exceeds annual production, hunter harvest becomes “additive” causing populations to
decline. Duck hunting has historically been additive only when harvest far exceeded
annual production (from market hunting, or liberal bag limits persisting during drought
episodes). Without electronic decoys, most hunters fail to bag their daily limit on each
outing.
The evidence is clear; with electronic decoys these same hunters will bag more birds,
prompting a number of questions…
• Will more hunters spend more time afield because they are being successful?
• Will traditional possession limits become more difficult to enforce?
• Has harvest now become additive, and do we have the requisite monitoring
monies to determine if it has?
• If we reduce bag, possession, or season length, how will this perturb the
waterfowling tradition?
Previous Page Next Page
6
With these combined ethical, resource, and fiscal concerns presented, we believe the
technology should be banned. This action solves many more potential problems than it
creates.
We also observe that waterfowl managers are calling for more studies to assess the
impacts of electronic decoys on waterfowl populations. For example, a single year study
of the impact of electronic decoys on mallard populations in Minnesota showed a
significant increase in harvest. But the study authors also wrote:
A multi-year, flyway-wide study is needed to make stronger and more rigorous
inferences regarding the potential changes in harvest distribution and annual
harvest rates of mallards due to increasing use of SWDs (spinning wing decoys)
by hunters in North America.4
For its part, the USFWS has noted that while the use of electronic decoys may be
undermining the models that USFWS uses to set seasons and bag limits, budget
constraints preclude funding an adequate study of this critical issue:
Expanded uses of these devices may also result in some significant shift in harvest
distribution over time. Costs to improve our population and harvest monitoring
databases and to more accurately detect harvest rate changes resulting from wide
spread usage of these devices would likely be prohibitive for management
agencies, given current budgetary constraints.5
Rather than studying the impacts of electronic decoys, the better course is simply to
prohibit their use. At a time of tightly constrained budgets and continuing degradation of
waterfowl habitat, we can think of no poorer use of limited funds than studying a device
that allows hunters to kill more ducks quicker. Funds should be prioritized for habitat
acquisition and protection, not expended on arcane studies of decoy effectiveness. We
recognize that Montana’s waterfowl harvest is small and the resource impacts of using
electronic decoys here may be relatively insignificant. As part of both the Central and
Pacific Flyway Councils, however, Montana representatives should strongly advocate
flyway-wide bans on electronic decoys, rather than accept strategies that call for funding
studies that study their impacts.
V. Conclusion
As avid hunters, we all marvel at the majesty of North America’s waterfowl resource.
Diminished as it is from former times, it is still a treasure for Montana and the nation. It
is clear to us that protecting this resource and its wetland habitats across the continent
should be the first and absolute priority of hunters and waterfowl managers alike.
4 Szymanksi M.L and A.D. Afton, 2005. Effects of spinning wing decoys on flock behavior and hunting
vulnerability of mallards in Minnesota, Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(3):993-1001.
5 Review of Electronic Motorized Decoys for Taking Migratory Game Birds, p 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, February, 2005.
Previous Page Next Page
7
At some basic level, debates over devices that allow hunters to kill more ducks and often
kill them more quickly, detract and distract from this priority. A great duck hunt is an
event long remembered, but it is only one reason why we go to the marsh. For duck
hunting to continue, it must be built on tradition rather than technology and it must
fundamentally be done in a manner that reinforces the efforts by many, many hunters to
conserve the waterfowl resource. In our view, electronic decoys undermine this
conservation ethic by promoting the kill rather than the hunt.
We ask the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to issue regulations that ban
the use of electronic decoys just as it has, in the name of conservation and the ethic of fair
chase, banned all manner of other electronic devices for sport hunting. We further ask the
Commission to direct the Department to advocate banning electronic decoys to the
Flyways Councils and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sincerely,
Jim Posewitz, Executive Director
Orion - Hunters Institute
PO Box 5088
Helena, MT 59604-5088

[Rubberhead*]

50 days and 6 birds. Maximum pintail and canvasback seasons. (I will never support a drop in limit, only days)

Nov. 11 - Nov. 18
Nov. 22 - Nov. 25
Dec. 16 - Dec. 17 (Youth only days)
Dec. 22 - Jan. 28


Move some of the days in the early December season to mid-November. These early ducks aren't going to stay in SC anyway so let them take some of the pressure instead of getting a free pass.

4 Mallards not to include more than 2 hens, and 1 Black or 1 Mottled duck, etc.

No powered decoys.

[Rubberhead*]

Let's not let this tread die.

Here's what I've heard so far:

Banning spinners (very strong support)

Lowering limits beyound USFWS max (almost no support)

Lowering days (little support - most want the USFWS max)

Get back to the "AND" limit on brown ducks (only one mention of support).

[Swamp Rat]

I kind of like Rubberhead's proposal... Only I still wouldn't want to see but a one mallard hen limit.

Of course, killing two mallard hens would eventually help with getting the MRP trash out of the gene pool.

[Duckbud]

When I first started hunting public water in the low country about 10 years ago there was no waterfowl hunting after 1PM and no hunting on Sundays.

The morning hunts seemed to be more productive when afternoon pressure was eliminated.

I guess a lot of people would oppose going back to this regulation, but I think (no afternoon hunting) gave the ducks time to loaf peacefully on public water in the afternoon and possibly improved public hunting in the morning.

As far as Sunday's go a lot of people work on Saturday and Sunday is the only day they can hunt. But, I think one day a week break would be good for the ducks and the hunter, so maybe move this to Tuesday's.

Of course, if we go back to this, we should take all the days we are allotted from the Feds.

Best Regards

[Redleg Camo]

Ban Spinners and Cut Days (give resting periods). I personally wouldnt mind if they only let you hunt on wed, sat, and sunday morning.