Arkansas mojo ban on WMAs

[codeman216]

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/news/...ed-for-2016-17

This is a new reporters misrepresentation of the rule.

http://www.agfc.com/Pages/newsDetails.aspx?show=1128

This is from the AGFC.

The original wording for this past year about "mechanical" had to do with the use of a vortex. Many of the holes at Dave Donaldson had set ups for one or more vortexes.

I'm gonna go with the agfc press release over arkansasmatters.com so not too worried about getting a ticket for a jerk string. That is even if I set foot in Arkansas public woods this year.

[surfcock]

Reading comprehension is scarce around here. Let me break it down.

The first post had a link to the actual notice. In that notice is the wording:

"Prohibiting the use of all mechanical decoys that create motion and simulated wing-movement decoys on Commission-owned wildlife management areas and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national wildlife refuges."

It says that both "mechanical decoys that create motion" and "simulated wing-movement decoys" are prohibited. If they had left out the second use of the word "decoys", it would have meant only decoys with moving wings.

The way it is written, it means that along with "simulated wing-movement decoys", "mechanical decoys that create motion" are also prohibited. A jerk string decoy is a mechanical decoy that creates motion. A jerk string decoy is most certainly a mechanism and technically a machine. It's probably not what they intended but that is how it is written. It is sloppily written. A judge would have to interpret it as written. A crafty game warden could cite you for a jerk string decoy if he didn't like the Clemson or USC sticker on your cooler.

So how about a pulsator duck butt? It doesn't have moving wings. If the law is written as it is in the linked URL, would it be legal?"

I suspect that Sparkleberry RR's post is correct and someone realized the sloppy writing and corrected it. SCDNR has posted the rules and regs pamphlet with similar errors in the past and it caused much confusion. Once they publish it, they distribute it, errors and all.

PB's reading is absolutely legitimate. A jerk string is a mechanical device. It is not automated or electronic, but it IS a mechanical device. Are cotton gins, hand saws, and old crank drills not machines just because they were powered by a person?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[YoungBuckTX]

PB's reading is absolutely legitimate. A jerk string is a mechanical device. It is not automated or electronic, but it IS a mechanical device. Are cotton gins, hand saws, and old crank drills not machines just because they were powered by a person?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

all of those you just mention have gears and pulleys. a string alone is not mechanical. and string tied to a decoy is not mechanical.

[turbo]

all of those you just mention have gears and pulleys. a string alone is not mechanical. and string tied to a decoy is not mechanical.

You're right.

You're wrong. Unless, of course, that string is not in your hand. Then, you're right.

[Buckin Bronco]

"Prohibiting the use of all mechanical decoys that create motion and simulated wing-movement decoys

It says that both "mechanical decoys that create motion" and "simulated wing-movement decoys"

If we're getting technical then you could make the argument that a decoy on string is not a mechanical decoy; its the exact same decoy as all the others in my spread.

A mechanical decoy would be a decoy that has a motor in it per the definition of mechanical: "affecting or involving a machine"
- as well as: "using power from an engine or machine to do a particular kind of work"

Going off of these definitions, mechanical decoys would include mojos, pulsators, the crazy ducks that spin around (I forget the name), and any other decoy that creates motion under power of a machine. But a plain decoy on a jerk rig is not a mechanical decoy, and a jerk rig is not a mechanical decoy because the motion is not created by a machine. Yes, there is the argument that links the definition of mechanical as "concerned with the motion of bodies under the action of forces" which would mean that us pulling on the string is creating a force to move the decoy. However, if we go with this argument then we are saying that you also can not throw rocks or kick the water around you to create movement.


Simulated wing movement however is pretty cut and dry.

I hope this help to further muddy up the water.

[MolliesMaster]

People still go to Arkansas?

[turbo]

If we're getting technical then you could make the argument that a decoy on string is not a mechanical decoy; its the exact same decoy as all the others in my spread.

A mechanical decoy would be a decoy that has a motor in it per the definition of mechanical: "affecting or involving a machine"
- as well as: "using power from an engine or machine to do a particular kind of work"

Going off of these definitions, mechanical decoys would include mojos, pulsators, the crazy ducks that spin around (I forget the name), and any other decoy that creates motion under power of a machine.

Simulated wing movement is pretty cut and dry however.

I hope this help to further muddy up the water.

A machine is any tangible object that affects another tangible object once work is introduced into the mix.

A trebuchet is, in fact, a machine. It involves no engine or motor. However, it can chunk heavy shit considerable distances.

A bow is a machine. When coupled with an arrow and with work introduced, it is a machine. It is nothing more than a string being pulled and released.

I'm really just screwing with you uneducated fools at this point, but this will be open to interpretation should the law actually read as a ban on "mechanical" decoys. I wouldn't know because I'm not reading the actual proposed ban. Like I said, I'm just screwing with you idiots.

[Buckin Bronco]

A machine is any tangible object that affects another tangible object once work is introduced into the mix.

A trebuchet is, in fact, a machine. It involves no engine or motor. However, it can chunk heavy shit considerable distances.

A bow is a machine. When coupled with an arrow and with work introduced, it is a machine. It is nothing more than a string being pulled and released.

I'm really just screwing with you uneducated fools at this point, but this will be open to interpretation should the law actually read as a ban on "mechanical" decoys. I wouldn't know because I'm not reading the actual proposed ban. Like I said, I'm just screwing with you idiots.

Read the new addition to my post. I'm also screwing with y'all because the law leaves so much open to interpretation.

[surfcock]

all of those you just mention have gears and pulleys. a string alone is not mechanical. and string tied to a decoy is not mechanical.

I run my jerk cord through an eylet screwed into a tree just below the waterline and stand next to that tree. That is the system I am used to, but if you are just yanking on a string then you are correct.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

Changes from the last meeting. Wording is different from what is posted on the AGFC website. Who the heck knows.

http://www.agfc.com/aboutagfc/Docume...ApprovedMO.pdf

Page 104 Section 24.11