Here in lies your Pen raised mallard proponents within the house

[Whackumstackum]

I just want to reassure everyone that Ducktape is not a liar, he said so himself.

[Glenn]

I expected nothing less from Rep Lowe and his buddies.

Place your faith in God because you dang sure cannot count on the word of man to hold a sip of water.

[Duckman#1]

I expected nothing less from Rep Lowe and his buddies.

Place your faith in God because you dang sure cannot count on the word of man to hold a sip of water.

I’m sure god consulted him about the issue like he did with the taking down of the flag

[Griffin]

Update!......PL still sucks balls

[Strick9]

Guys,

Stop wasting time bantering, it does no good.

What does work is you taking the time to reach out to your senator in oppostion of S 477.

Here are your senators

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member....8e9nCyXAjL6rT8

Cut copy and paste this :

As an avid waterfowler I strongly oppose the forgoing of the Federal Mallard bag limits for any reason whatsoever as proposed in 477.
Tame / pen raised ducks not only represent a disease vector to our wild birds but also they interbreed and destroy the wild genetic code of the species.
Further the notion of shooting pen raised ducks deflects from the funds and focus so needed to properly manage our natural waterfowl habitat here in SC.
Factually , there is also existing law that states the shooting of ducks over live decoys is illegal, therefore any wild birds found within the possession of a hunter who is also in possession of tame birds constitutes a violation.

[Hogg]

Since he is my rep, i'll admit I made contact with him so he could explain to me things I dont comprehend. With his blessing, I will report back what he says....

Thanks.

[Moonlight Hunter]

How would this law change the existing laws already on the books for South Carolina? Do banded tamie mallards currently count against your bag limit? Or are we creating a law that definitively states banded tamie mallards do not count towards your bag limit?

[Rabbitman09]

No one bands tammies anymore, they just clip a toe. Does this bill require them to start back banding?

[2thDoc]

yes

[Rabbitman09]

yes

Well then, if they want to be able to do this, I say add a $100 fine to duck owner if it is caught/captured/killed off the owners property. Fine money goes into an account to pay for the aerial planting on the mudflats on Marion each year.

[TJ_11]

Done and sent to my Rep.

[willyworm]

And here are your senators to contact and strongly oppose S 477

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member....8e9nCyXAjL6rT8

I just sent Mr. McElveen an email.

[Duckman#1]

I buy a migratory waterfowl stamp so I promise you any of these tame ducklings will not be in my bag limit. Crying shame what this states hunting heritage has become.

[Moonlight Hunter]

Alright, let me try to follow this cluster:

Summary: Animal propagation
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-1241 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE PROPAGATION OF ANIMALS OTHER THAN THE AUTHORIZED SPECIES; BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-1305 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THAT WILDLIFE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ARE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ON SHOOTING PRESERVES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-1200, RELATING TO OPERATING LICENSES FOR PRIVATELY OWNED SHOOTING PRESERVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-1280, RELATING TO HARVEST LIMITS ON SHOOTING PRESERVE SPECIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT HARVEST LIMITS ON OTHER SPECIES APPLY ON SHOOTING PRESERVES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-1290, RELATING TO THE TAGGING OF HARVESTED DESIGNATED SHOOTING PRESERVE SPECIES, SO AS TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN SPECIES FROM A SHOOTING PRESERVE; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-9-340 RELATING TO HUNTER EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SHOOTING PRESERVES.

[Rubberhead*]

I say add a $100 fine to duck owner if it is caught/captured/killed off the property of the owner.

Great idea - their "livestock" interfered with a legal duck hunt...

[willyworm]

This was my message. I combined some of what Rubbahead and Strick9 posted:

As one of your constituents, I would like to make my stance known and urge you to vote AGAINST S 477. As an avid waterfowler I strongly oppose the forgoing of the Federal Mallard bag limits for any reason whatsoever as proposed in 477. Tame / pen raised ducks not only represent a disease vector to our wild birds but also they interbreed and destroy the wild genetic code of the species. Further the notion of shooting pen raised ducks deflects from the funds and focus so needed to properly manage our natural waterfowl habitat here in SC. Factually, there is also existing Federal law that states the shooting of migratory waterfowl over live decoys is illegal, therefore any wild birds found within the possession of a hunter who is also in possession of tame birds constitutes a violation. Here are a few additional reasons:

1 .Release mallards are, and are purposefully used, as live decoys which is against federal law – we have at least one website that specifically advertises their captive-reared birds as live decoys
2. Release mallards can eventually migrate and compete with wild ducks for breeding habitat…this most notably hurts American black duck and Mottled duck populations by displacing them to less productive habitat or reduces their respective populations through hybridization
3. The genetics of release mallards are damaged and permanently spreads these damaged genes to the wild population... it is well known that the genetics of captive mallards morph in just a few generations - many breeds of ranched ducks are from 100% mallard stocks but are unrecognizable as mallards
4. Put-and-take of mallards counters the long-held argument of hunters that hunting is not about killing something but the pursuit of something – MRP makes that case that hunting is entirely about killing something – in other words this is not fair-chase
5. Birds raised in confined and unnatural conditions then introduced into wild populations are likely conduits for disease...Unlike hatchery reared trout or pen raised quail mallards are migratory and free-ranging making the spread of disease more wide-ranging when it does happen
6. Birders (Bird Watchers) pride themselves on only listing wild birds that have never been captive or relocated by purposeful human efforts – No South Carolina birder can confidently list a mallard seen in this state as wild.

Feel free to contact me for more input and please vote Nay for S. 477.

Respectfully,

Willyworm

[Duckman#1]

No one bands tammies anymore, they just clip a toe. Does this bill require them to start back banding?

That’s my understanding but doesn’t mean shit. You think someone kills a pair of wild mallards first that they will quit ? Nope. It’s not like they’re going to see the band first. I’ve killed plenty of bands and have seen very few before I shot

[BOGSTER]

I personally would like to know why Phillip voted for this...

Phillip?

[JBK]

Sent. Hope I did that right...

[Rabbitman09]

That’s my understanding but doesn’t mean shit. You think someone kills a pair of wild mallards first that they will quit ? Nope. It’s not like they’re going to see the band first. I’ve killed plenty of bands and have seen very few before I shot

I ask that so people can identify the bird as pen raised and who it belongs to. I can't tell you how many people I have shown a clip toe to that had no idea it wasnt wild. It's amazing how many people don't know the difference. I don't want peoples livestock in my ponds eating my food. We need a way to identify owners and penalize them. I will also show DNR and other groups just how many birds end up migrating and breeding. These owners need to provide banding data just like the Feds do so that we can keep track of these livestock and their interactions with wild birds.