I am voting for number 3.... Reason is I am under the impression it is like a tower shoot. Few things I would like to see added to the possible regulation.
All birds purchased must be reported and all birds harvested.
Have to stay within the set season dates.
No wild birds allowed.
Would have to set a limit to amount of birds per hunter per shoot but main reason would make sure that each release is controlled and systematically almost 100% of the birds accounted for as even the most novice hunters can hit a flying chicken.
Would also have to come up with areas this is allowed within the state as to discourage wild birds from being taken.
A lot of things to consider when coming up with new regs that may not come to pass as some of the guys voting have skin in the game but I feel a tower like shoot is the only way to really regulate the amount of birds released vs birds taken and only allowing this in certain areas as to regulate the chance a wild bird is taken. If we don't allow them in areas that are known for attracting wild populations of waterfowl the chances for harvesting wild birds I would assume would go way down! None the less a lot to consider and discuss.
“Duck hunting gives a man a chance to see the loneliest places …blinds washed by a rolling surf, blue and gold autumn marshes, …a rice field in the rain, flooded pin-oak forests or any remote river delta. In duck hunting the scene is as important as the shooting.” ~ Erwin Bauer, The Duck Hunter’s Bible, 1965
I love the "guide" reference. I have met a few of those soyboy faggots calling themselves duck hunting guides around Rimini. The ones I met couldn't call a flock of migratory waterfowl into the trees at Lower Vallier if their very lives depended on it...
Is there no way to get an option for a complete ban on releasing waterfowl into the wild ? I know it would be an uphill battle unless usfws would get on board , but that would really be the only way to really cure the problem .
If it aint got 8 toes & a green head,it aint a duck.
I voted one but I think a combination of 1 and 3 would accomplish what the state needs
voted option 3.
but with a stipulation that the hunt "sight" be enclosed, ensuring no entry of wild fowl or released birds escape.
(forgive me if this is how tower hunts operate, its public land only for me)
“Muh butts been wiped.” TheBigGuy
“Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.” PedoPete, Esq.
“Let’s go Brandon, I agree!” former Vice President Joe Biden
“Shower time, Ashley.” NotAndyTaylor
So. The 861 people that have viewed the thread without voting are:
(a) too stupid to realize Rep. Lowe put an offer to introduce a bill off a SC Ducks poll
(b) tammie hunter
(c) suffering from apathy and nonfeasance
DILLIGAF
I've checked in a time or two to see where the poll sits. I suppose that counts as a view each time?
I assume so, CurLee...
What is ESA?
Endangered Species Act.
I'd vote 1 and 3 and expect the legislation to pass.
I vote 3 in hopes of eliminating wild birds being drawn to tamie ponds. Even if they can’t shoot the wild birds, the live decoy effect will still be a factor in drawing birds away from those not hunting chickens.
Bookmarks