Release Mallard Shoots- Discussion for Poll 2

[MolliesMaster]

After a week of polling it appears that the majority of us would like to see Tame operations only be allowed to kill tame birds, no wild bird harvest, no limits set on how many they can shoot.


To move this along, please use this thread to discuss what guidelines the tamie operations should use to make sure their birds are easy to ID (neck bands, clip toes, etc.). We can then take the popular/smart choices and create a new poll.

If there are other stipulations you would like to see, please bring them up here so we can see the interest they generate. Try your best not to go backwards. I understand there was some good support for Option 3 on the poll as well, but the majority is what we are moving forward on.



I will try to spell things correctly, but I make no promises. Don't let that stop you from joining in on the conversation.

[Catdaddy]

The federal law says once released into the wild, they are considered wild and federal limits apply.


Does anybody think a state law will trump federal wildlife law?

[MolliesMaster]

I believe Duck Tape and the good fellas up there in Columbia have a bill floating around now exempting the tamie hunters from the federal limits set on mallards. So, yes.

[BuckyTownsend]

I would like to move forward with option three from the previous somewhat included as a stipulation to option one. Neck bands on tame birds released, tame birds inventoried, released vs harvested per shooting event logged by neck band ID, date and time of each shooting conducted kept by log with inventory of tame birds released vs shot. Log of all participants of each shoot. Failure to document shooting events and tame birds harvested being enforceable and heavily fined by SCDNR.

[BOGSTER]

The federal law says once released into the wild, they are considered wild and federal limits apply.


Does anybody think a state law will trump federal wildlife law?

It has since 1994..... live decoys.

[MolliesMaster]

I would like to move forward with option three from the previous somewhat included as a stipulation to option one. Neck bands on tame birds released, tame birds inventoried, released vs harvested per shooting event logged by neck band ID, date and time of each shooting conducted kept by log with inventory of tame birds released vs shot. Log of all participants of each shoot. Failure to document shooting events and tame birds harvested being enforceable and heavily fined by SCDNR.

I can understand and appreciate your point of view, but do you really think a bill like that would pass? Part of me thinks that by asking to neck band every single bird will already be a burden causing severe push back, tack on telling them they can't shoot wild birds anymore and they are liable to riot.

I'm full on support of neck bands and no wild birds shot. It's a fantastic start. The neck bands are great two fold, they curb the excuse of not being able to distinguish between tame and wild. Also, they provide public land hunters tangible proof that these tame birds do leave and mingle with other birds, providing fuel for a future argument of why these tame operations are bad for waterfowl as a whole.

I'm thinking long term plans here. It would be nice to eliminate it all at once, but its not gonna happen. But I'm hoping that we could slowly make the game not worth playing anymore. Take away wild birds and we are one step closer.

[BuckyTownsend]

I can understand and appreciate your point of view, but do you really think a bill like that would pass? Part of me thinks that by asking to neck band every single bird will already be a burden causing severe push back, tack on telling them they can't shoot wild birds anymore and they are liable to riot.

I'm full on support of neck bands and no wild birds shot. It's a fantastic start. The neck bands are great two fold, they curb the excuse of not being able to distinguish between tame and wild. Also, they provide public land hunters tangible proof that these tame birds do leave and mingle with other birds, providing fuel for a future argument of why these tame operations are bad for waterfowl as a whole.

I'm thinking long term plans here. It would be nice to eliminate it all at once, but its not gonna happen. But I'm hoping that we could slowly make the game not worth playing anymore. Take away wild birds and we are one step closer.

I don't think what I laid out is far fetched at all. If these "shooting preserves" are to operate as essentially a farm with creative euthanization method then they should be held accountable as such. I believe that banding and inventory of released livestock is essential and incumbent upon these facilities as the livestock of choice has the potential to migrate and damaged non-livestock lineage through disease and gene pool mixing. I also believe that facilities that harbor these livestock should be subject to the same NPDES regulations that a chicken house or dairy farm would be subjected. Not only inventory livestock released and harvested, but the waste generated from said livestock as well.

[BuckyTownsend]

https://live-sc-dhec.pantheonsite.io...nt/R.61-43.pdf

If the "preserves" house birds everyday during duck season (approx 60 days by my count) excluding teal season and have those ducks for commercial purposes (selling the chance for people to pretend they are hunting and taking trophy pictures) then they are considered an animal facility by definition and are potentially subject to regulations above starting on page 46 of the link. I think this a worthy follow up. Not sure if there is a list of these established "preserves" available, but an investigation by SCDHEC into the operational practice of these facilities could produce interesting results.

[MolliesMaster]

I don't think what I laid out is far fetched at all. If these "shooting preserves" are to operate as essentially a farm with creative euthanization method then they should be held accountable as such. I believe that banding and inventory of released livestock is essential and incumbent upon these facilities as the livestock of choice has the potential to migrate and damaged non-livestock lineage through disease and gene pool mixing. I also believe that facilities that harbor these livestock should be subject to the same NPDES regulations that a chicken house or dairy farm would be subjected. Not only inventory livestock released and harvested, but the waste generated from said livestock as well.

https://live-sc-dhec.pantheonsite.io...nt/R.61-43.pdf

If the "preserves" house birds everyday during duck season (approx 60 days by my count) excluding teal season and have those ducks for commercial purposes (selling the chance for people to pretend they are hunting and taking trophy pictures) then they are considered an animal facility by definition and are potentially subject to regulations above starting on page 46 of the link. I think this a worthy follow up. Not sure if there is a list of these established "preserves" available, but an investigation by SCDHEC into the operational practice of these facilities could produce interesting results.

I like where you are going with this. Definitely worth looking into.

Can anyone else speak to this? I don't know enough about livestock operations to speak intelligently about why they should or shouldn't be classified as one.

[darealdeal]

I still think the best way to go about this is to identify areas these operations are not allowed. Make these operations reports numbers purchased vs numbers harvested. Make them stay within limits and season dates. Reporting of any wild birds taken must be done immediately thus wild birds are not permitted during tamie shoots. I think the most important part of this will be the identifying of areas these places are not allowed. This will make the current places either move to areas identified as such and cut down a large number of wild birds being taken. I also think that only allowing certain types of harvest should be allowed. Thus a tower shoot as in a bird or two is released from an area and the "hunters" have a chance to harvest the bird and if the bird seems to be getting away a member of the tamie operation must try to harvest the bird..... May be dreaming to get something like that to pass but I feel that would be the best way to either limit the harm caused to genetic populations and would eventually make tamie operations more of a headache then they are worth.......

[Hogg]

I talked to a retired game warden the other day. His only comment that made sense was the State missed out on the opportunity to require release mallard operations to be licensed as shooting preserves.

[Catdaddy]

I talked to a retired game warden the other day. His only comment that made sense was the State missed out on the opportunity to require release mallard operations to be licensed as shooting preserves.

The release crowd didn't use that option when it was available, because they wanted to look like real duck hunters. They will use all of their political influence to keep killing 4 or more mallards. The feds had NO balls when it came to the shooting over live decoys. They never attempted to make a single case, to my knowledge. That's the reason for this new legislation.


These threads have been a waste of bandwidth. Nobody in SC will stop this crowd or even make it hard on them.

[MolliesMaster]

These threads have been a waste of bandwidth. Nobody in SC will stop this crowd or even make it hard on them.

I hate you feel that way. This is a big site with a lot of members. I feel like we could make a difference.

[Highstrung]

They have a fair amount of politicians on their side. They have been inviting them down for years and years, bringing them in, making them feel like they're hunting.. You don't need all of them, just a few in that can talk to others. I think the only option to curb this would be the Feds. Shit, you even have had silly guys on this site pop up and speak in the releasers favor. If you can't convince them, we won't convince lawmakers, there are second generation tame hunters out now.

[BuckyTownsend]

I like where you are going with this. Definitely worth looking into.

Can anyone else speak to this? I don't know enough about livestock operations to speak intelligently about why they should or shouldn't be classified as one.

I think the definition section at the start of the regulation demonstrates that by definition they would be classified as a animal facility.

“Animal facility” means an agricultural facility where animals are confined and fed or maintained for
a total of forty-five days or more in a twelve-month period and crops, vegetative, forage growth, or post
harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.
Structures used for the storage of animal manure and other animal by-products from animals in the operation
also are part of the animal facility. Two or more animal facilities under common ownership or management
are considered to be a single animal facility if they are adjacent or utilize a common system for animal
manure storage.

[BuckyTownsend]

“Agricultural facility” means a lot, building, or structure, which is used for the commercial production
of animals in an animal facility.

Them ducks is raised for one reason only. To be sold to shoot.

[flopduster]

Regulate release locations as to not allow releasing mallards within 50 miles of any wildlife refuge or know mottled duck breeding area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay]

If you want to get anywhere on this, the truth about what is going on will need to be shown to the public which in turn will influence those who are voting. If we simply propose a bill, it will likely get quietly rejected like countless other bills do. This is also a good way to disassociate the practice of shooting tamies with legitimate hunting. Just my opinion but the media could be your friend. Also, we have many people on this site with amazing properties. Setup a hunt with these legislators like the tamie operators do and play the game a little bit. Believe it or not, a lot of the folks that I know who have or do participate in these types of hunts don't know any better.

[LC17]

Just require them to be spray-painted orange. That should solve a lot of problems.

[YoungBuckTX]

If you want to get anywhere on this, the truth about what is going on will need to be shown to the public which in turn will influence those who are voting. If we simply propose a bill, it will likely get quietly rejected like countless other bills do. This is also a good way to disassociate the practice of shooting tamies with legitimate hunting. Just my opinion but the media could be your friend. Also, we have many people on this site with amazing properties. Setup a hunt with these legislators like the tamie operators do and play the game a little bit. Believe it or not, a lot of the folks that I know who have or do participate in these types of hunts don't know any better.

spot on. especially the last 2 sentences. thanks MM for keeping this discussion going.