WMA meeting in Jackson--THE REST OF THE STORY

[bigwater]

i know this is a joke now.. cauze micha isn't a real person!!! bwabwaa


disclaimner:: i like to drank lots of beerz on saturadays i mean sun...

[Po Monkey Lounger]

As I've already said, I am in favor of an outright, statewide ban of the spinners, but nothing short of that. This half-arssed approach to just ban them on WMAs is unfair and should not be approved by the MDWF&P unless the department is committed to a statewide ban, announces such publicly, and openly and aggressively pushes for and supports a statewide ban during the '07 legislative session. With the support and endorsement of the Dept., such legislation most likely would be successful.

The Dept can adopt regs and rules for the WMAs without legislative action. But, to ban their use on private land will most likely require legislative action (am I wrong on this?).

I would whole heartedly support a statewide ban during the '07 legislative session and will sign any petition in support of the same, or send letters, make calls, etc. to accomplish such a goal. But, if the Dept. does not think a statewide ban, including private land, is a good thing or something it can support, then it should not ban them on WMAs.

[bigwater]

hey po monk.. legislative action??

whos gonna xplain what a spinner is to a democrat?? you know we got lots of democrats on the state level!!!

i can hear the democrats rite now.. they'll get in an up-roar over the proposed spinner ban.. many will be confused and thank that we're talkin bout bannin spinners as in fishing lures..

[mottlet]

whos gonna xplain what a spinner is to a democrat?? you know we got lots of democrats on the state level!!!

i can hear the democrats rite now.. they'll get in an up-roar over the proposed spinner ban.. many will be confused and thank that we're talkin bout bannin spinners as in fishing lures..

Naw dawg, they gonna think we're trying to ban those rims that are an essential component of pimpin a ride. And that won't fly.

mottlet

[bigwater]

well either way .. them democrats will march from duck hill to magee fore the give up on spinners!!!

[Dog's Eye]

hey po monk.. legislative action??

whos gonna xplain what a spinner is to a democrat?? you know we got lots of democrats on the state level!!!

i can hear the democrats rite now.. they'll get in an up-roar over the proposed spinner ban.. many will be confused and thank that we're talkin bout bannin spinners as in fishing lures..

racial profiling and scrimination, next you'll be after hour grillz

[Dog's Eye]

I think the letters are a good idea. I don't carry 'too' many shells to the field, and I don't think anyone should have to suffer under the extra weight. It won't improve shooting, but it will make a hole open up earlier in the day.

The spinners? get rid of em, they're like grillz for duck hunters.

The fees, I would pay a great deal of money to be able to hunt some of our public areas without the pressure or at least the idiots? Raise in state to two hundred dollars per wma and out of state proportionally or even radically with a market share to the areas that lose some income from transient hunters.

[mudsucker]

Raise in state to two hundred dollars per wma and out of state proportionally..............

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT....................????

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Not trying to throw cold water on all these ideas for more regulations, but do ya think we sometimes get a little bit carried away with all the regs?

Lets take this 15 or 16 shell restriction proposal for WMAs. On ideal days, this should probably be enough to get through a limit hunt, even with having to shoot a few cripples. But what if it is really windy or other nasty weather conditions are present? What if you enjoy the ability to hunt waterfowl and geese at the same time, and need two different types of shells for each? What if you have someone, like an older person, child, or just a bad shooter with no good excuse, hunting with you ---and they try to focus on just one bird out of each group ---and you had 6 different groups to come in, and they shot one bird out of each group, using all 3 shells each time ---a couple of shots to get the bird down, and one to finish it off in the water. That wouldn't be that bad at all. Yet, that would take 18 shells ---- about 2-3 shells over the proposed shell limit. What if you dropped some of your shells in the water, especially after a gun jam, etc.? Would folks continue to pass shoot at those early morning woodies before the big ducks start flying (a lot of fun), or likely wait only until they had decoying ducks in front of them?

And what could be some likely negative behavioral consequences of such a shell limitation? Well, for starters, hunters will likely not shoot more than once at a cripple, and more cripples will likely get away. Also, it will likely result in more boat chases or dog chases after the birds, in order to save shells, which will keep a hunting area stirred up with noise for much longer than a couple of extra cripple shots to make sure they are dead, with that head down or belly up. Nothing like hunting within 500 yards of a group of hunters who keep an area stirred up for 15-30 minutes after every volly of fire, with a boat motor running, or whistling and screaming at a dog.

If the object of the shell limitation is to get hunters out of the field more quickly, wouldn't a reduction in the daily bag limit be much easier and more likley to accomplish such a goal? Will the shell limitation really stop sky busting? The folks prone to shoot at birds that high with little or no chance at hitting them, just to be shooting at something, are likely to be the same ones who will ignore the shell limitations anyway.

I can live with it if everyone deems a shell limitiation of 15 is the way to go. But, perhaps this bears a little more thought than some of you are giving to it. Be careful what you wish for --you just might get it.

What's next? A limit on the number of decoys you can use? Number of calls you can have on your lanyard? Motor size? Allow paddling only? Decibel level limits on hunters screaming at dogs? ( These last two would sure make things a lot more peaceful and quiet). Restrictions on times to enter hunting area ---not too early and not too late? (Nothing worse than a rat patrol of boats coming near or through your spread after shooting time. ) I could go on for days with my personal pet peeves, which are just as important to me as some of these other items mentioned are to you. At what point do we draw the line on more regs?

[Wingman]

If the object of the shell limitation is to get hunters out of the field more quickly, wouldn't a reduction in the daily bag limit be much easier and more likley to accomplish such a goal? Will the shell limitation really stop sky busting? The folks prone to shoot at birds that high with little or no chance at hitting them, just to be shooting at something, are likely to be the same ones who will ignore the shell limitations anyway.

I would be more inclined to adopt a 25 shell limit, not a 15.

In my opinion, a shell limit would help to control the skybusting, not get folks out of the field more quickly. If you want to stay until noon and not shoot a thing, that should be your choice.

But those that stay until noon and shoot up 4 boxes of shells....see my point?

I see your points, too, Max. Very good ones they are.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Rob, I pretty much always take with me a box of duck shells, and a handful of goose shells (T-shot, juse in case I get an opportunity at a goose). And with this amount of shells, I have always had enough to get through my hunts, good shooting days and bad shooting days, without really giving it much thought. I've never tried to get through a hunt on just 15 shells, so I don't know how it would affect my behavior, but I am sure it would. Naturally, I think I would be less likely to shoot 4 to 5 times at a cripple, if necessary, to make sure it was dead ---that would be 1/3 of a 15 shell limit. I think the extra amount of time spent hunting down and chasing cripples (as opposed to just shooting them), could negate any potential positives that such a low shell limit would yield.

With regard to any proposed new reg, I think you have to ask the question: will it do more good than harm? more positives than negatives?

One good example ---the non-toxic shot requirement. On the one hand, it has helped save ducks from dying of lead poisioning. But, on the other hand, it has increased the cost of duck hunting, resulted in more cripples, caused hunters to have to spend more time in the field to get their limits due to decreased killing efficiency, thereby resulting in more shooting over a longer period of time and thus more hunting pressure on the ducks. Have the positives outweighed the negatives? I don't know ---such is for folks more educated in duck management than I to determine. But, it does appear that there are serious questions in this regard. I would imagine that a good arguments could be made on both ends of this issue.

Just trying to get some of you thinking, before jumping on the "more regulation" bandwagon.

[Money]

Got lead ?

[JimAire]

PoMonkey, you sound like a blame lawyer. As I have clearly stated, my suggestion to the MDWFP was for 25 shells per person and a maximum of 100 shells per group. My other suggestion was a phase out of spinning wing decoys statewide. It is a matter of written record with the Department that I stated it would not be fair to ban them on a WMA and not also ban them on private land, in particular land that joins a WMA.

[mottlet]

Two hundred bucks to hunt PUBLIC LAND!!?? The state would make more money for WMAs by only asking five bucks for the permit. I didn't hunt once on a WMA this past year but bought the permit. My reasons were twofold: I might want to hunt a WMA once or twice, and I thought it was a good idea for a good cause. Every single person in my camp did the exact same thing. Nobody will pay for a WMA permit that they can't use the hell out of. That said, those who do buy the ultra expensive permits will feel they need to "get their money's worth," and the zoo like atmosphere of public land won't go away.

If you're gonna ban spinners, ban spinners. Statewide.

I've personally don't think that shell limits are really gonna cut down on undesirable behavior. (sky-busting, crippling, etc.) Folks that take obscene shots at birds are still gonna take those same shots. They're still gonna miss or cripple birds. And like PoMonk said, then they're just gonna reach for that illegal second box of shells. I'm not against shell limits, but it needs to be 25, not 15 for the reasons stated above.

You really want to change WMAs for the better? Make every hunter that wants to hunt a WMA pass a little course. Same as the ones before the youth hunts. Wildlife ID, judging of distance, ethics, shooting, etc. You can't hunt without passing hunter safety; if it's THAT bad on public land, maybe this can cut down on some of the irrational BS that goes on like the implementation of hunter safety did for hunting accidents.

mottlet

[JimAire]

Nobody has suggested to the MDWFP that a 200 buck fee be charged. There will not be any increase in WMA fees.