The great spinner debate continues......

[msudawg8087]

[mudsucker]

Bigwater, you ain't right son!

[RockBottom]

[The Waterfowler]

Well Mr. Cooksey,
You list your occupation Dir. of Media or some such for Avery. Why do the people who do those hunting shows have spinners in every episoid? Your company and others ought to take a stand and not sponsor the shows that "insist" on using them. Jackleg Jim the Topwater sees the show and figures he HAS to have one to do it right.

Avery will not sponsor any shows this year that use spinners is the latest I've heard from the top echelon at the company. And why does Robertson and all the other "Experts" who hunt in the best of the best places use them? If they are that good, why do they need them? I've often wondered.

OK cwinkler, what is the problem we are talking about and what is the root of the problem? Do you know what the gist of this whole post is? Please explain.

[champcaller]

i applaud mr cooksey, mr pitt and ramrod for voicing your opinions on banning them. i agree 110% and have for a while. with that being said, i think that it is important for the top guys and companies (avery, rnt, etc) in the waterfowling industry to voice your opinions against spinners because a lot of the 'topwaters' out there want to wear, blow, use and DO the same thing that the top guys are doing; so i think it is important to get the word out and eventually there will be enough peer pressure for people to stop using them and it will be a lot easier for them to be banned.



just my .02

[cwink]

Well Mr. Cooksey,
You list your occupation Dir. of Media or some such for Avery. Why do the people who do those hunting shows have spinners in every episoid? Your company and others ought to take a stand and not sponsor the shows that "insist" on using them. Jackleg Jim the Topwater sees the show and figures he HAS to have one to do it right.

Avery will not sponsor any shows this year that use spinners is the latest I've heard from the top echelon at the company. And why does Robertson and all the other "Experts" who hunt in the best of the best places use them? If they are that good, why do they need them? I've often wondered.

OK cwinkler, what is the problem we are talking about and what is the root of the problem? Do you know what the gist of this whole post is? Please explain.

I just think no one wants to put the time and effort into scouting and locating good places to hunt. They look for the easiest way to "Kill" something. And right now the Spinner helps. Outlaw it and something else will take its place. As I said many times. I don't care if the outlaw it.. I just don't think that outlawing them will solve the problem. They outlawed the spinning wing and then they came out with the flashing light thing..

[Bill Cooksey]

First of all, my name is Bill. Mr. Cooksey is still kicking. Pat is correct on our sponsorship position. Avery could have made a spinner years ago, and we could have made a heap of money on them, but we didn't. We made that decision for the right reasons, and I'm proud of it.

cwinkler,
AR wrote their ban almost perfectly. When the flashing decoy came out it was ruled illegal as it had the same purpose. Anything developed to mimic the flash of a duck's wings is where the issue is. From there it's easy to determine if a product is made that violates the spirit of the law and rule accordingly.
Most supporters of spinners down here are either apathetic or don't see a need for a ban since they don't work like they did in '99. Thing is, they do work that way up north. It's a pretty sweet deal for folks in that part of the world. Nothing like driving a truck out into a barley field at 2:00 pm on a warm Oct. afternoon wearing shorts and flip flops and proceed to shoot five limits of ducks in an hour or so.

[cwink]

First of all, my name is Bill. Mr. Cooksey is still kicking. Pat is correct on our sponsorship position. Avery could have made a spinner years ago, and we could have made a heap of money on them, but we didn't. We made that decision for the right reasons, and I'm proud of it.

cwinkler,
AR wrote their ban almost perfectly. When the flashing decoy came out it was ruled illegal as it had the same purpose. Anything developed to mimic the flash of a duck's wings is where the issue is. From there it's easy to determine if a product is made that violates the spirit of the law and rule accordingly.
Most supporters of spinners down here are either apathetic or don't see a need for a ban since they don't work like they did in '99. Thing is, they do work that way up north. It's a pretty sweet deal for folks in that part of the world. Nothing like driving a truck out into a barley field at 2:00 pm on a warm Oct. afternoon wearing shorts and flip flops and proceed to shoot five limits of ducks in an hour or so.

So ban them all accross the US and Canada just like Arkansa did (which they have now removed, if I am not mistaken) and we will find something else to complain or bash someone about. I just don't think the ban (which I favor) will be the end all be all solution.

[Double R 2]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20240

In Response Reply To
FWSlXXXXX XXXXX

XXXXXXXXX, Chairman
Mississippi Flyway Council


Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

This letter is in response to your recent request that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) undertake a comprehensive study of the potential impacts of the use of spinning
wing decoys (SWDs) on waterfowl harvest rates. We appreciate your interest and
thoughts on this issue.

As you are aware, the Service conducted a review of these devices and circulated a report
to all of the Flyways in 2005 (copy enclosed for your information). Our conclusions at
that time were that: (I) there was little doubt that the devices increased harvest on a sitespecific
basis, (2) the effects varied by species and latitude, (3) the effects also varied
temporally within a given geographic area, and (4) the evidence of larger scale effects
were equivocal. We further discussed the potential to determine such larger scale effects
and concluded that such detection would be difficult, if not impossible, to document. In
addition, attempts to determine such effects would likely prove to be very costly and
could well require an experimental design that would dictate the use of the devices to
specific States or regions making such a study difficult to implement. Given this
assessment, the Service does not view a large scale study as a worthwhile endeavor to
address this issue and would be reluctant to commit significant scarce resources to
undertake such a study.

As indicated in your letter, the issue is really one of hunter ethics and whether or not
these devices are acceptable to the hunting public at-large as a method of waterfowl
hunting. Such ethical considerations would not be addressed by the proposed study, nor
in our opinion, is it likely that a study of potential harvest rate impacts would provide
definitive cause to support a ban of these devices. There are a great many factors that
ultimately work in concert to determine the annual harvest rate of waterfowl, and
isolating one factor and assessing its importance on a Flyway or continental scale is
extremely challenging. As you are well aware, we have yet to definitively settle the
question of whether or not hunting is a form of additive or compensatory mortality in
waterfowl populations, in general. The fact that SWDs have been in use for nearly a
decade without demonstrable impacts on either overall harvest rates or population levels
appears to support the Service position that such a study is unlikely to yield definitive
results.

The Service appreciates and shares your concern about the use of these devices.
However, for those reasons mentioned above, we feel that it would be inappropriate at
this time to conduct a biological investigation for supporting an ethical decision on the
use of these devices. The Service would, however, strongly consider any unified
recommendation from the Flyway Councils regarding the use of these devices for
waterfowl hunting based on ethical considerations.

As always, we appreciate hearing from you regarding your thoughts on the management
of our important shared waterfowl resource and hunting heritage. If you have any
questions or additional concerns, please contact Paul Schmidt, Assistant Director,
Migratory Birds at (202) 208-1 050.

Sincerely,

the $ervice does not view a large scale study as a worthwhile endeavor to address this i$$ue and would be reluctant to commit $ignificant $carce re$ource$ to undertake $uch a $tudy.

Which brings us right back to where the State of Arkansas tried to heroically lead us by example...

The Service would, however, strongly consider any unified recommendation from the Flyway Councils regarding the use of these devices for waterfowl hunting based on ethical considerations

[The Waterfowler]

We're not bashing anybody. Don't take it so personally. We're trying to spearhead a fixable problem. Thanks RR for posting up the letter. This might shed some light on things for everyone.

[Double R 2]

The above posted letter speaks volumes. Lack of funding is cited as the reason they are unable to conduct a comprehensive evaluation on it's effect. IN THE ABSENCE OF EMPIRICAL DATA TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE, THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT SWD ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO WATERFOWL POPULATIONS IS PURE, *FREE* WILD ACE GUESSING! From an agency that is under federal mandate to conserve and protect migratory birds, that is completely unacceptable!

[cwink]

The Service would, however, strongly consider any unified recommendation from the Flyway Councils regarding the use of these devices for waterfowl hunting based on ethical considerations

That is my point exactly.. It is not a numbers issue but an ethics issue..

[Double R 2]

And here's the part that just really chafes my butt...

the issue is really one of hunter ethics and whether or not these devices are acceptable to the hunting public at-large as a method of waterfowl hunting.

Does this mean that if the public at-large deems it as ethically acceptable we can again legalize baiting? Please raise your hand if you'd like to legally shoot over bait and live decoys BUT stop at you allotted limit of 6 ducks!

Chad ---- maybe it's an ethics issue only because it's cost-effective for the Service to make it an ethics issue in lieu of scarce budgetary issues?

[cwink]

And here's the part that just really chafes my butt...

the issue is really one of hunter ethics and whether or not these devices are acceptable to the hunting public at-large as a method of waterfowl hunting.

Does this mean that if the public at-large deems it as ethically acceptable we can again legalize baiting? Please raise your hand if you'd like to legally shoot over bait and live decoys BUT stop at you allotted limit of 6 ducks!

Chad ---- maybe it's an ethics issue only because it's cost-effective for the Service to make it an ethics issue in lieu of scarce budgetary issues?

RR I am just saying that just because you have a mojo out or a corn feeder out doesn't mean you have to shoot everything that comes to it.

Look at it this way.. I can go out no spinner and scratch out a limit of 6 ducks 4 Greenheads and 2 hens.. Or if I put a spinner out and attract more ducks and be more selective with what I take cause I got more ducks coming to me. So instead of 6, I walk out with 4 Greenheads and let the hens go..

Or I can hunt deer all season and take 3 small bucks and all of a sudden the BIG one walks out and I take him (even though it is not legal) Or I can hunt over a feeder and see more deer, be more patient about what I take and wait for the big one to come out..

These devices don't have to be used to simply kill more game.. They can be used as management tools as well. But without ethical hunters the spinner or the corn feeder is just the begining of our problems. Ban all hunting over mojo and bait.. I am fine with that, I just don't think that is our underlying problem. A general lack of respect for the woods and for game is the problem.. Everyone basis thier success on how many they kill.

[70 sprig]

I changed the name of this thread as it was not intended to pizz people off ( even though I knew it would ) .
There's a few men that frequent this board that feel every bit as strong ( if not more so ) about these things as I do and they have a LOT more pull than I do . They are determined to try and get the ball rolling on this issue rather than set around and gripe about ( which I'm guilty of myself ) . They'll get my support in any way possible , that's a fact .

Everytime this deal rises I notice so many people that say they can take'em or leave'em , welp , if y'all are serious then it's time to leave'em .

I also find it funny that we don't see people jump up and say " awe hell naw , you ain't gettin my spinner " , why is it always " it really doesn't matter to me " ? Maybe it's because you really can't think of any posititves that they have brought to our sport other than kill numbers ?

And Cwink , I think you make some very good points , it's not only the laws that need changing , it's the mind set of today's hunter that needs changing as well .