# Really



## Rickmo (Dec 3, 2015)

Yesterday I posted a couple pictures of ducks that our hunting party shot. I had taken my young son and his buddy hunting. The three of us took a couple of mallards and 2 pintails. We needed help identifying the hen pintails as we are new to the sport. As you might imagine they were both shooting away when the ducks came in and who really knows who shot which duck. Sometimes I will shoot as well and usually let the boys believe they hit the bird. Well this jerk rig with the screen name Sofa King replies to my post claiming to have reported my 10 year old for violating. Guys like him are the reason internet forums have turned into cess pools. What a great guy. Sad really.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Since you're new to this, here's some tips.

If you don't know what it is, don't shoot it. Especially more than one.

Two, know very well who shot what. If you don't, divy up the birds and keep them separate and agree who shot what. Some co's are militant about group piles of birds and who shot what.

Three, I shoot the tall ones and my daughter shoots the easy ones, but we rarely shoot together. I've killed enough birds that I'll play guide for her over having to kill a few myself.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

At least you made a full effort at recovery.


FWIW, Pinnies (especially the hens, early season) decoy well, and appear long for body size, with a graceful, yet exaggerated neck.

Even in dark plumage, the long neck and skinny head really gets you thinking pre shot, as compared to a young Mallard.


----------



## Rickmo (Dec 3, 2015)

Gamekeeper said:


> At least you made a full effort at recovery.
> 
> 
> FWIW, Pinnies (especially the hens, early season) decoy well, and appear long for body size, with a graceful, yet exaggerated neck.
> ...


Thanks for the tip


----------



## Divers Down (Mar 31, 2008)

Rickmo said:


> Yesterday I posted a couple pictures of ducks that our hunting party shot. I had taken my young son and his buddy hunting. The three of us took a couple of mallards and 2 pintails. We needed help identifying the hen pintails as we are new to the sport. As you might imagine they were both shooting away when the ducks came in and who really knows who shot which duck. Sometimes I will shoot as well and usually let the boys believe they hit the bird. Well this jerk rig with the screen name Sofa King replies to my post claiming to have reported my 10 year old for violating. Guys like him are the reason internet forums have turned into cess pools. What a great guy. Sad really.


Oh, that’s just Sofa King What, don’t mind him.
Just tell him whofa King cares


----------



## OnHoPr (Jul 21, 2013)

Take a peek at these, study, it will take time. The two books should be in your gear box in blind, especially starting out.

https://flyways.us/duck-identification-resources
http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/waterfowl/duck_id_guide.pdf
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/wa...ces_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP24104


----------



## Rickmo (Dec 3, 2015)

OnHoPr said:


> Take a peek at these, study, it will take time. The two books should be in your gear box in blind, especially starting out.
> 
> https://flyways.us/duck-identification-resources
> http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/
> ...


Thanks! I will get them ordered today.


OnHoPr said:


> Take a peek at these, study, it will take time. The two books should be in your gear box in blind, especially starting out.
> 
> https://flyways.us/duck-identification-resources
> http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/
> ...


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Anyone that says it doesn't take a lot of time, in and out of the field, to get decent at eclipse ID is a liar.

Though, it never hurts to check applicable rules and regs PRIOR to posting on an internet chat forum. Undoubtedly, a little familial.... conflation/inflation? of the story inadvertently occurred.


----------



## The Doob (Mar 4, 2007)

With that being said, there isn't a one of us that hasn't miss identified a bird or two. Mistakes will be made, learn from them and move on. 
I took DNR officers out duck hunting on our law enforcement day when I was in the duck charter business. For the most part, they struggled id'ing ducks. Throw a hen redhead, a hen ringneck and a hen bluebill down in front of them and the results were enlightening. 
It would be nice if we would adhere to the biblical principle - let he who is without fault cast the first stone. Or put our real name, face and address with each post


----------



## lastflight (Aug 16, 2005)

That's sad, sorry you have to deal with people like that. Good for you getting youth into the outdoors. You will get better at IDing birds on the wing the more you do it.

I was shocked when I brought a hen Wigeon into the field office at Harsen's. Two of the DNR guys insisted it was a hen Pintail. It didn't matter in regards to our bag limit, but I couldn't let them mark the card as a Pintail on principal. I told them to find the biologist and he cleared it up for them.


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

Great for u getting the kids out. Id'ing takes time. Suggestion, bring them out in the spring at one of the bingos or the along the st. Clair or detroit rivers along with some binos to watch ducks. This helps a ton.

I'll admit when i was 16, couple buddies n i had a memorable shoot late in the season. Shot 18 white birds (our limit) with longtails. All i knew was they weren't pintails, never seen them before. Got home n had to search through books (before the internet) to id them as old squaws.

BTW, dont get ruffled by keyboard cowboys.


----------



## D Buck (Oct 22, 2004)

Gamekeeper said:


> At least you made a full effort at recovery.
> 
> 
> FWIW, Pinnies (especially the hens, early season) decoy well, and appear long for body size, with a graceful, yet exaggerated neck.
> ...





OnHoPr said:


> Take a peek at these, study, it will take time. The two books should be in your gear box in blind, especially starting out.
> 
> https://flyways.us/duck-identification-resources
> http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/
> ...





OnHoPr said:


> Take a peek at these, study, it will take time. The two books should be in your gear box in blind, especially starting out.
> 
> https://flyways.us/duck-identification-resources
> http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/
> ...


Always have liked the LeMASTER Method waterfowl ID book. It uses pictures and sizes of duck bills. I have my kids keep one with them. Under 8$. It will do you well. Goggle that. And yes, keep one in your gear box. Good for early [email protected] bill ID, not plumage.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

The Doob said:


> With that being said, there isn't a one of us that hasn't miss identified a bird or two. Mistakes will be made, learn from them and move on.
> I took DNR officers out duck hunting on our law enforcement day when I was in the duck charter business. For the most part, they struggled id'ing ducks. Throw a hen redhead, a hen ringneck and a hen bluebill down in front of them and the results were enlightening.
> It would be nice if we would adhere to the biblical principle - let he who is without fault cast the first stone. Or put our real name, face and address with each post


Those three ducks screw more people up that anything else. After a while it’s prettg simple. Just by taking a quick look without knowing wing spectrums the ringer will be much smaller and the B.B. will have a broad bill. We shot all 3 last week and I showed them these two things as the quickest way to identify them apart.


----------



## Duckman1 (Oct 14, 2004)

I guess I don't see the problem? Well within your daily bag limit?? Would have to see the pic I guess


----------



## duckaddict (Sep 23, 2014)

Who cares what you shoot for the first several birds? I don’t have any problem identifying, but I surely don’t start worrying about it until I’m a couple birds from a certain species limit. No problems here.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Some co's are militant about group piles of birds and who shot what.


Yes they are. Group piles, buckets, etc are illegal.


----------



## Sofa King what? (Nov 1, 2016)

Rickmo...in fact, you bragged up his shooting skills. I'm sorry you teach your 10year old boy to be a violator...but there's no need to lash out at me.

***Edited by moderator:***


----------



## fsamie1 (Mar 8, 2008)

total bs in my opinion that CO's are militant about ...... Have you seen piles that mintgreenwalleyemachine posts here. some field hunters go out in group of 10 and shoot 50 early season geese.
Rickmo: if you are very sensitive about other's stupid comments on this forum, cancel you membership or do not post. I have taken so much s*** from some of these guys for 9 years that I am immune to it.


----------



## Sofa King what? (Nov 1, 2016)

Why edited by moderator?....maybe because his original post described his son shooting BOTH of those ducks "(great shot by the way)" -and nothing else. Now today he posts something completely different to cover his tracks...i reported him to RAP....the "A" in RAP stands for ALL...i saw a post cleary describing poaching and reported it.


----------



## Pikeski22 (Jan 17, 2011)

Sofa King what? said:


> Why edited by moderator?....maybe because his original post described his son shooting BOTH of those ducks "(great shot by the way)" -and nothing else. Now today he posts something completely different to cover his tracks...i reported him to RAP....the "A" in RAP stands for ALL...i saw a post cleary describing poaching and reported it.



Lighten up Francis


----------



## Duck-Hunter (Mar 31, 2005)

Edited for the simple fact you posted a violation that was already deleted. Good job on reporting it... 

Rickmo - i don't think it would be in your best interest to call someone out when you posted a violation...


----------



## Sofa King what? (Nov 1, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

I just got home from the UP... not to be a jerk.... but this is the first thread that I opened....so I read some of the posts.... I will look into this...

can you please PM me the details of the RAP report... I will follow up in the morning...

time you called and if you got a case number or officers name...


----------



## UplandnWaterfowl (Jan 3, 2010)

Easy there Sofa, we all respect the rules and do report violators; however, publicly going after a kid and his dad on a 1 duck misidentification, just learn to pick your battles.

Can you tell me that you were 100% legal in this post you made that at all times you had state land on both sides of the river or had written permission from the river landowners and were never 450 foot from a building.



Sofa King what? said:


> 1987. 12 years old. Jump shooting wood ducks drifting down a small river


----------



## SWMbruiser (Jan 25, 2012)

Lessons can be learned by hunters in ways other than getting a ticket by a CO. Simple mistake that a simple constructive criticism could have gone a long way with. Especially with a young and/or inexperienced hunter.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sofa King what? (Nov 1, 2016)

UplandnWaterfowl said:


> Easy there Sofa, we all respect the rules and do report violators; however, publicly going after a kid and his dad on a 1 duck misidentification, just learn to pick your battles.
> 
> Can you tell me that you were 100% legal in this post you made that at all times you had state land on both sides of the river or had written permission from the river landowners and were never 450 foot from a building.


Yep...a river that flowed thru a state game area actually.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

No such thing as a waterfowl hunter who has never broken the rules. The rules are insane. It’s not hard to accidentally break some kind of rule. You are lying if you’ve never broken a rule or you are just too ignorant to all of the rules.


----------



## Sofa King what? (Nov 1, 2016)

UplandnWaterfowl said:


> Easy there Sofa, we all respect the rules and do report violators; however, publicly going after a kid and his dad on a 1 duck misidentification, just learn to pick your battles.
> 
> Can you tell me that you were 100% legal in this post you made that at all times you had state land on both sides of the river or had written permission from the river landowners and were never 450 foot from a building.


Agreed...i just didn't like the outright lies in the 1st post and the fact that my character was brought into question...as previously stated....the original post he made yesterday was literally a self report of a violation...and today- now it was a party shoot. I'm not going after his 10 year old kid...i actually feel sorry for him.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Yes, some CO's are militant about who shot what. Others, not so much.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)




----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

I would be in favor of giving this guy grief, except the pintail limit is only one, only for this year, and we know it will be higher next year, so there is really no reason for it to be 1 bird now. Im gonna follow the law, but this is a very tricky 1bird limit. I can see some wiggle room there.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Yes, some CO's are militant about who shot what. Others, not so much.


That is correct. Just as there are CO's who will write tickets for every little nit picking thing they can find and those who do not.


----------



## Big Skip (Sep 1, 2010)

Harassing this guy and his kid is a good way to turn them from wanting to continue fowling...kinda opposite of what we wanna do? Its easy to forget that most duck hunters are born perfect and there is no learning curve. Come on man


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

It is not a good idea to "rag" on newbies but it is a good idea to teach them.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

CO's also go on sites like this and especially Facebook to see who is posting kill shots and then checking if the have licenses. They got that punk in Ionia that got two turkeys with one shot, no license, and then posted it on YouTube. Nothing like making their job easy.


----------



## Tavor (Sep 10, 2011)

Could someone post a link or reference to the actual law that says one guy's ducks can't touch the other guy's ducks while we are hunting or returning to the ramp after a hunt? Every group I have hunted with, ever, has thrown all the ducks into a single pile in the corner of the blind, or under the front deck, or in the bulrushes behind us, or whatever. After the hunt they all go into a heap in the boat for the ride home. No game officer has ever even commented on it, let alone made it an issue. We stay legal and don't mind a bit when we get checked, both on the lake and at the ramp. If there really is such a law, I will follow it to a T, but I have certainly never come across it in all my reading except on internet forums, where anyone can say anything. I think perhaps this is a bunch of made-up crap. The limit on fish is an individual limit just like ducks. Would this same officer require a separate livewell for each fisherman on board?
Any way, I would appreciate a link to the actual law that requires all this special treatment of ducks that have been shot.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Tavor said:


> Could someone post a link or reference to the actual law that says one guy's ducks can't touch the other guy's ducks while we are hunting or returning to the ramp after a hunt? Every group I have hunted with, ever, has thrown all the ducks into a single pile in the corner of the blind, or under the front deck, or in the bulrushes behind us, or whatever. After the hunt they all go into a heap in the boat for the ride home. No game officer has ever even commented on it, let alone made it an issue. We stay legal and don't mind a bit when we get checked, both on the lake and at the ramp. If there really is such a law, I will follow it to a T, but I have certainly never come across it in all my reading except on internet forums, where anyone can say anything. I think perhaps this is a bunch of made-up crap. The limit on fish is an individual limit just like ducks. Would this same officer require a separate livewell for each fisherman on board?
> Any way, I would appreciate a link to the actual law that requires all this special treatment of ducks that have been shot.


yer birds can go into a pile....just better remember which are yours. don't mess up. 

you will absolutely be asked what birds you shot. now you get 4 guys together and shoot 24 birds. 4 pintails in that pile....and officer asks 1 of your guys what birds they shot and one of them doesn't claim a pintail...ticket will be written.


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

As Kid mentioned piles are fine until you have to split them up exactly how they were shot and under the watchful eye of the co. I know several co's who will make you separate them and they are VERY GOOD at duck id both on the wing and in hand. Hybrids will be counted as whatever they resemble most. Pile if you want, that's not illegal. But ALWAYS be prepared.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Mark them with who shot them.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

A Guide on pool 9 of the Mississippi just got a 25k fine for “group bagging” as the birds were in a pile with two undercover officers. I’ve never had anything said to me about it but it’s definitely a law and the right CO will nail you for it.


----------



## Cobb1973 (Oct 21, 2011)

This is where I see the grey area is and would be up to the officers discretion, with that being said we pile are birds at the end of the hunt, so could possibly be written a ticket,


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Cobb1973 said:


> This is where I see the grey area is and would be up to the officers discretion, with that being said we pile are birds at the end of the hunt, so could possibly be written a ticket,


Yes and some CO's are more likely to write a ticket than others.


----------



## OnHoPr (Jul 21, 2013)

I posted this on SGW back in July.

I haven't been in the marsh for about 17 yrs. I have been thinking of hitting the water this year.
Back in the '90s era, when I lived in Z2 a coworker originally from the South Bay area had a friend come up from Z1 for the Z2 opener that hunted FP, QC, NP and area that had all kinds of bands on the lanyard that had a simple, yet very effective plastic pocket size card that showed just the bill and feet for identification of quackers. I can't remember who published this card to see if it was still available. It had most of the general puddle and diver ducks feet on one side and the bills on the other side. It was sure helpful now and then. Do any of you remember or have seen this duck bill and feet identification card before and do you remember who published it? In MI where there is the balanced smorgasbord of waterfowl sometimes the "What is it?" :16suspect  , "Errrrr Brrrrown duck"  :yikes: :lol:  applies at first. New broods, eclipse phases, and such can be a little hesitant with the divers in hand let alone in flight. When the bag limits are 2 bluebills, 2 redheads, and so forth and mixing them with ringnecks, WELL, I know I am out of tune and might be optically challenged with trifocals nowadays, if you get my drift. It looks like the LeMasters is a close 2nd that I might pick up. Or, if you could mention something along that type of identification format, please mention.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Carry a bunch of different colored zip ties. Each guy in the party get's a color. Put them on the duck's feet when you get them and then pile them up. There's no question about who shot what. This is important when a dog will only bring a retrieve back to it's master. That guy's got a pile of birds at his feet, but they're not all his birds. Don't just expect him to keep track. Sometimes two people claim to have shot the same bird, but someone's got to claim it. Work that out and then tag it, and it will save you having to figure it out in front of a CO.


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

How about this when ya'll are hunting as a party, do you keep track of what everyone shot? By that I mean, are you party hunting everyone has their own limit and quit shooting when that limit is reached? I know we do. I've witnessed this before at the Todd Farm. A co came up and asked to see license etc. Asked who shot what birds. Back then it was one bird per hunter in the gmu. The guys told him who shot what as they had two birds in the bag. He preceded to ask if you two have your birds, why was it you pulled up and shot at the last flock? The guys say well we missed anyway. The co says but you are partaking in the hunt shooting at birds of which you have a limit. Ticket time.


----------



## Duckman1 (Oct 14, 2004)

Yes. Happened opening morning. I filled my 6 bird limit, unloaded the gun and waited for the boy to try and finish his last bird out.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

So I'm done on ducks, but still loaded for geese. Or say done on mallards and waiting for an odd ball to fill out. Someone in the party drops a mallard with its head up and swimming with their third shot:

1. Legal thing to do - not shoot
2. Moral thing to do - everyone in our group swats cripples or shoots at sailing birds, if possible

Hmm.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

There is the "gray" side of life. Like chasing cripples out on the open water. Is is considered "part of the hunt" for the guy driving the boat? I can see a time when only the person in the layout has not shot a limit yet, would it be illegal for those tending the boat to chase down, and kill, a cripple? There are many time when "legal" and "ethical" conflict.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

DecoySlayer said:


> There is the "gray" side of life. Like chasing cripples out on the open water. Is is considered "part of the hunt" for the guy driving the boat? I can see a time when only the person in the layout has not shot a limit yet, would it be illegal for those tending the boat to chase down, and kill, a cripple? There are many time when "legal" and "ethical" conflict.


and a longtime member on here got pinched for that very thing...even tho everyone does the moral thing...he got nailed for it. when they want to write you...they gonna write you.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

A number of years ago, I was living in Alpena. A local radio station used to give out an award/prize for the Outdoor Sportsman of the Week. This usually went to somebody who shot a big deer or caught a big fish or something. The prize was a gift certificate to a local sporting goods store.

Anyway, one late October weekend the radio station announced that the Outdoor Sportsman of the Week was some guy who had shot a drake canvasback on Grand Lake. It turns out that canvasbacks were off limits that year.

I did not call the RAP Hotline. Instead I called the radio station and informed them of the regulations involved and suggested that they may want to reconsider their award that week. I also suggested that they contact the hunter and inform him of his (and their) honest mistake and suggest that he should be more informed of the game laws involved.

I hope that it was not one of you that did that, but if it was, you are welcome.


----------



## Jerry Lamb (Aug 3, 2015)

And if he hadn't have shot it he would have gotten a wanton waste ticket.
If someone is shooting a lot of birds on a regular basis word will get out. And someone getting into birds on that level will be well known in the area. Haters are gonna hate. Word gets out to "get that guy"


Shiawassee_Kid said:


> and a longtime member on here got pinched for that very thing...even tho everyone does the moral thing...he got nailed for it. when they want to write you...they gonna write you.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

DecoySlayer said:


> There is the "gray" side of life. Like chasing cripples out on the open water. Is is considered "part of the hunt" for the guy driving the boat? I can see a time when only the person in the layout has not shot a limit yet, would it be illegal for those tending the boat to chase down, and kill, a cripple? There are many time when "legal" and "ethical" conflict.


There’s a ton of gray area with waterfowl regs. Some are outdated and need to be updated. I don’t care how perfect one thinks they are, if they want to go by the book they will find a way to get you. A perfect example is the sting they did on pool 9 5 years ago and finally charged and settled everyone this year. It was the biggest circus act and government overreach I’ve ever heard of. The point is, you won’t beat big brother.


----------



## Jerry Lamb (Aug 3, 2015)

"Welcome to today's episode of Who Shot What?"
Contestants will be given 10 seconds to respond precisely and clearly, with no stammering, ums and uhs....
We have game straps that can segregate the birds.



Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yer birds can go into a pile....just better remember which are yours. don't mess up.
> 
> you will absolutely be asked what birds you shot. now you get 4 guys together and shoot 24 birds. 4 pintails in that pile....and officer asks 1 of your guys what birds they shot and one of them doesn't claim a pintail...ticket will be written.


----------



## deadduck365 (Nov 5, 2010)

Layout hunting each guy gets a section of the boat or a bucket to put the ducks they shoot. Easy when you get checked!


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> So I'm done on ducks, but still loaded for geese. Or say done on mallards and waiting for an odd ball to fill out. Someone in the party drops a mallard with its head up and swimming with their third shot:
> 
> 1. Legal thing to do - not shoot
> 2. Moral thing to do - everyone in our group swats cripples or shoots at sailing birds, if possible
> ...


Nah, What you describe is purposeful violation.
Group blasting is patently illegal.
Stop doing that.


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Gamekeeper said:


> Nah, What you describe is purposeful violation.
> Group blasting is patently illegal.
> Stop doing that.


I think you are being overly strict with the law. Shooting cripples is the ethical thing to do. For example, would you argue that, once I've killed my limit, and my buddy knocks down a bird who is very much alive and I am able to catch it by hand, does my buddy have to be the one to "finish" it? If you catch a salmon, and I cut its gills to bleed it, does it go against my bag limit?


----------



## Kennybks (Mar 29, 2010)

We always pile our birds. I can always id mine easily. 

Mine are the ones with no pellets in the breast and only a pellet or two in the noggin.


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Gamekeeper said:


> Nah, What you describe is purposeful violation.
> Group blasting is patently illegal.
> Stop doing that.


And if you claim that, the person who swats the cripple should include it in their bag limit, then I could just skybust and sail birds all day and not retrieve them, because I haven't killed them. 

Based on the wanton waste rule, "you may not kill or wound any migratory game bird without making a reasonable attempt to include it in your daily bag limit." I would interpret that to mean that once i wound it, it is my bird, and i should take reasonable steps to put that bird on my strap, which could include shooting it. I don't think other people helping to retrieve it should be illegal.


----------



## Duck-Hunter (Mar 31, 2005)

Technically if you are sky busting/sailing birds you are supposed to make an attempt to retrieve the bird(s). 

Party hunting is a big no-no and they have been cracking down more and more the past few years. A CO gave me a heads up a few years ago when he was checking us and we all had our birds separated. He told me that he sees me around and knows I'm involved in the waterfowl community and said "give these guys a heads up. We arent playing. We will be writing tickets and if it has to go farther than that it will.."

The best way to avoid this is to simply have YOUR birds in your possession. On a kill strap, in a bucket, section of boat/blind, etc. Pile pictures are ok as long as you can claim YOUR birds that YOU personally shot. Don't go heading into the launch or town with a mass pile of birds.. A quick pic is ok.

As for cripples that is a big gray area. I always unload my gun when I have my limit. I'm done plain and simple. I'll call and run the dog. If I have 1-2 guys scratching at a limit they better get to scratching on that crip because my gun never went off lol.


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

If you don't find a duck you shot it doesn't go towards your limit by law, but you must try to retrieve it.


Duck-Hunter said:


> Technically if you are sky busting/sailing birds you are supposed to make an attempt to retrieve the bird(s). Even if you do not have the bird in hand it counts towards your limit.
> 
> Party hunting is a big no-no and they have been cracking down more and more the past few years. A CO gave me a heads up a few years ago when he was checking us and we all had our birds separated. He told me that he sees me around and knows I'm involved in the waterfowl community and said "give these guys a heads up. We arent playing. We will be writing tickets and if it has to go farther than that it will.."
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerry Lamb (Aug 3, 2015)

Why unload? There is some much that could wander by. Geese assuming you're not limited on them. Coots. Jack snipe, Sora Rails. Every one of them legal to keep a gun loaded even if youre limited on ducks. And as someone that has returned with 15 ducks and 24 jack snipe for 3, it pays to stay loaded.


----------



## Divers Down (Mar 31, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> and a longtime member on here got pinched for that very thing...even tho everyone does the moral thing...he got nailed for it. when they want to write you...they gonna write you.


Yep, it’s not worth chasing and popping a crip, if it’s a swimmer I’m sorry but I’m gunna let it go, just Not worth a big ticket. Downriver has some young COs that don’t mind hiding and glassing us.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

There is, without a doubt, a real need to update, and simplify, waterfowl regulations.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

DecoySlayer said:


> There is, without a doubt, a real need to update, and simplify, waterfowl regulations.


Nah.
There's a real need to quit making excuses for illegal behavior, and aggrandizing Whack-em Stack-em, throw them in a pile and whoop it up, TV duck hunting.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

No, there are a few things that are no longer needed. Like plugging for 3 shots, just as an example.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

I have never considered waterfowl regulations to be overly complex. That is likely because when I was a child, I became very interested in waterfowl hunting and read the regulations to the point that I had memorized them.

The issue involved with this entire thread is that a father posted a photo of his son with some ducks that he or his party had shot. Apparently, two of the birds were pintails. 

The proper thing to do under these circumstances is to PM the father and inform him of the issue.

I sincerely doubt that the father and his 10 year old child had intentionally violated our waterfowl regulations and then bragged about it on this forum.

There is no way to simplify the complexity of the wonderful diversity of our waterfowl populations. The present system allows for 6 bird limits in our flyway with species restrictions. To simplify this system would likely require our total daily bag to be reduced significantly. I do hope that I never again see the return of 3 bird limits.

We have had newcomers to this forum post photos of grebes that they have shot and asked us to identify the duck that they had bagged.

There was absolutely no need to report these unintentional violations of our waterfowl laws to RAP. 

The classy thing to do is to simply contact the OP privately and inform him/her of the issue.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Sure they can be cleaned up. Again, why is there a need for the plugged magazine?


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

You are welcome to your opinion.
The USFWS patently disagrees with it.

Follow the law, count unrecovered birds against your limit, and keep YOUR birds separate.
Before you know it, you don't even think about it.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Gamekeeper said:


> Nah.
> There's a real need to quit making excuses for illegal behavior, and aggrandizing Whack-em Stack-em, throw them in a pile and whoop it up, TV duck hunting.


Um no. It’s not a matter of making excuses. It’s a matter of getting rid of the gray area and simplifying the regs.


----------



## Aaronjeep2 (Nov 18, 2016)

Gamekeeper said:


> Nah.
> There's a real need to quit making excuses for illegal behavior, and aggrandizing Whack-em Stack-em, throw them in a pile and whoop it up, TV duck hunting.


Divers down and decoyslayer are not tv/YouTube duck hunters they know what they are doing I highly doubt they do anything illegal.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

If you are going to change the waterfowl regs, I respectfully ask that you lobby to allow live decoys again.

I really want to raise and keep call ducks.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

And allow sink boxes again.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

See post #68
rinse and repeat

It's not hard to follow the existing laws.
It's just that people don't want to, and spend every season making excuses for why they don't.
I always end up saying, "Do what you can afford."


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Gamekeeper said:


> Nah.
> There's a real need to quit making excuses for illegal behavior, and aggrandizing Whack-em Stack-em, throw them in a pile and whoop it up, TV duck hunting.


That's silly. It's one thing to change the regs to make it easier to kill more ducks, but we are talking about chasing crippled ducks. (I think we all agree you shouldn't shoot over your own limit, purposely) unrecovered crippled ducks don't help anyone. It's okay to discuss whether a specific regulation continues to be necessary to protect the resource and the image of fair chase. It doesn't make you a violator or a game hog to make suggestions. 

Also, show me the regulation that says I count an escaped cripple in my bag limit, please.


----------



## Aaronjeep2 (Nov 18, 2016)

Just need to stop shooting ducks out of range kill them landing gear down 15 feet and you will have zero cripples. You will also have more ducks that aren't educated. It's a win win literally try it on a small inland lakes it works don't shoot the big flocks shoot the singles and triples that come decoy.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Gamekeeper said:


> See post #68
> rinse and repeat
> 
> It's not hard to follow the existing laws.
> ...


How many federal waterfowl laws are currently on the books? You probably break laws that you aren’t even aware of. There are laws that have too much gray area and were put into place back in the market hunting days.


----------



## Divers Down (Mar 31, 2008)

Does a reg keep hunters safe or provide fair chase to ducks? If neither are true, it needs to be simplified or cut. There’s way too many cash grab regs on the books.


----------



## cwielock (May 9, 2010)

Aaronjeep2 said:


> Just need to stop shooting ducks out of range kill them landing gear down 15 feet and you will have zero cripples. You will also have more ducks that aren't educated. It's a win win literally try it on a small inland lakes it works don't shoot the big flocks shoot the singles and triples that come decoy.


Go diver hunting you will get cripples!


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Aaronjeep2 said:


> Just need to stop shooting ducks out of range kill them landing gear down 15 feet and you will have zero cripples. You will also have more ducks that aren't educated. It's a win win literally try it on a small inland lakes it works don't shoot the big flocks shoot the singles and triples that come decoy.


You're telling me you have never lost a cripple? Maybe on open water in a lake. In a marsh or flooded corn, with no dog, you will have cripples that hit the water and dive immediately.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

cwielock said:


> Go diver hunting you will get cripples!


Yup. It’s a guarantee. We need regs like they have in the sea duck zone to finish off cripples. Many cripples are lost due to the ancient regs that were put in place during the market hunting days.


----------



## lastflight (Aug 16, 2005)

Gamekeeper said:


> Follow the law, count unrecovered birds against your limit, and keep YOUR birds separate.


I'm confused, should I follow the law, or count unrecovered birds against my limit? Because those are two different things.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

craigrh13 said:


> Never lost a bird? BS.


Exactly reincarnation of Tom Knapp.


----------



## 3shotmike (Sep 30, 2008)

smoke said:


> wow i haven't been on since yesterday. This thread "Really" took off! Funny thing is, the two guys, one who started it and one who did whatever are not even joining in? :lol:
> 
> That's all I have, carry on.......... :mischeif:


I just read the entire thread. 15 minutes I will never get back!


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

There was a lot to be learned in this thread, it was just buried under a lot of crap.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I've shot at 18 ducks this season and killed 16 of them. The only two that needed follow up shots were the ones I jumped from my spread.

I'm also +2 on cripples this year, no dog, and I shot a bird over the corn at Fish Point. Didn't realize I was such a cretin. That bird was hit so hard I split it with the cat.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

duckbuster2 said:


> Unrecovered birds do not count against your limit in Michigan.


That's true. It's been well discussed here.

What is also true is that you can stay fully within existing waterfowl law by doing as I said, and avoid all the issues of wanton waste, too-short of an effort at recovery, as interpreted by a CO, and other points of conflict.

It's a slightly more conservation oriented view, that also happens to be the law in other states.

The most peculiar aspects of this discussion have been resurrected every year since the 1920's. Truly a set of laws that the participants have never fully given in to.

Oh, by the way, Sink boxes are still in use along the St Lawrence. There's an exemption for them in Quebec. FWIW.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

It may be possible to remain legal, but the laws for chasing cripples on open water are in conflict with the ethical.


----------



## lastflight (Aug 16, 2005)

Gamekeeper said:


> That's true. It's been well discussed here.
> 
> What is also true is that you can stay fully within existing waterfowl law by doing as I said, and avoid all the issues of wanton waste, too-short of an effort at recovery, as interpreted by a CO, and other points of conflict.
> 
> ...


So now you are arguing ethics. I thought you were all about following the law, nothing more.


----------



## jwinks (Mar 20, 2014)

Gamekeeper said:


> It's a slightly more conservation oriented view, that also happens to be the law in other states.
> .


What states?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

lastflight said:


> So now you are arguing ethics. I thought you were all about following the law, nothing more.



I believe that our laws should be closer, whenever possible, to the ethics of the sports we partake in.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

DecoySlayer said:


> It may be possible to remain legal, but the laws for chasing cripples on open water are in conflict with the ethical.


It is both unethical and illegal to pursue ducks from a motorized boat. 

For the law to allow this for cripples only would be an enforcement nightmare. For example a violator that rides around with a speed boat shooting ducks or sneaks up on them with an electric trolling motor could claim that they were attempting to recover a cripple. 

I think that law enforcement officers should have the discretion in these matters that the present law allows.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

John Singer said:


> It is both unethical and illegal to pursue ducks from a motorized boat.
> 
> For the law to allow this for cripples only would be an enforcement nightmare. For example a violator that rides around with a speed boat shooting ducks or sneaks up on them with an electric trolling motor could claim that they were attempting to recover a cripple.
> 
> I think that law enforcement officers should have the discretion in these matters that the present law allows.


No it wouldn’t. Hence why they can do it on the east coast in the sea Duck zone. There’s a huge difference between trying to swat a wounded diver that is diving 40 yards in every different direction and clearly rallying and shooting ducks on the move.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

craigrh13 said:


> No it wouldn’t. Hence why they can do it on the east coast in the sea Duck zone. There’s a huge difference between trying to swat a wounded diver that is diving 40 yards in every different direction and clearly rallying and shooting ducks on the move.


I know very well the difference between killing a wounded diver duck and rallying waterfowl. 

Realize that we are not in the sea duck zone. If you truly think that the present laws are unethical. Then do what you can to change them.

Historically it used to be illegal in Michigan to hunt waterfowl from a boat that had a motor attached to it. It truly was one of those ridiculous laws. It created great risk for hunters that removed the motor and laid them in the bottom of their boat only to have the motor get wet and not start at the end of the hunt. It was an outdoor editor from the Detroit News that lobbied to have the law changed.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

John Singer said:


> It is both unethical and illegal to pursue ducks from a motorized boat.
> 
> For the law to allow this for cripples only would be an enforcement nightmare. For example a violator that rides around with a speed boat shooting ducks or sneaks up on them with an electric trolling motor could claim that they were attempting to recover a cripple.
> 
> I think that law enforcement officers should have the discretion in these matters that the present law allows.



It is allowed in the sea ducks zones, what is the difference?


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

John Singer said:


> I know very well the difference between killing a wounded diver duck and rallying waterfowl.
> 
> Realize that we are not in the sea duck zone. If you truly think that the present laws are unethical. Then do what you can to change them.
> 
> Historically it used to be illegal in Michigan to hunt waterfowl from a boat that had a motor attached to it. It truly was one of those ridiculous laws. It created great risk for hunters that removed the motor and laid them in the bottom of their boat only to have the motor get wet and not start at the end of the hunt. It was an outdoor editor from the Detroit News that lobbied to have the law changed.


I know you know the difference I was simply saying that there is a huge difference. The waterfowl regs need to be simplified so that the gray area is fixed and nothing can be one of those “at the co’s discretion” laws. A lot of the laws have a very good meaning behind them and should be left in place. Ones such as taking care of cripples should be fixed, simplified and clarified.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

It would be fun to put together an official committee with DNR law enforcement, the feds, and local hunters, and see if some of the bugs can be worked out.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

DecoySlayer said:


> It would be fun to put together an official committee with DNR law enforcement, the feds, and local hunters, and see if some of the bugs can be worked out.


Is that not the purpose of CWAC?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

John Singer said:


> Is that not the purpose of CWAC?


I don't know if they do that kind of law enforcement changes or not. I have not been involve with them.


----------



## Bigeejakes (Nov 11, 2011)

Jeez, I wish I hadn't read this thread...

Does this mean that when we're all shooting at ducks and I'm pretty sure I hit them that it's supposed to count toward just my bag? I guess I better let my buddies claim that they did hit them...


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

WOW.... 120 posts... you guys over achieved... LOL


----------

