# Banning robo's at the Flats (You got to be joking)



## ducslayer (Sep 28, 2009)

You guys have to be joking!!!! First of all it is my choice to use or not use a RB duck. I don't like the few club members telling me or someone else how to hunt. If this is the case, then ban bad duck calling.

Instead of wasting time make silly rules like this, why don't you focus on limiting boat size, motor size and if a boat needs a winch then it's to big for the flats. All the above would help stop most of the damage to the fields and the dikes. But no that won't happen, because the boys club out there have all the above.


----------



## anon2192012 (Jul 27, 2008)

Here we go again!

Some good reading for you:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319006


----------



## mwakely (Jan 7, 2004)

Peace on Earth Good Will Towards Man!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

only one thing I can say. If you don't like what the "boys club" out there is doing, then pay your $10 per year like the rest of us to join the association so you have a voice, then come to the monthly meetings and give your opinion....7pm, second Tuesday of each month. And while you're at it, come out like a lot of us do on your own time during the off season, often on weekends, to work on pull overs, parking lot clean up, marking zones, etc., etc. God I love people who bitch but aren't willing to put one minute of their own time where their mouth is. :rant:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

ducslayer said:


> You guys have to be joking!!!! First of all it is my choice to use or not use a RB duck. I don't like the few club members telling me or someone else how to hunt. If this is the case, then ban bad duck calling.
> 
> Instead of wasting time make silly rules like this, why don't you focus on limiting boat size, motor size and if a boat needs a winch then it's to big for the flats. All the above would help stop most of the damage to the fields and the dikes. But no that won't happen, because the boys club out there have all the above.


seriously? boys club? c'mon get real. this has been discussed for years...it pasted all over the forums for months. we've had a zillion meetings taking in opinions. 

ok heres some thoughts on your suggestions just off the cuff.

1. limiting boats size: sure sounds great, but really people using too big of boats limit themselves or hurt themselves (hiding)....but making a rule limits participation (will get shot down by DNR).

2. limit a motor size, sure i agree...but then again you will cut participation. We have a wake speed limit that everyone is suppose to follow.

3. dike damage? boats are causing dike damage? only dike damage goin on is high waters in the spring blowing out the dikes...and guess whos out there fixing them??? that *boys club* your referring to.

if your gonna go off the hinge by losing your ability to use a spinner, then maybe fish point or nq point would better suit your hunting style? I hear you don't need big boats or dike pulling there. If you live in saginaw, bout the same drive.


----------



## Duck madness (Nov 13, 2006)

I am all for the idea of banning robo's!


----------



## adam bomb (Feb 27, 2006)

Spinnies do not make or break a hunt at a bingo IMO. Being in the right field in the area the ducks want to be is whats most important. Do that and you can do allot of things wrong and still have a pretty good hunt. I talked with some people from the MDHA and was told it almost past at NP for that study as well.


----------



## Sampsons_owner (Dec 30, 2005)

Lets remember that this is only a 3 year test to see how banning spinning wind decoys effects the hunting in the managed areas. I for one am very interested to see the results. Steve


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

adam bomb said:


> Spinnies do not make or break a hunt at a bingo IMO. Being in the right field in the area the ducks want to be is whats most important. Do that and you can do allot of things wrong and still have a pretty good hunt. I talked with some people from the MDHA and was told it almost past at NP for that study as well.


When the birds are decoying, they'll come to conventional decoys just fine. But spinners can definitely hurt the chances when the birds are spooky or educated.

While it's true poor calling, poor concealment, poor decoy placement can all affect the success of YOUR PARTY in a typical crop field, poor calling doesn't typically scare birds from the entire field. Those birds will likely circle and go to your neighbor instead. Versus spinners, which often will scare them from the entire field. Especially when they're up on raised poles which has become more common over the years. Imagine how it looks to birds coming up out of the refuge 1/4 mile away...they get 50 yds in the air, and all they see is spinners...I equate it to airport landing lights, which are visible from a long way. Versus poor concealment, or poor decoy placement by one party, which scares birds when they get close to that party.

for the record, the one organization that does a lot at NP is Saginaw Bay chapter of MDHA, and they were in favor of the proposal, as were the folks at Fish Point, and Harsens. A couple of groups stayed neutral (neither favored or disagreed) simply because their members couldn't come to a concensus, and some of those are now sorry they didn't get on the bandwagon. Off the record, all groups were in favor, with the exception of those who hunt Allegan a lot, which was because that's dry field hunting, and spinners seem to work much better in dry fields. The original proposal was to ban them at all managed areas, but the CWAC couldn't agree to that. So it was modified to just Shiawassee for a 3 year experiment.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

just ducky said:


> for the record, the one organization that does a lot at NP is Saginaw Bay chapter of MDHA, and they were in favor of the proposal, as were the folks at Fish Point, and Harsens. A couple of groups stayed neutral (neither favored or disagreed) simply because their members couldn't come to a concensus, and some of those are now sorry they didn't get on the bandwagon. Off the record, all groups were in favor, with the exception of those who hunt Allegan a lot, which was because that's dry field hunting, and spinners seem to work much better in dry fields. The original proposal was to ban them at all managed areas, but the CWAC couldn't agree to that. So it was modified to just Shiawassee for a 3 year experiment.


blasphemy, all the *boys clubs* wanted it? you've got to be joking?


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

Hooray for Shiawassee Flats...

Now get them to do it at Pte. Mouillee and I will donate $100 to them on the spot.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> Hooray for Shiawassee Flats...
> 
> Now get them to do it at Pte. Mouillee and I will donate $100 to them on the spot.


We tried to get them to go along...they chose to stay neutral. But at CWAC, one of their most vocal (who shall remain nameless, but you probably know who I'm talking about) had some issues about banning them in the managed area, when right across the dike there was marsh where you could use them. Anyway, we tried.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> blasphemy, all the *boys clubs* wanted it? you've got to be joking?



he he...basically they all did. Just some didn't have the _____ to go on record of doing so :evilsmile


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

JD, I'm assuming that since this is a "3 year test" that before being implemented there were clear definitions of what success and failure would be considered? Hopefully not just left to people's impressions, but actually something to back it up.

Myself, none of this applies to me, but it would be nice to look at a shore line and not see a dozen lining it. Not sure if many on the Bay shore realize that you can id almost every hunting party along shore from a mile away by looking for spinners. I'd imagine the ducks have to realize the same after awhile.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> We tried to get them to go along...they chose to stay neutral. But at CWAC, one of their most vocal (who shall remain nameless, but you probably know who I'm talking about) had some issues about banning them in the managed area, when right across the dike there was marsh where you could use them. Anyway, we tried.


Man..imagine the idea...the Managed area looking like the Refuge...totally devoid of spinners running all the time...maybe the Managed area would kill more birds? 

What a novel idea? Pte. Mouillee has SOOOOO much potential it isn't funny. Yes..it can be a good place to hunt...and yes...a restriction on spinners would be welcome at least amongst my group.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> Man..imagine the idea...the Managed area looking like the Refuge...totally devoid of spinners running all the time...maybe the Managed area would kill more birds?
> 
> What a novel idea? Pte. Mouillee has SOOOOO much potential it isn't funny. Yes..it can be a good place to hunt...and yes...a restriction on spinners would be welcome at least amongst my group.


I agree. But unfortunately not going to happen yet. Maybe down the road.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> JD, I'm assuming that since this is a "3 year test" that before being implemented there were clear definitions of what success and failure would be considered? Hopefully not just left to people's impressions, but actually something to back it up.
> 
> Myself, none of this applies to me, but it would be nice to look at a shore line and not see a dozen lining it. Not sure if many on the Bay shore realize that you can id almost every hunting party along shore from a mile away by looking for spinners. I'd imagine the ducks have to realize the same after awhile.


Gene,

The DNRE is charged with creating the measurements for success. My understanding is they are working on a satisfaction survey, but what it includes I can't say. Maybe I'm naive, but I trust that we hire trained professionals in the DNRE for a reason, with the background to create something meaningful as far as measurements, and I trust they'll come up with a satisfactory method of measuring success.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Dan, I'd usually agree, but I'm skeptical this time.

Can't really go by duck harvest since there are way too many other influences. Not fair to have a survey asking people if they had a better experience with or without spinners.

I have a feeling after 3 years the ban will stick without anything solid behind it. We'll see.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

TSS Caddis said:


> Dan, I'd usually agree, but I'm skeptical this time.
> 
> Can't really go by duck harvest since there are way too many other influences. Not fair to have a survey asking people if they had a better experience with or without spinners.
> 
> I have a feeling after 3 years the ban will stick without anything solid behind it. We'll see.


I don't think it would be that hard to get feedback from the hunters.

if your looking for a biological answer to this, your not gonna get it. Your gonna see hunter satisfaction either increased or decreased. its really that simple.

this is hunter satisfaction thing more than anything else. Its much like saying the cornfields were to close together and we wanted more room and less cornfields.....run a 3 year trial of bigger cornfields and gauge satisfaction....revisit in 3 years and make decision.

the dnr is in charge of gauging this satisfaction or dis-satisfaction. How they do this i'm not sure...i think barb avers is gonna be on this one so i will ask her next time i see her, or go thru vic on it. I'm betting participating hunters will receive some kind of survey, either during or after season.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> this is hunter satisfaction thing more than anything else. Its much like saying the cornfields were to close together and we wanted more room and less cornfields.....run a 3 year trial of bigger cornfields and gauge satisfaction....revisit in 3 years and make decision.


Do they have a satisfaction survey they have been conducting over the past few years? Not really valid IMO to start one now and ask if they were happier with or without spinners. Typically you would have some history on satisfaction, leave the survey the same during the study and then gauge if there was a change.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

you on the island this weekend?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Regarding the thought of increasing the managed area fees, most people who hunt these areas have said they'd gladly pay more. I mean come on...$13 for an annual managed area permit? Funny you should mention this, because in my role as MDHA PR coordinator, I had a one on one meeting with DNRE Director Humphries this week to talk about issues affecting waterfowl hunters, and the idea of raising managed area fees came up. She's also heard from waterfowlers who would gladly pay more for the managed area fee. The DNRE has been attempting to raise hunting fees for years, because in case you weren't aware, it's been a long time since hunting license fees were last raised. The problem is simple...the political will in this state (i.e. our legislators) are firmly against raising any fees, taxes, etc. She said the department cannot get this done in the current environment, but a grass-roots effort from the users (us) may have a chance of gaining movement. In other words, if we scream loudly enough (like we did about spinners :evilsmile), it may happen. Short of that, we probably won't see fee increases any time soon. Some would say this is a good thing...depends on your perspective I guess.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

just ducky said:


> Regarding the thought of increasing the managed area fees, most people who hunt these areas have said they'd gladly pay more. I mean come on...$13 for an annual managed area permit? Funny you should mention this, because in my role as MDHA PR coordinator, I had a one on one meeting with DNRE Director Humphries this week to talk about issues affecting waterfowl hunters, and the idea of raising managed area fees came up. She's also heard from waterfowlers who would gladly pay more for the managed area fee. The DNRE has been attempting to raise hunting fees for years, because in case you weren't aware, it's been a long time since hunting license fees were last raised. The problem is simple...the political will in this state (i.e. our legislators) are firmly against raising any fees, taxes, etc. She said the department cannot get this done in the current environment, but a grass-roots effort from the users (us) may have a chance of gaining movement. In other words, if we scream loudly enough (like we did about spinners :evilsmile), it may happen. Short of that, we probably won't see fee increases any time soon. Some would say this is a good thing...depends on your perspective I guess.


raising the fee's is NOT the answer. you and i both know this JD. that is why no one wants to approve another raise in licenses or fees. Michigan outsells EVERY OTHER STATE in licenses and we can't manage that money correctly...hence increased fees is not the answer.

taxpayer money allocation is where its at and we all know it. Michigan screws its natural resource when it comes to spending.

would i pay more to hunt managed areas, yes. But i will do everything in my power to not let it happen til they stop robbing funds, and they start investing back into our natural resources.

example: DNR granted $50k to dismantle a private water water park in saginaw a few years ago...where did that money come from and why was it gifted to remove a badly managed water park. Now in 1 year, annual managed area intake in fees is 70-90k.

bottom line, 1 crappy mis-spent 50k kinda washes our 70k in fees raised that year...poor appropriations of money.


----------



## donbtanner (Sep 26, 2007)

just ducky said:


> The problem is simple...the political will in this state (i.e. our legislators) are firmly against raising any fees, taxes, etc.


 
Hmmmm...... the last couple years the MBT tax has gone up over 500%, stifling existing small-medium sized businesses, new hiring freeze's, causing many new startups to incorporate in other states, businesses leaving, etc; unless you are a pet project like film or alternative energy, it seems the legislature has plenty will to pull turds from intestines...... I guess it just depends on what\who they want to tax....... They obviously feel this tax has no bearing on their costituency..... I've only heard one potential governor say he want's to address this issue because it is killing our job creation in the worst un-employment era in decades......... more tax $ for crack for the crackheads please.....

I think you guys are on the right track though, wanting to improve things @ the WMU's, and I am behind you for thinking this way....... I think grass roots are always the best starting points....... they are in most cases "revolutionary"......... We need more people who are willing to do the difficult things, right, wrong or indifferent, and then take the tomatoes for their decisions....... not some pansy butt polititian trying to cover his tail by reading the tea leaves then giving the masses their opiate........

Alright I'm off my soapbox now and am saying "goodnight vietnam"......


Yeah Waxi..... we'll be there, I'll give ya a call........


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> raising the fee's is NOT the answer. you and i both know this JD. that is why no one wants to approve another raise in licenses or fees. Michigan outsells EVERY OTHER STATE in licenses and we can't manage that money correctly...hence increased fees is not the answer.
> 
> taxpayer money allocation is where its at and we all know it. Michigan screws its natural resource when it comes to spending.


I tend to agree with the sentiment of your statement SK: funding should come from elsewhere, and the existing funds should be better managed. But the plain fact is that the State has no problem with screwing it's natural resources when it comes to funding. This is abundantly clear. Taxpayer allocation for the DNRE from the General Fund may be the answer, but it's NOT going to happen. Funding, for better or worse (and we all know it's worse) is going to come from those of us who buy licenses. We may outsell every other state in terms of license numbers, but if those licenses are not priced correctly we're not getting what we should be getting from those funds. 

The bottom line is that the DNRE is forced to manage our natural resources almost exclusively with license fees. It's not right, but it's not going to change. Unfortunately, these fees have not even kept up with inflation. So it leaves the DNRE in an untenable position where they can't do anything more than merely hope to maintain what they have at the bare minimum level. And we all know that without an increase in funding from "somewhere" the money they get from licenses has less buying power from year to year - and that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that license sales are declining. If, as you say, an increase in fees isn't the answer, _is it a PART of the answer?_ If so, then let's get on with at least that part of it. If not then what do you propose? Is it something that the legislature will go for?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shlwego said:


> I tend to agree with the sentiment of your statement SK: funding should come from elsewhere, and the existing funds should be better managed. But the plain fact is that the State has no problem with screwing it's natural resources when it comes to funding. This is abundantly clear. Taxpayer allocation for the DNRE from the General Fund may be the answer, but it's NOT going to happen. Funding, for better or worse (and we all know it's worse) is going to come from those of us who buy licenses. We may outsell every other state in terms of license numbers, but if those licenses are not priced correctly we're not getting what we should be getting from those funds.
> 
> The bottom line is that the DNRE is forced to manage our natural resources almost exclusively with license fees. It's not right, but it's not going to change. Unfortunately, these fees have not even kept up with inflation. So it leaves the DNRE in an untenable position where they can't do anything more than merely hope to maintain what they have at the bare minimum level. And we all know that without an increase in funding from "somewhere" the money they get from licenses has less buying power from year to year - and that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that license sales are declining. If, as you say, an increase in fees isn't the answer, _is it a PART of the answer?_ If so, then let's get on with at least that part of it. If not then what do you propose? Is it something that the legislature will go for?


In a nutshell, you've pretty much hit the reality on the head. The Director talked at length about the change in funding sources, the fact that our raw license sales are generally falling, leaving massive shortfalls, and the majority of our legislators are not listening. That's just the fact. 

Tell ya what...after spending a half hour talking with her, and seeing her passion, put yourself in her position...a die-hard hunter and/or angler (which she happens to be), having to deal with panzy-ass legislators at every corner, and constantly fighting over something so near and dear to your heart, and which seems so clear to us! We sportspeople bitch, the legislators bitch, the environmentalists bitch, the industry lobbyists bitch, etc., etc. It's an absolute no-win job, and I wouldn't take that job for twice what we pay her!


----------



## donbtanner (Sep 26, 2007)

Here's a thought, why not let the state and a for instance, "Shia mgmt. organization" be a joint venture operation. It could be non profit, the state only makes up shortfalls for a while until the "private" local organization who have the most boots on the ground and the greatest intrest in the success of the place, is running it in a way in which "their" or the "users" vision for the place is being realized....This could eventually lead to the state not having to allocate any $ for it.... In this way, you could come to an agreement then that the user fees be put directly back into the resource and could charge what the market would bear....... I dont think raising the hunting licensce fee will do anything but go into the black hole either, what needs to happen is that the fees generated by the resource need to go directly back to that resource in order to manage it "correctly". You could accomplish this in a JV with the state. If you think govt. is gonna run things correctly, you need to rethink that position....... Only those who have a vested intrest in anything will run it correctly..........


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

simple answer. sales tax increase, portion goes to MDNR funding. problem solved. everyone pays.

look it up and who runs it this way and look at all the wpa/managed areas those states fund compared to michigan. Theres one particular state that is very similar to michigan in numbers and dnr management. They keep hiring our people away from us.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> simple answer. sales tax increase, portion goes to MDNR funding. problem solved. everyone pays.
> 
> look it up and who runs it this way and look at all the wpa/managed areas those states fund compared to michigan. Theres one particular state that is very similar to michigan in numbers and dnr management. They keep hiring our people away from us.




Only way to get it though will be to get it on the ballot.

Get the petitions ready!


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

donbtanner said:


> Here's a thought, why not let the state and a for instance, "Shia mgmt. organization" be a joint venture operation. ...


Either that or turn it into a Jeff Foiles hunt club


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

donbtanner said:


> Here's a thought, why not let the state and a for instance, "Shia mgmt. organization" be a joint venture operation. It could be non profit, the state only makes up shortfalls for a while until the "private" local organization who have the most boots on the ground and the greatest intrest in the success of the place, .......


never say never. There was talk a while back about "privatizing" some of our state parks this way. Would I be surprised if something like this eventually happened? No. But do I think there's a snowball's chance of it happening? No. Too many state laws, policies and regs to change in order to make it happen. And especially now, in an election year, the policy makers are too busy squabbling over the budget on an annual basis AND jockeying for political power to ever make a change like this. But someday? hmmmm....


----------



## donbtanner (Sep 26, 2007)

Did I ever tell you guys I really like JD....... not cause we agree on everything, but cause he doesn't mind thinkin outside the box...... I don't think it will ever happen in this state, but I do think it is the best way to really improve these areas....... the people who use them need to have a real voice in the mgmt of them........ waterfowlers will never get the ear of Lansing, but they could get the ear of an organization that runs a waterfowl mgmt area.......... at least there is a better chance of that happening.........

Now go chase some walters this weekend and enjoy yourself bro.....


----------



## donbtanner (Sep 26, 2007)

TSS Caddis said:


> Either that or turn it into a Jeff Foiles hunt club


Nah...... I'd enjoy having the duck commander and his hillbilly clan running the place though......... I think he and the Kid would get along well....... if the Kid would wear the fat Elvis suit......I hear the DC is really into Elvis........


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

donbtanner said:


> Did I ever tell you guys I really like JD....


Well that's one of you :lol:

Although I hate the term "thinking outside the box", it's something I push people to do all day in my real life. And to draw an analogy to those who continue to say "why can't it be like it was 20 or 30 years ago", or "why are the budgets so bad", you're sticking your head in the sand...it's never going to be that way again. The government will never again provide for us like they did in the last century, so MOVE ON! We can have top notch facilities in this state, but it takes us thinking differently, and putting our time, money and efforts WHERE OUR MOUTHS ARE!

Okay, now off to chase those damn 'eyes :help:


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Well as I said before I have only hunted the flats a few times but for what its worth it is a special place indeed and there are a ton of birds there. I have to go with others who are there regularly like Shia.Kid. Keep in mind they killed ducks out there long before robo ducks and they will kill ducks long after.

Ganzer


----------



## GoneFishin (Jan 11, 2001)

Mike L said:


> ...... Being old school I don't have to voice how I feel about the spinners. But the use of them has made non duck hunters, duck shooters that claim they know what there doing.


Being an oldtimer I have to agree. The modern age has brought on a generation that are used to near instant gratification in almost every facet of their lives. Over my near 50 years of chasing waterfowl I've watched technology change many things some good and some not so good. When spinners first came out they were a new tool for waterfowlers, they even allowed neophytes to be instantly successful at times, and possibly even brought some hunters into the sport. But, I'm afraid it may have produced a flip-a-switch mentality in some (not all) attributing thier success to the technology and they feel no need to learn all the other aspects waterfowling as they can achieve limited success by merely flipping a switch.

But of course thats just my opinion and yes I still get up and walk to the TV to change the channels once in a while even though the batteries in the remote aren't dead.   Heck, I can even remember when there wasn't any TV's, must be I'm older than dirt.  :lol:


----------



## BucksandDucks (May 25, 2010)

Wow, there are a lot of strong feelings toward this issue. I hunt Shiawassee fairly regularly and have done decent there. Don't think we've ever got limits but I can only remember one time being skunked. I dont think not using spinning wings will make or break people out there, and I dont know if the ban will make the ducks take off the oxygen masks and come on in. Im ok with the ban. I usually used spinners out there, not because I had great faith in them but because everybody else had them so I figured I would too. I and sure that not having the will help with the geese though. I am pretty excited to see how it all works out.


----------



## ducslayer (Sep 28, 2009)

All I'm saying is that this should be my choice to use or not to use RB's. The boys club is a small part of the number of hunters that use the area, and they feel they can direct their wishes on the rest of us. I won't be using my RB duck this year because I have learned some other methods to use. But that is my choice to make and not yours. I understand banning steel shot, that was for the sake of the birds welfare. Banning RB's doesn't fit the same lines.


----------



## SuperBlackEagle2 (Nov 4, 2005)

ducslayer said:


> All I'm saying is that this should be my choice to use or not to use RB's. The boys club is a small part of the number of hunters that use the area, and they feel they can direct their wishes on the rest of us. I won't be using my RB duck this year because I have learned some other methods to use. But that is my choice to make and not yours. I understand banning steel shot, that was for the sake of the birds welfare. Banning RB's doesn't fit the same lines.


I don't really understand what your problem is with the so-called "boys club"? Do you realize that without them, that place wouldn't be half of what it is today? In my opinion, YES they should get a bigger say as to what happens out there. I'm a member of the Flats Association, by my donation only. I don't go to meetings, and I haven't been to a workday. So I'm not going to complain about anything. Anyone that hunts out there, owes that "boys club" a debt of gratitude. So deal with it. What have you done for the place? Nothing? Ok then. Say thank you to the "boys club", and move on.


----------



## cheeseandquackers (Jun 20, 2007)

After reading all these posts and all the different opinions. Though i'm not fond of mandates in most forms, I would like to see some sort of trial period on the banning of spinning wing decoys at Pointe Mouillee. I think that if the decoys were banned in the Managed hunting area, there may not be as much conflict as one might think with the outlying area(Vermet, Humphries units). THe birds will still come Bloody Run anyway. I think this would weed out alot of the hunters were seeing at the Drawings. Seems theres a large amount of Hunters there that dont use traditional methods. The Massive amounts of Spinners and the Relentless hiball duck calling to say the least detracts from hunter satisfaction. And also being that the managed area is only open 2 days a week, the perimeter of spinning wing decoys is already going on the other 5 days, so i honestly dont think that would be much of a factor. I would love to see a trial period type thing at Pointe Mouillee. Eider? Eider?


----------



## ScavengerMan (Sep 6, 2006)

mudplunger said:


> I've always thought that Shiawassee SGA was a unique place to hunt and I've always enjoyed hunting there. I can't remember the last time I've hunted an area in the last 10 years (other than small potholes/ponds or private land) where I didn't have to compete with spinners or watch spinners from my hunting spot.
> 
> Now Shiawassee (at least to me) is even going to more be unique and attractive. No spinners! No other place in Michigan can claim that about waterfowl hunting. IMO you won't have to worry about a drop in hunter numbers because once more hunters find out they can hunt like they did in the pre-spinner days, watch out!
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more! This is one of the best developments in the waterfowl community I've heard of in a long time. Many of us remember with fondness the pre-spinner days when strategy, decoy placement and calling ruled the day instead of getting as close to the refuge as possible with a flock of robos designed to get the birds within 50 yards so the skybusting can commence. I'll guarantee in advance this is going to increase hunter participation and hunt quality. I haven't been to the Flats this century, but you can add myself and some enthusiastic young duck hunters in training to a few next years draws.

Hats off to JD, the Kid and all the other active members of the SF Association who are doing such an outstanding job!


----------



## Duck-Hunter (Mar 31, 2005)

I think that this probation period is a great thing to do. I'm glad it went through and I can't wait to see the outcome. thanks to the Kid and everyone else that fought to put it through. My hats off to you guys.

For the guys that are pissed bout it, sell the robos and invest in a pulsator or two or rig up a good Ol fashioned jerk cord. I run 2-3 pulsators and I love em. The only time we bust out the spinning wings are in fields.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

I'm really happy for you guys up at Shiawassee that were able to get this trial period in. 

I only wish we could get something like this at Harsen's. Maybe I missed it, but could someone comment on what kind of support level this had from some of the eastsiders that frequent HI?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

GrizzlyBear said:


> I'm really happy for you guys up at Shiawassee that were able to get this trial period in.
> 
> I only wish we could get something like this at Harsen's. Maybe I missed it, but could someone comment on what kind of support level this had from some of the eastsiders that frequent HI?


Bluewater chapter of MDHA, St. Clair Flats Waterfowlers, and a bit later, Harsens Island waterfowlers were all talked to. Most said their members were in favor, but a lot would not go on record supporting the proposal, but chose to stay neutral. A lot of the reason for that was some groups do not meet regularly, and had no method of contacting their members for a vote in a fairly short time period. Because a lot of groups could not get a decision, I turned the focus instead on which groups voiced opposition to the proposal. In the end, the only real opposition we heard was from some of the Pt. Mouillee hunters, and some Allegan and Muskegon area hunters who hunt mainly dry fields. And even more interesting, we've now heard from quite a few people who hunt managed areas other than SRSGA who are now saying "what about us?" So this will prove real interesting to see how much this improves the satisfaction of Shiawassee hunters.

And for those who said "sell your spinners", heck no! I have a couple and I'm not going to sell them. Keep them for dry field hunting, where the tend to work a lot better all year long. Just keep them out of the flooded fields and marshes of SRSGA  If some of you haven't figured it out yet, this proposal wasn't about being "anti-spinner" (although I'll admit I found in talking to people STATEWIDE that a lot of people downright hate them). It was about using them at the right time and the right place, and knowing when they aren't working to put 'em away.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

i'm really looking forward to this season at srsga. I honestly believe this will be a good thing for all the hunters that use the area.

i think you might even see some posts this fall that ask for tips and techniques for duck hunting again.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

:gaga:

Bwahh waaa waaa waaaa.

Really interesting reading. MWW's going to get somewhere between 2 and 50 wind turbines on it, but when the holy grounds of Shiawassee comes up most believe the sky is falling over the use or not of spinnies......


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

just ducky said:


> Bluewater chapter of MDHA, St. Clair Flats Waterfowlers, and a bit later, Harsens Island waterfowlers were all talked to. Most said their members were in favor, but a lot would not go on record supporting the proposal, but chose to stay neutral. A lot of the reason for that was some groups do not meet regularly, and had no method of contacting their members for a vote in a fairly short time period. Because a lot of groups could not get a decision, I turned the focus instead on which groups voiced opposition to the proposal. In the end, the only real opposition we heard was from some of the Pt. Mouillee hunters, and some Allegan and Muskegon area hunters who hunt mainly dry fields. And even more interesting, we've now heard from quite a few people who hunt managed areas other than SRSGA who are now saying "what about us?" So this will prove real interesting to see how much this improves the satisfaction of Shiawassee hunters.
> 
> And for those who said "sell your spinners", heck no! I have a couple and I'm not going to sell them. Keep them for dry field hunting, where the tend to work a lot better all year long. Just keep them out of the flooded fields and marshes of SRSGA  If some of you haven't figured it out yet, this proposal wasn't about being "anti-spinner" (although I'll admit I found in talking to people STATEWIDE that a lot of people downright hate them). It was about using them at the right time and the right place, and knowing when they aren't working to put 'em away.


Is there any chance those groups who did not have ample time to prepare for this proposal to push something like this through in the near future? I would absolutely love to see them banned at HI, for at least a trial period to see what happens. Now I may have to start heading up to SRSGA to get some relaxing hunting in!:lol:


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> :gaga:
> 
> Bwahh waaa waaa waaaa.
> 
> Really interesting reading. MWW's going to get somewhere between 2 and 50 wind turbines on it, but when the holy grounds of Shiawassee comes up most believe the sky is falling over the use or not of spinnies......


Really????? What could you have possibly hoped for in the way of response's to this post? 

Many people worked really hard to accomplish the no "spinnie" trial and all you can do is mock them? You want to start another thread about your problems at MWW have at it. Please leave your bitterness at home this time and you might get some intellegent and helpfull responses.......


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> :gaga:
> 
> Bwahh waaa waaa waaaa.
> 
> Really interesting reading. MWW's going to get somewhere between 2 and 50 wind turbines on it, but when the holy grounds of Shiawassee comes up most believe the sky is falling over the use or not of spinnies......


retarded comparison. but if i knew we could drop down turbines to eliminate the dreaded smoke stacks at the mouth of saginaw river, i'm pretty sure i know what side i would be on.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

GrizzlyBear said:


> Is there any chance those groups who did not have ample time to prepare for this proposal to push something like this through in the near future? I would absolutely love to see them banned at HI, for at least a trial period to see what happens. Now I may have to start heading up to SRSGA to get some relaxing hunting in!:lol:


Although it took lots of time and effort, it really isn't that hard to do if you do it in an orderly fashion. First thing you need to understand is the DNRE is not going to start the ball rolling on any regulations because in this political climate politicians hate most new regulations. So it takes user groups driving the train, whether it's this issue, or a deer hunting issue, or new fishing regs, or whatever. SFCHA members have been in discussion at our regular meetings for at least 2 years on what to propose, and getting input from higher level DNRE staff all the way. So someone in one of those groups that represent Harsens would have to start pushing the discussion, and then doing their homework with all other affected groups to get buy-in, or as in our case, make sure there's no strong opposition. If you clear those hurdles, then the DNRE can easily move it forward to the next level, then up to the CWAC to agree in some fashion, then the NRC to ultimately approve. So it's not a quick thing, but I would think very doable for the 2011 season. If anyone in those other areas wants help, shoot me a pm and I'd be glad to do what I can.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> :gaga:
> 
> Bwahh waaa waaa waaaa.
> 
> Really interesting reading. MWW's going to get somewhere between 2 and 50 wind turbines on it, but when the holy grounds of Shiawassee comes up most believe the sky is falling over the use or not of spinnies......


In an attempt to turn your comment into something positive, state regulation is state regulation, no matter what issue you're dealing with. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is the ultimate regulatory body for energy issues in Michigan, just as the Natural Resources Commission is for natural resource issues. The process is the same, so just as we did, stop whining and get busy man!  Start locally through user/constituent groups, gain buy-in for your side of the argument, then move to the state regulators, then on to the MPSC. Since your particular issue is highly controversial, I would suggest your groups have a cup of coffee with your local legislators as well, which would give you a ton of weight when you get to the MPSC.

This is also not a quick process, but the steps are the same. So instead of just complaining, try making a positive change. If it ends up nothing changes, at least you can say you tried. But to not try at all? Well that's just lame...sorry.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Just calling perspective to much bigger issues that are looming.

Is the temporary ban a good thing for Shiawassee. More than likely. Glad it's getting discussed, hopefully the study yields the results you want and the correct decision is made. Also glad to see that people are talking that it may not work in dry fields as we have at MWW and ASGA.

However, I find it funny that some people are crying about not having their spinnies when I'll be standing under a turbine with a salmon net.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I have been and am going to the discussion meetings. After I drive up there in my SUV, how else can I not look like a tool voting against green energy, both offshore and at MWW?

Should I rent a Prius and wear hemp clothes?


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

Kid, how will this be enforced?

obviously, this is for motorized spinning wing devices and we all know there are wind driven spinners as well. Some suck [bleep], but as most of you know, duck hunters can be very ingenius. I've seen the next wind powered spinner and.....

it's pretty darn good! 

I could see where someone in another zone seeing this thing working (spinning) would think someone was violating.


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

pretty sure this is for spinning wing decoys, the word "motorized" is nowhere to be found. therefore any decoys with wings that spin, including wind powered, will not be able to be used at SRSGA.


----------



## Mallard870 (Aug 11, 2005)

True, this change is for "Spinning wing decoys" no matter how powered.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

actually its "motion wing" i believe, i'm sure JD will post up. This would eliminate flappers and the vortex/tornado that use kites.


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I have been and am going to the discussion meetings. After I drive up there in my SUV, how else can I not look like a tool voting against green energy, both offshore and at MWW?
> 
> Should I rent a Prius and wear hemp clothes?


While I recall your thread on those windmills, it might be best to bump that. I do feel your pain, and can honestly say I am on your side with that. It sucks, but obvisouly it is a different kind of battle thant the spinners. A lot less lobbying money involved with spinners. Kind of a grass roots approach, where your windmills are way above any local politics.


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> actually its "motion wing" i believe, i'm sure JD will post up. This would eliminate flappers and the vortex/tornado that use kites.



Good catch then. The vortex w/flappers was the next shot I was going to pull out of my "devils advocate" ammo bag! 

I can't seem to recall the name of that new wind spinner.
I guess I'd best describe it as a salmon trolling flasher suspended between two rods.

it's super lightweight with stainless barrel swivels on each end. it's so light, that even the slightest breeze sends it twirling. 

very cheap and I've seen one where it looked like one of those old fashioned telephone poles! he must have had 6-8 spinning on it at one time.

Looked like a carnival up close, but from a distance.... duck death!
(remember, the Pacific Flway has been "motor free" for 8-9 years now)


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Branta said:


> Good catch then. The vortex w/flappers was the next shot I was going to pull out of my "devils advocate" ammo bag!
> 
> I can't seem to recall the name of that new wind spinner.
> I guess I'd best describe it as a salmon trolling flasher suspended between two rods.
> ...


yup seen those, seen a snow goose spread with about 100 of them in it. from a distance it looked like a thousand fluttering snows.


----------

