# CWAC News



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Did not the CWAC meet yesterday?

What is the news?


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

2 hens
Teal season
3 redheads
3 geese
And a 90 day season


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

Nuff Daddy said:


> 2 hens
> Teal season
> 3 redheads
> 3 geese
> And a 90 day season


wow... sounds like a good meeting...


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Dead Bird said:


> wow... sounds like a good meeting...


I wish. I'm sure it didn't go that good.


----------



## S.B. Walleyes&Waterfowl (Jan 10, 2012)

Haha..I wish!

Sent from my SCH-I415 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

Information was received regarding hen harvest and impacts to the population. We will be asked to make a recommendation regarding bag limits at the August meeting.

We voted to pursue an experimental teal season (some previous discussion at the Fed level makes it appear that this may likely be a 2014 reality) - stay tuned.

As usual, youth dates and early goose dates were recommended, with timing similar to last season.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Thank you.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

KLR said:


> Information was received regarding hen harvest and impacts to the population. We will be asked to make a recommendation regarding bag limits at the August meeting.
> 
> We voted to pursue an experimental teal season (some previous discussion at the Fed level makes it appear that this may likely be a 2014 reality) - stay tuned.
> 
> As usual, youth dates and early goose dates were recommended, with timing similar to last season.


Thanks.

Did you get a look at any preliminary findings of the Great Lakes Mallard Study?

How did the regional reports sound?


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

We were given the results of the study and had an opportunity for discussion.

Overall I'd say the regional reports were "average" with most feeling that dates were good but weather was a huge wild card this year, especially with late goose (no surprise).


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Trying not to be overly critical, but the new guy from Fish Point needs a quick lesson in "big picture" thinking. Most everything he said on Saturday was based on what was right at the tip of his nose. Didn't care about anyone else in the state, or even in his region of the state...at least that was the impression some of us in the "peanut gallery" got.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Did you get a look at any preliminary findings of the Great Lakes Mallard Study?
> 
> How did the regional reports sound?


GLM study - bottom line that I came away with is the research is showing a direct correlation to GLM population and Great Lakes water levels. Indications are hunting has a very minor impact on populations. Those of us who have been hunting the great lakes for a couple decades will probably agree...I know I do. My records show my last really good year for mallards on the bay was '97, which was right about when water levels started taking a dive 


And regarding the 2 hen bag limit discussion, the quick presentation we got from Howie (the Phd candidate that did the research) was pretty convincing that a two hen bag limit would have very little impact on population. Much of his research was based on a Minn study where they have periodically had 2 hen bag limits. And Dave L. made a very important observation...whether we in Michigan allow 2 hens or 1, the vast majority of the flyway, which are all shooting our GLM's, allows 2 hens. So having a 1 hen limit in Michigan has literally no impact on the overall GLM population. Good "big picture" observation IMO.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

just ducky said:


> Trying not to be overly critical, but the new guy from Fish Point needs a quick lesson in "big picture" thinking. Most everything he said on Saturday was based on what was right at the tip of his nose. Didn't care about anyone else in the state, or even in his region of the state...at least that was the impression some of us in the "peanut gallery" got.


But isn't this how the reps are?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> But isn't this how the reps are?


Often, yes. But shouldn't be. And I thought of you while watching on Saturday, because a certain CWAC rep (who shall remain nameless) ONCE AGAIN reported, as he did last year, that he had not hunted last fall . Not trying to stir a debate, but several of us in the audience discussed it and wondered why he is still there?


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

just ducky said:


> Often, yes. But shouldn't be. And I thought of you while watching on Saturday, because a certain CWAC rep (who shall remain nameless) ONCE AGAIN reported, as he did last year, that he had not hunted last fall . Not trying to stir a debate, but several of us in the audience discussed it and wondered why he is still there?


Yep, the same guy that hung up on me. He also indicated he was done after this past year. Doesn't the committee believe in removing people?

The guy doesn't have email because he's afraid someone will steal his identity and he votes on his own agenda. I mean those are pretty clear things..


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

just ducky said:


> Often, yes. But shouldn't be. And I thought of you while watching on Saturday, because a certain CWAC rep (who shall remain nameless) ONCE AGAIN reported, as he did last year, that he had not hunted last fall . Not trying to stir a debate, but several of us in the audience discussed it and wondered why he is still there?


Remain nameless? Anyone who follows along with these discussions knows exactly who you are talking about. That man is there to represent the voice of those he is tasked with representing. Who gives a sh** whether he hunted or not? His personal opinion or yearly hunting experience is irrelevant.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

name him.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

field-n-feathers said:


> Remain nameless? Anyone who follows along with these discussions knows exactly who you are talking about. That man is there to represent the voice of those he is tasked with representing. Who gives a sh** whether he hunted or not? His personal opinion or yearly hunting experience is irrelevant.


I agree with what you're saying. However from this guy there is no input. He's basically taking up space.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

just ducky said:


> ONCE AGAIN reported, as he did last year, that he had not hunted last fall


Probably just adds to the varying level of experience you have on CWAC. I heard of one CWAC member that has only duck hunted for a couple years. The more worrisome ones are the members that sort of duck hunt but consider themselves experts. Not a knock on CWAC, just how the dynamics of committee's work.

IMO, CWAC needs more guys like TJ who have a PHD in killing ducks and would vote for positions that offer the most opportunity to do so.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Sorry guys...apparently this is a different guy than who SBE was talking about before. But I know for a fact he just isn't engaged and I'm not sure why he's there?

And I'll add that KLR is a very welcome addition to the CWAC IMO  Very engaged and active. So you guys from west/sw Michigan should be talking with him a lot (sorry Dan, but you da man ) One word of caution for you however...having watched the CWAC for a few years now, be careful of getting burned out. I've seen a few guys come in full of piss & vinegar, but get frustrated by the general lack of intensity on the part of most of the CWAC members. So be careful man...we need you to stay involved.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

I would like to point out that while the committee is being run like a well oiled "Robert's Rules" committee, the chairman should insure that all committee members are active. Good communications between members in the off season will provide inclusion beyond the actual meeting. I had relationships and conversations which were unknown to the "peanut gallery. Just sayin'.

An unactive committee member is of no value. Each member should have concise comments about any topic and the chairman may ask for comments to see if that member is on point. And they should be!!

The committee reserves the right to vote a member off. If the committee is moving in that direction and feelings are strong throughout, I would ask the gent to resign before the embarrassment of a vote of exclusion.

Just saying.



2 hens! And all will still be well.

Thanks again.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> I would like to point out that while the committee is being run like a well oiled "Robert's Rules" committee, the chairman should insure that all committee members are active. Good communications between members in the off season will provide inclusion beyond the actual meeting. I had relationships and conversations which were unknown to the "peanut gallery. Just sayin'.
> 
> An unactive committee member is of no value. Each member should have concise comments about any topic and the chairman may ask for comments to see if that member is on point. And they should be!!
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more  And I'll say you ran a great meeting. But the current chair who took over after you is not a good fit. It was VERY noticeable Saturday. At a minimum, the DNR needs to give him a short-course in Roberts Rules. Also, the DNR needs to buy him some new batteries for his hearing aid. It wasn't too bad for this meeting because frankly there wasn't really any controversy. But when there is a meeting that is controversial, people had better expect a LONG one. Guess I'd better just leave it at that or I'll get myself in trouble again. But maybe one of the CWAC members wants to chime in...KLR? Do you dare?


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

I wasn't there, obviously. Son had a hockey game. Huh, imagine, he got the game puck. This time, I saw the game.

Committee work is thankless, that is certain. These guys are all volunteers too, so, they need to be cut some slack.

That being said, well run meetings complete more work and control stress levels so that the work that is completed is well thought out and the voice of the entire committee. 

A read of one of the multitude of "Robert's Rules" books out there by every committee member would help the entire committee. Hence, why I suggested everyone do so at the beginning of my time as chair.

Appreciate the note JD.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> ...A read of one of the multitude of "Robert's Rules" books out there by every committee member would help the entire committee. Hence, why I suggested everyone do so at the beginning of my time as chair....


In an attempt to be constructive, a suggestion has been made to the DNR to offer an "orientation" of sorts to new CWAC members, and especially new chairs, including a short course in Roberts Rules. A Roberts Rules cheat sheet has even been provided if they choose to use it.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Regarding an early teal season:

1. What is the proposed dates?

2. Will the dates coincide with the youth hunt?

3. What is the proposed limit and location restrictions?


----------



## duckcommander101 (Jan 14, 2003)

John Singer said:


> Regarding an early teal season:
> 
> 1. What is the proposed dates? Early September
> 
> ...


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

LoBrass said:


> I wasn't there, obviously. Son had a hockey game. Huh, imagine, he got the game puck. This time, I saw the game.
> 
> Committee work is thankless, that is certain. These guys are all volunteers too, so, they need to be cut some slack.
> 
> ...


Lobrass, first off I always respect what you say as you're a rational source of information. I have to ask though, when you volunteer aren't you accepting responsibility?


----------



## scotts98rt (Feb 4, 2012)

I heard teal season for the first 7 days of sept.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

SBE II said:


> Lobrass, first off I always respect what you say as you're a rational source of information. I have to ask though, when you volunteer aren't you accepting responsibility?


Solid statement.

Like any committee, you will always have some memebers who like the idea that they have some sort of authority or noteworthy position more than they like the idea of the work involved such as prep work and attending meetings. 

My wife is on the board for a non-profit and with that comes countless 7am board meetings and prep work for those meetings. By volunteering you are not doing it for yourself, you are there to serve the thousands of people you represent. If you can't or are not willing to put 110% effort out for those people you should not serve. The word Volunteer should equate to 110% effort and nothing less.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

TSS Caddis said:


> Solid statement.
> 
> Like any committee, you will always have some memebers who like the idea that they have some sort of authority or noteworthy position more than they like the idea of the work involved such as prep work and attending meetings.
> 
> My wife is on the board for a non-profit and with that comes countless 7a board meetings and prep work for those meetings. By volunteering you are not doing it for yourself, you are there to serve the thousands of people you represent. If you can't or are not willing to put 110% effort out for those people you should not serve. The word Volunteer should equate to 110% effort and nothing less.


Agreed, a lot of validity here.


----------



## Korte (Sep 13, 2009)

scotts98rt said:


> I heard teal season for the first 7 days of sept.



Would that be in addition to the 60 day season or part of it?


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Korte said:


> Would that be in addition to the 60 day season or part of it?


Addition to I believe. Otherwise I don't think it would get much approval.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

the proposed teal season is a separate season...not part of the regular duck season days.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

SBE II said:


> Lobrass, first off I always respect what you say as you're a rational source of information. I have to ask though, when you volunteer aren't you accepting responsibility?


Yes, a volunteer should and does accept responsibility when undertaking a committee position.

That being said, not everyone adheres to my rules or yours. That is why the chairman has some additional responsibilities, such as making sure all members are active.

I stepped away myself for one reason. Didn't give 100% at one meeting. Told myself it was time. No regrets. Gave a solid 100% when I was there other than that one meeting-and we got considerable work done.

Now, I can give 50% from the peanut gallery and still feel good (and catch all my kids events.).


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> ...That is why the chairman has some additional responsibilities, such as making sure all members are active....


Agree. The chair MUST take a more active role, and I have my questions about the current chair. JMO


----------



## Deltabullcan (Jan 24, 2011)

Was the issue of WMA's talked about at the meeting?...As far as the downright BS that goes on at a few of them?..A thing called SPORTMANSHIP and HUNTING ETHICS to conservation minded hunters.


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

Deltabullcan said:


> Was the issue of WMA's talked about at the meeting?...As far as the downright BS that goes on at a few of them?..A thing called SPORTMANSHIP and HUNTING ETHICS to conservation minded hunters.


I've only been to a couple of the meetings, but its safe to say that the GMA's get discussed at every meeting.

Some discussion was had about hunter ethics (skybusting, etc.) and the general consensus in that it's fairly difficult to regulate ethics - the same as it is in general society.
The table was set for moving to a more uniform set of regulations across all the GMA's (shell limits, zone availability, etc.) as we go forward but no formal action was taken at this meeting.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> I stepped away myself for one reason. Didn't give 100% at one meeting.


Admirable. Most people do not have the ability to judge themselves like that.


----------



## Deltabullcan (Jan 24, 2011)

KLR said:


> I've only been to a couple of the meetings, but its safe to say that the GMA's get discussed at every meeting.
> 
> Some discussion was had about hunter ethics (skybusting, etc.) and the general consensus in that it's fairly difficult to regulate ethics - the same as it is in general society.
> The table was set for moving to a more uniform set of regulations across all the GMA's (shell limits, zone availability, etc.) as we go forward but no formal action was taken at this meeting.


 
Am talking about WMA's(Managed Waterfowl Areas like Fish Point)...GMA's are Goose management Areas..


----------



## deadduck365 (Nov 5, 2010)

Goose and teal open September 1. That's great idea! I got a goose and teal spot. Great way to get the youth some more action in better weather. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

deadduck365 said:


> Goose and teal open September 1. That's great idea! I got a goose and teal spot. Great way to get the youth some more action in better weather.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Damn diver hunters.


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i don't understand your reasoning. you need 3 boxes to shoot divers on the bay but only need few shells to kill ducks on the managed area?
> 
> you're making a ton of assumptions..like they aren't shooting divers, teal or any other mast moving ducks..just dumb mallards that fly direction to the hole and hover 10ft off the water at 20yrds....geeze,
> 
> i agree ethics affect others, but your wanting to criminalize the good people because of a few bad ones. I hunted bunch of times on the flats last year and never once said to myself "those guys are ruining my hunt"...not once. Its overblown by a huge margin....but maybe fish pt. is that much different??? well if thats the case quit advocating for changes to all WMA's and work on fish pt's rules.


I don't need 3 boxes, but I'll usually take a box of bb for geese 1s if the ****s are longer and 3s if the birds are working. And yes, I usually use more shells on the bay. And I like to have extras for cripples. 

You've got way more experience than me, but I've hunted a lot of different places and managed areas offer some of the easiest shooting. 

I haven't hunted the flats much but from what I've seen FP is worse than shiawassee. With the exception of prior the zones are more spread out and not any joe-blow hunter can grab a shotgun and easily hunt the flats like you can at FP. That weeds a lot of bad apples for you guys. 

And I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to get changes made. Just stating my opinion. I personally feel 25 shell is a fair limit that keeps most people happy.


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I know i'll get raked on this but here's my dream list for changes to managed units.
> 
> 
> party of 3 max (hated the switch to 4).
> ...


I'd like to see that change. I also don't like 6 bird even though I've never seen different. I'd like to see the limits down to 3 or 4 and a couple extra weeks added to the season.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Nuff Daddy said:


> I don't need 3 boxes, but I'll usually take a box of bb for geese 1s if the ****s are longer and 3s if the birds are working. And yes, I usually use more shells on the bay. And I like to have extras for cripples.
> 
> You've got way more experience than me, but I've hunted a lot of different places and managed areas offer some of the easiest shooting.
> 
> ...


i agree on 25 shells, no more, no less.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Deltabullcan said:


> Ethics in hunting come from experience and a very experienced waterfowler knows that a six duck limit really isn't necessary everytime they go out, along with 15 or 18 shells, this is plenty of shells,


i disagree. if you want to hunt with 15 shells, load up 15 shells and go find your own place to hunt with 15 shells. it isn't gonna fix anything to restrict it to the point your gonna force people to shoot smarter. While your at it, how about you just advocate that smaller clips will stop mass murders. i mean its the same mentality right?


those same people that shoot long with 25 shells, will shoot long with 15 shells. so what did you solve? 4 guys + 15 = 60 shells. now you have 60 skybusting shots instead of 100 skybusting shots. yay. we made them shop shooting 30 minutes earlier because they ran outa shells....


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> those same people that shoot long with 25 shells, will shoot long with 15 shells. so what did you solve? 4 guys + 15 = 60 shells. now you have 60 skybusting shots instead of 100 skybusting shots. yay. we made them shop shooting 30 minutes earlier because they ran outa shells....


Exactly. And I bet it cuts a lot more than 30 min out of their day. And it all comes back around to your previous post about guys leaving earlier. Instead of limiting with 3 ducks. They just leave with 3 ducks because it took them 15 shots. I don't understand why you are so strongly against it. It would cut down on cripples, the amount of shots going off on birds witch means less smart birds, possible less birds getting killed, the list goes on. Just seems like it would make the managed areas better to me.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Nuff Daddy said:


> Exactly. And I bet it cuts a lot more than 30 min out of their day. And it all comes back around to your previous post about guys leaving earlier. Instead of limiting with 3 ducks. They just leave with 3 ducks because it took them 15 shots. I don't understand why you are so strongly against it. It would cut down on cripples, the amount of shots going off on birds witch means less smart birds, possible less birds getting killed, the list goes on. Just seems like it would make the managed areas better to me.


completely missing the point. 

I do not want my shells limited. matter fact, we've voted this at our meetings every year. its unanimous, 25 shell limit. I would rather have 25 shells and deal with a couple yahoos during the season than be strapped for shells every trigger pull. I'm not willing to give up shells because some people are retarded. its a backwards mentality to think your gonna stop it....it WILL NOT happen. you can make it 10 shell limit and all that will happen is same skybuster will shoot 1 long shot every 30 minutes and still screw you up.

can't believe some of you buy into the fact you can regulate the 10% into submission...and remove the fun for the other 90%.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Nuff Daddy said:


> I'll usually take a box of bb for geese 1s if the ****s are longer


Perhaps a few rounds of Immodium would be more prudent. :lol::yikes:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

TNL said:


> Perhaps a few rounds of Immodium would be more prudent. :lol::yikes:


haha :yikes:


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> completely missing the point.
> 
> I do not want my shells limited. matter fact, we've voted this at our meetings every year. its unanimous, 25 shell limit. I would rather have 25 shells and deal with a couple yahoos during the season than be strapped for shells every trigger pull. I'm not willing to give up shells because some people are retarded. its a backwards mentality to think your gonna stop it....it WILL NOT happen. you can make it 10 shell limit and all that will happen is same skybuster will shoot 1 long shot every 30 minutes and still screw you up.
> 
> can't believe some of you buy into the fact you can regulate the 10% into submission...and remove the fun for the other 90%.


How does it remove the fun?? I think I used more than 15 shells one time at any managed area. And we were 1 shy of our 2 man limit. Only reason it took that many was because I wasted 6 shots on a couple crips I didn't want to chase. If you have to quit at 4 ducks because you ran out of shells, how is that any different than changing the limit back to 3 ducks?


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

TNL said:


> Perhaps a few rounds of Immodium would be more prudent. :lol::yikes:


Lol. That's a good one. They let you say that here now??


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Deltabullcan said:


> Why get yourself all in a tizzle over a simple post I listed.... But I guess your the person with all the answers. I would think yourself hunting WMA's for 35 years you would know what 35 yards is versus 75...Ethics in hunting come from experience and a very experienced waterfowler knows that a six duck limit really isn't necessary everytime they go out, along with 15 or 18 shells, this is plenty of shells, unless of course a person is shooting 60 to 75 yards..Maybe thats one reason birds don't work into decoys, because they are getting blasted from the next corn row.
> "Spraying shot horizonally" into another hunter is not using poor judgement, it is criminal, the least it is called is reckless use of a firearm...CWAC's mission is to get info from hunters and relay it to the meetings, it does include Law Enforcement..Every CWAC meeting talks about it and a Law Enforcement Supervisor is at every meeting...


No tizzle here, I'm good.  

But, I don't go hunting with a protractor to figure out the exact height of the guy that's shooting a quarter of a mile away either. People have been pass shooting since duck hunting began. I know there are spots at most management areas that hunters choose specifically for this endeavor. The only way you learn is if you do it. In my estimation, layout shooting is more difficult. 

Not everyone hunts the same way. Not everyone is Tom Knapp and may need more rounds to get the job done. 25 would allow for 3 shells per each of 8 birds. A fair number for any level of shooter. Locked up birds with feet down are great, but doesn't always happen. Wind, weather, wrong choke, cripples, or simply off your game will eat a low shell limit fast. I don't expect a limit every time I go, but I like to know that it's a possibility. 

And the last part, certainly, if someone is shooting at you, call 911. It's that simple.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Nuff Daddy said:


> How does it remove the fun?? I think I used more than 15 shells one time at any managed area. And we were 1 shy of our 2 man limit. Only reason it took that many was because I wasted 6 shots on a couple crips I didn't want to chase. If you have to quit at 4 ducks because you ran out of shells, how is that any different than changing the limit back to 3 ducks?


i've shot 10 times at a cripple on more than few occasions. Not proud of missing it 10 times but i do whatever it takes to finish a crip.

again, i've been hunting 35 years on srsga (and the others). limiting us to less than 25 shells is NOT the solution, i love how people who barely hunt there (self admitted) and tell us (managed area hunters) how it should be....If anyone should be telling everyone how we should regulate shells, it would probably be me, lol. I shoot my birds in the decoys...I let birds work...over and over...I let birds that are marginal go over my head to the next field and don't feel the need to shoot just because their in range..there is many on here that will vouch for my hunting...and i'm telling you a shell limit to avoid skybusting is a false hope. 

if you need an example, go look at harsens. shell limited and i can guarantee skybusting is more prevalent there than it is at shiawassee.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

also, you don't need 3 shells to skybust, 1 works just fine. how does 15 shells prevent it, i can make 10 shells last all day and screw just as many hunters. only person being screwed by a 15 shell limit is the guys not skybusting.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Another problem with a shell limit at the managed areas is that the law is essentially unenforceable. Unless you shake down somebody and search for every cartridge in every crevice of their body, how are you going to enforce such a regulation?

It would take much manpower to sit near each hunting location and count the shots (and divide by the number of shooters). Even then proving a violation is impossible. Shell limits are quite ineffective at reducing "tall shooting". 

Unfortunately, some of our managed areas attract "hunters" with the mentality that "by God, I got up early this morning. I busted my **** to get here and now I am going to do some shooting."

Is not the national average of shots fired:bird bagged somewhere around 5 or 7:1?


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Realize that hunting in a public area is not unlike using a public restroom. 

I do it once in a while. I just do not like being next to the guy who says: "I like to tickle a few."


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i've shot 10 times at a cripple on more than few occasions. Not proud of missing it 10 times but i do whatever it takes to finish a crip./QUOTE]
> 
> Was going to say that, but wasn't following the discussion until now. Cripples are a big concern. I don't care if you're the best shot in the world...cripples are part of duck hunting. And it often takes multiple shots to stop them. a 15 shell limit will only do a couple of things...1) make some guys stop chasing cripples because they don't want to use up all of their shells. 2) make some guys just ignore the 15 shell limit and take whatever number they want. A 15 shell limit WILL NOT stop skybusting. Just ask the guys at Harsens, where it's been 18 shell limit for years, and skybusting is still a big problem.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

John Singer said:


> Realize that hunting in a public area is not unlike using a public restroom.
> 
> I do it once in a while. I just do not like being next to the guy who says: "I like to tickle a few."


:lol::lol::lol: OMG, well played! That's sig line worthy!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

I've never had an issue running down a cripple at managed areas. Most I think I ever shot at a single cripple was 3 times. But I've done it in the bay many times so I know what you're saying. And I never said it will stop sky busting. But they will run out of shells at 9 instead of 11. And less shooting means less educated birds means better hunting. I just can't see the counter argument to other than the cripple aspect. 
I've said my piece and don't have much else to say, so I'm done here.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Please don't try to commonize the WMA rules. They are all unique and as such can not all be molded to the same rules.

Lots of people hunt Fennville solo as you can go through the draw solo. I think it's the only WMA that allows it. If I knew I had to pick after the draw, I would not hunt there as much. And when I hunt solo and draw well, I'm done quickly enough to get out of there and let the birds work my neighbors, and give up my zone for re-draw. 

Fennville allows parties of 6. Usually there's tons of corn and until late in the year hiding is not an issue. Also if you're going to throw down 200-300 decoys, it's nice to have a big crew. It's not like a dozen duck and a goose decoys at some of the other units; the birds have no need to leave the refuge and you need to sell it.

MWW could use a shell increase, the zones are huge and you have to try hard to bugger your neighbor. Also as said above on a good day a 6+2 is a possibility, there was a group this year that took out 16 mallards, one poor widgeon that was lost, and a pile of geese on top of it. (In early December none the less, but that's another story).

Fennville not so much, as 90% of the time it's 2 geese per and maybe a bonus duck, and of all the WMA's I've hunted, the skybusters are experts at this place. Giving them more shells is only going to lead to more gliders sailing into private land or back into the refuge, as it's only 60 yards in front of most of the zones hunted.

Both units are primarily dry field hunts and as such spinnies are very effective. Taking them away would hurt the people that know how to use them.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Nuff Daddy said:


> I've never had an issue running down a cripple at managed areas. Most I think I ever shot at a single cripple was 3 times.


There's some large areas of open water at Shiawassee...much larger than any of the other managed areas. Yes I like to take the close shots when the birds are willing, and it's not that we're poor shots, but cripples just happen. And chasing a cripple across the flats' mud is not an easy task, and often requires several shots. 15 shells to fill a six duck & 2 goose limit is certainly doable, but can be tough. That's all we're saying.

And your point about 15 shells making people reconsider the marginal shots...many of us are saying it's just not realistic based on what goes on at Harsens for example (18 shell limit). Those people you're referring to won't stop at 15 shells, nor do they stop now at 25 shells. A bit more law enforcement presence would probably help, but the reality is there just aren't enough CO's to staff only the managed areas 24/7.

The proposed teal season should be interesting because the FWS requires the DNR to track the number of ATTEMPTED violations at non-targeted ducks, and I believe there can't be more than 25% ATTEMPTS. So they will have "spy blinds" out in the marsh staffed by CO's and non-CO's to get these statistics. You would think that would make people extra cautious...time will tell.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Bellyup said:


> Here is a thought. If you are hunting open water, you might be getting checked and not know it. I have witnessed this. A CO is at the launch, or some other location and glasses you. Watches for a while and makes a decision to be present at boat ramp or not when you return. I think this holds true for fields as well. ou can be observe from a distant without knowing. Lets face it, I feel 99% of waterfowlers purcashe the required liscences. Where is the value in simply checking liscene requirements if they have to spend a lot of resource to wait you out or put a boat in to go check. One can tell a lot from observation, behavior that might be consistent with violations, etc. They are likely trained to detect that through observation.


I've had that happen. Boat sitting off 1/2 mile, after an hour came to shoot the breeze do the most basic of checks and then off. I think in that case he stopped just to make sure we knew there was a presence, that in it's self is a great tool.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> I've had that happen. Boat sitting off 1/2 mile, after an hour came to shoot the breeze do the most basic of checks and then off. I think in that case he stopped just to make sure we knew there was a presence, that in it's self is a great tool.


other similar "tools" have been discussed. For example, at managed areas, or on the bay, just parking a DNR truck in a popular parking lot at one of the managed areas will give hunters the impression (or at least make them wonder) if a CO is nearby. At managed areas driving a truck down the dike mid day or just periodically will make people wonder. Lots of low-cost things like that can be done.


----------

