mech decoys input wanted by ODFW

[CAGEY]

For Immediate Release September 20, 2002
Public Input on Mechanical Decoys Sought

PORTLAND - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife seeks public comment before Oct. 10 on three options for the future use of electronic and mechanical decoys for all types of hunting. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider the comments when voting on the rules Oct. 11.

The Commission, the rule-making body for ODFW, is considering three options for the 2003-04 hunting seasons:

-Alternative A: No change to current regulations, which allow any type of decoy for big game and game bird hunting.

-Alternative B: The use of all mechanical, battery, wind, human or motorized-powered decoys would be outlawed. Spinning-blade devices, pull-strings, and wind-powered decoy kites would be included in the prohibition.

-Alternative C: Battery-powered or motorized decoys would be illegal. Human and wind-powered decoys would be allowed.

In recent years, the use of battery-powered waterfowl decoys has greatly increased, which has driven a debate between traditional hunting methods and use of new technology. No definitive statistics exist in Oregon, but ODFW biologists estimate the number of hunters using "robo" ducks is more than 50 percent in some popular hunting areas. The devices may or may not resemble a duck.

A limited number of studies suggest that hunter efficiency and harvest is higher with the devices. However, the total harvest in the Pacific flyway and in Oregon has declined in recent years while the number of hunters has remained constant.

Last spring, the Commission decided to address the larger issue of all motion decoys. Deer decoys with movable heads and tails exist, as do turkey decoys that move on a track.

More information about mechanical decoys may be found at www.dfw.state.or.us. Click on Commission Meeting Schedule and then on the link to the Oct. 11, 2002, meeting.

Public comments may be sent to ODFW Game Bird Program, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207, or e-mailed to bradley.d.bales@state.or.us. Comments must be received before Oct. 10, 2002, to be considered by the Commission. In addition, members of the public may testify at the Commission meeting Oct. 11, 2002. The meeting will be held in Sandy at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters.

[Tilla]

Brad Bales is awaiting e-mail with your input.
Bradley.d.bales@state.or.us
Name and address must be included! [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[bait boy]

Sent my email...

I told them the same thing I told Washington 2 years ago. I hope ODFW listens more than the WDFW commision did.

[ 09-20-2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: bait boy ]

[Lured In]

Here is a copy of my letter to Mr. Bales:

Dear Mr. Bales:

First let me say thank you for providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the issue of using mechanical decoys for big game and bird hunting. I can only hope that the input provided by the public, especially from the hunting community, will be strongly considered.

I have been an avid waterfowl hunter since I was 11. That was 19 years ago and for me little has changed in my waterfowl hunting adventures. The decoys look a little different and shot shells are steel or other non-toxic alternative. Calls are a little more advanced and of course we now have a huge industry that is rolling out every conceivable motion decoy under the sun. Not just spinning wings, but paddling feet, feeding frenzy’s, and even decoys that tip up and down. Why is it that these are so popular now? In my opinion it is simply that they have been around in some form for far longer than the last few years. It is only in the last few years that the ‘mechanical’ versions have emerged. Prior to that it was a ‘build your own’ methodology and thus only those that wanted to make one had them.

In an average year, I hunt approximately 20-25 days during the waterfowl season and at least one week of either deer or elk. There are some who hunt more and many who hunt far less than I do. I spend 80% of my duck hunting time at Sauvie Island WMA. I have held an OR hunting license for the last 5 years and I have to say that of the issues present in the field, the mechanical decoys are close to last of my worries. Other issues such as ‘sky busting’, over harvest or limited species like pintails, and shooting before and after shooting time seem to be far more of a problem that mechanical decoys.

I was given a version of the ‘robo duck’ as a present last year from a hunting buddy. We had hunted over them at various times in the prior two years and while they did not seem to be a huge asset, they were ‘another arrow in our hunting quiver’. Pick any day of the waterfowl season and go out to Sauvie’s east side to the Mudhen Unit. There are roughly 12 hunting blinds in the unit. Nearly every hunter will have at least one, if not several, ‘robo ducks’ in their spread of decoys. Does everyone get the same level of shooting because of this? Do the birds simply give up, loose all self control and come spiraling out of the sky to every ‘robo duck’? Not even close.

The same was true before the mechanical decoys came into the field. The ducks will prefer a particular area of a pond or lake to another area regardless of what is in that area. I have seen days where we have had the ‘robo duck’ out and couldn’t get a duck to decoy to save our lives. Pull the ‘robo duck’ out and all of a sudden the ducks start coming in. Why? I don’t think I could offer a solid reason. Maybe it’s because they are ‘robo duck’ shy. My point in this is that my experience would lead me to believe two things. Mechanical decoys do not provide a distinct advantage for their users over those without them and the ducks will go where they please.

It was clearly stated in the research document, that there is not solid evidence that the mechanical decoys are dangerously improving harvest or that their use is impacting bird populations. I can attest to the fact that the last few years have been pretty slow. The last really good year I had was the season of 1998-99. That was a year before I saw the first mechanical decoys in a spread.

If the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) are going to ban the use of ANYTHING, it should (and ethically must) have more solid data than opinion. Based on the data that I am aware of and that has been presented to the public, this solid data simply does not exist. Things should not be banned simply because someone doesn’t like them. For instance I prefer to muzzleloader hunt for big game. Why, simply because it gives me more of a traditional experience, in my opinion. Does that mean I want to outlaw 300 Winchester magnums that can easily kill out to 300+ yards? No way. Nor do I want to ban autoloaders or compound bows. All of which are technology that improves the odds for hunters.

My recommendation is that ODFW and the OFWC, wait to rule on the issue until more substantial data becomes available. Currently, at least for the last 3 years, harvest rates have dropped. Why is this even an issue? Why are you not more concerned with improving habitat for breeding waterfowl? Improving recruitment of young hunters? Conserving or restoring additional wetlands? These are issues that improve waterfowl numbers and ultimately the hunting experience for everyone.

As for me this season my ‘robo duck’ has the same chance of making it into my spread as 3.5” shells, acrylic duck calls, jerk cords, and any number of varying combinations of decoys. They will be there if they help me and won’t be if I believe I can do better without them.

Please be sound stewards of our resources and only regulate that which will improve the waterfowl and big game populations.

[bigshark]

Put my 2 cents in as well. Thanks for the address Tilla. Went by your lake today as I was coming home from our work party. Was in hopes of seeing your truck and could swap lies.

[Tilla]

I'm up here in central Or. working on the Master National Retriever event. It starts tomorrow. I'm in charge of managing Porta-Potties [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] ..I'm sure you are all impressed. And I put up road signs too! Welcome to my vacation. Yep and I coulda been down there tieing up corn rows, nothing like practicing 100,000's of square knots. :shocked:

[Lured In]

Check this out...

I just got a call from a guy at OPB Radio looking for comments on the mechanical decoy issue. He got my name and number from Mr. Bales at ODFW. If you sent in a letter you may be called as well.

I wish I could have thought as concisely in my letter above as I was thinking today. I told Mr. Brady from OPB that there are essentially two issues:

1. The only reason to outlaw mechanical wing decoys IMHO is if they were negatively impacting duck/goose populations via increased harvest. This data does not exist and what does exist is inconclusive at best.

2. If/when they ever do manage to find out that mechanical decoys are impacting waterfowl populations, motion decoys of ANY kind or means of operation should be outlawed. It is ridiculous to think that ducks are attracted to electricity. :shocked: :whazzup: They are attracted to the motion/visual stimuli regardless of what powers it. (batteries, the sun, wind, cords, etc.)

I know some are on the traditionalist kick, so be it, I agree they do seem somewhat out of place at times. But simply because some do not think of them as traditional does not mean they should be outlawed.

I certainly hope the Fish and Wildlife Commission does the right thing and waits (several years) to make a decision.

On another note WA needs to review their regulation as well, as they seem to believe that ducks are attracted to electricity.

[GutshotApe]

LuredIn - Ducks aren't attracted to electricity but they can be more readily taken by hunters who use electrical gadgetry (such as electronic calls & recordings, banned for many years).

Data exists that seems to show significant increases in kill rate by duck hunters using electric decoys.

So, if electric decoys are allowed and become widespread, then seasons & bag limits will need to be adjusted accordingly.

My $.02

GSA

[Bill Monroe]

For whatever it's worth...John Esler, the commission chair, told me (for a story Friday) he expects the commission to pass option C, banning electronic and self-propelled but allowing strings and kites...could all change, of course...

[Lured In]

GSA...perhaps you missed my point. Spinning wing decoys (which is the primary object of investigation) either attract ducks or they don't. ANY spinning wing decoy regardless of power source (battery, wind or human powered) creates the same effect on the ducks. If they are going to ban 'mechanical" (battery powered) they need to ban all methods of making the wings spin.

As far as the data regarding more ducks harvested, please show me where this is? The info provided on ODFW's website even states within the document that there is not enough data and what they have is inconclusive.

I am not advocating the use of 'fancy' decoys. I am advocating the use of good science and logic. Regulating things based on a lack of good data and opinion is not good science nor good logic.

Just my .02

[GutshotApe]

LuredIn - Hunting & fishing regs are based on a combination of science and social considerations. There is probably little data showing negative effects of using machine guns on elk or 2 gauge punt guns on waterfowl, but both are illegal methods. Likewise, there us probably little or no data showing how much additional advantage tape recorded duck calls give hunters. Why not allow dogs in deer hunting? Laser sights? The list goes on and on.

WA (or CA?) data shows a significant (2-fold?) increase in harvest when electric decoys are used. If the Oregon commission adopts option C, manually activated and wind-powered decoys will be legal but battery powered won't. Drawing the line at electric or electronic decoys makes a convenient, understandable, easy-to-enforce rule.

IMHO, its not decoy movement as much as water movement that attracts ducks, anyway. It is easy to tell from above and at a distance where real ducks are because the water around them often has ripples that reflect in the sunlight. Ponds with decoys are flat, mirror-like surfaces. GSA