Crazy?

[Bryce]

Ran into a DNR study in conjunction with LSU evaluating the study of motion decoys. Don't want to say exactly where yet as I hope to get in a good mallard shoot still. Will give more info when I get back from ND. The craziness is that you can shoot up to 4 limits of ducks when you are participating in the study. Goes something like 15 minutes with motion decoys on with calling where you can shoot. Then 5 minutes where you can't shoot. Keep changing variables with the 15/5 minute schedule and he records all the info. Anybody run into this elsewhere in the state. Going to try and line up a hunt with this study Wed. or Thurs. Will post up results next week. Can't see myself shooting 4 limits but will be nice to see how changing variables will affect the ducks. I guess to me, if they get some good research, the study is worthwhile. I do have a problem with the 4 limits though. I plan on taking my limit and then watching. Can't they get the same info minus whether the bird is adult or juvenile? Will be interesting to talk with the researcher and see how many pigs were out there his year.

[Bogsucker]

Article on the study

http://radio.weblogs.com/0108008/stories/2002/09/27/researchInAdvancedSpinningWingDuckDecoys.html

I believe the study will be a waste of time as there are too many variables and the study is of such short duration. Sure they'll come up with some conclusions but I think hardly representative of the average motion-decoy using hunter.

[J.A.Say.Tree]

What a JOKE!!!

And waste of taxpayers money!!!!!!!!

I suppose they'll use a remote control to turn the robo on and off too while killing 4 times the limit! Why can't they just go out and NOT SHOOT???

Hey, those came into the deks... those didn't...

JA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bryce]

You bet they're using remotes. Haven't looked at the link yet so I may be giving double info but I think they need to shoot some ducks to determine adult vs. juvenile. But come on. 4 limits. If I get a chance to hunt with the study, I will definitely ask and post up how many pigs there were. Hell, I'll put up names if they give me the info.

[Bogsucker]

Lets see 8 hunters times 24 ducks per day times 60 days = 11,520 ducks potentially killed in this study. Compared to 2,880 ducks harvestable under regular limits.

How can our DNR officials be so idiotic to let a study like this take place?

I think I'll be contacting some dnr personnel regarding this.

[This message has been edited by Bogsucker (edited 11-05-2002).]

[Lowe]

I think you guys are being a little harsh on the study. There is a sound scientific method behind the study set-up.

The reason they allow four limits is to ensure a consistent sampling group. For example, if during one 15-minute robo-duck session, two hunters shot "almost a limit" (say three mallards apiece), then switched to non-motorized decoys only session, they could only shoot 1 mallard apiece under our daily bag limit in MN. That would be a three-to-one kill ratio.

Conclusion? Robo-ducks are three times deadlier than regular decoys. It could also work the other way around, of course.

The whole idea is to obtain reliable, consistent numbers to determine the effect of mechanical decoys on the waterfowl population - something I'm sure we're all concerned about. I seriously doubt that some 11,000-odd ducks will have to be killed for the researchers to determine the effectivenes of each decoy type. And, even if half that many are killed, that's really very little compared to the long-term effects of a decoy that could add even ten percent to the annual bag of every waterfowler.

By the way, I'm not opposed to motorized decoys. I just think we need to know what effect they have on waterfowl populations.

[EW6]

You must also realize that they are studing the effectiveness of the decoys at helping hunters kill more birds. They have to actually shoot at them, instead of just saying whether they came in or not, because for example the shots at ducks over the decoy may be easier shots than the shots you would get without the decoy. Granted in both cases the birds were "in range" yet actually shooting at them is the only way to compare the differece the decoys have in actually harvesting birds. Before we all jump on the DNR for shooting extra birds realize that a study needs a big sample to give results that are actually reliable. This study is definetly needed to fairly judge motion decoys, because in my opinion the decoys are too effective on mallards, and the study will show that.

[Bogsucker]

Well, considering the average hunter shoots about 1/3 to 1/2 their daily bag limit per outing I see absolutely no reason to increase the daily limit for the study. let's see, if the study hunters had a 195% of average success rate they would still be under the daily limit. What are tey looking for a 400% increase. I feel the DNR erred in allowing this study to take place.

And I seem to be missing a post

[Lowe]

Bogsucker,

If the average hunter bags 1/3 to 1/2 his daily limit per outing, that is not going to change just because he can shoot four limits. He will still average 2-3 ducks per outing, even if he could possibly shoot 100 ducks. That's why the waterfowl harvest is regulated mainly through season length, not daily limit - very few hunters reach their daily limit on a consistent basis.

In order for the researchers to get the numbers they need, they had to try and up the daily limit for those hunters, even if a four-limit bag was highly unlikely. I don't think anyone would approve of them hunting when the rest of us can't - it's the only way they can really determine the motorized decoy's effectiveness.

[J.A.Say.Tree]

This study is absolute Bullpucky! There are WAAAAYYYY too many variables involved to possibly come up with any conclusive evidence!

And I totally disagree with the shooting just to identify juvenile vs. mature birds... get real! There are PLENTY of guys out there who have been hunting waterfowl for enough years to tell a young bird from an fully plummed bird. And "HELLO" the young birds are going to be more apt to come to the decoy than the old smart ones... why the frazeldazel do we need to spend money on something so ridiculous when we can't even afford to have enough COs out there to protect our slews from poachers (or guys who are taking over the limit and using remote controls!!!

JA!!!!

[Lowe]

JA,

You talk about there being too many variables with this study. Well, you're right - it's not perfect. No scientific study is. But how many variables would you have if you started subjectively judging the decoy's effectiveness? Instead of killing the ducks, you'd rather have them say, "Yup, got that one . . . nope, missed those two." or "I'm pretty sure that was a juvenile hen wood duck we just saw?"?

You need hard numbers to do any type of scientific study. Hard numbers = number of birds killed. Otherwise the study is absolutely useless and we really are wasting money.

The bottom line is this study will not hurt the duck population over the course of ten years. Can anybody say the same thing about motorized decoys?

[Guest]

I have no problem with the study. Most people simply aren't going to kill even one limit of ducks let alone four. Lately I haven't even been seeing 24 ducks. I also agree there are way too many variables for this study to work, in the short term. However some research needs to be done and it has to start some place. Besides this isn't the only team of researchers and this isn't the only state where they are conducting the research. If you step back and look at the big pitcure the research is move valuable in the long run then the ducks killed in the short run.

[Bryce]

Didn't go out on the study to give more info. It was taking place on Marsh Lake by Appleton. Went out on Wed. and the mallards had disappeared. Cancelled out on the study for Thurs. and went to ND early to scout. Anybody familiar with Marsh can imagine the ducks we were seeing the week before. Afternoon hunts with flock after flock.... Couldn't keep them out of the decoys. Could have ealily shot 4 limits.

[doubleUcubed]

Bryce, check the West Central Daily Tribune of Willmar, MN for an article about a guy spending 22 hours on a little Island on Marsh Lake to be rescued Monday morning! Very good article and one lucky man!!

[Bryce]

Very lucky indeed. Sounds like he was prepared for it fairly well though. I've heard stories of hunters having to spend the night out there after all the water blew to the other end in a big wind leaving all mud and no water. We always try to carry a few extra items of clothing and a dry pair of boots with when hunting Marsh just in case. Worst I've ever seen is about a 1 foot drop in the water level and that made it real difficult to get back to the landing.