brittman Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I have used a spinner for a several years. If they force me to keep it in the garage - that is fine too.Would agree that it was "magic" on juvenile mallards. Late season we would have to search through flocks of "less than full color greenheads" to find the big fat mallard drakes.I would also agree that its effectiveness has dropped significantly each fall that I have used it.Nothing beats a flock of mallards working your CALLING anyway. Would prefer a nationwide ban - not just state specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Wettschreck Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I agree that the nationwide ban would be more effective. I've never used a spinner or anything motorized so I guess I don't know what I'll be missing. I've heard they are the cats meow, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermann222 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I think you are all right with the nationwide ban. IF states are going to start to outlaw them to supposedly protect waterfowl, it needs to be done nation wide. However, instead of spending all the money passing this as a law, we all know it takes a ton of funding to do this, why not pu tthat money instead into waterfowl restoration projects. I know I know, this would make WAY too much sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdog Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Quote:I agree that the nationwide ban would be more effective. I've never used a spinner or anything motorized so I guess I don't know what I'll be missing. I've heard they are the cats meow, however. I'm not sure if they really are all that they are cracked up to be. I've only used mine a few times but its done NOTHING to improve my duck hunting. In fact a couple times I thought I could have normally killed some birds that were working my spot but they didn't come, always wondered if the spinner didn't scare some birds off. The few times I've used it, I've never killed a single bird over it. I've killed lots without it over the years, so I figured what the heck? and I just quit using it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gissert Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 The few times I have used one, they seemed the most effective in early season, and the first half hour of shooting light. Sometimes the response was incredible. After about 7:30 am, the birds seemed indifferent to it more often than not. If the ban goes through, I'll not loose any sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Christianson Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Same here Gissert.hsolist, here comes a spinner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simcox282 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 it is not just the spinners that would be banned. It would be all motorized decoys. That would irke me a little as I ahve developed a decoy specifically for a shaker motor. Also I haeing feeding decoys with a shaker in it. No longer, I am ok with it just a little irked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brittman Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The remote control was the key. On and off just like when you are calling ducks. Also seems more like real ducks landing. (FYI - this was not in MN). I always thought MN had a double standard anyway. Those hunting public land - no spinners first 9 days or so. Those on less pressured private property could use spinners Hardly fair in prior years anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntingisheaven Posted May 28, 2005 Share Posted May 28, 2005 Hey brittman i don't know if you know this but any water that can float a canoe in MN is public land does matter if you have parachute in to getto the water once on the water it is public even though the water is land locked it is still considered public water. Unless that water is a flooded field that is temporary that is not considered public water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck-o-holic Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 The DNR has maps that list which bodies of water are deemed "public" or private. The lakes deemed public must have an access from a right-of-way, public access, connecting water source or similar means (excluding "parachuting"). In other words, if you had a land-locked water source, you could always use spin-wings in the past during duck opener. Does anybody know if the ban will go into effect for the 2005 season, or will it be going into effect next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntingisheaven Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I am just going by what the DNR told me when they first banned the use of the spinner for the first two weeks. He Stated that all water is considered public and evene said if you parachute in it would be legal to hunt it i know he was jokeing around but he was just makingthat point that we couldn't use a spinner for the first two weeks even on a land locked slough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltinader Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 They wont, we will be able to use them again this year. They just will have it that you can not use it the fist week or so. If you have your own ponds that would be great because you can use them on your own land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdog Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Quote:I am just going by what the DNR told me when they first banned the use of the spinner for the first two weeks. He Stated that all water is considered public and evene said if you parachute in it would be legal to hunt it i know he was jokeing around but he was just makingthat point that we couldn't use a spinner for the first two weeks even on a land locked slough "he" was wrong. There are only certain bodies of water where they were prohibited that had to be designated as public. If his interpretation were correct, it would render the language in the law meaningless, and one of the rules of interpreting statutes is that the legislature is presumed to want everything in there to be there on purpose and have meaning. Whatever DNR person gave you this interpretation, was trying to make law, not enforce what was there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts