SWD Back in Arkansas
08-25-2008, 03:41 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 159
SWD Back in Arkansas
After a ban for several years, the mojo mallard is back in the Natural state. Despite some arguments and controversy the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission changed the regs for the 2008 2009 season allowing the use of spinning wing decoys once again, also the bags limit on woodies was raised from 2 to 3 and the allowed mallard hens went from 1 to 2. Lets here some comments on this change. Will it hurt? Will it help the hunt?
08-25-2008, 07:13 PM
#2
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jackson MS USA
Posts: 387
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
I am going to only make one statement, because I'd rather not get kicked off this website.... This change (spinners) is a prime example of game regulations being a reflection of political pressure rather than any concern for conservation. The state of Arkansas cannot ever cry "conservation" again, in my opinion. According to the state theoriginal ban wasmade in the interest of conservation, and nothing has changed to give them a basis to repeal that ban except for political pressure.
08-25-2008, 08:15 PM
#3
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 220
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
By the time most migrating ducks reach Arkansas they have seen it all. The northern end of the Flyway has had SWD in use and Arkansas overall harvest of ducks still remained high.
I bet the SWD in Arkansas will flare more birds then it sucks in. They have been saying that these SWD would be the end of ducks hunting. I know the birds get wise to them and adapt just like they always have. I could care less if you use them or don't use them love them or hate them, they don't replace good deeks, calling and knowing how to hunt.
Nemont
I bet the SWD in Arkansas will flare more birds then it sucks in. They have been saying that these SWD would be the end of ducks hunting. I know the birds get wise to them and adapt just like they always have. I could care less if you use them or don't use them love them or hate them, they don't replace good deeks, calling and knowing how to hunt.
Nemont
08-25-2008, 09:17 PM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Magnolia, AR
Posts: 200
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
The change on the SWD was made from political pressure.As I understand it, the management division wanted to keep the ban as did most of the hunters.You can go to arkansashunting.net's waterfowl forum and get more than I can give you.Personally I don't use the SWD.I believe that somedays they help and somedays they hurt.I'm to cheap to buy one and to lazy to keep on going.LOL.Truthfully I already have enough to carry in as it is for my fat old butt. I do think that the 2 hen rule is too much.Personally I try not to shoot any mallard hens.
08-25-2008, 10:09 PM
#5
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 159
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
ORIGINAL: GordonGekko
I am going to only make one statement, because I'd rather not get kicked off this website.... This change (spinners) is a prime example of game regulations being a reflection of political pressure rather than any concern for conservation. The state of Arkansas cannot ever cry "conservation" again, in my opinion. According to the state theoriginal ban wasmade in the interest of conservation, and nothing has changed to give them a basis to repeal that ban except for political pressure.
I am going to only make one statement, because I'd rather not get kicked off this website.... This change (spinners) is a prime example of game regulations being a reflection of political pressure rather than any concern for conservation. The state of Arkansas cannot ever cry "conservation" again, in my opinion. According to the state theoriginal ban wasmade in the interest of conservation, and nothing has changed to give them a basis to repeal that ban except for political pressure.
08-25-2008, 11:17 PM
#6
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jackson MS USA
Posts: 387
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
ORIGINAL: jakelogsdon
The concern for conservation is there, however the SWD ban was not the way to go. The numbers in Arkansas have steadily gone down over the past three years. If that is the case the SWD ban had no effect whatsoever as far as conservations goes. So why continue it?
The concern for conservation is there, however the SWD ban was not the way to go. The numbers in Arkansas have steadily gone down over the past three years. If that is the case the SWD ban had no effect whatsoever as far as conservations goes. So why continue it?
I honestly haven't looked at harvest numbers for last year, but I do know that almost every club I hunted with in Arkansas North of US 82 had record, or near record harvests.
The issue, as far as I'm concerned,isn't what the overall effect was, in fact most of the "damage" done by spinners occurs before the birds reach the state. My point is, if Arkansas wanted to fly the flag of conservation and be a leader, as they claimed when they banned spinners and cut the bag limit to one hen, then they should stick by their guns. Instead they bowed to political pressure. As stated earlier this is a prime example of regulations being based in politics rather than a genuine concern for conservation. The same statements applyto the raising of the limit on hen mallards.
oldreloader, that is pretty much what I gathered about the decision too, scary isn't it. Politics trump conservation...again.
jakelogsdon, you are absolutely correct, we are facing some very big problems in the near future...and it is a war I am not sure the ducks will win.
08-26-2008, 07:01 AM
#7
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Magnolia, AR
Posts: 200
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
ORIGINAL: GordonGekko
Okay, I'm going back on my word here. I will try my best to remain civil. First, let me say I agree with pretty much everything else that you posted, we do need to focus on other areas as well. However, I am a bit confused by the quoted statement. I assume you're talking about harvest numbers having declined? I am not sure I see the logical connection between a lower harvest and the spinner ban being inneffective. In fact a lower harvest would seem to indicate the ban might have had some effect. Or are there other "numbers you are talking about" i.e. bird count numbers? I am not sure how a lower bird count would show thatthe ban was inneffective though.
I honestly haven't looked at harvest numbers for last year, but I do know that almost every club I hunted with in Arkansas North of US 82 had record, or near record harvests.
The issue, as far as I'm concerned,isn't what the overall effect was, in fact most of the "damage" done by spinners occurs before the birds reach the state. My point is, if Arkansas wanted to fly the flag of conservation and be a leader, as they claimed when they banned spinners and cut the bag limit to one hen, then they should stick by their guns. Instead they bowed to political pressure. As stated earlier this is a prime example of regulations being based in politics rather than a genuine concern for conservation. The same statements applyto the raising of the limit on hen mallards.
oldreloader, that is pretty much what I gathered about the decision too, scary isn't it. Politics trump conservation...again.
jakelogsdon, you are absolutely correct, we are facing some very big problems in the near future...and it is a war I am not sure the ducks will win.
ORIGINAL: jakelogsdon
The concern for conservation is there, however the SWD ban was not the way to go. The numbers in Arkansas have steadily gone down over the past three years. If that is the case the SWD ban had no effect whatsoever as far as conservations goes. So why continue it?
The concern for conservation is there, however the SWD ban was not the way to go. The numbers in Arkansas have steadily gone down over the past three years. If that is the case the SWD ban had no effect whatsoever as far as conservations goes. So why continue it?
I honestly haven't looked at harvest numbers for last year, but I do know that almost every club I hunted with in Arkansas North of US 82 had record, or near record harvests.
The issue, as far as I'm concerned,isn't what the overall effect was, in fact most of the "damage" done by spinners occurs before the birds reach the state. My point is, if Arkansas wanted to fly the flag of conservation and be a leader, as they claimed when they banned spinners and cut the bag limit to one hen, then they should stick by their guns. Instead they bowed to political pressure. As stated earlier this is a prime example of regulations being based in politics rather than a genuine concern for conservation. The same statements applyto the raising of the limit on hen mallards.
oldreloader, that is pretty much what I gathered about the decision too, scary isn't it. Politics trump conservation...again.
jakelogsdon, you are absolutely correct, we are facing some very big problems in the near future...and it is a war I am not sure the ducks will win.
08-26-2008, 11:02 AM
#8
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 159
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
ORIGINAL: GordonGekko
Okay, I'm going back on my word here. I will try my best to remain civil. First, let me say I agree with pretty much everything else that you posted, we do need to focus on other areas as well. However, I am a bit confused by the quoted statement. I assume you're talking about harvest numbers having declined? I am not sure I see the logical connection between a lower harvest and the spinner ban being inneffective. In fact a lower harvest would seem to indicate the ban might have had some effect. Or are there other "numbers you are talking about" i.e. bird count numbers? I am not sure how a lower bird count would show thatthe ban was inneffective though.
Okay, I'm going back on my word here. I will try my best to remain civil. First, let me say I agree with pretty much everything else that you posted, we do need to focus on other areas as well. However, I am a bit confused by the quoted statement. I assume you're talking about harvest numbers having declined? I am not sure I see the logical connection between a lower harvest and the spinner ban being inneffective. In fact a lower harvest would seem to indicate the ban might have had some effect. Or are there other "numbers you are talking about" i.e. bird count numbers? I am not sure how a lower bird count would show thatthe ban was inneffective though.
Also I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with the SWD ban in the first place. It seemed like there were good intentions, like there always seems to be. But it proved to have no effect one way or the other if you ask me. Harvest number have declined overall (not because of the SWD ban), and the bird count has been dropping dramatically as well. I wish I knew were the focus of attention needed to be pointed, but I don't. I do know that we as hunters are always the ones that suffer with regs changes. Help the birds, don't kill the hunters.
08-26-2008, 01:48 PM
#9
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jackson MS USA
Posts: 387
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
Spinners aside, there is a growing disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" in duck hunting. Case in point, last year I was able to hunt with some clubs who had record harvest years. And these weren't clubs that had been around only 4-7 years, the "newest" club was formed in 1993 and set a record last year. The problem comes with the average joe who can't afford these clubs, or doesn't have the time to diligently scout public land in order to duck hunt. The bread and butter, average joe's, are now so far seperated that I fear they won't be around 5-10 years from now. Somewhere along the line it became an elitist sport and that scares me for the future.
I have several theories as to why fewer ducks seem to make the trip every year, available food source, lack of the severe weather, jet stream, lack of water in much of the south last year, more hunter pressure on younger birds every year (this is where the SWD's play a part). But, either way it boils down to this, there are problems facing duckhunters in the Southern part of the Mississippi flyway and nobody has come up witha good solution. The lack of a solution is what is scary. Heck the Mississippi flyway has fallen to the point that Phil Robertson doesn't even film there anymore, he knows his odds of getting quality footage are better in other flyways. I am not a scientist, and don't get to study birds for a living, but I watch a lot of birds and can see there is a problem...something in the current conservation model is hurting the hunter, and most severely hurting the Southern hunter. The model itself seems to be broken, I sincerely hope it gets fixed before Waterfowl hunting goes the way of Quail hunting.
I have several theories as to why fewer ducks seem to make the trip every year, available food source, lack of the severe weather, jet stream, lack of water in much of the south last year, more hunter pressure on younger birds every year (this is where the SWD's play a part). But, either way it boils down to this, there are problems facing duckhunters in the Southern part of the Mississippi flyway and nobody has come up witha good solution. The lack of a solution is what is scary. Heck the Mississippi flyway has fallen to the point that Phil Robertson doesn't even film there anymore, he knows his odds of getting quality footage are better in other flyways. I am not a scientist, and don't get to study birds for a living, but I watch a lot of birds and can see there is a problem...something in the current conservation model is hurting the hunter, and most severely hurting the Southern hunter. The model itself seems to be broken, I sincerely hope it gets fixed before Waterfowl hunting goes the way of Quail hunting.
08-26-2008, 09:14 PM
#10
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 159
RE: SWD Back in Arkansas
I like the way you think Gordon. If more shared the same views, we would be in a lot better shape as a country. Nobody seems to care about their fellow man, it is all about me and all about now. Instead of preserving what we have for our children to enjoy.