Tod Osier, there is hope!

Jeff Reardon

Well-known member
Supporter
So I'm at the Maine Legislature's Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, waiting for a hearing on a brook trout bill to start so I can testify. The bill before ours is a proposal for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt and fish. The language says something about preserving hunting "including all traditional methods".

So the House Chairman, a pretty sharp guy, says, "What's traditional? I mean, decoys are traditional, but now they have batteries and moving parts and butt squirters. We don't want to say something like that can never be banned, do we?"
 
ban the butt squirters!

They need to leave it general enough to encompass future "advancements" in the decoy industry, something like "Ban all NASTY decoys"...but in lawyereese...

Now we'll just have to keep the supreme court loaded with decoy makers!
 
It would seem time to put some definition around what a "decoy" is vs whatever hell was created when the Vortex came out: https://www.rogerssportinggoods.com...e_associated&gclid=CPDrqsT8t9MCFYO4wAoddLgEwA

Not certain why anyone wants to hunt a carnival, and I think the efficacy on any of these is laughable, but at some point technological "advancement" is a painful lesson in hubris.

We have 3 shell limits, no e-callers, etc. At some point, I hope we can keep the robot uprising at bay also.
 
Might as well go back to Live Tollers, Sinkboxes, etc., and go full circle.

We already have Spring Season for Snow Geese, unplugged shotguns, electronic callers and robot decoys galore.

Now a lack of hunters can increase the Black Duck limit? When not long ago there was talk of closing the season.

Are we moving forward, or backward?

"Traditional" has a broad interpretation, especially in this age of personal use technology.

What used to be called scouting and learning, in many cases, are now replaced by Trail Cams for all types of hunting.

For a generation of hunters robo decoys and electronic technology are "Traditional", and the future is in their hands.
 
I have a better idea. Ban the sky busters, ban the guys that can't estimate range,ban the guys that don't practice their shooting,ban the guys that don't pattern their shotguns,ban the guys that don't know a mallard from a redhead, ban the inconsiderate. If we could do all that we wouldn't have to ban any spinners,squirters or blow molded chinese decoys. And the marsh would be less crowded and a lot quieter.
 
I have a better idea. Ban the sky busters, ban the guys that can't estimate range,ban the guys that don't practice their shooting,ban the guys that don't pattern their shotguns,ban the guys that don't know a mallard from a redhead, ban the inconsiderate. If we could do all that we wouldn't have to ban any spinners,squirters or blow molded chinese decoys. And the marsh would be less crowded and a lot quieter.

Bill, you might find yourself out there by yourself. :)
 
Seems to me that the right to hunt and fish could be kept separate from methodology and still turn out to be a win / win.
 
An interesting correlation: robo decoys = chucklehead hunters

Based on personal observation you could add into the chucklehead ID: electric fillet knives, wayyy too bright LED head lamps, 3.5" shot shells, and people who yell their dog's name so much you're on a first name basis even if the dog didn't visit your blind.
 
Seems to me that the right to hunt and fish could be kept separate from methodology and still turn out to be a win / win.


Bob, the history here in Maine is worth noting. Much of the desire for a constitutional amendment granting a right to hunt and fish is driven by several rounds of bruising referundum fights over hunting bears over bait, hunting bears with hounds, and trapping bears. The folks behind the const. amendment drive not only want to make sure it's impossible to ban all hunting or fishing, but also make it much more difficult for there to be public campaigns or legislation against particular hunting practices. I think the "traditional methods" language is specifically intended to challenge those attempts.
 
I'm still waiting for the decimation in the duck population that was all but guaranteed by many "traditional" duck hunters when spinners were introduced.

Just because someone doesn't like something is no reason to ban it. I think drones if not regulated or banned from the filed when hunting can have a far more serious effect on duck populations then spinners. Should we ban them from the field?

Good luck on your constitutional amendment on hunting and fishing. We passed it here in MN and it seems to be working except when Hunters/fishermen end up going against Native Americans. Then whatever the issue is there are big arguments and lawyers involved.

Mark
 
I'm still waiting for the decimation in the duck population that was all but guaranteed by many "traditional" duck hunters when spinners were introduced.

Just because someone doesn't like something is no reason to ban it. I think drones if not regulated or banned from the filed when hunting can have a far more serious effect on duck populations then spinners. Should we ban them from the field?

Good luck on your constitutional amendment on hunting and fishing. We passed it here in MN and it seems to be working except when Hunters/fishermen end up going against Native Americans. Then whatever the issue is there are big arguments and lawyers involved.

Mark

I never said that I think they will decimate duck populations. I believe my position has always been that: 1) they are nasty and 2) that anyone who uses them is a mouth breathing cretan.
 
I'm hopeful that the Right to Hunt amendment moves forward, maybe the butt squirters/spinners are an annoyance but don't lose the forest for the trees. I'd rather suffer a mojo invasion than be sitting around the fireplace wishing hunting was still legal.

For the record, I own a mojo but IMO it sucks. The few times I tried it, watching those wings spin was aggravating to the point where I wondered how many pellet strikes it would take to "kill" it. :) On a serious note, my experience was that young mallards are vulnerable to it but it's very effective at flaring black ducks.
 
I've never used one as I take Todd's view on them.

However, people i know that hunt fields swear by them.

And to the point, correct, don't let a word like "tradition" ruin the higher priority of protecting opportunity.
 
I've hunted over spinners. They seem effective in some ways, not in others.

My observation, in my waters, is that there is no question that spinners attract attention from ducks and result in a higher proportion of birds buzzing the decoys and coming (marginally) into range. I also think they decrease the likelihood that ducks actually drop into the decoys and land.

Since I like nothing more than a duck feet down and cupped dropping into the decoys, I've come to prefer not using them.

The best objection to spinners I ever heard was that the the spinning decoys "make ducks do things they don't usually do and go places they wouldn't normally go".

They seem to reduce the importance of scouting and being in the right place at the right time, and increase the importance of having the right plastic crap and a large supply of batteries.

They also make annoying noise.

Still, I cannot bring myself to Tod Osier levels of mojo-loathing. More of a mild dislike. (I reserve true loathing for splake, tiger muskies, wipers and other fishy abominations.)
 
Last edited:
I've hunted over spinners. They seem effective in some ways, not in others.

My observation, in my waters, is that there is no question that spinners attract attention from ducks and result in a higher proportion of birds buzzing the decoys and coming (marginally) into range. I also think they decrease the likelihood that ducks actually drop into the decoys and land.

Since I like nothing more than a duck feet down and cupped dropping into the decoys, I've come to prefer not using them.

The best objection to spinners I ever heard was that the the spinning decoys "make ducks do things they don't usually do and go places they wouldn't normally go".

They seem to reduce the importance of scouting and being in the right place at the right time, and increase the importance of having the right plastic crap and a large supply of batteries.

They also make annoying noise.

Still, I cannot bring myself to Tod Osier levels of mojo-loathing. More of a mild dislike. (I reserve true loathing for splake, tiger muskies, wipers and other fishy abominations.)

Splake taste good.
 
Back
Top