Washington State BANS Moto use!

LetEmWork

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
To me, banning the use of Motos in WA. state was a start. Let's hope California follows suit. I DO NOT want to see bag limits reduced in any way due to the use of Motos.

KEEP BAG LIMITS INTACT BY BANNING MOTOS!
 

E A Hunt

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
274
Reaction score
0
It's a good start. I hope in the comming seasons other states will follow. Hope we can stop burning time and money on "The Crutch" now and consentrate on bigger fish now.

Water seems to be top fish. More public access would be my #2.

Seems the state should be able to buy a lot more land with all the money we send them.

As for spinning wings.. I guess the first guy to get one spinning without a electronic source is gonna be rich.

I'm still trying to get the hamster wheel inside a full body dek.

If it works is see wild discarded hamsters taking over refuge in about five years.
 

2curljohnny

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
i'm curious to see the extent of the ban, for instance the one i have spins pretty darn good w/o batteries in a good wind.i'm afraid our dfg will leave a loop hole as always and it will be up to the judge i'm in front of after fighting the ticket.
 

JimmyCrackpipe

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
ok, i just built me a decoy with spinning wings that does not use batteries (or any electrical or gas motor), wind, or water. The source of the spin is self-contained within the decoy itself and guess what, the power source lasts longer than batteries anyways!! haha am rich!!...oh wait, to release my invention to the public or not to release to the public?? What do u guys think??
 

jerry d

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Jimmy,

Does that puppy glow in the dark.

Now could it be you've been lighting that pipe too much lately. :bounce
 

mechengineer

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
lol, good one....

the name says nothing my man, some people just see the name, but don't know what it really means....i'll now call myself mechengineer or cause that's what am studyin at CAL. I have experience building moving parts without any outside source of power (electricity, wind, etc.) so building this decoy was not difficult. And yes, it could glow in the dark, just dab it with some paint on the decoys and they'll make the marsh look like an airstrip...just remember to get your Boeing747 Megagoose flute
 

Hntrjohn

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2001
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Update: California Temporarily Bans Battery-Powered Waterfowl Decoys

The California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) has voted to ban all
battery-powered waterfowl decoys until December 1, compromising with
critics who say that the decoys unfairly lure ducks within easy range of
hunters.

“We prefer to call it a temporal prohibition,” said Dan
Yparraguirre, a senior biologist for the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG). “Right now we haven’t seen any rock-solid
evidence that the duck decoys are a biological problem. Then again the
CFGC hasn’t said that it’s not a problem.”

Biologists will monitor the upcoming hunting season to see whether
banning the decoys significantly affects duck harvests. As reported in
last week’s edition of “NAHC Weekly News,” Washington
state banned motorized duck decoys August 17.

In related news, Minnesota is moving to curb the use of the remote
controls for electronic waterfowl decoys and will study the decoys next
year on the way to potentially banning them for hunting.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources officials announced Tuesday
that the use of remote-control devices for electronic, rotating-wing
decoys will be considered illegal this year under existing Minnesota
statutes.
 

jerry d

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Simple question from a simple mind.

If there's no solid evidence moto is a biological problem, and this comes from a DF&G biologist that is apparently respected by those that know him, why then was this "temporal prohibitation" issued.

Now you talk about double talk - "Right now we haven't seen any rock solid evidence that the duck decoys are a biological problem. Then again the CFGC hasn't said it's not a problem".

Just who the hell does the CFGC get their info from when issuing these type regulations. It couldn't possibly be the DF&G who, in turn, gets their info from the DF&G biologist, could it. Naw, couldn't possibly be....

This thing gets better by the day..........

When will they release the results of the current studies.  
 

Latest Posts

Top Bottom