Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

A Slanted Spinning-Wing Decoy Argument

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Gun Dogs Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Gun Dogs
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 25, 2013
A Slanted Spinning-Wing Decoy Argument - 3

Spinning-wing duck decoys like the Mojo Mallard have been a topic of much debate for about a decade now.

First hailed at the silver bullet for educated ducks (and death on uneducated ones), then made illegal (because they were too effective) in many states, only to be made legal and illegal again and again.

I understand both sides of that argument. They can be very effective at giving incoming waterfowl the confidence to land because they add motion and realism to your spread. Is it an unfair advantage? Maybe.

But I’ve also heard many guides say that because they’re used so much, that birds have become educated to them and, especially in the late season, will cause just as many birds to flare as to drop in.

Here’s what I don’t get. In my home state of Washington, battery-operated equipment is forbidden. No Mojo Mallard. But, those operated with a jerk string or that spin in the wind are perfectly fine.

Maybe I’m missing something, but what’s the difference if the battery is causing the wings to spin or if I’m pulling a string and accomplishing the same thing?

Furthermore, daily limits are set on available resources, season dates, numbers of hunters and a plethora of other info. If I’m allowed to take a limit, what does it matter if I use a battery-operated spinning-wing decoy or one that spins due to the wind? A limit is a limit. Right?

 

Comments (3)

Top Rated
All Comments
from LGIW wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

Agency bureaucrats have nothing better to do than dream up regulations to restrict the activities of those who pay their frickin' salary.

One now has to be a Philadelphia lawyer to waterfowl hunt. The govt keeps trying to figure out how to take all of the fun out of it and then wonders why there are less hunters each year.

Indiana is an exception to that. They recently simplified the hunting regs to fit on a 6 page flyer. Imagine that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big Bob wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

I don't have a problem with using decoys that provide motion and realism. Personally I rarely shoot a limit of birds with the exception of doves. If I ever get to hunt pheasants I would probably limit on those too since it is a small number. If the drought in Arizona ever breaks and quail recover I might shoot an occasional limit, but with birds few and coveys scattered my limit is three to four birds from a covey so that there are birds to regenerate the resource.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I don't think they're unethical, but ducks most certainly do get educated to avoid them. They can be very effective early in the year where I hunt in the Mississippi river flyway, but in the late season they will do more harm than good.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I don't think they're unethical, but ducks most certainly do get educated to avoid them. They can be very effective early in the year where I hunt in the Mississippi river flyway, but in the late season they will do more harm than good.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big Bob wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

I don't have a problem with using decoys that provide motion and realism. Personally I rarely shoot a limit of birds with the exception of doves. If I ever get to hunt pheasants I would probably limit on those too since it is a small number. If the drought in Arizona ever breaks and quail recover I might shoot an occasional limit, but with birds few and coveys scattered my limit is three to four birds from a covey so that there are birds to regenerate the resource.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from LGIW wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

Agency bureaucrats have nothing better to do than dream up regulations to restrict the activities of those who pay their frickin' salary.

One now has to be a Philadelphia lawyer to waterfowl hunt. The govt keeps trying to figure out how to take all of the fun out of it and then wonders why there are less hunters each year.

Indiana is an exception to that. They recently simplified the hunting regs to fit on a 6 page flyer. Imagine that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)