|Recent articles concerned about the effects of the motorized duck decoys on waterfowl hunting and bag limits have started to catch my attention. I have read a number of these articles and studies as they describe how this trend can adversely affect waterfowl hunting and populations and now I am beginning to see something that is being left out.
It is probably true that the motorized ducks do give some hunters an "edge" when hunting waterfowl. This is probably true 30% to 50% of the time, not all the time. Never the less we must agree this is an edge over not using this device. Thus far, all of the surveys and articles I have looked at focus in on only one aspect of this new innovation. This is the idea that more hunters in the field will take more ducks home because of a new applied
So far this implies that these hunters are on public properties or otherwise asked permission to hunt on undeveloped lands. These are your average hunters that do not own land or belong to developed hunt club grounds. I have not seen a comparison to or any analogies that look at other forms of "applied technologies" and how that affects duck populations or increases the hunters "edge" filling their daily limits of ducks or geese.
It is my assertion that "applied technologies" are used all the time to help hunters gain this "edge". The most prevalent being the developed, managed, flooded and intentionally hunted grain fields all over the country that groups of individuals use to attract ducks and geese. These methods are as much an "applied technology" as any robo duck and just as prevalent. How come this old issue is not addressed along side use of a relatively new issue like the robo duck?
Let's take this one step further. I would like to see a graph or spreadsheet that compares the kill ratio of two separate hunters hunting the same number of days a season one over these groomed and cultivated grain fields or flooded plains to one using robo duck or any other kind of device hunting only on public access properties? Do you know of any of these
studies? I haven't seen one yet.
But, the issue continues to explore banning these mechanical duck decoys for everyone based on the fact that it gives any of these hunters using it an edge that otherwise is not "natural". Is mechanically (by the use of pumps and constructed dikes) flooded corn or wheat or milo or rice fields natural? Is this not just another application of technology to give a
hunter an "edge"?
I bet there are a lot of hunters out there that would love to see a new opinion. Likewise, you will find some (land owners with pumps) that might not like this to be publicly debated. It all depends which side of the "applied technology" issue you are on.
widest selection of shooting and fishing books,