THE TRUE VALUE OF TRASH TALK

[webfoot]

THE TRUE VALUE OF TRASH TALK
By Howard N. Ellman

In a recent article, Madduck cited a summary of the scientific studies of spinning-wing decoy use, made some assumptions concerning the extent of usage (again based on hard data), and concluded that SWDs use had probably killed a large number of ducks, relying on the fact that all studies show a greatly enhanced kill rate for users. The article clearly stated that it constructed its thesis on extrapolation – and thus posited a substantial possibility rather than a certainty.

The article immediately elicited “response” from a Mississippi Flyway waterfowl biologist, and Dr. Robert McLandress, president of the California Waterfowl Association. They ridiculed the conclusions. McLandress stated that shotguns that killed most ducks – and if Madduck sincerely desired to reduce kill, we should advocate elimination of those devices in the hunting of waterfowl, basically equating with advocacy of hunting limited only to those who would engage in the activity unarmed, buck naked and using only a mossy oak breakup full-body tattoo to aid their efforts.

Written in childish, schoolboy taunt, these exchanges smacked of the type of commentary one might hear on an all-night, sports-talk radio show – devoid of philosophical breadth, intellectual content, totally lacking in good faith attempt to engage seriously on the thesis. Ordinarily not worthy of response, these exchanges raised issues worth exploring because they go to the heart not only of the SWD debate but the skewed thinking that prevails in our sport these days at some of the more “lofty” levels.
Shotguns have indeed killed most ducks taken since the invention of firearms capable of using shot charges. Recognizing certain deleterious aspects of that usage, we have not hesitated to regulate shotgun use down through the years. For example, the feds proscribed four gauge and eight gauge guns shortly after the turn of the 20th Century. Why? Because they killed too many birds. Market hunters favored them and we came to disfavor and ban market hunting – because it killed too many birds. We mandate the use of plugs to limit repeating guns to three shells for the same reason.

The rule mandating non-toxic shot arose out of the perception that lead residue in the marshland killed as many as two million birds a year. Whether you believe it or not, accept it or not, that thinking prompted the prohibition, a direct and draconian limitation on the effectiveness of shotguns imposed during the early ‘80s. All sorts of activities associated with waterfowl hunting are now proscribed because we perceive them to be unsportsmanlike, too effective or both. Live decoys and electronic calling are banned precisely for these reasons. There are those who contend that the ban on electronic calling also found legs in the Leopoldian aversion to modern gadgetry that nullifies the skills of marshcraft, rendering them irrelevant. As no one kept careful records at the time – and indeed, as the regulation sprang into being with little debate – no one today seems to be able to make an authoritative statement as to what prompted that rule. But we know for a fact that the feds consider electronic calling a deadly addition to the hunters’ arsenal, a position they disclose when they authorize use of those devices in the spring hunts intended to cull the snow goose population.

But this is far from a simple debate, one in which modern tools are “bad” and traditional tools “good,” based on that distinction alone. A far more nuanced complexity prevails here.

When I started hunting more than five decades ago, we did not have comfortable, lightweight waders. We stepped into the icy waters of the winter marsh in awkward, heavy rubberized monstrosities that seemed designed instantly to suck away every electron of body heat. We had none of the modern thermal fabrics. If you wanted to stay warm, you piled on sweaters under a stiff and awkward hunting jacket that rendered a smooth swing of a shotgun into the equivalent of an Olympic event. For those who used boats, we had cranky outboards that could not navigate water less than a foot deep and that sheared pins and became inoperable instantly when the prop hit a minor obstruction. We had no ATVs, no amphibious vehicles, no lightweight plastic decoys painted to match a computer generated photographic image of the bird we hoped to deceive. We had no alloy shot to perform better than lead ever did, no lightweight serviceable raingear – the litany could be extended indefinitely.

All of these developments have probably made their contribution to the waterfowl kill, directly or indirectly, in ways impossible to measure. We do not forbid the usage of these things nor has any such prohibition been proposed – with the possible exception of ATVs and amphibious vehicles in certain areas. We cannot directly attribute any part of the kill to these advancements. But we can address the kill directly attributable to SWDs by employing the most basic tool of scientific analysis – comparing the before and after conditions.

SWDs were introduced commercially in California in November of 1998, well into the ’98-’99 waterfowl season. They migrated east for the ’99 season and started to gain widespread use generally by the fall of 2000. Every study of their effect has compared hunting with SWDs to hunting without, using time segments in the same hunt to limit variables of time, place and condition.

Without exception, every study has shown a greatly enhanced kill during periods of SWD use, whenever and wherever such studies have been compiled. To suggest that the devices could not be having an adverse effect on populations, one must assume that (1) hunter kill, no matter how much it may be enhanced by modern technology can never affect waterfowl populations, and/or (2) the devices merely redistribute kill from non-users to users (an argument that founders on the problem of ever-increasing SWD use), and/or (3) we must await absolute scientific proof of population impact before the authorities can enact a ban (even though they have acted to ban many practices in the past absent such proof – and the authorities are currently considering increases in pintail limits based on precisely the type of extrapolation, common sense and anecdotal evidence that they apparently reject in this case). Faced with the reality of enhanced kill in times of declining populations, why not ban the devices based on what we already know? To do so does not mandate restrictions on any other practice nor does it set a precedent not already established by prohibitions enacted many years ago.

No answer suggests itself other than antipathy toward regulation, a mutant form of libertarianism – newly flowered from the soil of perceived past mistakes, such as the ban against lead shot, for example. We shouldn’t have done that, so we won’t do this – even though the two are not related and SWDs exemplify a technological intrusion into the field of waterfowling fundamentally different than better rain gear or ATVs or lead shot.

For SWDs nullify – render irrelevant – the skills of our sport in a way that no advancement in equipment to make the hunt more comfortable ever can or will. A mesmerizing gadget takes the place of marshcraft, divorcing those who pursue the activity from the degree of awareness, of connection, they would otherwise need to obtain the fulfillment we seek in the marsh. No one needs to deploy the full scope of modern technology to prove that we know how to kill birds.1 A recreational pursuit must
have a value greater than mere killing or it simply will not survive in these times. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously observed that whereas he could not define pornography, he knew it when he saw it. So it is with SWDs, and ought to be with every other technological innovation that renders the skills of waterfowling irrelevant. That should be the test, from this point forward. We don’t need those tools, they conflict with our values, they represent all that is wrong with our sport.2 . November 1 The Spring 2005 issue of Delta Waterfowl includes an article by George Secor entitled “Revealed: The Most Lethal Mallard Loads.” As a prelude to an informative discussion, Mr. Secor observes: “First, good field craft trumps superior ballistics every time. The shotgun shell hasn’t been developed that can compensate for poor shooting skills or the inability to get the ducks into shooting range.” 2 A comparison of Hevi-shot with a radar assisted shotgun sight illustrates the point. Although the former increases the lethality of the shot charge, the hunter must still intercept the bird with his shot pattern. He must still use skill to bring the bird close enough and to hit it. A radar assisted sight renders irrelevant the shotgunning skill component of that equation. Radar assisted sights are not yet available, although the technology exists – and we will see them offered all too soon.

1998 provides as good a baseline as any – for the decline in which we are currently mired can be said, with hindsight, to have begun then.

In the meantime, our trash-talking critics might benefit from a thoughtful reading of the essay On $#!+, (Princeton University Press, 2005) by Professor Harry G. Frankfurt. In pungent and insightful terms, he examines the roots of that expression, beginning with the servation: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much $#!+.” He then launches into his examination of the fundamental essence of that “product.” The following illustrates his point: “When we characterize speech as hot air, we mean that what comes out of the speaker’s mouth is only that. It is mere vapor. His speech is empty, without substance or content. His use of language, accordingly, does not contribute to the purpose it purports to serve. No more information is communicated than if the speaker had merely exhaled. There are similarities between hot air and excrement, incidentally, which make hot air seem an especially suitable equivalent for $#!+. Just as hot air is speech that has been mptied of all informative content, so excrement is matter from which everything nutritive has been removed . . . .”

To Professor Frankfurt, insincerity lies at the heart of $#!+, a lack of interest in any effort to determine what is true and what is false – a disinterest in truth, a dismissal, offered perhaps to mask the speaker’s ignorance or for other equally suspect purposes. Thus, bluff, bravado and childish efforts at ridicule replaces dialogue intended to illuminate a particular subject, particularly a subject possessed of many complex aspects.

So now, thanks to Professor Frankfurt, we have a thoughtful and deeply insightful tool with which to label the “trash talk” observations that only shotguns kill ducks and that no other contributing devices have significance worthy of regulatory note. As the concerns of many have illustrated, this is a subject of importance that should not be demeaned by slatherings of $#!+. Resort to that tactic, fundamentally evasive in character, strongly suggests that its purveyors have nothing of worth to contribute.

Howard N. Ellman, a San Francisco attorney and co-founder of Madduck.

[MSDuckmen]

Very good article Webfoot,
It still want matter to the group that want it all now at what ever cost.

until hunters grow and learn that it is the method that matters not the number all that he said is of little value.

Thanks for the post.

[Cotten]

[quote="MSDuckmen"]Very good article Webfoot,
It still want matter to the group that want it all now at what ever cost.

until hunters grow and learn that it is the method that matters not the number all that he said is of little value.

Thanks for the post.[/quote]


I agree. And the same goes for Timer Operated Corn Feeders with deer hunting.