Page 1 of 3
Fire up your robo ducks!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:49 pm
by Double R 2
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=329333
[QUOTE=Steel3's]I was reading the latest Wildlife Society Bulletin which included a paper by Jason H. Caswell and F. Dale Caswell titled "Vulnerability of mallards to hunting with a spinning-wing decoy in Manitoba" (volume 32(4), pages 1297-1304). Here are some of the highlights:
1) They conducted 72 experimental MARSH hunts between 8 Sept. and 11 Nov. 2001. A MARSH hunt consisted of 24 Herter's magnum mallard decoys, natural vegetation for concealment, a Mojo spinner, and hunters were encouraged to use calls as they saw fit. The spinner was turned "on" for 15 minutes, then "off" for 15 minutes with a 3-minute buffer in between. Whether it was "on" or "off" first was alternated each hunt.
They conducted 27 experimental MARSH hunts and 55 experimental FIELD hunts between 8 Sept. and 30 Oct. in 2002. MARSH hunts were the same as 2001. FIELD hunts consisted of 24 super-magnum Carry-lite Canada goose decoys and 24 magnum mallard decoys using Cabela's Goose Chairs as well as natural vegetation for concealment. Spinner and call use was the same as for MARSH hunts.
2) Hunts ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 hours with the average being 1.4 hours.
3) For experimental MARSH hunts, mallards were 1.9 times more likely to fly within gun range, the number killed/hour/hunter was 5.0 times greater, and the crippling rate was 1.7 times lower when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
4) For experimental FIELD hunts, mallards were 6.4 times more likely to fly within gun range, and the number killed/hour/hunter was 33 times greater when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
Crippling rate on experimental FIELD hunts was not different early in the season (before Oct. 5th), but was 3.7 times lower in the late season when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
Crippling rates (cripples lost per bird hit) averaged:
MARSH: 17.3% with spinner "on", 29.1% with spinner "off"
FIELD: Early season - 13.3% with spinner "on", 12.5% with spinner "off"
..........Late season - 9.2% with spinner "on", 34.4% with spinner "off"
5) There was no difference in the age ratio (juveniles/adults) or sex ratio (males/females) in the MARSH or FIELD hunts due to the spinner being "on" or "off".
6) The body-condition index (a metric of the bird's mass adjusted for it's skeletal size) was greater for mallards killed with the spinner "on" compared to when it was "off".
The discussion focussed mainly on the crippling rate and body condition data because their increased hunting success was fairly similar to information collected in CA, IL, MO, and MN. In the "Management Implications" section they summarized the considerations in regulating spinners and concluded with this point ...... and I'll quote:
Given the differential kill rates found in this study, we believe that prolific SWD use in Manitoba, Prairie Canada, or throughout Canada will not alone be reason to justify altering harvest regulations. However, harvest is only one component of many biological and political factors involved in regulation-setting process in Canada. A decline in hunter numbers from the 1974-79 average to the 1997-2001 average by approximately 63, 66, and 59% was accompanied by concurrent declines in mallard harvests by 45, 67, and 60% in Manitoba, Prairie Canada, and Canda respectively. Additionally, mallard harvest in Canda between the same periods declined from 25 to 11% of North American harvest. Before making a prediction of the impact of SWD's on harvest at local, regional, and national scales, we need to determine the number of hunters already using a SWD and the proportion of harvest that they represent.
[/quote]
I don't give a damned what the study says, they need to be banned. For making predictions at local, regional and national scales why not extrapolate?
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:40 pm
by GulfCoast
I posted similar data 2 years ago out of the Minnesota studies, and got chewed out by the collective members of this board who said "bogus study, what do those PhD's know, pry my spinner from my cold dead fingers....."
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:51 pm
by Po Monkey Lounger
GC, its just hard for a southern man to trust those whiny Minnesotans
Also, I don't think that study actually made much of a case for banning the robo ----not like these that ramsey has posted. In terms of extra ducks killed per hunter with the robos on, if I remember correctly the Minnesota study indicated it was less than 1 duck per daily bag difference---not very compelling. Plus, those Minnesotans can't shoot either --they just like to complain about stuff.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:53 pm
by Po Monkey Lounger
BTW, before anyone makes me the whipping boy for the spinners again, just for the record ---like I said 3 years ago --- I AM FOR BANNING the spinners. Carry on.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:03 pm
by Soybean Man
I wonder if they made sure the white under wings were not showing when they were turned off. It would seem to me that ducks would flare if the white was turned up when not in use.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:05 pm
by mudsucker
I NEED some new batteries!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:17 pm
by iron grip
Gimme some shells!!!
I'm going to Canada!!!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:49 pm
by MsBowMan
I was the one that said "pry my spinner from my cold dead hands". And I mean it!
3) For experimental MARSH hunts, mallards were 1.9 times more likely to fly within gun range, the number killed/hour/hunter was 5.0 times greater, and the crippling rate was 1.7 times lower when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
1.9 TIMES MORE LIKELY THAN WHAT? WHAT IS THAT 10%?
4) For experimental FIELD hunts, mallards were 6.4 times more likely to fly within gun range, and the number killed/hour/hunter was 33 times greater when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
SO IS THIS 16%?
Crippling rate on experimental FIELD hunts was not different early in the season (before Oct. 5th), but was 3.7 times lower in the late season when the spinner was "on" compared to when it was "off".
ONCE AGAIN, I'M ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE 27%........
I maybe be doing the percentages wrong.......and if I am, the damn thing is a lie!
I don't think a 10% better chance of taking a duck in Mississippi will hurt the duck population here. They kill them all up North before they get here anyway..........
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:20 pm
by Drake-MS
Bowman
God help us if you're a math teacher by some odd chance. 1.9 times is almost DOUBLE not 10%. Use that to figure the rest out.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:26 pm
by MsBowMan
Drake-MS wrote:Bowman
God help us if you're a math teacher by some odd chance. 1.9 times is almost DOUBLE not 10%. Use that to figure the rest out.
I beg to differ........100 times more than 1 is 100 percent!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:39 pm
by Po Monkey Lounger
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:41 pm
by Cotten
[quote="MsBowMan"]I was the one that said "pry my spinner from my cold dead hands". And I mean it![/quote]
Yea, and you're for that Timer Operated Corn Feeder bill too ain't cha? FRIGGIN WIMPS!!!
P.S. We're taking our youngens to NYC early in the morning and will be back Sunday. So hold your rebuts and defenses of being a FRIGGIN WIMP needing a Spinner and a Timer Operated Corn Feeder until then!!!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:55 pm
by sportsman450
MsBowMan wrote:Drake-MS wrote:Bowman
God help us if you're a math teacher by some odd chance. 1.9 times is almost DOUBLE not 10%. Use that to figure the rest out.
I beg to differ........100 times more than 1 is 100 percent!
This is almost too laughable to respond to, but I'll try and put it in simple terms.
Here's your 100. Multiply it by 1.9, and you get 190. While it's not a 100% increase, it's real close.
This has got to be a joke!!!
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:37 pm
by Steel 3's
1.9 TIMES MORE LIKELY THAN WHAT? WHAT IS THAT 10%?
I can understand how it can be a little confusing because the paper didn't include much of the raw data. They tell us, for example, that ducks killed per hour was 5 times higher with spinner "on" compared to spinner "off" on MARSH hunts, but they don't give us the real value. So maybe it's 1 duck per hour with spinner "off" and 5 with spinner "on" ...... or maybe it was 3 ducks per hour with spinner "off" and 15 per hour with spinner "on" or who knows.
Everything is comparing spinner "on" vs spinner "off". So what that quote above means is during the MARSH hunts, the probability that a mallard or group of mallards flying within 300 yards of the decoy spread would come within gun range was 1.9 times higher if the spinner was "on" than if it was "off".
I don't know of that means 10% of the mallards seen within 300 yards of the decoys came into shooting range while the spinner was "off", but 19% came into shooting range when the spinner was "on"..... or if it was 2% vs 3.8% ..... or if it was 25% vs 47.5%. All of those show us that mallards were 1.9 times more likely to come within shooting range with the spinner "on" than with it "off" because 19/10 = 1.9, 3.8/2 = 1.9, and 47.5/25 = 1.9
Here's an example where the raw data IS in the paper: If hunters in the MARSH crippled and lost 29.1% of the ducks they hit while hunting with the spinner was "off", and 17.3% while hunting with the spinner "on", then the crippling rate is 1.7 times lower with the spinner on compared to when it's off . ie 29.1/17.3 = 1.68 or about 1.7.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:12 am
by crow
Awright, let's make this simple...
Is there anyone on this site who does not think, based on all the information you have (firsthand, empirical research, and what Uncle Ted told me), that a whole lot more ducks, especially juveniles, are killed in Canada and the northern U.S. by hunters using spinning wind decoys? If you agree that more are being killed, then all we are arguing about is how many more "a whole lot more" really means.
MSBowman, I have a degree in English, but I think I can sipher enought to figure out "1.9 times more" is dang near two times more which is close to double the number killed without. And, I would love to see the figures on how you came to the conclusion that 100 times more is 100%!
Dang, man, where'd you get your education....Georgia?