WaterfowlForum.Net

Them guys from Monroe just got here yesterday.
They were scouting, stopped and asked if they could hunt on the west side of 7-mile road.
It was tempting to say Go For It but...
What's that say?

If they hunt the roost, I myself will flatten the tires on their rig.

Let them hunt where they want.

No. It will fuck up everyone's hunting. I say a lot of stupid shit but you always top it.

aunt betty wrote:No. It will fuck up everyone's hunting. I say a lot of stupid shit but you always top it.

But they are there to hunt. Is it illegal to hunt the roost?

Eric, you crack me up.

aunt betty wrote:Eric, you crack me up.

There's nothing illegal about hunting the roost. Id say mind your own business what others do.

Eric Haynes wrote:

aunt betty wrote:Eric, you crack me up.

There's nothing illegal about hunting the roost. Id say mind your own business what others do.

He was asked. He wasn't going around offering advice...

National Wildlife Refuges here are open to hunting. I don't see that it was that crazy of a question.

aunt betty wrote:Eric, you crack me up.

wow, those are the most well organized regs i've ever seen! i wish ours were that nicely written.

assateague wrote:National Wildlife Refuges here are open to hunting. I don't see that it was that crazy of a question.

The Refuges I've seen are either completely closed, or have sections that are closed to hunting.

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

aunt betty wrote:Eric, you crack me up.

wow, those are the most well organized regs i've ever seen! i wish ours were that nicely written.

Still engraved on a rock?

rebelp74 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

aunt betty wrote:Eric, you crack me up.

wow, those are the most well organized regs i've ever seen! i wish ours were that nicely written.

Still engraved on a rock?

not quite, but they tell you to jump pages all the time and some of the wording could be better expressed, with shit crammed onto the page. I really like the way the regs in betty's pic are formatted.

assateague wrote:National Wildlife Refuges here are open to hunting. I don't see that it was that crazy of a question.

x2

Just because it's a NWR doesn't mean shit. Good thing we don't all live in betty's world.

Bufflehead wrote:Good thing we don't all live in betty's world.

but the world would be a better place, where everyone knows how to wash their hands...

Bufflehead wrote:

assateague wrote:National Wildlife Refuges here are open to hunting. I don't see that it was that crazy of a question.

x2

Just because it's a NWR doesn't mean shit. Good thing we don't all live in betty's world.

Y'all do see where he is pointing a pen where it says that specific refuge is closed to waterfowl, right?

Damn betty, I was just reading that reg for the refuge on top and I wish our refuges would implement the shell laws like that. We have no more that 25 shells, but that is not including the vehicles. So many less guys would skybust here if they knew they couldn't just walk back to the truck and walk back out to there hunting spot.

ducks~n~bucks wrote:Damn betty, I was just reading that reg for the refuge on top and I wish our refuges would implement the shell laws like that. We have no more that 25 shells, but that is not including the vehicles. So many less guys would skybust here if they knew they couldn't just walk back to the truck and walk back out to there hunting spot.

The WMA I hunt has a 25 shell limit total. Including truck. Doesn't help much if any with skybusting. Maybe 18 shells would be better.

If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Word up brother!

ducks~n~bucks wrote:

Bufflehead wrote:

assateague wrote:National Wildlife Refuges here are open to hunting. I don't see that it was that crazy of a question.

x2

Just because it's a NWR doesn't mean shit. Good thing we don't all live in betty's world.

Y'all do see where he is pointing a pen where it says that specific refuge is closed to waterfowl, right?

You do see that the discussion started before he posted the regs, right?

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Agree, pretty soon some moron is gonna want us to plug our shotguns to only hold three shells, fuck that.

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Only at the refuges. It would be nuts if guys could carry 150 shells into the fields. The skybusters usually run out if their 25 shells by 9am, then you can actually get a few to work in. On just ordinary public land...I agree. I usually take 3-4 boxes with me when I go out on the bay.

AKPirate wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Agree, pretty soon some moron is gonna want us to plug our shotguns to only hold three shells, fuck that.

:lol::lol:

AKPirate wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Agree, pretty soon some moron is gonna want us to plug our shotguns to only hold three shells, fuck that.

And that's fucking stupid, too.

NuffDaddy wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Only at the refuges. It would be nuts if guys could carry 150 shells into the fields. The skybusters usually run out if their 25 shells by 9am, then you can actually get a few to work in. On just ordinary public land...I agree. I usually take 3-4 boxes with me when I go out on the bay.

You realize that you're using the EXACT SAME argument that the gun control folks use, right?

"Why does anybody need a gun that holds more than 6 shots?"

"Why does anybody want to carry a gun? They're not qualified."

"Why does anybody need a military looking weapon? That will encourage dangerous behavior."

assateague wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Only at the refuges. It would be nuts if guys could carry 150 shells into the fields. The skybusters usually run out if their 25 shells by 9am, then you can actually get a few to work in. On just ordinary public land...I agree. I usually take 3-4 boxes with me when I go out on the bay.

You realize that you're using the EXACT SAME argument that the gun control folks use, right?

"Why does anybody need a gun that holds more than 6 shots?"

"Why does anybody want to carry a gun? They're not qualified."

"Why does anybody need a military looking weapon? That will encourage dangerous behavior."

Apples and oranges...

Of course they're different. One is gun control and one is hunting. But logic is logic, and if you want be intellectually consistent while advocating for banning something, then the same rules have to equally applied to all things, lest you just engage in haphazard, emotionally-driven claptrap disguised as "feel good" legislation.

Apples grow on a tree.
Oranges grow on a tree.

Apples are fruit.
Oranges are fruit.

Apples have a peel.
Oranges have a peel.

Apples have seeds.
Oranges have seeds.

Apples are picked by Mexicans.
Oranges are picked by Mexicans.

Hunting is already regulated with bag/species limits. Shell limits are put in place to make the hobby more enjoyable for more people.

Magazine and carry restrictions have no benefit to society.

Apples are picked by Mexicans.
Mexicans make tacos.
I like tacos.

Feelin' Fowl wrote:Shell limits are put in place to make the hobby more enjoyable for more people

Feelin' Fowl wrote:Magazine and carry restrictions have no benefit to society.

BUT:

A Guy Who Supports Gun Control wrote:Magazine and carry restrictions make people feel safer, making society more enjoyable for more people.

And I have never given a crap about the "greater good" argument. That is one that's been used by every charlatan seeking to control people from the beginning of time. Give be individual freedom any day. You can keep your "greater good". Nor is it the job of government to play nanny, and worry about making people happy. People are responsible for their own happiness.

assateague wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

assateague wrote:If you're for shell limits, you are anti-freedom, and should go live elsewhere, or vote for Obama.

Only at the refuges. It would be nuts if guys could carry 150 shells into the fields. The skybusters usually run out if their 25 shells by 9am, then you can actually get a few to work in. On just ordinary public land...I agree. I usually take 3-4 boxes with me when I go out on the bay.

You realize that you're using the EXACT SAME argument that the gun control folks use, right?

"Why does anybody need a gun that holds more than 6 shots?"

"Why does anybody want to carry a gun? They're not qualified."

"Why does anybody need a military looking weapon? That will encourage dangerous behavior."

Have you ever hunted a 4sq mile refuge with 70 parties and 20K ducks...19,000 of which are highly educated and make several passes over multiple parties before picking a spot to commit. With unlimited shells, guys would take the first shot they get at a duck inside 80 yards. One guy like that in a field ruins the hunt for 15 other guys. Shell limits are a must at the refuges...At least around here.