Dumbest question.

[Feelin' Fowl]

Shell limits are put in place to make the hobby more enjoyable for more people

Magazine and carry restrictions have no benefit to society.

BUT:

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.

Get rid of greater good, and the crap that goes asking with in. Hunt as close ad you want, and anywhere you want.

When you're forced into an area due to other restrictions, there had to be greater good considerations.

Gun control people say a lot of dumb shit...

[assateague]

So do those advocating shell limits

[assateague]

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.

You say this, but let's think it through a little, shall we?

So shell limits allow marginal hunting in overcrowded areas. They make it "bearable". Maybe WITHOUT shell limits, enough people would be irritated by it to do something, and get more land opened up. But instead, they're appeased by having their freedom restricted.

[Feelin' Fowl]

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.

You say this, but let's think it through a little, shall we?

So shell limits allow marginal hunting in overcrowded areas. They make it "bearable". Maybe WITHOUT shell limits, enough people would be irritated by it to do something, and get more land opened up. But instead, they're appeased by having their freedom restricted.

You know damn well that there aren't enough hunters in any given area to have more land opened up.

I'm not for or against shell limits as they don't affect me, but I understand why people want them.

And I'm pretty sure that they came about by request, not a governmental freedom restriction.

[assateague]

So if enough people "requested" not allowing black people to vote, that'd be ok?

[assateague]

I gotta warn you, I'm in an arguing mood today

[Feelin' Fowl]

So if enough people "requested" not allowing black people to vote, that'd be ok?

If that's what the people want, that's what the people get!

[Feelin' Fowl]

I gotta warn you, I'm in an arguing mood today

I'm about to head to work. I enjoy getting you going and walking away!

[assateague]

I'm about to "get going" anyway- my wife was supposed to be home an hour ago so I could go deer hunting, and she's still out fucking off looking at horse trailers with her friend. Layniebug is about to get left here by herself, and I dare my wife to say anything.

[NuffDaddy]

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.

You say this, but let's think it through a little, shall we?

So shell limits allow marginal hunting in overcrowded areas. They make it "bearable". Maybe WITHOUT shell limits, enough people would be irritated by it to do something, and get more land opened up. But instead, they're appeased by having their freedom restricted.

You and I both know that wouldn't happen. All that would cause is the WMAs to go under because no one would pay their $4 a day to hunt there if a duck never came inside 70 yards.

[ducks~n~bucks]

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.

I'd rather have the skybusting stop by 9 am then have them walk back to the truck at 9 am and come back out, and have them continue all day blasting at ducks 10 miles high.

[assateague]

So let me get this straight- you guys are for restricting freedom, as long as it's for what you believe to be a "good cause".


Chalk another one up for the "shell limit supporters are exactly the same as gun control advocates".

[NuffDaddy]

So let me get this straight- you guys are for restricting freedom, as long as it's for what you believe to be a "good cause".


Chalk another one up for the "shell limit supporters are exactly the same as gun control advocates".

It's just another law to help better the sport. Should there be a limit on ducks? Should there be a limit on the size of gun? (punt gun) should there be a set season? Should the be a shell limit it high pressured hunt areas?
My answer is yes to all of those. Are they restricting freedom?? I guess...but that's what laws do. And some laws are necessary so one dumbass doesn't fuck over everyone around him.
My answer is yes to all those.

[NuffDaddy]

You can't compare fun control to hunting regs either. Not even remotely related.

[assateague]

I'm not comparing the two. I'm comparing the logic behind the two, which us perfectly valid thing to do.

What you are saying is this:

"You can't compare the two because they are different"

What you don't seem to be getting is that I'm not comparing gun control to hunting regs- I am comparing the thought process. They feel they can restrict freedom because they think it would make things better for everyone. You feel you can restrict freedom because you think it will make things better for everyone. If someone comes along and restricts you drinking a 20 ounce soda because they think it will make things better for everyone, then logically you must support that as well. Because the thought process is the same.

[rebelp74]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

[NuffDaddy]

Here is another way to look at it. What do 70 yard shots equal???? Cripples. Every time I hunt the refuge I watch several birds get crippled and never found. This season I got my limit of 2 Canada geese without ever pulling the trigger thanks to the guys a couple zones over. Cripples don't have to be counted towards your limit, so if someone can take unlimited shells into these places they could easily kill dozens of birds before they finally hit their limit of 6 that they can find. Now not only is the shell limit there to help make it a better experience for the hunters, but it is necessary to waterfowl conservation. Same as bag limits and seasons.

[NuffDaddy]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

[assateague]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

Hunting refs that have absolutely nothing to do with preservation if species, yes. And you've already argued that she'll limits are to keep hunters happy, and gave fuck all to do with ducks, so don't try and switch it now.


As for cripples, you most certainly are supposed to count them. Not that I do, but you're supposed to. You believe the government is necessary to protect people from themselves, and I believe that that us a path to somewhere I don't want to go.

[NuffDaddy]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

Hunting refs that have absolutely nothing to do with preservation if species, yes. And you've already argued that she'll limits are to keep hunters happy, and gave fuck all to do with ducks, so don't try and switch it now.


As for cripples, you most certainly are supposed to count them. Not that I do, but you're supposed to. You believe the government is necessary to protect people from themselves, and I believe that that us a path to somewhere I don't want to go.

Why can I not add another perspective to the argument? If 3 birds per party are crippled with a 25 shell limit, then there could be dozens killed without a shell limit.
You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

[Feelin' Fowl]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

Hunting refs that have absolutely nothing to do with preservation if species, yes. And you've already argued that she'll limits are to keep hunters happy, and gave fuck all to do with ducks, so don't try and switch it now.


As for cripples, you most certainly are supposed to count them. Not that I do, but you're supposed to. You believe the government is necessary to protect people from themselves, and I believe that that us a path to somewhere I don't want to go.

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

[NuffDaddy]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

Hunting refs that have absolutely nothing to do with preservation if species, yes. And you've already argued that she'll limits are to keep hunters happy, and gave fuck all to do with ducks, so don't try and switch it now.


As for cripples, you most certainly are supposed to count them. Not that I do, but you're supposed to. You believe the government is necessary to protect people from themselves, and I believe that that us a path to somewhere I don't want to go.

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

[rebelp74]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

You already know the answer to that but some are necessary for the preservation of the animal which is understandable.

[NuffDaddy]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

You already know the answer to that but some are necessary for the preservation of the animal which is understandable.

Exactly. Do you like crippled birds?

[rebelp74]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

You already know the answer to that but some are necessary for the preservation of the animal which is understandable.

Exactly. Do you like crippled birds?

Most the people that shoot that far completely miss. The lead you have to take on a bird 100yds out is ridiculous.

[NuffDaddy]

I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

You already know the answer to that but some are necessary for the preservation of the animal which is understandable.

Exactly. Do you like crippled birds?

Most the people that shoot that far completely miss. The lead you have to take on a bird 100yds out is ridiculous.

But it happens. I watch it every time I hunt out there. It really is sad. I watched over a dozen geese in 4 hunts get hit, sail into the no entry zone and fall from the sky. Ever try marking a duck in a flooded corn field that sailed 100 yards away? Without a dog, its near impossible.
Shell limits are needed it places like this.

[rebelp74]

By your logic you're a willfully obedient slave, may as well give up your guns too.

[NuffDaddy]

By your logic you're a willfully obedient slave, may as well give up your guns too.

How?
Because I want a quality hunt and conservation of waterfowl. I guess that makes sense.

[NuffDaddy]

Have any of you guys opposed to shell limits ever hunted a place where I'm saying they are needed?

[rebelp74]

No because you are willing to give up freedom. Yes I've hunted places that shell limits would be nice, the main public ground I hunt, but it's an oxymoron to have them if you are pro 2nd amendment.