# Would you support???



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

Just curious if you would support a shell limit of only 25 shells (or some other reasonable number) in possession of each hunter while in the marsh? With the option of being able to go back to the truck to get more if you run out.. I think this would eliminate a LOT of skybusting and encourage cleaner kill shots. And hopefully even motivate guys to get out and practice more before the start of the season to brush up on their shooting. What would you think?? I think those are my 2 biggest pet peevs about waterfowl hunters is the skybustin and not getting their shotgun out until opening morning. GET OUT AND PRACTICE GUYS!!!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I would if it on the dikes. It seems to work up at brbr for the swans.What I would like to see is them start checking for emptys and then start giving some nice tickets out for not having any with you and for sky busting and then not going after your birds.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Not everyone can afford to practice. It's quite expensive to go shoot trap and lets face it, trap is no way to get warmed up to duck hunting. Sporting clays are the only way to go and that is REALLY expensive. Most the guys in the marsh are blue collar guys who have just enough money to get out there in the first place, and most of those guys have to sneak money away from their wives to get it done. Now, the 25 shell limit you purpose, not a bad idea. That would force people to take more "high percentage" shots. I don't see it happening though. How many youth hunters do you think shot less than a box of shells last week? :lol:


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

I dunno tex. I've gone clay pigeon shooting 3 or 4 times in the last 2 weeks and I think the 2 cases of clays (bout 10 bucks a case) and the 4 boxes of lead shells (bout 5 bucks a box) have dramatically increased my hit ratio. If you take a buddy with one of those hand throwers you can create a very realistic waterfowl shoot. With steel shells being 10+ dollars a box I don't see how guys can afford to not go brush up on their shooting skills.



TEX-O-BOB said:


> How many youth hunters do you think shot less than a box of shells last week? :lol:


and yes. I agree that most youth probably wouldn't last long with only 1 box of shells, but hopefully that would inspire them to practice more. I cringe when I see "we shot 5 boxes of shells but only ended up with 10 birds" -)O(-


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Yes i would under those conditions.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> How many youth hunters do you think shot less than a box of shells last week? :lol:


I would say on that day let the kids have as many as they want. But hope there dads would make them take the right shots so they wont shoot more then a box of shells.


----------



## stillhuntin (Feb 14, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I would if it on the dikes. It seems to work up at brbr for the swans.What *I would like to see is them start checking for emptys *and then start giving some nice tickets out for not having any with you and for sky busting and then not going after your birds.


+1

rjefre and others at UWA. It might be great to have someone in the UWA list these suggestions for the upcoming "what would you like" conference that Tom Aldrich spoke of.


----------



## McKay (Jan 9, 2009)

We all owe the game we hunt the respect to try and kill them cleanly. If you can't afford the time to "practice" you should not be in the marsh or hunting in general.


----------



## Bhilly81 (Oct 18, 2009)

i agree to a point on this i think that they should limit the shells on the dike but if your going to hike all the way down the dike and get away from every body else but i agree with the practice skeet shoots i have been heading out a few times in the past weeks and i find if you use the hand thrower and throw them yourself (nobody ever wants to go with me so i throw myself) and shoot them it takes more to get ready plus you never know where it will fly to and helps you prepare for unexpected shots plus i find it funner


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

i think limiting shells would be heading down a slippery slope. next thing you know you have more regulations and fees to deal with. i was talking with a guy from California at the UWA meeting. this guy was blown away that you didnt have to pay to enter a WMA. that there were no blind draws(which he was most excited about). and they had a 25 shell limit as well. Letting the state/government get that involved into duck hunting would be a travesty. i believe in the individual. so if the individual wants to shoot shells at birds 500 yards in the sky, let him at it! the last thing i want is the state saying to me that i can only carry 25 shells while hunting for the day.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

No, I wouldn't support it.

I don't think it will do anything to reduce the amount of skybusting. They'll just shoot 25 and go home. How often do hunters go through 25 shells anyway on a single hunt? Do you guys really want more regulations controlling how you hunt. This is akin to draws for blinds, once they start controlling how, they are going to start controlling when and where. The more open the regulations are the better for everyone. The solution to the skybusting problem is education and enforcement of the wasting of wildlife law already on the books, not limiting anything.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I wouldn't support it either. The more we keep pin head politicians and other gov't officials out of our sport the better of we all are. I really don't want to go down the road of assigned blinds or other such nonsense. I don't want my waterfowl hunting experieces to boil down to the luck of the draw. I want to be able to seek out places that most others aren't willing to get to.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I was in favor for the 10 shell limit on dike areas a year ago but not now. I agree with what has been said about too much regulation and control and I can see how one thing leads to another, besides if you did it for the dike hunters you would have to do it to the boat hunters and everyone else. People would still skybust, they would just run out of shells sooner. I agree, education is the key. Have some sort of on line orientation test like they do for swan hunters and extended season bow hunters. Explain species, ethical behavior and ethical shooting ranges.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Regulations are necessary, however it is one of those "be careful what you wish for" situations when making limitations on folks. 
There has and will continue to be limitations on hunting due to the ever increasing encroachement of people on wildlife enough without making ones on ourselves otherwise.

Besides, sometimes you cant "fix" stupid. 
There are folks out there that would, I'm sure be open and suceptable to education and better ways to hunt ethically and more efficiently that would love help and to listen to folks that have knowlege and experience in the marsh. 
On the other hand, there are also the hard headed and IQ challenged folks (see how politically correct I am) that will take no heed whatsoever, no matter what is said and done and have and always will push limits into the grey even with regulation.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I would if it on the dikes. It seems to work up at brbr for the swans.What I would like to see is them start checking for emptys and then start giving some nice tickets out for not having any with you and for sky busting and then not going after your birds.


One of the few tickets I saw given at Farmington was because the CO at the gate watched a group of three young men shoot a bunch of shells (don't know if he counted every shot or not) and when they walked down the dike, they didn't have any empties so he wouldn't let them leave until they walked back down and picked up a bag full of hulls. :lol: It was FANTASTIC!!

Oh and on the shell limit... it'd be ok I think but I know the dudes on the dikes or in their boats that are going to shoot at anything even remotely close to them will still do so, leave their crap to "claim" their spot, go to the truck and get more before going back to what they were doing in the first place. Some guys are just determined to waste shells. :?


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

Darin Noorda said:


> i think limiting shells would be heading down a slippery slope. next thing you know you have more regulations and fees to deal with. i was talking with a guy from California at the UWA meeting. this guy was blown away that you didnt have to pay to enter a WMA. that there were no blind draws(which he was most excited about). and they had a 25 shell limit as well. Letting the state/government get that involved into duck hunting would be a travesty. i believe in the individual. so if the individual wants to shoot shells at birds 500 yards in the sky, let him at it! the last thing i want is the state saying to me that i can only carry 25 shells while hunting for the day.


+1


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

Darin Noorda said:


> i think limiting shells would be heading down a slippery slope. next thing you know you have more regulations and fees to deal with. i was talking with a guy from California at the UWA meeting. this guy was blown away that you didnt have to pay to enter a WMA. that there were no blind draws(which he was most excited about). and they had a 25 shell limit as well. Letting the state/government get that involved into duck hunting would be a travesty. i believe in the individual. so if the individual wants to shoot shells at birds 500 yards in the sky, let him at it! the last thing i want is the state saying to me that i can only carry 25 shells while hunting for the day.


+2


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Not everyone can afford to practice. It's quite expensive to go shoot trap and lets face it, trap is no way to get warmed up to duck hunting. Sporting clays are the only way to go and that is REALLY expensive. Most the guys in the marsh are blue collar guys who have just enough money to get out there in the first place, and most of those guys have to sneak money away from their wives to get it done. Now, the 25 shell limit you purpose, not a bad idea. That would force people to take more "high percentage" shots. I don't see it happening though. How many youth hunters do you think shot less than a box of shells last week? :lol:


Katie only shot one time. She just couldn't get the gun on the bird fast enough and she wasn't comfortably shooting past 30 yards. There were 2 kids behind us shooting a lot, but at the same time, I never saw them shoot at a long bird, It just seemed like it took the first 2 to get on the bird and they'd knock it down on the third shot. (looked like they were having trouble getting their cheek down on the stock and ended up shooting high)

And I must look like some kind of ruffian or something, because I have yet to have an opening day where I don't have my gun checked for 3 shot capacity, asked to shown my empties (and usually I have at least 3 colors from picking up other peoples strays on the way back) and the usual hip number, duck stamp, boat registration, license routine.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> And I must look like some kind of ruffian or something, because I have yet to have an opening day where I don't have my gun checked for 3 shot capacity, asked to shown my empties (and usually I have at least 3 colors from picking up other peoples strays on the way back) and the usual hip number, duck stamp, boat registration, license routine.


we was checked before launching and they did not let us launch if we did not have every thing. But they did not check linc or birds when we left.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't think you can stop skybusting by adding more regualtions and restrictions to waterfolwing. You just can't stop people from doing stupid things. Adding restrictions such as a shell limit is definitely a slippery slope that could easily lead to even more restrictions later. I would truly hate to see a limited-entry waterfowl hunt, or a fee to hunt on public property (guides excepted). Increased restrictions would be devastating to the average guy that may only be able to get out occasionally (like after work, or on a holiday, or on a great storm day). It is a slippery slope that will lead to unintended consequences later on I'm afraid.
R


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Here's the bottom line; opening morning is, has been and always will be the busiest day of the waterfowl season. We just need to get through the first day and things will start winding down from there. No need for more rules and regulations, just enforce the ones that are in place now. Everyone should be able to use the resources, some folks just need to be educated a little more than others. The littering is a huge problem that needs to be addressed more drastically by issuing tickets. I know everyone is hyped up and excited for the opener and every year we worry about changes to the rules or what's going to happen in the future, I say get out and enjoy the outdoors. Let's be more focused on getting youth involved, saving habitat, getting rid of phragmites, and cleaning up after ourselves. Also, volunteer some time to help with projects such as; the goose banding or nest building the DWR does every spring, or help spray phrag. These things will help insure that there is a future for waterfowling that we all love so much.


----------



## pocone (Sep 29, 2009)

I kind of do that already. I am getting to the point where I don't want to shoot much more than a box. I travel a long way out in the marsh and would not go back for more if I ran out. If I go through a box and haven't limited, I probably don't deserve to keep shooting. Some days it just seems like bunch of blanks were put into your ammo belt. I am also pretty picky on which birds I shoot at, so it's easier to not go through shells as fast. I sometimes wonder what other people think when birds keep flying over our dekes and we don't shoot.


----------



## Phragmites (Sep 12, 2007)

I would have to agree with darrin on this particular issue as well we don't need more regulation just the rules on the book enforced. As long as the general concensus amongst waterfowlers in the State of Utah is oppurtunity we should facilitate that unless something changes. Making more rules will just make it harder for the average joe as previously mentioned. Some guys just like to get out on opening morning and cut lose with a couple of boxes of shell as long as there obeying the law so be it who am I to challenge someone else hunting style. I believe thru education on conservation you would see better results instead of laws.


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

I tend to agree with ya, I absolutely hate stupid regulations. And any time the government gets involved every thing ends up fubar. so what can we do to keep our regulations exactly the same as they are today?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The important thing is to keep the discussions like this thread *open to all opinions*. When the DWR asks for input, there will have already been some public discussion about what most waterfowlers would like to see happen with our regs. When the time comes, the DWR will be asking for comments, and that is how we (waterfowlers) can keep things running good and keep nutty ideas from being incorporated into the regs by extreme views that are not held by the normal duck/goose hunters. There will always be extreme views and suggestions, and some of them have merit, but hopefully we can stay on a moderate path.
R


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

No way and I don't think this will ever happen, I think it is a really bad idea.. What you are forgetting is that some of us like to shoot coot. The limit on coot + ducks is 32 so how am I going to shoot that with 25 shells? If I shoot my 25 th shell and cripple him, now what? No, I want tons of shells when I go out, I don't want to run out half way through the hunt and have to paddle way back to the truck and then get back for noon with new shells!!! 
Stupid!! We have enough rules and the idiots that shoot 100 yards are the kind of guys that don't fallow rules anyway!! You can't fix idiots!! If you don't want to deal with them just get away from them.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

hoghunter011583 said:


> What you are forgetting is that some of us like to shoot coot. The limit on coot + ducks is 32 so how am I going to shoot that with 25 shells? If I shoot my 25 th shell and cripple him, now what?


The answer to this is simple. You FLOCK shoot coots and kill 23 with 1 shot! Believe me, i watched my cousin do it at Howards 5 years ago when there was a 10' hole of open water. It just so happened that an un-named federal officer watched the whole thing unfold. It took cuz 20 minutes to sneak up on them and about the time he shot the fed decided to join us in our blind. You would not believe the suspense that was there thinking he had just killed 23 actual ducks. When he got back after picking all them up and finishing the cripples, we all got a good laugh out of it but it could have been the end to his hunting career. 
As for the cripple with the last shot scenario, that is what gun butts are for. You go Rambo on his ass and lop off his head!:lol:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Cripples are Mojo's domain, my 4 legged friend enjoys a good chase occasionally, if you really want brownie points with him, you drop them in the Pharq, he’ll finish it for yah.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Gee LeDouche said:


> I dunno tex. I've gone clay pigeon shooting 3 or 4 times in the last 2 weeks and I think the 2 cases of clays (bout 10 bucks a case) and the 4 boxes of lead shells (bout 5 bucks a box) have dramatically increased my hit ratio. If you take a buddy with one of those hand throwers you can create a very realistic waterfowl shoot. With steel shells being 10+ dollars a box I don't see how guys can afford to not go brush up on their shooting skills.
> 
> [quote="TEX-O-BOB":7xbzloup] How many youth hunters do you think shot less than a box of shells last week? :lol:


and yes. I agree that most youth probably wouldn't last long with only 1 box of shells, but hopefully that would inspire them to practice more. I cringe when I see "we shot 5 boxes of shells but only ended up with 10 birds" -)O(-[/quote:7xbzloup]

I think it is a sad day in America when even hunters are starting to think that we need laws to force people to do the right thing!! I'm free to hunt how I want to hunt and if I want to burn through 5 boxes then that is what I want to do!! 
We don't mind blasting jackrabbits and leaving them to rot but we are going to force people to practice shooting ducks???!!!!!!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> hoghunter011583 said:
> 
> 
> > What you are forgetting is that some of us like to shoot coot. The limit on coot + ducks is 32 so how am I going to shoot that with 25 shells? If I shoot my 25 th shell and cripple him, now what?
> ...


Lol, yeah I have done the whole flock shoot thing in Louisiana, the limit is 16 down there. I shot and after killing the cripples before they made it to the grass I still shot about 12 shells. Plus I ended up with 14 birds, 3 more and I'd have been screwed!! I'll never do it again because it is just luck of the draw if you get more than the limit!!

As for the butt of the gun method, that doesn't work on Scaup, those guys can swim!!!


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

hoghunter011583 said:


> Gee LeDouche said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno tex. I've gone clay pigeon shooting 3 or 4 times in the last 2 weeks and I think the 2 cases of clays (bout 10 bucks a case) and the 4 boxes of lead shells (bout 5 bucks a box) have dramatically increased my hit ratio. If you take a buddy with one of those hand throwers you can create a very realistic waterfowl shoot. With steel shells being 10+ dollars a box I don't see how guys can afford to not go brush up on their shooting skills.
> ...


I think it is a sad day in America when even hunters are starting to think that we need laws to force people to do the right thing!! I'm free to hunt how I want to hunt and if I want to burn through 5 boxes then that is what I want to do!! 
We don't mind blasting jackrabbits and leaving them to rot but we are going to force people to practice shooting ducks???!!!!!![/quote:3e0z1mt6]

Dont get your panties in a bunch here friend. I'm just throwing out suggestions on how to help cut down on the number of crippled birds and unethical hunters, which would, in turn, improve everyone else's hunt. Do you have a better suggestion on how to deal with this problem? It seems like you have the attitude of "screw everybody else, just let me do what I want" and that is not what ethical hunting is about. Responsibility is key in hunting.



hoghunter011583 said:


> I think it is a sad day in America when even hunters are starting to think that we need laws to force people to do the right thing!! I'm free to hunt how I want to hunt


I'm just curious.. Have you ever read the proc? it is LOADED with laws to enforce people to do the right thing. If you think you are a "free hunter" try crackin open a beer in the blind, baiting the birds into your area, shoot lead shells and take your plug out of your gun. You'll see just how "free" you are.

Ps- on a side note- thank you for thinning out the coot population.


----------



## JD_ (Oct 2, 2008)

I would be very opposed to such a shell limit, but I respect and understand why you might propose it. The problem is that just like in other aspects of our lives, new laws rarely prevent idiots from being idiots. They just further restrict the freedoms of those of us who are law abiding and ethical, while the unethical guys do what they want regardless of the laws. This is America man and I hate seeing any new laws (i.e. restrictions of freedom) placed on us that are not absolutely necessary and sure to be effective.

Also, I think the comparison of a shell limit af FB to the one at BRBR is an "apples to oranges" comparison. They are very different circumstances. I don't hunt the dikes at FB, but I've never seen near the number of people on the FB dikes (so close together) as I have at BRBR. Also, for the most part everyone at BRBR is after one bird (swan). I don't think many people go up there just for ducks (esp. 1A). So 25 shells for a 7 duck limit (Plus 25 coots as has been pointed out) is way more restrictive than the federal limit at BRBR of 10 shells for 1 bird.

The other part of this is that other than the opener I think it's easier to get away from the idiots and I feel less impacted by them. So I always go on the opener, I enjoy it for what it is (yes I do complain about people who set up on top of me, call too much or skybust), but we always have a good time. We're free, it's a unique experience and we're blessed to have the opportunities we all have. I vote no change. I'm tired of the proclamation "growth" every year too.

My $.02


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Gee LeDouche

Sorry that my posts came off like I had an attitude towards you, I don't mean for that attitude to be directed towards you but more towards the idea that more laws are needed to FORCE people to do the "right thing". 
I aggree we need laws, don't misunderstand. I will say that ANY law that makes me do the right thing I'm totally against!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
However I am not the kind of hunter that goes out with no consideration for anyone else or the wildlife and acts in an unethical way. I don't shoot past 30 yards, I passed a bunch of grouse last week for just that reason. I am a total conservationist and I don't kill anything I don't eat 9except coyotes), I won't even shoot a jackrabbit unless I'm going to eat it.

My point is this. Do you want laws telling you the "right" way to raise your kids? I doubt it, do we need child abuse laws sure, big difference. Each person's "right" method of hunting is going to change from one guy to the next and that is why I don't want a law telling me how far to shoot, or how many shells I can have in the boat.

Some of the laws you mentioned are not examples of making me do the "right" thing. Drinking beer with a gun is dangerous for everybody. Baiting birds would wipe out the population if we could all do it. Lead shot causes disease. These are laws similar to making it illegal to go cut a tree down in the forest. It is to protect the forest or the ducks.

Cutting down on the number of shells I can take into the field is a law that is not going to work, that is an opinion of course. It is like telling me I have to shoot 3 1/2" shells so I have a better chance at killing them! Cripples are a part of hunting period it always will be. It is up to each hunter to make the choice of being an idiot or being an ethical hunter. 
That is my main point with putting all these laws out there, where does it end? This is America and you have to keep it free enough to allow people to make the choice of being an idiot or chosing to do the right thing!! 
If you want to put an end to the sky busting, which is mainly done on the dikes that is an easy fix. No new laws are needed. ENFORCE the wanton waste law!!! Have the DWR watch the idiots on the dike and when they shoot a bird and the bird falls 500 yards into the water give the guy a ticket for not being able to recover it. Words gets around and trust me those guys will make sure that bird drops close to the dike.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

On a side note, in my opinion the fact that a guy hunts the dike without a dog mean he is unethical. I know that might tick a lot of you guys off that hunt the dike. If you have it figured out, or have a spot that allows you to recover the bird than your not included as being unethical. The first year I moved out here I was told to just go hunt the dike at Farmington. I scouted it out and I thought about how I'd get the bird once it is in the water, you can't walk in most of the areas. 
I didn't hunt that year for that reason. So if any law should be made, it should be that you can't hunt in a manner that doesn't allow you a reasonable ability to recover the bird. Hoping that a bird falls in your lap from 40 yards in the air while that bird is going 20 MPH is nuts!! I really think they could do that with the waste law though.
I guess my main grudge against laws is that I want any law to ONLY affect the guy breaking the law in the first place. Give the guy a ticket for doing what we are trying to prevent. Don't make laws that restrict all of us that don't do the stupid things. So if a guy shoots a bird at 100 yards and it drops 500 yards into the water and that guy has a boat and runs out there but the bird dives under and gets away. Fine that guy was prepared to get that bird but it just wasn't possible. If a guy shoots a bird and it falls 500 yards into the water and he stands and watches without a dog or a boat. Give him a ticket because he had no possible way of recovering any bird that lands in the water.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I am generally against regulation but I have thought for a long time a dog and waders should be required equipment for participating in the waterfowl hunt.


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

No I would not. And it is because I really don't think it would acomplish that much. 
Heck most times I don't even know how many shells are in my hunting coat when I strap on my decoy sack and walk out into the WMA. To many regulations just get discouraging, for me at least. I seldom shoot even close to that many shells, but have you ever had one of those days where you struggle to kill finished birds? Of course that never happens to me but.... :O•-:


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

I think that is a good idea. Thats gives you 3 shots per duck and 4 remaining shells. Not a boad ratio, however I would have a tough time getting my limit. As for the youth I think that if they are shooting a 410 or 20 gage and the adults all have something different then additional shells should be permitted for them. The only question I see is if you are out for duck and geese will your shell limit change? Just something to think about.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

hoghunter011583 said:


> On a side note, in my opinion the fact that a guy hunts the dike without a dog mean he is unethical. I know that might tick a lot of you guys off that hunt the dike. If you have it figured out, or have a spot that allows you to recover the bird than your not included as being unethical. The first year I moved out here I was told to just go hunt the dike at Farmington. I scouted it out and I thought about how I'd get the bird once it is in the water, you can't walk in most of the areas.
> I didn't hunt that year for that reason.


I think this just shows that you missed out on some good shoots. Before I had a ton of dekes or a dog, I hunted that dike a lot. Thats all I knew about hunting Farmington for at least one season. You can walk a long ways in the ponds.... on both sides of the dike. I've done it, several times chasing down cripples, both for myself and other dudes who didn't bring a retrieval method. Waders and the ability to pick a killing shot are all you need to hunt the dike, which makes it a good place for folks just getting started who can't afford a hunting dog or a nice tricked out duck boat. Unfortunately, like you mentioned, a lot of guys expect a duck to fold and drop into their lap which rarely happens. Its sad that most people see just those guys because some folks are actually pretty effective when it comes to hunting "shooters alley" at FB and I'd imagine get it done elsewhere on the dikes also. There is NOTHING unethical about pass shooting the dike with just a pair of waders. As long as you take the responsibility of retrieving your own birds, who cares where you hunt? That said, if they have shell limits at BRBR, then there's no reason they shouldn't try and make some of the bozo's on the dikes at Farmington be a little more selective as well. This season, I fully expect to go and have some pretty successful dike hunts at Farmington with my daughter. She likes it, its easy on the dog and we do our part to clean up a bunch of empties on the way out, so its just a good, productive learning experience for her. 8)

FYI, the less folks shoot at sky high birds, the lower they drop and the birds don't stop flying once the sun comes up. The dike takes time to learn, just like anything else but once you figure out flight patterns, you can have some great hunts on the dike after everyone else gives up and goes home. Diver hunts later in the season are great out there because they seem to fly in wads so you're almost guaranteed to get some good shooting mid afternoon to end of shooting hours and early on, Gadwalls and some of the other birds out there fly over the dike all day in singles, pairs or small groups. Granted they get wise pretty quick but if you let a few pass, you'll get your shots when others see a few get by and think they've got an escape alley, at least thats how it has always worked for me.


----------



## Kdub (Sep 6, 2010)

I don't think I read anyone mention why the shell limit was enacted at BRBR. it was to reduce the number of crippled swans. As many know only a few states have swan hunts and Utah is one of them. To keep Utah open to swan hunting DWR has to be very meticulous about how many of the great birds are harvested and how many are crippled. I think they have done an excellent job. having said that, I am against a shell quota. I don't need a box of shells to shoot my limit of ducks (well some days i do), but I also don't need a law telling me I need a helmet to ride my motorcycle.


----------

