# Question about motor vs. motorless duck access...



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

Ok, i just got home from the RAC in brigham city and I now have a question that wasnt answered, partially i guess because the body that proposed motor restrictions on some of the WMA's wasn't present.

What brought up this motorless proposal in the first place? I am curious to know if it is a biological issue, like habitat disturbance for example, or a social issue, like a canoe hunter and a mud buddy hunter having some kind of conflict.

I am not referring to the cutler issue that was brought up tonite but rather the original issue that apparenty affects salt creek, ogden bay and farmingto bay wma's, if i am not mistaken.

where is this coming from? what is the driving force or reason behind it? I will admit tonite was the first i have heard of the issue. I am a foot soldier when i hunt ducks so I admit i dont keep up on the boaters issues as much as i probably should but I would like to be informed why there is some contention here.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

I think it is a complicated issue and I think different people have different reasons for wanting the restrictions. If I were to simplify it, the guys without motors want to shoot more ducks and think the boats with big motors are pushing the ducks out of the locations where foot or paddle soldiers can get to them. 

I'm a foot soldier 95% of the time and as more people buy boats, the areas I hunt are getting less crowded and better hunting. There are those that will adapt to changes in hunting styles and areas and those that just whine about everything and want the mandate through legislation. Just my .02.


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

toasty said:


> I think it is a complicated issue and I think different people have different reasons for wanting the restrictions. If I were to simplify it, the guys without motors want to shoot more ducks and think the boats with big motors are pushing the ducks out of the locations where foot or paddle soldiers can get to them.


yeah, your right, that is a complicated issue. I guess i just don't fully understand the full issue and would like someone that is on the restriction side of things to enlighten me about it. Personally, i haven't seen any reason in my own waterfowl hunting experiences for such a conflict to arise. I hunt by foot but i have also hunted out of a few boats in my day, not many but a few, and I have never had an issue myself, personally, with boats of any kind ruining my hunting experience as a foot soldier. in fact, there have been times when a boat has helped the hunt by moving a few birds around on an otherwise very slow day.

I am for hunting and the hunting experience. A big part of my "successfull experience" is not related to a number of birds harvested but rather the overall experience i had. some of my most memorable hunts, waterfowl or even upland, were when there were few or even no harvest opportunities or success. I think as hunters, if we look at hunting success as an "experience" as opposed to a numbers thing, we would have less of these conflicts, whether in the marsh or in the mountains. when we reduce it down to trying to just "fill a limit", we are open to these conflicts because no matter where we are, what we are hunting, some situation will arise that will affect us in our quest to fill the limit. whether it be someone mooching off our decoys or someone racing around the mtns on an atv during the archery hunt, this stuff has and will continue to happen and if we let it bother us, it only hurts ourselves and our enjoyment we should be getting by just being out in the natural world.

Someone once said, a bad day of hunting is better than a good day of work. if our enjoyment is soley based upon filling the limit, we are missing out on that because inevitably we will have someone cause something to happen that will affect our harvest. And that will only increase as populations rise and habitat shrinks. But if we base our "success" on things such as how a dog worked or listening to the bugle of an elk, these other situations wont bother us as much and we will "enjoy" the experience even more.

now I am all for taking game and harvesting what one pursues. dont get me wrong here. I dont want anybody to take from this i dont like to have success and even fill a limit. i do enjoy that but when i dont, it doesnt bother me because the overall experience is what matters to me. and when conficts arise in hunting, as they do and will continue to do, they dont bother me very much because i enjoy the opportunity to experience nature.

One last thing, there are many many people and organizations that would love to take our hunting rights and privilidges away from us by any means possible. Even fighting amongst ourselves can weaken our resolve to fight for what we love to do, hunt, and give them ammunition to attack our heritage. One thing to consider, if we start restricting hunting opportunities ourselves, we may never get them back. If we start closing areas to one type of hunting or access, whats to say we wont lose it to other forms when the anti's see how weak our resolve is? *This will affect ALL HUNTERS!!!*. it is much easier to find ways to live and hunt with each other than it will be to try and open areas we have lost. The swan hunt is a prime example of what i am talking about. we will probably never have a statewide swan hunt ever again. once a piece of ground or aspect of hunting is lost, it very well could be lost forever. Personally, I would rather see us as hunters work out these issues or differences without restricting any form of hunting and learn to get along or we may all lose out on what we love to do.

think about it.


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

Jeff,

this ought to help you understand a little more.
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... p?t=724627

this is the forum where all that crap started from. and Jon Middleton is the guy that pushed it all then went on vacation. kind of funny eh?


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

WOW!!!! I just read the forum and all I can say is WOW!!!!!

I stand by my previous post. we need to pull together and not get pulled apart as hunters fighting amongst ourselves. that thread is exactly what the anit's want to happen because that will weaken our resolve to fight the bigger issues that come from outside.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

.....supposedly there is an actual drafted proposal that has been submitted to the RAC's but Jon is withholding it from a general public view. :? 


quite simply by this action alone it smack's of personal agenda.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Sprig Kennels must spend his free time in Tibet at the top of a mountian meditating...that's the only reason I can think of to account for his thoughtful and accurate post. That should be mandatory reading for all of us. Well said Sprig Kennels!
R


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Sprig Kennels said:


> WOW!!!! I just read the forum and all I can say is WOW!!!!!
> 
> I stand by my previous post. we need to pull together and not get pulled apart as hunters fighting amongst ourselves. that thread is exactly what the anit's want to happen because that will weaken our resolve to fight the bigger issues that come from outside.


+++1!

according to some of the info i have only heard so cant be really trusted as factual. the statistics this proposal hints to are from an 06' waterfowl questionare, but without this thing being in the open who really knows...

a few numbers ive heard being thrown around... this particular special interest "group" is requesting another 10% of our public WMA's be made motorless in addition to the already exsisting 16%, thusly potentially making a total *26%* of our public (and ever decreasing in acerage due to invasive plant species) to be locked up and reserved for motorless use. another curious number in that questionare is only 1/2 of 3% of 2,000 persons questioned, actually hinted to more motorless use. what is that...30 people?

anybody know the breakdown on the spread of 30 people over whatever 16% of our total acerage of Utah WMA's is. seems rather spacious...

please if im wrong, someone correct me with FACTUAL numbers as this argument, if convinced to the RAC's, could lockup and further restrict hunter opprutunity.


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's a link to the 2006 survey results.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... july07.pdf

Jon has publicly stated that he disagrees with Tom's conclusions regarding all of these numbers, so he instead used Tom's numbers to form his own conclusions in the motorless proposal :?:


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Sprig Kennels must spend his free time in Tibet at the top of a mountian meditating...that's the only reason I can think of to account for his thoughtful and accurate post. That should be mandatory reading for all of us. Well said Sprig Kennels!
> R


thanks 8)

but to be more accurate, its the top of Logan canyon and not tibet,  :wink: and it usually invloves a shotgun and 2 labs :mrgreen:


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

Longgun said:


> .....supposedly there is an actual drafted proposal that has been submitted to the RAC's but Jon is withholding it from a general public view. :?


there wasnt any discussion at all in brigham on any proposal and nobody was there that was for the restrictions. there was a lot of comments made by the public, mostly againts the restriction with the exception of a few audobon guys concerned about nesting birds on cutler but as Tom pointed out, that really isnt under the jurisdiction of the DWR since it is a private piece of ground.


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

the comment was made in brigham about putting our focus and more emphasis on phrag control and opening up these areas by getting rid of the pesky weed that have been lost due to phrag's getting out of control. i have to agree with that line of thinking. We have lost a considerable amount of huntable ground on some of these wma's due to being overrun with phrags, especially ogden bay which is one of the areas in question. we should focus our attention on issues such as this which will greatly benefit the hunt and waterfowl and give back more space so hunters can spread out and reduce some of these "conflicts" instead of fighting amongst ourselves. instead of restricting hunting opportunities of any kind, why dont we find ways to expand them with such things as phrag control, water quality and rights issues to get more water for our wma's, expanding our wma's if possible, obtaining new ground for new wma's, and so forth. 

i am willing to wager that over 10% of ogden bay has been lost to phrags and regaining that ground back would definately help reduce these conflicts as hunters and waterfowl will have more space. instead of reducing one group of hunter's opportunites by 10% with restrictions, lets increase every hunters opportunity for a quality hunt by joining together and fight a common enemy, the phrag. instead of spending time fighting over this boating issue how about instead spending the time convincing the state legislature for more money for phrag control and habitat improvements and expansion. that is a win win for all groups of hunters.


----------



## drakester (Jul 29, 2009)

Since Paddler won't openly post it for all to read, I'll clear up a lot of confusion of what it contains, here it is in all its glory, just as I received it from a concerned water fowler (one of the inner circle) who could no longer in good conscious participate Paddler's secretive back door exploitation of the rights of ALL Utah Waterfowl hunters. Please read it carefully and then read the comments on the before mentioned and linked refuge threads on it and judge for yourself.

Click on the attached link to view it, its posted to a file sharing site so everyone can read it PFD file.

Enjoy

http://freepdfhosting.com/26cb7c526f.pdf


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Sprig Kennels said:


> i am willing to wager that over 10% of ogden bay has been lost to phrags and regaining that ground back would definately help reduce these conflicts as hunters and waterfowl will have more space.


I will agree with you on that.It could even be more then that there. That place has changed so much over the last couple years. Open that place up and you will see a crap load more birds and more place to hunt and get away from other hunters.Pl use I agree with you we need to stop fighting with each other about stuped things and start fight that nasty phrag.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Sprig Kennels said:


> there wasnt any discussion at all in brigham on any proposal and nobody was there that was for the restrictions. there was a lot of comments made by the public, mostly againts the restriction with the exception of a few audobon guys concerned about nesting birds on cutler but as Tom pointed out, that really isnt under the jurisdiction of the DWR since it is a private piece of ground.


im aware of that, i was there. the restrictions that Bridgerland Audubon was referring to was only the white faced ibis rookery contained within cutler marsh and the temporary closure of that area during nesting/rearing seasons, not the proposal of Paddlers/Jons. i honestly think they could care less. it has been said before by many Audubon members that i have spoken to taht if the resource is being used wisely and within the letter of the law they see no quarrel.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

drakester...if that is indeed the spoken of draft that has been submitted to the RAC's, ...thanks.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

drakester said:


> Since Paddler won't openly post it for all to read, I'll clear up a lot of confusion of what it contains, here it is in all its glory, just as I received it from a concerned water fowler (one of the inner circle) who could no longer in good conscious participate Paddler's secretive back door exploitation of the rights of ALL Utah Waterfowl hunters. Please read it carefully and then read the comments on the before mentioned and linked refuge threads on it and judge for yourself.
> 
> Click on the attached link to view it, its posted to a file sharing site so everyone can read it PFD file.
> 
> ...


I read the whole thing... and I'm not quite sure how you see this as an exploitation fo the rights of ALL Utah waterfowl hunters. I don't think he's out of line with his request for motorless areas. His reports on the acreage involved seem pretty close, he's not asking for the hard hit areas to be motorless all of a sudden so I don't understand what all the uproar is about if there aren't really drastic changes to the areas most of the mud motor guys hunt anyway. :? It doesn't appear to be asking too much to create a motorless unit in each WMA.... seems pretty reasonable actually. If the guy has presented something to the RAC's, thats his deal and I don't know if you missed it or ignored it but isn't there some sort of permission you need to obtain before posting his personal document as stated at the bottom of the proposal? Thanks for posting it so that I could see a proposal I don't have any problem supporting, but it appears he would have liked to have been allowed to give permission for it to be posted. Whether you agree with his point of view or not, as an author he should be accorded that measure of respect. :|


----------



## blt4spd (Aug 24, 2008)

All you have to do is drive out to the Turpin parking lot or watch the boats ralley ducks on unit one to see there's a problem. I don't think he's asking to much to get some quality hunting in some of the local marshes. I personally wait untill the ice hits, that solves alot of this.


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

correct me if i am wrong but i think the big issue here is taking away one groups rights in favor over anothers. i havent heard one single mud motor advocate say we should get rid of motorless areas or that they are againts them. I also think the demand, i.e. how many people use each method, for either motorless and motorized areas should have a big say in how we manage our wma's. it doesnt make sense to limit hunting access to one group when the other group, from what the survey kind of eludes to, is extremely small and wont even show up at the RAC to discuss their viewpoint. I am all for each and every way of hunting, walking, biking in, canoes, airboats and mudbuddy's. its all good..but this should be something each and every hunter should have a say in, not one group or the other since it affects all of us.

we are forgetting that there are places, such as, for example, the north side of the highway at Public that has probably rarely seen a canoe but it is there, it is not a motorless area but i have never ever seen a mudbuddy on that side of the highway. i know there are many other places at other WMA's that are not being utilized by canoes where they could be that would never be disturbed by a mudbuddy. I live just minutes away from public shooting grounds and i can tell you from being out there countless times in the past 10 years since i have lived in corinne, i have rarely seen a canoe on the motorless area but i see motorized boats on the ohter side of the dike all the time. from what i see at public, and granted i wouldnt say this is a true measure of the demand for motorless areas because of how little public gets used in relation to ogden and farmington, i will say that i just dont see the demand for more motorless areas at this point and time. I could be wrong but until we get a definative understanding of what waterfowlers want of their wma's we will continue to go through this. i think each and every waterfowler should fill out a simple questionaire each year when they buy their license so that the dwr can get a year to year up-to-date assessment of all waterfowler hunters attitudes towards these issues.

*one thing that was brought up in a phone coneversation today with a mud motor advocate is this.....instead of all this fighting back and forth, why not all of us work on the phrag problem so that those areas that overrun with phrag and have been lost to just about every mode of transporation will be opened up again and could be turned into a motorless areas. this is a win win. more habitat gets reclaimed, motorless users get a new area, motor users get their areas, everybody wins.*

i for one like both the times of serenity and peacefullness of the quiet marsh and I also like the progress duck hunting has made with such things as mud motors that has given people more opportunities to hunt in areas that have not been utilized. I like seeing the traditional style of a canoe but also like the roar of a airboat too. its all good in my book. what isnt good though is all this fighting amongts ourselves. there are solutions if we will just look for them.


----------



## VonLeupold (Jul 7, 2009)

I am pushing 60 so I guess I am pretty much old school in a lot of ways.My opinion for what it is worth is that selfishness causes most of the problems in life.It dose not take rocket science to know that if we keep fighting with each other we will put ourselves out of a sport we all love and I mean hunting in general.I hunt the public shooting grounds a lot and I paddle in a stealth 2000, I have not been troubled by the motor boats or the foot hunters and we all need a place to hunt.I don't claim to have the answers but I know the opposition is well organized and are working hard to stop all hunting and shooting sports, we need to work harder to keep them in check.I am also one that still enjoys sharing a good duck or chukar hunting spot or day with a new friend and I hope to pass on a few good places that I soon will not be able to get to. Lets live it why we can and make it better for the next generation.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Sprig Kennels said:


> correct me if i am wrong but i think the big issue here is taking away one groups rights in favor over anothers.


thanks for pointing that out SK...

^^^CLUE IN RILEY. the "motorless" already exsist.

...how about we sustain a closure of specific areas in each WMA's or how about maybe your beloved salt air lake shore and the goggin flow because of trash and undue trapleing of the habitat? leaving these areas only accessible from a boat?

...or unless of course you can walk on water now...

restricting one to benefit another is EXACTLY THE ISSUE!! esp when areas already exsist that have not been fully taken advantage of...sorry they dont happen to be in everyones "back yard".


----------



## diverfreak (May 11, 2008)

Longgun said:


> Sprig Kennels said:
> 
> 
> > correct me if i am wrong but i think the big issue here is taking away one groups rights in favor over anothers.


thanks for pointing that out SK...

^^^CLUE IN RILEY. the "motorless" already exsist.

...how about we sustain a closure of specific areas in each WMA's or how about maybe your beloved salt air lake shore and the goggin flow because of trash and undue trapleing of the habitat? leaving these areas only accessible from a boat?

...or unless of course you can walk on water now...

I Couldnt say it better LongGun!!! Maybe that will enlighten him!

DiverFreak


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for "clueing me in" since apparently supporting this proposal means you have not one **** clue about what goes on in the marsh.... :roll: I don't see it as restricting your access one way or another.... you can still use your boat, you can still hunt out of your boat.... you just can't run a motor on it. I know, it would kill some folks to not run full bore to their hunting location but its not taking away anyone's access. Its not saying because you own a mud motor that all of a sudden you can't hunt there but its absolutely no surprise to me that you'd be all bent out of shape about it. :roll: I totally understand and don't doubt for a second that anyone who thinks they NEED a mud motor to have a decent hunt would get all up in arms about this proposal but its not doing anything other than designating a few areas motorless that are usually passed over by mud motor guys anyway. :? 

The thing about it is... if they designated some of my hunting areas as walkin restricted or changed something else so that I would have to change my method of access, it would make me evaluate just how bad I wanted to hunt those areas. If they were good enough or I wanted in there bad enough, I'd figure out a way to make it work, even if it meant changing my method of access. I guess not everyone is that able or willing to change to continue to hunt, but thats not my problem. Everyone knows being able to adapt to changing situations is part of hunting.... especially in waterfowling. Its ridiculous with as much acreage is open for mud motor or other motorized travel that folks are crying about the little parcels being requested as motorless, but again, not surprising at all. I'd imagine a lot of the areas being requested for motorless designation would be used by foot soldiers as well as folks paddling to a spot, but again, with as many folks as there are that are dependent on a mud motor apparently to be able to hunt waterfowl, its no wonder the foot soldiers or motorless boat crowd appear to be a non entity at the RACs.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

_*...nor am i shocked that youre shocked. just more verbal dephocattion as it usually is on your part, but by all meens keep it up your a tried and proven professional.*_


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Longgun said:


> _*...nor am i shocked that you're shocked. just more verbal defecation (I'm guessing this was what you were after, but don't really know for sure) as it usually is on your part (why, because its an opinion differing from your own? :roll: ), but by all means keep it up; you're a tried and proven professional.*_


I'm not... not at all. As soon as this was posted, I thought... well, that figures. :lol: Things will never change. It will always be a few folks wanting some peace, quiet and a decent place to hunt and a vast majority of duck hunters who think its their right as a mud motor owner to run those folks into the ground, shout them down regarding any change to current, extremely loose motorized regulations, and continue to thrash the marsh as their personal playground. 8)


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> I'm not... not at all. As soon as this was posted, I thought... well, that figures. :lol: Things will never change. It will always be a *few* folks wanting some peace, quiet and a decent place to hunt and a *vast majority *of duck hunters who think its their right as a mud motor owner to run those folks into the ground, shout them down regarding any change to current, extremely loose motorized regulations, and continue to thrash the marsh as their personal playground. 8)


and in true reciprocal fashion as did i...with your _multiple_ inaccuracy's in your above statement.


----------



## Me and Annie (Mar 3, 2008)

It seems clueless to turn this into a "haves vs Have nots" It also seems clueless to not recognize that there are many exiting motorless areas. If you really are about hunting for the peace and quiet it certainly is not difficult to find an area where you can do just that. It seems however from the undertone of your posts that it is more about and excuse to complain about people who have mud motors. I am a poor guy, I don't own a mud boat. I thought I was going to be getting one this fall but again finances don't seem to be there. _*So what *_that is my problem I certainly don't begrudge those who have the wherewithall to own a one.

I fail to understand how those complaining about motorized boats can't look at the big picture and see that the problem is the shrinking marshes not the motorized boats. Sorry but the only thing I can think to say is have a clue, recognize the big problems (read phrag) :roll: and work on them. This other stuff will then take care of its self.


----------



## Sprig Kennels (Jan 13, 2009)

i dont own a mud motor or even a boat for that matter. i foot soldier it when i go duck hunting. i love the serene and quietness the marsh can offer and I can appreciate what traditional style hunters are looking for. i dont ever see myself ever owning a mud motor. I can understand and fully appreciate what these individuals are wanting. I love that type of hunting too, just me and my dog and nothing else. But, with that said, I have to wonder if we need more motorless areas *at the expense of taking away the hunting opportunities of other hunters and the way they like to hunt.*. I am all for more motorless areas but i think there is a better way to go about it. like i said in a previous post, instead of fighting back and forth over this, why not push for more phrag removal and reclaim some of these areas and turn them into motorless areas? *this increases more overall habitat and more huntable acerage, adds motorless areas and doesnt take away from what we already have. what is wrong with this idea?* i know ogden bay has a huge phrag problem and a vast area that could be opened up just to canoes and foot soldiers.

I do wonder just how much "demand" there really is for more motorless areas. the survey in question is a few years old and needs to be updated before we could definatively really say one way or the other and it needs to be done on a yearly basis as hunter's attitudes change all the time. With a fixed amount of land/space, i think wma managers have to manage the rersource where the demand is. not to say the small guy cant have what he wants too but they also have to realize they might be in the minority and will have to accept because there is a fixed amount of land he might not get as much of it.

this is the "wilderness debate" all over again, but with ducks, and the question isnt should we have "wilderness" but rather how much do we want. I havent heard one single person say we shouldnt have these areas and i am in full support of such areas, every sportsman should be able to hunt in the style that they enjoy, i just think there is a much better way to go about it instead of fighting over a few ponds when there are a lot more acres that need to be reclaimed and could be used as a solution to this problem.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Me and Annie said:


> It seems clueless to turn this into a "haves vs Have nots" It also seems clueless to not recognize that there are many exiting motorless areas. If you really are about hunting for the peace and quiet it certainly is not difficult to find an area where you can do just that. It seems however from the undertone of your posts that it is more about and excuse to complain about people who have mud motors. I am a poor guy, I don't own a mud boat. I thought I was going to be getting one this fall but again finances don't seem to be there. _*So what *_that is my problem I certainly don't begrudge those who have the wherewithall to own a one.
> 
> I fail to understand how those complaining about motorized boats can't look at the big picture and see that the problem is the shrinking marshes not the motorized boats. Sorry but the only thing I can think to say is have a clue, recognize the big problems (read phrag) :roll: and work on them. This other stuff will then take care of its self.


You're right... its not about haves and have nots. Its not like I quit hunting because I don't have a mud motor, nor does anyone else who hunts without one. We make do... and if folks who insist on having a mud motor to hunt can't adapt, then its not anyone's fault but their own that they can't access certain portions of the shrinking marsh. I also agree that phrag is a huge problem, soaking up water and marsh area for all hunters, but I do find it amusing that a simple proposal to make official what is, for the most part already in effect, brings such a huge, negative reaction from guys who apparently consider a mud motor essential to their way of getting it done, whether thats getting to spots before anyone else, getting to a spot period, chasing cripples, or whatever else they feel the need of a mud motor for.

The clueless part is that while *this proposal isn't shutting a single person out of hunting any one area,* the folks who insist on turning the marsh into the Indy 500 every morning at 5 AM will try to make it appear to be the point because they know that will evoke the same negative reaction from the rest of the duck hunting crowd, mud motor owners or not which will lead to a harmless, unit defining proposal getting shot down by the RAC's.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with most of what you say Sprig but the thing is... the outcry is over areas (with the exception of the Salt Creek recommendation according to a PM I received) that the mud motor guys don't normally use anyway. They're crying over a proposal that quite honestly only affects a minute portion of them anyway. At Farmington, I think I've only ever seen a mud motor guy on Unit 2 maybe two or three times in the last few years that I've hunted there.... while the numbers of mud motor users have by their own admission, skyrocketed on the Turpin, Ogdens big pond, Public and other spots like that. I agree that if we took a hard charging approach to phrag that the foot and paddle guys would MUCH rather go way back into little potholes and waterways, leaving the big ponds for the power squadron to play on... not one argument from me on that. 8)


----------



## Me and Annie (Mar 3, 2008)

How is a foot solder or a paddler stopped from hunting an area that allows motorized. They are not, they can paddle and walk all they want. The reverse is not true if you designate an area that has been open to motors to nonmotorized. Yes a boat guy can hunt there but he is restricted (maybe he's 65 years old and has a bad heart) the others are not. The arguement for nonmotorized takes opportunity away that is a fact. Is there crowding on WMA's yes in the boat areas. In those areas set aside as non motorized there is no crowding. Those who are looking at this as a way to open up opportunity for non motorized are simply failing to see the big picture. Your arguements simply don't hold water. I'm sorry the the quarrel is stupid. Put it to bed, fight for the marsh. This is a fight that is for all waterfowlers. :!:


----------



## JD_ (Oct 2, 2008)

Sprig Kennels said:


> i for one like both the times of serenity and peacefullness of the quiet marsh and I also like the progress duck hunting has made with such things as mud motors that has given people more opportunities to hunt in areas that have not been utilized. I like seeing the traditional style of a canoe but also like the roar of a airboat too. its all good in my book. what isnt good though is all this fighting amongts ourselves. there are solutions if we will just look for them.


+1, very well said Sprig!!!

It's all good. Let's live and let live. I wish we could all just appreciate the diversity of hunting methods that we all have and not try to impose our own views on others about how they should hunt (as long as people are ethical and legal). It is also incredibly sad to me to see so many who in the past have had for the most part cordial discussions with one another now turn somewhat bitter with each other over this issue. The infighting amongs those of us who love waterfowling is a waste of time and resources that could be much better spent in more productive endeavors. 
Personally, I bristle at almost any new restrictions on freedom via new laws and regulations - be it in the marsh or any other aspect of our lives. We give up our freedom much too easily, IMHO. I'm less opposed to this proposal after reading it than I was based on the hearsay I previously read about it, but I'm still against it overall because a) It is a restriction on hunter access (freedom) pure and simple; b) I don't see that motorized access is causing a significant enough problem to justify the restriction/loss of freedom; and c) even if the problem were significant enough to justify this proposal, the proposal would likely have very little impact to rectify the situation.

As I read the proposal it states 5 reasons or justifications. I'll respond to each based on my experience at FB and OB (I've never hunted Salt Creek so I can't speak to that)
*1. Competition:* I don't see how motorized but wakeless boats have much of a negative impact on those who choose to hunt OB Unit 3 with non-motorized craft. Wakeless means slow and pretty quiet even for boats with motors. Regarding FB Unit 2, the proposal itself quotes the UWA Manager as saying that only 5 motorized boats per week use that unit. I don't see how anyone could see 5 boats per week as any kind of competiton at all. 
*2. Safety:* While I agree that sometimes those with motors don't seem to understand the wakeless within 150 ft. of another vessel law and this could cause problems on busy stretches along the dikes, this is something we can increase awareness about and improve on. However, once again, this proposal does nothing to truly address this issue anyway since speed/wakes would not even be an issue on a wakeless unit (OB Unit 3) or with 5 boats per week on FB Unit 2. 
*3. Diversity of Hunting Opportunity:* Quite simply this proposal does nothing but reduce the diversity of hunting opportunity since it locks out those who choose to hunt from motorized craft. The status quo leaves the marsh open to all. That is diversity.
*4. Benefit to Marsh and Birds:* There are all ready rest areas or closed areas for the birds. Once the birds leave those areas they are fair game and I don't think we should be so concerned about birds being harassed or moved around by boats outside those rest areas. Sometimes people moving around the marsh in their boats disturbs my hunting, but many other times it moves birds around and improves the hunting opportunity. Also I have the attitude that others have just as much right to be in the marsh as I do and I don't get upset if their movement disturbs me once in a while. It's a public marsh! We can take the good with the bad in my opinion. As for impact on the marsh itself and the spread of Phrag, etc., I'm not the most qualified to speak about that, but from what I have read this seems less than a proven fact that motors are exacerbating the problem.
*5. Parity:* This may be the most valid point, but again, the status quo does not lock anyone out. The proposal does, and that troubles me.

As I think thorugh the issues above it leads me to wonder if a) the real point of this proposal is to just start a process that eventually will tie up a higher percentage of the marshes as motorless (since this proposal seems basically meaningless to the cause) or b) that some segment of our waterfowler population just can't stand some aspect of motors in the marsh (hearing them, seeing them, jealous of them, whatever). If the former is the case then this proposal concerns me even more. If the latter is the case, I say let's get over it, appreciate that we all approach the sport a diffeent way (as with any sport) and learn to appreciate and embrace the diversity that we have in this WONDERFUL SPORT WHICH WE ALL LOVE.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

JD_ said:


> [quote="Sprig Kennels":1d06b025]
> 
> i for one like both the times of serenity and peacefullness of the quiet marsh and I also like the progress duck hunting has made with such things as mud motors that has given people more opportunities to hunt in areas that have not been utilized. I like seeing the traditional style of a canoe but also like the roar of a airboat too. its all good in my book. what isnt good though is all this fighting amongts ourselves. there are solutions if we will just look for them.


+1, very well said Sprig!!!

It's all good. Let's live and let live. I wish we could all just appreciate the diversity of hunting methods that we all have and not try to impose our own views on others about how they should hunt (as long as people are ethical and legal). It is also incredibly sad to me to see so many who in the past have had for the most part cordial discussions with one another now turn somewhat bitter with each other over this issue. The infighting amongs those of us who love waterfowling is a waste of time and resources that could be much better spent in more productive endeavors. 
Personally, I bristle at almost any new restrictions on freedom via new laws and regulations - be it in the marsh or any other aspect of our lives. We give up our freedom much too easily, IMHO. I'm less opposed to this proposal after reading it than I was based on the hearsay I previously read about it, but I'm still against it overall because a) It is a restriction on hunter access (freedom) pure and simple; b) I don't see that motorized access is causing a significant enough problem to justify the restriction/loss of freedom; and c) even if the problem were significant enough to justify this proposal, the proposal would likely have very little impact to rectify the situation.

As I read the proposal it states 5 reasons or justifications. I'll respond to each based on my experience at FB and OB (I've never hunted Salt Creek so I can't speak to that)
*1. Competition:* I don't see how motorized but wakeless boats have much of a negative impact on those who choose to hunt OB Unit 3 with non-motorized craft. Wakeless means slow and pretty quiet even for boats with motors. Regarding FB Unit 2, the proposal itself quotes the UWA Manager as saying that only 5 motorized boats per week use that unit. I don't see how anyone could see 5 boats per week as any kind of competiton at all. 
*2. Safety:* While I agree that sometimes those with motors don't seem to understand the wakeless within 150 ft. of another vessel law and this could cause problems on busy stretches along the dikes, this is something we can increase awareness about and improve on. However, once again, this proposal does nothing to truly address this issue anyway since speed/wakes would not even be an issue on a wakeless unit (OB Unit 3) or with 5 boats per week on FB Unit 2. 
*3. Diversity of Hunting Opportunity:* Quite simply this proposal does nothing but reduce the diversity of hunting opportunity since it locks out those who choose to hunt from motorized craft. The status quo leaves the marsh open to all. That is diversity.
*4. Benefit to Marsh and Birds:* There are all ready rest areas or closed areas for the birds. Once the birds leave those areas they are fair game and I don't think we should be so concerned about birds being harassed or moved around by boats outside those rest areas. Sometimes people moving around the marsh in their boats disturbs my hunting, but many other times it moves birds around and improves the hunting opportunity. Also I have the attitude that others have just as much right to be in the marsh as I do and I don't get upset if their movement disturbs me once in a while. It's a public marsh! We can take the good with the bad in my opinion. As for impact on the marsh itself and the spread of Phrag, etc., I'm not the most qualified to speak about that, but from what I have read this seems less than a proven fact that motors are exacerbating the problem.
*5. Parity:* This may be the most valid point, but again, the status quo does not lock anyone out. The proposal does, and that troubles me.

As I think thorugh the issues above it leads me to wonder if a) the real point of this proposal is to just start a process that eventually will tie up a higher percentage of the marshes as motorless (since this proposal seems basically meaningless to the cause) or b) that some segment of our waterfowler population just can't stand some aspect of motors in the marsh (hearing them, seeing them, jealous of them, whatever). If the former is the case then this proposal concerns me even more. If the latter is the case, I say let's get over it, appreciate that we all approach the sport a diffeent way (as with any sport) and learn to appreciate and embrace the diversity that we have in this WONDERFUL SPORT WHICH WE ALL LOVE.[/quote:1d06b025]

great post.


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

> that some segment of our waterfowler population just can't stand some aspect of motors in the marsh (hearing them, seeing them, jealous of them, whatever)


 Because of the MM two areas are no longer productive for me and I have since moved on. At this point I would dought that you would understand why they are no longer productive, but maybe one day hopefully you will. :!: 10tenner


----------



## JD_ (Oct 2, 2008)

10Tenner said:


> > that some segment of our waterfowler population just can't stand some aspect of motors in the marsh (hearing them, seeing them, jealous of them, whatever)
> 
> 
> Because of the MM two areas are no longer productive for me and I have since moved on. At this point I would dought that you would understand why they are no longer productive, but maybe one day hopefully you will. :!: 10tenner


Sorry to hear that mud motors have ruined your hunting experience in a couple of areas. I'm sympathetic to that and would sincerely be interested in the details. My own perspective is that whether it's duck hunting, deer hunting, fishing, etc., things tend to change over time - sometimes due to habitat change/loss, more people and pressure, technology, and on and on. Mud motors have certainly become ubiquitous and there are pros and cons to that fact. I don't dispute that at all. I guess from my perspective I just recognize that this sport is growing in popularity and it is probably better overall for the majority of us to have mm that enable the increasing numbers of hunters to spread out more than they otherwise would be able to do. Can you imagine if we were all foot soldiers or dike hunters? We'd literally be on top of each other in that case too. I know that as things have changed over the years in the public marshes, my methods of hunting have changed. At first I was not excited about it, but as I learned new hunting methods and tried new areas, it has actually been a wonderful experience which would not have happened if I hadn't literally been pushed out of my comfort zone on some of the marshes which I used to hunt exclusively. For the record, I do often hunt out of a boat, but I do not have nor have I ever had a mud motor. I have a 14 ft boat with a small outboard which I use to "limp" out on the few areas in the public marshes that are deep enough for me to run on. At one time I wanted a mm, but have since lost interest because I have found some other really fun and productive methods hunting fields, rivers, etc. and I have found jump shooting following ice up to be one of the most fun aspects to the season now. The crowds in the public GSL marshes have also encouraged me to find new areas to hunt further from urban areas. This has also been a great experience and I've made new friends in the process. Bottom line is that I still don't feel we are at a point where increased regulations (i.e. restrictions) are necessary and I would favor working together as others have said to open new areas rather than place limitations on those areas we already have. As the number of hunters increases, opening new areas and providing access to those areas seems to me to be the solution to our problems, not limiting what we have and fighting amongs ourselves.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm a foot soldier but closing areas is just gonna pile mud motors all together in another unit at ruin that area..if you make a unit motorless at fb than everyone will clog up ogden, and if you do it at ogden than everyone will clog up bear river...Keep everything open and as spread out as possible..still lots of places to go where boats can't get to...


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

> I'm a foot soldier but closing areas is just gonna pile mud motors all together in another unit at (ruin that area..)i


 It is already happening! 
To make new areas takes money to purchase land, and what is left is private clubs. My cousin was kicked out of a club because he was hunting without permission, and the next year he purchased the club and kick the members out. It is now for sale, 4-5 million! I was told by a fellow hunter of a guy leasing a section of land, and had to give 220,000 up front, and 40,000 a year.
I read on another forum were a state has closed large amounts of water to boats during the hunting season, and created rest areas. I think I know what that state is that poster had indicated. He is right, and that states DWR is ahead of the ball game and Utah's DWR should take note. I have moved on and have not shot a duck in Utah in two years, and yes there are better places to hunt. 10tenner


----------

