Are wave machines legal?

[ghosthunter]

I just this minute talked to a Skagit game Agent, who got direction from Capt.. Mann in enforcement.

Any motorized device that aids in the movement of decoys is not allowed.

[ghosthunter]

Hers the response I got via email.


Thanks Bobby.  I read the forum and looked at the links to Cabelas.  I forwarded it on to Capt. Mann who is an expert in these things and he believes they are NOT legal at this time.   I will get back to you if I  hear something else.   I have informed Mill Creek to stop giving out information they are legal.

[ghosthunter]

Now given the above info, I think this topic just got a dirt nap.


But................a lot of folks in WDFW think it should be legal.  So if one of the big Waterfowl groups would get it on the Game Commission  agenda in the spring maybe we could join the rest of the states.

[vandeman17]

I just this minute talked to a Skagit game Agent, who got direction from Capt.. Mann in enforcement.

Any motorized device that aids in the movement of decoys is not allowed.

I agree that it would be illegal during the hunt but if you ran it at night and turned it off before the hunt then it would not be at all aiding in the movement of decoys correct? 

[bigtex]

A decoy looks like a duck. Isn't that the definition of a decoy?

No. There is no legal definition of a "decoy"

[bigtex]

I just this minute talked to a Skagit game Agent, who got direction from Capt.. Mann in enforcement.

Any motorized device that aids in the movement of decoys is not allowed.

 

When you have questions regarding enforcement or law or regulations talk to enforcement personnel. Whether thats your local officer or someone in HQ. Don't assume the lady behind the desk at the local regional office is 100 percent correct.

Here in this situation you have enforcement saying it is illegal, yet the regional customer service (who doesn't work for LE) saying it is legal. Who is the one making the case? Enforcement. Who to believe? Enforcement.

[Curly]

Way to kill the thread Ghosthunter.    But good job informing people of what someone elses opinion at WDFW is on the issue. 

I read the rules one way and others read it another.  The laws should be written better.  I still think the guy from wdfw that answered the email is correct; the way the law is written if the it isn't a decoy it should be legal.  But hey, if a captain sees it another way, no sense arguing with him...........I'm glad I didn't buy one of those electronic things.

Hopefully, no warden will cite a person for this offense and only give warnings.  That is a poorly written law if it is interpreted like Capt. Mann says.

[ghosthunter]

A decoy looks like a duck. Isn't that the definition of a decoy?

No. There is no legal definition of a "decoy"

They told me that they go with whatever Webster's says. Someone posted it above.
 

[Curly]

A decoy looks like a duck. Isn't that the definition of a decoy?

No. There is no legal definition of a "decoy"

They told me that they go with whatever Webster's says. Someone posted it above.

Well, the vibrating puck is not a decoy according to that definition.  So, I don't know how enforcement came to their conclusion. 

[ghosthunter]

Here's the part that alerts me in the dictionary posted above.


1.     lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.



If you are creating ripples with a motorized device, or creating a pool that is open, Are you not enticing a duck from an intended course into a trap???

pray for wind

[Curly]

Here's the part that alerts me in the dictionary posted above.


1.     lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.



If you are creating ripples with a motorized device, or creating a pool that is open, Are you not enticing a duck from an intended course into a trap???

pray for wind

But the law is not written with the term "decoy" being used as a verb.  It is a noun in the law, so I would think that "to decoy" is not what is meant with the law.  But obviously my interpretation of the way the law is worded differs from those enforcing it, so my interpretation doesn't matter.

[ghosthunter]

I agree with you, am all for the use of battery operated devices.

I just don't want guys running out and spending money on items that will get them a ticket.


You think this is confusing, I am trying to get them to tell me how 594 effects my Hunter Education Classes. I am on HOLD......................................................
  Thread jack.

[bobcat]

If someone got cited for this I guarantee any lawyer would get it thrown out of court.

The law says one thing, and one guy in WDFW enforcement says another.

[ghosthunter]

If someone got cited for this I guarantee any lawyer would get it thrown out of court.

The law says one thing, and one guy in WDFW enforcement says another.

You First

[Curly]

I agree with you, am all for the use of battery operated devices.

I just don't want guys running out and spending money on items that will get them a ticket.


You think this is confusing, I am trying to get them to tell me how 594 effects my Hunter Education Classes. I am on HOLD......................................................
  Thread jack.

I read a letter on another forum yesterday from female firearm safety instructor asking a bunch of questions regarding I594.  That is one very messed up initiative.

At least Capt Mann gave his opinion on how he tells his officers to enforce it.  Thanks for posting.