Are wave machines legal?

[CP]

Are electric powered splash makers, wave maker, etc. legal to use in WA or are they considered “decoys” and therefore illegal?

[Colin]

Per the regs:

"It is unlawful to: Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys."

Do you mean decoys that splash or swim around or like an ice breaker type machine that keeps your hole from freezing up?

[boneaddict]

Risky.    I bet it would depend on the mood of the guy with the ticketbook

[full choke]

Per the regs:

"It is unlawful to: Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys."

Do you mean decoys that splash or swim around or like an ice breaker type machine that keeps your hole from freezing up?

I think the AID portion of the regs is what will get you in trouble. Batteries or electronics aiding in movement, or at attracting waterfowl would be a ticket.

[vandeman17]

Are you referring to an ice eater to keep the hole open like Colin asked?

[CP]

I’m referring to all types except those that are actually decoy which are obviously illegal (e.g. quiver duck).

Examples:
Quiver Magnet H2O and H2O Magnum by Lucky Duck
Ice Eater

[cmiller85]

Risky.    I bet it would depend on the mood of the guy with the ticketbook

That's what I was thinking. It seems to me that whether or not you could would depend on their technical definition of "Decoy". My guess is that decoy would be considered anything used to "Lure" or "Attract" for the purposes of hunting, etc.; in which case my guess is it's ticket time.

[vandeman17]

I tend to lean the other way with regards to an ice eater. In no way would it be a decoy and it, in itself, doesn't attract the birds. It would just create an opening in the ice to put your non battery powered decoys. 

[cliffordingles]

I myself am agreeing with all the comments... An ice eater is not a decoy, but i think the word decoy does not just mean actual decoy... I think this is a question for the WDFW office. If no one else calls in the next few hours i will when i get the time.

[bigtex]

If an officer can prove the electronic device is being used to attract waterfowl then yes it would be illegal. There is no legal definition in WA for what a decoy is or isn't so it's totally up to the officer. Most people would say a decoy is something used to attract a bird.

Now the point comes down to if an officer sees a duck fly into a pond and you have these ice eaters, etc could the officer say the duck flew into the area because they saw the wave machine, splashes, etc? Or more importantly, can you/your attorney prove the duck didn't fly into the area solely because of the wave machine.

Also, this isn't a ticketable offense. This is a crime which means you MUST appear in court. So now you are most likely being prosecuted by someone who doesn't know anything about bird hunting, in front of a judge who probably doesn't bird hunt, and the officer who cited who is the "expert" who is saying the bird was attracted to the waves, splashing, etc.

Point is, I'd save a lot of time and money and not use it.

Also, since all migratory waterfowl are federally protected/managed, the feds adopt any state-only regs. So you could face federal charges for violating the state electronic decoy law.

[CP]

If an officer can prove the electronic device is being used to attract waterfowl then yes it would be illegal. There is no legal definition in WA for what a decoy is or isn't so it's totally up to the officer. Most people would say a decoy is something used to attract a bird.

Now the point comes down to if an officer sees a duck fly into a pond and you have these ice eaters, etc could the officer say the duck flew into the area because they saw the wave machine, splashes, etc? Or more importantly, can you/your attorney prove the duck didn't fly into the area solely because of the wave machine.

Also, this isn't a ticketable offense. This is a crime which means you MUST appear in court. So now you are most likely being prosecuted by someone who doesn't know anything about bird hunting, in front of a judge who probably doesn't bird hunt, and the officer who cited who is the "expert" who is saying the bird was attracted to the waves, splashing, etc.

Point is, I'd save a lot of time and money and not use it.

Also, since all migratory waterfowl are federally protected/managed, the feds adopt any state-only regs. So you could face federal charges for violating the state electronic decoy law.

That is screwed up on many levels. 

[pianoman9701]

Just a call to your local gamie and you're all set.

[CP]

Just a call to your local gamie and you're all set.

No, not really.  What if local gamie says, sure no problem, what’s to assure the gamie that checks me later agrees with him/her? 

[pianoman9701]

Just a call to your local gamie and you're all set.

No, not really.  What if local gamie says, sure no problem, what’s to assure the gamie that checks me later agrees with him/her?

If you've done your due diligence and received a go ahead from one, it's unlikely another would cite you. More likely, he'd check with the officer you spoke with and would drop it. In addition, as an authority representing the state DFW, you would be covered in a court case. No one's going to convict someone who went through the steps to ensure they're legal. There may be exceptions to this but you'd be super unlikely to be one of them.

[92xj]

You won't even make out to that stage. You're not going to get any local gamie to tell you they are legal and to use them.