Hunting Washington Forum
Other Hunting => Waterfowl => Topic started by: CP on October 22, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
-
Are electric powered splash makers, wave maker, etc. legal to use in WA or are they considered “decoys” and therefore illegal?
-
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?
-
Risky. I bet it would depend on the mood of the guy with the ticketbook
-
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.
-
Are you referring to an ice eater to keep the hole open like Colin asked?
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-_-eH0Gwo#ws)
Ice Eater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_r7GmCBM#ws)
-
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.
-
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. :dunno:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just a call to your local gamie and you're all set.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
That’s not been my experience with law enforcement personnel.
-
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.
I expect that you are correct.
-
I sent the WDFW an email. If I get an answer I'll post it here.
-
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.
That’s not been my experience with law enforcement personnel.
With F&W LE? Really? I've had no problems with them and they've always been very helpful with my questions. :dunno:
-
With F&W LE? Really? I've had no problems with them and they've always been very helpful with my questions.
+1
-
Ummmm yea you cant have a quiver decoy or a machine that keeps ice out of a hole running while hunting. Dont even put yourself in the situation where you put the outcome in LEO's hands (not saying they are bad but why risk it). Just save yourself the money and buy a feeding butt decoy, run line from that down to a weighted paint can with a handle, through said handle and back to the blind. That thing will create waves, keep you free from possible miss interpretations by LEO's and you can turn it "off" while birds work close. It will also keep the opening clear of ice while you simple turn the "deicer" off.
BOOM, problem solved.
-
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?
:yeah:
The feds also actively enforce migratory bird laws across the state. I've actually been checked more times by USFWS personnel while bird hunting then WDFW. So if the local WDFW Officer said "good to go" what happens when not only another WDFW Officer shows, up but also USFWS?
There are WDFW Officers who look the other ways to all sorts of laws and don't actively enforce them, but you never know who is going to be checking you that day.
-
Ummmm yea you cant have a quiver decoy or a machine that keeps ice out of a hole running while hunting. Dont even put yourself in the situation where you put the outcome in LEO's hands (not saying they are bad but why risk it). Just save yourself the money and buy a feeding butt decoy, run line from that down to a weighted paint can with a handle, through said handle and back to the blind. That thing will create waves, keep you free from possible miss interpretations by LEO's and you can turn it "off" while birds work close. It will also keep the opening clear of ice while you simple turn the "deicer" off.
BOOM, problem solved.
I hear if you pour 10W-30 into your hole after you open it, it won't reice for a couple of days..... :peep:
JK :chuckle:
Seriously though, if you need to use a de-icer machine, just let it run overnight or before you hunt and then turn it off while you hunt. I put my quiver pucks away when they passed this dumb law. IMHO the states should not be able to make more restrictive laws than the feds since they are a Federally managed critter.
-
Like many laws its stupid. There are some decent jerk cord options to add soem ripple to the spread... Or you could just hunt salt water... there is ALWAYS movement in the spread then! :chuckle:
-
:yeah:
Thats what i do... and hunt on the other side of an ocean so i always get wind and movement! i would say jerk strink would be fine and as for ice.... i really don;t know i have had birds walk on ice over to my decoys
-
Wave machines are legal. People use them to keep ponds from freezing over. I know a number of people that use them on the eastside.
-
Wave machines are legal. People use them to keep ponds from freezing over. I know a number of people that use them on the eastside.
They are legal to use but once you start hunting you have to shut them off. If you have them running while your hunting you are now doing something illegal.
-
I got one of these decoys by Ure-a-duck and they kick butt as far as adding movement to your spread. Completely legal in Wa.
http://ureaduck.com/mallard-decoy-kicking-butt.html (http://ureaduck.com/mallard-decoy-kicking-butt.html)
-
Wave machines are legal. People use them to keep ponds from freezing over. I know a number of people that use them on the eastside.
They are legal to use but once you start hunting you have to shut them off. If you have them running while your hunting you are now doing something illegal.
Remeber some of the people on the eastside are hunting tribal ground, different regs. Just know where your at i guess.
-
I don't see how they are illegal under that law. It's not a decoy. Seems pretty clear to me that a wave machine would be legal.
-
i could see how they would be illegal if used while hunting, they keep the water open and from freezing but hey also make your decoys move and create action in your non powered decoys. one powered device to make another non powered device move im guessing would be illegal.
-
Is it a battery-powered or electronic device?
WAC 232-12-257: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257)
(1) It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkeys, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
-
How 'bout all the folks who think they can split hairs with the law go ahead and give it a shot. Then report back at the end of the seasons the results! Who's up :dunno:
-
i would just call WDFW
-
Is it a battery-powered or electronic device?
WAC 232-12-257: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257)
(1) It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkeys, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
This would be the part to challenge as far as what it actually means. A vibrating floating electric puck could, IMO, be considered "a decoy" but it seems a wave machine would be hard-pressed to be "a decoy" even though it might be moving other decoys. :dunno:
-
:yeah:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the WDFW would say if you called them. Is it a decoy? No. Okay, then it's legal.
-
Is it a battery-powered or electronic device?
WAC 232-12-257: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-257)
(1) It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkeys, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
This would be the part to challenge as far as what it actually means. A vibrating floating electric puck could, IMO, be considered "a decoy" but it seems a wave machine would be hard-pressed to be "a decoy" even though it might be moving other decoys. :dunno:
So... a guy could go buy one of those Cabelas Vortex contraptions that swing decoys around and around, and just put winduks in it in place of battery operated spinning wing decoys? That is the same basic principle as electronics making waves to move decoys. If a guy uses an ice eater at night to keep a hole open that is one thing, if he uses it during the day while he is hunting over decoys that are moving due to the motors actions of making waves, he should probably lawyer up. That is where the AID part comes into play. Who knows, but in my experience with the Game dept. I do not think they will view it as favorable to the hunter.
I vote you should try it out. Just keep us informed on the results. :tup:
-
I did miss an "or" in there.
However, if they did not want to confuse and/or mislead people, maybe this law could have more clearly been written something like: It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkey, or deer with the use of any electronic device that attracts game with the use of movement, scent, or sound. The use of the word aid is superfluous, as when I am using something it is aiding in my goal. And, the state has already defined battery or other electrically powered things as electronic. By placing the words "as a decoy" seems to mean just that, as a decoy.
The way it is written looks like it means you can't use battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys. If you break the sentence down it looks like this
...with the use of battery powered devices as decoys OR the use of other electronic devices as decoys OR the aid of battery-powered devices as decoys OR the aid of other electronic devices as decoys.
You cannot break the sentence down into ...the use or aid of battery-powered OR the use or aid of other electronic devices as decoys, and have it make sense grammatically.
:twocents: Some food for thought.
The stupid part is that these laws should be consistent with Federal law for the Federally managed animals like ducks.
-
I emailed the question to the WDFW a week ago, still no response. I’m guessing that they are having trouble finding an answer as well. :dunno:
-
:yeah:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the WDFW would say if you called them. Is it a decoy? No. Okay, then it's legal.
The problem is there is no definition of what a decoy is.
-
When you use an ice eater to keep a hole open you have to turn it off before you hunt, or do the warden says.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I have ran across a few videos on Youtube where they are filming the hunt with the ice eater running in the background as they are shooting.
-
i am gonna call b/c i think if i get the info from them i will be 100% sure i will post results after i call
-
I have ran across a few videos on Youtube where they are filming the hunt with the ice eater running in the background as they are shooting.
I have seen youtube videos of guys shooting over limits, from moving vehicles and shooting 4 shells. Doesn't mean it's legal.
irishvox I will be interested in hearing what you find out. Make sure you get the name of the person who gave you the information.
-
Yet another poorly worded law. Who the hell writes these things? Or do they purposely try to word them to be confusing? :dunno:
:bash:
-
I am going to call them today. And i will get the name and pass it on
-
Yet another poorly worded law. Who the hell writes these things? Or do they purposely try to word them to be confusing? :dunno:
:bash:
:yeah:
Sad part is- the law was not written to ban quiver magnets, and shakers. It was established to ban spinning wing decoys. They failed. There are probably more spinning wing decoys in use today in Washington state than there were before they banned shaker ducks...
-
Just emailed WDFW that way they can't say i didn't talk to such and such. hope to recieve a response back shortly :tup:
-
So Sorry for the delay. As long as it is not a decoy, you are ok to use the wave machine.
Team Mill Creek ~ WDFW Region 4 Customer Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Timothy O YN2 VP-1, B410 R205 [mailto:timothy.haggerty@navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:40 AM
To: Team MillCreek (DFW)
Subject: USE OF WAVE MACHINES
Importance: High
Hello,
After reading your regulations many times I never saw anything that would ban a wave machine. I would like to clarify if wave machines are legal or not. I saw in the migratory game pamphlet that the use of electronic decoys and electronic calls are illegal. That would make the wave machine legal as long as it is not connected to decoys. Am I wrong or right?
V/R
YN2(AW/SW) Timothy O Haggerty
VP-1 "SCREAMING EAGLES"
ADMIN
DSN: 312-820-8379
COMM: 360-257-8379
CELL: 504-430-1236
NIPR: timothy.haggerty@navy.mil
ere is the response you have all been waiting on...:
-
I think most classify this device as an ice eatter. Keeps motion in the pond to keep the ice from forming. There may be no mention in the regs of wave machines. Ice eatters may come up.
It appears you have clarification on the state regs. Now you need to e-mail the USFW department to check there laws. They will trump state law for migratory waterfowl laws.
-
Since it's only the State regs that say no motorized/electronic decoys, I'm not sure what the problem is since he got clarification that the ice eater/wave machine is OK if it is not a decoy?
-
Since it's only the State regs that say no motorized/electronic decoys, I'm not sure what the problem is since he got clarification that the ice eater/wave machine is OK if it is not a decoy?
There is a USFWS law that adopts state regs for migratory birds. The USFWS may view this regulation differently then WDFW.
Also, if I was the original poster I would email WDFW Enforcement in Olympia rather then the general Region 4 email address.
-
Well i emailed the one for my region b/c when i got off it would be tough they are closed.
-
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.
That’s not been my experience with law enforcement personnel.
With F&W LE? Really? I've had no problems with them and they've always been very helpful with my questions. :dunno:
:yeah:
-
Since it's only the State regs that say no motorized/electronic decoys, I'm not sure what the problem is since he got clarification that the ice eater/wave machine is OK if it is not a decoy?
There is a USFWS law that adopts state regs for migratory birds. The USFWS may view this regulation differently then WDFW.
I don't understand this. If they adopt state law then why are electronics legal elsewhere? If it adopts state regs in the state that has them, then there would still be no issue if wave machines are not considered decoys. :dunno: I guess the only quandry now is What is a decoy? Of course they will not answer that as it would be too definite...... :rolleyes:
-
I'd save the hastle and use a jerk cord
-
Just emailed WDFW that way they can't say i didn't talk to such and such. hope to recieve a response back shortly :tup:
Looks like you had the same response from them as I did. :rolleyes:
-
they say they are I got the email back from WDFW
-
they say they are I got the email back from WDFW
They say they are legal? Post up their response please.
-
Email:
Sorry for the delay. As long as it is not a decoy, you are ok to use the wave machine.
Team Mill Creek ~ WDFW Region 4 Customer Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Timothy O YN2 VP-1, B410 R205 [mailto:timothy.haggerty@navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:40 AM
To: Team MillCreek (DFW)
Subject: USE OF WAVE MACHINES
Importance: High
Hello,
After reading your regulations many times I never saw anything that would ban a wave machine. I would like to clarify if wave machines are legal or not. I saw in the migratory game pamphlet that the use of electronic decoys and electronic calls are illegal. That would make the wave machine legal as long as it is not connected to decoys. Am I wrong or right?
V/R
YN2(AW/SW) Timothy O Haggerty
VP-1 "SCREAMING EAGLES"
ADMIN
DSN: 312-820-8379
COMM: 360-257-8379
CELL: 504-430-1236
NIPR: timothy.haggerty@navy.mil
-
Thanks.
-
welcome :tup:
-
Wait wouldn't a mechanized device maintaining a hole in otherwise frozen water be the exact definition of a "decoy"? I suppose the definition of decoy is up to whoever is standing there with a ticket book.
-
think i'd be inclined to have a copy of that with me.
-
So then this would be legal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlhsI7Lrgk&safe=active (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlhsI7Lrgk&safe=active)
It's not attached to the decoy at all but does the same thing a wave machine does.
-
So then this would be legal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlhsI7Lrgk&safe=active (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlhsI7Lrgk&safe=active)
It's not attached to the decoy at all but does the same thing a wave machine does.
That's how I read it. I just ordered a couple of these - on sale now at Cabelas.
-
i would assume so but I am not that one that makes the rules, I just ask the question
-
A decoy looks like a duck. Isn't that the definition of a decoy?
-
Place waterfowl decoys prior to 4:00 a.m.; allow or permit waterfowl decoys to be unattended or not in your immediate control for a period greater than one hour; or fail to remove waterfowl decoys within two hours after the close of established daily hunting hours on days open to waterfowl hunting on department owned or controlled lands, waters, or access areas.
• Place waterfowl decoys on lands or waters controlled by WDFW except as authorized by permit of the director, on days closed to waterfowl hunting on department owned or controlled lands, waters, or access areas.
• Hunt waterfowl or wild turkeys using live birds as decoys.
• Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
I am not convinced based on the last sentence.
Is the use of a vibrating puck in the water decoying? You are using it to attract or decoy birds, Are you not?
-
de·coy
noun
noun: decoy; plural noun: decoys
ˈdēˌkoi/
1. a bird or mammal, or an imitation of one, used by hunters to attract other birds or mammals.
"a decoy duck"
2. a pond from which narrow netted channels lead, into which wild ducks may be enticed for capture.
verb
verb: decoy; 3rd person present: decoys; past tense: decoyed; past participle: decoyed; gerund or present participle: decoying
dəˈkoi/
1. lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.
Nothing in there about a vibrating puck.
-
verb
verb: decoy; 3rd person present: decoys; past tense: decoyed; past participle: decoyed; gerund or present participle: decoying
dəˈkoi/
1. lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.
--Isn't your electric puck or wave machine used to "lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap"? Seems pretty cut and dry unless you could convince the LEO that the puck was . . . for . . . err . . . uhhhhh something other than luring or enticing ducks away from their intended course into your trap.
-
verb
verb: decoy; 3rd person present: decoys; past tense: decoyed; past participle: decoyed; gerund or present participle: decoying
dəˈkoi/
1. lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.
--Isn't your electric puck or wave machine used to "lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap"? Seems pretty cut and dry unless you could convince the LEO that the puck was . . . for . . . err . . . uhhhhh something other than luring or enticing ducks away from their intended course into your trap.
I'd say that the way the rule is written, they are talking about as a decoy as a noun, so the definition as a verb does not count. :twocents:
.
• Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
-
verb
verb: decoy; 3rd person present: decoys; past tense: decoyed; past participle: decoyed; gerund or present participle: decoying
dəˈkoi/
1. lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.
--Isn't your electric puck or wave machine used to "lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap"? Seems pretty cut and dry unless you could convince the LEO that the puck was . . . for . . . err . . . uhhhhh something other than luring or enticing ducks away from their intended course into your trap.
I'd say that the way the rule is written, they are talking about as a decoy as a noun, so the definition as a verb does not count. :twocents:
.
• Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
I still say you guys are reading the rule wrong, but that is just me. You are dwelling on the "decoy" part, but ignoring the "AID" part. The way I read it is:
Hunt waterfowl, turkey, or deer WITH THE USE OR AID OF BATTERY-POWERED OR OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES AS DECOYS.
It is the AID part that I feel will get you. You are using battery powered devices to aid in decoying the birds...
I say go for it. Use te hell out of those battery powered shakers. Just be sure to post up the results...
-
But it says "as decoys" so as long as the electronic device isn't a decoy it should be okay. Plus wdfw confirmed that it would be okay; I'd go for it.
-
Come on guys, it's obvious what the law means and is trying to accomplish. Quit trying to bend words and make grey areas work to suit what you want. Just use a jerk cord setup, or is this generation of cell phones and electronics too lazy to pull on a cord?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :tup:
-
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? :dunno:
-
A decoy looks like a duck. Isn't that the definition of a decoy?
No. There is no legal definition of a "decoy"
-
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.
:yeah:
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.
-
Way to kill the thread Ghosthunter. :chuckle: But good job informing people of what someone elses opinion at WDFW is on the issue. :tup:
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.
-
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.
-
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. :dunno:
-
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????????? :dunno:
pray for wind :tup: :sry:
-
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????????? :dunno:
pray for wind :tup: :sry:
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.
-
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......................................................
:sry: Thread jack. :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :bdid:
-
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.
-
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 :chuckle:
-
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......................................................
:sry: Thread jack. :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :sry: :bdid:
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. :tup:
-
I just don't want guys running out and spending money on items that will get them a ticket.
It's not a ticket. It's a criminal offense so it's a mandatory appearance in court in front of a judge.
-
Without a definition there is no way to enforce the law. It would be a big waste of the court’s time.
-
Here is the final word.
From: Mann, Richard P (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Lee, Jeff B (DFW)
Subject: RE: Question
I say yes, Mill Creek is giving out bad information and should cease doing so immediately.
Two things to consider -
#1 - WDFW does not define "decoy" in RCW 77 or WAC 232, therefore we use the common definitions in Webster, which includes "Any means used to mislead or lead into danger":
#2 - The WAC below says “hunt ... with the use or aid of battery powered or other electronic devices as decoys”.
WAC 232-12-257
Use of decoys and calls.
(1) It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkeys, or deer with the use or aid of battery-powered or other electronic devices as decoys.
(2) It is unlawful to hunt waterfowl, wild turkeys, or deer with the use or aid of electronic calls.
(3) Except as otherwise authorized by rule of the commission or by contract or agreement with the department, any person placing waterfowl decoys on any area (including water, access areas, roads, and trails) under the ownership, management, lease, or control of the department, shall not:
(a) Place waterfowl decoys prior to 4:00 a.m.;
(b) Allow or permit waterfowl decoys to be unattended or not in their immediate control for a period greater than one hour;
(c) Fail to remove waterfowl decoys within two hours after the close of established daily hunting hours; or
(d) Place waterfowl decoys on days closed to waterfowl hunting.
(4) This regulation shall be enforced under RCW 77.15.400.
The item shown is powered by AA battery per the advertisement and when placed it is “used to mislead or lead (waterfowl in this case) into danger.
It is therefore a battery powered device used as a decoy and illegal under RCW 77.15.400 and WAC 232-12 257. Basically, anything used that is electronic or battery powered to attract waterfowl to an area is illegal.
Hope that helps.
Rich
-
Anyone want a couple Lucky Duck H2O Quiver Magnets? Never used, new in box, dirt cheap.
:bash:
-
One final thing.
I asked Mann,
"Could a person use a wave machine to keep ice from forming prior to hunting a pond as long as the machine was removed prior to placing decoys?" he answered YES.
-
CRAP HOLD THE PHONE THEY ARE STARTING TO BACK PEDDAL. :bash:
Mann's response is getting reviewed. :bash: :bash: :bash: :dunno:
-
One final thing.
I asked Mann,
"Could a person use a wave machine to keep ice from forming prior to hunting a pond as long as the machine was removed prior to placing decoys?" he answered YES.
Not that I have the spot of money for an ice eater but thanks for the clarification. I had thought this would be the case but with WDFW and their rules, anything is possible
-
CRAP HOLD THE PHONE THEY ARE STARTING TO BACK PEDDAL. :bash:
Mann's response is getting reviewed. :bash: :bash: :bash: :dunno:
CP, it sounds like you still have a chance to get to use those quivering pucks.
-
CRAP HOLD THE PHONE THEY ARE STARTING TO BACK PEDDAL. :bash:
Mann's response is getting reviewed. :bash: :bash: :bash: :dunno:
This just shows the total confusion in the agency regarding this issue.
-
Simple issue right? :chuckle:
I personally believe that Mann’s ruling was based on the definition of the verb “to decoy” while the WAC uses the noun “decoys”. But he and his write the citations and make the arrests. I’d hate to be cuffed and stuffed over a quiver magnet.
At least it doesn’t depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
-
One final thing.
I asked Mann,
"Could a person use a wave machine to keep ice from forming prior to hunting a pond as long as the machine was removed prior to placing decoys?" he answered YES.
So keep them up and running all night long and a few minutes before shooting light turn them off. Hunt the area and when you leave fire it up. I am assuming one would own the pond which to put an ice eater.
I know a few who do this. They even dug a pit to put a honda generator to run it all night long.
-
This thread is getting a bit confusing. I personally, from the beginning of this thread figured the quiver magnets were a no go. But I also figured a lot of you guys were right about using a wave machine/ice eater not during your hunt. I might have missed some of the posts but im confused now lol.
-
Simple issue right? :chuckle:
I personally believe that Mann’s ruling was based on the definition of the verb “to decoy” while the WAC uses the noun “decoys”. But he and his write the citations and make the arrests. I’d hate to be cuffed and stuffed over a quiver magnet.
At least it doesn’t depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Wouldnt you have to include the verb "to decoy". If you dont wouldn't I be able to just put the guts of a mojo with the black and white wings on a post and run it. "It doesnt look like a duck :dunno: officer"
-
This thread is getting a bit confusing. I personally, from the beginning of this thread figured the quiver magnets were a no go. But I also figured a lot of you guys were right about using a wave machine/ice eater not during your hunt. I might have missed some of the posts but im confused now lol.
You are not alone.
At the time they closed yesterday.
Ice machines were ok as long as you were not using them during hunting.
Quiver pucks, well there is the rub. They seem to be split over legal or not.
Capt. Mann said no in the email. And I have received nothing to change that.
But there was another email questinioning his position. They are sorting it out I guess.
At this point I would not use the Quiver pucks myself.
-
I RECIEVED ANOTHER EMAIL WITH DIFFERENT GUIDANCE! :bash: PLEASE READ~!!!!!!
We apologize for that. This has become a big topic and our enforcement chief, our attorney and wildlife program director have all talked and agree that the way the WAC is written they are not legal and they have since shared that with officers and other staff for consistency purposes. There are not plans to change it at this time either. They will be looking at specifically addressing this topic in the regulations next year to help clear up the confusion. You may even see a news release before that possibly. We hope this helps clarify and again apologize for the misinformation originally.
Sincerely,
Region 4 Customer Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Timothy O YN2 VP-1, B410 R205 [mailto:timothy.haggerty@navy.mil]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Team MillCreek (DFW)
Subject: RE: USE OF WAVE MACHINES
Importance: High
Another mill creek rep told me they were legal...? via email
-----Original Message-----
From: Team MillCreek (DFW) [mailto:TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:40 AM
To: Haggerty, Timothy O YN2 VP-1, B410 R205
Subject: RE: USE OF WAVE MACHINES
At this time wave machines are not legal in Washington State.
Sincerely,
Region 4 Customer Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Timothy O YN2 VP-1, B410 R205 [mailto:timothy.haggerty@navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:40 AM
To: Team MillCreek (DFW)
Subject: USE OF WAVE MACHINES
Importance: High
Hello,
After reading your regulations many times I never saw anything that would ban a wave machine. I would like to clarify if wave machines are legal or not. I saw in the migratory game pamphlet that the use of electronic decoys and electronic calls are illegal. That would make the wave machine legal as long as it is not connected to decoys. Am I wrong or right?
V/R
YN2(AW/SW) Timothy O Haggerty
VP-1 "SCREAMING EAGLES"
ADMIN
DSN: 312-820-8379
COMM: 360-257-8379
CELL: 504-430-1236
NIPR: timothy.haggerty@navy.mil
-
Looks like Bigtex was correct :chuckle: :rockin:
-
Or maybe Bigtex is wrong along with the rest of the bunch at wdfw that says that wave machines are illegal. I don't know how they can come to that conclusion the way it is worded, other than they likely will err on the side of saying it is illegal.
-
Or maybe Bigtex is wrong along with the rest of the bunch at wdfw that says that wave machines are illegal. I don't know how they can come to that conclusion the way it is worded, other than they likely will err on the side of saying it is illegal.
Until WDFW changes the WAC to say that a decoy is a plastic object that looks like a bird they will remain illegal.
-
Or maybe Bigtex is wrong along with the rest of the bunch at wdfw that says that wave machines are illegal. I don't know how they can come to that conclusion the way it is worded, other than they likely will err on the side of saying it is illegal.
Yep, it's the courts job to interpret the law. Now in a case like this a specific instance might need to go to court for a precedence to be set as to how the law is legally interpreted and therefore should be enforced. I wouldn't want it to be me...