Should ground/water swatting be illegal?

[JONOV]

There's nothing unethical about shooting a pheasant with lead shot on a WPA where its prohibited, but it's against the rules for other reasons. It isn't unethical or unsportsmanlike to have a single lead trap load in the bottom of your hunting bag if you're duck hunting, but it is illegal.

I am probably one of the few forum members who has seen the effects of lead poisoning on hundreds of ducks, geese, and swans. It's a terrible way to die, and IMO, using lead shot in waterfowl habitat is not only illegal, it's also unethical and immoral.

Fair enough. Probably a bad example. I guess I was thinking of grasslands where the lead (seems to my uneducated mind) is unlikely to pollute water yet are still WPA's.

[ANick]

We all know it's an unwritten rule that you don't shooting un-injured bird that aren't flying, however I'm not aware of any state where it is illegal to shoot game birds that are on the ground, on the water or in a tree. Why not? Water swatting ducks and ground sluicing upland game birds is definitely unsportsmanlike, so why isn't it against the regs? I could see allowing hunters with disabilities being allowed to, but for the rest of us we should have to shoot them on the wing, fair and square. Not wanting to start an argument, but I'm just curious why it isn't illegal or if it is against the law in any state.

Rowdy,
Kinda funny, but I was all set to respond to this one regarding legality, but I thought I'd just do a quick look at the regs so I could maybe throw a link in.
And then it got weird. In Washington State, where so much is not legal .. no bait, no electronic calls, no night vision (lights are okay) for coyote, you can't track wounded big game with a dog, etc, etc... It turns out, there's nothing in the regs pamphlet. So, I called the WDFW state office, and after a little bit of fielding questions from two souls there.. no. There's nothing on the books. The closest you get is not shooting birds off of utility lines, cross arms, poles or insulators.
On a second (mind bending) point, they did have a list of some hunter ethics (not what I'd call a full list) along with a note that all hunters were allowed to hunt with a (paraphrased) 'requirement to do so ethically'. That's a little nebulous and a point I brought up with the folks that, as it turns out, also are the ones that write the pamphlets. Ethics dances around a definition that can share elements of 'mores', 'creeds' and 'guidelines' and may, or may not be shared among a group in the form of a pledge. However, in the latter case there would be typically some decent definitions of the particulars of those ethics. The Hippocratic Oath is a defined set of ethics essentially. If the specifics are undefined, then the subject becomes quite subjective. Which is a pretty tough to 'require', someone else to conform to by just requiring 'ethical behavior'.


I grew up in Kansas. Legally birds had to be in flight. In the family and friends groups, that really translated to not shooting at birds that were 'almost landed', for waterfowl and doves. For upland birds, especially with dogs, shots were then and are now still legit if the bird has sky under it, or the equivalent. I remain comfortable with that.

[flitecontrol]

Fair enough. Probably a bad example. I guess I was thinking of grasslands where the lead (seems to my uneducated mind) is unlikely to pollute water yet are still WPA's.

That's certainly a logical conclusion. Most Waterfowl Production Areas are grassland surrounding some sort of waterbody/marsh. They vary in size from say 40 acres to ten times that or more. If a pheasant on a WPA is shot far enough from the water that the lead doesn't reach the wetland, there is minimal risk of waterfowl eating it and developing lead poisoning. But pheasants don't avoid wetlands. The likelihood of lead inadvertently getting shot into the WPA wetlands is why it's prohibited.

Ingesting as few as three lead pellets are enough to kill a goose outright. Birds with less than lethal levels of lead are still adversely affected by it, and are more susceptible to predation. For those that don't know how lead kills, it paralyzes the gizzard, and food cannot pass through it. The birds continue to eat to the point their throats are crammed full of food, but they slowly weaken and either starve to death or become easy pickings for predators. The lead can also affect the animals that predate lead poisoned birds.

[J D Patrick]

man,,,have your computer go down,,,,miss a few weeks,,,and BOOM,,extensive thread happens,,,,

hunt as your ethics dictate,,,,but laws should attempt to dictate ethics

[mtbirder]

I'm sure a large portion of subscribers to this forum are southern and eastern gentlemen who hunt small tracts of public, a lot of private (clubs included) ag/woodlot country, and who go about this hunting thing way different than a Montana huge ranch and mostly large tract public land hunter like me does.
Methods like shooting released birds, bear baiting, and shooting whitetails in "foodplots" are distasteful to me (read ethics).
And I'm quite sure a lot of guys who see these tactics as perfectly "normal" are some of the same that would never "ground swat" (a term new to this Montanan) a duck nor a - even pen raised, released 15 minutes ago - rooster.
Something already touched on here in this discussion.
Ethics are an interesting thing:
“A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact.”
– Aldo Leopold
He always could say it right............

[RowdyGSP]

That's a great quote, mtbirder... Aldo is one of my idols. A true conservationist and lover of the outdoors. I can definitely agree with what's been said, that if legal and it doesn't bother the conscience of the hunter to harvest birds how they see fit, then more power to them. I definitely don't agree with such methods as shooting healthy birds on the ground or water, but I'm not going to judge those who do. Will I hunt with those people? Absolutely not. No way, no how. But others who have said it are right: we are all sportsmen together and we need to stick together, not divide each other, as my initial post obviously did. For causing any division, I am sorry. My intentions were only to start a discussion as I said and obviously it got people's emotions/opinions flowing. Shoot straight this season all you (whether that's at birds in flight or on the ground).

[mtbirder]

That's a great quote, mtbirder... Aldo is one of my idols. A true conservationist and lover of the outdoors. I can definitely agree with what's been said, that if legal and it doesn't bother the conscience of the hunter to harvest birds how they see fit, then more power to them. I definitely don't agree with such methods as shooting healthy birds on the ground or water, but I'm not going to judge those who do. Will I hunt with those people? Absolutely not. No way, no how. But others who have said it are right: we are all sportsmen together and we need to stick together, not divide each other, as my initial post obviously did. For causing any division, I am sorry. My intentions were only to start a discussion as I said and obviously it got people's emotions/opinions flowing. Shoot straight this season all you (whether that's at birds in flight or on the ground).

I would counter division on topics is healthy. When we all agree on everything sportsmen related, and don't get into lively debate is probably when we all wear bird vests with swastika patches on 'em.
WE have a lot of issues to disagree on nowadays.
Luckily, so far - the dogs, the birds, and the habitat unite {most of} us.................
In my not so humble opinion - no need for apologies.

[Willie T]

That's a great quote, mtbirder... Aldo is one of my idols. A true conservationist and lover of the outdoors. I can definitely agree with what's been said, that if legal and it doesn't bother the conscience of the hunter to harvest birds how they see fit, then more power to them. I definitely don't agree with such methods as shooting healthy birds on the ground or water, but I'm not going to judge those who do. Will I hunt with those people? Absolutely not. No way, no how. But others who have said it are right: we are all sportsmen together and we need to stick together, not divide each other, as my initial post obviously did. For causing any division, I am sorry. My intentions were only to start a discussion as I said and obviously it got people's emotions/opinions flowing. Shoot straight this season all you (whether that's at birds in flight or on the ground).

I would counter division on topics is healthy. When we all agree on everything sportsmen related, and don't get into lively debate is probably when we all wear bird vests with swastika patches on 'em.
WE have a lot of issues to disagree on nowadays.
Luckily, so far - the dogs, the birds, and the habitat unite {most of} us.................
In my not so humble opinion - no need for apologies.

x2. This is an old running discussion among bird hunters that is thought provoking. Mtbirder, thanks for posting that quote by Aldo Leupold.
Willie

[AverageGuy]

I find people opposed to hunting whitetails over food plots most often have not done so and they incorrectly equate it with baiting which is it not.

My food plots range from an acre to 5 acres which means the deer are out of bow range far more than in bow range (the 5 acre plot is 40 yards wide and 450 yards long to maximize edge benefit to winter thermal, nesting and loafing cover to wildlife). The food plots are open 24/7 and deer can eat in them any time they choose including the 14-15 hours of dark during hunting seasons.

This contrasts sharply with a bait pile which puts the deer always within range if they choose to eat the bait. Bait with a feeder puts deer within range at a specific time even. Bait is most often not maintained over the months and provides no real benefit to wildlife.

Food plots are just another food source and provide excellent nutrition designed to meet specific needs at specific times. White clovers plots providing the most months of excellent high protein forage for the most months and bugging habitat for chicks and poults. Soybeans providing excellent high protein browse through the summer and early fall, then critical late season food in winter as does the rye and turnips. Letting that rye head out provides excellent brood habitat through the spring and summer before the plot is replanted. Wildlife benefits greatly from all of them.

Since the caveman, hunters have known to key in on food sources. Water too. I have hunted doves over water, and bowhunted elk, antelope and deer over water sources. All good desert quail hunters know where the water sources are and make loops around them. Food plots are no different.

When I hunted elk, antelope, whitetails and mule deer in Montana ranching country literally hundreds of animals would move back and forth between bedding and alfalfa fields which was their preferred food source. Is it ok to hunt there? Where does hunting around food or travel routes between bedding and the food sources cease to be sporting in the minds of those who deem it so?

You could also shoot sharptails, Huns and Pheasants on the same walk along the edge where brushy cover meets that alfalfa. Is that unsporting too?

Hunting ducks in a shallow smartweed marsh food source is as old as waterfowling. Is that unsporting too? Doves pile into a fresh cut silage field, should we steer clear of hunting there too?

Guess we need to steer clear of hunting bears in the tidal areas where they come to graze grass, or the streams during the salmon runs?

Natural mineral licks too I guess?

I call BS on your food plot jab, MTBirder.

You enjoy some of the best gifts God has given us on a regular basis. Be grateful and don't let it go to your head and look down your nose at others hunting in far different situations than yours.

P.S. The wildlife that survived our past winter owe their existence in a large part to the food made available from my food plots and others in the area.

[mtbirder]

AG,
Ain't it great we live in America? Where we at the same time, can like to do the same things but have the freedom to disagree about parts of 'em?
Sincerely, enjoy your food plots.........

PS. In my reply, I never questioned if those methods should be legal nor stated I thought they were unethical. Only that I found them personally distasteful. Next should we discuss religion?

[Dmog]

AG,
Ain't it great we live in America? Where we at the same time, can like to do the same things but have the freedom to disagree about parts of 'em?
Sincerely, enjoy your food plots.........

PS. In my reply, I never questioned if those methods should be legal nor stated I thought they were unethical. Only that I found them personally distasteful. Next should we discuss religion?

How about Politics? I typically get to enjoy others food plots, just as you get to enjoy others "food plots"...

[AverageGuy]

Next should we discuss religion?

If someone has a sincere interest in coming to the Lord I am glad to discuss it with them. I refuse to argue religion.

As time goes on I have improved relative to not arguing Politics online, but can still get sucked in my weaker moments.

Things that directly affect me, I speak up which includes subjects which come up on this board. Often my objective is not to convince the person posting an opposing view, which they make clear they are unwilling to revisit, but rather to possibly educate and influence a silent reader.

I am Conservation in action and have been for all of my adult life so please bear with me when you step on my toes a bit in that area.

[mtbirder]

AG, one thing I've learned at the end of a 30+ year career managing, conserving, and attempting to enhance some of the best public fish and wildlife resources in America along with their habitat, is that my toes shouldn't be real sensitive when being "stepped on". I probably ain't right as well as you probably ain't wrong.
Especially when the steppers feet are trodding the same path I am, only with a different perspective.
As someone who has been fortunate (as I) enough to work for the American Sportsman, thanks for being "conservation in action". More guys like you would have made my job a lot easier as well as more effective.

[JONOV]

AG,
Ain't it great we live in America? Where we at the same time, can like to do the same things but have the freedom to disagree about parts of 'em?
Sincerely, enjoy your food plots.........

PS. In my reply, I never questioned if those methods should be legal nor stated I thought they were unethical. Only that I found them personally distasteful. Next should we discuss religion?

What about a food plot is unethical? Truly bizarre...

And how does it differ than an Alfalfa or Bean field or a watering hole in arid climates or an oak tree?

[JONOV]

That's a great quote, mtbirder... Aldo is one of my idols. A true conservationist and lover of the outdoors. I can definitely agree with what's been said, that if legal and it doesn't bother the conscience of the hunter to harvest birds how they see fit, then more power to them. I definitely don't agree with such methods as shooting healthy birds on the ground or water, but I'm not going to judge those who do. Will I hunt with those people? Absolutely not. No way, no how. But others who have said it are right: we are all sportsmen together and we need to stick together, not divide each other, as my initial post obviously did. For causing any division, I am sorry. My intentions were only to start a discussion as I said and obviously it got people's emotions/opinions flowing. Shoot straight this season all you (whether that's at birds in flight or on the ground).

It's a good discussion but its one of those things where the question, "Should it be illegal" is different than "Do you approve of it?" or "Is it sportsmanlike?"

There are practical reasons that it should be legal IMO, even if its not "polite" behavior on the whole.