Moving the discussion over from the Swan thread.
Opinions on a mandatory waterfowl ID course or test for waterfowl hunting.
Go.
Printable View
Moving the discussion over from the Swan thread.
Opinions on a mandatory waterfowl ID course or test for waterfowl hunting.
Go.
I'm all for more regulation and testing. We are all too stupid to get through life. Thank goodness for government and bureaucrats! If it wasn't for them, we'd all be trembling in a corner somewhere trying to bite our own face.
(I'm in a sarcastic prick kinda mood today, Sry..... Happy hump day!)
Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk
A whole separate course? Nope. Including waterfowl ID in the hunting course? Absolutely.
-Nick
I've read every post in Dr.Catcin's latest thread and pretty much support/agree with most......except for this one. The LAST thing we need,at least,as far as hunting and fishing is concerned,is more regulation from the nanny-staters. I'll support including identification in the OHEP courses,but,adding another level of testing and examination is foolish. As with all other hunting and fishing,the onus should fall squarely on the individual. To the greatest extent,we must rely on everyone to know what they're doing and to take full responsibility when they screw up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
i have said it all a long the hunting course should be far more in depth. the turkey course should be put in with the hunting course and as too the waterfowl ident. there is no reason why hunters should have to pay fee apon fee to hunt turkeys and waterfowl.
My personal opinion the more courses you start trying to push on hunters the more decrease in hunters you will see.
i personally dont think the hunting course teaches enough to new hunters. i hunt with a lot of different types of hunters throughout the year all great guys , i have to wonder what this course is teaching them when they show up with a box of gun parts and ask me to put it together for them. or they have no idea how to load the gun they just purchased.
that right there tells me the hunting and pal course should be far stricter.
I remember there being a waterfowl identification portion to my OHEP and hunting license exam. Has that changed?
x2..................Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Its been 15 years since I did my course but I am pretty sure we did waterfowl ID. I think the courses vary. The guy who taught me mine was excellent we even went to the range to practise shooting all the different kind of guns. I have heard of courses bring rammed into a weekend and not all the material being covered. I think a mandatory waterfowl ID section would only make senseQuote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
It's not near rigorous enough to properly identify the many species of waterfowl found in Ontario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
I remember helping with the bird count at Luther opening day a few years ago. Three guys showed up with a limit of ducks to the check in. When asked what they had shot, the man responded with "big duck and little duck".
-Nick
I don't see why an ID module couldn't be built in to the existing hunting cert course, and be made mandatory for all instructors to cover. It could easily be done in a 1.5 hour AV presentation - combo of PowerPoint and video. All of the required footage exists now eg. Cornell library, Sibleys and Thayers series. Could include stills of both sexes, as well as "pass-by"flight shots from straight out and overhead. Add a bit of video with audio, showing take-off and landing characteristics, call in flight, flight characteristics. Emphasis should be made on non-target species that are usually shot - eg. grebes, gulls, herons, Northern Harrier, Caspian Tern, Cormorants, Bitterns, Loons. This could be an intro exposure to swan separation too. End the module with a self-test section that's maybe "30 mins long - maybe call it "shoot or don't shoot - short video blurbs and/or stills of how these animals will be encountered during a hunt . Throw some low-light pics in too. Teach the hunter that often it's better to let the bird pass when ID is not positive.
I'll never forget when I was a student working a check station at Tiny Marsh. We had hunters actually bring in Black-crowned Night Heron, American Bittern, at least three parties with PB Grebes, and one with a RN Grebe. I can only imagine what would have been discarded in the cattails. The COs found a N. Harrier dead on the water, after doing a boat sweep. Although legal, I remember being surprised when we had a man and his son come through with about 30 RW Blackbirds. I had only shot them with a pellet gun as a kid. Little did I know that they are amazing in a stew!
My recollection of the waterfowl ID section in the course I took 5 years ago (1 say hunting, 1 day firearms) was essentially dividing ducks into divers v puddlers. I didn't learn the difference between a black duck and a mallard, a barrow's and a common goldeneye, a duck and a coot. So it's covered, but it's not really covered.
To those saying that more time should be spent covering waterfowl in the general hunting course, I reply:
"But I just want to go shoot some deer/rabbits/coyotes/etc. I'm never going to buy a waterfowl stamp, so why do I have to memorize all these darned ducks?!"
I would not object to taking a waterfowl course, but I understand that it will just serve to discourage hunters from taking up the activity. I also understand that many oppose more government involvement in general. I'm not trying to champion an ID course requirement, just sparking some off-season dialogue.
No thanks.
I suspect if they did force a course, it would end up being just like the boaters course, which is a rediculous grab for money where you can sit at home with as many friends as you want and do the test as many time as you need to pass ... the best learning tool for duck ID is experience, and I understand some mistakes will be made getting that experience.
My hunter safety course almost 30 years ago did have duck ID including a book that showed all the common species and explained their habitat and flight habits. The problem with trying to do more than that in the course is having to train the teachers ... seems to me many of them are not experienced enough in ducks anyway.
It would be nice if some people learned what the actual limits are as well.
Good responce Dead Ringer.
I've been something of a fledging birder for some years, going out for Waterfowl images fall/winter for many years.
I can struggle properly identifyng a lot of different species and I have the benefit of viewing them through a powerful lens.
Having read Dead Ringers thought on the matter Id say Im torn.
1) Is an ID coarse atleast rudimentary, neccessary
2) If so part of the Ohep ?( lots of people may never WF or desire to so just how in depth shoud it be, which begs the question. Why bother
3) as a stand alone? (More red tape, more cash grabs).
Don't lie. We know that you took the course in 1937 Steve!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadwall
At one time the MNR contemplated putting on a waterfowl course. I was asked to put a course together that would cover all aspects of waterfowling. By the time I had finished the course would have run for 8 3 hour sessions on a week night. For whatever reason the MNR approved the course outline and content but decided not to proceed. I was later approached by OOD to put on Goose Hunting courses. They would have lasted a weekend with participants meeting Friday evening and leaving Sunday afternoon. Even with OOD promoting the event we could not generate enough interest.
I 100% agree that there should be some sort of I.D test for anyone taking up waterfowling, when you do your hunters course you have to know the difference between a moose, elk, and white tail cause thats so difficult...... Look how many species of duck anyone can see on just a single hunt in a marsh, not to mention as another person posted to people shooting grebes. Looks like a duck to people without the knowledge. I completely understand that adding another course adds another cost.... However hardcore hunters that truely want to waterfowl or had been mentored and now have the bug will be willing to pay the price of admission. This course may also discourage all the duck dynasty wanna be's that have been popping up since the shows growing popularity. I don't know about you but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if those kind of people hung up their waders for good!!
When i did my course years ago, there was duck identifacation by silhouette. My buddy's kid just did his last weekend and he said there was hardly anything on the animals we hunt but was more geared toward safety. Safety is great but you have to know what your shooting at as well. On the other hand, not very many people just go waterfowl hunting on there own without someone teaching them. Exept maybe those Phil Robertson wanna be guys that were mentioned above. It should be incorperated into the hunters safety course imo.
not this one.Quote:
However hardcore hunters that truely want to waterfowl or had been mentored and now have the bug will be willing to pay the price of admission
How about a waterfowl I.D. course before you apply for your migratory bird stamp ?.
No course , no permit.
It does not have to be included or taken with your hunter safety training course , as not all hunters will want to hunt waterfowl.
How many hours long is the standard hunting cert course? Maybe it's too short, and a species recog. module needs to be added. For comparison, I'm a fur course instructor, and the Ontario trapping cert course is a minimum of 40 hours in the classroom, plus one full day in the field, plus a practical field test. My courses have always taken 10 weeks to deliver (one 4 hour class per week). Maybe the hunt course is past due for some "beefing"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Exactly, something along those lines, i agree that the course should only be for people wanting to hunt waterfowl not for the guy taking his hunter ed course so he can shoot grouse, deer, and moose as mentioned earlier in the thread by another member.
This a dumb idea. Mandatory courses gets thrown around alot on this site. Ive even seen posts suggesting there should be courses to get a fishing license! Do your homework! If you want to hunt waterfowl there are plenty of books and videos out there to study and learn what's what. They do cover duck identification during ohep. Yeah i know they do not go overly in depth on the subject but it is covered. Ohep does not go into great amounts of detail on any subject. Touches on the basics and the rest is up to the individual. This is why they encourage new hunters to hunt with a mentor so they can learn what to do and what not to shoot. I would agree if there was an optional course available but definitely not a mandatory one.
This has been discussed in the past, (adding more ID to the hunting course), was also talked about with the introduction of Wild turkey, and Elk, about adding it all in. The main argument has always been, that the course is first and foremost a safety course, not a wildlife ID course.
Not saying right or wrong, just saying that's been the stance and why the early mentioned haven't been added.
The other caviat of course, is, is this needed? in the sense of, people who want to take the time, to ID their birds, and be sure of what they are targeting, are probably already doing this, already educating themselves and practicing this.
To the guys that "don't really care" sure they may memorise enough to pass a test, and then probably never look at it again and just go on doing what they have been doing, and blasting at whatever comes in, would it actually change anything?
And what about those who buy the stamp each year who are not hunters ... not only hunters buy the stamp, some are just stamp collectors and others are making the donation to where the money goes from the sales ... silly idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
I also think this would be a dumb idea ... are we not tired of being regulated to death ... treated like idiots who cannot learn unless we are made to, and really, those who do not want to learn will not remember anyway and still do what they want.
An optional course to be available is fine ... in fact, if there were to be an optional migratory bird identification course, I may be interested in helping to develop it and teach it.
Be something to build an identification on line web course and allow it to be used for free.
Biggest issue I can see us what an online course would contain. Could actually be broke down into several sections.
Big Game
Turkey
Small Game (rabbits, squirrel, grouse etc.)
waterfowl
Identification of each species from male, female etc. Detailed pictures followed on feeding habits, food, range
Say i want to get into hunting ducks and I know absolutely nothing. First thing im going to do is find out what i can not hunt for and google it to see pictures of head and wing patterns. Then im going to go on youtube and look for videos on these birds in flight so i know exactly what to look for when they are flying in and what they sound like. Then im going to research the same way the ducks that are legal but i dont want to eat. Then im going to do the same for the ducks i want to go for. I should know sounds, colour schemes and flight patterns before i ever hit the field. The information is out there people just need to show some initiative and seek it out for themselves. There will always be people that dont give a damn and just blast everything course or no course. If someone were to have a website with all this info in one spot it would do well. Also include dressing. And field dressing, skinning and quartering for big game. Maybe butchering as well. And small game too. How to clean rabbits and squirrels and skin coyotes etc. Could do upland game too. I would much rather see some type of hunting database like this in place over more mandatory courses.
what gadwall said. seriously I will be d***** if I am going to take another course.
In my opinion this issue stems from a much larger problem that today's society faces. My thought is that if someone wants to hunt waterfowl, or anything else, they need to take efforts to ensure they are familiar with the laws and standards set out for the protection of the very sport they are taking part in. Today many people (in particular the younger generations) dont want to take that effort and feel like they should just have everything handed out to them. They give no thought to anything besides themselves and the present. We shouldn't have to implement a waterfowl course because people should go to the effort to be responsible but only a few actually do (I have no doubt that the majority of members on this site are responsible). Just my opinion.
Particularly younger generations? What a ridiculous generalization and an absolute load of BS. I know and have witnessed plenty of irresponsible hunters, and believe me, most of them are from older generations. Just because a guy has been nonchalantly waterfowl hunting for 30+ years doesn't mean he's a responsible hunter.Quote:
Originally Posted by northernympher
Just to break the "trend", I'm 22 years old and I don't need any handouts.
-Nick
Hello Guys,
This would appear to be more complicated than first expected.
There are several areas of concern from what I have read so far:
1) Let us not discourage individuals from getting started in hunting.
2) Let us cover everything there is to know ... not going to happen ... unless it is broken down into sections and the individual can select which sections will apply to his/her interests.
3) Let us have "more courses" vs "no more courses" on identification.
4) Let us leave it to the individual to learn what there is to learn.
I agree with Fenelon (Post 10) regarding having a general ID module in the hunter training course.
I agree with Jaycee (Post 21) regarding taking a "waterfowl identification course" prior to applying for a MGBP for new hunters but this would probably have to be available "online" so that individuals in remote areas could take it. Great White has alluded to this (Post 27).
Note to Gadwall regarding (Post 26) ... individuals can buy the WHC "duck" stamp without applying for the MGBP.
I agree with Dyth Bringer (from "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread) that a "hands on" course may be required for Tundra Swan hunters in order to get this proposal accepted. However the OFAH is not interested in this proposal and the Long Point Waterfowl position is (in essence) to let the Americans harvest all the Tundra Swans as I have documented in a letter posted in the above mention thread.
I took my hunter safety course way back in 1978 and there was no identification section included other than human vs moose, human vs deer and human vs bear. I think that was just in case the human was not wearing "hunter orange" during hunting season.
On that note a "thank you" to Dead Ringer for starting this thread.
Jerome
That's a pretty bold statement / opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by northernympher
And I wouldn't be so quick to paint the "younger" generation with the same brush, last I checked, when we read about all these charges, seems to be the "older generation" are the ones in the "wrong" but I also don't go on to say it's only older people that cant handle guns safely.
These types of things know no age group, you are either responsisble or you're not, whether your 24 or 42.
As I stated, I don't think a mandatory course will fix the issue, you either care enough about the topic to take it upon yourself, educate yourself and make those educated decisions / shots in the field. Or you don't care and will only do bare minimum to pass the course, then toss the knowledge and keep doing what you're doing.
I agree. When my grandfather was alive, he routinely would ask how my hunting was going and when we discussed it, he would come up with a un-ethical, even illegal ways to put an animal down (the oddest one was when he told me I should go into the back woods behind his place with his .303 and get a deer out of season and we lived in a shotgun only hunt area for deer and his reasoning was no one will know). I would never hunt with him because he simply didn't care about the laws (for instance lead shot for waterfowl), he did what he thought was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurkeyRookie
dyth
No better experience than in the field to learn your ducks, much better than a classroom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite
Couldn't agree more with you Nick!! I am also in my early twenties and believe that many of people our age and from our generation are some of the most ethical, conservation minded and hardcore hunters out there!!! Especially when it comes to waterfowl hunting and waterfowl conservation! I too have witnessed most unethical hunters being of older generations with the attitude of " of done it this way for 30 years so screw any law that says i can't" we have more power and tools at our disposal now to teach the next generation of gunners to be even a step more conservation minded. I like to think we are advancing forward and not back...... I know numerous old farmer type guys around here that give me crap when i pack up my dekes after shooting my limit saying who cares about a limit shoot as many as you can!! " and why didn't you shoot those turkeys while you were out there" no turkey season where i hunt......
My Opinion - it's not required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Ringer
Read a book. Look at pictures. but nuts to taking a mandatory waterfowl ID course.
It was well covered on my hunters course - my instructor was HUGE into waterfowl. I found it fun and looked into it later on - ON MY OWN TIME.
But no, I dont think there should be a mandatory waterfowl ID course.
Waterfowl ID? Nope!
How about actually shooting a gun to get a PAL/hunting license?
I really cant believe a person can get a firearms license, or hunting license, without firing a shot. Thats just crazy IMO!
When I took my course 23 years ago, we did it at a gun club, and shot trap, skeep, and 25m .22 cal. It wasnt mandatory to shoot well, but it was a good experience, and great way to learn the different actions.
How about a course on judging distance? Most guys dont know 40ft from 40yds.
S.
I came from a place with very liberal gun laws. Anyone without a criminal record can buy a gun (even a pistol), guns don't have to be locked at home and concealed carry is easy to obtain. When taking the hunter's ed course there, we had to live fire a rifle and bow at still targets and a shotgun at skeet. Again, marksmanship wasn't the test, safety was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
I'm not debating whether the US gun laws or Canadian gun laws are better. That's pandora's box.
But I found it rather odd when I moved to Canada, which is more gun-safety conscious, and took the PAL course to legally own a firearm here, that we didn't fire a shot. So you want us to learn about guns so that we are safe, but letting us feel what a gun does when fired is a bad idea under controlled conditions? You'd rather give us a license to shoot said gun and try it out on our own without an instructor around? Just seemed counter-intuitive to me. The instructor agreed.
Jerome, you're welcome. I have taken the liberty of abridging your message above to concentrate on the areas I will discuss. No offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Boy
First, I knew this was going to be a ball of string. So long as everyone stays civil, I think it will be a good time. Great ideas can come out of conversations like this.
For the record, I like the idea of a mandatory waterfowl course. I dislike the actuality of it.
1) Agreed.
2) Find me someone who knows all there is to know about waterfowling and I'll pay for your license next year. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates
Every day in the field is a learning experience, so a course that covers everything would be infinite. That said, I think that many of the key facets of safety, conservation and maybe even tactics could be covered with enough depth to vastly improve upon major mistakes afield.
3) Political debates like that are rarely ever settled. Minds have been made up and aren't likely to change. This is why I dislike the actuality. It is counter to the fundamental views of many hunters.
I was not pleased to hear that I had to cough up hundreds of dollars to take a course to learn how to hunt and shoot after having done so in another jurisdiction and compiling 15 years of experience. It is tough to decide where the line should be drawn. As said above, will a fishing course be next?
4) The reason I said above that I like the idea is that the general premise is that individuals can choose whether to be legal or not. They can choose to learn ID and not shoot too many black ducks. They can choose to take that risk and if they get caught, they are punished for their choice. But I have been checked by a LEO once in 5 years of waterfowling here. So the tail end of that argument falls apart when the chance of getting caught nears zero.
I'll add another theme to the list, 5) a course will never replace practical in-the-field training.
My response to 5) is that I agree. But it may supplement field experience. For the first decade of my waterfowling life, I only hunted with my old man. He was a great father and I appreciate all that he taught me. But my knowledge base had the same gaps his did. We mostly only ever shot ringers and mottled ducks. He excitedly identified his first good drake GWT as a cinnamon teal. Upon retrieving a headless hen pintail, he thought it was a hen BWT. We knew what we knew and knew nothing new. I supplemented that knowledge base via books and the net and was able to teach him about new species. We encountered those new species due to a combination of experience (I started scouting new habitats) and supplementary knowledge (learned new tactics online and in books/mags). I have also learned tons from fellow hunters both afield and online.
Some of us are motivated to seek out that info. It's out there. DU has a duck ID quiz. The wing ID guide is online and free. Books like "The Lemaster Method", "The Duck Hunter's Bible" and "The Ways of Waterfowl" are great resources. Not a month goes by that some magazine or website isn't sharing recycled decoy spread ideas like Cosmo shares "new" bedroom tips. But there isn't a single source to pool it all together in an organized manner.
On a side note: I just cracked open my copy of "The Ways of Waterfowl" and found a note from my late father. He must have written it in there after he gave it to me and it was on my bookshelf, because I've never seen it before and I've been through that book plenty. He may not have been a duck aficionado, but he sparked my waterfowling passion and encouraged me to add to what he taught me. I am grateful for that and try to carry on by mentoring hunters each season. But we experienced (note I didn't say expert ;) ) hunters can't take all of the newbs afield.
I owe Nick and TurkeyRookie as well as the rest of the younger hunting generation an apology. I should not have generalized like I did. There are without doubt wonderful and respectful individuals of all ages hunting waterfowl. I wish that those were the only kind of people hunting.
In my circle of friends and acquaintances[friends few, acquaintances many ] I have never over the many years , come across any one who buys a waterfowl stamp to collect , or to donate money for the cause .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadwall
The only ones that I know of that buy them are water fowlers.
Appreciated, and much respect for admitting a wrong, :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by northernympher
It would be nearly impossible to find a more knowledgeable instructor for that course! I could only aspire to know half of what Steve knows about ducks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadwall
Growing up my dad carved waterfowl for a hobby, several of his classmates/instructors/colleagues bought the stamps to include in their display cases with the carvings, the majority of them were not hunters.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
A few years ago I asked the post office person if I had to have a hunting lic to buy the stamp ... the worker said she sold about 30 per year to people that stated they do not hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
I waited for a fellow to buy a stamp and have it post marked of the post office were he bought it. Said he did it every year, were ever he happened to be. He didn't hunt. As for duck ID when I took the hunter safety course in 1972 I remember the course being heavy on duck ID. At least that's what I remember.
I use to buy five (5) WHC stamps each year (started in 1985) from the Post Office in addition to the one that was already attached to the MGB Permit. The stamps come in a collectors booklet at no additional charge. I then started ordering (many years ago) my five (5) additional stamps directly from the WHC Head Office in Ottawa. I have also purchased a framed enlarged print (Kings Eiders) directly from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
The five (5) complete sets of stamps will eventually be donated for a fund raiser event.
Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Jerome,Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Boy
I have been in touch with the authorities. You must now take the course 6 times. You have 30 days to complete the requirement.
:moose:
Hello Dead Ringer,
Which course do I have to take again? I thought that I had completed all the courses!
I recently took the "swan hunter course" and I passed with 100% on the first attempt.
Check out the free Nevada "on line" swan hunter course (http://www.utah-hunt.com/utswancourse/) and let me know what you think.
Jerome
if you want a free duck id quiz, check out the Delta Waterfowl website...they have a few different ones. best of all they aren't mandatory and don't hit ya in the pocket...more testing is a terrible idea...after taking the snooze fest turkey course I would not want to put people through more courses to hunt...it should be on each guys shoulders to make sure he knows what he's shooting and limits and regulations etc...if not then be prepared when ya get a fine....and perhaps fines should be heavier to discourage people from shooting everything and anything.
Jerome, to prevent confusion of the waterfowl and swan ID debates (the reason for this separate thread, I'll respond about Utah on the swan thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Boy
And it's hard to tell if you were kidding about the course I reported you about. It was a joke implying that since you bought so many stamps, you have to take extra waterfowl ID courses. ;)
Rumble, who is going to fine them? COs (at least checking waterfowlers) are almost as rare as harlequins in this province.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
I'm not sure of your take Dead Ringer. I can't believe all of us that railed against the useless gun registery are so quick to want an equally useless course. So in order to address small percentage of slob hunters we all have to suffer at Scott's "snooze fest". Tis good deal for the instructor who is going to get $100 a seat for the seminar however.
I defend the right for Canadians to use their portion of the Tundra harvest instead of giving it to the U.S. like we have been and I applaud Jerome for trying to make this happen ... but ... for me, if there is a course I will not be a swan hunter. I have not hunted turkeys and have no interest in it, mostly due to the course needed and the high cost of a tag to shoot just one (I can buy one cheaper), I guess I have had it with overregulation which is mostly designed for the government to make more $$ off our recreation.
With that said ... I tend to be a close to home hunter and do not travel much ... and we now see almost no Tundras in my area, but hundred's if not thousands of Mutes within 40km of where I live, so, if we are able to get these aggressive, invasive species off the protected list, I will be VERY VERY disappointed if they make us do a course to shoot a potentially non-regulated species, that just seems wrong to me ... for my own purposes I would like to press for the mutes to be taken off the protected list (shoot when you want as many as you want), and for other Canadian hunters I really would like to see Canada get their share of the Tundra harvest. But please ... no extra courses for either.
Bardern, the idea of this thread was simply to get a discussion going in the off-season. Not to motivate anyone one way or another. Just to get people involved and thinking. Sometimes, great ideas come from that. I'll say that for me, it was an overwhelming success. It planted the seed of an idea in my head and I have been scribbling notes to develop it further ever since.
I stated my position in this very thread. I also stated that I planned on playing devil's advocate on this thread. So while I don't support a mandatory course for general waterfowling (my position), I have no issue calling to light the fact that enforcement is not a viable tool for curtailing infractions or that the people who take the time to check out Delta's waterfowl quizzes aren't the hunters to worry about (devil's advocate). It's all there in the print above.
I'll also add that as a temporary resident, I will never make a formal push to change regulations here.
Also Bardern, I agree that the fees charged for the courses are absurd. I had to do a hunter's ed course in FL. It was put on my the state and was free. We may have had to pay for the range time at the end. When I heard what I'd have to pay just to take the OHEP and PAL course here, my jaw hit the floor. Bureaucracy at its finest. And yeah, the turkey course is another fine example.
Steve, wrong thread. This one is discussing a general waterfowl ID course. The debate about the thwans and the associated thwan ID course carries on in another thread...
Hello Guys,
A few points:
1) Dead Ringer ... I knew that you were joking about the courses that I had to take and so was I with my response. I saw your response to my previous post regarding the Utah "swan hunter course" that you posted on the "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread ... thank you.
The fact that you are a "temporary resident" (as you identified yourslf as) in Ontario does not exclude you from making suggestions to improve our hunting opportunities ... your comments are valid and valuable.
2) Gadwall ... maybe I misled you with my previous post ... my fault. Dead Ringer responded with "wrong thread" ... so could you "copy" your comments from your Post # 55 and post them on the "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread for me? I value your opinion and I will be writing to Mr. J. Hughes (Head of Population Management, CWS) about this (Tundra Swan) thread regarding the wealth of ideas and information that it contains.
I believe that the ideas and information would be beneficial to the Ontario Waterfowl Advisory Committee (OWAC) since they get to make the final recommendation as to whether or not we have a Tundra Swan season in Ontario ... currently some of the OWAC members are not interested.
Thanks again to both of you.
Jerome
Note to others ... I agree with Dead Ringer to keep this thread just for a "general waterfowl course" as that was my mistake to bring up the Utah "swan hunter course" on this thread ... sorry.
We need better topics to discuss, and certainly not a waterfowl ID course. I can't even comprehend what the point would be, especially now that you can shoot a limit of just about anything. Blacks would be the only exception, and they are incredibly easy to identify, but I bet if you shot 6 ducks that appeared to be blacks, 4 would be crosses.
This from a guy who has started how many threads in the last 6 months? This thread generated 58 responses and over 1200 views in the offseason. It served as an exchange of ideas that may result in some good down the road. But be our guest and start some topics: I'm sure you'll come up with some really transcendental stuff for us to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
PS. It is illegal to shoot grebes, but some fools seem to do it every duck season. Same goes for other non-game species of marsh birds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Ringer
Have to agree here! Have nothing but respect for C.O's they protect the heritage and lifestyle we all love so much, however with so few uniformed field officers spread over such a large mass of land it's just not feasible for them to have the presence needed. Only time ive ever seen a C.O in the field is when there is one in the layout next to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Hello Quigy,
Dead Ringer started this "waterfowl identification course" thread as a "side bar" to my "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread due to the number of comments that started to be made regarding a general "waterfowl identification course" vs a specific "swan hunter course" and I thanked him for that. We are trying to improve waterfowling opportunities in Ontario and identification of "game bird" vs "non-game bird" is part of that.
Jerome
x2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Ringer
-Nick
Quigy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
You comments lend credibility to the entire point of a waterfowl identification course (making it mandatory or not is a separate issue maybe). Read a couple of Jaycee's posts (specifically #52) in the swan thread. We have waterfowlers out there who can't identify different species of ducks from even non-huntable species. Shouldn't that be a concern for all of us?
Dyth
I'm not going to negate the fact that I don't contribute too regularly to this forum; it's not my best platform. That said, I think a waterfowling ID course would be an exiguous effort to combat a fairly insignificant problem; I'd take a few dozen accidental victims over a mandatory course in a second. For starters, for the course to have any merit, it would have to be preformed in the field, where you can watch a species on the wing and from a distance. Waterfowl are most easily identified by their wingbeat, not their physical appearance until they are quite close. So, if you can line up all the species of huntable and non-huntable fowl, any get them to fly by at varying distances, then at least we'd have a starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Ringer
Secondly, any additional barriers to a future hunter, are in my mind, a poor thing. Some idiots will certainly shoot swans by mistake, call at cormorants, hell....I've even seen people post pictures of themselves with Golden Eye! But the point is, a waterfowl ID course is impractical and would only come to fruition if regulators thought there was money, rather than merit, in it.
When it comes to the swan issue, the point is mute.
I must've missed something what is wrong with goldeneye, I know you can only shoot one barrow's but I have never even seen one of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Some guys will shoot anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
Thank you for making several good points on the matter. The wing beat issue has not come up yet and I agree that this is one of the single most important parts for identifying ducks and other waterbirds while in the field. Some field guides and the LeMaster book address this, but it would be just as, if not more important than some other factors. For me, flight pattern and neck shape/posture are the first things that distinguish a duck/goose from a non-game species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Not quite following! What's wrong with Goldeneyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
As for waterfowl identification myself, it all comes down to how the bird flies (wingbeats), posture, speed and little bit on colour depending on the species. It takes time spent in the field to learn these things.
-Nick
Nick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-65O4KCy1RR...90de8b5bc9.jpg
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm trolls:)
Tarter sauce. And the the lack of it on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite
As per my point, the whole question about a waterfowl ID course is that there is no plausible way to teach the difference between different fowl in low light if you don't know what they look like on the wing. It doesn't matter if people know what they look like on paper, it only matters what they see streaking by.
A course w`Ont do nothing you will not remember all those birds. you got to refresh your memory every year by looking at pictures and be a responsible hunter.
Quigy, I stated early in this thread that I don't think a course will replace field experience, but will supplement it.
By your reasoning about flight patterns, low light and similar ducks, there's no way to tell a black and mallard apart. Or for that matter a drake v hen. But once you shoot a bird and retrieve it, the other factors come into play and help you make a positive ID and adjust your shooting accordingly.
I also believe that you can ID birds based on those other factors in flight in many instances. As with any pattern recognition (that's really what field ID is), the more information you have about the subject, the better you can recognize the patterns, and the more accurate your ID will be.
I'll also add that it's the 21st century. We have video technology to help present flight patterns.
Dead Ringer,
You typically post useful information and speak knowledgeably about waterfowling, but since you've taken it upon yourself to attack me I'll respond about how ridiculous this thread and topic is.
Ya, we live in the 21st century. Want to hire some videographers and editors to put a package together that is even remotely helpful, your looking at tens of thousands of dollars. So if the MNR thought this was a good idea, then those costs would in turn would be passed along to test takers, and if there is any question about who should take the test, we all should take the test. So every waterfowl hunter, new or experienced would be looking at a further hit to their wallet and time. Costs would mount to implement this process, and as mentioned above, we need to refresh ourselves each year, so ultimately anyone who buys a Migratory Bird Stamp would need to pass the test each year. We could set up farms every few hundred kilometres with all the various fowl you might encounter in Ontario's waterways and marshes, and it would be on you to drive there and pass the practical portion of the test.
Even if a hunter is not positive what kind of duck they are shooting, it is quite easy to recognize what is a duck vs. what is not. Since all ducks are fair game that use our flyways, it doesn't matter. Additionally, even in low light you can distinguish a duck from any other marsh fowl by the sound of its wings, so as long as you don't triple on blacks in the wee hours, no big deal.
The thought of making the process harder to hunt than it already is deplorable. Idiots can pass a tests. It doesn't mean they won't be idiots in the field. Do we still need a turkey course? No. That came to fruition because no one in our province knew anything about turkeys or how to hunt them. Now that there are many experienced hunters among us, we don't need to rely on an expensive test to teach field safety.
Bird ID isn't rocket science. It is VERY easy to tell what IS a duck and what is NOT. After that, it really doesn't matter. If you don't already know what each species looks like on the wing you will learn from the birds you pick up.
The crux of this matter is that we don't need to make the process harder for beginners, and even experienced eyes may at times have a tough time telling a female Redhead from a Bluebill. But, it doesn't matter, they're all legal.
Rant over.
P.S. My 'grey squirrel' license came in the mail today. I've been giving the black ones fits for years, but now those grey suckers are in trouble!!! BOOM
wow a heated debate.
There is definitely a problem with bird identafication and the lack of knowledge some hunters have towards the issue.
i see it over and over in the fall when clients are out with me. some hunters cant tell the difference between ducks and geese.
i dont think that means wwe should make another course and pay the government more money, what needs to be done is the original hunting course needs to be made with more of this kind of stuff in it, same goes for the turkey course, put that into the hunting course as well. as hunters we already pay to much for hunting licences and tags. why give the government another reason to take money out of our pockets. i think that is another issue with the lack of new hunters, the cost to get a hunting licence and gun licence is so expensive than to find out, wait now you have to spend x amount if you want to kill a turkey and oh wait you have to spend x amount for this new manditory bird ident course. like guys are going to say screw it. and slowly the hunting community will get smaller and smaller.
we as hunters need to stick together and try to introduce new young hunters to the communities and keep the tradition alive.
fighting on the net about it isnt going to make things any better.
We were all having a discussion like adults when you decided to jump in, call our conversation stupid and then troll up the place (goldeneye, squirrels). If you feel that someone calling you out for that is an attack, then that is your problem.
I haven't run the numbers, but it would appear that there has been an overwhelming majority of posters who oppose this idea and have cited good reasons for their stance. Does that make the thread ridiculous?
I think not. You seem to have some deep fear that starting a thread about this is going to result in the passing of a law. I doubt that the MNR or CWS are watching hunting boards to determine their next policy changes. And if they are watching this thread, I'm pretty sure it would convince them that they should not impose a mandatory course.
Discussion about what the most critical factors for a Duck ID course has also yielded a list of what should be included in any duck ID course (mandatory or voluntary). That will be useful down the road should a course (even a voluntary one) be developed.
Duck ID is not rocket science. I agree. But it is not easy for everyone to ID a duck from a non-duck. Maybe for you, but you fill tailgates full of waterfowl and have obviously seen your fair share. For a new hunter that sees a grebe flying into the spread (or even swimming about), it may look like a duck. They shoot it. They learn it's not a duck. Wouldn't it be better if they knew what a grebe looked like before they shot it? This is not a hypothetical situation. Lots of non-game species get shot every year due to improper ID.
Seriously? Tens of thousands of dollars to videotape some ducks or create simulated graphics of their flight patterns? A farm with all species of ducks? You sure do want to see this thread become ridiculous, don't you? Again, 21st century. We also have internet. Think of it as a big farm with all the ducks on it. One that you can visit every year or every day ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6NIi0Ik13E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvoLifzQcWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlySd-Soas
I've been hunting waterfowl for 2 years now and I can honestly say I have no idea what a grebe is. I definitely wouldn't shoot it because I do not know what it is.
That is just common sense. It could be said that common sense can't be taught but it can be strengthened by gaining knowledge.
Would having a tool that has all this information about waterfowl species and then a something that can challenge your new knowledge? Yes! I believe this sort of thing is called a "test".
Voluntary or not a database with tests on the subject matter would be an excellent tool for new and seasoned waterfowlers alike.
Riley
I almost laughed when I just saw this on post #10 of the thread. Basically what I just said about AV technology, mistaken species, etc and Quigy's concerns that it would be impossible to show that. Thanks for that Fenelon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenelon
Mojo the OFAH isn't going to give up that turkey course cash cow. but that is a topic for another thread on another forum eh DeadRinger.;-)Quote:
i dont think that means wwe should make another course and pay the government more money, what needs to be done is the original hunting course needs to be made with more of this kind of stuff in it, same goes for the turkey course, put that into the hunting course as well.
A full on discussion about the turkey course does not belong in this thread, but using it as evidence in this argument makes sense. I think the point is relevant here. The turkey course is a great example of why a mandatory waterfowl course should not be instituted.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
Making further light of your joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRedUF0SAGg
Boy....that escalated quickly.
I don't troll this forum looking to pick fights. I post my opinion about once and you take me to task for not starting transcendental ones? I don't post a lot because I'm pretty reticent with my opinions, but what I don't understand is why a hunter would want to further hinder the ability to hunt by adding another mandatory course.
Someone in the bureaucracy would look at this and think its a fine idea, with a $20 bill (or more) coming in for every hunter. And if they did it, you can bet they would do it right and it would end up costing thousands of dollars. Shotty footage like that wouldn't fly in a course, and if footage exists that is satisfactory it would come with a royalty. That's how film and photography work. Each still would be a good little paycheque for the photographer and it would add up. You would also have to create at a handful of positions to develop and deliver the course.
I don't deny that there are accidental birds shot, or that a number of hunters can't identify ducks from geese, and swans from geese at a distance. But in my mind that's all negligible against the proposition you've posed, but clearly don't endorse. Bird ID may take some time, but any waterfowler should be able to identify a legal duck from any non-legal marsh bird within a few hunts.
Moreover, the policy makers and biologists who contribute to such policy have mostly been avid waterfowlers. That is changing, and that future landscape isn't as friendly as it is today. So why fuel the fire? Don't we have enough to worry about as hunters and our future in the outdoors without questioning our own brotherhood?
So, posting your goldeneye comment on a forum where many other participants actively hunt and post pictures of themselves with goldeneye is _____?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Oh yeah, trying to pick a fight.
Jumping into the middle of a thread where a number of participants are engaging in a mature conversation and declaring it ridiculous instead of simply offering points and counterpoints is ________?
Trying to pick a fight.
What's a goldeneye?? I LOVE shooting whistlers!!!
Each of the last 5 years I have seen harlequin ducks on Lake Ontario during the hunting season ... all are young and I expect most hunters would not be able to identify this duck even in hand ... they have always been with buffies or old squaw, which they resemble in their "baby" plummage ... I wonder how many are being shot and ate, not realizing what they actually are. Teachings in a classroom will not help much with this possiblity, these birds are not "blue" or even marked like a hen harly ... they are simply a small brown duck with a wing similar to a young squaw and a bill like a buffy (face spots are a little different, but their plummage is not consistant) ... personally I understand this mistake can and most likely does happen ... it is the only "duck" that we have to worry about being fully protected in our region. Honest mistakes can happen, and I think should be accepted that they can happen without assuming it is out of ignorace or malice, not all hunters are waterfowl biologists.
And ... just to add again ... I would not support a maditory waterfowl course.
I'm not sure why you would need another course or want to add waterfowl ID to the OHEP. It is up to the hunter to properly ID the birds and so should also be up to him to learn what each bit looks like etc. Google will pretty much show you what you want to know.
Hello Gadwall,
I identified a hen Harlequin Duck "in fllight" once at Presqu'ile Provincial Park only because a drake Harlequin Duck was following her as they both flew pass my decoys. I notified the waterfowl technician that day and he posted a warning at the waterfowl registration office that Harlequin Ducks had been positively identified in the area.
See my Post # 114 in the "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread that was in repsonse to Jaycee's comment about Harlequin Ducks.
Jerome
After reading this thread, you would think there are thousands upon thousands of mis-identified birds shot every season.
I don't think there are. I mean really, ducks are ducks. Its not that hard to figure out.
Regardless, its up to the individual hunter to identify what he/she shoots. If a deer hunter can't properly identify a deer, and shoots his buddy/son/uncle........???
Just sayin....
S.
I've stayed out of this one, but will weigh-in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
I agree with Sinker. I suspect we are blowing things a little out of proportion.
I will give you the #1 cause of miss-identified birds being shot - OPENING DAY. Go to any big public marsh in Ontario on opener (Luther, Presquille, Mastadash Bay, Long Point, etc..) and that's where this is happening. Why? Competition, Frustration, Lack of experience and likely a little alcohol mixed in. I've seen it.
Do I want to see a waterfowl ID course? Absolutely not. The owness falls on the shoulders of the hunters. Just like 100 other small little rules and traditions that a responsible hunter must learn and understand.
Good Thread DR.
That is all.
R