Waterfowl ID course

[Buddy Boy]

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.

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

[Sprite]

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.

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.

x2.

-Nick

[Dythbringer]

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.

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

[Quigy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[skeeter1]

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.

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?

[Quigy]

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?

Some guys will shoot anything.

[Dead Ringer]

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.

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.

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.

[Sprite]

Some guys will shoot anything.

Not quite following! What's wrong with Goldeneyes?

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

[Dead Ringer]

Not quite following! What's wrong with Goldeneyes?

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,

[skeeter1]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm trolls