Waterfowl ID course

[Quigy]

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

Tarter sauce. And the the lack of it on earth.

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.

[mitch]

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.

[Dead Ringer]

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.

[Dead Ringer]

I'll also add that it's the 21st century. We have video technology to help present flight patterns.

[Quigy]

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

[mojo stick]

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.

[Dead Ringer]

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

[Riley12]

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

[Dead Ringer]

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 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.

[bardern]

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.

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.;-)