Alaska duck hunting

Dave

I don't think so. If a party member stays put while another member runs a boat through a flock that is rallying because your party is driving them into gunning range. If you kick them up on your way to a hunting spot that is normal activity. I talked to a game warden about this very thing and he stated normal boating activity doesn't apply. For example a bassboat stirs up ducks that settle into your spread. That's normal activity. Now if you set up your spread and tell a partner to run the boat into flocks while you wait in the decoys you are rallying. If bumping up ducks on the way to your spot was rallying that offense would really be hard to avoid. What Kevin described was what we called run-and-gun. You flush them from a cove, set up quickly, and wait for their return. Back when we had Gadwall on Lake Guntersville that tactic was widespread and never did I hear of anyone getting cited. Like I said, the local game warden I talked to was fine with it. Perhaps it depends on your COs take on the law.
 
Eric,

Bumping ducks on your way into a spot, is quite different than intentionally flushing thousands of ducks into the air.

The Federal regulations are what they are. I stand by every word I wrote in my earlier response. If you indeed have a different legal definition than what is provided below within the Federal regulations, I am all ears.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-20
§ 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
(h) By means or aid of any motordriven land, water, or air conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;
 
Eric Patterson said:
What Kevin described was what we called run-and-gun. You flush them from a cove, set up quickly, and wait for their return.
Click to expand...
He tried that;
Kevin Layne said:
So then we went looking for them. We would pull into a cove and kick up 2,000 ducks and by the time we got set up they had all landed in other coves.
Click to expand...
When that didn't work he changed tactics;
Kevin Layne said:
We ended getting a good share of our ducks by pulling into an area at full speed and kicking up thousands of ducks then beaching the boat by a bush or tree and running with guns and a couple decoys maybe 30 yards to another hide and throwing out the decoys and shooting a few before they all landed...then doing it again in a new cove.
Click to expand...
Key characteristics of rallying waterfowl include:
  • Intentional flushing: The purpose is to intentionally disturb a raft or group of birds and force them to take flight.
 
I also dont agree, Dave.
If your interpretation was correct, one could never look for a spot with ducks on the water, go to that spot and then setup to hunt unless the ducks just sat there while you motored in & setup. Which is not the spirit and intent of the rule.
 
Carl said:
I also dont agree, Dave.
If your interpretation was correct, one could never look for a spot with ducks on the water, go to that spot and then setup to hunt unless the ducks just sat there while you motored in & setup. Which is not the spirit and intent of the rule.
Click to expand...
It's what's written in the rules.
You don't see a difference in "motoring in" as opposed to "blasting in at full speed with the intent on flushing birds"? Come on now, common sense would say otherwise.
 
Dave

I think you have done a good job of researching the specifics and applying them. But in practice and inline with what I've seen and had discussions with authorities the components that must both be present to push law enforcement to citing hunters are as follows. 1) Are guns loaded and ready while birds are being disturbed and 2) is a member of their party doing the disturbing. Without those two then you could be cited for rallying by hunting ducks on the same day you found them or shooting at any duck that was kicked up by any other hunter, fisherman, or pleasure boater. I think that too is common sense.

Any game warden out there care to give us your thoughts?
 
I suspect a green man intent on writing a ticket would agree with your literal reading, Dave.

When I read the initial post, the tactical change that struck me was not putting up ducks when entering a cove (as that happened in all events), but instead of setting up in that cove they hauled ass (on foot) to a nearby cove to set up in hopes some would come to that one.

I have no problem with that tactical change. But I could see how it could be interpreted differently and that I'd be taking a risk if misinterpretation
 
Eric Patterson said:
Any game warden out there care to give us your thoughts?
Click to expand...
My experience is a game officer is only to go on record as quoting the law. To have him say otherwise puts his job at risk. When I asked about E-bike restrictions, the response was to provide the written statue, nothing more.
Again, if there is a more detailed legal definition, I'm all ears.
 
I believe you are correct but I've also had game wardens talk to me about situations beyond the printed laws. Maybe one of the former game wardens can offer up their thoughts.
 
Wow, never even considered what we did could have been illegal. On one hand, a strict interpretation of that law would certainly make us guilty. On the other hand, every time I walk out to my duck blind I kick a lot of birds off the pond and wait for them to come back.


Key characteristics of rallying waterfowl include:
  • Intentional flushing: The purpose is to intentionally disturb a raft or group of birds and force them to take flight.
Isn't this what you do when you jumpshoot or scull?

Either way, it was 30 years ago so the statute of limitations has passed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top