Dumbest question.

[NuffDaddy]

No because you are willing to give up freedom. Yes I've hunted places that shell limits would be nice, the main public ground I hunt, but it's an oxymoron to have them if you are pro 2nd amendment.

No it's not. Hunting regs are not stated anywhere in the constitution.

[rebelp74]

Commie

[NuffDaddy]

I guess.

[NuffDaddy]

It's been fun fellas. I'm off to bed though.

[rebelp74]

Did the government say it was your bed time, sheep?

[rebelp74]

They may as well have, after all, sleep is a vital part of the conservation of your health.

[Feelin' Fowl]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

[rebelp74]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Sometimes or is better

[3legged_lab]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Sometimes or is better

Ha!

[ducks~n~bucks]

So let me get this straight- you guys are for restricting freedom, as long as it's for what you believe to be a "good cause".


Chalk another one up for the "shell limit supporters are exactly the same as gun control advocates".

I am not saying it we should because it would make ethical hunters happy. Sure, I would be happy if I didn't have idiots skybusting all day next to me, but I am not saying it should happen it so we can make people happy. I am saying that I believe if we had those shell limits on lands that are intended to help preserve waterfowl, than the waterfowl population would be better. Just think, there are guys who go out and hunt all the time and shoot at birds that are way too far. Sure, at 100 yards they may not hit the duck in the flock they are shooting at, but what about the one behind it? Or the one behind that one? They could only hit a bird with one bb, and kill it but never retrieve it, so they would be able to keep shooting birds. If they are restricted to hunting with 25 shells in this area, already designated to the preservation of the species, they can't put a bb in the guts of nearly as many birds as they could if they had 100 rounds. If you don't share my belief, fine. I am not going to further argue this topic.

[Feelin' Fowl]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Sometimes or is better

[rebelp74]

So let me get this straight- you guys are for restricting freedom, as long as it's for what you believe to be a "good cause".


Chalk another one up for the "shell limit supporters are exactly the same as gun control advocates".

If you don't share my belief, fine. I am not going to further argue this topic.

Typical liberal commie comment

[assateague]

No because you are willing to give up freedom. Yes I've hunted places that shell limits would be nice, the main public ground I hunt, but it's an oxymoron to have them if you are pro 2nd amendment.

No it's not. Hunting regs are not stated anywhere in the constitution.

Nor is it stated anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to have fun. Nor does it say you have a right to a supersize soda, a cigarette, a joint, a car, or a black gun.

Either way, I'm not arguing about rights, I'm arguing about freedom. Show me data that says just because people have more shells they take farther shots. You assume that is the case, but you really don't know. You're just assuming, because it "feels" right.

What if the government mandated that cars have a governor installed which matches the maximum speed limit in the state they were bought. Would you be for that? It's for everyone's good, it seems like it would save lives. I believe that it's up to the person to drive responsibly, and if they don't, to be punished. You're arguing that the government should be the one to mandate their choices to protect them from themselves.

If the limit is 6 ducks per day, then that's all that should matter. How I get there doesn't matter a damn. If I shoot 100 shells in the air, and kill 6, then that should be that.

[rebelp74]

No because you are willing to give up freedom. Yes I've hunted places that shell limits would be nice, the main public ground I hunt, but it's an oxymoron to have them if you are pro 2nd amendment.

No it's not. Hunting regs are not stated anywhere in the constitution.

Nor is it stated anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to have fun. Nor does it say you have a right to a supersize soda, a cigarette, a joint, a car, or a black gun.

Either way, I'm not arguing about rights, I'm arguing about freedom. Show me data that says just because people have more shells they take farther shots. You assume that is the case, but you really don't know. You're just assuming, because it "feels" right.

What if the government mandated that cars have a governor installed which matches the maximum speed limit in the state they were bought. Would you be for that? It's for everyone's good, it seems like it would save lives. I believe that it's up to the person to drive responsibly, and if they don't, to be punished. You're arguing that the government should be the one to mandate their choices to protect them from themselves.

If the limit is 6 ducks per day, then that's all that should matter. How I get there doesn't matter a damn. If I shoot 100 shells in the air, and kill 6, then that should be that.

Amen!

[Feelin' Fowl]

No because you are willing to give up freedom. Yes I've hunted places that shell limits would be nice, the main public ground I hunt, but it's an oxymoron to have them if you are pro 2nd amendment.

No it's not. Hunting regs are not stated anywhere in the constitution.

If the limit is 6 ducks per day, then that's all that should matter. How I get there doesn't matter a damn. If I shoot 100 shells in the air, and kill 6, then that should be that.

But it does. Steel shot? Nothing larger than T? Hey, Jim...Today is Saturday. Can I come out and hunt with you tomorrow?

It's all regulated. What does it have to do with freedom?

How do you define freedom? I'm not sure that I have a definition, but I don't correlate shell limits with a restriction of freedom.

[NuffDaddy]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Yes. Ours say the the same thing. But you are reading it wrong. You legally have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve it and include in the bag limit. But if you don't recover it, the it is not included in the bag limit.
If you did have to include them that would be unenforceable. What is considered a cripple? A bird with a broken wing? A bird that gets one pellet in the lungs, flys a half mile away, then dies? Gut shot that may not die in sight?

[Feelin' Fowl]

You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Yes. Ours say the the same thing. But you are reading it wrong. You legally have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve it and include in the bag limit. But if you don't recover it, the it is not included in the bag limit.
If you did have to include them that would be unenforceable. What is considered a cripple? A bird with a broken wing? A bird that gets one pellet in the lungs, flys a half mile away, then dies? Gut shot that may not die in sight?

I still think you're wrong.

You must try to recover a downed bird (killed or crippled).

You must include the killed or crippled bird.

It does not say "or". It says "and". There isn't an option to include non-recovered game in your limit.

[NuffDaddy]

[quote="NuffDaddy"]You legally do not have to count cripples if you cannot recover them after an honest attempt.

I believe you do...

Nope. If you make a reasonable attempt at finding a bird but can't find it, then it is presumed that it survived and doesn't have to be counted to your daily limit. Only birds you recover or could reasonably be recovered have to be counted for you limit.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1388806113.487744.jpg

IL says the same, but it also states (in another area of the regulations):

It is unlawful to kill or cripple any species protected
by the Illinois Wildlife Code for which
there is a bag limit without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and include
it in the bag limit.

My guess would be that you have something hidden in your regs as well.

Yes. Ours say the the same thing. But you are reading it wrong. You legally have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve it and include in the bag limit. But if you don't recover it, the it is not included in the bag limit.
If you did have to include them that would be unenforceable. What is considered a cripple? A bird with a broken wing? A bird that gets one pellet in the lungs, flys a half mile away, then dies? Gut shot that may not die in sight?

I still think you're wrong.

You must try to recover a downed bird (killed or crippled).

You must include the killed or crippled bird.

It does not say "or". It says "and". There isn't an option to include non-recovered game in your limit.[/quote]
It's only one statement. Call your IL DNR and ask.

[Feelin' Fowl]

I'm calling MI DNR instead. I'm going to need your phone number and address so I can act like a resident...

[rebelp74]

Bunch of muther fuckin COMMIES!

[NuffDaddy]

I'm calling MI DNR instead. I'm going to need your phone number and address so I can act like a resident...

Just call the number and tell them you know NuffDaddy. They will tell you all you want to know.

[3legged_lab]

Nor is it stated anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to have fun. Nor does it say you have a right to a supersize soda, a cigarette, a joint, a car, or a black gun.

'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'

Supersized sodas make me happy

[aunt betty]

[quote="rebelp74"]I'm with Assa. While shell limits would be good for hunting, it goes against the very fabric of our republic.

So do you feel the same way about all other hunting regs then?

You already know the answer to that but some are necessary for the preservation of the animal which is understandable.

Exactly. Do you like crippled birds?

Most the people that shoot that far completely miss. The lead you have to take on a bird 100yds out is ridiculous.

But it happens. I watch it every time I hunt out there. It really is sad. I watched over a dozen geese in 4 hunts get hit, sail into the no entry zone and fall from the sky. Ever try marking a duck in a flooded corn field that sailed 100 yards away? Without a dog, its near impossible.
Shell limits are needed it places like this.[/quote]good answer!

[assateague]

Nor is it stated anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to have fun. Nor does it say you have a right to a supersize soda, a cigarette, a joint, a car, or a black gun.

'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'

Supersized sodas make me happy

That's not in the constitution. From the Declaration of Independence.

[aunt betty]

If I use more than ten shells a day...it means I'm shooting op's cripples.
I used 8 today to kill my 6 ducks. Yesterday I used 6 shells.

[aunt betty]

Once I shot 52 shells to get a limit. Nobody was liking me that day. It was way back in the 1900's when I was a pup.

[RonE]

Having a limit on the number of shells you can possess in a WMA or Refuge sounds like someone with an agenda to leave a "legacy" got carried away and passed a law or regulation just to be remembered a person who preformed a "great service" to the hunting public. It is ridiculous that we have to pay through frustration, money, time or effort just to stroke some assholes ego. Show me the study that supports such bullshit.

Around here we are going through the prop scar/save the sea grass bullshit.

[aunt betty]

Oh goodness. LOOK AT THIS. First of all the animation...is accurate as hell. Do you need 150 rounds to kill those?That looks kinda like my hole.
Now this. Gasp....

[aunt betty]

Look at the site bag limits, shell limits, horsepower limits. Deal with it .

[aunt betty]

3 mallard limit...4 duck limit. 15 shells 25 hp. It is what it is and really helped tame the place a bit.