NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
Really? Wow.
NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I'll happily pay $10 more for licenses. Box of shells cost more. Plus most of the money goes for conservation anyway.
Well, in that case, you can pick up the extra $10 for my stamp. Between you and Flint, I'm only $5 short. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to say "I waste money anyway, and giving it to the government seems like a good idea". They can pick up the other $5.
Olly wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
Really? Wow.
NuffDaddy wrote:Olly wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
Really? Wow.
No...not normally. But I've been known to go through a box of shells in a hunt and only kill 3 ducks. And I don't sky bust.
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
NuffDaddy wrote:assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I'll happily pay $10 more for licenses. Box of shells cost more. Plus most of the money goes for conservation anyway.
Well, in that case, you can pick up the extra $10 for my stamp. Between you and Flint, I'm only $5 short. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to say "I waste money anyway, and giving it to the government seems like a good idea". They can pick up the other $5.
It goes back to the ducks. Why not. I say they make it $40.
aunt betty wrote:Nuff, forget about practicing calling. Spend more time practicing shooting.
You would be ran out of the woods.
One shot, one kill.
assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I'll happily pay $10 more for licenses. Box of shells cost more. Plus most of the money goes for conservation anyway.
Well, in that case, you can pick up the extra $10 for my stamp. Between you and Flint, I'm only $5 short. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to say "I waste money anyway, and giving it to the government seems like a good idea". They can pick up the other $5.
It goes back to the ducks. Why not. I say they make it $40.
You are aware that you're allowed to donate all the money "to the ducks" all on your own, right? The filter of government is not necessary.
Show me in the Constitution where it says that caring for ducks is an enumerated power of the federal government. K, thnx.
Bootlipkiller wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:Olly wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
Really? Wow.
No...not normally. But I've been known to go through a box of shells in a hunt and only kill 3 ducks. And I don't sky bust.
Ouch
NuffDaddy wrote:assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I'll happily pay $10 more for licenses. Box of shells cost more. Plus most of the money goes for conservation anyway.
Well, in that case, you can pick up the extra $10 for my stamp. Between you and Flint, I'm only $5 short. I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to say "I waste money anyway, and giving it to the government seems like a good idea". They can pick up the other $5.
It goes back to the ducks. Why not. I say they make it $40.
You are aware that you're allowed to donate all the money "to the ducks" all on your own, right? The filter of government is not necessary.
Show me in the Constitution where it says that caring for ducks is an enumerated power of the federal government. K, thnx.
Easy Betty. Just ruffling some feathers. Pisses me off too. My resident licenses are going to be over $100 this year. Getting kinda ridiculous.
FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
NuffDaddy wrote:Bootlipkiller wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:Olly wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:I do a lot of sky busting. Usually go through 2-3 boxes each hunt.
Really? Wow.
No...not normally. But I've been known to go through a box of shells in a hunt and only kill 3 ducks. And I don't sky bust.
Ouch
A lot of the shells go to cripples. I hate chasing them around so I'll usually shoot at them 3 or 4 times while I'm chasing them around. The last duck of the year 3 or us unloaded our guns and finally got it down, but crippled. I think between me and a buddy we shot at it 9 times before we caught up to it.
aunt betty wrote:So how much is a tank of gas now? Carton of smokes?
FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
FlintRiverFowler wrote:Might start shooting bigger loads this next season.
Bufflehead wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:Might start shooting bigger loads this next season.
I shoot 3", #1 fasteel. I get a few cripples but not like when I was shooting #2 and #4. This year I bought a case of Hevi-metal #2, didn't like them at all so I switched back to the fasteel.
FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
jarbo03 wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
Improved conditions on their breeding grounds.
jarbo03 wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
Improved conditions on their breeding grounds.
Because the government controls the weather, sun, moon and stars with money?FlintRiverFowler wrote:
From government money no doubt.
Bufflehead wrote:Because the government controls the weather, sun, moon and stars with money?FlintRiverFowler wrote:
From government money no doubt.
Bufflehead wrote:Because the government controls the weather, sun, moon and stars with money?FlintRiverFowler wrote:
From government money no doubt.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests