Sutter Bypass WA levees posted "no waterfowl hunting&qu

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: #1wingnut, PinTeal, finsnfeathershunter, duckman2000

Sutter Bypass WA levees posted "no waterfowl hunting&qu

Postby buriani » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:31 pm

The Sutter bypass levee from Oswald road north to McClatchy road on both side of the Sutter refuge close zone HAS BEEN POSTED BY THE DFG "NO WATERFOWL HUNTING" The west side south of Oswald is still open as of 23 Nov. The sign tells you for more information to call a number at Orville WA which is only an answering machine.
I've done some preliminary research and this decision was made by Region 2 chief Sandy Morey under the advise of her staff with Andy Atkinson possibly being the prime mover. I intend to contest this decision , in writing, with both the Directer of the DFG as well as the DFG Game Commission. That will take me a week or more since it is hunting season. If you would like to input your thoughts to Sandy Morey, her number is 919-358-2899 either pro or con. Please DO!
The following is not validated but most likely true. The DFG mitigated the loss of public hunting area by accepting 127 acres near or adjacent to Sutter NWR. There is an alleged intent to install 4 3-man blinds to be handled out of Sutter check station. They are not yet available and I could not get an estimate when they would be operational. ( the posting is already done)
This trades about 6 miles of a firing line (estimated levee hunting area lost is about one acre wide by 6 mile, with 80 acres/side of a section/mile: 80x6=480 acres traded for for 127 acres. In addition the levee was a 7 days a week without ressies, lotto, sweat line or expense and truly FREE
ROAM as compared to 4 blinds and 3 times /week. Doesn't sound like a good deal for the unattached PUBLIC hunters to me.
Please Call Sandy Morey @ 916358-2899 if you want to input your feelings on the closure. This is a giant loss of PUBLIC HUNTING LAND to the hundreds of hunters and their families who use the levees.
Of the people, By the people and For the people
buriani
hunter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Vacaville


Postby #1wingnut » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:21 pm

Buriani,
I feel for you, although I have never hunted the levee I have had public ground that I hunted closed to me for some buricratic reason, that has really hit me in a soft spot
I dont know how many of you used the white slough WA pond off of woodbridge Rd. (I forget the # - 6 i think)we used it for years and years.
My two older boys took some of there 1st ducks and pheasants out there. then one pheasant opener we went out there and it was posted
"NO HUNTING" WHAT THE HECK
Many calls to the DFG and getting the run around. ended up some collage
wanted a place to study a rabbit. they had three ponds of the white slough tract already closed to hunting why not use one of them. :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:
I have been following your discusions on this issue elsewhere and I still have some reservations about the way hunting has been done out there.
but I still dont like to see our very limited hunting area's being taken away
with out so much as being able to put up a fight for it.
You can count on me to make that phone call to give sandy my .02 :umm:
for all the good it will do.
I wish you luck in your battle we need more people to take a stand to fight
for what we all love so much

Dan
User avatar
#1wingnut
Super Moderator
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:36 am

Postby PinTeal » Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:16 am

Thank the Lord!

I hunted a rice field right up against the levee last season and all I can say is I am extremely happy with this decission, and it is about time!!

Levee hunters pass shoot high birds going into, or out of the refuge. The birds fall into the refuge where they are not retrieved, or into a land owners rice field...where the shooter is trespassing to get the bird...if he does at all.

In my experience, all the levee shooters do is ruin it for people that pay good money for rice field blinds.

Free hunting is nice, but, in my best estimates, levee hunting is merely pass shooting......


Jeff Given
User avatar
PinTeal
State Moderator
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA....Corona, CA

Postby Mattquack » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:21 am

I hunted white slough a lot when I lived in Lodi. Mostly for dove. I've jumped a few pheasants out there, and a rabbit or squirel from time to time. I miss it. It was a great place that was really close. A good place for an after work hunt.
User avatar
Mattquack
hunter
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

Postby po' refugee » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:44 pm

Pin Teal is 100% right. I'm sure there are some who shoot the levees in an ethical and conscientious, but the vast majority of the hunting done there is not hunting but shooting!! On a foogy day there might be some lower shots available at lost birds, but mostly it is 70+ yard shots. This particular closure is, in my opinion, not a bad thing at all.
po' refugee
hunter
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: God's Country

Postby buriani » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:25 pm

Gents, if you want to get hung up on sky busting, trespassing and unwonted waste,you are missing the point. This is the loss of public hunting land without so much as one offer to the public to input. All those other reasons come under law enforcement and ethics and are CONJECTURE WITHOUT DATA/PROOF. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If this slide through without a wrinkle, what's next??? This is a DEMOCRACY and the government is to serve the public good not the special $$$interest of rice blind owners who come in after the fact and now want to take away for their own selfishness. Much like a new buyer of a home next to an established airport who then sues because of noise. The rice blinds are trying to move the airport, so to speak. THIS SHOULD CONCERN EVERY PUBLIC HUNTER because any special interest can and will make offers to the DFG and take away YOUR HUNTING.
Of the people, By the people and For the people
buriani
hunter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Vacaville

Postby PinTeal » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:51 pm

Gents, if you want to get hung up on sky busting, trespassing and unwonted waste,you are missing the point.
riani"]

I do not understand your point; how is preventing all of these negative things positive? I think it is the point. You see, the government has an obligation to protect their birds animals, and uphold the rights of private property. Without that, we do not have any birds, and we have no private property protections (which is besides the point).

This is the loss of public hunting land without so much as one offer to the public to input. All those other reasons come under law enforcement and ethics and are CONJECTURE WITHOUT DATA/PROOF. THAT IS NOT THE POINT.


The government makes decisions all the time without your input. To oppose yet another point you make, is the ethical aspect of it all. If a hunter is hunting unethically, it IS the governing agencies job to put an end to it; this in my opinion will end it (at least North of Oswald). There is no law agency that will come in and make levee hunters shoot any closer than they do....it just wont/can't happen. In regards to your data/proof: I cannot name a study that has been conducted, but I can re-state what I have seen in the past. That is good enough proof for me. Furthermore, having seen some levee hunter chasing a cripple in my rice field makes me more than a little upset when I am trying to hunt ducks.


If this slide through without a wrinkle, what's next??? This is a DEMOCRACY and the government is to serve the public good not the special $$$interest of rice blind owners who come in after the fact and now want to take away for their own selfishness.


Their own selfishness? I think you have it backwards! Rice hunters pay a lot of their own money to hunt their fields. Levee hunters on the other hand do NOT pay a dime and go to the levee and mess with the birds working rice fields; I have seen it...it has happened to me. Lastly, what is this "special $$$interest rice blind owners" all about? Sure they have an interest in getting the levee shooters off the levee...just as many others do! I like your slippery slope argument. "What next if they take this?" I would like to turn it around on you though. What next if we continue to allow the bad practices of most levee hunters? If a levee shooter is allowed to shoot a bird and not harvest it, do we allow them to keep shooting untill they get a limit? Do we let them keep sky-busting untill the birds fly at 150 yards? It is happening now with snow geese--they are flying higher and higher all the time. Lastly, hunters are the extremely small population in California. How good would it look if we had a local news channel doing a story on shooters shooting birds and not retrieving them? If you shoot a bird and it lands on either side of the levee...retrieving it (on either side) is illegal.

Much like a new buyer of a home next to an established airport who then sues because of noise. The rice blinds are trying to move the airport, so to speak. THIS SHOULD CONCERN EVERY PUBLIC HUNTER because any special interest can and will make offers to the DFG and take away YOUR HUNTING.



I do not see the big deal about shooting passing birds on the levee. Is that your idea of hunting? I will be honest and say I have never had to hunt the refuge (though, I will try and do it this year), but that is hunting. Putting out your dekes, and calling the birds into your spread. Pass shooting is merely shooting trap....except you often cripple birds that die without being harvested. Rice fields are not that expensive, and allow hunting 7 days a week. If you cannot afford it, there are numerous refuges around the area you can try. All this is an effort to protect the birds....if it was the big rice field money...you would have every levee in Northern California closed off....something I can only hope will happen anyways.

You may be the exception rather than the rule in hunting ethically from the levees, but, in my opinion, and pardon the cliche', a few rotten apples spoils the basket.

Respectfully disagreeing,
Jeff Given
Last edited by PinTeal on Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PinTeal
State Moderator
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA....Corona, CA

Postby PinTeal » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:00 pm

http://www.duckhuntingchat.com/viewtopic.php?t=10299


$1,000 bucks a seat. If it is anything like the rice fields I have hunted that allows you 7 days a week.


how many hunting days are there? I think close to 100...that puts the price right about $10 a hunt.......pretty cheap!


Jeff Given
User avatar
PinTeal
State Moderator
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA....Corona, CA

Postby worknem » Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:48 pm

OK. First. Thanks for posting this over here Rudy.

On to my limited knowledge of the situation with The Sutter Bypass Levee and waterfowl hunting. The Bypass area in question is designated a Type "C" Public Area. It is touted by the DFG as prime dove hunting territory re: DFG Wingbeat News Summer Edition. That particular article encourages hunters to find the privately owned sunflower / safflour fields and hunt next to them. Difference on issues of retrieving a dove on private property from a duck?

The history of said levee and waterfowl hunting. Yes it's hunting. Just another aspect of duck hunting.( I'll go there in a bit when I get to ethics.)
There has been many generwtions of Sutter county locals that have used that levee as a last reort for duck hunting. My dad hauled me there when I was 4 or 5 and they didn't have the rice burned on the the family property. Traditionally, til recently when farmers went to rot water and found they could profit from it off the duck hunters, the area outside the levees of the Bypass weren't hunted for ducks. (With a couple of exceptions, Koenig for 1 - been there long time on the west outside.) and the inner Bypass north of The Closed Zone was. The special interest clubs referred to was one in particular, the one that swung the deal to swap theblinds for the closure. We'll see eventually who that involves. Not to detract from what you've got going Jeff but it ain't the little fish blowing bubbles outside the Bypass that contributed to this closure occurring.

Let's tackle Ethics. Odd word with lots and lots of room for definition. Pass Shooting has been around a very long time and will continue to play a big part in waterfowl hunting til hunting goes away. The same folks you see doing the things they are doing on the levee are doing it when they hunt the more tightly controlled public areas or if they got a seat in a club. Wouldn't be tolerated in a club? Gotta argue bigtime there. Been on lots where the holes are there sinoply for convenience from the weather a goodly portion of the time. I can introduce you to many, many excellent long shots have hunted the said levee with what I'd consider hunter's ethics being number 1 with them. So, my .02 on this is from the experience of seeing some of the positive hunting that has been done over the generations off that levee. Please note! I'm not a pass shooter, and have a very wide rep of taking only hard working, in your face birds. Not my cup of tea, pass shooting, but if you've ever seen someone that's accomplished in action, you'd understand the art part of this aspect.

Jeff. I'm truly glad you are able to price your hunts accordingly. There's a few ather factors to take into consideration when it comes down to the cost of a hole, to include transportation etc. There's a lot of Public Area hunters out there that 1K is too hefty a chunk of change (good rate BTW, way below current avg) to put out. They do it sort of on the installment plan per hunt. Bottom line is, every acre of public access lost for the purpose of hunting is one more nail in the coffin of the grand scheme.

Most of this drivel here on my part, but some OK content also. Not a schooled type of guy here.

I'll do whatever I can Rudy to help on this issue. It needs some publicity in the Y.C. and Marysville papers.

Respectfully....Rel Atwood
worknem
hunter
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:11 pm
Location: Central CA

Postby #1wingnut » Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:57 pm

I’ve been doing some research and some reading here. I think I need to do some more,
Before I go to bat for anyone on this subject.
I hear a lot of talk about sky-busting and want’n waste, two things I just cant abide by or condone. I have never hunted waterfowl on a levee but I have hunted quail, pheasant and dove. I don’t like the idea of “big brother” closing off another public area to hunting.
I have had this happen to me and I know it can take the wind right out of your sails. :pissed:
But I have heard some pretty bad horror stories about this particular area.
I know I get pissed when I have to deal with sky busters on the refuge or other public
Areas. (Come to think of it; I’ve only seen it ON the refuges) As far as “pass shooting goes” just out of courtesy I would not stand on a levee shooting at birds next to someone
That paid for a spot and setout block trying to get birds to work via a call. Ya, I’d be a little ticked also. Getting them to “work” is what it is all about. That’s waterfowling
Not that I think he has any more rights to those birds than I do just because he opened up his bank account, but he IS waterfowling. Hell I wouldn’t do it whether he paid for the spot or not. I pay for a blind in a rice field and I would be mad as Hell if that happened
to me. of coarse mine isn’t next to a levee. :yes:
I wouldn’t go swimming in a hole someone is trout fishing in and I wouldn’t want someone to do that me. Its Just plain courtesy.
But I also hate to see someone losing a hunting area. We don’t have many left these days, but I have to believe that a major factor in the loss of a lot of our hunting areas are the unethical hunter. Aka: skybuster
I don’t like to think the kid down the road cant take his 410 or .22 out after a rabbit, quail or maybe even a rooster. I know that’s how many of us got our start in hunting.

So to me the million dollar question is….. Did they ban ALL hunting on this levee or just waterfowl?

We have to fight for our right to party!

Dan
User avatar
#1wingnut
Super Moderator
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:36 am

Postby PinTeal » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:51 pm

Dan, Rel, Rudy....

I personally do not know anyone that could go to the levee and their birds and make everyone of them land on the levee. Really, that is the only place the hunters can legally retrieve their birds if they are shooting from the levees.

On the one side you have a state bird sanctuary, and on the other you have private property. Anyone that can semi-consistantly go out there and drop birds on the levee should get into trick shoot because they are one hell of a good shot! More seriously, I would imagine that all hunting, regardless of game, on the levee will be stopped because of this...but...I am only speculating.

In my opinion, if we allow this hunting/retrieving then we have stepped well outside the realm of losing hunting grounds....into the loss of our private property rights, and loss of our no-hunt zones.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
ethics, private property, state bird sanctuary!


Jeff Given
User avatar
PinTeal
State Moderator
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA....Corona, CA

Postby po' refugee » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:37 am

There are some good arguments on this thread! I can understand your point of view Buriani, and your concern over loss of public hunting ground. However, I think I still must agree with Jeff on this issue. I am not a club member, and I have never shot the rice fields outside of the bypass so I have no bias in that direction. 95% of my hunting is done on public ground so I truly am tuned in to the loss and/or gain of public areas; I do get upset if an area is closed for bogus reasons. However, every time the government decides to close an area it is not a bad decision with its roots in the anti-hunting or big government agenda. As citizens and sportsmen, we trust DFG to make the best decisions as far as conservation and resource management goes, and although they do not always do a stellar job at this I believe they have the best interests of hunters and wildlife at heart (I don't work for DFG either). I've talked to alot of people in the USFWS and DFG and I have yet to meet an anti hunter. They understand the important role we play and they have no desire to shut hunting down. I think they know that 75% of their budget comes specifically from hunter dollars :cool: Without offending anyone I have to say that it is not fair to target the "big money" rice clubs. I'm sure that they had a hand in this closure, but can anyone blame them in the least? I don't believe there is a person on this forum who would sit idly by in their blind day after day, and have their hunting spoiled by people sky scraping off the levees (no one can deny that this is the type of shooting that occurs most of the time). Again, this was a good call.

Gabe
po' refugee
hunter
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: God's Country

Postby buriani » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:50 pm

Does anyone know about the non profit organization "Public Land for the People"??????? It was mentioned in the 'sound off' section of Western Outdoor News. They have a web site and I've fired off a inquire today.
Of the people, By the people and For the people
buriani
hunter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Vacaville


Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: coachbob, Exabot [Bot] and 20 guests