Thread: Somethings to just have a look through..

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

That is very cynical.

Cynicism is an emotive opinion that you hve attached to my comments. It is your issue, not mine.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

I could counter your comments by simply saying you could have an emotional attachement to the ongoing use/sale of such decoys by aquaintance.

If that is your firm belief, then you are simply wrong. Again. I have no attachment to the continued use / sale of any item of equipment. Much like your previous incorrect allegtion that I support certain individuals because I might get some hunting. You are simply grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

I can happily say without knowing either Cocks or Williamson - they have most likely done some investigations with the intent of improving the resource for all.

Incorrect. By their own admission, they had no evidence to support their postion. They did / do genuinely feel that we 'had to do something'......that not really my idea of an informed decision making process.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

There is a line of thought that mechanical decoys cause over harvest in the young population resulting in an ageing and less productive breeding population over time. This has been studied. States like California ban the use of flappy ducks until a set time in their season when the migratory ducks arrive in order to protect their resident duck population. Perhaps they have a few misguided emotional councillors also?

There is no correlation between declining duck populations and mechanical decoys in NZ because it hasn't been studied.

Correct. So when NZ studies also show the same correlation, I would happy support such a restriction. Until then, it is simply guess work.