POSITION STATEMENT
Board Approved July 8, 2003

Waterfowl Attracting Devices
CWA requests a ban on the use of electronics and other forms of technology in waterfowl attracting devices.

CWA's Board of Directors strongly urges the California Fish and Game Commission to impose restrictions on the use of electronics and other "high-tech" methods that produce self-propelled motion to attract waterfowl.

Restricted "high-technologies" include devices using or dependent upon battery or solar-powered electronics, lasers, computer robotics, remote-controls, and other forms of self-propelled devices with engines or motors, holograms, strobes or other light altering devices. Allowable methods for creating motion in decoys and attracting devices would still include the natural action of wind and water, hand pull string devices (with or without return springs or elastics) and hand-operated mechanisms.

Rationale
In making this decision the CWA Board of Directors considered all of the following: membership preferences, biological data, ethics, and the rate of technological advancement.

In determining membership preferences, CWA polled its membership. In responding to these polls, CWA's membership overwhelmingly (86%) voiced concerns that new technologies might produce a device, or combination of devices that would be harmful to our waterfowl resource over the long-term, and more than half (55%) feel that present inventions (spinning wings) have gone too far in this direction. Lastly over 85% of CWA's membership is steadfastly opposed to any reduction in season length or bag limits if caused by new technologies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that it will not govern "methods-of-take," and if the proliferation and use of new inventions causes excessive harvest, the Service will shorten season lengths and lower bag limits.

In reviewing biological data, the Board has, for years, carefully scrutinized biological data concerning the impact of spinning wing decoys on waterfowl populations. While recognizing the arguments of those who believe there have been negative impacts on populations from these devices, the Board was not persuaded that current biological data conclusively supports those arguments. However, the Board did acknowledge that use of various power sources in decoying devices may have introduced an unknown level of risk to our waterfowl resource. CWA has a history of supporting waterfowling regulations which err on the side of protecting the waterfowl resource. Despite the uncertainty of the evidence, this history was a factor in the Board's decision.

The Board considered arguments directed at hunting "ethics" but was not persuaded. Concepts of sportsmanship and "fair chase" are not consistent among hunters, partly because hunting has its roots in a diversity of socio-economic backgrounds and cultural traditions. The Board was hesitant to propose restrictions on the manner in which individuals choose to hunt, but believed our tradition of conserving the resource and the threat to hunter opportunity presented by the use of technology-based waterfowl attractants required this action.

Regarding the advancement of technology, the Board fully recognized that "invention" has always been an integral part of the traditions of waterfowl hunting. However, in the past five years, the number of devices containing high-tech components, rapid distribution, and speed of communication has reached unprecedented levels. The nature of technological advancement in our world today exceeds our ability to determine impact on our waterfowl resource. By the time we complete an evaluation of a particular device, new generations of technology are already on the market. The Board concluded that it is time to prohibit high technology in waterfowl attracting devices in order to protect against the risks these devices present to our waterfowl resources and waterfowling opportunities.