The advent of spinning-wing mechanical decoys served at least one useful purpose. It focused attention on how far the waterfowling community had become fixated on the notion of hunter success measured by the weight of the strap rather than the quality of the outing; how far the health of our resource had sunk on the scale of our concern.

The heated debate over use of the devices has continued against the backdrop of declining waterfowl populations with hunting worsening on all flyways. These factors have combined to focus critical light on the entire system by which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the several states set seasons, bag limits and other restrictions.

Some contend that we need liberal seasons, bag limits and the unrestricted use of mechanical decoying devices to increase the recruitment of hunters – to reverse the decline in our numbers. But none of these things can possibly aid in the recruitment of hunters when we have no ducks, in large part due to liberal seasons, bag limits far too high for the health of our flocks and widespread use of mesmerizing decoying devices that increase the killing efficiency of each hunter by several orders of magnitude.

More to the point, why should we make any sacrifice in our core values in aid of hunter recruitment? In California, for example, we have roughly 70,000 hunters in a population of 21,000,000 eligible to vote – one-third of one percent of the population. We could increase our numbers ten-fold and remain a minute minority. Anyone who believes that we could recruit enough new hunters to become a significant political force needs a reality implant.

Hunters represent a significant segment of the body politic in only a few states – and even in those jurisdictions, they derive their political power through well-placed, potent politicians or wealthy individuals willing to devote vast sums to the preservation of hunting. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi comes to mind. But even in such a state, there are limits. How long do you think that Senator Lott would stand up for the hunters if hunting became notoriously unpopular in the general electorate and hunters stopped contributing to his reelection campaigns out of all proportion to their numbers?

I submit that we do not need more hunters nearly as much as we need to improve the image of hunting and the behavior of the hunting fraternity, and with that, the perception of hunters in the mind of the non-hunting public. In short, this is an issue of quality, not quantity.

Hunters should be – and should be perceived to be – conservationists, the stewards of the waterfowl resource, dedicated to the experience of hunting rather than to the kill, jealous and protective of traditional values and principles of fair chase against the onslaught of modern technology. Above all, hunters should be – and should be perceived to be – persons who put the health and well-being of the resource and the habitat required to sustain it above the quest for easy kills.

We must carry this message through our organizations and in our contacts with the regulators, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the various state game departments. We must demand that our so-called leadership put this message at the very top of its agenda and not quail before the possibility that in doing so, they may give offense to certain dues paying members. We must carry this message to the outdoor press and insist that it foreswear its role as billboard for the gadgeteers and get into some serious reporting on gut issues, such as, for example, the real reasons behind the alarming decline in our waterfowl populations.

When the California Department of Fish & Game held its hearing to establish the waterfowl regulations for the 2001-02 season, the commissioners had before them a proposal to limit the use of spinning-wing, mechanical decoying devices. Two representatives of anti-hunting organizations spoke at that hearing. In essence, they said that they reluctantly accepted the notion of waterfowl hunting because waterfowlers did so much to preserve wetlands, but they could not abide the use of devices that did violence to traditional hunting methods and concepts of fair chase. They threatened a ballot initiative if the commission failed to act.

That threat may have been a bluff. Who knows? Who would dare to call that bluff given the political realities and the history of anti-hunting initiatives here? An inflamed juggernaut of public opinion would squash us like a bug in California without leaving so much as a stain. As it happened, the commission adopted a partial ban and stated its intent to study the issue further for a possible total ban for the 2002-03 season. No one has filed notice of intent to circulate an initiative, as of this writing.

Shortly after the hearing, the department received a request from a Los Angeles television station for a permit to televise a hunt using mechanical decoying devices during the early part of the season when use of such devices had just been banned. The department denied the request. It is interesting to speculate as to what the fallout would have been from such a show had the permit been granted. (A study done by the University of California at Davis has found that the use of spinning-wing mechanical decoying devices in the early season increases the killing efficiency of hunters sixfold!) Imagine a slaughter filmed in real time, complete with the triumphant whoops and hollers of the fearless, steely-eyed participants as each victim splashes into the pond, like some of those Texas goose-hunting promos that most of us have seen and that end with a mugshot of the hunters grinning in triumph behind a huge pile of dead geese. Suppose that such a program, embellished by commentary from anti-hunters, found its way onto 60 Minutes some fine Sunday night? What sort of spin do you suppose those “reporters” would put on the spectacle?

We cannot afford barnyard byproduct of this sort. We cannot afford the type of behavior likely to exceed the nonhunting electorate’s gag threshold under the harsh light of public scrutiny. We cannot afford the mentality that produces such behavior. Nor is that the primary reason to demand a change.

It is long past time to reorient our entire approach and restore to its rightful primacy in our thinking the notion that we are the stewards of the resource, that its health and wellbeing are paramount. Hunter success, hunter gratification in the form of kills, limits, seasons, and permissible methods of take must always be subordinate to that over-arching goal.

I confess that I suffered from the typical case of trigger itch as a young man, exemplifying many of the attributes I now deplore. My conversion evolved slowly, through experience and observation, unaided by the guidance of sensitive elders. With this column, I intend to try to make up for that lack in those of our number who have never given serious thought to these issues and who have never been chided – as I was not – for misdirected orientation. I have no illusions. I hope only to open minds. This is not a short- term project. With luck, we may complete it in time to save the birds and our sport. I believe that they are both at stake – perhaps as never before.