What exactly is the point of plugging a shotgun anymore? I honestly dont get it. If I'm allowed 6 ducks or 15 doves or whatever the game may be, what difference does it make if i can get em with 3 vs 5 as long as I'm within the limit? I get some will argue that the 4th and 5th shots may produce more cripples, and they're not wrong when referring to steel. But with advances in shell technology and shot density, the 4th and 5th shots could be the difference makers in getting quicker limits, getting off the water sooner, and letting the birds rest the remainder of the day.

Honestly, when the three shot restriction was imposed, what was the rationale for that broad sweeping decision? If someone knew the history behind it, I'd love to hear it. And before anyone asks, yes I hunt legal and have never removed the plug unless cleaning my guns.

If you can't hit your bird with 3 shots, you should probably practice some more.

How often do you get 5 shots at a bird?

The 3-shell limit for bird hunting exists mainly for conservation, safety, and fair-chase reasons.

Here's the breakdown:

1. Wildlife conservation

Limiting shotguns to one shell in the chamber and two in the magazine reduces how many birds a hunter can shoot at once. This helps:
Prevent overharvesting
Protect migrating bird populations (especially waterfowl)
Ensure sustainable hunting seasons

This rule became especially important as repeating and semi-automatic shotguns became common, which made it easier to fire many shots quickly.

2. Federal law for migratory birds (U.S.)

In the United States, the rule comes from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For migratory game birds (ducks, geese, doves, etc.):
Shotguns must be plugged so they cannot hold more than 3 shells total
This applies nationwide, regardless of state

States may extend the same rule to other bird species for consistency.

3. Fair chase ethics

Hunting is intended to be a skill-based pursuit, not a volume-of-fire activity. The limit:
Encourages careful shot selection
Discourages "spray and pray" shooting
Keeps hunting sporting rather than exploitative

4. Safety

Fewer rounds available reduces:
Uncontrolled rapid firing
Risk to other hunters in the field
Accidental multiple discharges

5. Historical context

Before limits existed, market hunting with repeating shotguns contributed to drastic declines in bird populations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The 3-shell rule was part of reforms that helped bird populations rec

The regulation was passed in 1935 by the then called U.S Biological Survey which was the agency that was responsible for managing migratory game birds back then. The three shell regulations were imposed with a group of other laws like prohibition of baiting and using live decoys, among others.
Migratory game birds were on a pretty heavy decline due to commercial hunting.
You gotta remember there are folks out there that are not as honest as you as far as adherence to game bag limits are concerned.

Gunny456 said:

---

The regulation was passed in 1935 by the then called U.S Biological Survey which was the agency that was responsible for managing migratory game birds back then. The three shell regulations were imposed with a group of other laws like prohibition of baiting and using live decoys, among others.
Migratory game birds were on a pretty heavy decline due to commercial hunting.
You gotta remember there are folks out there that are not as honest as you as far as adherence to game bag limits are concerned.

---

Right, and I get that. But there were no limits imposed back then, and market hunters were quite literally loading the boat with ducks to supply urban restaurants. So bird numbers tanked as a result of market hunting and even moreso from habitat loss during the dust bowl. Implementation of limits (point system) helped and numbers rebounded.

Yes it's a federal law and one we must abide by, but I see it as yet another gov't overreach limiting personal liberties. The way I understand it, is it was implemented to make the then commonplace double barrels competitve with the newer and more modern autoloaders. Well those days are past. If the limit is six, and I can kill my limit with two or three volleys instead of five or six, so be it. Just seems archaic to me, that's all.

Here is ridiculous #2.

I guide duck hunts on the bay. The FEDERAL game warden has visited my groups numerous times. My stuff is always in order so I am unconcerned. My hunters follow the rules so I am unconcerned.

HOWEVER, on one particular morning we got checked. Everything in order as far as I can tell. And then he says ok guys glad yall got some birds but im going to have to write a ticket and confiscate this shotgun because it has a butt cuff on it.

I said WHAT!!!! are you talking about. He said ok guys the law is very clear that the gun can only hold 3 shells. That butt cuff makes that gun capable of holding more than three shells.

I said dude let me remove it. He said that is fine but you are still getting a ticket. I said sir, please, very informative thank you we are happy to follow the law. This seems a bit out of the norm and first I have heard of it. I greatly appreciate the education on it and will happily advise my groups in the future. You and I have visited dozens of time and never have we ever toed the line on any game laws. I would ask you not embarrass my customer by writing a ticket.

He said get it off now and yall have a great rest of your hunt.

He said no butt cuffs, no side saddles, no quick loads by the receiver, no shell loops on the sling.

Silly. But it is what it is for that federal warden.

SGrem said:

---

The plug law is petty for those that would abuse the law. Law should be 3 shells. Period. The requirement of a plug is redundant only for people that would abuse the law. Which we know if course would be a lot of people. But the law of three shells is easy to follow without a plug. Regardless law requires a plug.

---

So why is it I can have 5 for pheasant, turkeys, deer, quail, etc.? I can stack 5 in my deer rifle, even though I rarely use that second shot. But i got 5 in there anyway.

Micropterus said:

---

SGrem said:

---

The plug law is petty for those that would abuse the law. Law should be 3 shells. Period. The requirement of a plug is redundant only for people that would abuse the law. Which we know if course would be a lot of people. But the law of three shells is easy to follow without a plug. Regardless law requires a plug.

---

So why is it I can have 5 for pheasant, turkeys, deer, quail, etc.? I can stack 5 in my deer rifle, even though I rarely use that second shot. But i got 5 in there anyway.

---

Because those ain't migrating....therefore state law.....not federal.

SGrem said:

---

Here is ridiculous #2.

I guide duck hunts on the bay. The FEDERAL game warden has visited my groups numerous times. My stuff is always in order so I am unconcerned. My hunters follow the rules so I am unconcerned.

HOWEVER, on one particular morning we got checked. Everything in order as far as I can tell. And then he says ok guys glad yall got some birds but im going to have to write a ticket and confiscate this shotgun because it has a butt cuff on it.

I said WHAT!!!! are you talking about. He said ok guys the law is very clear that the gun can only hold 3 shells. That butt cuff makes that gun capable of holding more than three shells.

I said dude let me remove it. He said that is fine but you are still getting a ticket. I said sir, please, very informative thank you we are happy to follow the law. This seems a bit out of the norm and first I have heard of it. I greatly appreciate the education on it and will happily advise my groups in the future. You and I have visited dozens of time and never have we ever toed the line on any game laws. I would ask you not embarrass my customer by writing a ticket.

He said get it off now and yall have a great rest of your hunt.

He said no butt cuffs, no side saddles, no quick loads by the receiver, no shell loops on the sling.

Silly. But it is what it is for that warden.

---

Wow! Thats a bit of a stretch if you ask me, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. Good on him for not writing you a ticket.

The AIs sure were quick to jump.


Ree tar dead

Big reminder here, if you remove the three shell rule, you will immediately have people running 10+ shells with extensions meant for tactical competition just because they can. Then you are talking indiscriminate firing at groups and lots of wounded and lost birds.

Oh no. Anyway…

I guess I'm a weird one as it's never bothered me to have just three shots. I shoot clays all the time and used to just two.
I enjoy my hunting time and for me it's more about being out in Gods creation and relishing the hunt than seeing how quick I can limit out. Hell, sometimes I even challenge myself on single shots or harder shots just to make my hunt last longer rather than limit out quickly if the birds are flying good.
I'm fine with the regulations. Man has not proven to be a good steward of resources on his own for the most part. Ask Martha the last Passenger Pigeon about that.

ETA: I'll never forget Martha's name as long as I live. DR. Inglis that taught WFS at TAM back in the 70's-80's used to always give a 10 point bonus question on his quizzes if you could name the last surviving Passenger Pigeon…which was Martha. I always made at least a 10 on his quizzes!

Gunny456 said:

---

I guess I'm a weird one as it's never bothered me to have just three shots. I shoot clays all the time and used to just two.
I enjoy my hunting time and for me it's more about being out in Gods creation and relishing the hunt than seeing how quick I can limit out. Hell, sometimes I even challenge myself on single shots or harder shots just to make my hunt last longer rather than limit out quickly if the birds are flying good.
I'm fine with the regulations. Man has not proven to be a good steward of resources on his own for the most part. Ask Martha the last Passenger Pigeon about that.

---

I agree with you a lot. I too am simply not that mad at them anymore. However, I hate indiscriminate restrictions that are in place simply because "it has always been that way".

I think it is a worth while topic to revisit limitations placed on private citizens/hunters to make sure that they are actually effective, reasonable and necessary.

I am the exact same way. I still get out an old Iver Johnson single shot 12 ga from time to time.

The rules drive me nuts.


That story about the shell holder on the stock drives me insane. You shouldn't need to be a lawyer to know whether or not you're in compliance on a simple bird hunt.

I agree we have failed a lot, particularly in the infancy of the US. We have also had some tremendous successes with the Noth American Wildlife model and the reintroduction of turkeys across the US.

I agree that reasonable and productive regulations have a place. It is my stance, however that arbitrary and pointless ones do not. I also believe it is a worthwhile effort to review regulations to see if they are still accomplishing their intended goals.

The average outdoorsman is on the positive side of the equation when it comes to conservation and I don't think it is a good practice to punish or limit them unnecessarily.

Micropterus said:

---

SGrem said:

---

Here is ridiculous #2.

I guide duck hunts on the bay. The FEDERAL game warden has visited my groups numerous times. My stuff is always in order so I am unconcerned. My hunters follow the rules so I am unconcerned.

HOWEVER, on one particular morning we got checked. Everything in order as far as I can tell. And then he says ok guys glad yall got some birds but im going to have to write a ticket and confiscate this shotgun because it has a butt cuff on it.

I said WHAT!!!! are you talking about. He said ok guys the law is very clear that the gun can only hold 3 shells. That butt cuff makes that gun capable of holding more than three shells.

I said dude let me remove it. He said that is fine but you are still getting a ticket. I said sir, please, very informative thank you we are happy to follow the law. This seems a bit out of the norm and first I have heard of it. I greatly appreciate the education on it and will happily advise my groups in the future. You and I have visited dozens of time and never have we ever toed the line on any game laws. I would ask you not embarrass my customer by writing a ticket.

He said get it off now and yall have a great rest of your hunt.

He said no butt cuffs, no side saddles, no quick loads by the receiver, no shell loops on the sling.

Silly. But it is what it is for that warden.

---

Wow! Thats a bit of a stretch if you ask me, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. Good on him for not writing you a ticket.

---

Years back I was duck hunting with a friend up near Paris, TX. Gun he lent me had a short plug. Warden was able to jam three shells in the tube with one chambered, except the three in the tube was jammed so tightly that they wouldn't cycle.

We found this out when a warden was ticketing another guy using a small kayak to place decoys. Water vehicle. Not registered. Yada yada. We asked him for directions. "Well boys, since you're here....let me see your gear"

He was doing his job and friend went to court to argue the findings, and ultimately paid the fine.

"Our" warden at the ranch is a great guy, but I would never put him in a position where he felt compelled to cite us for anything. It's a hard job, and if it means I get three shots, then I make those three count.

96ags said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

What deems it to be effective, reasonable and necessary? Ducks U. and many state agencies report that our national numbers of migratory waterfowl are in a pretty downward decline. Same for Mourning Doves. So one would have to ask….does the regulation accomplish its intent? Or are there folks who don't care and violate it anyway causing problems? And what effect will it have on the resources if it is done away with? All good questions I think.
I agree with you on not needing anymore regulations than necessary or gov overreach.
So our argument here is we need to do away with the regulation for why? Just because it's a regulation? Or so we can get in….get out….and get our limit quicker?

---

I suppose my argument would be that hunter's rights should not be limited unless it can be proven to be necessary, not the other way around.

---

Exactly. Sounds like having to prove gun regulations infringing on the 2A are not needed instead of the opposite.

Micropterus said:

---

SGrem said:

---

Here is ridiculous #2.

I guide duck hunts on the bay. The FEDERAL game warden has visited my groups numerous times. My stuff is always in order so I am unconcerned. My hunters follow the rules so I am unconcerned.

HOWEVER, on one particular morning we got checked. Everything in order as far as I can tell. And then he says ok guys glad yall got some birds but im going to have to write a ticket and confiscate this shotgun because it has a butt cuff on it.

I said WHAT!!!! are you talking about. He said ok guys the law is very clear that the gun can only hold 3 shells. That butt cuff makes that gun capable of holding more than three shells.

I said dude let me remove it. He said that is fine but you are still getting a ticket. I said sir, please, very informative thank you we are happy to follow the law. This seems a bit out of the norm and first I have heard of it. I greatly appreciate the education on it and will happily advise my groups in the future. You and I have visited dozens of time and never have we ever toed the line on any game laws. I would ask you not embarrass my customer by writing a ticket.

He said get it off now and yall have a great rest of your hunt.

He said no butt cuffs, no side saddles, no quick loads by the receiver, no shell loops on the sling.

Silly. But it is what it is for that warden.

---

Wow! Thats a bit of a stretch if you ask me, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. Good on him for not writing you a ticket.

---

I think complete BS on him for trying to invent some garbage in order to write a ticket. He doesn't get an "atta boy" for not being a ****** and making **** up to write a ticket.

Gunny456 said:

---

Sadly the bad guys cause bad things for the good guys. No different than gun laws because of bad guys with guns hurting the good guys with guns. Working in the wildlife field and also the outdoor industry all my life I see a lot of lawlessness that is not as uncommon as one might think. Poaching and abuse of bag and creel limits is at an all time high almost nationwide. While we have good folks in the outdoors for sure the increase of lawbreakers is growing annually. Sadly game departments are underfunded and undermanned and don't have the ability to enforce and prevent as they should…….and even when they do catch the bad guys the fines levied or the punishment issued by the judges is a joke for the most part.
As in most cases the bad apples ruin it for everyone.

---

Your whole premise is trash. There are gun laws because cowards have no respect for the constitution. End of story. I don't need illegal regulations to protect me from criminals, do you?

My post says because of bad guys that do bad things with guns has caused good people with guns, that do no wrong, to have to put up with BS gun laws passed that prohibits the good guys with guns. How is that statement trash?