1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a decoy apparatus, and, more particularly, to a decoy apparatus with rotatable wing assemblies for alluring birds within visual distance of the decoy apparatus regardless of their environmental location.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Decoy art is ancient. Hunter societies on the American Continent have used decoys in their hunt for centuries. These ancient decoys were designed, in part, to bring game birds within close proximity to the hunters due to the relatively primitive weaponry of the day. Bird decoys estimated to be over a thousand years old and made of reeds and feathers have been discovered and preserved from these earlier times. Down through the centuries, hunters have continually endeavored to improve upon their decoys and the process of continual improvement persists to this day.
Despite the trend to constantly improve upon that which has come before, it is well known in the art that waterfowl decoys, in particular, can be very simple and yet allure waterfowl. For example, effective waterfowl decoys can be made from mud lumps, newspapers, bottles, diapers and even rags. Conversely, complex decoys are also effective. Robotic decoys, for example, lure not only other game, but human poachers as well. The more lifelike the decoy, it is argued, the more effective the decoy for alluring game.
In the early 1900""s, hunters commonly used trained live game birds to lure wild game birds. The use of these live so-called decoys, however, was outlawed in the United States in 1935, prompting hunters in the United States to find life-like substitutes. Decoy dogma teaches that visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys tend to be more effective at luring wildlife. When used with an eye toward wildlife population sustainability, visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys enable the user to reach a hunt limit more efficiently, thus leaving far fewer wounded animals in the environment. Similarly, visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys enable users to lure wildlife away from environmental locations where its presence is undesirable. Visually imitative decoys employing motorized systems for animation are among the most effective decoys available.
Decoys employing motorized systems for animation, however, are both detrimental to the environment and have limited effectiveness. Decoys employing motorized systems for animation are environmentally detrimental in that power sources are often discarded into the environment. Decoys employing motorized systems for animation have limited effectiveness in that their visually apparent animation tends to be static, mechanical and highly repetitive. Additionally, motorized systems for animation often conflict with environmental conditions, namely wind conditions, and tend to wear more quickly due to oppositional forces impinging upon mechanically operative parts.
Visually imitative decoys employing wind-actuating systems for animation are preferred. Wind-actuated systems for decoy animation rarely result in environmentally discarded material. Further, wind-actuated systems animate decoys in tune with environmental conditions, namely wind conditions, thereby creating more random, natural animation. In this manner, the alluring effect is maximized. Moreover, wind-actuated systems for decoy animation harness wind energy, operate in tune with wind conditions and wear more slowly as a result.
Bird decoys having wind-actuated means for wing movement are known in the prior art and some are described hereinafter. U.S. Pat. No. 4,620,385, which issued to Carranza et al., teaches rotatable wings rotatably received on an axle member and being bracketed to an existing decoy. The wing structures generally comprise multi-bladed, crosswind, Savonius-type, horizontal-axis, rigid blade members shaped to receive wind energy and rotate about the axle member. The blades are colored in contrasting colors on opposite sides of the wing so that when the wings rotate, driven by wind energy, a more attractive visual effect is created, which can be seen from greater visual distances. The shape of the rotatable wings is not visually imitative thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Further, the rotatable wings are not integrally formed with the bird decoy body structure, which detracts from the decoy""s visually imitative effect thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Moreover, the rotatable wings are not readily viewable from extreme lateral viewpoints thus further handicapping decoy effectiveness.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,764, which issued to Peterson, teaches a decoy with wind-actuated flexible wings which when exposed to wind energy fluctuate in an up and down manner. When the wings are oriented in a relaxed state and wind is directed against the wings, lift is generated, causing the wings to rise to an ultimate stall position causing the wings, in turn to fall, thereby creating the effect of life-like wing movement. This disclosure lacks the preferred realism of an anatomically correct bird body structure and lacks alluring effect at greater visual distances, but is otherwise believed to be an effective wind-animated decoy insofar as the flexible wings are integrally formed with the decoy portion representing the bird body.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,619, which issued to Stancil, teaches a rotatable vane used in cooperative association with an existing decoy. The vane employs elliptical blade members shaped to receive wind energy and colored on opposite sides in contrasting colors so as to create a more alluring visual effect upon rotation. The vane is rotatably attached to an existing decoy by a support. The rotation is one-way creating lift thereby and causing the decoy to slightly rise out of water. A motor may be used to supply rotational force in the absence of wind. This disclosure is not visually imitative in that it lacks the preferable integral wing to body configuration and seems awkward in practice. While the vane blades approach a more life-like wing shape, the support structure simultaneously detracts from the lure""s visually imitative effect thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Further, the blade members do not produce a visually alternating signal viewable from extreme lateral viewpoints, thus further limiting decoy effectiveness.
It is noted that many different types of wind energy collectors have been devised. Basically, almost any physical configuration, which produces an asymmetrical force in a windstream can be made to rotate, translate, or oscillate. Machines using rotors or blade members as wind energy collectors may properly be classified in terms of the orientation of their axis of rotation relative to the windstream and as such are classified, as follows: (1) head-on horizontal-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is parallel to the direction of the windstream (akin to conventional windmills); (2) crosswind horizontal-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is both generally horizontal to the surface of the earth and perpendicular to the direction of the windstream (akin to a water wheel); and (3) vertical-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is both horizontal to the surface of the earth and the windstream. In terms of wind energy collection efficiency, vertical axis rotors are to be preferred since they do not have to be turned into the wind as the direction of the windstream varies. However, in terms of waterfowl decoy application purposes, horizontal-axis rotors are preferred in that wings tend to have a substantially horizontal orientation. Comparatively, head-on horizontal-axis rotors are preferred to crosswind horizontal-axis rotors in that crosswind horizontal-axis rotors have consistently been found to be generally less effective and less efficient wind energy collectors.
Crosswind, Savonius-type horizontal-axis wind energy collectors, as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 4,620,385, generally experience a relatively greater amount of drag and tend to produce a larger wake of air behind the blades, both of which characteristics reduce the efficiency of the wind energy collector. Further, crosswind horizontal-axis rotors and the axis of rotation must be oriented substantially perpendicular to the prevailing wind velocity to rotate effectively. Since users of waterfowl decoys most often deploy decoys in relatively low wind speed scenarios where wind conditions and directions vary considerably, more efficient wind energy collectors, which operate under less restrictive wind conditions are needed. Head-on horizontal-axis rotors are thus preferable in this regard. Head-on horizontal-axis rotors, such as disclosed in the claimed invention, operate in wind conditions where the prevailing kinetic wind velocity has even slight lateral dimension relative to the waterfowl decoy apparatus where a longitudinal axis extends from the head portion to the tail portion of the waterfowl decoy structure and where the axis of rotation is substantially perpendicular to this longitudinal alignment. The preferred embodiment of the present invention thus incorporates head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members 150(d) and 150(v) into its design to achieve a more efficient wind energy collecting waterfowl decoy apparatus. Excellent results have been achieved with head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members 150(d) and 150(v) in wind conditions where wind energy has a lateral dimension relative to the longitudinally-aligned waterfowl decoy apparatus.
None of the prior art discloses wind-driven rotatable wings that employ head-on horizontal-axis rotor blades for collecting and converting wind energy having lateral movement into rotational power to rotatably drive a shaft member integrally mounted with a decoy body structure. Further, none of the prior art discloses rotatable wings readily viewable from extreme lateral positions. Head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members mounted on wing structures are not only useful as energy conversion machines but are also readily viewable from extreme lateral positions thereby increasing the range of attraction from primarily anterior, posterior and vertical viewpoints to a virtually universal perspective.
Wildlife exhibit myriad bodily movements. Attempting to simulate these in an artificially animated decoy is difficult. Wind-actuated decoy animation more closely approximates wildlife movement in that wind-actuated decoy animation is in tune with the environment, namely wind conditions, and is not as static or as repetitive as is motorized decoy animation. None of the prior art patents shows a mounting system that enables the user to selectively position the decoy in a triaxial manner. Selective triaxial positioning further enables the user to simulate the myriad bodily movements of which wildlife is capable.
Accordingly, one objective of the present invention is to provide a decoy apparatus with visually imitative decoy body structure to further enhance decoy effectiveness. Another objective of the present invention is to provide visually imitative decoy wing structure to further enhance decoy effectiveness. Yet another objective of the present invention is to provide integral wing to body configuration to still further enhance decoy effectiveness. Still another objective of the present invention is to provide an energy-efficient, yet environmentally safe means to dynamically animate the decoy apparatus while simultaneously expanding the range of decoy attraction to a maximum extent.
To attain these objectives, the claimed invention generally comprises a wingless imitation waterfowl structure anatomically configured to resemble a wingless waterfowl. The wingless waterfowl structure also has waterfowl-simulating markings and two downwardly extending rigid leg members. Each downwardly extending rigid leg member has a rigid foot member.
The decoy apparatus further comprises a transverse shaft member rotatably received within the wingless waterfowl structure. This shaft member has laterally-opposed terminal ends extending laterally outward from the wingless waterfowl structure each being attached to a laterally-opposed, naturally-shaped wing permitting the naturally-shaped wings and the shaft member to co-rotate through 360 degrees in unison together about the shaft member""s axis of rotation.
The decoy apparatus further comprises a plurality of head-on horizontal-axis, propeller-shaped rotor blade members cooperatively associated with the wings for collecting wind energy having lateral movement, which when collected is converted to rotational power in the shaft member causing the naturally-shaped wings, the shaft member and the head-on horizontal-axis, propeller-shaped rotor blade members to rotate in unison through 360 degrees relative to the wingless imitation waterfowl structure in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction depending on the wind energy being directed against the head-on horizontal-axis, propeller-shaped rotor blade members. The head-on horizontal-axis, propeller-shaped rotor blade members thus simultaneously create rotational wing movement both in the naturally-shaped wings for alluring waterfowl located longitudinally and vertically relative to the decoy apparatus and also in the head-on horizontal-axis, propeller-shaped rotor blade members themselves for alluring waterfowl located laterally relative to the decoy apparatus.
In the preferred embodiment, each wing of the decoy apparatus includes two vertically-aligned dorsally/ventrally-opposed head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members proximally located relative to the wingless imitation body structure and weighted so as to allow the wings to rotatably rest with their ventral surface down facing downward. The dorsal surface of each wing has light-absorbent coloration and the ventral surface of each wing has light-reflective coloration. The dorsal surface light-absorbent coloration further extends to the dorsally located head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members and the ventral surface light-reflective coloration further extends to the ventrally located head-on horizontal-axis rotor blade members.
The dorsal surface of each wing is further distinguished by an outstanding visual identifying pattern, which further comprises a species-specific light-absorbent portion. This species-specific light-absorbent portion has variable coloration depending on the waterfowl species sought to be allured. The outstanding visual identifying pattern further comprises a light-reflective border portion. The light-reflective border portion outlines the species-specific light-absorbent portion to visually distinguish the species-specific light-absorbent portion from the light-absorbent dorsal surface coloration.
This invention further discloses three alternate wing shapes, the first of which approximates an anatomical wing shape and the second of which approximates a parabolic wing shape. The third wing shape is a further refinement of the parabolic wing shape whereby the parabolic wing shape is distinguished by having a horizontally-aligned Savonius wind machine configuration for adding further wind collection and conversion capability for wing animation.
Additionally, it is a further object of the present invention to simulate the myriad bodily movements of which waterfowl are capable, thereby adding to the effectiveness of the decoy apparatus. Accordingly the decoy apparatus is fixedly mounted on a swivel mounting system. The swivel mounting system allows the decoy apparatus to be selectively oriented in a triaxial fashion further allowing the user to randomly position the decoy apparatus. The decoy apparatus is mounted on a swivel head assembly, which allows for the selective triaxial orientation. A rod-like anchoring post supports the swivel head assembly. The rod-like anchoring post has a support end and an anchoring end opposite the support end. The support end rotatably attaches to the swivel head and the anchoring end has a pointed terminus for piercedly and fixedly anchoring the rod-like anchoring post to the ground.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds