# States contact feds over duck limits



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Almanac: States contact feds over duck limits
August 16, 2008

Shots continue to be fired before the duck season even begins.

The leaders of Minnesota's and Wisconsin's natural resource departments have fired off strong letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging the federal agency to ease its restrictive scaup (bluebill) and canvasback regulations this fall.

Mark Holsten, Minnesota DNR commissioner, and Matthew Frank, Wisconsin DNR secretary, have asked for a meeting with Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, underscoring the unusual situation.

Holsten's letter said he has "deep concerns" over the federal actions "that will greatly impact diving duck hunting opportunities in our state and could threaten the future of this important tradition."

Both Holsten and Frank said they fear the regulations could discourage hunters from going afield. The issue, of course, came to a head recently when an agency committee said Minnesota, Wisconsin and 12 other states in the Mississippi Flyway will have a two-scaup daily limit during 20 days of a 60-day season this fall, with a one-scaup daily limit the remaining 40 days. The canvasback season will be closed. The states want to retain the two-bluebill daily bag limit.

Hall hadn't responded to the letters as of late last week. But neither DNR can wait. Both are printing their fall regulations; Minnesota's should be available this week. If the service agrees to change the scaup or canvasback regulations this fall, the agencies will notify hunters.

Barring a change, Minnesota's daily scaup bag limit will be one Oct. 4-24, two Oct. 25-Nov. 13 and one Nov. 14-Dec. 2.

Two wood ducks 
As expected, Minnesota will allow hunters to take only two wood ducks in the daily bag, said Dennis Simon, DNR wildlife management section chief, even though the Fish and Wildlife Service is allowing three. And hunters will be allowed one hen mallard.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

What threatens the continuation of a traditions...

a failure to conserve a resource

OR

a failure to set resonable expectations

This will never be a closed chapter as States wrestle with Federal oversight on a national resource... traditions do not fail in a years time... but populations of birds most certainly can ...


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Right on,NoDak kid.


----------



## mlrdklr (Jul 11, 2008)

I get tired of seeing this i mean granted i live in Kansas and can shoot a Canvasback but the feds put regulations out there for a reason. I mean come on people big deal you can go a season with out shooting a canvasback and you can bet that im not gonna shoot one my self even though i can just because there on a decline.


----------



## rwjtaz (Sep 8, 2005)

I have spoke with a couple MN DNR folks and the concern is not that we cannot shoot a Canvasback, it is the one/two duck limit on bills. One of the DNR guys said he has hunted for close to 30 years and he cannot tell the difference between a bill and ringneck duck even at 20-30 yards. Their concern, and mine, is that people will not want to hunt the pot hole areas since they will feel they have too great a chance, once they have shot a bill, of shooting a second and would be illegal. With ringnecks being something around, and don't quote me, 40-50% of all ducks shot in MN it pretty much puts you in a bind. The solution of the funky split season I don't think works, but the dates they have set out are probably the best for what they have. I am also more concerned about the long term health of the population, but where I do disagree a bit is that if people feel they cannot have a good hunt, and even for one year, IMHO will start leaving the sport. I believe this from both personal experience and with the high cost of fuel these days it doesn't take much to add that straw to break the camels back.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I see your point about confusion about birds, that is logical. But what is a better alternative ??

I really think that is the question that needs to be answered. How would these other alternatives provide the same level of beneift to the resource (less impact on the overall population of blue bills) and not reduce the number of hunters... those are the two key indicators(as you ahve stated them).

I agree it is quite tricky but when you are trying to improve quality and minimize cost at the same time ... well, that is the challenge of managing anything from a bird population to a business... because you are seeing either special cause variation or common cause variation.

Common cause variation would be a reduction in all duck species. This would require a lowering of all limits because all duck species are down and the bag limits need to reflect this in order to managed the entire population.

Special cause variation would be the example of the blue bill where a specific segment of a population is being effected individually by some variable specific to it and thus must be managed uniquely to address this special set of circumstance.

Long story short, you can either manage the blue bills and cans individually ... which was their recommendation... or if your point is valid about the mistaken identity you may ahve to manage the population as whole to eliminate the special cause variation... by reducing all bag limits on all ducks.

Either direction you go... your metrics for success are still the same...
attrition from hunting & management of blue bill and Can numbers... the question is what weighting do each of these metrics have... which is most important??? That is my point, it seems that attrition from hunting is the most important metric in MN & WI agenda... that is not conservation.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There is a ton of literature out there about the population dynamics of waterfowl, much of it touting the scenario that hunting mortality on waterfowl population dynamics is minimal to the overall duck population.

I personally believe that this is the right thing to do for diver duck population species mentioned.

You have to admit that if there were suitable habitat conditions to maintain duck populations well in excess of the long tem historical average that the regulations are based upon this would be a non-issue.

The facts are that loss of habitat; predation mortality, environmental factors and hunting mortality have had a snowball effect in the decline of certain species. With that said what other short-term choice do we have as hunters to try to conserve/preserve a species in decline other than to shoot less of the species.

I have never been a fan of the current waterfowl management structure simply because so much of the count data used is based upon the WAG average theory (wild azz guess). Granted I do not have anything better to offer except the fact that there is a direct correlation between nesting success and good habitat. I don't look for any improvement in the future as habitat is dwindling at a rapid rate, the future of waterfowling will be interesting to watch in years to come.

Bob


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

northdakotakid said:


> But what is a better alternative ??
> 
> Long story short, you can either manage the blue bills and cans individually ... which was their recommendation... or if your point is valid about the mistaken identity you may ahve to manage the population as whole to eliminate the special cause variation... by reducing all bag limits on all ducks.
> 
> That is my point, it seems that attrition from hunting is the most important metric in MN & WI agenda... that is not conservation.


Great post NDkid

:thumb: spot on as per your usual.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Bob I could not agree more... to me the arguement over conservation VS commercialism is pretty cut and dry... are we willing to give up long term stability(conservation) for short term gains(commercialism).

Let's be honest, we can talk about what waterfgowl traditions are until we are blue in the face because they are very individualistic in definition.

I look at this way, who are the customers and who are stakeholders in this case?
- a MN or WI resident that is currently a hunter
- a MN or WI resident that is NOT currently a hunter
- a non-MN or WI resident that visits to participate in hunting

In that case if attrition is atop the metric hieracrchy and conservation of a resource for the above stakeholders & customers both... how can you the greatest impact to avoiding NET ATTRITION of the hunting tradition?

CONSERVATION... hunters will still attrite in the long term (hmm isn't this needed to establish traditions?) if the longer term quality of the hunt consistently falls below traditonal averages...

More or less... those that will attrite due to a lower bag limit in the short term will likely do so if long term averages begin to cycle downward and are not enabled to recover... CONSERVATION... of habitat, of harvest = quality game management...


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

The fact is that there is no biological reason to limit the scaup harvest to the extent that the feds have. Scaup remain our third most pletiful duck species and have maintained a population of 3.1 million to 3.7 million birds since 2001. Annual harvest has remained right about 300,000.

Harvest has not affected the scaup population. There are apparently other factors at work that continue to be researched that have reduced the population below the long term average. But additional limitations on harvest will have no effect because harvest has not been the reason for the decline.

This is one of those thing that the USFWS is doing because it "feels right" to them. But there is really very little basis for it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another example.....Last year in MN you could shoot two cans.....now this year none! Where is the logic? You are telling me the Feds can't see past one year?


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

So you are saying that hunting has no impact on overall population of a species?

There are several variables involved with a reduction in population... but it is not logical to say that harvest has nothing to do with overal population...

Another thought on logic... if loss of habitat is a driver then this potentially impacts your nesting success... thus requiring a larger breeding population to achieve the same reproductive rates... more or less you need more breeding pairs to achieve the same # of "new" breeding ducks to support the population...

*So explain to me how harvest does not become a factor?????*


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

northdakotakid said:


> So you are saying that hunting has no impact on overall population of a species?
> 
> There are several variables involved with a reduction in population... but it is not logical to say that harvest has nothing to do with overal population...
> 
> ...


I assume that your questions are in reply to my statements, so here goes....

I was not making a blanket statement that harvest is not an important factor. For some speies, it clearly is. However, it is not the reason for the decline in scaup numbers and a harvest of 300,000 annualy in a population of 3.1 to 3.7 million is simply not significant.

I believe that the USFWS is over reacting in the case of scaup because, typically, if there has been a decline in population of a given species, that is what is done. But in this case, it is more of a knee jerk reaction than a biological necessity.

Scaup are still our third most plentiful duck behind mallards and BWT. Yet in our flyway we will only be allowed one per day for 40 days and 2 for twenty days. Since we can take six gadwall, widgeon, or GWT for example, all of which have much lower populations overall, the scaup limits just are not reasonable.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

aztec said:


> I was not making a blanket statement that harvest is not an important factor. For some speies, it clearly is. However, it is not the reason for the decline in scaup numbers and a harvest of 300,000 annualy in a population of 3.1 to 3.7 million is simply not significant.


Whatever the reasons for the scaup decline, the limit is following suit. There are fewer scaup this year (apparently), so fewer should be shot untill more is known on the cause of the decline.


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

All right here goes,first of all how many scaup can you shoot in N.D?Second how many cans?Third the info posted earlier on harvest impact was correct according to almost any legit study.Does hunting impact populations,not enough to cause major declines.I am not saying it should be a 5 scaup/can limit but what is wrong with 2/1 or something simular to the central flyway structure.I dont know how many of you have ever hunted divers on the Mississippi river but it is a big deal.If numbers are truely down then I am all for very restrictive regs but from 2 cans last year to 0 this year ?.Where did all those birds go,I can say that from what I saw and heard it wasnt hunter harvest.Was the count screwed last year did they screw it this year or was there political motivation?The Upper Miss. refuge was a hot topic last year,less access etc.I just think it needs more study before becoming more restrictive,more hunters means more cash. Put some people at the boat landings and count birds in hand,HIP only works if everybody is honest and it doesnt specify species.Sorry for the rant but its a differant animal on this side of the big muddy.


----------



## IFSteve (Aug 29, 2003)

While there are certainly some politics in every agency including the USFWS, the bottom line is that they are experts in their field and have more data to utilize than we can ever begin to appreciate.

They don't tell me now to be an engineer and I don't tell them how to be a biologist. I have to trust their judgement. We in Idaho also got a big zero for cans this year and how many cans are even killed in this state? Just about zero compared to most areas but I am not whining about it. They set the seasons based upon their best professional judgment. We need to accept that and get on with life.

Now in looking further it seems like not all the waterfowl scientific community agree with the position of the USFWS. Here is a link to an interesting article from Delta.

http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/pr/2008/080630_scaup2.php

While the article makes some excellent points the one that stands out to me the most is that the scaup population high was over twice what it is today and that the birds are way under the long term average. Perhaps the USFWS is trying to be a bit conservative and I don;t think that is a bad thing. Rather be a bit conservative while the thing gets figured out than continue at a harverst rate that POTENTIALLY is to high.

Steve


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Again... lets not argue about who has access to what data... we are trusting that the professionals who do have access tot eh data will give us the best recommendations for THE CONSERVATION of the species.

What does the North Dakota limit or harvest have to do with your harvest numbers?

I can remember in teh 80's when there when we could not shoot any Cans or a Redhead... then we could shoot 1 redhead... it is all about sustaining populations...

I understand that it is a way of life for many but come on... we can not choose when to turn on and off conservation... it has to be managed to a number or a population.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Scaup issue continues to percolate*
By DENNIS ANDERSON, Star Tribune

August 28, 2008

An important, three-day waterfowl management conference that attracted some 200 attendees from the United States and Canada was held in Minneapolis this week, intentionally removed from the public eye. Among attendees was Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

The conference might in the end represent a turning point for waterfowl management in North America. More about that in future columns.

First, Minnesota duck hunters should know Hall and various USFWS waterfowl managers and biologists met Wednesday with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Mark Holsten, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division Director Dave Schad and DNR waterfowl specialist Steve Cordts.

At issue was the service's decision July 31 to restrict duck hunters this fall in the 14 states of the Mississippi Flyway to one scaup (bluebill) during 40 of the season's 60 days and to two scaup in the remaining 20 days. The scaup limit last year was two daily, with four in possession.

Holsten wrote a letter to Hall protesting the service's decision shortly after it was issued, as did the Wisconsin DNR. But Hall was out of the country, and Wednesday provided the first opportunity for the subject to be aired.

Holsten told Hall the scaup harvest option Minnesota is proposing -- two scaup daily for 45 days, and one for 15 -- would likely result in a harvest only marginally different (if at all) from one expected by the service's 40/20 hybrid plan.

Hall, a career wildlife manager, is widely considered to be a straight shooter, and one who will listen. He told the Minnesota delegation the comment period on the service's harvest recommendations is open until Sept. 8, and that the Mississippi Flyway Council should submit a formal scaup counterproposal to the service by then.

Which the flyway council will do -- probably. The problem is, the council itself is partially to blame for the service's scaup plan. The flyway council should have formalized its 45/15 harvest proposal for presentation to the service in July, or at the subsequent service's waterfowl regulations committee meeting in Washington.

That didn't happen in part because scaup aren't important birds in hunters' bags in the majority of states in the flyway -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Louisiana being the exceptions.

Additionally, many waterfowl managers in the Mississippi Flyway didn't agree with the service's scaup harvest model and didn't want to validate it by assuming its premises to arrive at a harvest proposal.

Most state waterfowl managers instead wanted the service to blink, essentially, and retain the two-birds-daily scaup harvest of a year ago.

Making matters worse, flyway representatives at the regulations committee meeting didn't formally offer (or get the opportunity to offer) their 45/15 split as an option -- giving the service the opening it needed to move its 40/20 split forward.

Upshot: The service's 40/20 scaup harvest split is a mistake. Not only because its underlying harvest model is suspect, and has virtually no buy-in among state waterfowl managers and biologists. But because it didn't seriously weigh the effect of dramatically cutting the scaup limit on waterfowl hunters (of whom there are ever fewer), absent a clear and present risk to the resource .

Assuming Mississippi Flyway representatives get a 45/15 harvest proposal to the service in the next week or so (a big assumption, given their recent track record); assuming the biological underpinnings of the flyway's proposal are sound; and assuming the estimated scaup harvest of the 45/15 split doesn't vary widely with the harvest expected from the service's 40/20 split, the service should do the right thing and give the flyway its choice of hybrid options.

It's ironic that a central theme of the conference this week was the need to include "human dimensions'' in formation of waterfowl management strategies. Broadly speaking, this means including the interests of hunters (and others) in developing harvest (and, ideally, habitat) guidelines and regulations.

Ironic because the humans most affected by the service's scaup harvest proposal -- waterfowlers in Minnesota and a few other states -- feel more left out of the process than ever.


----------

