# MADDUCK Article from Aug 2005



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

What do you think? any comments?

HEART OF DARKNESS 
By James H. Phillips 
When you are sitting in your blind this autumn, staring at empty skies and wondering what happened to the great flights of mallards that once winged the length of the continent, consider the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forecasts of the effects liberal hunting regulations on our breeding stocks. We begin in 1997, the year the service adopted the longest season lengths, earliest opening dates and latest closing dates in more than half a century. 
• In the summer of 1997, after surveys found 9.9 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 9.6 million. 
• In the summer of 1998, after surveys found 9.6 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 8.1million. 
• In the summer of 1999, after surveys found 10.8 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 10 million. 
• In the summer of 2000, after surveys found 9.5 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 8.1 million. 
• In the summer of 2001, after surveys found 7.9 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 7.3 million. 
• In the summer of 2002, after surveys found 7.5 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 6.5 million. 
• In the summer of 2003, after surveys found 7.9 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 7.6 million.

• In the summer of 2004, after surveys found 7.4 million mallards on the breeding grounds, biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package would cause the mallard breeding population the following spring to DECLINE to 6.8 million.

If you are wondering about this year, the prediction is the same. Aerial surveys found 6.8 million mallards on the North American breeding grounds this spring, the lowest number in more than a decade, and biologists predicted the adoption of the liberal regulations package will cause the mallard breeding population next spring to DECLINE to 6.7 million. 
"Wait a minute!" some will exclaim. "Why haven't we heard about this before?" 
The answer is that the service does not make its prediction public in a timely, open fashion. It waits a year, and then publishes the data in a manner that camouflages its impact. This protects the service from the howls of protest that would erupt if it announced each summer it planned to gun down our breeding stocks. 
To those who believe the service acts in the best interests of concerned hunters who want to increase the number of ducks that wing southward each autumn, the predictions tell us otherwise. In six of eight years the Adaptive Harvest mallard management model has correctly forecast the subsequent decline in our mallard breeding stocks. 
Further, the predictions expose the sham of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which calls for maintaining a breeding population of 8.2 million mallards under average pothole conditions. This spring's pothole count was average, but mallards declined to 6.8 million mallards. Yet the service endorsed another year of liberal regulations even though its biologists predicted another liberal season will cause a further drop in numbers of nesting mallards. 
These findings should cause every conservation-minded duck hunter to ask, 
"Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service care about the mallard decline?" 
The answer can be summed up in one word: "No." Paul Schmidt, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assistant director for migratory birds, recently stated, "We are extremely heartened by what Adaptive Harvest is telling us." 
Schmidt apparently is "extremely heartened" that Adaptive Harvest is telling us that we are facing smaller and smaller mallard breeding populations and subsequently smaller fall flights. 
The situation is slightly different for the four flyway councils, which each year must pass judgment on the proposed duck-hunting regulations. The council decisions are based largely on the Adaptive Harvest pond and mallard breeding-population matrix, provided by the service. This year's matrix looked like this:

The councils look on the vertical axis to find the mallard breeding population (which includes the traditional survey area, plus the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan), then the horizontal axis to find the number of Canadian ponds. The intersection tells the councils which regulatory option - liberal, moderate, restrictive or closed - the Adaptive Harvest model finds appropriate for the upcoming season. (In the above model, the preferred choice is highlighted in gray.) 
The matrix, however, only reveals the regulatory option preferred by the Adaptive Harvest model, which is designed to maximize the kill. It does not describe the impact on subsequent breeding populations. 
It is critically important to note that the service does not inform the councils what effect the liberal regulatory option will have on subsequent breeding stocks. Instead, it waits until the councils have made their decision before crunching the numbers to arrive at a prediction. 
This precludes a council member from making a meaningful judgment. If one should be so impertinent to ask, "If we approve a liberal season, what effect will this have on next year's breeding population?" the service can answer, "We don't know at this time, but we are extremely heartened by what Adaptive Harvest is telling us," a la Schmidt. 
Thus, the predictive value of Adaptive Harvest - the very heart of Adaptive Harvest management - is rendered meaningless in the decision-making process.

It would only take minor additional effort by the service to provide the councils with the pond count and breeding-population matrix, and then state: "If the liberal option is approved, we predict next year's breeding population will decline. If the moderate option is chosen, we predict next year's breeding population will be &#8230;" and so on. Only then can the councils reasonably assess the likely outcome of their decisions. But the service prefers to keep them - and us - in the dark. 
Naturally, all this must be put into proper context. In a surprisingly forthright admission, the service this summer informed the councils that the proposed pintail season expansion this autumn would increase the kill and likely cause the breeding population to decline from 2.6 million this year to 2.3 million next spring. It made no difference. The councils approved the expanded season, anyway. 
These actions raise a key issue: Do authorities want to increase our beleaguered breeding stocks? The actions of both the service and flyway councils provide the answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not. The flyway councils do not. The service and the flyway councils confidently look forward to fewer mallards and fewer pintails on the breeding grounds next spring. This is their choice, as it has been for mallards for the past nine years. 
If the political and biological entities that comprise "waterfowl management" do not want to increase our breeding stocks, the question must be asked: "Who does?" 
Is it any wonder we are looking at increasingly empty skies?


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Although the exact intentions of these people cannot necessarily be determined from this report, the effect of liberal seasons on our current populations can be.

Our early start, liberal bag limit seasons are causing a downward trend in duck numbers. If the USFWS isn't going to act in an appropriate manor, then individuals and states need to take it upon themselves to set stricter limits.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's not a surprise to me with the ever growing commercial side of hunting. I think this is the kind of stuff Teddy R was trying to protect us from a hundred years ago already. We just may have to learn and understand what Teddy R believed yet!!!!

ADN you are so right...The only real answer is individual self control.


----------



## SJB (Jul 2, 2003)

Hmmmm,...$$$$$.....Hmmm.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

It comes as no surprise to me that duck numbers rise and fall. Thats been happening for as long as ducks were alive. They rise....and they fall.

We will never have a stable population of mallards because thats not how they have evolved.

Does anyone expect them to just rise every year?


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

> It comes as no surprise to me that duck numbers rise and fall. Thats been happening for as long as ducks were alive. They rise....and they fall.
> 
> We will never have a stable population of mallards because thats not how they have evolved.
> 
> Does anyone expect them to just rise every year?


No, you are right, but does that mean its okay to kill as many on a daily basis in a lean year as a year when there is a bumper crop of ducks? I can tell you that we aren't the only ones thinking this. The feds have sent out random surveys to see how the public feels on the issue. I think in the next 5 years you are gonna see some BIG changes in migratory bird management.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

. I think in the next 5 years you are gonna see some BIG changes in migratory bird management.

Could be...but I doubt it. I bet next years mallard count will be higher than predicted.

What will you say then?


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

Maybe it will be higher, but how high could it be with proper management. I think you are missing the point here.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

I have never understood why the fedreal government tries to maximize the number of ducks that can be killed every year. In Nebraska a person can only kill 3 pheasants a day. It's always been that way. It doesn't depend on how the breeding season was. Killing 6 ducks a day is way to many. I might also add that we can't shoot hen pheasants, but the state of Nebraska allows for 2 hen mallards a day to be shot. I could see one in case of an accident, but 2. That only promotes killing hens and I have hunted enough public ground to tell you that most hunters will shoot what ever comes into range, hen mallard, hen pintail, hen canvasback, hen scaup, and anything else. Most hunters will not restrain themselves from shooting to many ducks. The fish and game people should be smart enough to go with a conservative system that will increase duck numbers. Delta waterfowl does a great job of promoting this thinking.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

What I find the most alarming is that as I sit here typing, both scaup and pintail populations are at all-time lows. Most waterfowlers don't even give this a second thought, because most of the focus is on mallards.

Once the CRP contracts start to expire, I think you are going to see populations of dabblers, especially mallards, plunge or hover near record lows. Combine the loss of CRP with the overcommercialization of waterfowling, and the recreational pursuit of ducks will be an afterthought.

Ron Reynolds et al. in their study _Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on Duck Recruitment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region _ revealed how critical CRP was to nest success and recruitment rates for five dabbler species. Their study *estimated an additional 12.4 million recruits to the fall flight as a consequence of the CRP during 1992-1997.*

And as far as commercialization, one needs to look no further than North Dakota as a prime example. In North Dakota the number of hunters has jumped from less 39,800 in 1993 to more than 65,000 in 2001, an increase of 62 percent. Most of this increase is non-resident hunters and the group that uses market hunters. A direct correlation is revealed in North Dakota's duck harvest, which increased nearly fourfold from 1993-2002. The harvest data shows the numbers of waterfowl harvested jumped from 155,000 in 1993 to 550,000 in 2003.

On this very site, one of ND's guides matter of factly stated that his clients routinely shoots over 30 mallards a day. If you imagine a 30 day season in ND, this market hunter is responsible for shooting over 900 birds. Now add in 400 hundred of these market hunters and I think one can see the cumulative impact, at the lowest, on the state level. Now think globally, and imagine how many market hunters are working in each of the four flyways.

Based on the portability of todays hunter combined with the cumulative impacts of market hunting and a decline in habitat, I don't find the decline of mallards anything other than predictable.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Just for arguments sake....lets say that we are shooting to many ducks.

Lowering the daily bag limit will no almost nothing. If you want to decrease the harvest the length of the season needs to be cut.

If you really feel we are killing to many ducks then you should be demanding a shorter season.


----------



## H2O_Tech (Jun 21, 2004)

Decoyer...define "proper" management. Details and please state if this is for all flyways or just Central.

Bioman...Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt

For clarification, the waterfowl kill for the period 1993-2002 rose 2-5 fold for the entire Central Flyway. Your cause-effect is misleading, or huge #'s of OOS hunters hunted in all states of the CF, using market hunters.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

I don't see this as a OOS issue. It is an issue what should be set for season length and bag limits. I personally would like to see more freedom among the flyway councils to decide season length and limit. In years where the numbers are beginning to fall but overall populations are still healthy, whats wrong with having a 72 day season (central flyway liberal package) with a four duck a day limit as a more preventative measure? Under current regulations, in order to cut the limit, the number of allowed days would have to be cut.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Decoyer,

Your idea(72/4) will have no noticeable impact on the harvest. If you want to "prevent" overharvest the best way to do that is shorten the season.

Less ducks will be killed in a 30 day season with a 10 duck limit that a 72 day season with a 4 duck limit.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr. Lee-

Untrue. Most hunters do not get limits everytime that they go hunting. The MN DNR published harvest statistics that show a majority of the annual harvest (in MN) is taken in the first two weekends of the season. That is because this is the time hunters are most likely to harvest a limit and also the highest number of hunters are hunting.

So, a 10 bird limit would increase this initial harvest even more.

What is your reasoning that less birds would be taken in a 30/10 season than a 72/4 season?

In theory, if a hunter harvested a limit everytime, a 30/10 would equal 300 and a 72/4 would equal 288.

If the hunter only hunted twice a week (weekends), it would be 50 birds for the 30/10 and 48 birds for the 72/4.

Also, because most waterfowlers have other obligatins in life, it is more likely that a hunter would be out for a higher percentage of the days of a 30 day season than a 72 day season.

Lowering the bag limit would decrease the initial harvest. As stated earlier, the initial harvest (first two weeks of the season) are when a majority of the birds are harvested in MN. Waterfowl seasons have peak times and by decreasing the limit, the harvest at these peak times would be reduced, decreasing the overall harvest.

Decreasing the initial harvest would benefit northern states where this harvest is comprised mostly of local birds.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

ADN,

It sounds good on paper....but thats not the way it actually works out.

I can spend all day here trying to convince you what really happens....but I doubt for a second you will believe any of it.

The USFWS does studies on how season legnth and bag limit affect harvest numbers.

Go there and read up on some of the studies and learn for yourself.

After all....You do want to know what the truth is don't you?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

What is the average hunters daily harvest in the Central Flyway? That is the critical number and how many days in the field do hunters spend during a 30, 60, 72 or whatever day season.

There is a point where dropping the daily limit on a 72 day season will offset a 30 day season with a limit of 6 ducks a piece. You can figure that out mathematically pretty easily if you have the average daily harvest numbers.

However, that number may be totally unnacceptable to most waterfowlers and the drop in license sales, because of the lower limit, may be totally unacceptable to the USFWS. They have budgets.

Do a sample survey of hunters like this and you could figure out your revenue losses. It may need to be a little more complex. Not much though.

Please circle at what point you would stop hunting ducks based on the number of birds you could harvest daily. 1 2 3 4 5

Its money.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr. Lee-

You claimed that lowering the limit would do nothing. That is asinine. Sure, it can be debated which would have a greater affect, lowering the limit to 4 birds or decreasing the season to 45 days.

Look at it this way, I would rather shoot 2 geese a day all season than to go out on 1 day and shoot 10. Same with ducks, I would rather have a 3 bird limit than a shorter season.

There is a break point somewhere. Yes, shortening the season to 45 days will have a greater impact than a 5 bird limit. But what about 4? What about 3? What about 2? If you have something to support your argument, then show it. You haven't done anything but say "it won't work."

Think about this, if they shortened the season, what end of it would the days come off? For MN, they already start the Sat. closest to Oct. 1st. so it would be the end of season. Only a fraction of the harvest is taken in the last two weeks of the season. This is true also with a 4 bird limit, it only decreases harvest by a fraction.

Probably why they combine the two, shortened season and decreased limits. They can't shorten the season too much or diehards will be upset and they can't decrease the bag limit too much or the guys who want to go out opening day and shoot stuff wouldn't buy licenses. GG probably has it closest to the truth, they have to sell licenses.

Back to this case, if the harvest only needs to be lowered a small percentage, then decreasing season length and lowering bag limit, numbers wise would have about the same affect. Which one will result in less sales? Probably the lower bag. But, as I said, I would rather hunt a full length season with a smaller bag than a shortened season. Smaller bag get's my vote.

And if you think that the two don't have about equal affects for smaller changes, then show some reasoning.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

ADN,

So.....I would assume that you are predicting that the MN harvest decreased this year?

I say it went up. How can that be?

I guess we will find out when the harvest numbers are released.

If you are wrong....what will you say then?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here are some numbers to chew on. All numbers are from the NDGF website

I am working on 2003 to 2005 specific facts.

1998 The total duck harvest was 378,000 The average seasonal bag was 6.4 ducks per hunter, and hunters numbered 59,000 in 1998

1999 The total duck harvest was 375,000 The average seasonal bag was 6.1 ducks per hunter. and hunters numbered 61,000 in 1999. Resident hunters decreased from 40,000 to 39,000, while nonresident hunters increased 14 percent, from 19,000 to 22,000. The average hunter spent more than four days each hunting ducks and geese.

2000 duck harvest was 358,400, down from 374,600 birds harvested in 1999, The average seasonal bag decreased from 6.1 ducks per hunter to 5.9. The number of resident hunters decreased from 39,000 to 36,000, while nonresident hunters increased from 22,000 to 25,000. The average hunter spent four days each hunting ducks and geese.

2001 duck harvest was 433,800 birds harvested. . The average seasonal bag was 6.6 ducks per hunter A total of 62,900 waterfowl hunters took to the field. The number of resident hunters was 35,300 nonresident hunters remained at 30,000. The average hunter spent four days each hunting ducks and geese

2002 duck harvest was 550,200. The average seasonal bag increased from 6.6 ducks per hunter to 8.6. Mallards comprised 50 percent of the duck harvest and gadwall 13 percent.
A total of 64,100 waterfowl hunters took to the field. The number of resident hunters decreased to 34,100, while nonresident hunters remained at 30,000. The average hunter spent four days each hunting ducks and geese

Waterfowl Resident hunters numbers were 30,771 in 2003

Waterfowl Non Resident hunters numbers were 26,066 in 2003

Waterfowl Non Resident hunters numbers were 24,375 in 2004

Bob


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob,

Here's some of your missing info:

As of about a week ago, for 2005 we have sold 19,612 zone and 5840 statewide nonresident waterfowl licenses for a total of 25,452. We sold 24,356 for this same time period last year. This represents a 4.5% increase in NR hunters over last year, and of course the numbers aren't final, although they should be within a couple hundred of final. R numbers won't be known for several months.

Just FYI, for 2005 we have sold 21,945 nonresident small game licenses compared to 19,976 last year - on G&F's electronic systems. These numbers will also rise, as they don't account for license vendor sales and more sales will be made over the next weeks. But, it looks like NR small game license sales will be up ~ 10% as compared to '04.

I've got waterfowl hunter and harvest data from about the mid 70's if you want to see it sometime.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr. Lee-

We both know the harvest is the result of many factors. A solitary increase, decrease, or no change shows nothing. If the harvest were to decrease it wouldn't necessarily mean the lowered bag had an affect. If the harvest were to increase, it doesn't mean that the lowered didn't have an affect.

Both season length and bag limit are tools used to manage harvest and each will vary in their effectiveness depending of the extent to which they are alterred.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Both season length and bag limit are tools used to manage harvest and each will vary in their effectiveness depending of the extent to which they are alterred.

Thats true. But even the MN dnr said we would have to go down to a 2-3 daily duck limit to have a noticable impact. I am not sure if they factor in how many guys will just quit or not. But....guys quiting is not good. It may help on the compition end but stamps and liscences are very important to habitat.

The easiest and most noticable way is to shorten the season.

As far as the ND numbers go........does anyone have any predictions on weather the harvest will be up or down......even with the possible 10% increase?

My guess is that it will go down....mainly due to the fact that for the most part the season was cut short due to the cold and snow.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Prediction: Wisconson hunters will account for a large percentage of the increase.
Harvest will be up slightly


----------



## Texas slayer (Dec 2, 2005)

I think some of yall are getting too damn picky. Im with ADN on this deal. Id rather spend a morning watching a ton of ducks then hunting and seeing 14 or 15. Its not all about killing 6 ducks everytime you go. Id be fine with killing two and then just watching them come and in and watching what they do. If we keep on going at this rate soon enough our kids and grandkids will have nothing to hunt. I think we just need to think about this one a little harder and defintely try to lower the limit and shorten the season. And if you dont believe that we lower the limit you are a stubborn son of a *****.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Its true.....I am a stubborn SOB.

If the USFWS determines that we need to shorten the season and lower the limit.....thats fine with me. They know what they are talking about.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Mr. Lee,

I'll also guess we will be up slightly in harvest. NR's have a higher bag rate than R's, and we'd have to loose something on the order of one and a half the R's to compensate. But, that too is possible, based on the trends for the last several years.

The season (at least in many areas) wasn't really short from "normal" based on weather. If we're neutral or down in harvest, I think the weather will have had less to do with it than the added pressure coupled with a much larger percentage than recent number of flyway ducks that nested (and stayed until the bitter end) in prairie Canada.

Given the choice, I'd take a daily hit to the point (wherever that is) that it equaled any required season length adjustment.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Given the choice, I'd take a daily hit to the point (wherever that is) that it equaled any required season length adjustment.

Dan,

I have no problem with that. That is how you feel. You would rather have a longer season...if given the choice.

The thing is.......is that many on here say we need to kill less ducks......but the one thing that is a sure way to do it....they want no part of it.

Guys will call me greedy for wanting 6 a day....but they never consider themselves greedy for wanting a 60 day season.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Guys will call me greedy for wanting 6 a day....but they never consider themselves greedy for wanting a 60 day season.


Okay, let's work with that. What seems more gluttonous, assuming for the sake of arguement that limits can be had each day: working your *** off 10 days (of a 30 day, 6 bird limit season) to shoot 60 birds, or working your *** off 20 days (of a 60 day, 3 bird limit season) to shoot 60 birds? I'd much rather spread all that duck hunting is over 1/6th of the year as opposed to 1/12th. Greedy? I don't know, I just love to hunt ducks and everything about it, and would gladly trade more outings for less birds harvested each outing, even if on some of those days they were coming like trained hogs and I had to forego many shooting opps.

Can you imagine the pressure/competition we'd have in our two states with a 30 day season? Sure, some would drop out, but it wouldn't make up for the zoo that would still result. That seems to me another good arguement for opting for a lower daily limit, assuming it was harvest-neutral with a shortened season approach.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Dan-

I think that if ND lowered the bag limit it would reduce some of pressure on the birds because people will think "why go to ND when they only have a 3 bird limit?"

The increase in pressure ND is getting now isn't from diehards. Diehards have always known about ND. The people coming there now are people looking to get easy chances at shooting 6 birds a day.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Can you imagine the pressure/competition we'd have in our two states with a 30 day season?

Nothing would change. Pressure is all relative. Mn would still be crowded(my standards) and ND would be uncrowded(again..my standards) Those who hunt the whole season would still be out....and those who hunt opening weekend would still go.

How many guys would quit if the season went to 30 days?

The main group that would suffer is guides. It is hard to make ends meet on a 30 day season.


----------



## Texas slayer (Dec 2, 2005)

Yah you do have a good point there. Which means less money going back into habitat. But it also means less hunters which means less pressure and less ducks killed which means more for later years. I still think shortening the limit would be the best thing to do instead of shortening the season. Just my opinion. :beer:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Nothing would change. Pressure is all relative.


Yes, it's relative one state/area to another, but there's a certain amount of use that will be had in any one state/area, no matter the length. I duck hunted ND 12 days this year, spread from the first day of the 72 day season to the 65th day. 4 of those days were in October. If the ND season had been confined to 30 days, I certainly wouldn't have hunted 12 of those, but also certainly more than 4. The nearer traveling hunter that made two trips trips that spannned more than 30 days - would some/most make only one trip, or would they make two within those 30 days?

With a 30 day season, IMHO, we wouldn't loose enough hunters or hunter days to mitigate against the resulting use concentration unless the bag limit was also lowered a bunch. As ADN suggested, knocking the bag limit in half (alone) probably shifts a fair number of the shooters elsewhere.

Anyway, maybe we're on the verge of another factory-wide wet cycle, so no major adjustments will be needed. If not, you know my vote and I know yours.
[/quote]


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

"The thing is.......is that many on here say we need to kill less ducks......but the one thing that is a sure way to do it....they want no part of it. "

No, just maybe, Mr Lee, that some people don't agree with you.

I see scenarios where shortening the daily limit would have an effect on total harvest. Not every day out of the season will be one of those days where everyone goes out and hammers the ducks and limits out. There are however days where there is great weather, with lots of wind and northern flight birds coming in and getting killed at every blind. (speaking for Illinois on down south where public hunting means drawing for blinds) Usually a 4 person per blind limit, with 4 hunters able to kill 6 ducks =24 ducks for the blind. There are days down here and I witnessed many of those this year, with cold up north and good cold windy days down here, where the better blinds were filled out with 24 ducks by 9am and another group of 4 hunters went out after that group and also were able to take limits out of the same blind. Lower limits for each person on days like this would definately make a difference.

I also see that shortening the season would make a differene if the goal is to lower total flyway harvest, because there are only so many of those type of days that I spoke of above per season, and limiting length of the season would elimnate some of those days where ducks are being slaughtered all over the hunting areas. If speaking about just lowering ND total harvest only, and not on a flyway level, I would definately say that lowering the daily limit would be the way to go. Someone else mentioned above that a lot of people would not be willing to drive that distance to only be able to kill 3 or 4 ducks a day instead of six. Everyone has there own dropping off point where the drive would not be worth it to them. Mine personally would be probably, 3 duck a day limit, where I would not make the trip. Some probably from down here would not come if it were lowered to 4 a day. It is all personal opinion when waying cost, driving time, etc, against the number of ducks that one could shoot per trip.

I know that this has gotten way too long already, but one final point. Again speaking for only ND total harvest, I believe that lowering the daily limit up there would also make the biggest difference, due to (my own personal observation and not a slam on anyone) limits up there coming much easier than hunting in a lot of other areas of the country.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I am going to go off on a little tangent here, it is not aimed at anyone.

When the heck did it become mandatory for a hunter to shoot a limit every time out? Has hunting evolved into a competition? I can not find anywhere in the proclamation that says it is mandatory to shoot six ducks per day.

I like to eat duck as much as the next guy but to me it is a special meal and I always save a few to cook for the holidays. If I had a freezer full I fear it would no longer be a special meal the way I now enjoy it.

It should not matter what the season length and bag limits are if you realize the resource is in need of some conservation.

I know it will probably not be accepted by many but it is within our power to Voluntarily reduce our own limits. Daily and Bag limits are guidelines that are not always set using 100% sound scientific criteria, in other words it is a "best guess" situation, and IMO it is the only real way to estimate populations. Until my license and proclamation says I MUST harvest 6 ducks per day, I will use Voluntary Restraint while hunting ducks and shoot 2 or 3 per outing and enjoy the ability to get out a little more.

Peace!
:beer:

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Well Bob you know hunting has become a sport to most and unfortunately sportsmen are very competitive, always trying to out do the other guy or be able to come on these types of websites and do a little bragging.

Everything is a gamble these days... has hunting and fishing really become that boring to the sportsmen that they have to bet and have competitions with all types of fish and animals just to make it exciting for them??? Is there a chance sportsmen can steer their sport of killing in the right direction again??? The few self conscious hunters we had have been run over by the sportsmen and just stay home these days. Our wildlife will have to go through some tough times again to get the respect and care they deserve I guess.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob you make an excellent point, but the new generation of hunters is short on heritage and heavy on commercialization and forums where egos can be stroked by simply posting a digital picture. If you watch OLN or any other outdoor show, you are constantly force fed the "pros" just absolutely grinding and hammering waterfowl. Heck, look at the titles of some of the videos of the shelfs and it makes you sick to your stomache. DU the leader in conservation almost always has hunts with guides. I guess they feel that a high kill number is more dramatic than showing some conservation success stories. I refuse to watch that crapola and I would never buy a video that promotes the slaughter of waterfowl. No wonder why the new generation is all about digital pics showcasing their grind. Off the soap box, for now.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I absolutely agree Bob. We were on a fabulous mallard hunt in a small transition slough this year. The weather was nice and I brought a friend and his 5 year old as well as my own 5 year old. I shot three nice drakes and then I put my gun down and sat down with the two young kids while everyone else kept on shooting. I also was the retriever that day. I really think that was the most memorable hunt I had this year because my son was there with his friend and the other kids' dad said he hadn't shot a duck in 10 years or more. He shot damn near a box and a half of shells at close ducks and he was laughing like a little kid as he missed easy shots. It was so fun and I only shot 4 times (3 for 4 isn't bad for me!!!  ). Anyway Bob, point well taken, you don't have to limit out to enjoy the great outdoors!!!! :beer:


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I agree 100% with the above posts. Unfortutely a lot of guys going out think the goal of every hunt is a limit of something, instead of just going to enjoy nature, etc. I frequent another very popular waterfowling site, but don't post there. I get real sick of all the posts titles lick "wacked and stacked em boys" and "grindage pics", etc etc. I enjoy a good succesful hunt as much as the next guy, and if that results in getting a limit, well so be it. Someone bought me a DVD called falling skies or something like that. Lots of slow motion impact shots, with blood splattering and all. Very sickening. Watched in once and threw it in the cabinet.

Djleye....sounds like a great hunt to be one. Good to hear about a fun one like that with kids and someone that hadn't been able to get out for a whilte.


----------

