# MN Sets 60 day / 4 duck season



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/release ... 1123102430

drops to 1 hen mallard per day (always should have been anyways)
no spinners first week anywhere, no spinners on WMAs the entire season

I thought that season length impacted ducks more than the bag limit so I am totally confused by the 60 day season.


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

Does the MN DNR ever do anything that doesn't confuse us? Just look at the first few pages of the hunting guide and note the TWO pages of new regulations or changes for 2005. Good move on the 4 bird limit. And I agree, why they ever let two hens be part of the bag is nuts. I didn't draw a SD license this year so I'm weighing options. I wish MN would fold up the DNR and create Game, Fish and Parks like the Dakotas..............anything would help.


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

You Nodakers had better get ready for the Mn invasion now! I have a feeling this will increase hunting pressure elsewhere now. I also (and this is only my opinion) believe that the lower harvest have little to do with the population of ducks. I personally have very successful hunts here in Mn and those hunts are seldom taking limits. However where I hunt the habitat is prime and the pressure is miniscule. I have always had very little respect for what the MNDNR has done since moving here from Az where the game and fish dept. is more concerned with factual game management and not just opinions.
:2cents:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

D.N.R. = Damn Near Retarded

I bet all the brass in St. Paul are sitting around patting each other on the back with this great "compromise." They're clearly trying to appease both the guys who want a shorter season and the guys who want a liberal season by doing this. When in all reality reducing the bag limit by 2 might reduce the harvest by 2-3%. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen them do in a long, long time. They could have gone moderate 45/4 and appeased the "there's not enough ducks for a liberal season crowd" and pizzed off the guys who want a liberal season; or vice versa if they would have taken 60/6. Instead they do this and pizz off everyone on both sides!

The DNR needs to grow a pair and realize they can't make everyone happy all of the time. A decision like this just looks stupid (since it will accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of harvest) and cowardly (since they were obviously too chicken to choose a side).

I really can't see why they didn't go 60/6 with the rest of the flyway.


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

The "there's not enough ducks for a liberal season crowd" don't have to hunt yet they choose to and they seem to be the first to shoot a full limit including hens given the opportunity. So why can't they practice voluntary restraint? I'll pass up shooting at hens if possible knowing full well that someone else is going to crack at her, but that is my self control and not anyone elses to tell me otherwise. I know for a fact that here in Mn it is very uncommon to take limits most of the time and in reality I cannot forsee this years harvest changing at all compared to last years. I also can't forsee a 45 day season here either because so many people woul gripe about how it was to warm and no ducks came through or too cold and everything froze up! I remember many years being froze up tight long before the close of season.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

When is the MN DNR going to start educating themselves on the real problem. They have no habitat. Why don't they just come out and say it publicly. The people need to hear the truth, hell that's what they want to hear. They don't want any more garbage and excuses.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

I will actually give them credit for doing SOMETHING. At least they took some action to help the problem, although it may not have a huge effect. I wish they would go to something like a split season with 3 or 4 ducks. Even if they went to 3 ducks, they could still have it at 3 mallards, which should be enough. There is no need to have 1 or 2 "bonus" ducks in a bag limit. If you want to shoot a gadwall that bad, then fine, just know that's one less mallard you can shoot. People might pay a little more attention rather than just shooting everything that flies by. Then again, people might just throw it in the cattails, too.

I would have to think that in MN, a pretty large percentage of the ducks that are shot are either shot opening day or later during the migration for a week or so. From that standpoint I would think this change should have a decent effect, especially on local ducks who commit suicide on opening day. I know they will get blasted all the way down the flyway, but like I said, this is more interest than they've shown in the past.

If there is no 60 day season in the western part of the state, they could just as well not have one as far as I'm concerned because 45 days isn't long enough to even have a migration the last few years, with some exceptions. They need to come up with some solution to take pressure off the birds the first weekend, youth weekend, etc. so the birds hang around, but I don't know what.

And yes GG is right about habitat but if they need to realize what the problem is, we need to realize that its not going to change. Its apples and oranges between ND and MN for farming. Soybeans: 30 bushel ND to 50 bushel MN, Corn ?Not good ND to 180+ bushels western MN. People in ND may not have been so eager to put land into CRP if it was as good as some areas of western MN. Just my opinion.

Anyway, I don't even hunt there anymore, but I grew up in western MN and just want them to get some quality hunting back.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> They could have gone moderate 45/4 and appeased the "there's not enough ducks for a liberal season crowd" and pizzed off the guys who want a liberal season; or vice versa if they would have taken 60/6. Instead they do this and pizz off everyone on both sides!
> 
> I really can't see why they didn't go 60/6 with the rest of the flyway.


Matt, I have to disagree. They made a compromise. Each "side" gave some, which I wouldn't call pizzed off. It happens all the time in politics and no doubt politics entered into this decision. I like the 60 days since I will have a full season to hunt. I don't mind the 4 since, having hunted in MN for a long time, I can't agree that a liberal season was warranted based on long decline in the duck hunting culminating in a miserable season last year. I'd like to trust the biologists and go with 60/6 but with the perceived political pressure contributing to the decision, along with my own common sense take of the duck populations in the last few year via traveling ND SD MN and IA, I am OK with this season's framework.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

The point I was making Shu is that with this decision each side gave something and got absolutely nothing in return. In a compromise, you give a little and get a little. Not give a little and get nothing.

This won't reduce the harvest, which is what the DNR is trying to make it look like they're doing to the "not enough duck" crowds. Since it's not going to reduce the harvest I don't see why they did it because they upset the guys who wanted 60/6. Nothing was accomplished besides everyone being upset.

Tweaking a few regulations are not going to solve MN's duck problems.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Ok, I will agree that the changes are not massive, but to say it won't reduce the harvest is not totally correct. It will, but not a ton. I think what will reduce the MN harvest more is that the ND opener for non-res may be on Oct 1st as well.


----------



## deked (Mar 11, 2003)

should have been 75/3 so we can hunt in december!!! :beer:


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

Another one of my opinions is that what minnesota is doing is going to help out the other states down the line by how many say "let the hens go and someone else will shoot them". My point being that if the USFW says there are enough ducks in the flyway to justify a liberal season then let it be! Example: Mn has a very liberal season for snow geese set by the feds yet I haven't been very successful at all in harvesting many here, so should I figure that there aren't enough snows to hunt so the limit should be dropped? Hardly! I am sure that if I tried really, really hard I would be more successful. Same goes for Az, being in the pacific flyway, you have there a very liberal season which includes a seven bird limit all of which can be mallards (two hens) and over 100 days to hunt them. And believe me there are ducks there the entire season but the success rate is quite low. So why not lower the limit there? Because the feds say otherwise and it just wouldn't make sense! I am starting to despise this state more and more every time I post here!!!! :******: So I'd better stop ranting on!!!!!!


----------



## mntwins (May 19, 2005)

maybe now I won't have the open day hunters pulling up on me 5 minutes before shooting :eyeroll: . The thing the dnr has done. That new comissioner is a "good ol boy". I think it's punishment for the rally. :******:


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

I agree the biggest problem in MN is habitat... I mean everyone here has to live on a lake, have a cabin on a lake.... well all this takes away from the habitat. I think we need more regulation on that than bag limits.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

I have to respectfully disagree. The lake homes are not a major factor when it comes to waterfowl. The lakeshores with homes on them are not going to be kicking out broods of ducks regardless. The issue is wetlands (not lakes, I'm pretty sure there's enough lakes) and cover.


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

there are alot of lakes but all the cover is being depleted when the wetlands that are sourrounding the lakes are being altered so people can have lawns and driveways, ect.


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

Whoever mentioned habitat is right on . You should see the tiling and draining that still goes on around here...........they can't get it in the ground fast enough...........and I disagree...they did not "compromise"..........they've never compromised anything for waterfowl in MN. When you look at past statistics, bag limits don't have as much impact on numbers as season lengths do........they've known that for a long time..........I hate to be so pessimistic, but the future of waterfowling (ducks) in MN is damn bleak........I think it's too far gone. You can bet it things do turn around, the Department of the Naturally Retarted will be firs to claim victory......


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

I strongly agree..... Seems all the MN DNR really cares about are the walleye populations in the state....


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

That's because MN gets a better return on investment for walleyes compared to ducks. Plus you can't see walleyes so if numbers are down and no one is catching any fish the DNR can always say they are abundant but just not biting. Who is going to prove them wrong?

Its pretty sad really.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

FLOYD said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. The lake homes are not a major factor when it comes to waterfowl. The lakeshores with homes on them are not going to be kicking out broods of ducks regardless. The issue is wetlands (not lakes, I'm pretty sure there's enough lakes) and cover.


Well said Floyd. I think there is WAY too much emphasis on lakes for waterfowl hunting in MN. I really wish conservation groups and the DNR would spend more on restoring small wetlands and grasslands than continually dumping $millions in rotenone on a few select lakes that never make that 'comeback.' I think the return hunters would get from grasslands and small weltlands in terms of raising and attracting ducks would be much greater.


----------



## Bull_Can (Apr 30, 2004)

Matt Jones said:


> I really wish conservation groups and the DNR would spend more on restoring small wetlands and grasslands than continually dumping $millions in rotenone on a few select lakes that never make that 'comeback.' I think the return hunters would get from grasslands and small weltlands in terms of raising and attracting ducks would be much greater.


Hold on, Matt. There are many other parts to this issue than just "lakes vs wetlands". First off, I would love to see more grasslands and wetlands (especially class 1-3 wetlands) preserved, but the State/Feds have put forth a variety of programs for farmers to enroll...but only a fraction ever do. If you could get a few bucks for the land to compensate for the loss in crops and think that is even steven, forget it...guys are running huge rigs nowadays and to make an effort to miss a couple of class 1 wetlands vs running straight lines is just out of the question. Some do...and those guys should be commended for it, but majority till under the best lands. This goes into the fact that the large waterfowl lakes that are being treated/restored (Christina, Heron, etc) have a large support base...a support base you don't see in the fields. "Do the work where the work can be done".

Secondly, lakes offer a wide variety of species (divers, dabblers, geese) a place to stage and rest (refuge) in order to keep them in an area and increase the success for miles around vs a small wetland that can get shot off after a hard hunt.

As for MN, water quality is the top issue and the one that needs to be addressed in order for us to build/sustain waterfowl breeding and migration. When there are laws in the book that let 1 landowner on a shared wetland let a bait company come in and stock minnows that eat the daphnia, shrimp and other invertebrates that young of the year waterfowl need to grow, or feed on during migration...that needs to change in order for our water to be attractive to waterfowl.

Disclaimer: I am a commitee member with Lake Christina and have seen first hand what the degredation of a historic waterfowl staging lake can do to the entire region. When you can't even attract coots to a lake, how the hell are you supposed to attract/keep "better" waterfowl in the area?


----------



## The Dak (Nov 23, 2003)

Ya'll aughta back off on the MN DNR waterfowl folks. They know and understand what the problem is---breeding/migration habitat and a lack thereof coupled with hunting pressure. The regulatory move was one that was called for by their constituants-MN duck hunters.

Minnesota's problems are far reaching: big time wetland drainage, destruction of upland habitats, consolidation of those drained wetlands now allowing winter survival and movements of rough fish, stocking of game fish into every single body of water (aka fishery) that has a glimmer of hope, and finally, the big sleeping giant that has now begun to rear its big, ugly head--urbanization of lake shore property.

I believe it to be the worst case of urban sprawl in the US. Not only is there a huge disturbance factor, but add in wave action/aquicides and rough fish, and you can kiss the forage base good bye.

One such shallow wetland is currently being developed (planned anyways). Dead Lake in Ottertail County. I beleive it's MNs largest shallow lake, and it's going to go the same way as everything else.

Like I said in another post, they (the one's that don't care) love to have their cake and eat it too...and then take a dump on the next person's cake. For the people that do care (at least a little) they just plain are loving the resource to death.

Someone hit it heads one...they've chosen walleyes and jet skis over waterfowl, and now it may be too late.


----------



## striped1 (Aug 17, 2005)

The 4 duck, one hen limit will only help the states south of MN. What good does it do if all the other states don't follow suit?


----------

