# Adaptive Harvest Management report



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

here's the latest version of the AHM.

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/a ... report.pdf

Looks like 74 days, 6/5/2 for the bag.

M.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Wow, i thought the news about our season length and the daily limit would be a hot topic of interest. Too mundane? Has everyone just come to expect liberal seasons every year?

M.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I personally feel it's too much. I question the amount of ducks today. I've had so many conversations with the old timers who say the numbers of today are nothing like the 50's. But I hate to open up the can of worms as to why the limits are as high as they are.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*

MONEY

Lived in the south for some years and still have quite a few friends in several southern waterfowl hunting states. One hunter would always another "what or how many did you kill today". That was the focus of their hunt.

If you are living in the mid-central or southern states with a high $$ lease then the number of KILLS (and that is what they talk about) I guess becomes pretty important.

Southern senators often take a stronger interest in the politics of waterfowl management. Sen Lott obviously is more involved relative to Dorgan or Conrad.

Regardless of the *biological factor *- a six duck limit brings in more lease $$, more guided hunters into southern lodges ($$), and I would expect it also brings more NRs to ND (again $$).

In summary = liberal season = higher bag limits = more $$ for people that profit from the resource.

I guess more duck stamps sales too ==> government gets their $$ too.

If we had a four duck limit -- limits would be easier to obtain without exhausting the resource (not necessarily by killing less birds - but by having less hunting pressure on the birds).

In ND, the hunters that need to limit out to feel good would do so easier. It may also mean that less hunters (res and NR) would need to jump shoot or road hunt till dark trying to get that last bird or two.

Preceived success would certainly improve, may be actual success would go up too. Nothing in the books states that ND has to have a six duck limit if that is what the feds propose. ND can not exceed that number, but certainly could go lower to protect the "resource" or reduce pressure on the resource.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That is why Chris, I do not think we have as many birds today as in the mid to late 70's, Just MHO, I was not around to judge the 50's or 60's but the change in how they count birds today from those years is more the reason. I do believe that the counts are close today but where under back then. I guess the liberal season frame work and bag limits are going to be with us until mother nature teaches these new people the same lessons the drought of the 80's taught the others.

Currently we have a lot of habitat that is under utilzied, and the theroy that you cannot stockpile ducks is one of fiction, otherwise why did we see a recuction in bag limits during drought years? Simple plain polictic driven by commerial interests that have little or know compassion for waterfowl other than a cah machine.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Do you think it would be prudent to work politically to see if the ND G&F would impose a lower limit to reduce the effect of exploding pressure within the state of ND?

Many will come and hunt longer and harder with 6/5/2. Folks will put a lot less pressure on the resource with 5/4/1. Might separate the hunters from the shooters and yahoos?

Sounds reasonable biologically if we're trying to protect the resource.

Logical opposition?

M.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

MRN...I don't think we need to do that.I would like to see non-res. required to have a book of tags.When the tags are gone they are done.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken I would normally agree but would traveling to hunt upland or waterfowl be different than going to the lake and catching and eating some fish while there. The dumpstser ducks and upland we see are the result of grey area laws. Better definitions of the current law and a freezer limit on upland in ND would serve much better.

Reporting and recording of daily takes by guides and outfitters would also prevent some of the over shooting, but the problem is not only with those that use G/O, nor is it limited to nonresidents. This is a ethics and moral issue and no matter how we try you will never effectively legislate morality.

Those that follow the rules and respect the game will do so with or without restrictions. Those that do so only under fear penalty will tow the line. The rest regardless of state of orign will do what ever the heck they want because the risk of being caught is minimal. More enforcement more involvement by those that witness these acts are really the only deterient for this type of behavior.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Dumpster ducks?
1) I have always wondered if there is any picture proof of dumpster ducks in a ND bin.

2) Any one bother to see if these so called dumpster ducks had been breased out and maybe even the leg meat gone?

One can look into a stinky garbage dumpster and spot a dozen, perhaps two dozen ducks, but they may simply be the skins.

The nonresidents that hunt, shoot, and eat duck on their trips must dispose of the carcass in some manner. Throwing the unedible parts into a dumpster is certainly better than leaving them in a field or prairie.


----------

