# WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE NEW PROPOSED DUCK LIMITS?



## h2ofwlr

To find out exactly what was being proposed for ND Duck season I wrote the ND F&G yesterday, and received a prompt reply today. (Nice fast customer service ) :thumb:

So the person sent me this which expalins the framework. I was very worried that it was similar to the old uneforcable point system of many years ago. But that is not the case as it should be easily enforced.

Here it is, considered what was offered in the past years, what is your thought on this new "choice" framework? Basically ND G&F will know the end of this month if the USFWS will approve it.

_Waterfowl
One possible change for 2006, pending approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would allow North Dakota to adopt what is being called a "hunter's choice" methodology for establishing duck hunting bag limits. This option would be put in place for three years on an experimental basis.

Essentially, what hunter's choice does is slightly change the bag limit structure in order to eliminate the short seasons for pintails and canvasbacks that have been in place the past few years. Under this scenario, hunters would not have to worry about accidentally taking an illegal duck during the latter part of the season.

The trade-off for the longer open season for canvasbacks and pintails is a daily bag limit of five ducks (it has been six daily for the past decade) that would allow taking of one canvasback or one pintail, instead of one of each as has been allowed in the past. In addition, hen mallards would also be included with canvasbacks and pintails in this category.

*The daily limit of five would still allow five drake mallards, but only one pintail, canvasback or hen mallard - not one of each.* In essence, this format means it's the "hunter's choice," whether he or she wants to take a bird from the pintail-canvasback-hen mallard category.

The hunter's choice experiment will involve all Central Flyway states. Some would have regulations similar to North Dakota, others would continue to have shortened seasons for canvasbacks and pintails. After three years, waterfowl managers will evaluate how the experimental regulations have influence duck harvest.

Without spending extensive time on past waterfowl regulations, this new proposal would assimilate aggregate bag limits.

The concept of hunter's choice has been under development for a few years.
Last year, in a survey of waterfowl hunters, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that a majority of hunters would prefer some type of hunter's choice system, rather than having closed seasons on certain species

Hunters should look for a final determination later on this summer. _


----------



## Sasha and Abby

I am against it. You should know what you are shooting before you pull the trigger. Even in the early season, you should be able to pick the birds. It is not as if there are not a lot of them - if you pass on one because you do not know what it is, there will be another one come by after a while... :beer:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

I don't think we need a 6-duck limit. I can't speak for biologists but I don't see the numbers that were the reason for limit increase years prior.

5 is fine for me.


----------



## dakota31400

Excluding Canvasback, it is virtually unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to differenciate a hen mallard from an immature drake mallard with any accuracy during the early part of the season....second, identifying a hen and/or immature drake pintail mixed in with a hundred mallards liting into your decoys is next to impossible under many lighting conditions.

Rough it...If you shoot a pintail or have two hen mallards in the bag, you simply wait for an identiable drake mallard or a completely different species to target.

For christ sakes, the only difference between a hatching year drake mallard and a hen mallard in october is the length of the speculum bar and mottled drab of the bill.....and I don't have a zoom lense on my shot gun.

During the latter part of the season, there aint no pintail left and cans are a no-brainer. I've been hunting ducks in ND for too long to let the law reduce my bag in order to accomodate the mistakes a of sky busting numbskulls.


----------



## Tator

5 is fine with me, 6 is fine with me. There are a lot of ducks around right now compared to 10 years ago. However, we do need to keep them managed.

I think for me and most of my group I can say that 99% of the time, we know what we are shooting when a duck comes flying through the deeks, not to say I'm a huge duck hunter, but I still can see what I'm shooting. I'm not too big of fan of this idea, but I guess we'll see where it goes.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

dakota31400 said:


> Excluding Canvasback, it is virtually unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to differenciate a hen mallard from an immature drake mallard with any accuracy during the early part of the season....second, identifying a hen and/or immature drake pintail mixed in with a hundred mallards liting into your decoys is next to impossible under many lighting conditions.


If you setup and work with the sun instead of against it's not too hard. This is Sept. 24th, 2005 (1 susie if I remember right).

[siteimg]4504[/siteimg]



> in order to accomodate the mistakes a of sky busting numbskulls.


Can't argue with ya there.


----------



## 870 XPRS

dakota31400 said:


> During the latter part of the season, there aint no pintail left and cans are a no-brainer. I've been hunting ducks in ND for too long to let the law reduce my bag in order to accomodate the mistakes a of sky busting numbskulls.


I disagree, there have been numerous late season hunts I've been on where pintails were still around. All of the small water was frozen and you still have to sit there and bite your tongue as them beautiful pins just flew on by. I can't speak for the cans, i have never seen them either later on in the year, but I've had to pass on my fair shair of pintails later on in the season.

I like the move. A 5 duck limit would be great in my mind, as well as the choice between a hen mallard, pintail, or canvasback. I don't see a negative out of this, but the great positive would be the "numbskulls" you speak of actually having to identify the bird completely. I can't say i've never mistaken a hen in the early season for a drake, but i'd say roughly 100% of the people on this site has done it once or twice. Isn't that a good step in the right direction though??? Making a person more conscious about what they are shooting in the early season and having the choice to shoot a choice duck later on in the year. I guess I'm failing to see the point you make dakota31400.....enlighten me if you will.

Cause i'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this system.


----------



## Sasha and Abby

Regardless of what the limit is; 6 or 5 or 2... you should know what you are shooting before you pull the trigger. Please do not penalize me because someone else cannot identify birds in the air.


----------



## gandergrinder

Do you really need to shoot six ducks? I would be happy to only take 3. Plus some of these yahoos wouldn't go out to shoot 3 ducks. You can only shoot 3 canadas during the regular season and no one complains about that.

Unfortunately, the rules in life are not made for the people who understand why they are in place, they are made for the people who can't and don't understand.

I have seen guys who just can't hold back from shooting no matter what. Hen or drake it doesn't matter they just have to shoot when a flock comes in. These are the guys that rules like this are made for. You have to manage the masses, its just the way it is.


----------



## Rick Acker

Sasha & Abby you are the exception. Most of the guys I've hunted with over the years can't tell the difference between a Gadwell and a Hen Mallard. And THAT'S DEAD ON THE GROUND!


----------



## Chuck Smith

I like this idea and hope it gets accepted. 5 ducks is plenty.

Plus identifying a pintail in the air is simple....look at the tail, it is more slender (even with out the sprig) than a mallard. Also a pin is more slender is shape than a mallard. The head position when in flight is longer and more areo dynamic than a mallard.

Now a canvasback once you see that bevelled head it is a dead give away. Plus the why way flocks of cans and mallards fly they are totally different......sorry I could go on and on about iding ducks.

I think they should make waterfowl identification a part of hunter safety/training. Because I know a lot of guys who have a hard time with duck id. Du offers a good feild guide book. But the best one I have seen is one I pick up about 15 years ago when I was turkey hunting in SD. I think it is called the Central Flyway Waterfowl ID guide. It is great. It talks about how the bird fly (patterns), give color photos of: drakes, hens, and elipse drakes, it shows wing identification, give a description where they ducks live and can be found, etc. AND IT WAS POCKET SIZE! It is a great book that everyone should carry into the feild with them and also should look at before the season to bone up on duck identification.


----------



## dakota31400

870,

Well now that i'm stuck in Georgia, I don't have the oportunity to shoot throughout the season..I might own propperty and pay taxes in ND, but I'm still considered a non-resident.

Second, I am not one that agrees with the "dead hens don't lay eggs" issue. I find it potentially more detrimental to gene pools when we seek and destroy only drakes.

Sex based regulations should not even be imposed on stressed species such as Pintail and Canvasback....IMO if the any population is stressed that bad, it needs to be taken off the legal list all together.

I prefer to pass on pintail and cans and stick to my 5 mallards and one of whatever else may be in the day for me.

Now I hunt almost exclusively over grain stubble. Hen Pintail mixed in with mallards are definitely a problem in the fields...as are hen mallards and HY drakes in September and early October...as I'm sure your aware of.

Furthermore, I'm not happy with the prospect of 5 instead of 6 ducks...
I'd be more fulfilled shooting none under a 6 bird framework than I would going afield with a lowered expectation.....That is my reality...and it drives the duck stamp purchase every year.....remove the expectation and they'll lose the sale. Funny thing is I rarely ever shoot my limit anymore...as I'm too busy watching the kids and my friends have a good time....not to mention, the less I shoot, the less I have to clean...and that makes heading home fun too :beer:

It sounds to me like they are trying to sugar coat a reduced bag limit with this proposal. Louisiana must be putting the pressure on.


----------



## USSapper

I think alot of people are looking at this the wrong way. They are introducing this chioce system not for the hunter that doesnt know what he is shooting but for the hunter that would like the choice of one of the three when they wouldnt normally be able to in previous seasons- Though you guys are right, it could cover up for mistake on the "numbskulls" behalf(dont think i have ever spelled that before  ) COuld be a neat little system but maybe a little complicating for some individuals :lol:


----------



## qwakwhaker883

> Furthermore, I'm not happy with the prospect of 5 instead of 6 ducks


Wow, do you really need to shoot 6 ducks a day? Why dont you make a trip down to Argentina and shoot all the ducks you want down there?


----------



## jhegg

I would be happy with 5 - or 4 -or three ducks a day even. If it helps keep out the gamehogs who have to shoot 6 ducks every day - well, that's just another plus! I can remember when it was two ducks a day. I had a lot of fun shooting just two ducks. I still would today!


----------



## dosch

I would go for 3 and let every one else have 6 if we could have our early season(1 week) and 1 week at the end of october for residents only.


----------



## Dan Bueide

5 is more than plenty...

4 would be better - more than enough to enjoy the experience and it would get folks in and out the field quicker and keep the birds around longer.

I think the HC format is fine, especially when you consider that we'd probably be down to a one hen limit this year or soon anyways (so I've been told). A one hen limit will be tough for the early portion of the ND season and under certain lighting circumstances, especially for young/inexperienced hunters. But, that isn't a good reason not to do it, if proper management dictates otherwise.

I've also been told (by someone who ought to know) that the hen/drake proportion of continental mallards isn't 50/50 or anywhere close to it, probably something closer to 1:2 or 1:3. Something to do with on-nest mortality and the stresses of brood rearing. Even though bag limits favor the harvest of drakes and most of us try to harvest only drakes, drakes still heavily outweigh hens in the overall population. So, it would not seem we're lacking for drake gene pools and maybe there is something to the "dead hens don't lay eggs" theory (the excess drakes sure as heck aren't going to lay them)...


----------



## dakota31400

qwakwhaker883 said:


> Furthermore, I'm not happy with the prospect of 5 instead of 6 ducks
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, do you really need to shoot 6 ducks a day? Why dont you make a trip down to Argentina and shoot all the ducks you want down there?
Click to expand...

 :******: Either the resource is viable or its not.....if its not then close the season for a few years.....I've been shootin ducks for 40 years, and anything less than 5 is simply not worth my time anymore. Nor does it support the fallacy that waterfowl populations are healthy. Maybe if you listened less to the people that rely on ducks for jobs, and more to what your eyes see.....you'd catch my drift.

I don't ever need to shoot another duck......that kinda makes it your issue and not mine......if your happy with 3....so be it, but when you get what your willing to settle for, you'll have to live with it.


----------



## 870 XPRS

So shooting 6 ducks IS worth your time, but shooting 5 is not? What happens when you get shortchanged a couple fries at McDonalds, just not eat any of them?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dakota.....I understand what you are trying to say....1 less duck will not make that much of a difference on the resource.......Or if the resource is so down....drop it to 3 or 4 limit....or shorten season or etc.

But the 1 less bird will help the resource. You take what others have posted on this site as their "Kill for the year" (example: 60 ducks). They can only legally pos 12. Now when they eat the ducks and then go hunting again to fill the freezer and so forth....that would cut down that number to about 50 for the year. Now you multiply that by 200 people.....get the drift. Now you have 10,000 less ducks harvested.....You combine that with the 3:1 hen to drake ratio.....you will have roughly 2,000 breeding pairs. Which inturn equals more ducks.

Another example on how it will help with pressure......You take 4 guys out hunting in a feild. They can shoot 4 less ducks. Which means less time in the feild. Which will give the birds more time to rest and not be harrassed by those hunters. (It could take them 4 min. to shoot then next 4 ducks or 2 hrs.)

This purposed system might also help with the NR numbers (key word is might).......I am a NR and would keep hunting ND if the limit was 2. I just like working birds over decoys. It is not about the kill for me.


----------



## dakota31400

The resource supposedly remains well above the the long term average, yet the duck farmers are still calling for a reduction.....I'm convinced were only dealing with paper ducks anyway.......There is no longer any waterfowl management....it's a farming practice designed to meet a demand. And if you allow them to sell you less for more, your making their job easy, right along side selling out the resource. If you don't stand up now, they'll have you begging for one duck a day in a few years.

You want to see more ducks......demand more ducks and make the paper pushers earn their pay.


----------



## Field Hunter

"I've been hunting ducks in ND for too long to let the law reduce my bag in order to accomodate the mistakes a of sky busting numbskulls."

You've got to be kidding!....let us know when you get back here next Fall and we'll have the game warden waiting for you.

"Well now that i'm stuck in Georgia, I don't have the oportunity to shoot throughout the season..I might own propperty and pay taxes in ND, but I'm still considered a non-resident."

One SIMPLE solution....move back to ND or quit complaining!


----------



## dakota31400

> You've got to be kidding!....let us know when you get back here next Fall and we'll have the game warden waiting for you.


:roll: and what was that statement for.....mine was made in context to prevent a change.....not a suggestion to shoot over the legal limit.



> One SIMPLE solution....move back to ND or quit complaining!


Working on it.

Allow the bag to be reduced without a fuss and all that will happen is the funds designated for the habitat will wind up in the payroll budget.

870,

How much habitat would they need to preserve if the daily bag was two....How much revenue would be generated from hunters...yours and who else  [/b]

no matter how the cookie crumbles, this is a business....When demand drops...so does production.


----------



## dakota31400

Chris Hustad,

And you would be happy about only being able to shoot 2 or 3 a day?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Of course. I haven't shot many birds the past 2 years anyways as I've enjoyed filming over shooting. I hunt just as much as anyone for waterfowl in a year so I don't feel I'd be shorted, so I wouldn't really be a fair comparison with someone who just hunts a couple weekends or a week during the year.

A good morning to me is how many cupped wings come in, which I like seeing a lot of. I remember when the limit was 2 when I was younger. Our group of 6 would shoot our 12 pretty quickly and then sit back and be swarmed with ducks (at times not being able to see snow geese approaching). I remember that morning much more then any limit day anyways.

You pretty much have to rely on the USFWS and the state agencies to really make the call in the end anyways.


----------



## tumblebuck

Alright dakota...let's take a closer look at one of your comments. First....



> Furthermore, I'm not happy with the prospect of 5 instead of 6 ducks...
> I'd be more fulfilled shooting none under a 6 bird framework than I would going afield with a lowered expectation.....That is my reality...and it drives the duck stamp purchase every year.....remove the expectation and they'll lose the sale.


Fair enough.

Then......



> Funny thing is I rarely ever shoot my limit anymore...as I'm too busy watching the kids and my friends have a good time....not to mention, the less I shoot, the less I have to clean...and that makes heading home fun too


hmmmm....so then lowering the limit from six to five doesn't affect you!!!??...since you don't shoot a limit anyway.


----------



## dakota31400

Tumblebuck,

Going from 6 to 5 is not really the issue that bugs me....it's the concept.


----------



## dakota31400

Chris Hustad,

Thanks for bringing up your other passion of filming as it is similar to mine hunting with the kids. As I mentioned earlier, my limit is really insignificant, but the kids and future duck hunters will suffer...In this day and age, there is no real excuse for bag reduction (maybe 1 or 2)....it usually is designged to give the management entities time to breath while they scramble for a solution to compensate for a new decision made by congress effecting waterfowl habitat, poor management practice....or, if by chance their paper duck scenarios start getting out of hand. Rarely anymore is it due to something realistic like a bad breeding season.


----------



## jhegg

Dakota31400,



> Going from 6 to 5 is not really the issue that bugs me....it's the concept.


I am not quite sure why a reduction in bag limit bugs you. Is it not worth your while to take your kids out hunting if they can only shoot 3-4 ducks apiece instead of 6? Do we need to kill the maximum number of ducks just because we can? May I just don't understand what it is you are complaining about. Can you enlighten me?

Jim


----------



## h2ofwlr

Dan Bueide said:


> I've also been told (by someone who ought to know) that the hen/drake proportion of continental mallards isn't 50/50 or anywhere close to it, probably something closer to 1:2 or 1:3. Something to do with on-nest mortality and the stresses of brood rearing. Even though bag limits favor the harvest of drakes and most of us try to harvest only drakes, drakes still heavily outweigh hens in the overall population. So, it would not seem we're lacking for drake gene pools and maybe there is something to the "dead hens don't lay eggs" theory (the excess drakes sure as heck aren't going to lay them)...


That is correct the hens highest mortality is on the nest and rearing the ducklings. But the young of the year are about 50/50--thus when in the early season, with the 1 hen limit, you just look for the older Drakes (1+ years old) as often they do have enough plumage to tell them from a hen.And 2nd attempt hatches are especiallt tough to tell the young apart--even in late Oct.

I know thais may seem like a novel idea--but if you can not tell the difference becuase of lack if distinguishing plumage, you do not have to pull the trigger. :lol: Just wait for any flock to come along and choose the older drakes. :beer:


----------



## WingedShooter7

Works better if they numbers have been down bring the limit down?
Common Sense?


----------



## shiawassee_kid

we've been 1 hen for years here in michigan. It's not that big of a problem as some of you make it out to be. Michigan sets the 1 hen limit voluntarily, and i think Minnisota does to? not that big of deal, i like the proposed.

I knew once they went to 6 birds your gonna have people complaining when they went to reduce it....its just comon public nature...to complain. I had just as much fun hunting back when it was point system or 3 ducks or todays 6 birds.....if your complaining about 5 birds your spoiled. that simple.


----------



## dakota31400

> know thais may seem like a novel idea--but if you can not tell the difference becuase of lack if distinguishing plumage, you do not have to pull the trigger. Just wait for any flock to come along and choose the older drakes.


If the hens are in the bag, thats exactly how it goes.....but, are those older Drakes in fact, not the breeders.

Many people don't realize it's the hen that chooses the drake...it's her selection.....and she knows inately how to chose. Generally, it's the older stronger males.....older cause they're smarter and smarter cause they're stronger.....They simply survive longer.

Only the most experienced waterfowl (survivors) are successful in rearing a brood. And the potential of that success is based soley the hens choice...Stress and predation will continue to balance the equation by insuring only the best of the best breed to perpetuate the species.

Sex ratios serve a specific purpose. irregardless of why or how it is that way, the ratios are essential for producing genetically fit progeny. 
Do you think the classic 7:1 ratio observed in Canvasback ducks evolved without a reason.

Now I ask the readers, why is there no push to remove canvasback hens from the legal bag or reduce the number of widgeon hens? Are both species not showing downward tends in population size.....It's because killing hens simply doesn't effect the populations dynamics. Only a small percentage of hens comprised of select individuals are responsible for most waterfowl species to maintain the existing population..... and the chances/ probability of us killing one of these is very small compared to randomly taking a non-breeder.

Selectively removing the best males however, is more likely due to our visual cue on asthetics,.....This is not helping waterfowl populations in the least.

Back to Mallard hens.......I smell AHM...someone needs to farm mallards in order use the model and maintain the hunters demand. When this model fails, they invent paper ducks to fill the sky and reduce your limit.
Then ask you follow along and believe they are on top of it. Reducing the number of hens in the bag which satisfies most hunters, cause they believe it makes sense and works....truth is, it doesn't. Go ahead, ask a USFWS Waterfowl Biologist


----------



## dakota31400

WingedShooter7 said:


> Works better if they numbers have been down bring the limit down?
> Common Sense?


Absolutely :beer:

and if it comes down to playing with sex limitations, both Drakes and Hens should be excluded for the season(s)



> I am not quite sure why a reduction in bag limit bugs you. Is it not worth your while to take your kids out hunting if they can only shoot 3-4 ducks apiece instead of 6? Do we need to kill the maximum number of ducks just because we can? May I just don't understand what it is you are complaining about. Can you enlighten me?
> 
> Jim


If thats what it comes down to, then thats how it will have to be...but when the limit is reduced to 3 or 4, will it not be time to let the birds rest.

I'm complaining about the management practices. Using models to save money cause the budget got cut is not the way to manage waterfowl....but if the waterfowler allows it to continue.....you will have to be happy with 3 or 4.......then 1 or 2.....then none.

No, we do not need to kill 6 ducks, but the thought of being able to is a lot more enticeing than only being allowed 3.

If we want this sport to continue on into future generations, were gonna have to do better than a 3 duck limit.


----------



## gandergrinder

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are blaming the game management community for the lack of waterfowl. Agriculture is where your problems lie. Ag is and always will be the biggest threat to waterfowl populations, especially pothole nesting ducks. I pass no judgement on the ag community. They are running a business and they don't make money growing ducks.

We as waterfowl hunters can hold the fire to the biologists and managers but their hands are tied. They can do little to change the management practices on private property. We need more habitat, period. But that takes funding and funding comes from Congress not from the biologists or managers.

Direct your anger in the right direction. Protesting the lowering of limits will do little to change the long term habitat problems.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Let's not forget the (heavy) role Mother Nature plays in all of this too.

The 2-3 duck limits of the late 80's/early 90's wasn't "caused" by the biologists, wildlife managers or ag community.

Fact of the matter is we're trending more dry. When reported, '06 May ponds will be down something on the order of 15% from last year. Less water = less broods.

If hunting mortaility plays no substantive part in the health and well-being of the continental flock, why did we have such severe bag limits during the last drought cycle? Stated another way, if hunting mortality plays no such part, why didn't we have a 10-15-20 duck limit in the go-go years of water/ducks in the mid/late 90's? For that matter, why have any limit at all, ever.


----------



## FLOYD

Well stated Dan. If shooting 3 honkers and 5 ducks isn't enough for people, then they should take up another hobby because they will never be satisfied waterfowling. Most (or at least some) guys who field hunt didn't shoot 6 ducks anyway unless a nice bull pintail caught their eye.


----------



## dakota31400

> Direct your anger in the right direction. Protesting the lowering of limits will do little to change the long term habitat problems


.

I beg to differ...lower limits attract less waterfowlers and the primary source of funds for habitat comes from waterfowlers.



> Let's not forget the (heavy) role Mother Nature plays in all of this too.


and when it does....so be it. Don't make up a bunch of numbers, tell me the population is well above the average and then reduce the limit. Tell there are no ducks....then lower it.



> The 2-3 duck limits of the late 80's/early 90's wasn't "caused" by the biologists, wildlife managers or ag community.


It was 3 and for one year.......and no one claimed the population was above the long term average back in those days.



> If hunting mortaility plays no substantive part in the health and well-being of the continental flock, why did we have such severe bag limits during the last drought cycle? Stated another way, if hunting mortality plays no such part, why didn't we have a 10-15-20 duck limit in the go-go years of water/ducks in the mid/late 90's? For that matter, why have any limit at all, ever.


I don't recall any severe bag limits other than 1, for one year. And the go-go years of the 90's sucked in my perspective.....All the good hunting years ended back around 1975.


----------



## Field Hunter

Your last remark shows you are just trying to stir the pot.


----------



## dakota31400

> Well stated Dan. If shooting 3 honkers and 5 ducks isn't enough for people, then they should take up another hobby because they will never be satisfied waterfowling. Most (or at least some) guys who field hunt didn't shoot 6 ducks anyway unless a nice bull pintail caught their eye.


I agree....I'm not looking for a 7 duck limit...Quality is not based on quantity, but it is worthless without availability.


----------



## gandergrinder

> I don't recall any severe bag limits other than 1, for one year. And the go-go years of the 90's sucked in my perspective.....All the good hunting years ended back around 1975.


Distance does make the heart grow fonder. And in this case distance=time.

However these are the years of heavy drainage etc etc.



> Quality is not based on quantity, but it is worthless without availability.


This guy is running in circles.


----------



## dakota31400

Field Hunter,

:beer:


----------



## eyes to the skies

HEY EVERYONE LISTEN TO WHAT DAKOTA IS SAYING ITS NOT ABOUT HIM SHOOTING 6 INSTEAD OF 5 HES SAYING IF YOU ALLOW THE LAW TO CHANGE THE THEY WONT HAVE TO PRODUCE SO MUCH OF THE PRODUCT LIKE HE IS SAYING ITS A BUSINESS AND THEYRE THE FACTORY FARMERS :roll:


----------



## dakota31400

:wink:

Thanks eyes to the skys!


----------



## dakota31400

I think the liberal 6 bird limit is more than ample.....very generous given the circumstances. IMO, 5 is probably more in line, but anything less than 4 (on a continuous basis) will interrupt the influx of future sportsman...and that in turn will put an end to waterfowling.

AHM is a great concept that uses an indicator species to represent the status of all the other species. The Green Head has got to be the worst potential candidate for this experiment. The bird can nest successfully on a wet sponge on top of Walmart for christ sakes. In an experiment as such, the last thing you do is mess around with the breeding population, but for some reason they are purposely forcing bias on the populations potential by restricting the harvest of hens.......and only Green Head hens to boot........This is not science, it's a forced attempt to make their usless model work. They are trying to farm Mallards in order to maintain the liberal framework with the smallest amount of habitat as possible.

I truley believe the random harvest of hens and drakes makes the best sense. There should never be any bias involved with harvest....in any species....Not to say that over the years I haven't targeted Drakes...cause I do....but it's not to save the hens. Random harvest will statistically serve to facilitate a constant sex ratio. It's the selection and bias processes that will interrupt this natural inbalance.

And finally, back to answering the original question:

I don't like the proposed rules.....I like it simple.....the way it's always been......identify before you shoot....and if your hunting the fields in ND in the early fall, be prepared to feel the pressure cause the mallards all pretty much look the same


----------



## WingedShooter7

Another thing is if the numbers are going down from the 6 duck limit because of shooting so many. And they bring it down to 5 how is that going to make much of a differnce if there still shooting hens, Bring the limit down to a reasonable 4 ducks. With 1 being a hen or another species of duck and 3 being mallard drakes. Keep that for about 5-6 years and the duck population should increase. 
:beer: 
Just my opinion but if you had any common sense at all you would bring it down(limit) to bring it up(duck population)


----------



## WingedShooter7

dakota31400 how would bring the limit down to 4 be the end of waterfowling?
You can only shoot 3 canadian geese in SD,ND.
Now snows is a differnt thing i think they should raise the limit if everyone is complaining about the breeding ground getting destroyed.


----------



## dakota31400

I always liked the point system, but I guess to many people abused it.


----------



## Dave Brandt

Dakota,



> If the hens are in the bag, thats exactly how it goes.....but, are those older Drakes in fact, not the breeders.
> 
> Many people don't realize it's the hen that chooses the drake...it's her selection.....and she knows inately how to chose. Generally, it's the older stronger males.....older cause they're smarter and smarter cause they're stronger.....They simply survive longer.
> 
> Only the most experienced waterfowl (survivors) are successful in rearing a brood. And the potential of that success is based soley the hens choice...Stress and predation will continue to balance the equation by insuring only the best of the best breed to perpetuate the species.
> 
> Sex ratios serve a specific purpose. irregardless of why or how it is that way, the ratios are essential for producing genetically fit progeny.
> Do you think the classic 7:1 ratio observed in Canvasback ducks evolved without a reason.
> 
> Now I ask the readers, why is there no push to remove canvasback hens from the legal bag or reduce the number of widgeon hens? Are both species not showing downward tends in population size.....It's because killing hens simply doesn't effect the populations dynamics. Only a small percentage of hens comprised of select individuals are responsible for most waterfowl species to maintain the existing population..... and the chances/ probability of us killing one of these is very small compared to randomly taking a non-breeder.
> 
> Selectively removing the best males however, is more likely due to our visual cue on asthetics,.....This is not helping waterfowl populations in the least.
> 
> Back to Mallard hens.......I smell AHM...someone needs to farm mallards in order use the model and maintain the hunters demand. When this model fails, they invent paper ducks to fill the sky and reduce your limit.
> Then ask you follow along and believe they are on top of it. Reducing the number of hens in the bag which satisfies most hunters, cause they believe it makes sense and works....truth is, it doesn't. Go ahead, ask a USFWS Waterfowl Biologist.


Given your wealth of knowledge of waterfowl populations and their breeding ecology (said in gest), please enlighten us on the conspiracy of the "paper ducks". What qualifications do have to bad mouth the people who dedicated a minimum of 4 years of their life for a degree and have taken mediocre salaries at best to try to manage our resources in the best manner for all? Are you aware where the annual breeding population estimates even come from? If so, please tell us how you derive paper ducks from visual indices.

It has always amazed me that anyone who can whistle Dixie is an expert when it come to wildlife and resource management. If you needed back surgury, you sure as hell wouldn't consider having someone who thought he knew everything about it and with no expertise do the operation would you? If your answer is yes, then you are an idiot, if no please stop pretending to be an expert without the qualifications.


----------



## tumblebuck

Maybe he slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....


----------



## dakota31400

WingedShooter7 said:


> dakota31400 how would bring the limit down to 4 be the end of waterfowling?
> You can only shoot 3 canadian geese in SD,ND.
> Now snows is a differnt thing i think they should raise the limit if everyone is complaining about the breeding ground getting destroyed.


I think if the limits were consistantly at four or less that new commers would lose interest....can't have a game with no players.


----------



## dakota31400

> Given your wealth of knowledge of waterfowl populations and their breeding ecology (said in gest), please enlighten us on the conspiracy of the "paper ducks". What qualifications do have to bad mouth the people who dedicated a minimum of 4 years of their life for a degree and have taken mediocre salaries at best to try to manage our resources in the best manner for all? Are you aware where the annual breeding population estimates even come from? If so, please tell us how you derive paper ducks from visual indices.
> 
> It has always amazed me that anyone who can whistle Dixie is an expert when it come to wildlife and resource management. If you needed back surgury, you sure as hell wouldn't consider having someone who thought he knew everything about it and with no expertise do the operation would you? If your answer is yes, then you are an idiot, if no please stop pretending to be an expert without the qualifications.


Lets just say 30 years in the field gave me the incentive to emulate a philosophy based on my own experiences.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

> think the liberal 6 bird limit is more than ample.....very generous given the circumstances. IMO, 5 is probably more in line, but anything less than 4 (on a continuous basis) will interrupt the influx of future sportsman...and that in turn will put an end to waterfowling.


And seeing zero birds during a hunt won't? Talking with guys I know now that take their kids out tell me that it is just about keeping them interested with hopefully birds in the air to identify and work into the decoys. I guess I'm pretty much the same way, as long as there are birds in the area to get excited about no matter what the limit is, I will always hunt if I'm able to. Give me a 10 bird limit and nothing to watch in the air and I'm way more likely to give it up. I'd like to see it drop back to 3 birds and go home excited about the next day.


----------



## dakota31400

And seeing zero birds during a hunt won't? Talking with guys I know now


> that take their kids out tell me that it is just about keeping them interested with hopefully birds in the air to identify and work into the decoys. I guess I'm pretty much the same way, as long as there are birds in the area to get excited about no matter what the limit is, I will always hunt if I'm able to. Give me a 10 bird limit and nothing to watch in the air and I'm way more likely to give it up. I'd like to see it drop back to 3 birds and go home excited about the next day.


Thats your perception....and your entitled to it.


----------



## gandergrinder

> Lets just say 30 years in the field gave me the incentive to emulate a philosophy based on my own experiences.


If your goal is to emulate a new philosophy and you think the current philosophy is flawed. I think your new philosophy is doing a wonderful job of representing your beliefs.


----------



## Dave Brandt

> Lets just say 30 years in the field gave me the incentive to emulate a philosophy based on my own experiences


Then I guess by that logic, what I observe is reality and since I can't see the curvature of the earth, I should develop or adopt (not emulate) a philosophy that it is flat.

At best, in the entire state of ND (let alone just the places you hunt or where you live) you only get a snapshot of what reality may be in the entire Central Flyway during any given season or year or decade. Biological processes vary greatly both temporally and spatially especially for species as ubiquitous and mobile as ducks. These are some of the real problems real biologists have to deal with.


----------



## dakota31400

Your absolutely correct on the snapshot issue....but I've been hunting the eastern and central flyways from Florida to North dakota most of my life. I can rember the Florida Skys filled with birds...and how now it's not more than handful each morning. I see record predictions published and no ducks. I know the transects surveyed are the same as they always were, only less manpower to fly them, and no regard or adjustments are provided for habitat dynamics and cyclic change anymore. It's no secret the estimates are no more than a wild guess, and no one can tell me most of us don't ask ourselves "Where are all these ducks" The skys are empty, yet there are more ducks on paper than ever before, more than when they filled the skys (paper ducks). This a simple observation and it echo's in similarity throughout all the flyways. When I look across a large expanse of water, or over the praire......I have no problem seeing the curvature of the earth...thats because i'm willing to look for it. There is a bigger picture, and having a hundred mallards brush your decoys in the middle of a wheat field is pretty much only a Dakotas reality. The rest of this Nation scambles for whatever they can than get. Beyond the ND backyards lurks an expensive sport...At home in Petersburg I only need to walk down the street & toss 2 decoys in a ditch....and if I were home, a two duck limit would be fine and worth the walk down the street. Here I have to drive 200 hundred miles South or fly 2000 miles North to shoot ducks....How's that for a bigger picture.


----------



## dakota31400

Gandergrinder,

There is only one exact philosophy....and that is Math...but pi blows it out the window too.


----------



## eyes to the skies

this is a pretty big can of worms and dakota has raised some excellent questions in my mind. hopefully theres more guys out there that understand what dakota is trying to say. i do have to agree with dakota about the paper ducks. :withstupid:


----------



## n_108_nd

For all of you guys that are talking about how easy it is to pick out your 5 greenheads and go home the only response I can think of is: consider yourself lucky. For those of us weekend warriors who go out 5 or 6 times a year that is just not reality. To have a chance to shoot your 5 greenheads you take a day or an afternoon off work and drive around for hundreds of miles. Maybe you get lucky and find a FIELD the birds are using, manage to get permission to hunt it, and trek out there the next morning with an amazing spread of decoys and blinds. And after all of that work you are blessed with greenheads raining from the sky.
The rest of us drive out to where we always hunt, slip on our waders, plop a few decoys in a shallow swamp and hope to have the opportunity to shoot something. The group I hunt with is not overly picky with what we shoot. We like to hunt, we like to shoot something, and we like to eat what we shoot. 
The post that went something like this "make it a four duck limit, three greenheads and one of any other kind of duck." made me laugh. I would have brought one or two ducks home each day I went out last year. 
Now most of the people on here will knock me because I am not a purist, but I am a realist. There are a heck of a lot more people out there like me (especially the ones with kids) than the ones that can put themselves and their hunting buddies on the X every time they go out. The people like me need to be able to shoot what is in the decoys and not be hamstrung by linking hen mallards to two other species of ducks.
Leave the little guys something to shoot at next year. If it comes through my decoys, like pintails and hen mallards do, let me shoot it. This policy sucks.
As for Dakota, I understand where he is coming from. Why lower your expectations? In my opinion we should raise our expectations and then be mad if they are not met. And yes that includes with our national politicians that put big agriculture and big business ahead of the environment every time.


----------



## The Dak

Dave, anyone who has their ethics/reasoning/justifications/qualifications/REASON FOR LIVING questioned as dakota90210 has questioned resource managers, definitely has a right to be PO'd.

But, I guess the armchair biologist that now resides in GA has plenty of time to make hypocritical statements about people's motivations and what makes them just and true. It's too bad he has to pay more, so he now expects more. I suppose when Nodak is finally shot to hell and gone forever the average hunter will no longer be content with 3 or 4 ducks and will expect to be allowed to shoot six ducks a day, regardless.

On another note, could it be that having the overall duck limit be the same as the mallard limit would be a critical component of reducing harvest of pintails? That is, there would no longer be that extra duck. A ha, another choice that the hunter needs to make! Either shoot a limit of greenheads, or 4 greenheads and 1 from the aggregrate ***Disclaimer there are many more potential permutations of a daily bag limit***

As was said earlier, Central Flyway frameworks were likely going to drop the limit to 1 hen mallard and 5 total ducks without implimentation of hunter' choice.


----------



## joebobhunter4

i thin the 5 duck thing is fine... but the 1 hen mallard thing? yes you can tell drakes from hens but i dont see why you cant shoot hen mallards as much as drakes... mallards are everyehwere and theres tons of them..


----------



## dakota31400

This biologist has another six years to go before he qualifies for the armchair........and your agenda is obvious. I haven't attacked one person on this forum, but it appears this place is not very friendly, or open minded since most come in with aggression........sorry I bursted your little bubble world. Didn't mean to threaten your little click. It takes a small, ignorant man to get offended over a point of view....and it appears as if many of you fit the bill. Not the ND folk I know......nor the Spirit I'm used to. Just glad I don't have to deal with knowing any of ya....You surely don't represent the North Dakota I love. You send a message of discouragement out into the public.....Hope your proud of yourselves.


----------



## gandergrinder

I don't agree with your reasoning, I'm not going to apologize for that.

I understand where you are coming from with your theory on less hunters equals less money. But with less ducks we can't have higher bag limits. Don't you think lowering the limits is an admission that there are fewer ducks? I think it is fairly easy to come to that conclusion.

Waterfowl is playing second fiddle to agriculture. It always has and always will. I really believe that I will see closed duck seasons in my life. Its not because biologists and resource managers aren't doing the best they can to improve populations.

All of us need to look in the mirror and see the problem. We have insatiable wants in every aspect of our life and the consequence of that is a monoculture where once we had various species. As humans we have systematically eliminated all species that we believe serve us no useful purpose. Waterfowl just happens to be one of the species that is seeing a slow decline.

Someday, down the road. People are going to look back on this time and wonder how we let it all slip away. How we could have been so shortsighted.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

dakota31400 said:


> I haven't attacked one person on this forum, but it appears this place is not very friendly, or open minded since most come in with aggression........sorry I bursted your little bubble world. Didn't mean to threaten your little click. It takes a small, ignorant man to get offended over a point of view....and it appears as if many of you fit the bill. Not the ND folk I know......nor the Spirit I'm used to. Just glad I don't have to deal with knowing any of ya....You surely don't represent the North Dakota I love. You send a message of discouragement out into the public.....Hope your proud of yourselves.


I don't see anyone attacking you, just your opinion. Keep in mind there are people from the USFWS in this thread who's expertise is waterfowl so you have to expect a reponse towards your biological opinions.


----------



## joebobhunter4

if they were going to higher or lower anything i think it should be the snow goose limit... the tundra is like gettin eaten away so they are saying so why have a limit... theres billions of them... and the fall. the best time to get the juvies. the limit is 20... i think thats bs... there shouldnt be a limit


----------



## dakota31400

Chris Hustad said:


> dakota31400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't attacked one person on this forum, but it appears this place is not very friendly, or open minded since most come in with aggression........sorry I bursted your little bubble world. Didn't mean to threaten your little click. It takes a small, ignorant man to get offended over a point of view....and it appears as if many of you fit the bill. Not the ND folk I know......nor the Spirit I'm used to. Just glad I don't have to deal with knowing any of ya....You surely don't represent the North Dakota I love. You send a message of discouragement out into the public.....Hope your proud of yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anyone attacking you, just your opinion. Keep in mind there are people from the USFWS in this thread who's expertise is waterfowl so you have to expect a reponse towards your biological opinions.
Click to expand...

I have not yet recieved a response from another biologist....at least not one in context I could recognize.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

joebobhunter4 said:


> if they were going to higher or lower anything i think it should be the snow goose limit... the tundra is like gettin eaten away so they are saying so why have a limit... theres billions of them... and the fall. the best time to get the juvies. the limit is 20... i think thats bs... there shouldnt be a limit


A limit of snow geese in the fall in ND is pretty rare these days, short lived when the opportunity arises. They could drop the limit but I don't think it'll have much, if any, impact.


----------



## chatterfeedcall

Just leave the limit at 6, outlaw guides, and outlaw robo or spinning wing decoys so that more ducks actually get to make it to maturity.

It does not matter what you say in the argument
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WHEN A HATCHLING DUCK LEARNS TO FLY AND DUCK SEASON OPENS AND HE/SHE SEES A SPINNING WING DECOY IT IS AN OVERWHELMING ATTRACTANT. HE/SHE MAY BE IN A GROUP OF 10 OR MORE AND THE ONES WHO FLEW AWAY ARE NOT EDUCATED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SHOT. THEY JUST ARE SCARED OFF DUE TO THE NOISE. YOU WILL EVENTUALLY KILL ALMOST EVERY IMMATURE DUCK USING THESE AND THE YEARLING DUCKS NEVER EVEN MAKE IT TO THE WINTERING GROUNDS OF LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, ARKANSAS, TEXAS, AND MEXICO. IT IS A FACT, THAT THEY ARE STILL IN THEIR SUMMER PLUMAGE IN LATE OCTOBER IN THE DAKOTAS AND JUST ASK ANYONE IN THE WINTERING STATES JUST TWO WEEKS LATER IF THEY HAVE EVER KILLED A DUCK IN THESE STATES IN THEIR SUMMER PLUMAGE AND THE ANSWER WILL BE NO BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE IT THERE. IF THEY DON NOT MAKE IT THERE THEN WHERE ARE THEY???? YOU MIGHT ASK. THEY ARE TAKEN IN THE STATES THEY ARE REARED IN BECAUSE OF THE SPINNING WING DECOYS. I HAVE HUNTED IN NORTH DAKOTA AND HAD NO ROUBLE GETTING LIMITS WITHOUT SPINNING WING DECOYS BUT I KILLED ABOUT HALF AND HALF MATURE AND YEARLING AND I HAVE ALSO USED SPINNING WING DECOYS AND SHOT LIMITS OF ALL YEARLING DUCKS IN JUST MINUTES SO FROM EXPERIENCE OF MY OWN WHAT I SAY IS TRUE. THE POPULATION IS DEVISTATED BY SPINNING WING DECOYS DUE TO THE LACK OF YEARLING DUCKS EVEN GETTING A CHANCE TO MAKE IT TO BREEDING AGE PRIMARILY DUE TO SPINNING WING DECOYS.

MY ADVIVSE IS FOR THE FEDERAL GUYS TO BAN THEM TOTALLY AND ALSO IN CANADA AND YOU WILL SEE AN INCREASE SO VAST IN THE DUCK NUMBERS THAT YOU WILL NEVER MISS THE SPINNING WINGS AND THE SKYS WILL BE FILLED AGAIN. JUST PLEASE EVERYONE PRICTICE CALLING.


----------



## Matt Jones

Here's my take on "Hunter's Choice," it is a bad idea and it is going to be a nightmare to enforce with TONS of illegal ducks killed and stomped.

It's supposed purpose is to make the regulations less confusing than having a season-within-a-season on certain species and to lessen the chance of a hunter shooting a duck out of it's season. So essentially to decrease the chances of illegal ducks being shot...

...and they're going to accomplish this by taking a limit that last year could include 2 hen mallards and a hen/drake pintail and changing that to only allowing 1 of either? Excuse me but WTF!?! Real good reasoning.

We can sit here and go round and round with the same old rhetoric of how we shouldn't be shooting hens and to be more conservative; and I do agree with that. That's something that I try to practice as best I can. However, ND is a state where ducks are shot very early and there are lots of state hunters and visiting hunters who could be labeled as casual duck hunters, at best. I see the hardcore guys on here saying, "Well, I can ID them that early..." and I know that is true but you have to realize that sadly you are in the SLIM MINORITY when it comes to that.

When you take a guy who's only real duck hunt of the year is for a weekend in early October (..there's LOTS of them) and put him in a field or pothole set-up with mostly brown ducks flying, add in the fact that he's pumped as hell and anxious to shoot, and under this system you're going to see a lot of illegal ducks shot. In a perfect world every hunter would be able to ID an immature drake from a hen, or a suzie mallard from a suzie pintail, but in reality this just isn't the case. Too many guys will choose to just shoot and then pick off the pile for this to work as it is intended (which is to SAVE hens, not kill more); and we don't have enough enforcement to scare a lot of guys into complying. Sad but true.

IMO it would have been better to go from 3 mistake ducks to 2, instead of only 1. Allow a hen mallard in the bag and a pintail and make the transition easier for guys to be law abiding.

I also do not like how this was forced on us with ND again being a guinea pig for the rest of the country. They (G&F) tried to make it look like this was an open debate whether or not we would switch to this framework but in reality this was already a done deal before the advisory board meetings.


----------



## Matt Jones

I almost forgot that I do like being able to shoot canvasbacks and pintails to the end of the season under the new regs. It will be nice to get the oppurtunity to harvest a "trophy" late season bird in good plumage for the wall. There, now I haven't been totally negative regarding this issue. :lol:


----------



## dakota31400

> I almost forgot that I do like being able to shoot canvasbacks and pintails to the end of the season under the new regs. It will be nice to get the oppurtunity to harvest a "trophy" late season bird in good plumage for the wall. There, now I haven't been totally negative regarding this issue.


Whoa....so much for the conservation intent...Cans and Pintail don't matter as much as mallards do anyway to the G&F...their not in the model,,,,,,,Great post!


----------



## Bob Kellam

dakota31400

What is your proposal? Do you want to stay with AHM what changes would you make to Hunters Choice?

You have taken shots at everyone and everything if they even remotely disagree with your opinion.

Lets hear the meat of the "dakota31400 waterfowl management plan"

What do you do for waterfowl populations as an individual?

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

Thats a fair question and I surely don't have all the answers. What I would like to see is a properly funded program so we could get back to the basic concepts of ecology, population dynamics, common sense and science instead of playing with toy models designed to fit a budget. IMO, AHM, is a commodity distribution tool, not a management practice. Quality management requires quality people, dedication and tools to work with. When do you suppose the FWS last had all three?....

The very last thing we need to do is lower our expectations. I want to see waterfowl and habitat managed to preserve the resource and demand of the sport...instead of regulating the waterfowler in order to facilitate the distribution of supplies until they're gone.

As far as the hunters choice issue goes.....WHY? I don't need it. I can hold back on Pintail & Cans late in the season, but I surely can't differeciate between a hen and HY drake mallard in early October with any accuracy, nor do I believe anyone can. I do what everone else does after two hens are in the bag...wait for an obvious drake. THATS PRETTY CUT & DRY. If they want to try and farm more mallards by reducing the hen in posession to 1, then do it. Don't try and hide it by offering a Pintail or Canvasback in exchange.
Personally, I prefer going back to a 45/5 or 6 season first to see if reducing the harvest makes a difference...not that I think it will. After all, we got more ducks now than ever before according to whats on paper....how many more do we need?

I understand the FWS is between a hard place and a rock...but somethings gonna have to give sooner or later.....We pay, I think they should start giving a little back...like maybe a viable resource for starters.


----------



## dakota31400

> What do you do for waterfowl populations as an individual?


Well I'm a pretty lousy shot, so I guess I can say I edumacate a bunch before they have to head South.

Nothing anymore besides fees, taxes, my childrens vision, investigation and the assessment of man's impact on the environment and Public Health. .


----------



## The Dak

Dakota90210,

You aren't very likely to get responses from waterfowl/wildlife biologists on this site when it appears that you don't want answers, but rather a debate. It also doesn't help that you've basically came right out and said that none of the biologists in charge of the resource know what they're doing. More profound was that you figure 30 years of anecdotal observations plus some sort of professional biological background (I assume that's what you alluded to) are better than the typical 4 to 8 years of specific education plus whatever professional experience; not to mention that many biologists have 20 to 50 years of the same anecdotal observations that you hang your hat on.

Generally, most biologists jump in when a clarification is needed. That is, when dialog starts that is not completely correct as far as facts go, not beliefs.


----------



## dakota31400

> Generally, most biologists jump in when a clarification is needed. That is, when dialog starts that is not completely correct as far as facts go, not beliefs.


Clarification...LOL :run:

Then clarify this....do you (biologists) contribute to the field, or simply accomodate the boss for a paycheck.

Apparently their isn't anyone on this site qualified to dispute anything I've posted....or their not allowed to......

Case and point......no-nothings or Gag order! Thats what I want to know.

Sorry case of affairs it is when a hunter has to make excuses for so called professionals. Just wait till the paper ducks reach North Dakota.


----------



## dakota31400

DAK,

The greatest advances in knowlege are not acquired by accomplishing the objective...but rather, they are cast in stone through failure.


----------



## Bob Kellam

*dakota31400 wrote*



> What I would like to see is a properly funded program so we could get back to the basic concepts of ecology, population dynamics, common sense and science instead of playing with toy models designed to fit a budget. IMO, AHM, is a commodity distribution tool, not a management practice. Quality management requires quality people, dedication and tools to work with.


Elaborate please, Properly funded from? where/how. Basic Concepts? Tools to work with?

Quality People? Not speaking of them as a unit because I only know a few individuals, however, USFW and the flyway council has some quality/dedicated people that I know very well.

*dakota31400 wrote*



> The very last thing we need to do is lower our expectations. I want to see waterfowl and habitat managed to preserve the resource and demand of the sport...instead of regulating the waterfowler in order to facilitate the distribution of supplies until they're gone.


I really don't see a mass lowering of expectations amongst waterfowlers. In fact it has become in certain more and more of a contest with the end result being judged on weather a limit was obtained, or not.

As far as seeing "waterfowl and habitat managed to preserve the resource and demand of the sport..." I have chosen to not let outside influences affect my hunting opportunities I have become proactive and rather than just paying dues to an organization I put in the time as well. Many on this site are also members.

As far as regulating the waterfowler, IMO it is one of the keys to managing any wildlife population.

The three basic concepts of setting limits and wildlife management as I see them are
1. to manage the resource population

2. to manage hunters

3. to give lawenforcement a benchmark

Many other sub-issues arise with each of these three but they always lead back to the origin.

Hunters Choice may work and it may not. Reducing the bag is a positive IMO, allowing the harvest of impacted species for a longer time frame is a negative. I know the hunters that I typically hunt with and some that I know but have yet to hunt with have taken it upon ourselves to define our own quality hunting experience.

Example, some days we only shoot Teal, others only Mallard drakes etc. etc. Quality hunting is definately in the eye of the beholder it isn't a one size fits all situation.

Bob


----------



## The Dak

D90210

Biologists on this site, for the most part, consider their constituents to be their bosses whether it's people using Federal lands or hunter/fisherpersons in ND. So, as far as sucking up to the boss for a paycheck goes, maybe you should take a look at the most recent efforts by the Flyways to better understand what is desired.

Follow the link below. It's pretty interesting reading, especially since hunter's choice was the most favored option for dealing with species of low harvest potential. Also take note that the survey was administered by a non-governmental human dimensions agency.

http://www.ducksurvey.com/

As far as someone addressing your consternation...like I said you blew that one by belittling waterfowl/wildlife resource managers. Not to mention that your arguments are so broad (you basically said everyone and everything is wrong) that anyone wanting to make right wouldn't even know where to start.


----------



## dakota31400

Bob, Thank you for the reply....

Each question you ask deserves it's own discussion at the least. Tonight I will suggest and Qualify as not to put you off,,,and continue at my first convenience...as I must get up early in the morning.



> Elaborate please, Properly funded from? where/how. Basic Concepts? Tools to work with?


The Department of the Interior has suffered as much or more than most federal agencys in regard to budget cuts....The deficit must be reduced, but where might be a better question.

Concepts......back to basic ecological principles. Field studys that hold water and public education designed to enlighten rather than appease.

Tools....good old expense paid hit the trail with paper, pencil and adequate personnel, Throw in an extra aircraft and pilot.



> Quality People? Not speaking of them as a unit because I only know a few individuals, however, USFW and the flyway council has some quality/dedicated people that I know very well.


This was not a cut on the people....they are essential, but useless without a means to produce results in an efficient, yet accurate manner..

dakota31400 wrote

Quote: 
The very last thing we need to do is lower our expectations. I want to see waterfowl and habitat managed to preserve the resource and demand of the sport...instead of regulating the waterfowler in order to facilitate the distribution of supplies until they're gone.

As you mentioned below, regulation is only one part of management...It is essential, but not the solution.



> I really don't see a mass lowering of expectations amongst waterfowlers. In fact it has become in certain more and more of a contest with the end result being judged on weather a limit was obtained, or not.


That is not what people are saying on this site.



> As far as seeing "waterfowl and habitat managed to preserve the resource and demand of the sport..." I have chosen to not let outside influences affect my hunting opportunities I have become proactive and rather than just paying dues to an organization I put in the time as well. Many on this site are also members.


and that is commendable...but not all waterfowlers can do it.



> As far as regulating the waterfowler, IMO it is one of the keys to managing any wildlife population.


De-regulation is also a key management tool.



> The three basic concepts of setting limits and wildlife management as I see them are
> 
> 1. to manage the resource population
> 
> 2. to manage hunters
> 
> 3. to give lawenforcement a benchmark
> 
> Many other sub-issues arise with each of these three but they always lead back to the origin.


My ranking would be 1, 3, 2....but we both put the resource first.



> Hunters Choice may work and it may not. Reducing the bag is a positive IMO, allowing the harvest of impacted species for a longer time frame is a negative. I know the hunters that I typically hunt with and some that I know but have yet to hunt with have taken it upon ourselves to define our own quality hunting experience.


Example, some days we only shoot Teal, others only Mallard drakes etc. etc. Quality hunting is definately in the eye of the beholder it isn't a one size fits all situation. [/quote]

We have nothing here to discuss......a ditto from me.

It appears we both may benefit from a discussion over our view points on the tools and basic biological and ecological concepts as they relate to present day management....and I look forward to it.....Gary

_________________
In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy.


----------



## dakota31400

Dak,

We have to start somewhere....that usally begins with the acknowlegment, and problems are usually not recognized until they become broad and troublesome.


----------



## Bob Kellam

dakota31400 Gary

Thank You for the reply

The basic concept of your discussion as I see it is the lack of federal support for a federally managed resource.

While I agree with many points I can not place the entire blame on the federal system. With AHM at least, not sure about HC the states had the ability to not follow the federal guidlines as long as they were "not in excess of the federal guidlines".

The only state that I know of that bucked the system of late is Minnesota. In a liberal framework set forth they reduced their total bag. I applauded the effort but many were upset.

*Gary wrote*



> That is not what people are saying on this site.


Don't know for sure how long you have been lurking on this site but as a guest you have relatively few posts. The demographics of this site are interesting. There are many older people (like me) and many young and very young people as well. When you ask a general question about the quality of a hunt you should expect a "rainbow" of answers.

I still tend to believe that this is an issue more of hunters and shooters than anything else.



> De-regulation is also a key management tool.


True, however, it has lead to implosion of many businesses in the past. Are we talking about de-regulating from federal control to state control?

More to follow.

Later
Bob


----------



## dakota31400

> The basic concept of your discussion as I see it is the lack of federal support for a federally managed resource.
> 
> While I agree with many points I can not place the entire blame on the federal system. With AHM at least, not sure about HC the states had the ability to not follow the federal guidlines as long as they were "not in excess of the federal guidlines".


I will address your first statement here, then follow up with AHM and HC issues later. I would like to define what we agree on first before we start a debate.

Yes, the lack of federal support has left us to foot the bill. What we contribute is not nearly enough money to accomplish the task of managing waterfowl. The distribution of funds is probably even more important..for example:

My work relys on both state and federal funding. My objective is to assess the risk associated with human exposure to hazardous chemicals....define exposure pathways and provide a management scheme to reduce human exposure.....Not so much different from waterfowl management.

The problem:

We have tons of money to write reports and publish pamphlets to inform and educate the public....and utilize as much smoke as we want to fill in the gaps we can't answer. Generally, the amount of smoke is usually proportional to the quality of the assessment. (eg. Good data...good assessment...less smoke). In summary, a good assessment is derived from good data and requires a lot less smoke to satisfy the publics concerns. Furthermore, a good assessment allows me to manage the issue correctly with favorable results, whereas a bad assessment requires tons of smoke ....and in turn, nothing significant ever gets accomplished.

Now... in order to obtain good data and subsequently perform an assessment that can be acted upon correctly, I first need to conduct an investigation. Well....guess where there is no money in the budget :roll: I suspect the FWS is pretty much in the same boat....They too, probably have to substitute smoke for data because there were no funds in the budget to conduct a proper investigation. It would be nice to have someone responsible for managing waterfowl to acknowlege or dispute this.



> Don't know for sure how long you have been lurking on this site but as a guest you have relatively few posts. The demographics of this site are interesting. There are many older people (like me) and many young and very young people as well. When you ask a general question about the quality of a hunt you should expect a "rainbow" of answers.


I have not been here (in the forum) long, but first impressions are the lasting ones for both old and young..



> I still tend to believe that this is an issue more of hunters and shooters than anything else.


It probably does boil down to that in the long run, but lets not forget the true hunter that likes to shoot....More importantly, lets not lose perspective on the management issue....hunter or shooter, irregardless of our opinions and objectives, the managers lump us together as sportsman.

Looking forward to your response.....hopefully we can put some of these general issues aside.


----------



## Bob Kellam

*Greg wrote*



> Yes, the lack of federal support has left us to foot the bill. What we contribute is not nearly enough money to accomplish the task of managing waterfowl.


Agreed!!.. Many of us have been working on and off of this site to get the federal duck stamp dollars allocated to where they do the most benefit to wildlife instead of political interests.



> Now... in order to obtain good data and subsequently perform an assessment that can be acted upon correctly, I first need to conduct an investigation. Well....guess where there is no money in the budget I suspect the FWS is pretty much in the same boat....They too, probably have to substitute smoke for data because there were no funds in the budget to conduct a proper investigation. It would be nice to have someone responsible for managing waterfowl to acknowlege or dispute this


Again no arguement from me on this.



> I have not been here (in the forum) long, but first impressions are the lasting ones for both old and young..


Agreed



> More importantly, lets not lose perspective on the management issue....hunter or shooter, irregardless of our opinions and objectives, the managers lump us together as sportsman.


Management of natural resources has been trending toward revenue management for some time now. Even in ND the catch phrase "Economic Impact" has been used to pass legislation.

More to follow.

Bob



> hopefully we can put some of these general issues aside.


 What issues?? Just kidding


----------



## dakota31400

> Management of natural resources has been trending toward revenue management for some time now. Even in ND the catch phrase "Economic Impact" has been used to pass legislation.


yes, but only in select areas such as the Dakotas, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas....Are these the only areas left that afford a good "Potential" hunt? An opportunity that is, for most sportsman, worth the expense.

_For simplicity, lets try to keep this discussion to the Central, Miss. & Atlantic Flyways._

Figured we might as well try to get the definition of a good hunt out of the way first...Please, in context to your statement regarding Economics. :sniper:

Do these Sportsman travel great distances at much expense to shoot ducks or go duck hunting?


----------



## dakota31400

I will be the first to answer this question as to let you know my opinion.

As a sportsman that travels to North Dakota every year, my answer is to shoot ducks. More specifically, to spend the time with and watch my offspring and friends shoot ducks. As a sportsman that hunts locally, I can duck hunt here to duck hunt and be happy. Here I'm doing what I like for 0.4 ducks/day. In North Dakota, I can do what I like for 4.7 ducks/day.

Therefore, this evening I am going to work my moonlight job in order to stash some cash to spend in North Dakota this October.,,,So I can shoot a bunch of ducks.


----------



## always_outdoors

Maybe I am confused. I tried reading through all 3 pages here and in one breath 31400 you said you wouldn't hunt if the limit was less than 4 ducks, but in the same breath you add that you only come here to watch your children and grandchildren hunt and seeing them hunt with a few other friends is what is important, then the last line. "cash to spend in North Dakota this October.,,,So I can shoot a bunch of ducks."

I read through the pages fast, so maybe I am making a mistake here and I appologize if I am.

Seems you me, dak31400 really has his own agenda. He made the comment about paying taxes and owning land, but he wants to see everyone connected to him shoot ducks, then says "shoot a bunch of ducks" himself.

Cake AND eat it too.

If I misread, my apologies.


----------



## Bob Kellam

*Greg Wrote*



> Do these Sportsman travel great distances at much expense to shoot ducks or go duck hunting?


From my view of the mobile sportsman they are on Vacation, and hunting is part of the vacation. The upper central flyway states just happen to be where the ducks are so they come to hunt/relax/enjoy/vacation. Yes there are hard core shooters that come to partake in the abundance of waterfowl we have. Law enforcement here has put a crimp in a few shooting operations in the last season or two.



> Therefore, this evening I am going to work my moonlight job in order to stash some cash to spend in North Dakota this October.


Gonna do that myself tonight as well

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

live2hunt said:


> Maybe I am confused. I tried reading through all 3 pages here and in one breath 31400 you said you wouldn't hunt if the limit was less than 4 ducks, but in the same breath you add that you only come here to watch your children and grandchildren hunt and seeing them hunt with a few other friends is what is important, then the last line. "cash to spend in North Dakota this October.,,,So I can shoot a bunch of ducks."
> 
> I read through the pages fast, so maybe I am making a mistake here and I appologize if I am.
> 
> Seems you me, dak31400 really has his own agenda. He made the comment about paying taxes and owning land, but he wants to see everyone connected to him shoot ducks, then says "shoot a bunch of ducks" himself.
> 
> Cake AND eat it too.
> 
> If I misread, my apologies.


If it's any consulation, all I eat here is crow...0.4 ducks/day after a 200 mile trip and not less than $150.00 each time we go is nothing to jump up and down about.......but I go because I wan't to spend the time with my youngest daughter doing what always was a passion for me.....Taking her to North Dakota is like bringing her back in time to experience what I used to here...where I grew up. Yes, I want to see the kids enjoy it the way I did, not the way most in this nation now have to. This includes the best of my friends....Why should I not share it. So yes, I want to eat my cake too....for a few days each year anyhow.


----------



## dakota31400

Bob,

you avoided answering the question....

In your opinion, do sportsman spend the extra to go hunting or to shoot ducks? This is not a question pertaining soley to North Dakota. It includes all the waterfowl attraction areas that drive legislation.

This is important as the Majority is heard in this democracy.

I am trying to establish an antagonism between legislation and management here.

Is legislation not making management walk a line they probably would choose not to?


----------



## Bob Kellam

> In your opinion, do sportsman spend the extra to go hunting or to shoot ducks? This is not a question pertaining soley to North Dakota. It includes all the waterfowl attraction areas that drive legislation.


Shoot ducks.



> Is legislation not making management walk a line they probably would choose not to?


Yes

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

Readers,

Your contributions to this thread are essential.

Waterfowl biologists...your input is also essential.


----------



## dakota31400

Thanks Bob,

I have to head off to to make some spending money.....Hopefully some readers will chime in. I'll hook back up around 10:30pm EST if I'm not beat.

Gary


----------



## always_outdoors

I agree with Bob. "Shoot Ducks"



> Taking her to North Dakota is like bringing her back in time to experience what I used to here...where I grew up.


Hence why we need restrictions on the numbers of NR's and G/O's.

We want to preserve that very thing you just said. At the rate we are going, I fear my children and grandchildren won't get that opportunity. And if that truely happens, then why the need to stay in this state? Why try and convince my children to stay here? My parents taught us about ND and its wonderful opportunities in its natural resources. That is why both of us (brother and I) and our families are still here.


----------



## dakota31400

live2hunt said:


> I agree with Bob. "Shoot Ducks"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking her to North Dakota is like bringing her back in time to experience what I used to here...where I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence why we need restrictions on the numbers of NR's and G/O's.
> 
> We want to preserve that very thing you just said. At the rate we are going, I fear my children and grandchildren won't get that opportunity. And if that truely happens, then why the need to stay in this state? Why try and convince my children to stay here? My parents taught us about ND and its wonderful opportunities in its natural resources. That is why both of us (brother and I) and our families are still here.
Click to expand...

Great reply...honest and founded....

In your heart, you know the waterfowling habitat throughout the rest of the country once offered what you still have. But is it disappearing and in time, will the far reaches of North Dakota also become like the rest of the country? Is it maybe just a matter of time anyway? Removing the pressure of NR's may in fact delay the inevitable.....but is the inevitable preventable under todays management scheme? That is really the question, is it not?

Would reducing the limit to 2 in the absence of NR's not disrupt your heritage as much as having NR's share the land and still be able to shoot 6? IMO, more and more sportsman will continue to come to ND until they can again shoot ducks in their own backyard. For the sake of this discussion, you will need to look beyond the borders of North Dakota and take the whole picture into consideration..

Being a resident, you say: 
"Look at all the non-residents" ......

We sit at home and say:
"Where are all the ducks"


----------



## dakota31400

Live2hunt wrote:



> I agree with Bob. "Shoot Ducks"


Three out of three so far say "Shoot Ducks" is the primary reason sportsman come to places like ND to hunt waterfowl.... More responses from the readers are needed to establish a fair and representative consensus...please post up!


----------



## Matt Jones

Sweet, yet another thread has been hijacked into a debate over non-residents. :roll:

You guys sure know how to beat a dead horse...over, and over, and over again.... :lame:

What was the original question this thread was asking anyways? :roll:


----------



## dakota31400

In your opinion, do sportsman spend the extra to go hunting or to shoot ducks? This is not a question pertaining soley to North Dakota. It includes all the waterfowl attraction areas that drive legislation.

This is not a thread about NR's...It is about waterfowl management, AHM, limits and whether or not the present program is working. Live2hunt simply expressed a valid public concern. One that could become predominant, IMO, if the FWS does not provide a viable resource for everyone outside North Dakota and other hot spots like La, Tx & Ar.


----------



## dakota31400

Bob,

For sake of being able to move on, can we kind of agree on the following statements.

*Sportsman travel long distances at a large expense to shoot ducks, not duck hunt?

Many, but not all sportsman might stay closer to home if the shooting was better there.* (_this would make a good poll_)

*
Legislation has recognized the "economic plus" this behavior brings to places like North Dakota.....and also supports it.*

May I also suggest we add the issue that the general local populations in these hot spots are split in feelings between the economic boost it brings to the local industry and losing a precious heritage.

Furthermore, I am compelled at this time to add the FACT that the USFWS is mandated by congress to " promote industry"

_Therefore.....could I say that an industry based on shooting ducks has evolved in rural areas across the country over the years, and that now legislation in some states have recognized this industry as being prudent and now support it....placing the burden of producing this new commodity (ducks) in the hands of the USFWS. _


----------



## Bob Kellam

Greg

As to the previous post I will not disagree with any points

this is a cut from a previous conversation I had with a like minded friend.



> Every year I have become more and more convinced that adaptive management is a fraud perpetrated upon the hunters for political expediency. Hunters are barraged at banquets and through mailings about the continued loss of millions of acres of wetlands, to give money, to lobby Congress because the resource needs help, but then the message is given we can have a liberal bag limit again this year because the population supports it - even though the regional reality is that there are few hunting opportunities for 90% of the season. Duck managers might one day get called on the carpet - either you need the hunters political and financial support, or we have adequate numbers to support liberal limits. Right now they have it both ways.


Here is another section from a Mad Duck Article that paints a mental picture.
http://www.madduck.org/pdf/darkness2.pdf



> 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?"


I have been reading and researching this for some time now, the indicators all lead to the same conclusion, Change is going to be required or else....

To be continued....

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

Public education would help ease the pain...but the mangers must really be spinning by now.

That brings us to the issue of Sportsman regulation vs. habitat restoration.

It seems to me that AHM has been abused for the purpose of making the FWS look good. In doing so they have created a commodity market of which they now, by congressional mandate, must promote and maintain.....Can they even think about removing the product from the market now? Will all the private investment promoted by legislature fold because the limits have to be reduced.....snowballing into a reduced influx of sportman to an area because they now have to settle with a hunt instead of a shoot?


----------



## Rick Acker

I have to laugh at the guy who is complaining that the people in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc, never get to shoot immature ducks, because we shoot them all? No, its called the birds have feathered out by the time they get to you in Mid November-January! They've lost their fall plummage and have matured into their Winter/Spring plummage!
Hey, I'll trade you a North Dakota October Pintail for a December Texas Pintail anyday!


----------



## dakota31400

The time has come to discuss the validity of reducing harvest.

With exception to a very few hot spots in this country, where and when does anyone shoot and take home 6 ducks/day? I contend that by reducing the limit, the only sportsman that will suffer are in the hot spots. Bad business in the eyes of the politician.


----------



## Bob Kellam

> Will all the private investment promoted by legislature fold because the limits have to be reduced.....snowballing into a reduced influx of sportman to an area because they now have to settle with a hunt instead of a shoot?


I do not think all will "fold" if the limits are reduced. Again it will depend on the the personal definition of a quality hunting experience. You have stated that you want the number to remain liberal while others are satisfied with 3,4 or 5. The Commercial interests will not be affected IMO because with current ND laws there is no limit to the number of acres that can be leased for their operations. The larger operations will simply get larger, at what cost? Reduced freelance opportunity?

Bob


----------



## Hunter_58346

Maybe, just maybe this article will explain why the Feds are using AHM to set limits and seasons. 
http://centralflyway.org/Learn_More_AHM.html

And Yes there was a report that North Dakota had something like 5 milliom nesting ducks in 2006. What most people that read the article blocked out was that 35% of those nesting ducks were Blue Winged Teal


----------



## dakota31400

Bob,

Yes, but that is a local issue...What about the sportsman in the southeast that can only hope to shoot 1 or 2 ducks a day as the norm. Many look forward to that one opportunistic day that they might have a chance at 6 to make up for all the days of 0, 1 or 2. This in my opinion is what makes them continue to hunt waterfowl and help fund the resource. Money BTW, that is allocated for expenditure primarily in your back yard.


----------



## dakota31400

Although North Dakota is probably the bulls eye, the rest of the dart board is still part of the game.


----------



## dakota31400

Why does the Total duck limit have to be reduced? Why not let the country shoot 5 shovelers and a teal? :sniper:

We don't need to worry about mallards here :jammin: :beer: and you could be well assured I wouldn't come to ND to shoot shovelers :stirpot:


----------



## Goldy's Pal

> IMO, more and more sportsman will continue to come to ND until they can again shoot ducks in their own backyard. For the sake of this discussion, you will need to look beyond the borders of North Dakota and take the whole picture into consideration..
> 
> Being a resident, you say:
> "Look at all the non-residents" ......
> 
> We sit at home and say:
> "Where are all the ducks"


I agree, I've talked to guys who have been going out to Nodak for years but lately have had some pretty good action at home so the trip just isn't the "get it out of your system" week long trip as it has been in the past. Better hunting in Minnesota could definately help cut back on NR #'s in ND.



> I do not think all will "fold" if the limits are reduced. Again it will depend on the the personal definition of a quality hunting experience.


I agree, it's not always about pulling the trigger for some, myself included.


----------



## dakota31400

Agreed, *all* was a poor choice.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dakota......

I travel to hunt ducks not shoot them. I get the satisfaction of watching the birds work a decoy spread, setting up the spread, calling, meeting new people, seeing new places, watching my dog work, etc.....

I like to travel to places where I have success (to me success is posted below). Some attitudes think Success = Shooting Ducks. But that is just one aspect of the whole trip. I have gone on hunting and fishing trips where I had little or no success....but to me the trip was a great success.

Here are reasons why I hunt and like to travel to hunt:
1. Out of the office/away from work
2. Got to see a new part of the country or revist a part of the country
3. Meet new people or visited with old friends
4. See the sunrise and sunset (you don't appreciate it as much at home.)
5. Spending time with my friends and family in the feild (away from home)

I know I mentioned a few topics twice but they are important to me.
I also think if others would have this same attitude towards hunting. They would spend more time on protecting the resource through habitat control and other land management issues, Instead of complaining about R's and NR's.

Now to get back to the original thread. I would support a decreased limit or the management like what is proposed with the can's and pintails.


----------



## dakota31400

Chuck,

For the record....health problems have me pretty much tied to hard bottom and or the fields. Not much hard bottom in ND.

Last year the birds were not in the fields, but I hunted them anyway while my guests free-lanced the water holes. I got one or two good mornings in over a shallow pothole myself....but otherwise I layed in the field either alone or with my grandson when was he not in school. I was quite content just laying there....in fact, slipped in some of the most wonderful naps ever....That is, when my grandson wasn't snoring so loud I couldn't help laughing. When he dozes off, it's a side splitter. My biggest dissappointment last trip was that my guests didn't get to experience a good field hunt, second only to my son being sick with the flu. He managed the opener, but was miserable the entire time. I felt bad because he took off work to come up to Petersburg from Fargo just to hunt with me...and wound up stuck in bed for three days at my house, unable to return home. Although I don't think I shot much more than a dozen birds, the aggregate success between all of us was significant. ( roughly 120 birds over 11 days between three friends, grandson (age 17) , his friend and myself). Everyone had a good time...As a bonus, I got to spend time with my daughter, son and 4 grandkids...not to mention the bonus of several hunts. I was disappointed missing out on the shoot, but as with you...there was so much more to be thankful for. Thank the Lord we brought about 20lbs of Georgia shrimp up for my Daughter and son-in-law's generosity letting us hunt their land. They came in mighty handy assisting in helping to wash all that duck down. Double bonus....my grand daughter volunteered to to pluck all the geese at $3.00/bird and we all got to bring a posession limit in duck jerky home. As I mentioned earlier, it's not the shoot for me anymore...but I do enjoy watching my friends and family knock em down...good ole North dakota style. Thats important to me.

Gary


----------



## dakota31400

*Chuck wrote*



> Now to get back to the original thread. I would support a decreased limit or the management like what is proposed with the can's and pintails.


But next year, would you support a 3duck/3 mallard and no hunters choice limit....or at what scenario would say enough is enough to regulation?


----------



## Rick Acker

Field Hunting did suck in the Petersburg area last year...I'll second that!


----------



## dakota31400

At least the grain went in later this year....The son-in-law planted substantial acerage of field peas and barley this year which could prove interesting :thumb:


----------



## jhegg

dakota31400,



> my grand daughter volunteered to to pluck all the geese at $3.00/bird and we all got to bring a posession limit in duck jerky home.


I hope your duck jerkey had a fully feathered wing or head attached. If not, you were transporting those ducks illegally.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Without trying to sound arrogant I freelance field hunted in that region last year several times and had a great deal of success. Mobility was the key and scouting made the difference.

*Gerg Wrote*



> What about the sportsman in the southeast that can only hope to shoot 1 or 2 ducks a day as the norm. Many look forward to that one opportunistic day that they might have a chance at 6 to make up for all the days of 0, 1 or 2. This in my opinion is what makes them continue to hunt waterfowl and help fund the resource. Money BTW, that is allocated for expenditure primarily in your back yard.


I have never hunted this area of the country so I can not do anything other than question the question.

Was the SE ever a duck factory? If so what happened to the breeding grounds? Is the Atlantic Flyway breeding grounds under stress? under-managed?, Over-hunted? or has the migration route changed? Would a re-allocation of funds be prudent or wasteful?

Always remember AHM has as its basis a linear mathmatical equation in a non-linear world based on a "best guess" carrying capacity of ONE species of duck in the breeding grounds. On top of that HIP data is tainted due to the fact that it does not take into account recent happenings where duck "shooting operations" in ND were busted with well over 300 ducks in possession. Last time I filled out a HIP form I did not see the question "did you shoot 300+ ducks"

Hunters Choice is not the end all cure all IMO, It was decided upon with little consultation by the general public and sold as a shooters benefit. As I said prior we will see how it all shakes out at a later date.

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors

jhegg: I believe after wild game is processed, you do not need an identifier like a wing or head. How could you ever have duck or goose jerky made at a butcher shop if you needed such?


----------



## dakota31400

> Without trying to sound arrogant I freelance field hunted in that region last year several times and had a great deal of success. Mobility was the key and scouting made the difference.


During the first 2 weeks of October?.....I burned $400.00 in gas scouting between the 2nd and 15th.



> I have never hunted this area of the country so I can not do anything other than question the question.


There was a time that the Cape Kennedy area in Florida provided the best duck hunting along the Atlantic Flyway. Very similar in quality to North Dakota today....one up...we had birds in winter dress....one down..we had/have no mallards or geese. Today, the birds no longer fill the skys as they once did.



> Always remember AHM has as its basis a linear mathmatical equation in a non-linear world based on a "best guess" carrying capacity of ONE species of duck in the breeding grounds.


The concept is sound...the application is out there like Pluto :eyeroll:


----------



## dakota31400

live2hunt said:


> jhegg: I believe after wild game is processed, you do not need an identifier like a wing or head. How could you ever have duck or goose jerky made at a butcher shop if you needed such?


The jerky was home-made and labeled


----------



## Goldy's Pal

live2hunt said:


> jhegg: I believe after wild game is processed, you do not need an identifier like a wing or head. How could you ever have duck or goose jerky made at a butcher shop if you needed such?


Oh yes it does, unless it's in your belly IT COUNTS.



> No person shall leave or store any game birds at any place other than that persons legal residence unless each piece of game is tagged with the owner's signature and address, date taken, number and species of game, and license number of the person who harvested the game.
> 
> Game may be gifted to another, however nothing allows a person to exceed a daily limit. Any gifted game to be transported must be tagged with the above information and display sex and species identification as required. Termination of possession can only be accomplished by: 1) Gifting of legally harvested game. 2) By consuming the game.


----------



## Dan Bueide

You can't process to remain within possession limits until you reach your final destination - this mean "home", your "real" one, not a motel, friends home, vacation home or any place other than your permenant residence.

Once you reach your final destination (your "real home"), birds can be processed (jerky, sausage and such) and at that point no longer count against the possession limit.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dakota......I am in favor of this purposed limit. Next year is a different thing. But I know what you are trying to get at.(how far do you go with restrictions.)


----------



## dakota31400

Reducing and increasing the limit to strike a balance with habitat conditions and population variations is one thing...it's another to *not* use the tool for years and then toss it in the pot to see if it's gonna work after the damage is done...Thats an insult to my intellegence and the management tool we call a bag limit.. They should be made to sustain the 6 bird limit and make adjustments where needed...Just like all managers are required to do with a commodity based business....Make em do their job instead of skip rope jumping around with worthless models.

It's time someone starts managing our waterfowl like waterfowl.

Show me the data that says a reduction in harvest will help. Data based on ecology, habitat and population dynamics....not may ponds, horney mallards and bird counts conducted by a computer geek a thousand miles from the breeding grounds.. Is going to five ducks with some bonus sacrificial cans and pins going to help tomorrow...or just today?


----------



## dakota31400

OK.....

So many of you think if we lower the limit and send more hens home in the spring, they will make more ducks....WRONG!

There is a natural control mechanism built into the inate behavior of waterfowl. It varies in different species, and there are very few exceptions to the rule. ( I think mallards might be the exception)

This evolutionary behavior is called nesting density. It is believed to be a way in which brooding ducks optimize the chance for survival by insuring suffient food supplies...many other theories are also out there on the subject of why. Nesting density is the amount of nests a species will attempt to build within a defined geographic area. One hen per nest, "X" amount of nests per parcel of usable habitat. We will exclude nest parasites like the Red Head from this subject.

The Canvasback makes a good example.......

The nesting density of Canvasback ducks is something like 1 per sqaure mile. Canvasback, like all other species have specific *usable* habitat requirements for breeding...including, but not limited to water depth, plant life...etc along with things like the precise timing of the brood hatch with with the corresponding larval emergence of various insects....blah...blah...blah.. Never the less, *Very specific and precise *requirements.....and don't forget, only one hen in one nest on every square mile of this *usable habitat*.

Now today, most of the usable breeding habitat for canvasbacks is gone.

Lets just say there is 50,000 square miles of acceptable nesting habitat this spring in North America, the total population of Cansvasback is 700,000, and the sex ratio is 7:1 (male:female) If all the hens (100,000) were breeders, how many would actually be able to breed this spring given a nesting density of 1/square mile?.....yep, only half (50,000). In reality the breeding population comprised of mature hens is probably on the order of 12-15% of the hen population...or 12,000-15,000 breeders in this scenario. So under these circumstances, about 3 times as many mature hens could have in fact nested on this habitat.

Now lets say the FWS took cans off the list this fall for good measure, the population increased to 900,000 and 22,000 mature breeders returned North to find only 10,000 square miles of usable habitat.....How many nests would be built.....yep, only 10,000....So even though we sent 10,000 more hens North to breed, we actually lost 5,000 nests......The numbers actually go up and down, round and round, but now maybe you can picture one of the many contributing factors to why Canvasbacks will never fill the skys again. The habitat is simply not there anymore. How many other habitats specific to the needs of other species are on their way out too......

_Is this the year to impose the limit...or will it not matter anyhow...Maybe just lots of hens with no where to go_ :computer:


----------



## Hunter_58346

Just curious, but where exactly do you believe that Canvasbacks nest? And do you believe that Cans and other divers use the same habitat as Mallards and puddlers? Thats like comparing the breeding grounds for Canadas and Snow geese.


----------



## dakota31400

Quite frequently they use the same geograhical areas...there are many different habitats in every pothole. Whether it is a usable one is the question. Mallards can nest right along side a Canvasback, but it's not likely a Canvasback can nest in many places a mallard would.


----------



## dakota31400

Google some different waterfowl species "breeding habitat requirements" and see what I mean.

ie. Breeding Habitat, Blue winged Teal


----------



## Hunter_58346

I know fairly well where they nest, I was just wondering what your ideas were. We have very very few Cans nest in Northern North Dakota. Puddlers on the other hand are abundant as long as the spring ponds dont dry up too early. We have seen early mallard hatches starting to feather out already so the potential for a second hatch is there.


----------



## Field Hunter

So if we can get the FWS and the g&F to accept the "nesting density" model then it should follow that the hunter pressure concept would have some merit also....the concept that if the ducks are self limiting their reproduction based on available habitat. The predators, hunters, should also be regulated due to the available habitat.....the more water, the more ducks, the more hunters......conversely the less water, the less ducks, and a cap on the number of predators.


----------



## Hunter_58346

But remember, the Hunter Pressure Concept was shot down by the likes of Guides and Outfitters association, Tourism Dept, Chambers of commerce. The Governer commissioned the G&F to come up with a way to deal with hunter number during lean years and the Hunter Pressure Concept was what they came up with all to be thrown aside in favor of the almighty dollar.


----------



## dakota31400

Dakota Wrote Earlier



> Reducing and increasing the limit to strike a balance with habitat conditions and population variations is one thing...it's another to not use the tool for years and then toss it in the pot to see if it's gonna work after the damage is done...


Field Hunter Wrote:



> So if we can get the FWS and the g&F to accept the "nesting density" model then it should follow that the hunter pressure concept would have some merit also....the concept that if the ducks are self limiting their reproduction based on available habitat.


Lets get away from the term model......nesting density is a natural phenomena.....and it should be looked at during the investigation phase, then used by managers as part of the assessment data. It should not be used to draw any conclusions. Many other factors are also important.



> The predators, hunters, should also be regulated due to the available habitat.....the more water, the more ducks, the more hunters......conversely the less water, the less ducks, and a cap on the number of predators.


Predators should managed, hunters are regulated.

Predator management however is another beef I have. They are bottom heavy and instead of managing them from above, we didle around with traps...

Habitat restoration isn't restoration at all in my book if it's not total and complete.


----------



## dakota31400

Hunter_58346 said:


> But remember, the Hunter Pressure Concept was shot down by the likes of Guides and Outfitters association, Tourism Dept, Chambers of commerce. The Governer commissioned the G&F to come up with a way to deal with hunter number during lean years and the Hunter Pressure Concept was what they came up with all to be thrown aside in favor of the almighty dollar.


What defines a lean year?......not enough ducks to fill usable habitat or not enough usable habitat available to waterfowl.

and I agree.....this is all about the almighty dollar....and the greed for it is why none ever reaches it's intended destination.


----------



## dakota31400

If in any given year, there is not enough habitat to support the efforts of the existing breeding population.....and we closed the season to hunting, will the stress on the population not take as many or more of the breeders as the hunters would have?

If the season was open, what percentage of the soon-to-be dead ducks would hunters harvest?


----------



## Hunter_58346

There was never any part of the HPC to close a season just to control the #'s of hunters. It was ND G&F Biologists that came up with the idea but the lobbyists and poloticians got ahold of it and then stated that our bioligists had no basis for such an absurd plan. Again it was $$$$$ driven that shot it down. nothing more. And there are individuals reading this that know exactly what I am talking about.


----------



## Bob Kellam

So we are back to Habitat and Balancing on a razor blade.

We can pick apart the system until we are all dust, if and/or until a proactive management plan is devised and accepted that balances Habitat, Hunters, Landowners, Shooters, Outfitters, Small Communities, Residents, Nonresidents, G&F Income, Federal Income, Political Pressure and on and on and on and on...... Nothing will change. The limiting factor is US. Yes you got it, you and me.

As long as we are willing to vote others into office to decide our fate without speaking up and giving an opinion when it counts, in the voting booth or during our legislative sessions we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Last legislative session in ND there were issues where sportsmen were asked to step up to the plate and voice their opinion on critical issues, etree notices were sent out to 700+ people, more often than not a dozen or less responded. Could have been that some did not agree with the stance on the issue, some may not have wanted to get involved, and others used the etree message in opposition. Thats life. There are no secrets to the sportsmans fate everything is out in the open and we can control our own destiny. will the legislative session be any different this year...... Time will tell.

Now that I have that out of my system(sorry for the rant  )

Habitat, Habitat, Habitat, Habitat, is one of the reasons why ND outdoors is what it is. If we did not have it the sheer number of sportsmen that take part in the fall each year would just be wandering around the prairie getting in a good cardio workout, Don't know about you but the workout makes me hungry and I like to eat a critter once in awhile :lol:

So the question remains do we currently have balanced system? and if not how do we obtain it?

Gary has thrown out a scenario of nesting dynamics, again it is not a secret the information is out there to learn and understand. Our back yard is one aspect there is however, a bigger picture.

to be continued...........

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

The HPC could be a another good tool for managers, but it takes more than a wrench to put a car together....not to mention, it screws up the AHM model. :sniper:


----------



## dakota31400

Bob Kellam said:


> So we are back to Habitat and Balancing on a razor blade.
> 
> We can pick apart the system until we are all dust, if and/or until a proactive management plan is devised and accepted that balances Habitat, Hunters, Landowners, Shooters, Outfitters, Small Communities, Residents, Nonresidents, G&F Income, Federal Income, Political Pressure and on and on and on and on...... Nothing will change. The limiting factor is US. Yes you got it, you and me.
> 
> As long as we are willing to vote others into office to decide our fate without speaking up and giving an opinion when it counts, in the voting booth or during our legislative sessions we have no one to blame but ourselves.
> 
> Last legislative session in ND there were issues where sportsmen were asked to step up to the plate and voice their opinion on critical issues, etree notices were sent out to 700+ people, more often than not a dozen or less responded. Could have been that some did not agree with the stance on the issue, some may not have wanted to get involved, and others used the etree message in opposition. Thats life. There are no secrets to the sportsmans fate everything is out in the open and we can control our own destiny. will the legislative session be any different this year...... Time will tell.
> 
> Now that I have that out of my system(sorry for the rant  )
> 
> Habitat, Habitat, Habitat, Habitat, is one of the reasons why ND outdoors is what it is. If we did not have it the sheer number of sportsmen that take part in the fall each year would just be wandering around the prairie getting in a good cardio workout, Don't know about you but the workout makes me hungry and I like to eat a critter once in awhile :lol:
> 
> So the question remains do we currently have balanced system? and if not how do we obtain it?
> 
> *Gary* has thrown out a scenario of nesting dynamics, again it is not a secret the information is out there to learn and understand. Our back yard is one aspect there is however, a bigger picture.
> 
> to be continued...........
> 
> Bob


 :beer:

BTW, I'm Gary, not Greg.....but I'm used to being called Greg, so thats OK


----------



## dakota31400

> Greg has thrown out a scenario of nesting dynamics, again it is not a secret the information is out there to learn and understand. Our back yard is one aspect there is however, a bigger picture.


Your backyard is one unique aspect of the bigger picture.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Sorry GARY!!

I am kinda old  At least I got the first letter correct.

Bob


----------



## dakota31400

Not an issue Bob..

How do you get others to participate here?

Predator Management....

I contend that based on the Deer population in North Dakota, one can assume that the ducks were spending more time running from predators than laying eggs this spring.


----------



## dakota31400

Are you guys still shooting coyote's for target practice....or trying to play wolf in order to protect your deer hunting opportunity??


----------



## Dave Brandt

Against my better judgment, I am going to make a post here. I'm sure it will result in all kinds of slander being thrown my way, but in the interest of everyone here being correctly informed, my conscience forces me to do so.

Anyone who has not already figured it out by now should know that Dakota does not know crap about breeding waterfowl biology in the prairies. If I had to guess he has obtained a few DU and Delta articles and maybe a text book or two and is using big words and terms (usually incorrectly) to try and impress everyone. Much (not all) of what he has said is absolutely incorrect, but I don't have the time to debate him on this site or post counter-truths. I will tell you that I have 16 years of professional experience with breeding ducks here in the Dakotas (mostly collecting actual data in the field), and this coupled with volumes of scientific literature counters much of what he is saying. I just didn't want people to take away false information and thought you might want to view his biological "facts-mechanisms-philosophies" very skeptically.

Also Dakota, most waterfowl biologists I work with and have met throughout my career are passionate hunters who put fellow hunters and the resource equally first. They are not trying to kiss someone's *** or concerned only about their careers. I find your comments otherwise grievously insulting and immature. The reason "no explanation is possible" for people like you Dakota, is that first you have to want to learn something and it is hard to hear when your gums are flapping and/or you think you know it all.


----------



## dakota31400

OK Dave....Correct me. I can assure you what I know did not come from a DU or Delta magazine......I welcome debate...and clarification. So by all means correct me.....Please try to explain it so everyone understands too.


----------



## dakota31400

> Also Dakota, most waterfowl biologists I work with and have met throughout my career are passionate hunters who put fellow hunters and the resource equally first. They are not trying to kiss someone's a$$ or concerned only about their careers. I find your comments otherwise grievously insulting and immature. The reason "no explanation is possible" for people like you Dakota, is that first you have to want to learn something and it is hard to hear when your gums are flapping and/or you think you know it all.


Well by posting, you've at least taken the first step towards proving it.

I


> will tell you that I have 16 years of professional experience with breeding ducks here in the Dakotas (mostly collecting actual data in the field), and this coupled with volumes of scientific literature counters much of what he is saying. I just didn't want people to take away false information and thought you might want to view his biological "facts-mechanisms-philosophies" very skeptically.


Why be skeptical...tell us how it really is dave....Sum up your 16 years in a paragraph or two for me.....you sure aint puttin a hole lot of birds in the air these days........why is that Dave? Tell us why a bag limit and AHM is sooooo wonderful.


----------



## dakota31400

Oh Dave....BTW, I never claimed to be an expert on waterfowl reproduction...only that there was more involved than horney mallards and your ludicrous model. But since your here, tell us all about it. and how the model really works.

I for one would like to know.

I love a guy that lurks in the shadows and then tosses cow pies in response.....So you have NO time for the public that no doubt pays your check...You must wear that little ducky patch on your shoulder.


----------



## always_outdoors

Dave: You aren't the only one with skepticism from what Dakota has been posting. I have 5 years of field data collection of waterfowl here in the prairie pothole region with a range management degree focussed on prairie ecosystem and habitat management with a soils minor that focussed directly on prairie soil types.

Dakota: I think it is time for you to give us your background on prairie ecosystems, duck management experience, and any other pertinent information about how you arrive at your conclusions.

Anyone else wondering the same thing?


----------



## jhegg

dakota31400,



> Oh Dave....BTW, I never claimed to be an expert on waterfowl reproduction...only that there was more involved than horney mallards and your ludicrous model. But since your here, tell us all about it. and how the model really works.
> 
> I for one would like to know.


Well, you are in luck. Here are some references to mallard models for you. The following list is certainly not all inclusive. I am, however, somewhat surprized that you couldn't locate these yourself.

The first is titled "Adaptive Harvest Management for Eastern Mallards". Link provided below.

http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/adapt_harvest_mallards00.pdf

The following refer mostly to the strategies involved in the developement and use of the mid-continent mallard model developed at NPWRC in Jamestown ND. These references were obtained from a search of the NPWRC Library.

NPWRC 0695
Cowardin, L. M., D. H. Johnson, T. L. Shaffer, and D. W. Sparling. 1988. Applications of a simulation model to decisions in mallard management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Technical Report ; 17. 
Copies: Available

NPWRC 0669
Johnson, D. H. 1987. Population biology and models of the mallard. Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of Science 41:56. 
Copies: Available

NPWRC 0786
Johnson, D. H., L. M. Cowardin, and D. W. Sparling. 1988. Evaluation of a mallard productivity model. Pages 129 in M. A. Johnson, ed. Proc. 1985 Mallard Symp. N.D. Chapter of The Wildl. Soc., Bismarck, N.D. 147 p. 
Copies: Not Available

NPWRC 0651
Johnson, D. H., L. M. Cowardin, and D. W. Sparling. 1986. Evaluation of a mallard productivity model. Pages 23-29 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison and C. J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. of WI. Press, Madison. 
Copies: Available 
Online Link: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/mpeval/mpeval.htm

NPWRC 0702
Johnson, D. H., J. D. Nichols, M. J. Conroy, and L. M. Cowardin. 1988. Some considerations in modeling the mallard life cycle. Pages 9-20 in M. W. Weller, ed. Waterfowl in Winter. Univ of MN. Press, Minneapolis. 624 p. 
Copies: Available

NPWRC 0682
Johnson, D. H., D. W. Sparling, and L. M. Cowardin. 1987. A model of the productivity of the mallard duck. Pages 257-275 in Ecol. Modelling 38(3/4):257-275. 
Copies: Available

NPWRC 0824
Koford, R. R., J. R. Sauer, D. H. Johnson, and J. Nichols. 1992. A stochastic population model of mid-continental mallards. Pages 170-181 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds. Proc. 1991 Wildlife 2001: Populations. Int. Conf. on Population Dynamics and Manage. of Vertebrates. Oakland, CA. 
Copies: Not Available

Enjoy your reading!


----------



## dakota31400

I have little experience with prairie ecosystems...Bs in Marine Bio, MS in Cellular & Mollecular Biology....Thesis conducted trapping waterfowl wintering in Florida using enzyme bioassy to evaulate lead exposure. Live capture, release, radio telemetry, blood serum collection and bioassay. 
30 years working for or in conjunction with local, state and federal agencys, both as an employee and as a, Environmental contractor conducting habitat restoration in the Everglades, Environmental Contamination Assessment, Emergency response and remediation activities throughout Florida. Small business owner in North Dakota between 1995 and 2001. Presently evaluate the risk of human exposure to hazardous substances in populations living in close proximity to USEPA CERCLA/Superfund sites in Georgia......Quite capable of carrying on an intelligent converstion when people don't have their heads up their *****.

Now does anyone want to debate anything I've posted with some pertinant information, or does the ecology I leaned 30 + years ago and the way I conceive it still amount to more than whats being used to manage waterfowl today?


----------



## dakota31400

jhegg said:


> dakota31400,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Dave....BTW, I never claimed to be an expert on waterfowl reproduction...only that there was more involved than horney mallards and your ludicrous model. But since your here, tell us all about it. and how the model really works.
> 
> I for one would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are in luck. Here are some references to mallard models for you. The following list is certainly not all inclusive. I am, however, somewhat surprized that you couldn't locate these yourself.
> 
> The first is titled "Adaptive Harvest Management for Eastern Mallards". Link provided below.
> 
> http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/adapt_harvest_mallards00.pdf
> 
> The following refer mostly to the strategies involved in the developement and use of the mid-continent mallard model developed at NPWRC in Jamestown ND. These references were obtained from a search of the NPWRC Library.
> 
> NPWRC 0695
> Cowardin, L. M., D. H. Johnson, T. L. Shaffer, and D. W. Sparling. 1988. Applications of a simulation model to decisions in mallard management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Technical Report ; 17.
> Copies: Available
> 
> NPWRC 0669
> Johnson, D. H. 1987. Population biology and models of the mallard. Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of Science 41:56.
> Copies: Available
> 
> NPWRC 0786
> Johnson, D. H., L. M. Cowardin, and D. W. Sparling. 1988. Evaluation of a mallard productivity model. Pages 129 in M. A. Johnson, ed. Proc. 1985 Mallard Symp. N.D. Chapter of The Wildl. Soc., Bismarck, N.D. 147 p.
> Copies: Not Available
> 
> NPWRC 0651
> Johnson, D. H., L. M. Cowardin, and D. W. Sparling. 1986. Evaluation of a mallard productivity model. Pages 23-29 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison and C. J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. of WI. Press, Madison.
> Copies: Available
> Online Link: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/mpeval/mpeval.htm
> 
> NPWRC 0702
> Johnson, D. H., J. D. Nichols, M. J. Conroy, and L. M. Cowardin. 1988. Some considerations in modeling the mallard life cycle. Pages 9-20 in M. W. Weller, ed. Waterfowl in Winter. Univ of MN. Press, Minneapolis. 624 p.
> Copies: Available
> 
> NPWRC 0682
> Johnson, D. H., D. W. Sparling, and L. M. Cowardin. 1987. A model of the productivity of the mallard duck. Pages 257-275 in Ecol. Modelling 38(3/4):257-275.
> Copies: Available
> 
> NPWRC 0824
> Koford, R. R., J. R. Sauer, D. H. Johnson, and J. Nichols. 1992. A stochastic population model of mid-continental mallards. Pages 170-181 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds. Proc. 1991 Wildlife 2001: Populations. Int. Conf. on Population Dynamics and Manage. of Vertebrates. Oakland, CA.
> Copies: Not Available
> 
> Enjoy your reading!
Click to expand...

Mallard men....defenders of AHM.....I didn't even try to look.....
and I guess your precious mallards are no different than other species?

Tell me why you would use a park duck as an indicator?


----------



## dakota31400

Come on....post something pertinant to the issue now...all cards are on the table...Whats up....why do I not see any significant numbers of ducks in the sky anywhere except for in North Dakota....It's dead over here.


----------



## always_outdoors

> Quite capable of carrying on an intelligent converstion when people don't have their heads up their a$$es.


You are right. Everyone on here doesn't hold a candle to your knowledge. We just can't compete with that kind of intellect. You might want to post on another site with other intelligent persons like yourself.

Pat yourself on the back. You are smarter than all of us here. Go home and kick off your shoes and have a beer.



> why do I not see any significant numbers of ducks in the sky anywhere except for in North Dakota....


Probably because we aren't relying on ecology that we learned 30 plus years ago....



> It's dead over here


Have they been listening to you?


----------



## jhegg

dakota31400,



> Come on....post something pertinant to the issue now...all cards are on the table...Whats up....why do I not see any significant numbers of ducks in the sky anywhere except for in North Dakota....It's dead over here.


You are an incredible person. You don't see ducks anywhere but in ND, yet you claim a reduction of 1-2 ducks in the bag is not justified. I just do not follow that reasoning.


----------



## dakota31400

Your unwillingness to contribute says it all for me......A waste of tax dollars and and an insult to waterfowlers.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Well for what it's worth, I have no degree relating to any waterfowl related biology. What I do posess is 40+ years of actively hunting waterfowl in North Dakota and Southern Canada. I also have watched from spring migration through the nesting process and the out migration of local birds to the in migration of northern birds. We have our own predator control program and while it may not be perfect it has produced results. Right now I am able to tell you the areas with the highest populations of certain ducks within a 100 mile radius of the Devils Lake area. There are also at least ten more fellow hunters just like my self that can predict how this falls duck numbers are going to be as close as the best of them.
Now if your degrees and years of testing and banding and trapping and recording info is more accurate then good for all concerned. 
Then there is one question that you should be able to answer that is baffling our hunting brethren to the south. Where are all the mallards and pintails during their season? I have my theory but I would like to hear your educated and calculated answer.


----------



## dakota31400

Jhegg,

it's not the reduction, it's the reason for it. Thats what this was all about.

I had to pull teeth to get a response from the people my tax dollars pay to preserve the resource and sport I love....It took 150 posts.


----------



## jhegg

dakota31400,

You don't have to pull teeth or post 150 times to get responses or answers to your questions. Contact Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) in Jamestown, ND and ask. They have the biologists and statisticians there that can answer your questions.

USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
8711 37th Street Southeast
Jamestown, North Dakota 58401
Phone: 701-253-5500
Fax: 701-253-5553
Email: [email protected]
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/index.htm


----------



## dakota31400

Jhegg,

PM sent in response


----------



## dakota31400

Dan Bueide said:


> You can't process to remain within possession limits until you reach your final destination - this mean "home", your "real" one, not a motel, friends home, vacation home or any place other than your permenant residence.
> 
> Once you reach your final destination (your "real home"), birds can be processed (jerky, sausage and such) and at that point no longer count against the possession limit.


If the birds are processed in your home, can they not be transported and consumed in another place or another home?


----------



## always_outdoors

Dakota: I am working on an answer for you on this since we agree on transporting processed game. I have a call into the warden, but no reply as of yet.

I didn't want to hijack the thread and get into a -issing match about transportation of game.


----------



## dakota31400

More specifically, I process in my ND home....then transport to GA for consumption by immediate family.


----------



## always_outdoors

My question to the warden was:

I go to hunt down in SW ND and shoot my limit of ducks, canadas, and snows. Since I have all this meat, I decide I like the cajun jerky the butcher shop makes down there. So I have them make the jerky. Can I not transport that back home or am I illegal?


----------



## dakota31400

Please share his relpy when you get it.


----------



## jhegg

I had an interseting experience in regard to shipping a canada goose to a friend in Washington (state). I shot it, plucked it, cleaned it (removing the head and wings), packaged it and frooze it in my freezer. Of course, I wanted to ship it legally. Accoring to the legal entities I talked to, there was no way I could. I was informed that there had to be an attached wing or head to ship it out of state. Maybe I took a chance, maybe I didn't.


----------



## Dave Brandt

First off, I wish I had the time to spend posting what is really known from years of research by others and generally accepted among breeding waterfowl biologists, I simply do not. I also have a life outside of work that requires my time. Second, I am not an expert on AHM and unlike you, I won't venture into a discussion on something where I do not have all the facts. I deal in the Central Flyway and while I have my opinions as to some issues in other flyways, I will likewise not comment on them. I am simply making an observation that you put forth all this information as "fact" and many of the "facts" you are putting out there are at best misleading and often plain incorrect. Just a few "for instances":



> Only the most experienced waterfowl (survivors) are successful in rearing a brood. And the potential of that success is based soley the hens choice...Stress and predation will continue to balance the equation by insuring only the best of the best breed to perpetuate the species.


In some years and/or regions, its possible that first year breeders can contribute substantially to the population. Older hens tend to nest earliest, but in some years/areas, early nest and duckling survival can be poor. Things like buffer prey for mink (such as an explosion of leopard frogs mid summer or an abundance of coot young) can divert the pressures on later hatched duck broods coming from young hens. No, hens will not raise two broods. In fact, very, very rarely will they initiate another nest even if they totally lose their first brood early on. I would put forth that male genetics have a minor role in the survival of the brood unless he has some sort of congenital defect (not to mention things like rape flights where multiple males contribute to the clutch). It is the hen that is responsible for finding wetlands with adequate protection and food resources and defending the brood. Give me an area with high fox and mink densities and I don't care if they have the world's best gene pool, it is shear luck that any will recruit young into the population (ie. they didn't evolve under these types of predation pressures in the prairies).



> Selectively removing the best males however, is more likely due to our visual cue on asthetics,..This is not helping waterfowl populations in the least.


I would argue that the best male would not be dumb enough to come to your call and decoys. So we are in fact not removing the best males. Beyond that, what about that thing you've tried to get at called compensatory mortality? Shouldn't matter how many "stupid" males get shot as long as we are above the compensatory threshold.



> There is a natural control mechanism built into the inate behavior of waterfowl. It varies in different species, and there are very few exceptions to the rule. ( I think mallards might be the exception)
> 
> This evolutionary behavior is called nesting density. It is believed to be a way in which brooding ducks optimize the chance for survival by insuring suffient food supplies...many other theories are also out there on the subject of why. Nesting density is the amount of nests a species will attempt to build within a defined geographic area.


Nest density is not a behavior or a control mechanism. It is a function of number of nests per a given unit of area on the landscape period. It is not a biological constant that is unique for each species of duck. You can have anything from 5 nests/acre to 1/square mile depending on the situation and landscape (island vs cropland for instance), it varies in response to all kinds of biotic and abiotic factors. Actually there are theories that ducks will supersaturate areas of high nest and brood survival and may bounce to such an area after losing a nest. You can actually build areas of high nest density by increasing nest and hen success thereby ensuring recruitment of young, resulting in philopatry to that area.



> The nesting density of Canvasback ducks is something like 1 per sqaure mile. Canvasback, like all other species have specific usable habitat requirements for breeding...including, but not limited to water depth, plant life...etc along with things like the precise timing of the brood hatch with with the corresponding larval emergence of various insects....blah...blah...blah.. Never the less, Very specific and precise requirements.....and don't forget, only one hen in one nest on every square mile of this usable habitat.


Canvasbacks nests have been documented at densities over 100 times this value, in fact, 1 per acre is not uncommon in good "useable habitat". Can ducklings need food, water, some brooding early on, and a beating heart for about 65 days to survive that's all. Nest site selection by hens has certain requirements but initiation and hatch date can vary greatly with minimal impact depending on the year.

Also, let me say that philosophy does not equal science (as in there is only one exact science, that being math), there are all kinds of philosophies out there and any particular science or discipline can have multiple philosophies.

In closing, let me say that one of the biggest problems that the competent, concerned, and well informed resource managers have to face today is the intrusion of politics into the management arena. People such as Trent Lott from your neck of the woods, for instance, got the frameworks extended down south because some hunters thought they were not getting their fair share (even though the data didn't support that argument) which thereby allows us Yankees to truly extend our season by adding on a week up here (many years it can be 30 days or less). This potentially correlates to more naive hatch year males in our freezers that are not available to hunters when they arrive down south. Have you heard any southern duck hunters complaining lately about how birds don't respond to calls or robos or whatever recently? Hmmmmm. Politics and science is hardly ever a good marriage, and more and more it is being forced into management decisions, not by managers I might add. Should managers be held accountable? Absolutely, I will be one of the first to throw stones if what I love is in peril, but they should not be lambasted by uninformed people with an agenda who label them as morons and view them as their adversaries. And by the way, reduced limits are fine with me in fact a set limit of 3 or 4 wouldn't bother me at all. My father is a wise man and he taught me that it is always prudent to err on the conservative side just in case we don't know everything we think we do. I could go on, but like I said, I do have some semblance of a life.


----------



## Dan Bueide

As I understand the rules, processing to remove from possession can't legally occur until the birds have arrived at the hunter's final destination (permenant residence). Once there, and processed (jerky, stew meat, sausage, whatever..), the birds are treated as if they are consumed and therefore are no longer in possession and accordingly could be carted whereever you like. The key is that they must reach "home base" first before processing (unless actually consumed intra-trip) removes them from possession.

Required ID is a whole other deal. Processing intra-trip, but staying within possession limits even taking into account the processed birds, may not be an over-possession problem, but probably gets you into trouble from the separate, but somewhat related ID standpoint.

The best ND source for ND clarifications is Bob Timien, Chief of Enforcement at G&F mothership. Very nice, approachable man and I'll bet he'll be happy to answer all of your what if's.

But a word of caution. The Fed and ND possession and ID requirements are very similar, but they are independant rules enforced by two unrelated agencies. The G&F's interpretation of any particular nuance may or may not be the same as that of USFWS. To be "golden", you need to comply with both sets of regs, and the official interpretation of each by the respective agency.


----------



## Bob Kellam

AHM

BACKGROUND
The annual process of setting duck-hunting regulations in the United States is based on a system of resource monitoring, data analyses, and rule making (Blohm 1989). Each year, monitoring activities such as aerial surveys and hunter questionnaires provide information on harvest levels, population size, and habitat conditions. Data collected from this monitoring program are analyzed each year, and proposals for duck-hunting regulations are developed by the Flyway Councils, States, and USFWS. After extensive public review, the USFWS announces a regulatory framework within which States can set their hunting seasons.

In 1995, the USFWS adopted the concept of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986) for regulating duck harvests in the United States. The adaptive approach explicitly recognizes that the consequences of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty, and provides a framework for making objective decisions in the face of that uncertainty (Williams and Johnson 1995). Inherent in the adaptive approach is an awareness that management performance can be maximized only if regulatory effects can be predicted reliably. Thus, adaptive management relies on an iterative cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision making to clarify the relationships among hunting regulations, harvests, and waterfowl abundance.

In regulating waterfowl harvests, managers face four fundamental sources of uncertainty (Nichols et al. 1995, Johnson et al. 1996, Williams et al. 1996):
(1) environmental variation - the temporal and spatial variation in weather conditions and other key features of waterfowl habitat; an example is the annual change in the number of ponds in the Prairie Pothole Region, where water conditions influence duck reproductive success;
(2) partial controllability - the ability of managers to control harvest only within limits; the harvest resulting from a particular set of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty because of variation in weather conditions, timing of migration, hunter effort, and other factors;
(3) partial observability - the ability to estimate key population attributes (e.g., population size, reproductive rate, harvest) only within the precision afforded by existing monitoring programs; and
(4) structural uncertainty - an incomplete understanding of biological processes; a familiar example is the long-standing debate about whether harvest is additive to other sources of mortality or whether populations compensate for hunting losses through reduced natural mortality. Structural uncertainty increases contentiousness in the decision-making
process and decreases the extent to which managers can meet long-term conservation goals.

AHM was developed as a systematic process for dealing objectively with these uncertainties. The key components of AHM
(Johnson et al. 1993, Williams and Johnson 1995) include:
(1) a limited number of regulatory alternatives, which describe Flyway-specific season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates;
(2) a set of population models describing various hypotheses about the effects of harvest and environmental factors on waterfowl abundance;
(3) a measure of reliability (probability or "weight") for each population model; and
(4) a mathematical description of the objective(s) of harvest management (i.e., an "objective function"), by which alternative regulatory strategies can be evaluated. These components are used in a stochastic optimization procedure to derive a regulatory strategy, which specifies the appropriate regulatory alternative for each possible combination of breeding population size, environmental conditions, and model weights (Johnson et al. 1997). The setting of annual hunting regulations then involves an iterative process:
(1) each year, an optimal regulatory alternative is identified based on resource and environmental conditions, and on current model weights;
(2) after the regulatory decision is made, model-specific predictions for subsequent breeding population size are determined;
(3) when monitoring data become available, model weights are increased to the extent that observations of population size agree with predictions, and decreased to the extent that they disagree; and
(4) the new model weights are used to start another iteration of the process.
By iteratively updating model weights and optimizing regulatory choices, the process should eventually identify which model is most appropriate to describe the dynamics of the managed population. The process is optimal in the sense that it provides the regulatory choice each year necessary to maximize management performance. It is adaptive in the sense that the harvest strategy "evolves" to account for new knowledge generated by a comparison of predicted and observed population sizes.


----------



## dakota31400

Dave Brandt said:


> I am not an expert on AHM and unlike you, I won't venture into a discussion on something where I do not have all the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Common Dave, Do any of us ever have "all" the facts? Don't be afraid to postulate....you don't have to hide behind "published" facts. Use your head and gut for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many of the "facts" you are putting out there are at best misleading and often plain incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Dave, the concept of nesting density is not misleading....Now, at least some folks know it exists. My concern is wheter managers even use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gary) Only the most experienced waterfowl (survivors) are successful in rearing a brood. And the potential of that success is based soley the hens choice...Stress and predation will continue to balance the equation by insuring only the best of the best breed to perpetuate the species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Dave) In some years and/or regions, its possible that first year breeders can contribute substantially to the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some...Exception or the rule...whats substantial these days, the difference between a negative increase and breaking even?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put forth that male genetics have a minor role in the survival of the brood unless he has some sort of congenital defect (not to mention things like rape flights where multiple males contribute to the clutch).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the concept of Natural Selection no longer applies either...and tell me, how many ducks do we get out of those rapes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gary)Selectively removing the best males however, is more likely due to our visual cue on asthetics,..This is not helping waterfowl populations in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Dave)I would argue that the best male would not be dumb enough to come to your call and decoys. So we are in fact not removing the best males. Beyond that, what about that thing you've tried to get at called compensatory mortality? Shouldn't matter how many "stupid" males get shot as long as we are above the compensatory threshold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that best males are less likely to, as with the best hens..
> 
> But you have have also contidicted yourself here. You have associate the term "best" with intelligence....is this not a trait, or is it just an opinion? That is, the ability to learn more....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gary)There is a natural control mechanism built into the inate behavior of waterfowl. It varies in different species, and there are very few exceptions to the rule. ( I think mallards might be the exception)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Dave)
> Nest density is not a behavior or a control mechanism. It is a function of number of nests per a given unit of area on the landscape period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats it's origin Dave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a biological constant that is unique for each species of duck. You can have anything from 5 nests/acre to 1/square mile depending on the situation and landscape (island vs cropland for instance), it varies in response to all kinds of biotic and abiotic factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated it was variable Dave....and 5/acre = 3200 Canvasback nests/square mile....pretty busy section of land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canvasbacks nests have been documented at densities over 100 times this value, in fact, 1 per acre is not uncommon in good "useable habitat".
> 
> Then maybe my density is for the Atlantic Flyway Canvasback..at least that is what I remeber it to be....I'm not sitting here with a library of books and journals...The readers got my drift anyway..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In closing, let me say that one of the biggest problems that the competent, concerned, and well informed resource managers have to face today is the intrusion of politics into the management arena
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that acknowlegement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard any southern duck hunters complaining lately about how birds don't respond to calls or robos or whatever recently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...Not in the least...not a lot of Robo's used down my way, and calling anything except for divers and widgeon has never worked here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and science is hardly ever a good marriage, and more and more it is being forced into management decisions, not by managers I might add. Should managers be held accountable? Absolutely, I will be one of the first to throw stones if what I love is in peril, but they should not be lambasted by uninformed people with an agenda who label them as morons and view them as their adversaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, reduced limits are fine with me in fact a set limit of 3 or 4 wouldn't bother me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

and 5 is fine with me, but not 4 unless the truth comes out.


----------



## dakota31400

Thanks for the post Bob....thought I'd highlight some of my issues with it


Bob Kellam said:


> AHM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BACKGROUND
> The annual process of setting duck-hunting regulations in the United States is based on a system of resource monitoring, data analyses, and rule making (Blohm 1989). Each year, monitoring activities such as aerial surveys and hunter questionnaires provide information on harvest levels, population size, and habitat conditions. Data collected from this monitoring program are analyzed each year, and proposals for duck-hunting regulations are developed by the Flyway Councils, States, and USFWS. After extensive public review, the USFWS announces a regulatory framework within which States can set their hunting seasons.
> 
> In 1995, the USFWS adopted the concept of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986) for regulating duck harvests in the United States. *The adaptive approach explicitly recognizes that the consequences of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty, and provides a framework for making objective decisions in the face of that uncertainty (Williams and Johnson 1995). Inherent in the adaptive approach is an awareness that management performance can be maximized only if regulatory effects can be predicted reliably. Thus, adaptive management relies on an iterative cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision making to clarify the relationships among hunting regulations, harvests, and waterfowl abundance.
> 
> In regulating waterfowl harvests, managers face four fundamental sources of uncertainty (Nichols et al. 1995, Johnson et al. 1996, Williams et al. 1996):
> (1) environmental variation - the temporal and spatial variation in weather conditions and other key features of waterfowl habitat; an example is the annual change in the number of ponds in the Prairie Pothole Region, where water conditions influence duck reproductive success;
> (2) partial controllability - the ability of managers to control harvest only within limits; the harvest resulting from a particular set of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty because of variation in weather conditions, timing of migration, hunter effort, and other factors;
> (3) partial observability - the ability to estimate key population attributes (e.g., population size, reproductive rate, harvest) only within the precision afforded by existing monitoring programs; and
> (4) structural uncertainty - an incomplete understanding of biological processes; a familiar example is the long-standing debate about whether harvest is additive to other sources of mortality or whether populations compensate for hunting losses through reduced natural mortality. Structural uncertainty increases contentiousness in the decision-making
> process and decreases the extent to which managers can meet long-term conservation goals.
> 
> AHM was developed as a systematic process for dealing objectively with these uncertainties. *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I'm sorry, but whats wrong with this picture?....How do you objectively deal with uncertainty.........we invent ways to make it possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key components of AHM
> (Johnson et al. 1993, Williams and Johnson 1995) include:
> (1) a limited number of regulatory alternatives, which describe Flyway-specific season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates;
> (2) a set of population models describing various hypotheses about the effects of harvest and environmental factors on waterfowl abundance;
> (3) a measure of reliability (probability or "weight") for each population model; and
> (4) a mathematical description of the objective(s) of harvest management (i.e., an "objective function"), by which alternative regulatory strategies can be evaluated. These components are used in a stochastic optimization procedure to derive a regulatory strategy, which specifies the appropriate regulatory alternative for each possible combination of breeding population size, environmental conditions, and model weights (Johnson et al. 1997). The setting of annual hunting regulations then involves an iterative process:
> (1) each year, an optimal regulatory alternative is identified based on resource and environmental conditions, and on current model weights;
> (2) after the regulatory decision is made, model-specific predictions for subsequent breeding population size are determined;
> (3) when monitoring data become available, model weights are increased to the extent that observations of population size agree with predictions, and decreased to the extent that they disagree; and
> (4) the new model weights are used to start another iteration of the process.
> By iteratively updating model weights and optimizing regulatory choices, the process should eventually identify which model is most appropriate to describe the dynamics of the managed population. The process is optimal in the sense that it provides the regulatory choice each year necessary to maximize management performance. It is adaptive in the sense that the harvest strategy "evolves" to account for new knowledge generated by a comparison of predicted and observed population sizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well after ten years of trials.....Where's all the ducks...on paper?*
Click to expand...


----------



## Bob Kellam

Comparison of Predicted and Observed Harvest Rates and Population Sizes of Midcontinent Mallards
Fred Johnson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
May 2, 2002

Harvest Rates During the 1995-96 and 1996-97 hunting seasons, only 3 regulatory alternatives were available: restrictive, moderate, and liberal. Under the liberal alternative implemented in those seasons, the predicted harvest rate of adult-male midcontinent mallards was 0.118 (SE = 0.029). The observed harvest rate during the 1995-96 season was 0.120 (SE = 0.011).

No estimate of the realized harvest rate is available from the 1996-97 season because of unknown changes in band-reporting rate caused by the introduction of a toll-free phone number for reporting recoveries.
The regulatory alternatives were revised in 1997 to include a very restrictive alternative, and longer season lengths and higher bag limits in the moderate and liberal alternatives. Since 1997, harvest rates of midcontinent mallards have been predicted based on the historic relationship of harvest rate to season lengths and bag limits, and on contemporary numbers of hunters (see Appendix D, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001, Adaptive Harvest Management: 2001 Duck Hunting Season, U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington, D.C., 47pp.).

This analysis suggests that the predicted mean harvest rate of adult male mallards under the liberal regulatory alternative is 0.131, with annual variation (CV) expected to be about 20% of the mean. Since the 1998-99 season, estimates of realized (observed) harvest rates under the liberal alternative have been available as a result of reward-banding in the Prairie Pothole Region (Table 1). Considering the expected annual variation and sampling error of harvest rates, the estimates are generally consistent with predictions. However, we recently combined the prior prediction of mean harvest rate with rates observed since the 1998-99 season (in a standard Bayesian analysis), so that we now predict the mean harvest rate under the liberal alternative (with no framework-date extensions) will be 0.121, with annual variation (CV) expected to be about 18% of the mean.

Breeding Population Size
Estimates of observed breeding-population size, pond numbers, and harvest rate are used to generate predictions of population size in the subsequent year, under each of the alternative models of mallard population dynamics. These model-specific predictions can then be averaged, using either the most recently available weights (i.e., in a prospective analysis) or the "final" weights from the end of the time frame (i.e., in a retrospective analysis) (Table 1). In either case, predicted population sizes agree well with observations, especially considering the variance of the predictions. The greatest discrepancies between predicted and observed population sizes occurred in 1999, perhaps because of an important, but unknown, environmental factor that is not included in the models.

More data.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/repor ... m-2002.pdf

More data
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/repor ... se2002.pdf


----------



## DakotaDog72

Could you repeat the thing about the....thing?


----------



## lasalle

Bob Dave & Dan is there a clift notes version to your posts? :lol:


----------



## just ducky

My esteemed cohort from Michigan (Shiawassee Kid) said it about a gozillion pages ago...we in the Miss. Flyway have lived for years with 1 hen and fewer total bag limits than y'all have, and we've survived. Heck most of us would hunt if the limit were one or two. Why?....Earth to a lot of you....it ain't about killin' as many birds as you can! This isn't Lewis and Clark days...not a single one of you HAS TO SHOOT GAME TO SURVIVE. If you had to, you couldn't afford a vehicle, or the gasoline, to get you all the way back up to North Dakota. No one NEEDS 6 ducks per day in the year 2006! Most of the reason I come to your beautiful state each fall is to SEE the volume of birds that you all have, whether I shoot 1 or 6 is completely irrelevant. The fact is, I could shoot 6, but most days I'm out there I stop at 3. Anyone who thinks they NEED to shoot 6 ducks in order to make it "worthwhile" to keep hunting is severely misguided.


----------



## dakota31400

In the beginning of this thread we established "for the sake of this thread" that sportsman travel afar and spend extra money to shoot ducks...not hunt ducks. and that based on that, an industry, supported by legislature has arisen...in this sense, 6 ducks do matter. In the Atlantic fly, stopping at zero ducks is not uncommon.


----------



## dakota31400

Question for the Waterfowl Managers?

Since AHM is highly dependent on the HIP program, is there any information pertaining to the accuracy of this survey available? Roughly that is....and is there a fudge factor you apply to the HIP results before it's used in the model.


----------



## just ducky

dakota31400 said:


> In the beginning of this thread we established "for the sake of this thread" that sportsman travel afar and spend extra money to shoot ducks...not hunt ducks. and that based on that, an industry, supported by legislature has arisen...in this sense, 6 ducks do matter. In the Atlantic fly, stopping at zero ducks is not uncommon.


Okay I'll agree (maybe?) that non-residents come there to shoot ducks, but not limits of ducks. In fact, there are as many as 15 of us from Michigan that come to stay in the house there for all or part of a 10 day period, and the majority do not shoot limits...voluntarily. I hardly think we're unique either. For one thing, how in the [email protected]#! am I gonna consume 6 ducks a day for a week? True I can bring a few home if I want, but C'mon guys....6 birds a day???? I would hazard a guess that if you surveyed all non-resident waterfowl hunters, the majority would say they come to ND for the experience first (seeing the volume that you see in ND)...for limits of ducks somewhere down the list. JMO 8)


----------



## dakota31400

> For one thing, how in the [email protected]#! am I gonna consume 6 ducks a day for a week?


Aint that the truth..

I go up for 12-15 days, scout 1/3 of the time, hunt 1/3 and nurse a hangover the rest of the time......but I can darn shure tell ya...some of the guys that come up while I'm there hunt every day and eat duck every night :eyeroll: I can't do that....as far as I'm concerned, thats sadistic!Most of mine goes into the dehydrator which runs continuosly because between my daughters family, and friends, the jerky disappears faster than my grandson and I can shoot it....Face it, a posession limit of breasts doesn't make a lot of jerky...nor do I shoot 6 birds every day.

I guess I'm fortunate we got a lot of people to consume what we shoot..


----------



## just ducky

dakota31400 said:


> ..I guess I'm fortunate we got a lot of people to consume what we shoot..


We dehydrate some, and we "gift" some home through a local meat processor too. Don't get me wrong...we love to eat duck. But I think most people will agree that ANY food gets old if you eat tons of it for a week straight!


----------



## dakota31400

Any food for a week..yes,

Wild Duck (except grain fed mallards)...a lot less


----------



## bill jenkins

5 vs 6 ducks, will it help? numbers say yes, if we think outside the box and they cut the limits down to 3 or four some of you guys might really be ******. keep in mind cutting the duck limits by one is a 16 percent reduction, this does mean some thing, 16 this year, leads to 16 next year etc. I must take the side of being for this, if numbers are down this will help, it will be hard to ID un mature birds and mistakes will happen but it is worth a shot. I'm very happy to see people concerned about our great sport, and everyone will have their opinions, I want my kids and there kids etc to be able to partake in this great sport. Keep your heads up, it will help;


----------



## gaddyshooter

Good topic. Will it help? Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on habitat and amount of water next spring. I would be in favor of a 4 duck daily limit, with the possession limit remaining at 12.


----------



## N2Duks

justducky said it best...I come to ND every year to see the numbers I don't get to see at home in Indiana. My foursome shoots limits on a regular basis...we scout well, get permission and bust them good in fields primarily...I come to ND to see the volume of birds...nothing like seeing a sky black full of birds...it's something I'd never seen...the only thing black in the sky in Indiana is pollution around the cities or a really bad storm :lol:


----------



## itchy

We also come to ND for the volume of birds. In MN, you get excited seeing 2 birds, let alone shooting some. When we visit ND, we don't worry about shooting our limit, when the morning flight is done, we head for breakfast, wether or not we have shot a limit. The fun is in having 300 birds flying over your head, ducks landing 3 feet from your blind, shooting at one group and having the next one keep coming in, and having the OPPORTUNITY to pick out greenheads, or cans, pins, gadwal, widgeon, bills, etc. "Hunter's choice" will not affect us much, only that if we see a bull can come in, we won't have to pass. And yes, we eat duck everynight, and enjoy it. Hope the rains keep coming your way.


----------

