# Market Hunting



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

I was reading a chapter on extinction over the weekend (Rosenzweig 1995 Species diversity in space and time) and came to a very interesting passage regarding the extinction of the passenger pigeon.

_Many believe that relentless market hunting exterminated the passenger pigeon. Or that it couldn't survive its need to rest in huge colonies. But the basic cause, the underlying signal of doom, was its loss of forest habitat. Man, in need of land farms, cut down the mast-bearing trees, especially beeches and oaks, that kept pigeon populations so astronomical that no amount of hunting or trapping would have harmed them. The passenger pigeon lost in its competition with man for habitat.

That is not to say we hunted them to no effect. Perhaps they could have survived as a scarcer species had we not seized them and shot and trapped them so relentlessly. We do know their population declined in the hundred years preceding 1870. They stopped nesting in Ohio, for example by 1838 (Schorger, 1995). Schorger believes, however that the freefall to extinction really took place from 1871 to 1880. The army of market hunters, called pigeoners, grew immensely and found no way to prevent its own demise. Using the latest technology (the telegraph), it followed pigeon flocks for hundreds of miles. 'The fewer the pigeons, the more persistently they were hunted. A flock was reported &#8230; at Racine, Wisconsin, on 11 September 1885, and within an hour 500 men with shotguns were headed for the locality.' Schorger, 1995)._

So after reading that passage (and having the hair stand up on the back of my neck especially in regard to the telegraph insert internet), it got me to thinking about guides/outfitters and their new version of market hunting. Is history repeating itself in the regards to the overharvesting of waterfowl in the name of the almighty dollar? The G/O and tourism groups do little to nothing in efforts to promote habitat, but yet they tout economic development as their savior. A local ND guide marketing his services on ebay boasts of shooting over 1,400 ducks last year alone. Now I am not saying that any species of waterfowl is going extinct, however, certain species are in decline and the canvasback has never recovered. So in this context, how can anyone make the argument that guides/outfitters are not causing irreparable damage to the resource.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bioman very disturbing relavations of how communitcations of today and yesteryear can and do influence harvest of natural resources. Most G/O advertise numbers of successful shooters based on limits reached or tags filled. Some even boast of the total kill for a year. This has driven many to come to partake in the bounty. Howver the blame does not stop there. Most of us can be blamed for the cause ourselves in making statement about filled limits in minutes or etc. I see where on some boards many where hoping to harvest 200 ducks this season.

With population levels being advertised at being at all time highs and increased pond counts of 30 plus percent expectations are being pushed and disposable dollars are being spent to satisfiy those expectations. Then add in the television shows that are done with G/O showing ducks and geese just pouring in to the decoys and the bar raises higher allowing even more exploitation.

I talked to a number of hunters this weekend that where complaining about the fact it took them until noon to fill a six bird limit, when in the past they where done by 9 or 10. This was not the case of all hunters but the majority came in excepting black sky's of waterfowl. Most all made comments about the population reports and wondered where all these birs where.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Ron,
I think the majority of hunters do expect to come to ND and shoot a limit of birds and are dissappointed when they don't. I myself am probably guilty of highlighting some of the great hunts we have had this season and not exposed some of the hunts that have not been as good. 
We have had hunts that are not as productive in terms of birds bagged but I enjoy those hunts as much as when we shoot full limits. Really for me it comes down to spending time in the fields and enjoying the outdoors and I wish that more people would highlight that aspect of hunting. 
I agree with Bioman that the internet has had a huge effect on hunter expectation and their increasing willingness to travel and move to the best areas. What those effects will ultimately have on the resource are difficult to quantify but I do believe they have an effect on harvest rates.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

Do we all believe that Biologists makeing recomendations on bag limits are making those recomendations based on economics and not sound species management? If that is the concern then the emphasis should be put on bag limits not on hunters. How can we fault someone for shooting a limit?


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Maybe I am overly sensitive, but I thought this topic would have spurred a lot more response. A couple more things to consider, population estimates for the passenger pigeon ranged from 3 to 5 billion and many in the scientific community feel that number is more likely to be an underestimate than an exaggeration. For comparison purposes, estimates of all other breeding bird species in the United States equal about 5.7 billion birds. So imagine if you will that one of every two birds was a passenger pigeon. Market hunting and removal of habitat caused this bird to go extinct.

Now flash forward to present day scenario, you have G/Os who are nothing more than professional market hunters out there killing hundreds of thousands of birds a year. If we simply take the example I listed above where one guide operation killed 1,400 birds, imagine the destruction that the 300 or so in ND are doing to the resource. In the purely hypothetical scenario, lets say the average ND G/O kills 1,000 ducks, that is 292,000 removed from the ND breeding grounds alone. Now amplify this by the amount of G/Os operating in each flyway (and don't forget the fact that they are usually tying up the best available lands) and you have a very good definition of cumulative impact. Once again, don't lose sight of the fact that these professional market hunters are doing little to nothing to improve habitat, rather they are simply profitting off of the take of a species.

So I'll ask another way, is this exploitation of a public trust resource in the name of economic development good for anyone?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Bioman,

As always, great stuff.
The explosion in ND NR hunting mirrors the growth in online hunting forum use.

Shorthair,

Shooting a limit? Face it, waterfowl would become extinct in North America this year if every fowler shot half a limit on every other day of the season. Managers know that most folks don't hunt that hard or much - they count on it. However, some legislators want to encourage it for the $$$$. What a sorry contempable lot they be. G/O just exacerbate the already poorly controlled problem.

The problem is that technology, and growing disposable income, is changing hunter behavior much faster than biologists and mangement types can predict. Moreover, when they see the problems on the horizon the legislators prevent them from implementing the necessary changes. The very fine G&F folks (with standing those at the top) make excellent suggestions that the short-sighted legislators oppose.

We can "fault someone for shooting a limit" within the regulations all the way into extrinction.

M.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

MRN,
The fact is everyone does not and cannot shoot a limit of ducks every other day and that is factored into harvest limits. 
How many ducks do you think are killed by hunters both resident and non-resident that don't use a G/O? I would venture to guess much more than guides or outfitters are responsible for. Is this an argument about limits or an argument about outfitters? I beleive a point brought up in the original post is the most important. It is the loss of habitat that is crucial to the success of all wildlife in this country. You can't grow ducks, geese, deer ....in places converted to strip malls and housing developments.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Shorthair

While habitat loss is not being overlooked the idea that we have instant access to events worldwide or locally is the key issue that is driving the huge influx of hunters to the ND PPR and with it comes the problems that other states have and what they are trying to get away from. In this attempt we are know seeing the same problems here.

I was doing some reading about theMoutainmen and the changes that came to there world. We in ND are facing the same loss of a way of life and a heritage that should not be taking place. The moutain men where the cause of there own loss for they showed the way to the moutains for the johnny comelately types.

in the winter of 99-00 and 00-01 we saw the same thing happen with the perch fishing on many small lakes in ND. Flood and Diamond north of Kulm. Alkiine by Streeter. even the Res by Jamestown. We saw people driving great distances to get there piece of the pie with know regards to the long term effects it would have. You could go to Flood and catch huge numbers of 10" plus perch but in less than 6 weeks if you caught a few in a day it was a good day. Crappies where plentiful and easy to catch on Jamestown Dam and Pipestem, they have been hard to come by since.

This was caused by the williness of us to share and exploited by those that simply wanted to profit and hog resoures. I have yet to figure out why someone would need 25 gals of perch or crappies.

We are all to blame but the simple fact remains that G/O advertise and seek those wanting to always think they are entitled to reach a limit for the most part. The USFWS with there skewed reports and liberal limits are also promoting the idea that limits should be had everyday. Would taking 4 birds be a less quality day than taking 6? Not by my standards but to many satifaction and hunting quality are based on numbers shot not experieences had.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I think the statement, "But the basic cause, the underlying signal of doom, was it's loss of forest habitat." is the most powerful part of the article.

It's like the present state of affairs with our pheasant and deer numbers. We're shooting more each year recently and the population continues to increase. In large part due to favorable weather but also due to increases in habitat.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This topic needs another look. Sunday morning I had breakfast with two old waterfowl hunters, long retired from the sport. They spoke of the abundance of birds, lots of habitat, and talked about the ease of access and lack of posting. It is different now.

We may have an abundace of birds and nesting habitat thru CRP but they are not showing up. Was it just in my county? They just didn't show compared to years past. The one flock of SOBs that came early lasted 2 days because they were hounded by hunters with cell phones. Instant com.

Last year the DL folks complained about fewer hunters shorting their season, but I'm wondering if there is a wall of aggressive waterfowlers just this side of Canada deflecting the birds over us? If SOBs can learn the ropes and cranes too, why not ducks? These guys don't have to be elbow to elbow, but if they were mobile (cell phone-internet) and persistant (paying thru the nose-gotta get our moneys worth), would it change the flight? If G/Os are racking up the scores they advertise by churning clients thru the system could it not alter the bird numbers retained at any given spot in ND? Market hunting did exactly that in the past.

No doubt loss of habitat declines a species, but look at the oceans. Same amount of water--lots fewer fish, lots fewer cetaceans. Market hunting under whaleing and long line netting is having the same effect. Market hunting might be the predator that is grossely under estimated.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dick:

How timely, I have been working on some extinction modeling for a small population of a threatened mouse in Colorado.

In extinction theory, you have basically two paradigms: a declining population, and the small population.

If we know that our population is declining (e.g., the intrinsic growth rate is negative - or think of a negative interest rate on your savings), we can use the following formula (which is simple and very easy to use):

Te = (log K)2/Vr

Te = time to extinction
K = carrying capacity
Vr = variance 
2 = squared

In most bird species, the observed variance is typically around 0.3 to 0.4, so if we know the carrying capacity of a species that is declining, we can readily make a conservative estimate of time to extinction.

I just happen to have the latest copy of Delta Waterfowl handy, so I looked up last year's estimated mallard population, which was forecast at 7,590,000 and assumed this as K.

So for my simple model, I will set the value of 7,590,000 as the carrying capacity, and assuming a Vr = 0.4... (and if I did my math correctly) would show this species going extinct in approximately 627 years.

All right, let me hear from you naysayers!

One other thing to ponder, what affect are the market hunters really having on the population? No one really knows for sure, but it isn't that hard to imagine that there are several thousands working in the 4 flyways causing irreparable damage to the populations. Also, what if the species became inflicted with an unknown virus that resulted in death? Add in the effects of overharvesting by market hunters and their slob clients, and then 627 years isn't really that hard to visualize!


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Man, what a great conversation going on in this post. I am reading it and love the fact that I am being informed and educated at the same time. It is great to hear some facts, and not just speculation. Excellent thread going on here, I wish I could add something, but I will leave that to the informed sources. Lets keep these positive/informative threads going, we need to come together in the next year and a half, and let our voice be heard. Everything going on now has erupted from the Farm Bureau and a few business', spinning a brotherhood of hunters, into a fight between residents, NR's and landowners. It isn't about us, it is all about the money now, the participants are expendable. We haven't asked for anything new. The only thing we ask is not to be trampled under foot as the these business' run to the bank. This state isn't the same anymore, hell, the world isn't the same anymore. Sorry if we have to use the means at our disposal(legislation), but we are fighting for our hunting life. No offense intended towards NR's, I have hunted and will continue to hunt with old friends and new, who have traveled great distances for something they love. If we can hold the advance of hostile takeover, we have won a small victory in this huge battle. I just want to hunt, I want my kids hunt, I want my grandkids to hunt, I want to be part of it all. I love waterfowl hunting, I hope my children will as well. The light I see at the end of this tunnel is fading fast, and we can not sit back and be taken advantage of anymore. It is time to be on our best behavior; always asking persmission, leaving a field better than we found it, saying thank you, even if the answer is no. We need to make sure everyone knows that we haven't changed, someone else has changed. So, make sure when you go out this fall, hunt hard and play fair. Everyone appreciates a humble and curtious person. Lets work to bring back our image, the image that has been tarnished through negative propaganda. Lets do it boys, time to get off our butts.

Brian :sniper:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I will add three comments to the existing posts. First, existing limits are set by USFWS in conjunction with the state biologists for each flyway. It is intended to meet population goals for each species but as we have seen in the past, politics driven somewhat by economics sometimes interferes with good management practice (witness the southern states requests for extended seasons in the Mississippi flyway). Second, although bioman's equation is correct, is the carrying capacity = number of mallards? Only by assuming that all the available habitat has mallards. When the CRP program was established, the amount of available nesting habitat for mallards increased. Third, in addition to the simple model, one must be aware of the effects of recruitment of new birds to the population; predation, changes in water, changes in habitat, and other factors. If we continue to put more pressure on the resource (e.g. number of hunters increases), and the ability of the resource to replenish itself remains the same, then the population will decline.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I do not have time to argue nor would I argue about the merits and/or faults of a Wildlife Biologist's population dynamics models.

I will make a few comments though.

There are guides in Louisiana that harvest over 6000 birds per season and the state of Louisiana often shoots over 2,000,000 birds per hunting season. The impact from this part of North America is still 3x greater than ND.

The wintering grounds are also very important to waterfowl (many species spend more time in LA than ND, pairing often begins, birds put on weight before their northern migration, etc.). So as we pressure these birds in the South until Jan 31 vs the old Jan 16 - does this weaken the overall health of duck populations?

It is (should be) the USF&WS primary position to protect the resource first. If the population is in a declining position (loss of habitat via drought, hunting pressure?), then the USF&WS should have enough conviction to reduce hunting pressure (if that is a factor) by decreasing limits and or season length.

Does Governmental politics makes this hard to do?

If the Central Flyway begins to harvest more ducks than the MS flyway than they should repond by decreasing season length and/or limit size on the Central flyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but many waterfowl biologists believe season length is the greatest factor on hunting pressure.

What is the total harvest of waterfowl? As ND's duck harvest has increased have other states seen a corresponding decrease?

Manage the resource like the resource behaves - balance the harvest, the regulations, etc... across all of North America ... not locally.

A four duck / four mallard limit in ND would be fine with me. Maybe guides will lose a few greedy guests to Mexico or Argentina.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Field & Stream had an interesting article in its last issue about this topic. According to F&S, waterfowl are in great peril right now not because of overhunting, but rather because of habitat destruction--particularly drained prairie pothole wetlands. The US Fish & Wildlife Service predicts that there will be NO hunting season for waterfowl in the near future if the Bush Administration succeeds in its efforts to rewrite the Clean Water Act and Department of Agriculture appropriations reauthorization. The Clean Water Act used to prevent farmers from draining certain types of prairie pothole wetlands (which are crucial for duck breeding and nesting) while the Dept. of Ag. offered financial incentives to farmers to leave these areas alone. The Bush Administration has rewritten both pieces of legislation to eliminate protections for potholes and has eliminated the financial incentives to leave them alone.

The lesson I take from this is that we hunters had better get our butts to the polling booths next November and kick Bush out of office. I've never understood why hunters usually vote republican just because they mistakenly think that party is more interested in protecting gun rights than democrats. Everyone is free to choose, but what are we going to hunt if the republicans keep destroying habitat? We might as well all become target and trap shooters exclusively.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not to cover ground that has been beaten to death, but the results of the change in the Clean Water Act came about not because of Bush making a sweeping change when he took office, but was the result of having to satisify a Federal Court ruling on the scope of control of the Army Corp of Eng. The lawsuit that triggered this was brought by the all or nothing crowd on the extreme left. They challenged the reclamaiton of an abandoned gravel pit in IL.

Next I agree with going to the ballot box, but one must go in informed. The current Sen and Leg collalition from MN, ND, IA, NE, KS, MO are promoting the expansion of ethanol, and at the same time stipped the enforcemnt funding for the current Swampbuster provisions and a change in use of newly drained wetlands. THese provisions where introduced and supported manily by Dorgan, Dashle, Conrad, Peterson, and Harkin.

You cannot continue to allow wetland drainage then reward that action with federal farm money for those acres. I am not promoting the elimination of the farm program, but I am supporting limiting new money for newly drained wetlands. Our state currently does not have a clear defined wetland policy and it is unlikely that we will get one in the near future. SD does but the FB is challenging that in court and IA has all but drained away there future the same as MN.

One cannot look at party lines for relief for these issues, but one needs to look at the induvidual, plus one needs to look at more than single issues when going to the ballot box. We are currently fighting a international terror threat. Should we remove a strong defender of our nation from terror to be replaced with a person that may endanger the national security for votes and power? What good are wetlands if our way of life is gone?

I have done a lot of reading and research on renewable energy, national security,enviromental protection and IMHO you need a give and take aproach and the current climate is not there. We have reached a point of a political quagimre.

Wetlands and ducks are not on the minds of people in New York or Los Angles or Chicago. Terror attacks and jobs are what is on there mind. 
For the elected officals from the heartland it is what can I give to my state voters to get elected again. In CA it is creating jobs. MI, OH, IL it is the same. Does wetland retention rate high on the list for the Reps from thise states?


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Here's the actual story if you care to check it out for yourself:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstre ... 91,00.html

_From the article: The first event occurred in January 2001, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Clean Water Act did not protect "small isolated wetlands." Specifically, it said that the Army Corps of Engineers' 30-year-old interpretation that Congress intended to include such habitat was in error. Conservationists were shaken by the ruling, yet optimistic that President Bush would seek to remove the threat to duck hunting by supporting the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act (see sidebar at left), a bipartisan bill that would end the crisis by simply stating that Congress wanted the potholes protected.

Then, in January of this year, the Bush administration not only failed to seek such a remedy but also increased the threat by calling for a new definition of wetlands-one that specifically excluded small, isolated areas. The implication of those events shocked the waterfowling community because the protection of these key duck-breeding grounds now rests solely with a provision in the farm bill that's known as "Swampbuster," an effective but voluntary program that pays subsidies to farmers who don't drain wetlands.

"It means the future of duck hunting is down to its last line of defense," says Reynolds. "If there is any break in protection now, we could lose 50 percent of the potholes we have left." _

As for political preference, all I can say is I'm glad I live in a country where we can express our differences in a semi-public format. That being said, I don't believe this Administration is making us more secure, but rather less so. We were led into war under false pretenses and are now stuck in a deadly and expensive quagmire with no exit strategy, no Saddam, and most importantly, no bin Laden. And to argue that Bush is creating more jobs is complete fallacy. Check out the economic statistics. Millions of jobs have been lost since the irresponsible tax cuts were enacted.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I would rather keep this thread about Market hunting and the effect it will have on our future and our childrens future. We can start a new thread under the Conservation Forum to debate the above stated issues.

Having read many posts on other forums on the biology side of the limit standards and many written by those gathering and interping the numbers. I have gotten the feeling that economics has and will drive our seasons until we see a startling numbers drop.

Liberal limits and publication of noncurrent data have led to an above average expectation of birds in the bag. ND finally did a fall pond count showing the huge drop in water across most of ND from the June brood counts. However this was done during hunting season instead of before. They did state in the USFWS reports to anticipate this but that was not in time for many traveling here to adjust to the changes.

Fast forward to this falls hunting, people travel here expecting skies full of ducks only to find muddy drying sloughs. They see the water that is still here leased or having fee access charges and are faced with the reality of going without birds or paying to play. This then give those expoiting the resource more money to expand there operation shutting down the small business owner and the redideint hunters and the rest of the nr freelancer.

With today's technolgy and communications it concentrated hunters where the birds where and created a false reality of population numbers. Economic dependency should never be tied to a resource that is as fickle as our wildlife.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Looking at the legislative scorecard of ND voting records on wildlife legislative bills, Reps. and Dems. both had tar on their faces. Or I should say on their hands, (as in sticky fingers?). In this state it appears to be individuals not parties that support market hunting.

But back to the market hunters. Think of the small number of hunters that moved the pigeons that far, same with the hide hunters after buffalo. Elk just got shoved right into the mountains, same with the big meat eaters. I am certainly no scientist, but I have to think that no matter how good and or large the hatitat is, efficient predation is going to move the prey. If a guide is good at all, he will be an efficient predator, and share those skills with his clients, (scouting, decoying, calling, camo, etc). NDGF has stats that the most game is harvested by a small # of people who must be profficient at the business. Add to it that when a outfitter is full, he referrs clients to another outfitter who is equally profficient. It is like a dog quits eating when his stomach is full, but a outfitter with a full list of clients (full stomach) is not sated because he passes more clients to other outfitters.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I see someone named Satrom is announcing thurs. he is running for Gov. as a Dem. Not on the report card but he was a Legislator.

I asked him a couple questions today on knox radio talk show - he mainly said he was for having professional people with career backgrounds in wildlife mangement run the G&FD - he thought things had been poorly managed .........???


----------



## win4win (Sep 8, 2003)

Curious......what would happen with one season of no waterfowl hunting? If hunting makes such an impact, would one year come close to "replenishing" most of the resource or would carrying capacity be reached before we saw any real benefit? Would it be feasible to skip a season every four or five years? I love waterfowl hunting as much as the next guy......but I would be willing to give up a season every four or so years to assure great hunting for the future. (I know this alone couldnt possibly assure great hunting) Is there any validity to this idea?

I guess its just the idea of having every flock full of "dumb birds" that first year after the break.....gives me a semi! :lol:


----------



## backwater (Jan 29, 2003)

I did'ent get a chance to read all of the post but I did read all of your bioman and you have some very interesting points. But first off how can you guys say that the G/O have more of a effect on the waterfowl poplations that just regular hunters. I would be willing to bet that the #'s of birds harvested by freelance hunters far outweigh the #'s by guides. Cap anyone? I belive that is more of the answer.This is just basic praportional(sp?). You could check this with the HIP survey shurely. And Bioman you would not be able to use the population of mallards for this year as the K it just doesent work. There are to many variables to use that type of equation for the extiontion of mallards. That is why Biologist rely on spring pond counts and not equations for this type of animal, just to many varables. I am very suprised at the #'s of birds(pidgions) that was brought to ext. good post.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I don't know that Market Hunters harvest more, I just believe they put more pressure on the resource. Pressure as in showing the birds a threat. However, the Sportsman's Alliance had stats about the number of waterfowl harvested and those numbers showed that per capita NRs took more waterfowl than North Dakotans. There are a bunch of local boys who have had a good day if they are out for a short time and get a few birds. G/Os have to push that envelope harder to meet client expectations. Cannonball, I believe was marketing a package with pheasant hunting, grouse hunting, coyote hunting, and prarie dog hunting. (mabe shot coyotes in the moonlight to fit it all in) Most resident hunters aren't going to work that hard to have fun because they don't have to get their "moneys worth" and didn't fly in to do it. Anyone making that effort to get here and hire a Market Hunter has higher expectations. And that's just a theory on my part. :lol:

Another example was fox trapping in the early 70s when prices topped $100 per pelt. Everybody and his brother was laying steel, yet it was a small number of very profecient trappers that cleaned house. They were called long liners, (laying 100s of traps, hire a driver, hire a skinner, etc). When NR long liners moved into ND, the legislature shut them down in the next session. Hummmmm, sounded like economic developement didn't it?

bioman, we have to get you back here for the next session of the legislature!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree with almost everything posted above but I don't think habitat is being emphazised enough. I'm not discounting the effect of sport hunting and I don't like the guiding market hunting thing a bit as you all know. However I clearly remember when deer, turkey, and wood ducks were considered in trouble and then due to primarily habitat changes and good management of limits by game management personell all three species have thrived. My point is that your efforts should include a strong push for additional habitat protection and prevention of federally condoned draining of wetlands. I am astounded at the numbers of ducks that are apparently getting killed though.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I fail to see the correlation between G/O and extinction. There have never been more G/O and yet waterfowl populations are very high. I also don't think it is a non-resident issue (Louisiana harvesting x million number of birds) because again populations are high. I think we should leave the population management to the experts and work on helping out with the funding for habitat development. If it doesn't start raining again and we have a bunch of draining and burning of cattails etc. or don't maintain CRP acreage and other nesting habitat we won't have as many birds period. Until it starts raining and snowing again so we can continue the wet spell of the last 10-15 years waterfowl hunting will not be the bonanza we have have had the last few years. Bird numbers are not a G/O or non-resident issue. It is a weak argument and will get us nowhere fast. It shows our ignorance and weakens our position.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Here is my point that Dick alluded to in his post. In normal and above normal population years, I don't know what type of effect market hunters are having on the population, because a significant amount of the purely recreational hunters will pick up their shotguns and head to the field. The effects of the increased marginal hunters chasing the higher populations would intuitively result in increased waterfowl harvest. But the point I was hoping to make people think about in a more global sense, is what effect are the market hunters going to have in periods of low population numbers?

In terms of the purely hypothetical, what percentage of the harvest are the market hunters taking in a normal year versus a dry year. Let's say that there are 3,000 market hunters interspersed amongst the four flyways. During normal population numbers each market hunter kills an average of 1,000 birds. So we take 3,000 market hunters x 1,000 ducks and we see that the market hunters have killed 3,000,000 ducks for profit. Now let's say that the total harvest is 10,000,000 for all flyways. By simple division those 3,000 market hunters made up 30 percent of the total harvest.

On the flip side, now let's take a look at the scenario in dry years. Once again, let's say that those same 3,000 market hunters reduce there take by 50% and only kill 500 birds resulting in a total of 1,500,000 ducks. One has to ask how those numbers would compare to the actual die-hard waterfowlers pursuing the ducks in low populations, because we know that a significant drop-off would occur to the marginal hunter. I'll bet that number would approach 50 percent or more.

My point is this, since the explosion of market hunters in the past 10 years, nobody, I repeat nobody in management has figured the significance of their total harvest on the populations. And in times of normal and high populations, it may not be a significant issue. However, when those same market hunters are pursuing a declining population, this issue will become a very significant dose of reality.

Lastly, one other thing to think about, in those dry years, it doesn't matter how much habitat you have, if there is no water there will be significantly less ducks hatched. And those lands with water will be leased and any available birds will be pounded by the market hunters. Are you guys starting to see the bigger picture?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I have said for years that traveling shooters & the internet have put the hurt on waterfowl #'s

All through the flyways most folks go to G/O's or Leases or clubs & they do all they can do to bait & kill limits of birds (spinners etc.) - maybe 10 -20 yrs ago hunting had little effect - I don't believe it anymore. The counts are a bunch of BS - study this & that forever to keep jobs & $$$ rolling in - all the Maps & GPS there is not hardly a secret spot left - plus everyone knows exactly where to go & when - In many ways the wealthy & the hardcore are already maximumizing their harvest (have been for years.)

Conservation is OK but not going to do diddly if it does not have Natures blessing & farm programs to support it. DU's a money wasting Joke

Best Hope is for Canada to get a CRP type program in the right places. & groups like Delta expand & kill predators in the best of the best areas

& lower the limits & days & keep em low - do whats truely best for the resource not the commercial side of it all - (let em go shoot sporting clays)


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Well spoken and well said. We are the most efficent predator and the most lethal. On the Fuge and waterfowler I have read and reread countless posts justifiying longer seasons and high bag limits while the population numbers are below 50 year averages.

You can bet that if the dollar factor was not added on we would not have the lenght of seasons or liberal bag limits we do. Unlike many that I have spoken with over the past few years, you and I and others here remember the 3 bird limits and 2nd weekend of Oct opener along with sunrise shooting time. It just does not seem that long ago but it is about 15 years or so. Heck one of the places I fish in the winter was planted in sunflowers in 87-88 and wheat in 89. When mortality as Bioman points out is greater than the ablity to reproduce species loss is a forgone conclusion.

Many of the southern guides would like to see lower bag limits as it makes obtaining limits easier thus increasing customer satisfaction. But when shortened season lenghts are mentioned the hair raises high on the back as this meand less money.

The USFWS indicate that days hunted and hunter numbers affect harvest rates not bag limits, but when you challenge this statement with leave bag limits at 6 but shorten season lenghts they balk and back peddle.

I would encourage everyone that hunts waterfowl to go to the USFWS.gov and read the reposts over the last 5 years, along with minutes form the flyway meetings. You will soon see the effect that the NEW MARKET HUNTING IS HAVING on populations.

Last year the Mississippi Flyway looked at banning Spinners because of the effectiveness on young birds. When a shorter season lenght was proposed to offset the spinner effect, the commerial interests where put ahead of the average Joe hunter.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bioman additional Habitat is sure useful during periods of wet weather for a more rapid population recovery. What is your opinion on a great expansion of the refuge systems (like horican marsh in Wisconsin) so that there are large well managed refuges that cannot be hunted. Or maybe it would be more practical to have a system of smaller areas as refuges that just can't be hunted period? So the ducks are actually able to live undisturbed in some areas. I'd like to here comments on this.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Hypothetical numbers have no validity and are personal opinion and cannot be used to argue a point. If the counter to your hypothetical numbers are someone elses hypothetical numbers they have the same validity as your numbers and that is none. Now if we have some statistics that are collected as research data then we may have a valid point.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Excellent points Bioman.

Season Length
Season length is most effective on market hunters. Cut their season from 60 to 30 days and their impact is greatly reduced.

Bag Limit size
As bird limits drop, fewer greedy SPORTS book with the guides. In the south the guides call their clients SPORTS they do not call them hunters.

The people that need big bag limits to have fun move from waterfowling to some other activitiy that brings more bang for the buck. Less people will travel for a three duck limit than a six duck limit.

Combine them
Combine the lower limits with a short season and harvest by market gunners can be reduced.

The duck guides in LA, MS, and TX survived the late 80's and early 90's but I can tell you even some of the biggest names in the industry had more openings than bookings for their brief 30 day / 3 duck seasons.

Most survived by also becoming fishing guides, goose guides, and/or upland game preserves. Some added deer and pig hunts.

Duck Reproduction
Water + habitat (ie CRP) = a high duck population

When the drought becomes a reality duck populations will decrease into base-line mode. Ready to explode when environmental conditions are right.

I have always argued that while the intentions of DU and Delta are good and I do support them, the impact they have on reproduction in wet years in barely noticeable. I hope that in very dry years, all their habitat work keeps the bird population base (bottom) a little higher than if we had no habitat work at all.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

It really surprises me that not one person had mentioned the fact that the number of hunters in the US is actually declining and that the average age of hunters is geting older every year. As hunters get older they hunt less, and shoot less. You are all playing right into the hands of the PETA types. Arguing amongst yourselves, comparing hunting today to days of old "market hunting", is exactly what the bunny huggers are looking for. Actual hunters verifying what they beleive, that hunting is not needed to keep game populations in check. Your playing off this loss of game due to G/O "market hunting" as the threat to the hunting heritage itself. That is not the threat. The threat is the urbanite PETA types looking to destroy your hunting rights. Let biology not emotions manage the resource.
BTW I just returned from a trip to Stutsman county ND. Six days hunting (freelance), heard other hunters shots two days and could count the number of hunters seen all week on one hand. Had no trouble getting permission to hunt on posted land. Some of the nicest landowners I have ever dealt with. Shot a hell of a lot more birds than the guys being GUIDED out of the same hotel.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Shorthair:

Recruitment of new hunters is a whole other issue. Freelance hunting actually allows a young hunter to learn for themselves rather than simply being another SPORT in the blind.

There certainly must be debate within the hunting community and hunters must take "arms" against those that will abuse the resource for short term profits and economic gain. If we lose the population than both the hunter and the tree huggers lose. This idea that if we do not ALWAYS stand together than we are doomed to lose everything to PETA is BULL.

At the same time all hunters must take care in how they chose to support or attack activities they do not participate in. Couger hunting, bear baiting, spring bear hunts, etc... have all been in placed in jepordy in some parts of North America because the hunting community has been polarized - and smaller fringe activities attacked.

There was actually a plan in the US Congress to ban bear hunting or at least bear baiting on all federal lands. This plan (bill?) was defeated. All hunters needed to defeat these attacks even if they do not bear hunt - since the next attack could have been no duck hunting on Federal Waterfowl Production Areas or something else much closer to home.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

Prairie Hunter
Unless I am reading wrong these two statements you made are contradictory
"This idea that if we do not ALWAYS stand together than we are doomed to lose everything to PETA is BULL. "

"At the same time all hunters must take care in how they chose to support or attack activities they do not participate in. Couger hunting, bear baiting, spring bear hunts, etc... have all been in placed in jepordy in some parts of North America because the hunting community has been polarized - and smaller fringe activities attacked."

The idea of comparing early 1800 and 1900's market hunting to the use of G/O is what is bull. The early market hunting done in this country was feeding tens of thousands and along with destruction of natural habitats was the cause of extinction and degradtion of certain animal populations.
This thread is more about hunters ****** off about access issues and competition than the extinction of ducks in North America.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Shorthair the comparison is that Guides are market hunters and while ND still is on last bastion of available hunting land for the asking the point is the guiding leasing commercilazation of hunting crowd is working hard to destroy access for all that are unwilling to pay them for the "priviledge" of hunting game animals that are the legal property of the public. Thus they can be defined as market hunters. And their impact is great both in terms of animals killed and access lost. The point you make about hunters getting older and older is exactly caused by the fact that leasing and commercialization of hunting has made it damn near impossible for young kids to just pick up a gun and wander off into the nearest lands to hunt as I and most of the older hunters you speak of did as kids. Here in Georgia most kids I know can't pay$1000.00 a year or more to hunt deer so they get into other things . As the pool of hunters shrinks the political clout that hunters have also shrinks and the whole thing goes in a downward spiral.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

BobM,
All great and valid points that I can agree with, but the fact is this thread started as a comparison of early market hunting which caused the extinction of some and near extinction of many game species to this so called "market hunting" of today. This comparison in terms of species extinction is laughable. There are more ducks killed in the state of ND and all other states for that matter by hunters that have never or will never use a guide or outfitter. While I can understand and sympathize with the issues of access and fee hunting I cannot in good conscience lay blame to dwindling game populations on guiding and outfitting. Let's put the issues where they belong.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Contradiction in terms. No. Just know who the enemy is.

G/O are ruining everything good about ND hunting. Their power base is too great, just like it is on the national level with the Southern G/Os.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

Perhaps from your point of view and many others G/O are ruining hunting and hunting traditions in ND and other places. I don't know enough about your situation to be on one side or the other. I know that where I live access is a tough issue and there are absolutey no G/O's. Even without G/O in my area fee hunting and leasing is becoming more and more the norm. This is a function of taxes. There are counties within my state that the taxes on bare land and or forestland exceed $30 per acre. People simply can't afford to keep owning land when it costs thousands per year just to maintain the taxes.
My point about this whole thread is this:
If the G/O are ruining it, get the points out there that are valid. Don't use this bunk of G/O bringing the waterfowl populations to the brink of exctinction as your basis for complaint.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Shorthair after reading th gist of the thread I will grant you are correct. I don't believe they (g/o's)will actually cause the extinction of any game species but I do believe they put a lot of lopsided pressure on the game. They bring a lot of people that wouldn't be nearly as effective in harvesting game and provide the knowhow, equipment and scouting which no doubt contributes greatly to the harvest numbers. For example I am a very accomplished deer hunter If I go kill a deer with my expertise I will take one deer out of the herd but if I were to guide people with my knowledge of the sport and the area I live I could easily provide for the taking of a deer a couple times a week for the entire three month season thereby increasing the kill by 24 deer with my actions. The same exact thing is happening in ND with ducks and if you multiply it by an ever increasing number of people making hunting a business the effect is a lot greater than you seem to think. I also feel the same way about much of the technological improvements in equipment like robo decoys, 4 wheelers, compound bows, and I guess if if I gave it some thought I could come up with a list of other so called improvements. Sportsman as a group will have to come to grips with the fact that the commercialization of hunting permeates all facets of the sport. Literature (sporting magazines) that are really nothing but a sales brochure for modern equipment that makes us all more efficient killers. When I personally came to this realization I began soul searching and now hunt with a long bow for deer, got rid of my auto shotgun and bought a double barrel for bird hunting. I don't really want to suggest that everyone should do what I do but I do think technology is way too involved in this sport. Better equipment, transportation, clothing ect are all contributing to an ever increasing pressure on the animals we seek. I'm rambling but you get my point, I hope. One more thing I think that the emphasis on trophy hunting an"getting your limit" has really ruined what I think we should all be getting out of the experience.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

BOBM,
I am glad that we can agree on the basis of this thread. I can see your points about the technological improvements in hunting but i am not so sure they all make us more efficient harvesters of game. The fact is there aren't enough people harvesting enough game in some areas, and this is one of the reasons I had such a problem with this thread speaking of extinction. I work in the forestry consulting business in the eastern part of this country. In this area whitetail deer Over population is having a severe negative impact on the ecosystem. Negative impacts that are affecting both game and non-game species. The animal rights folks are using this against us (hunters). The party line is that hunting cannot reduce and keep these population in check therefore new methods i.e birth control and other non-lethal means need to be explored. The same could be said about resident goose populations and snow geese. Hunters are a small percentage of the US population. Sooner or later the fight isn't going to be with access, leasing, G/O etc it will be for our right to hunt period. To blame extinction on guides and outfitters is not only ludicrous it is dangerous. It's hunters providing great quotes for the next PETA brochure. If you don't think any of this is valid look what has happened to the logging industry in this country. If any of you live near a National Forest you should know what I am talking about. The tree huggers have literally shut down logging on National Forests using the endangered species act as a basis.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Shorthair, its not that the hunters can't keep the deer population in balance *its that they won't *the unatural bias against killing does has created a huge unbalanced deer population with and abiltiy to breed more animals than are taken, this is a result of the commercialized hunting industry especially magazines that over emphasise the big buck horn hunting ethic. Other factors are urban sprawl which creates large areas that are unhuntable( often for illogical bunny hugger reasoning), and a decline in hunter numbers which I believe is primarily due to the leasing of hunting properties for the exclusive use af a few people. AS I stated above the kids today just don't have the opportunity to get into hunting because they don't have easy access to land. And the loss of access to land can be linked directly to the commercialzation of hunting. The north east is going to be up to their necks in deer and of course suffer disease type dieoffs, elevated auto insurance rates ect. My other point is that guides and leasing is precisely why we will be fighting for the right to hunt as you stated. When enough hunters that cannot afford the rates guides charge( most guys I know can't ), and quit hunting because they no longer can find uncrowded paces to hunt combined with the affect of young people not getting into the sport for the reasons I stated above There will not be enough of the "WE" you say will be fighting for the right to hunt.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Shorthair setting season lenghts and bag limits to increase capital intake for commerial operations or other entities that benifit from waterfowling with disregard for biological information does and will effect populations and will contribute to population elimination. Plus I think you should look at the fact that G/O are advertising totoal kill rates per season.

When you take a 3-4 day hunt with daily bag limits reached you increase the harvest level above normal averages. While an outfitter here or there may not seem like much think about the fact a river starts with a snow flake falling from the sky.

One only needs to look at the fact that in our southern regions lands are managed to increase kill rates on there leases. Little is done in the way of that up here. We do not see hunters flooding millet or corn fields after harvest. We do not see planting of rice strickly as a smorgasboard setting as we do on many acres of hunting clubs and G/O leases. Increased technolgy coupled with unlimited money potential has a negative impact that will contribute to population loss.

You talk of PETA well G/O are poster child material for PETA and so are those shooters that use them. I talked with a hunter from Los Angles this fall. His take was pretty good IMHO[ Bob that is in my humble opinion] G/O selling themselves by advertising numbers of birds taken during last season and promoting daily bag limits enraged and offended more nonhunting people in there office and ther circle of influence than his act of hunting.

Hunting is still supported by 73 perenct of the people polled in 02, which was unchanged, G/O had a favoralbe rating by 48 perenct down from 61 percent in 98 when the same poll was conducted.

I say connect the dots.

Season lenghts =extended for commerial interest.

Bag limits = once again for commerial marketing interests

Baiting= Setting the kill zone smorgasboard.

Total kill= Per acre higher levels than if area was hunted by average hunters.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron I haven't noticed anything humble about you ( and thats a good thing), but I do appreciate the decoding. I think you missed a point in closing and it is that with the elimination of commercial hunting outfits longer seasons and possibly bag limits would be practical because you wouldn't have the kill rate multiplication that the guides produce.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

No Bob season lenghts and bag limits would be reduced which might not sound good to many but is important if harvest totals are not to affect population levels.

The studies indicate days hunted have a larger impact than bag limits. Mother nature basicly shut down ND for waterfowling as of this past week. The season still has a large number of days to hunt waterfowl though. Thus harvest levels will be reduced because of the number of few days that will be hunted in ND this fall. Now down south we see mother nature taking away less days than up here so daily average of hunter days increase with a higher percentage of total days being huntable. This equates into more ducks killed.

Most years in ND a 45 day season would cover our waterfowl hunting Oct-1 to Nov-15 and that is our average window. SD and other states see the benifit of the extended time frame as they do not freeze out as quickly.

Many of us in ND have said that a lot of birds are taken in this state in a small window of time and that leads back to the biological impact of why we need limits and why it is for resource protection.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

In my area the problem is that the Guides and Outfitters have closed such a large area for deer hunting that we have a over population of does and fawns. So what happens after season when the feed piles are gone they come into the ranchers hay yards. I do believe we should have a extended season for anterless deer for that reason. A hard winter will raise havoc with the amount of deer we have in this area. Mad :sniper: trapper


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I agree with both of you on this one. While I don't think that the US F& W would allow duck and goose populations to become so overharvested that extinction would be a possibilty, Bob makes an excellent point. The G/O services have the money to tie up some of the best hunting land and then they usually have enough shooters that need a place to hunt and are willing to pay for it, that they have people hunting EVERY day of the seasons. People paying to hunt are going to hunt longer and harder to "get their money's worth" and expect to shoot a limit, be it ducks/geese, or some other type of game animal. These G/O's provied the place, the best equipment available, because again they have the money to spend. They do allow the non skilled hunters that just happen to have money increase their harvest numbers.
On the other hand, it is very scary what the PETA treehugger types can use these type of arguments for. If you have any doubt exactly how nuts these people are, take a few minutes and look at PETA's web sight. It is very scary what these people actually believe in.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron my point is that if the G/O effect (which I define as multipication of kill rates because the guides are in effect killing the birds thru their clients and untilizing the clients bag/possesion limits) were eliminated the net effect would be a reduction in actual man hours utilized hunting the area. IF elimination of pressure from the g/os was feasible it would allow for more animals surviving and available to be hunted by the Average Joes of the world who for the most part do have the knowhow or incentive to kill as many birds as professionals which rely on kill rates to satisfy and retain clients. In reality I realize the weather at least for ducks is a major factor on season limits up north. This is all a bunch of theory anyway which I enjoy discussing and hope you are able to accomplish but have some doubts. I think the G/O's have already gotten too far entrenched from some of the descriptions you and Dick and others describe. I hope I'm wrong about that though because it is a very worthwhile cause. I just fear it is the probable last stand for the type of hunting I grew up with.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

We keep going back to this G/O's responsible for killing way to many ducks. Bob how many ducks do you think the "Average Joes" of the world shoot? The people utilizing guides and outfitters especially in ND seem to be a small percentage of the total and thus a small percentage of the kill. How many resident hunters are there in ND? How many use a G/O? Of the 30,000 NR what percentage actually use a G/O. 
This days of old hunting Bobm talks about are gone everywhere and the leasing of land is just one of the problems. Landowners are continually burdened with more and more taxes and it is becoming difficult to keep the family farm in the family. We need to give landowners a better alternative to leasing to one guy or group and that all comes down to subsidies, tax breaks or some other form of payment. Landowners also need some protection from lawsuits. Lawyers and people looking to cash in scare the hell out of landowners. Bob you also mentioned that the problem with kids not getting involved in hunting is partially from not being able to just wlak out back or down the road and hunt where you want. The fact is landowners want to know who the hell is one their property. Teach the young hunter some courtesy. If the land isn't posted find the landowner anyway, and ask permission. My house isn't posted but if you just walked in I think I might get a little upset. While hunting ND this year we asked to hunt on everything posted or not, even PLOTS land and people appreciated it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Shorthair you may be correct that th G/OS clients are a small portion of the total hunter and that is the point, a few people are SELLING the killing of many ducks and thats what I don't like about it. They also contribute to a tremendous multiplication of the number of birds killed that wouldn't be taken otherwise because many of the people that use them would not have the inclination to gain the expertise to take the birds on their own. WE are talking thousands of birds nationally I'm certian of that. I agee that landowners need protection from liability but that is a simple matter of ledgislative action unfortunately trail lawyers have the politicians in their back pockets and we as a country seem to wnat to hold someone else responsible for everthing that happens. My point is that is has to happen at the ledgislative level and we as hunters need to organize and force the politicos to do it. And the fact is landowners don't "want" to know whos on their property, because they do know already, it's the hunting club that they leased it to, and they aren't going to let kids or anyone else hunt it for the asking and kids can't afford the price of admission.


----------

