# Roost Hunting



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

*Should there be laws restricting boat acces to some waters to reduce shooting birds off the Roost?*​
yes, I strongly agree something should be done1333.33%yes, I agree but there is more to it than roost hunting2051.28%undecided, what would it solve12.56%no, i disagree because there are other factors affecting the sport12.56%Strongly disagree, it is the right of the hunter to take game by any legal means410.26%


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I know this is a sensitive subject, but I think we need to understand how the community as a whole percieves this from those that do it or support the legal right to do it and from those that opppose it or do not support it as a legal right.

This is not an attempt to stir the pot, but rather to better understand how both sides feel. I think that there will no doubt be a very biased opinion from the residents of the state, since it seems that in my experiences that many do not hunt from boats.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

The way to do it would be to restrict boat access. I don't want these large bodies of water tied up to hunting because then the g/o's would lease up everything around them.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Not allowing gas powered motors would help a great deal. Electric would be fine or no motor would be even better.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Sorry but this is a ridiculous idea. Consider the difficulty in determining which "roosts" should be off limits and the enforcment nightmare. Each season would require a new assessment of roosts in order to determine which ones are off limits. Consider also the numerous bills in this current legislature and the attempts by many to limit opportunties to hunt. This is an idea with no basis in biology, i.e. it has no benefit to widlife management, but comes across as selfish.

Why not propose that hunting feeding areas be off limits? Limit driving into stubble fields? Or a hundred other ideas designed to limit legal hunting opportunities.

What would your testimony in front of the legislature be? I don't like people who hunt out of a boat because it might move birds out of my area and give me fewer to shoot?


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

To the contrary, would it not be easy to use WPA or Plots lands as this type of "non-motored" boat huting areas?

If you can not have a motorized vehicle on these areas, why is a boat not considered a motorized vehicle??


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It is illegal to have motorized vehicles on WPA's now....it says right on the signs.

I would think that would include boat motors.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

It has nothing to do with selfishness. It has to do with bettering the quality of the hunt. By having the birds be able to "roost" relatively undisturbed or atleast creating a greater opportunity for them to do so increases the quality of everyones hunt. Is it not selfish to think that as a hunter whne I cruise around in my motor powered boat and shoot off a large lake that I am not being selfish. Yes, there are very many motor powered duck boat hunting people that nothing like thius, but there are still allot that do.

Now remember as I stated above i am asking for solutions, so try and treat the problem, not the symptoms. I want this to be a civilized discussion about something that is very much a topic of interest to many.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

There is no problem, you are attempting to make one. And to suggest that a law to make this illegal is somehow a solution is quite amazing.

These are the kinds of ideas that make it impossible for the hunting community to garner support for the truly important pieces of legislation. One day legislators are told what a bad idea it is to limit access (don't vote for the trespass bill) and the next day they hear how a group of people want to make it off limits to hunt from a boat.

There is no more of a problem here than there is with having someone set up in the same field you are in or short stopping birds. Sure it happens and it might mean you don't get much action if any. But that is part of the whole package. Would you support legislation that makes it illegal to set up in the same field as someone else because it might prevent someone from moving birds out before they get to you? How about legislation making it illegal to set up anywhere between someone and the source of the birds.

This has nothing to do with making sure everyone has a quality hunt. For the person who likes to hunt from a boat any such legislation simply takes away their opportunities. Your license permits you the opportunity to hunt and is no guarantee of "quality" in any sense of the word. Because if you ask ten hunters what constitutes a quality hunt you will get ten different answers.

We have more important issues to deal with than trying to make it illegal to hunt from a boat.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I do not think we should stop people from hunting out of a boat through legislation.

Aythya,
Are you opposed to having more rest areas in ND? This means no one can hunt it. Long term I think this would improve everyones hunting. Whether you hunt out of a boat or in a field. Birds will move off a rest area and frequent both surrounding potholes and fields.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Gandergrinder,

If the waterfowl biologists who work for the state and federal government recommend more waterfowl rest areas then I would support that concept.

But the poll question and some of the responses are aimed at limiting only boat access. Thus, someone could wade out as deeply as possible and hunt these wetlands. Someone could also use a float tube and hunt these wetlands.

Determining a need for and implementing additional rest areas is much different than suggesting legislation to limit hunting from boats.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Aythya said:


> Sorry but this is a ridiculous idea. Consider the difficulty in determining which "roosts" should be off limits and the enforcement nightmare. Each season would require a new assessment of roosts in order to determine which ones are off limits. Consider also the numerous bills in this current legislature and the attempts by many to limit opportunities to hunt. This is an idea with no basis in biology, i.e. it has no benefit to wildlife management, but comes across as selfish.
> 
> Why not propose that hunting feeding areas be off limits? Limit driving into stubble fields? Or a hundred other ideas designed to limit legal hunting opportunities.
> 
> What would your testimony in front of the legislature be? I don't like people who hunt out of a boat because it might move birds out of my area and give me fewer to shoot?


You should read the reports from the Arkansas and LA DNR about this. Next look at why so much effort has been put into withering grounds down south that are off limits to hunting. Health and long term welfare of the ducks is the reason.

Simple quality hunting helps in maintaining license sales thus helping fund the G&F and providing the vehicle to continue proper game management in our state as our G&F does not receive money from the general fund. Keeping a balance of hunters that best utilizes and preserves the resource is vital. If quality drops and has no future of returning eventually only those who have the resources to pay commercial operations will be hunting. Loss of license revenue then starts a domino affect degrading the ability for the G&F to properly manage all wildlife, not just waterfowl.

Unless all food sources are eliminated ducks are not bothered by field hunting in regards to overall weight gain and health. Yet when they need to seek roosting area's that are undisturbed weight gain and body fat do not build up. The process of migration is natures way of rebuilding the body reserves to levels capable of reproducing. Warmer temps require less energy to maintain and store fat. Healthy ducks returning north to the breeding grounds will produce more eggs per nest increasing the number of chicks that reach adulthood. The more that reach adulthood also act as a buffer for years when nature through drought or other factors limit the next year or years life cycle.

Having upward license sales sets a false level of sustainable revenue streams. Which can result in programs and projects to be started and then not have a funding source that can sustain those projects. This results in a waste of original resources. This leaves the majority of hunters outside looking in.

This happens all the time on the fishing side of the ledger. Loss of quality fish impacted the business owners in the northern portion of Lake Oahe. Tax collections on lures and bait and other expenditures dropped. Forcing an increase in local taxes to meet the shortfall. The shift in tax burden also reduces disposable income for those affected which reduces again other sales tax collections and also general fund revenues for other programs.

Once an area has to spend the money to support a unsustainable revenue source it is faced with maintaining that infrastructure from other funding sources. So goes the cycle. Setting and managing those funding sources while avoiding the highs and lows benefits everyone.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Ron,

The issue is not about the biology of the species in question. Again, if the professional waterfowl biologists determine that a critical shortage of rest areas is a problem and recommend more rest area for biological reasons I would support that concept. I have heard nothing from the biologists that would indicate that need exists.

I don't buy the argument that this is about providing quality hunting opportunities for everyone. A quality hunt is an extremely objective metric and what constitutes quality to me may be far different than your definition.

My point in strongly objecting to the idea of limiting boat hunting has a number of facets. However, I would ask everyone who has weighed in on this subject one final question. Do you really want the state legislature to define what quality means? If so, don't worry about the situation with guides and outfitters, non-resident lawsuits, legislature oversight committees reviewing regulaitons, etc. The legislature will take care of it and we will have to live with their definitions of quality.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is a tough topic....I think we all want areas where the birds don't get harrassed so much they leave.But the GNF has shied away from making more rest areas as they felt ALL the land around them would get tied up by G/O similar to refuges now.

Plus Aythya makes some good points....keeping boats off won't keep all hunters off.And lets face it some people just prefer to hunt over water.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

are we talking about the same topic in the same context. Yes I agree it does not help the species by having more unmolested roosting areas in North Dakota. If they have more places to res tthen they wil have less pressure to push them out of the state.

The issue here is more global than the level you are examining it at. You make interesting points but, it comes down to economics. If there is to be long-term conservation there must be a fiscal outcome to supprt it. I can see your point, but please try and understand the side of a small communities. Can you imagine what two extra weeks of having birds holding close to a small comunnity does for it financially?

Is it not right to maintain and improve the resources by which a community makes its livelyhood. As we see the grip tighten on rural communities, there are less and less resources that they can draw from in order to make a living. Imagine a local cafe or a local gas station. How much of their revenue depend on the state of the natural resources around them? Look at Lake Sakakawea, how much are the communties going to be hurt economicly if that fishery suffers from its lack of deep water habitat because of a very low water level?

So when you try and quote the fact that these rest areas would not solve anything, go to a small rural community on a saturday afternoon in late October and look around. Hunting is the last breath allot of these communities have keeping them alive.

But you ahve a right to your opinion and I can appreaciate that, but look very closely because even as we speak our sport is changing the way many North Dakotans live and breathe. The decisions we make in this legislative session will make all the difference in whether some towns survive (Pettibone, Robinson,Wing, Luverne, Arena) or they fade away.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Of course it would be much better to have this discussion in person as type written responses may not be the best way to understand opposing view points.

Your original poll asked only about legislation to make boats illegal on some wetlands. I would strongly oppose such legislation because there is no problem that needs to be addressed by legislation.

Legislation to protect species is one thing and the Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Widlife Service has means to deal with species conservation. If more rest areas are needed then the waterfowl biologists should be proposing them. If the concern is guides leasing up all the land around rest areas that can be dealt with too. But, if so called roosts are off limits to boats you can still have outfitters leasing up land around them, people wading into them, using float tubes, etc.

I also disagree with your points about economics. Part of the reason we have the problems we are facing now is because the emphasis on hunting has become economic. Sure, hunting always was a source of economic benefits but the scale has tipped too far in one direction. The argument you make about small towns is a classic example.

If small towns and the businesses there are so dependent on hunting to keep them alive that we would consider legislation as your poll suggests, we are doomed. Both the small towns and hunting as we know it. This is a great example of how far we have slipped into commercialization of wildlife resources. Now we are saying that, despite much larger economic and societal factors, small towns will go under if we don't accomodate them via hunting revenues. If that is the case do you support unlimited non-resident licenses, no restrictions on guides and outfitters? How about eliminating zones, length of license, etc.? All these things could add money to small towns, at least if you buy the arguments currently being made to allow fewer restrictions.

Small towns in ND have also made a strong case that CRP has been a major factor in their declines. Our congressional delegation has at various times been sympathetic to that argument. It would be a much bigger and probably more stable economic benefit to small towns to get rid of CRP so the local implement dealer could prosper, the local Cenex could sell more chemicals, etc. Hardly anyone would support that because of the benefits CRP has for wildlife. But now, we find that because of all this habitat more and more people want to make a living from it or see it as the last gasp for their enterprise.

I am unable to see any positives with legislation such as proposed in your poll. Further, how would anyone determine which wetlands would be off limits? The Missouri River, Devils Lake, Lake Audubon, Lake Sakakawea could be considered roosts. Should we make it illegal to use boats here? As someone once said, "the devil is in the details" and here is where it gets really sticky.

Those supporting such legislation would be asking elected officials, some with knowledge about hunting, some without that knowledge, to determine which wetlands should be off limits. What criteria would they use? As there aren't any biological issues here the G&F and FWS would be unable to provide biological data and recommendations. The legislature could be innundated with numerous proposasls from a wide variety of groups all wanting some deference to their wish list. That would include, of course, people who want wetlands off limits for their own personal agenda.

And how do you make legislation fit the fact that the majority of wetlands in the state are on private land? Make them all off limits? Now you are stepping on property rights as some landowners either don't care or have people they let hunt who use boats. If they aren't all off limits then who posts them? I wonder if the folks who don't like having to post their land now will like this idea. Should Game and Fish do it? Now you have funds being expended on a practice of questionable benefit when they could be spent on actual waterfowl management.

I appreciate the opportunity for debate. As Ken said earlier this is a tough topic. My personal view is that this would be bad legislation, impossible to implement, and impossible to enforce. No tangible benefits to waterfowl conservation and a slippery slope for waterfowl hunting. As I said earlier, do we really want the state legislature involved in these types of things? I think not.


----------



## mallardhunter (May 15, 2004)

There is always other places to hunt then the roost. You could find a small pond or a field that they feed in. I would help other hunters greatly so the ducks aren't so neverous about comming into your spread.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Mallardhunter,

You are correct. There are always other places to hunt. And if birds get scared out of a wetland or off a field we can always go somewhere else. We don't need legislation for a problem that doesn't exist.


----------

