# Residents could learn from non-residents



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Regardless of your perception of NR's visting and partaking of ND resources there are a lot of things that many resident hunters could stand to learn from them, instead of telling them how to hunt. First try to understand why folks do the things they do (this is a good general rule too).

1) Hunting retrievers are essential conservation tools. 
An ethical hunter has a retriever to help bring ever downed bird to bag. Lost birds are a huge huge problem - self report to USFWS puts it close to 1 in 5 birds is lost. It could easily be double that. There is no doubt that a trained retriever lowers the loses. Perhaps 5 to 1 (maybe 10:1) NR's have retreivers compared to residents.

2) Boats are crucial for hunting with dogs.
NR's have dogs, NR's have boats. It's silly for dogless resident hunters to tell NR's to leave the boat at home and hunt in waders. What do you do with the dog? Let him swim and shiver in the water for hours? Leave him on shore - outside the catails - where he can't mark the falls? Hunt without a dog? No way.

3) Boats leave little trace in the marsh.
Its easy to tell where a flatfooted hunter in waders has tramped down all the cattails during their hunt - it's difficult to tell where a boat hunting NR has stopped, set out the blocks, and pulled up their boat blind. Heck, even all their hulls fall into the boat. I prefer to see an untrampled marsh compared to one that looks like waterbuffalo were grazing.

4) Take the kids hunting.
Ok, perhaps this is a wash - but there is a reason that ND gets hammered during the MN teacher's convention. Would you take your 6 or 7 y/o hunting in a marsh in waders? Perhaps a boat is a much safer way to take them out. You could put them in a field blind - but that's a matter of individual preference. Leave them at home - with the dog? No way.

5) Its not a competition, its fun.
We've seen lots of NR's do lots of silly things, have unimaginably goofy set-ups, and have what looks like a pretty terrible hunt if the bag is your only measure. Ya, but who got the greater karma boost from the morning? The guys goofing and eating eggs and sausage in the boat with the retriever or the guys stewing in their bibs on shore, cursing that someone would even consider hunting water? The bag is forgotten in days (unless you are prone to boasting), the karma lasts forever.

Wow, sure is a lot to learn from NR's. Any more I missed?
Now, if we could just limit the number of the @#$%^&*@#$%^'s.

M.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

As you can tell Mark likes hunting water.  
I do agree with the dog part. Dogs are a great tool and as soon as I can I will be getting one.

I don't think guys think hunting water is bad. It has to be done in a reasonable manner.

Like if the geese are roosting in the middle of the slough don't drive your boat through them to get to your spot. If you need a boat generally the water is big enough that you can leave the birds alone and drive around them.


----------



## smokee (Sep 8, 2003)

I was educated on this forum about leaving the roosts alone. While on my first trip by DL, I found a good roost with lots of ducks and searched for a good slough nearby. It made for a really good hunt, but when I loaded up and went by the roost, there was a guy pulling out his dekes into his boat. Needless to say, that was the end of hunting that slough. It was a lot slower the next morning.

I wish all the NR's would read this stuff and pick up on tips from the locals. It sure has helped me.

By the way, the dog helped a ton.


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

I have learned more from the locals than they have from me since moving here. :wink:


----------



## smokee (Sep 8, 2003)

I'm sure. You know, the odd thing is a lot of NR's bash ND and its people, but I haven't met a ND res that is an ******* yet. I'm sure there are a few, but they must keep them locked up and only turn them loose on a-hole nr's.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

MRN, do you own stock in a duck boat mfg?  Need a boat just cause you hunt with a dog? Naw, plenty of work arounds to that.

In days gone by, made and hauled around a dog platform. Worked good, but found I didn't need it often enough to justify the space it took. Often times the cat tails or some portion thereof relatively close to the ideal location are pretty much high and dry. When that fails, many times I've found a muskrat hut in fine general vicinity that serves as a natural dog platform, and a well trained dog will lay and be pretty inconspicuous there. Admittedly, sometimes (less than 10%) cover is wet and no huts. I will, then, place him behind me on dry ground. If the water is chilly, he'll spend most of his time there. When shooting, he's usually at slough edge b/4 splashdown, in time for his own mark. If not, great time for a line on a blind.

Boats are fine - but having the dog doesn't push me that way when I'm not so inclined. Other options a-plenty.

Now, I do like the idea of cakes and sausage right in the slough :wink:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

GG,
I'm glad you appreciate the role of dogs - but you're from east of the river so it might be something genetic.

Blake
Perhaps... Did resi's help with the decision to swap the GD to the PD on TDB? I've learned the most from the southern boys who moved to ND for the waterfowling.

Dan,
Think of it as an educational excercise (not sales) - are the 30,000 + NR's that visit us all just morons? Doubt it. Lets see what resi's can learn from them.....of course it's difficult since we already know everything.

Now, I am surprised that you didn't suggest you carry the dog on your shoulders in the really deep water. The three most important controllable variables in hunting are location, location, location - and you let the muskrats decide where you'll set up? If you know enough to handle your dog on a blind, then you must know that running dogs mark like crap. That's why breaking is such a bad thing - this I know about. The point is there ain't good options aplenty. Choose your own, but I think folks are better off at least attempting to understand the choices made by others - something rarely observed here.

M.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Dogs can be a help, but from what I've seen they're usually a burden. Then again I haven't hunted with too many well trained dogs. I have hunted with a lot of dogs that according to their masters were good dogs, then we got in the field...

I use to always want a retriever but now if I ever get a dog I'm getting a pointer for upland. I'll do the retrieving myself. Field hunting you flat out don't need a dog and all they usually end up doing is flare birds. When hunting water I have very few cripples. My secret? I don't take shots where I know there's only a slim chance of cleanly killing the bird and I don't shoot at ducks when they're over cattails or where they'll be tough to find. It's usually pretty easy finding ducks when they're lying belly up on the water 10-20 yards in front of you.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

MRN, waaaaaaaait a minute, maybe I need to better explain the point of my disagreement. Sure, there are things we can learn from one another. Not a smidge of disagreement there.

But, I dont buy that to hunt ("right", "responsibly", etc?) over water with a dog mandates that you do so out of a boat. Anyone who plans to hunt over water with a dog must/should make the boat store the next stop after picking up the new puppy? No way.

I don't let anything dictate where I set in water except the wind. The vast majority of times, at least the areas and types of water I hunt, there's suitable cover that works with the wind direction and some or all of that cover - the stuff I really want to be in - no sacrifices - has some dry areas. When it doesn't, the last few years, the plethera of muskrats have provided a platform within a very reasonable distance from the precise location where I want to be. On the rare occasions where neither applies, he sits behind me on dry ground.

I don't doubt that moving dogs mark less well than their properly positioned and still compatirots. I'm not a trialer - never tripped my trigger. But my dog lines reasonably well, and at a time was rock solid on hand signals. We've both gotten lazy, onery and old, and now it takes some additonal handling, but I can normally get him there. Tisk, tisk for the trialers, I know, but when it comes to dog work I'm a function over form guy, as long as they "do no harm", if you know what I mean. Those that hunted with my dog in his glory years know he more than handled his own, and I've seen him whoop furry hinder on dogs that have had some trialing experience and were technically very sound but really hadn't had much hunting expereince experience so they hadn't developed much street smarts.

So, dogs are great, and I'd quit hunting before hunting without them, but I've hunted mine now over water for what this year will mark his 11th season, and I've never considered buying a boat because I felt limited dog-wise without one. No harm in using some additional dog benefits as another justification for owning or hunting out of a boat if you're predisposed to hunt from boats, but I certainly wouldn't drag a boat to ND out of a sense that it's the only or best alternative if you want to hunt with your dog. Lots of good reasons to hunt out of a boat (pancakes and sausage  ); that it's the only alternative for dogs over water would raise the hackles on my lab. :wink:


----------



## J.D. (Oct 14, 2002)

When the action gets hot and heavy a retriever is worth their weight in gold when hunting snows in a field. You can waste alot of time chasing birds that sail and cripples that run from ya. Ive missed out on alot of shots over the years picking up my own birds while more were diving in.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dan,

By no means the only alternative, but one that allows great (the most!) flexibility - especially with a dog. My goal is help you to apprecaite a different point of view that many others may hold - your goal appears to be convincing me that since you may do it without a boat therefore everyone else should too. No one is mandating boat use for dogs - quite unlike the effort to bash folks who choose to use a boat and see the benefits in doing so.

Matt
That's a lot like saying magazine fed guns are terrible because your granddad '97 was all gummed up and didn't work. Good dog work is a joy to behold. Unfortunately very few folks hunt as you say you do - that's while the loss rate is probably higher than 1 in 5 birds. (You probably pass on more shooting opportunities in a day than most people even see in an entire season.)

Hey at least everyone might appreciate that all the NR's with boats and dogs have a reason for their madness - even if you make different choices.

M.


----------



## raineyriver (Sep 20, 2003)

I will be on my best behavior in North Dakota and all ears
Thanks for letting this florida boy experience some of your wonderfull state and hunting
Dogs hell ya got have dogs


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MRN sorry to burst your bubble but studies have shown those crippling rates and losses are actually higher with those that use dogs over those that do not for waterfowl. I will get the info site for you to look at if you want.

Some reasons listed was lack of training with the dog. Risker shots taken because of over confidence of having a dog. That meaning shooting beyond the hunters range of skill levels.

Non dog users tended to shoot closer in thus reducing wounding and increasing the number of GYD birds.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Ron,

Yes, please post the site or sites for these studies. I am highly skeptical of your claim.

M.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

http://www.remington.com/magazine/write ... roster.htm

I read this in one of the articles posted on this site about reducing wounding and loss rates and why this is important to the future of hunting. The tree huggers and Peta type are looking at ways to stop waterfowling and the loss rate is one of the biggest factors they are looking at. The article was encouraging organizations to set up and have shooting schools to improve the hunters shooting ablity and judgement of distanse in the field. His study was listed as an example of why this was is needed.
In all of the shotshell testing that Tom Roster has done with thousands of hunters killing over 16,000 ducks and geese, he kept track, along with the other data, of whether each hunting group had a dog or dogs with them. For duck hunters with dogs, the wounding loss rate was actually HIGHER than for those without dogs!

Numerous reasons where listed from type of cover they chose to hunt to the distance of the shot taken. He did state that for those that had well trained dogs and good judgement of shooting ablity that loss rates where less than 5% however this was the exception not the norm. The other observation was that those hunting without dogs chose hunting sites that gave them an above average chance of retreiving birds and that they followed up with killing shots on cripples on the water instead of waiting for the dog to make the retrieve.

Good stuff and well worth reading.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

Don't any of you guys ever hunt?!
It is DUCK SEASON, bicker in the off season.
Brighten your day up please and go shoot some ducks and quit picking on others for their style. You aren't going to change there minds.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Ron,

You'll have to post a better link to the data to support your claim.

I'm familiar with Roster and CONSEP - one of the main points to improve the loss numbers is "Use a dog".

Here's Roster's words from http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fwt/article5.html
(I went further than the first entry in Google...)

Pheasants vs. ducks
Before pheasant hunters get all smug over apparent superior shooting prowess, Roster suggests there's at least a couple of reasons why participants in this test were successful in retrieving nearly 90 percent of the birds they hit. First, an effective retrieving dog accompanied each team to track birds downed in heavy cover or pursue birds able to run after they hit the ground. Most hunters in the waterfowl tests did not have dogs to retrieve birds because, according to Roster, "from the shooting tests we learned that most waterfowl hunters do not own or use dogs."

The bubble be just fine.

M.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

MRN, oh noooooooooooooo, you're not getting off that easy. 

You said: Boats are crucial for hunting with dogs.

Then I said: Need a boat just cause you hunt with a dog? Naw, plenty of work arounds to that.... Boats are fine - but....Other options a-plenty.

Then you said: The point is there ain't good options aplenty.

Then I said: No harm in using some additional dog benefits as another justification for owning or hunting out of a boat if you're predisposed to hunt from boats, but I certainly wouldn't drag a boat to ND out of a sense that it's the only or best alternative if you want to hunt with your dog.

Then you said I said: your goal appears to be convincing me that since you may do it without a boat therefore everyone else should too.

You should consider law school - Mr. Twister. You come out of the hole making the assertion that "Boats are crucial for hunting with dogs", I try to explain why I didn't see it that way and then you end the whole debate with an accusation that I'm suggesting that shore hunting is the ONLY way to go. No, either will work just fine the vast majority of the time, and if you want to look at some perceived additional dog benefits/flexibility as a way to further enjoy your boat hunting, cool, but wanting to hunt a dog over water in ND is not in and of itself a reason to need to hunt from a boat.

However, I would agree that Boats are crucial for enjoying fresh eggs and sausage in the slough :wink:

Holy smokes we get into some inane debates here. Thank god for this site - saves our wives from arguments over whether the toilet paper should unroll from the front or the back. 

Decoyer, kinda pathetic aren't we. But your day is coming too where your schedule is not your own - if we can't be hunting, some of us enjoy at least talking or arguing about it. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

First, an effective retrieving dog accompanied each team to track birds downed in heavy cover or pursue birds able to run after they hit the ground. 

Most hunters in the waterfowl tests did not have dogs to retrieve birds because, according to Roster, "from the shooting tests we learned that most waterfowl hunters do not own or use dogs."

Nowhere did Roster say that dogs decreased wounding rates. Notice the underlined portion it states effective retreiving dog. Rosters study was done on average everyday hunters that used dogs of different levels. I stated that a well trained dog significantly reduced loss, but the majority of dogs did not meet those standards which is the norm in the hunting world. I have hunted behind many dogs and it amazed me that so many had the same name or at least that is what the owmers seemed to always call them as they ran down the CRP Come back here you stupid SOB.


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

I love my dog, besides it is man's best friend. They don't tell you to pick up your clothes, they don't tell you to wipe your feet, they don't tell you to call if you will be 10 seconds late, they don't tell you that you watch too much sports ....

I just don't feel right hunting without a dog. Yes, it takes a well trained dog to get good results. There is simply nothing more enjoyable then watching my dog work a pheasant or making a 1/2 mile retrieve on a goose that has sailed.

As far as boats, each is own, I would much rather field hunt.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Which is better the Vikings or the Packers? The Bison or the Sioux? Moral of the story, there's more than one way to skin a cat! Good job guys now that's what I call a good debate! No cussing or name calling, no personal attacks. Even had some research statistics to back up his opinion. And a counter with a point of clarification on the statistics. Enjoyed reading your posts!


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Actually, these debates are kind of like women's wrestling-- a lot more fun to watch when there is mud slinging involved!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dan,

I don't view this as an inane argument, instead it is an opportunity to elucidate dogless, boatless waterfowlers to the world going on around them. To help them overcome their fear and distrust of NR's with boats. Given that legislation was introduced last session outlawing some boats, an educational campaign is warranted.

How about: 
To many NR's and some ND's, excluding Dan who freely chooses, without threat or duress, to make various compromises, a boat is deemed crucial, or at least very beneficial and worth the expense, both monetarily and in pure bother, and often pucker, factor, to drag to North Dakota, for hunting with a dog of the water retreiving variety, most especially those hunters who: a) value the ability to set up anywhere regardless of water depth, mud depth (the real problem), cover, or muskrat houses, b) keep their dog out of the water, AND c) keep their dog in prime position to mark each and every fall (excepting the case when the dog breaks and screws up the marks anyhow). This is, of course, acknowledging that folks may freely chooose to hunt on water, on land, or on the riparian environments, that offers: a) unto each, certain personal attactions, b) different opportunies for the pursuit of chosen game, c) different numbers of game that: i) ideally numbers more than 1, ii) is of the particular species sought, and iii) is less than a number of fowl that might be considered a "roost" or an active "feed" (terms that will not be defined), and d) is neither: i)a refuge - declared or implied by "the locals", ii) a rest area - declared or implied by the locals, or iii) a roost - as declared by someone of sufficient character, field experience, and moral standing within the hunting community to make such a declaration based on: i) DU membership, ii) DW membership, iii) claiming more than their share to DU on a web based waterfowl forum, and iv) prouding displaying such decals on their personal, excepting professional in the case of G/O's, conveyance thereby making a public declaration of such standing.

I can't even imagine why someone would hang the toilet paper so it hangs down the back, not the front.

Ron,

It certainly doesn't say that dogs increase the loss rates - as you claim. Infact the paragraph is discussing the difference in loss rates between upland and waterfowl hunters, and bemoans the problem that too few waterfowlers use dogs - it offers that as the reason for the high loss rates of waterfowlers. One of CONSEP's points is "Use a retreiver."

So far I have seen nothing to support the claim: "studies have shown those crippling rates and losses are actually higher with those that use dogs over those that do not for waterfowl."

Training - of course. It's like saying shotguns don't work because the dude can't shoot. The dog's successes belong to the dog, the dog's failures belong the owner - excepting Dan, who freely chooses....

M.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MRN I see we agree on the toliet paper issue. I am heading out to do some hunting and when I return I wil get the complete article for you to read. I am a firm believer that dogs are a very vital tool that can and do reduce loss of crippled birds. However untrained or of poor quality lend very little to this effort.

I currently am dogless but hope to change that soon. I have not had the time to train and work with a dog and have been one of those that did not put in the time with a previous retreiver. I will not make that mistake again nor will I subject my hunting companions to an untrained dog.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Now, if we could only get those dang deer, moose and cows to start using duck boats too - I'm getting sick and tired or their hoof prints ruining the shoreline landscape. And for that matter, what about the birds themselves. If we got them in duck boats, we'd eliminate all the messy duck crap and feathers currently desecrating the mud.

These duck boats seem to be the fix for all of the world's woes. Maybe ship a few to Iraq - problems might solve themselves. By god, I'll bet some day we'll even find the cure for the common cold in the bottom of a duck boat!

He protestesth too much! Seems like a serious case of repressed quilt over duck boat use.

Seriously, I've got no problems with boats - just never even remotely felt like I needed one for my style of water hunting, even though the dog is with me every time. I couldn't give a minnow-eater's hinder if someone chooses to hunt with a boat, except the messing up the roost part.

Ironically, there'll be lots of shore-to-boat converts if we don't get this hunting deal turned around and/or or go dry. Big water will always be less susceptible to exclusivity, and may be the "average-joe's" best opportunity if o/g's continue to expand or less water and concentrated birds gives o/g's a better opportunity to create exclusivity. If that happens, Mark, I'll bring the eggs if you bring the bacon. :wink:


----------



## Quack Addict (Oct 12, 2003)

I would like to throw in my thoughts on Retrievers. I bought a Yellow lab 3 years ago and joined a Hunting Retriever Club. Since then my passion for Waterfowling has grown quite immensly. I train my dog all spring and summer and really enjoy watching her work during the season. There are days in the blind where I will set down my gun and just marvel over watching her retrieve the other guys birds. My dog is as close to me as my kids, and I would not dream of hunting any type of bird without her.


----------



## quackersmack (Sep 22, 2003)

There is no question that the addition of a well trained retriever will improve the quality and success of a hunting trip. I have hunted with retrievers just about every year I have hunted, and the number of ducks I would have lost if not for these dogs is unimaginable. Dead or cripple, water, weeds, or fields, you have a better chance at bringing back a higer percentage of birds with a dog. On a trip to North Dakota a few years back, a friend was hunting in a different area from me, and knocked down a nice greenhead. It didn't land far from him, just on the edge of the water he was hunting. After about 10 minutes of searching, he called me over to help him. I took my dog over, and followed his footsteps over to the edge of the slough. I tried to get my dog to work the area, but he wouldn't leave this one spot. When I looked closer, I saw two orange feet sticking out of the mud. I don't care how carefully you shoot, but we would have never found that bird without the help of my hunting companion. Bottom line is, dogs add more than you know to a hunting trip.


----------

