# Minnesota sets bag limits



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

State's duck bag limits lower than federal guidelines

The Associated Press - Wednesday, August 09, 2006
DULUTH, Minn.

Hunters will be able to harvest fewer ducks than allowed by the federal government under new guidelines from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The agency said a survey of duck hunters supported the lower bag limits.

Minnesota will allow the full 60-day season permitted under federal guidelines but has set a four-duck limit with one hen mallard, the DNR announced Tuesday. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have allowed up to six ducks daily and two hen mallards.

"We considered a lot of different information, both social and biological," said Dave Schad, wildlife management section chief for the DNR. "It was one of those difficult decisions that's a mix of both of those."

Minnesota had the same four-bird, one-hen limit last year.

Last spring's breeding duck count was down 18 percent from the year before and was 36 percent below the 10-year average. The mallard count, meanwhile, was down 33 percent from last year.

A DNR survey found that a majority of the 100,000 duck hunters in Minnesota support the lower bag limits, Schad said.

"Seventy percent said they supported the four-and-one. Another 15 percent said they'd like to see something more conservative," Schad said.

He acknowledged that some duck hunters would like to see more liberal bag limits. Other states in the Mississippi Flyway, to which Minnesota belongs, will likely go with a six-bird, two-hen-mallard limit as they did last year.

"Some hunters say, `Why are we saving ducks so they can be shot farther down the flyway?'" Schad said. "But there is biology that tells us to hesitate. Our breeding populations are on the decline."

Duluth resident Dave Zentner, a co-leader of the Ducks, Wetlands and Clean Water Rally, which was held in 2005 and 2006, supports the DNR's guidelines. "That goes to show the resources come first with the DNR," Zentner said. "I was concerned it was going to go back to two hens and a larger limit."

The state's duck season opens Sept. 30 and continue through Nov. 28.

___


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Wish this was one area where we would folow MN's lead!!!!


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

THE CONCEPT DIDN'T WORK LAST YEAR...MAYBE THEY'LL GET LUCKY THIS YEAR.......Like anymore ducks are gonna fall over MN with a 6/day limit.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

No Kidding!!!!!

Drop the ND limit to 4 ducks and keeping in line with the new limits allow either one pintail, one hen mallard or one can in the limit. Let's send more breeders down the flyway....I'd bet other states would follow.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

And I suppose the boys in LA are willing to let em come back uke:


----------



## 2brddogs (Jun 29, 2006)

the point system in wisconsin worked well. also, it helped hunters identify the species of duck and the sex of the duck. one hen mallard was a limit back then. how many guys just enjoy watching the marsh in the morning anymore? or listening to the woods and fields and waters wake up. some mornings i just like to sit in the blind with the lab at my side and watch divers migrating through. sure it is a lot of work putting out and bringing in the dekes, but nothing beats what each and every one of us see, smell, and hear every morning that we hunt. if they only had a one bird limit i myself would still go out just for the experience. and i also think that a nationwide cap on limits would help too. the good ol boys from down south don't think so.


----------



## KYUSS (Aug 27, 2005)

2brddogs, I agree with everything you said but the major concern I have with a point system is that if a hen Mallard is a full limit than what happens when a hen Mallard is the last bird shot. It goes right into the mud. Now dont get me wrong. I believe that we all have the responsiblity to know our bird identification down to a T and I know alot of people do. I also know that alot of people dont and are to lazy to put the time in to learn it. They go by the concept " if it flies it dies " and thats not good if we have a point system.

I might be wrong on this one but didnt North Dakota have a point system a long time ago and a hen mallard was 70 points and a full limit could not exceed 100 points. I think ducks like Teal, Gadwall and such were 10 points.

I think the hunter choice limit is a step in the right direction but I wish the limit would have been four ducks daily, three Mallards and only one can be a hen.

I wish the feds would drop the limits across the board. Sometimes I dont get what they are thinking. I think it was back in "96" when Pintail populations made a big comeback and the limit got raised to three a day. At least I think it was three a day. A species that has been hurting like they have been and than they finaly make a rebound and the limit gets raised from one a day to three. :eyeroll:


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

Minnesota DNR sucks.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

KYUSS In my 30+ years of hunting ducks I do not ever remember a point system in ND. If it was used someone please post up when!

I use to hunt MN with some friends while using the point system. They worked very hard at not shooting a hen, but the flaw was that a pile of ducks could be taken and then with 90 points used a hen could still be shot if it was the last duck of the day!

Or as others have spoken concern over with the HC, that hens will be pushed into the mud, because the tone seems to be that guys want to shoot as many ducks as possible.

For the life of me I have not figured out why a daily limit of 4 or 5 vs 6 would keep people from hunting. If it is the thrill of killing something then target other species like coots and snipe.

Now from an outsider looking in on the MN issue, they used an opinion poll much like the ND Game Fish did on choosing the hunters choice option for ND. I find it encouraging that hunters will choose a lower bag to help conserve a resource even if the effort is just window dressing!


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Now from an outsider looking in on the MN issue, they used an opinion poll much like the ND Game Fish did on choosing the hunters choice option for ND. I find it encouraging that hunters will choose a lower bag to help conserve a resource even if the effort is just window dressing!


yeah they claim a poll was used... but they are yet to show anyone this poll. if its from the end of the year hunter surveys, they sent it out to 2000 hunters, out of about 100,000 guys who bought stamps... 2% is hardly an accurate survey if you ask me, especially when they are going to use that survey as their "go to" reasoning behind the 4 duck limit.

its just another band-aid the MN DNR is using to hide the real problem of crappy habitat, so they can use more wetlands as walleye rearing ponds.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Where I think they get a lot of there data is form HIP cetification. You get polled on how many ducks you shot the previous year. Then they send out the little surveys at the end of the season. Then they also accumulate data from some of the waterfowl meetings.

I agree it is a tiny band aid to the major problem.....But it is not the DNR making the laws.....it is the politicans behind the DNR. Like I have stated before....

In MN sportsman are divided......fisherman want what they want....duck hunters want what they want ......and then deer hunters wan what they want.... So all in all it is a battle between us all! It is sad...very sad.

I hunted a total of 5 days last year for ducks......I never shot a limit.

The data I sent in was that I wanted a lower limit......5 ducks total.....three mallards (only 1 hen), one can or pintail (drakes only).


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Roostbuster, when samples are done, it has been proven that 70% of all people do not need to be asked to give an accurate read on the opinions and feeling of a group of people!

.

In college we did some poll question writing and data gathering. You can load a poll in many ways to get results that you want. Now I have not seen the the poll or the questions, so I am not judging if it was a fair poll or like many designed to garner a predetermined response. But for arguments sake I will assume [ gosh I hate that word] that it was a fair and balanced poll. A 2% sample is far above what is needed to set a base line. Given the margin of error up or down, a majority of responders where in favor of continued restrictions!

I am not saying the DNR is right or wrong, but if as I have read they did it based on hunters wants, then you should be happy that they are listening even if you do not like the outcome.

ND has set many bag limits over the years on fish and upland based upon the feelings of the hunters and fishermen in the state. Some of the changes are more feel good measures, but it is part of the mission of our state to take hunters and fisher mens views and opinions into the rule making process when they can!

So I ask is a day less or more successful having shot 6 ducks vs 4 when if no limit was in place you could have shot 20-30 or more?

I do not quantify a successful hunt by numbers shot, so for me this is why I struggle with why people are so upset.

I have a good number of friends that hunt in MN, and they do very well. I also have friends who seldom get shots at more than 6 ducks in a good day. The area they hunt most of the time does not hold a lot of ducks. Last year before the season they did not seem upset over the issue, and after the season they said it did not change a thing for them at all.

After reading posts on this board and other boards I sent off emails to them asking if they had been included in the survey. I also asked them if they had would they have supported the same regs this year given the population levels and all other factors surrounding this!

16 hunters and all said they would have supported the regs for this year knowing what we can know at this point in time. 9 of them commented that many days they could have taken a 6 bird limit but where content to stop at 4. Of the others 4 said they never had a day in which they even filled a 4 bird limit on ducks! The others offered no comments!

By the way all hunted 30 or more days last fall! So I would say they got out more than one or two weekends!!!!!

I am posting this not to argue with your view, but to find out just what the real beef is! The rules will not affect me at all as I do not hunt MN, but some of the opinions posted around the net got me wondering so I asked guys that i know who hunt in the state!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Found this on another site! It has the MN DNR questions provided to the polled hunters!

_A few comments. The DNR heard almost nothing from individuals opposed to this change when it was first implemented last year. I noted some negative talk on the waterfowler websites, but few took the step to provide public input to the DNR. We do weight many factors when we make these decisions.

Following the 2005 season, we surveyed a random sample of Minnesota duck stamp purchasers (and HIP registrants for those older than 18 and younger than 64). Preliminary (but good) results from our 2005 waterfowl hunter survey showed more support for the 4 duck limit than almost anything we do - approximately 85% of the hunters either supported the 4 duck (70%) or a more restrictive (15%) daily bag limit.

Here's the question:

Q22. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed states to have a 6 duck daily bag limit in 2005. Which one statement best describes how you feel about the total daily duck bag limit in Minnesota (4 ducks)?

q The daily limit was too low. 
q The daily limit was about right. 
q The daily limit was too high. 
q No opinion.

Q23. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed states to have a 2 hen mallard daily bag limit in 2005. Which one statement best describes how you feel about the hen mallard daily bag limit in Minnesota (1 hen mallard)?

q The daily limit was too low. 
q The daily limit was about right. 
q The daily limit was too high. 
q No opinion.

I do not believe these are leading questions - we wrote the questions to avoid bias and made sure respondents were aware of the option for a larger bag. Your comment below that few people you talk to support the 4-duck bag is similar to one we often hear from individuals who don't like the Youth Waterfowl Day ("everyone hates it"), yet, when we survey Minnesota waterfowl hunters we find about 65% of individuals support it. 
That's why we do hunter surveys! There are social components to most regulations.

You are right, the issues with ducks in Minnesota are habitat related. 
We recognize that a reduced duck bag limit will not fix these problems. 
We appreciate any support to tackle larger issues.

Thanks for your comments - I am looking forward to a great fall, hope you are too. _


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

roostbuster said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > Now from an outsider looking in on the MN issue, they used an opinion poll much like the ND Game Fish did on choosing the hunters choice option for ND. I find it encouraging that hunters will choose a lower bag to help conserve a resource even if the effort is just window dressing!
> ...


IMO the HIP is pretty darn grey in both MN and ND. I mean come on, did you shoot 10 or less? More than 50? less than 10,000. Why not ask me where I hunted in ND.? what specie? how many? What time of year? What time of day? Hell I'll tell them anything if they just ask me. You want to get down to business and see how many birds the NR wipe out and when? Which county/s? why not just ask so you can do some accurate regulating. Minnesota the same thing. I could have sworn that there was a number of birds that were tallied taken by NR out there and broken down by the county, correct me if I'm wrong please but heck I wasn't polled and just thought what the??? And this was at time period between any HIP registrations so it must have been the good old random poll. I donno, I just don't see the logic behind ND's HIP either, but whatever.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I agree that the polls are skewed. I agree that HIP numbers are skewed (I have been encouraged by my local license agent to lower my numbers to increase limits...total bs.) (I am honest but I know a lot of guys who are easily swayed)

Who remembers exactly how many ducks they shot the previous year? Either you short it in an effort to keep limits high or you exaggerate to make your wiener look bigger)

I agree that the polls are fixed because not only do they target hunters from a certian area, they are motivated by sales just like they are in regards to the fisheries.

They do polls on everything over here but I know of no one personally, who has been polled on deer hunting, duck hunting, goose hunting, pheasant hunting, fishing... I sure as heck havent been and I have hunted and fished everything that moves or swims for 32 years.
Who are they polling?

Simple solution, ask each hunter what they think when they buy a license. They are paying for the birds. Ask each one. I'd fill out a questionaire and put in my two cents when I buy a license. Who wouldnt jump on that opportunity?

Of course that would require somone to read it but hey, that would give someone a job and I'd gladly pay a little more for the service.

As it stands, if you want to speak your mind as an individual, you are one person. Pretty easy for the govt. to blow off. I have written many letters and sent many emails.

If you are an organization such as Mn Waterfowl Assn, Mn Deer Hunters Assn, PF, DU.... (much like the Nodak push for restrictions on NRs) you are heard because of numbers, but it is a representation of a group, not a group of individuals. You are seen as a group instead of a group of individuals. There is a difference.

It is a hell of a lot easier to poll "some" of the people but it is not an accurate representation of the "majority" of the people.

I would support a 3 duck limit, no bills, no cans, no pintails... no hens (until things shape up), and if Mn would put the money that they pi$$ away on polls into busting tiles in SW Mn. Id give up shooting ducks completely (but still buy stamps) forever. Poll that.

(By the by... I will buy a duck stamp this year but not drop the hammer on a duck...anybody care to follow since it is about pressure and access and not habitat? I will allow people to hunt on my land but I will not shoot)

It aint about the shooting. It is all about who owns the land and what they do with it.

Want a lot of birds in Mn? Simple. Bust the tile and fix it so that 4 guys can make a good living farming a section instead of one guy farming 4 sections. The bigger farms get the less access to private land there is (deductive reasoning) and the greater the push for "efficeint" (non wildlife friendly) farming.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Please excuse my double post.

Bert


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Well even on the ND. HIP, you are on a computer and you click on a range of numbers that are so wide spread it baffles me. How hard can it be to have a fill in your own number box? But I suppose it's to avoid an extra digit miscue or something that would throw it off even further than what they do now. I donno :lol: Even if you don't know the EXACT number of birds, specie, whatever. Hell I can go back to a calander from 5 years ago and give a report on specie #'s shot and totals for Oct./Nov. I think it's fun to look back and compare dates on the calendars year to year and see how things progress or degress.

Minnesota you are HIP certified while purchasing your license over the counter and asked the number of ducks/geese shot last year. I wish they would ask how many days you hunted.


----------



## KYUSS (Aug 27, 2005)

Ron, I have never hunted with a point system either and I have been hunting ducks for 20+ years in N.D. Back during the drought in the 80's I would cut out and save every article I could find on waterfowl and put them in a scrap book. I remember a article in the outdoors section of the Fargo Forum that talked about the old point system for duck hunting. For you young en's thats back when the outdoor section actually had articles on hunting and fishing instead of sky diving and picking flowers :eyeroll: . I dont have my scrap books anymore and I wish I did. There was alot of good information in there.


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

Ron-

you make a good point that we should be happy they listened even though i disagree with it, but this is the only time to my recollection that they have actually done this. so why start now?

the biologists (not the armchair variety that frequent these sites) said that the populations could handle a 6 bird limit, not only that, but lowering the limit down to 4 would have a decrease in overall harvest by 5% AT MOST, and yet they keep the season at 60 days, which everyone knows its the number of days afield that have the most impact on harvest numbers (this is from statistics handed out by the MN DNR at their spring waterfowl meetings in the spring of '05). so if they were doing this for the ducks, they would of shortened the season instead, or both. They are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes and make it seem as though they are actually doing something when in truth, they are doing nothing.
i've heard its to protect MN breeding population, well if that truly is the case, why not have a four duck limit the first 2 weeks of the season, then bump it back up to 6?
i would be all for a 4 duck limit, 3 duck limit, etc. if thats what the biologists said was necessary, but why even have them if they dnr won't listen?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There seems at times, to be no other conclusion than to look at all of the aspects of waterfowl hunting and realize that *Economics* not *Biology* is quite possibly the main factor in waterfowl management.

Just my Two Cents Worth.

Bob


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> There seems at times, to be no other conclusion than to look at all of the aspects of waterfowl hunting and realize that *Economics* not *Biology* is quite possibly the main factor in waterfowl management.
> 
> Just my Two Cents Worth.
> 
> Bob


there's no doubt about that which is very sad (why do you think every wet spot in MN has been turned into walleye rearing ponds? there's more money in the walleye fisheries than the duck factories), and the DNR has said that with lower bag limits comes with lower hunter numbers, so i don't see the economic benefit from this.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> Drop the ND limit to 4 ducks and keeping in line with the new limits allow either one pintail, one hen mallard or one can in the limit.


No doubt, you would eliminate a chunk of the NR's who religiously need those 12 birds apiece to transport back.



> There seems at times, to be no other conclusion than to look at all of the aspects of waterfowl hunting and realize that Economics not Biology is quite possibly the main factor in waterfowl management.


I think you nailed that Bob, Minnesota lost some license revenue when lead shot was banned and at that time bird numbers were not the greatest either, so what happens? Please don't hang up the waders just yet, lets go from 3 to 6 birds and give you another month to hunt to keep you in the game.$$$$$

I don't think the NDGF want to loose out on any of that $125.00 a pop X 20,000 either.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The State Game and Fish Departments are a relatively small player in the economics of hunting. Look at all of the businesses that gain financially from hunting. Gas alone has become a major cost, and will most likely be at least twice to three times the cost of the license. Factor in restaurants, hotels, outfitters, sporting goods stores, tourism departments, local chamber of commerce and you have a very large block of groups that want a share of the hunters money on top of that some of these groups do absolutely nothing directly to help improve habitat and wildlife populations. That always seems to be left up to the Hunters and Hunting clubs through license fees (at least in ND) and payment of club dues and some sweat equity.

Setting the limit lower than the federal guidelines is a rarity that is only done when desperate measures are required. Just about every State in the U.S. has a limit of 3 pheasants or less per day. Why do we feel we need to shoot 6 ducks per day?

Minnesota has done the right thing IMO. It is either a beginning to some sense of recovery for the local populations or a band-aid.

Hunters anywhere have the ability to let their feelings be known, the question is, will they? and if they do not, why?

Bob


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Alright, not to be nay-sayer or anything, but can you guys honestly...HONESTLY see the reversing of what has happened to Minnesota's productive waterfowl habitat?

I grew up in Minnesota. I practically lived outside my entire life. I remember hunting with family members when I was knee-high to a grasshopper and seeing all kinds of ducks and geese (this was up in the Fergus region). Then, when I turned 16 and was able to go out by myself it was common knowledge that the first couple days of opener was your best chance of ducks, because after that they'd just scoot out of the area or hold up inside the city limits. Why? Because there was poor to minimal habitat. I haven't seen it get any better either...

So people think that they should regulate the farmers and landowners to keep them from draining land. Awesome idea, I couldn't agree more...but hasn't that been tried already? Before moving up to Grand FOrks I lived in Corcoran, MN, right on the outskirts of Maple Grove and the last holdout for farmers and people who want to own more than a half acre of land. There were ponds and sloughs dotting the landscape. Then the big developers came in and built right over the top of it all. I didnt' even think this was legal...but money talks louder than upset hunters.

Anyway, I'm ranting. I guess I just don't see anyone...even the DNR...reversing the effects of decades of drainage and development. And the few groups that do accomplish this either buy into a hunting lodge/guide service, or else create deep ponds for walley fry raising...

Ok, i'm off my box now...


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> but can you guys honestly...HONESTLY see the reversing of what has happened to Minnesota's productive waterfowl habitat?


Honestly? Yes I can. Pools are randomly being drawn down in the summer and planted with aquatic vegetation which keep birds around throughout the season.

Here's the background:



> The loss of backwater fish and wildlife habitat is a byproduct of the lock and dam system, started in the 1930s, and poor agricultural practices within the Upper Mississippi watershed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took the bumps out of the Mississippi, putting in a system of 29 locks and dams between the Twin Cities and St. Louis and maintaining a 9-foot navigation channel all the way into Louisiana. Poor agricultural practices have contributed to increased sedimentation in the river's backwaters, as well as throughout the system that eventually dumps into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, sediment loads, also carried by Mississippi River tributaries, are thought to be as high as any time in history.
> 
> As sediment increases in the backwaters, feeding and resting areas for waterfowl become turbid -- too turbid to support aquatic plants in most areas. The loss of aquatic plants means less food for waterfowl and other birds and fewer invertebrates (also important bird food sources) that feed on aquatic vegetation.
> 
> ...





> "It's amazing to see how the new vegetation has come up, from smartweed to bulrush to arrowhead," he said. "As the new growth takes hold, it will provide food for waterfowl and shorebirds and habitat for fish. It will also help stop erosion and control sedimentation."


 Last year was a good example of that success. We had new birds move into the area the 3rd week on Oct. and they stuck around until the end of the season because for a change they had something to stick around for, food! Yes these birds got a darn good education during their stay. The first week they moved in, you know what it's like. They were landing in the deeks as we were out retrieving downed birds with the motor running. Yeah a few weeks later you pretty much needed to set up a field blind in the rushes to get birds to commit, but that was fun too and all part of hunting sometimes. Yes we have all seen better days in the past here. I miss where your weather for the day had a lot to do with your not just seeing birds, but having them hanging like kites right over the spread, and yes I miss the guaranteed "this is gonna be a good day" feeling when you woke up in the middle of the night unable to sleep when the wind was howling and the sound of falling leaves blowing around had you packing that extra sandwich and extra box of shells (that you never needed anyway.) On a consistant level those days are gone for now, maybe for good, but once and a while those days roll around and keep me coming back for more.

Yes I agree a lot of damage has been done over the years, and I am really only speaking of work being done to improve habitat that I hunt around, but it is a step in the right direction. As far as the 4 bird limit having much impact? I don't know.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

You have the right attitude GP. Rome wasn't built in a day and with some persistance Sota may become a place to hunt ducks once again.

Keep the wheel squeekin'!!


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I was the one that wrote to the DNR and the answer is that Ron posted up was adressed to me and I posted it up on 3 other sites.

If any of you had read the DBR press relkeases earlier, the difference in harvest in a season long at 4 VS 6 birds is less than 5%. So basically insignificant statistically. I bet those 85% that voted the way that they did would chenge thier vote if they had known it would only reduce the harvest by 5%. Thus cutting the limit by is nothing more than a fell good gesture by the DNR, where as they have done NOTHING to adress the 19,000 mile of added drain tile in MN in 2004 alone. Of the continuing loss of wetlands across MN, or the lack of suitable nesting grasslands in MN. :******:

ND and SD residents be fore warned, I am seeing the same type of BIG AG mentality being adopted in Sd and ND now over the years. I saw drain tile being installed next the the Canadian border 1.5 years ago(it was marching north a county a year), more ditching of Type I , II, and III wetlands (seasonal wetlands which are crucial for duck production). More row type of crops which provide NO nesting cover for ducks, VS small grain which does. And countless native grasslands being converted to row crops.

So WAKE UP! If you do not do something NOW your landscape will be looking like MNs, poor duck habitat in another 20 years.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

H2O To me the issue was not the duck harvest, and I have said all along that it is days afield that kill ducks not bag limits. But that being said, I thought it an encouraging sign that hunters even when it is a feel good measure, opted to lower bag limits!

I still have not had anyone answer the question of is a day afield less successful with a limit of 4 vs 6? Nobody has yet explained to me how those extra two ducks make a day!

Many of us, and others around the state have asked the G&F to lower our bag to 4 a day. We where told that the HCS was going to be looked at, and that because of this, they G&F decided to wait and see if it would be adopted!

It is in between what we as hunters asked for and what the Feds would have offered under a liberal season. So I guess that is why overwhelmingly it was supported by hunters in ND based on the surveys done and comments made to the Feds.

Once again, that single reduction will not affect overall harvest much if any, but along with the reduction they hope to see if this will take some pressure off of the ducks with lower and struggling population levels!!!!!!

We do not know if it will work or actually increase harvest rates, that will be determined later! But I have not talked with a single waterfowl hunter in our region that was upset about loosing a duck from the daily bag!!!!!

It is funny to me though that some guys tried to tie the drop in hunter numbers in MN to the reduced bag limit, when MN has seen a continued decline in hunter numbers even with the liberal seasons!

It may seem like all politics, but my gut tells me otherwise on this issue. 
Good luck this coming fall, and hope for rains and snow to return to the PPR and Canada this fall and winter. Without it, nobody will be even talking about 6 ducks and 60 day seasons in the Mississippi Flyway or the Central Flyway come next fall!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> I still have not had anyone answer the question of is a day afield less successful with a limit of 4 vs 6? Nobody has yet explained to me how those extra two ducks make a day!


when i hunt in MN, it would allow me to stay out longer than the first two flocks, and actually be hunting, not just bird watching. it almost forces you to go out with other people just so your not done by 8 most mornings.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> when i hunt in MN, it would allow me to stay out longer than the first two flocks


How about shooting just one bird out of each flock? Problem solved


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> when i hunt in MN, it would allow me to stay out longer than the first two flocks, and actually be hunting, not just bird watching. it almost forces you to go out with other people just so your not done by 8 most mornings.


Well if you are hunting Minnesota and you have your 4 after the first two flocks whether you are hunting alone or with a party of 12 you are now officially a licensed bird watcher period. It is 100% illegal to party hunt waterfowl.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> How about shooting just one bird out of each flock? Problem solved


My thoughts exactly!!!!!!!


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I love to shoot geese. Give me 5 thuds on the ground early season VS 2 in the regular season here in MN. Often done in 15 minutes with only 2. Same with ducks at 4. But heck I have sat for 3 hours hoping to shoot 2 other species as I had my 4 mallards many times 3 to 5 years ago, and nothing but Mallards swung in over the decoys. Made for some photo pic time though.

The point is I and many others would like to be able to shoot 6 ducks. If a person wants to stop at 2 or 3 or 4, great for them. But occasionally as when things fall into place, I like shooting 6, or the the oppurtunity to shoot 6. Biologically it is less than 5% differenc in total take. And is nothing but for the DNR to say "see we are listening to the hunters" BS. I and others sent letter/emails and yet they say--no one complained. :******: More to the real point is that they offered a feel good gesture, and avoided again the real problem---the continued loss of wetland and grasslands in MN and the lack of $ and effective legislation to stop the losses and to clean up our degraded waters which the ducks aviod becuase the ecosystem is so screwed up by farm chemicals, sewage, and industrial pollution. 

If the entire flyway was 4, and there was biological reason why like low duck #s, then I would whole heartedly support it.

Instead the average duck hunter that shoots 1.3 ducks a day thinks we ot to limit it to 4 because they are poor shoots and.or hunters. For Pete's sake, I have never even avaeraged 1.3 a day even when there so 3 a day limit in the late 80s as it was over 2, and when it was 6 I averaged 4 a day. My point is, I do not consider myself a hard core duck hunter. I know many others that hunt much harder, and are much more dedicated than I am. So the idiots in Mn that shoot 1.3 a day are screwing up my hunting as serious duck hunter. :sniper:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I believe that a 6 duck limit is great when there are enough ducks around to shoot your 6 and see a bunch more.

What makes a great day? It sure aint the shooting. It is the seeing.

I have said this before but...if I could be guarenteed my six ducks but those were the only ducks I saw all day, I would be sorely dissappointed.

I have always had as much fun watching those flocks that I never had a chance at as the ones who bought into my spread. The fact that they were doing well within my line of sight...is what makes a great day for me.

Perhaps I am in the latter stages of the hunter's desire but the "kill" or the "limit" is not what drives me anymore.

I like to just be out there but only if I can see a bunch of birds doing what they are supposed to do at the time of year that they are supposed to do it.

Several years ago, I was in my yard raking leaves in October as the sun was losing its grip. A cold breeze from the north was making the leaves and the smoke from my fire smell all the better. I stopped to catch my breath and could hear that cresendo of rushing wings overhead. One flock...then another...and another...

I stood there until it was black and still the wings roared overhead in the still, crisp night air.

I remember that like it was yesterday and I had a rake in my hands, not a gun.

No, the kill, the limit, the photos of the dead are not what it is about for me anymore.

If I hunt and shoot 2 ducks but see flock after flock landing where "I shoulda been" I'd be happy as a pig in mud.

I am a firm believer that reducing the limit has a negligable impact on populations. Especially when in Minnesota, most guys can hunt 3 days for 6 ducks. The last few years, the limit could have been 100 and I still would have shot 2 or 3.

A high limit does not mean a high bag. I think that the DNR realizes that and has allowed high limits in order to keep hunter numbers up and revenue flowing. They know that weather the limit is 6 or 60, most hunters are going to shoot 1.5 birds per outing.

This is one area where Tony Dean and I dissagree.

Granted, the kill is the only thing that we have immediate control over but, were it possible to stockpile birds and guarentee a big flight, which of us wouldnt sit out a year? I sure as heck would. To prove my point, Im not hunting this year.

Water (the right kind...a drought is not all bad) and habitat are what creates high numbers of ducks.

In Minnesota, we have a lot of the wrong kind of water and our habitat is sketchy.

Most of it has to do with the water. There is plenty of it around Fergus Falls. Lots of CRP and WPAs and small grains which are just starting to get harvested. Habitat isnt an issue around here as far as nesting goes but something (lack of food is my guess) is wrong with the water.

Otherwise you would see all kinds of mammas and babies on those potholes and sloughs. Methinks the reason that the flights dont utilize them is for the same mysterious reason.

Hunter pressure does not affect the number of nesting hens. They only get shot at for 2 months out of the 8 that they are here.


----------

