# Dennis Anderson: Six-duck limit gives hunters wrong message



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Dennis Anderson: Six-duck limit gives hunters wrong message*

Conservationists from Aldo Leopold to Jimmy Robinson have tried to get across the idea that the estimation of a successful hunt doesn't have to be the number of birds in the bag.

By Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune

Last update: October 04, 2007 - 10:45 PM

The unexpected happened last weekend in Minnesota: Ducks showed up for opening day. Most were teal, bluewing and greenwing, and most were likely not raised here, but in Canada. And most Minnesota hunters responded as the Department of Natural Resources suggested. They shot as many as they could.
You really have to wonder what we're thinking. If we're thinking. The state's wetland base is declining -- still. And most wetlands remaining in Minnesota are polluted, degraded and/or filled with carp.

Yet given the choice to restrict Minnesota waterfowlers to four ducks this fall, as was the case last year, rather than six, DNR leadership -- overriding the recommendation of its own professionals -- chose the higher limit.

Perhaps Minnesota hunters were demanding more ducks? Not so. The DNR itself surveyed waterfowlers and found more than 80 percent were satisfied with four ducks a day.

Maybe Minnesota was home to a surplus of returning breeding ducks this spring? Guess again: Breeders were down more than 20 percent from 2005.

Note to the DNR, courtesy of Aldo Leopold and Jimmy Robinson: You don't have to shoot them all.

You wouldn't know it by the signals the DNR sends to Minnesota waterfowlers, most of whom -- having never been engaged in a conversation about waterfowl management -- know little more about ducks than how to kill them.

Instead, the DNR, believing its role is less that of waterfowl manager than duck distributor, sends hunters a different message: Value your time afield by the number of birds in the bag.

In Minnesota, after all, we shoot ducks in mid-September that are barely fledged, under the guise of Youth Waterfowl Day. On opening day of the regular season, we begin shooting at 9 a.m. rather than noon, as has been the tradition since 1947. And the state's 4 p.m. closing has been shortened by two-thirds to include just the first nine days of the season.

All in the name of more hunter "opportunity."

It is true that six ducks vs. four ultimately will result in a higher kill whose proportion likely will be negligible. But the higher limit also keeps hunters in the marsh longer, disturbing birds that are pressured enough already in Minnesota. This has implications for hunters who might still be trying to kill their first, second or third ducks of the day, and implications as well for the next morning's hunt, by which time many birds wisely would have flown south.

Minnesota does not have a duck problem. It has a people problem -- they're the ones, who drain and mismanage wetlands -- and a duck-management problem.

It wasn't always so. When Roger Holmes headed the agency's wildlife division, he shied not a whit from regulating the state's ducks conservatively. Similarly, the retired DNR waterfowl biologist Bob Jessen was an avid waterfowler. But he spoke without reservation first and foremost about a duck's welfare instead of hunter opportunity.

Who can blame a hunter last weekend who shot until he had six ducks in the bag? Big Daddy DNR said go for it. So it must be OK.

What an opportunity lost to educate the hunting citizenry, as should be the DNR's charge, rather than, in the name of providing a public service, greasing the skids for higher harvests.

No duck is as beautiful as one on the wing, no morning richer than one passed in a marsh. Neither experience, rightly, should be measured by game reduced to the hand, particularly so if that measurement is institutionally encouraged.

Yet Minnesota hunters can be forgiven if that's the lesson they've learned.

The late Jimmy Robinson generally allowed no guest at his Manitoba duck camp to shoot a legal limit, holding them instead to what he called a "sportsmen's" limit, or two fewer than the province allowed.

The message intended: You don't have to shoot them all.

And Aldo Leopold wrote early last century about what oftentimes is the mutually suffocating relationship between recreation manager and his constituent, the modern versions of whom often contribute to the other's lack of imagination.

"It is the expansion of transport without a corresponding growth of perception which threatens us with qualitative bankruptcy of the recreational process. Recreational development is a job, not of building roads into lovely country, but of building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind."

Dennis Anderson • [email protected]


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I have said all along, I wish it was three or four birds a day!!!!


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

Anderson says it himself - Most were teal, bluewing and greenwing, and most were likely not raised here, but in Canada.
It is called migration.
I lovce the 6 duck limit.
Mn, did the 4 duck limit to protect its local duck population.
If these birds came from canada like Anderson says they did how could we be hurting our local population??????


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

jblabsnduck.......Did you read the story?? Ever hear the term CONSERVATION? Do you suppose that if the limit was 4 instead of 6 there might be more ducks heading north to breed?? And you said that MN did the 4 duck limit to protect it's local duck population??? MN has NEVER done anything to protect it's local duck population........... :eyeroll:


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

Biologically hunter mortality on the ducks is very minor. And as Steve Cordts said 2 months ago he'd be hard pressed to even show a difference if the limit was 4 or 6, meaning in the big picture, he can not even measure the difference it is so insignificant.

Thus Anderson is barking up the wrong tree again with his assertion that Holsten erred, Holsten erred all right, he should have told the "concerned duck hunters" panel (who were the ones responsible for the pushing the 4 duck limit) 26 months ago to shove it and overridden them then too.

This came from a guy I know.(h20fowler)
I couldn't have said it better.

P.S do me (and yourself) a favor and only shoot your 4 ducks then.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

If the difference from a 4 to 6 duck limit is minimal.....why have the limit at 6 then?

Also 1 year limits don't do a thing. You need it to be the same way for 3-5 years then you will see a difference. In how bad it is harming/not harming local populations. IMO.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

You have to wonder about the combined cumulative effect of guys sitting in the field pressuring birds longer to get their "extra 2".

If you have 4 guys in your crew, and it takes you an extra 2 and a half hours per day for alllllll the guys to limit, that puts you in the field harrassing the birds for an extra 3 hours a day. Take that and multiply the effect across all the guys in the field, and you begin to have a cumulative effect of constant never ending pressure.

Bye bye birds as they get chased out of the state.

There is more to it than simple numbers of birds harvested.

Ryan


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

jblab..........you live up to your name well. Do you know anyone who served on the Concerned Duck Huntes panel?? I do......and thier utmost concern is for the future of this sport............a mentality like yours is a dead end for this sport. The future depends on EVERYONE doing their part to ensure our kids can enjoy even a small window of what we've had.


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

So lets say there is four of us hunting and we limit out with our 6 birds each but it only takes us 1 hour?????????????????????????????

Here you go birds, you can have the field we are done.

My point was that Anderson talks out is butt ALOT.
This is not about getting the limit or numbers game.
I personally would'nt stick around extra hours to get the limit.

It gets slow and we leave. Most days we are out of the filed by 9:30 or 10

Andersons says these bird where from canada. Why not shoot 6 if you are allowed to? Birds do migrate. Yes, maybe MN has or had a bad breeding year but if the birds are from canada how does that effect our local population????????????????


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

MrSafety said:


> MN has NEVER done anything to protect it's local duck population........... :eyeroll:


Thats why they all come here. And when we try to protect our ducks, they piss and moan.


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

Bareback.......I hope you don't include me in the "they" part.....I've never complained about regulations in the Dakotas........MN could learn a lot from them. I think a few spoiled things for a lot of MN hunters in the past.


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

Mrsafety,
If I remeber right Anderson wrote a while back ago about not enough young people getting involved in hunting and he said that is what YWD is for and now in this article he blast that????????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Again: Biologically hunter mortality on the ducks is very minor. And as Steve Cordts said 2 months ago he'd be hard pressed to even show a difference if the limit was 4 or 6, meaning in the big picture, he can not even measure the difference it is so insignificant.

Let's look at the ditch parrots.
They had a couple good years so let's make the season longer?
Good, longer time to kill more birds that stay right here( don't migrate) in the state.
IMO that is pretty dumb. Lets have longer to kill more off and put more of hurt on there population.

Trust me, I have put PLENTY of money into this state to help the habitat.
I guess I don't feel bad for shooting birds that migrate through this state.
If you do then stop hunting all together.

and you wrote-a mentality like yours is a dead end for this sport.

Please is all I can say.
Sorry I like to kill birds. I am not in it for the numbers but I will shoot the number that I am LEGALLY allowed to.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

jblab
Obviously you can't read. It's the long term effects of a 6 duck limit, and the amount of extra time in the field pressuring the waterfowl. It is no wonder MN waterfowl hunting went down the drain with people like you.

MrSafety
Maybe bareback was also talking about a cap on NR's. Do you support that to. Say around 10,000 NR's a year. That would take off alot of pressure on the waterfowl and the hunters in ND. This is also a form of conservation!


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

Wingmaster, thanks for the comments. I WOULD support a cap on NR's........to me it's about the resource. I guess my way of thinking says if you send more birds south in the fall, won't there be a chance of there being more birds to come back in the spring? Maybe I'm wrong.....


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

Wingmaster, it must be YOU that can't read.

I wrote - This is not about getting the limit or numbers game. 
I personally would'nt stick around extra hours to get the limit.

It gets slow and we leave. Most days we are out of the field by 9:30 or 10

explain to me how I am adding extra pressure?????

I don't have a problem with ND having 5 bird limit. Once again, This is not about getting the limit or numbers game.

The selective harvest going on is a good thing.
And that cap of Non-res. I think it is a great thing.

Problem in MN is the habitat.
If you have ever read Andersons articles you would know what a scew job he is.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

MrSafety,

My comment was not directed at any one Minnesotan or NR for that matter. But you have to admit that your state as a whole has done several things in recent years to piss off alot of North Dakotans, sueing us several times, comments made by members of this forum, etc etc. And I realize this does not reflect all of your state, but it unfortunatly puts you in a bad light, so to speak.

Jblab,

You have to think of the total effect of all states that at some point are homes for migrating waterfowl. If all states in the flyway up their limits (not just your holy Minnesota) the accumulative effect of this is fewer birds returning in the spring to breed.

The mentality of "im gonna kill all I can legaly while I can screw the people after me" is the attitude that gives alot of NR hunters over here in ND a bad rap.


----------



## jblabsnduck (Mar 15, 2006)

Barebackjack,
I will be one of the first ones to tell you how screwed up MN is.
I never said MN was HOLY as you put it.

Do you not read what I write??????

tell me how MN having a four duck limit is going to do any good if EVERY other state in the flyway has a 6 bird limit??????

The law suite you mentioned, you don't know how many people from MN thought that was the stuppidest thing to do not to mention a waste of money.(me being one of them)
I hunt ND twice a year as my license says I can come to the great state of ND to hunt for 14 days.
I ask permission on ALL places we hunt and if we can't find land owener we move on.(even though DNR says we can hunt it if not posted)
I am one of those people that try to make the MN non residents look good.
I don't come there to kill all I can but I will shoot what ND DNR says I can given the chane to.


----------



## deked (Mar 11, 2003)

Such hostility on a Friday...

Have a cool one boys and look outside... thats right, its October!!!! :beer:


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Gotta agree with the author. No reason to have a 5 bird limit this year in NoDak. Or any year for that matter.


----------



## jbaincfl (Feb 5, 2003)

barebackjack - The only people that want a cap on NR in ND are the people from the "border" towns. If you talk to anyone from the small towns of ND they constantly comment how the "border" towns think they own ND and are just being greedy. People in the "border" towns are doing the same thing NRs are doing, you just happen to live on the other side of the red river. Not to mention all of the ND hunters that head to Canada every year hunting waterfowl. You see it on this site constantly, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

There has been a steady number of NR in ND for quite some time of between 23,000 and just a bit over 30,000 depending on the bird conditions.

For the record - The lawsuit was a joke, I don't agree with that or most of what MN does in the duck dept.


----------



## jbaincfl (Feb 5, 2003)

"Thats why they all come here. And when we try to protect our ducks, they piss and moan." - barebackjack

And since when does anyone "own" migratory animals?


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

i agree with deked stop your crying and just enjoy what you have. I am unable to hunt this year because i am over here in Iraq taking care of the bad guys. So just sit back relax and enjoy your weekend. :beer:


----------



## deked (Mar 11, 2003)

jbaincfl said:


> "And since when does anyone "own" migratory animals?


hahaha, very true...


----------



## scauphunter73 (Sep 23, 2004)

If you read the CO reports you'll see that the average bag here in MN is usually 1 - 2 birds per hunter per day. Anderson's point that having the limit at 4 vs 6 would keep more birds around is wrong. I emailed him this morning to point that out. It may have a very limited effect in a few areas, but not overall.

I do think the overall point of his article is a good one, by setting the limit a little lower, you keep the conservation idea more in the forefront of everyone's minds.

Anderson's endless complaining about the youth waterfowl day is wearing pretty thin with most guys I know.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

james.hunter said:


> i agree with deked stop your crying and just enjoy what you have. I am unable to hunt this year because i am over here in Iraq taking care of the bad guys. So just sit back relax and enjoy your weekend. :beer:


 :bowdown:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There is some validity in the fact that only shooting 4 ducks when everyone else in the fly way shoots 6 per day is a futile attempt at conservation.

I have no problem with Dennis or anyone else expressing his/her opinion on conservation it is what it is. The problem I have is the overall management of ducks in general, specifically AHM. You do not need to be a genius to figure out that for the most part this plan is based on and regulated by the money spent on hunting waterfowl. Of course this is just *MY* opinion, however, if all flyways had a 3 or 4 bird limit what percentage of hunters would just give up the sport? In the distant past ND had nearly 60,000 duck hunters granted with the license structure the way it was back then many were what I would call "opportunistic waterfowlers" meaning that if they bought a license and where they hunted ducks were around they may try to harvest a few, even the hard core waterfowlers of the day had a few cork or balsa decoys that they carried around in a gunny sack (burlap bag).

Hunting today is very, very different for most hunters. Some how over the years it went from shooting a few ducks for a special meal to needing a limit to consider it a successful hunt.

IMO to shoot 6 ducks just because the law says you are allowed to is not conservation minded. That is not a shot at anyone it is just how I feel, they can tell me that the number of ducks is above the long term average but I have seen and hunted the flights of the 60's and I still hunt them today, there are fewer ducks now. I guess it has become more important to me to make sure that my grandchildren and their children at least have an opportunity to hunt ducks. My self imposed limit of a good meal may be a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture but to me I know it is the right thing to do.

just my two cents on the subject.

Bob


----------



## GW (May 31, 2007)

Bob,
Great post.
Greg


----------



## Bandcollector02 (Oct 4, 2005)

NR caps isn't the answer. For example, the Minnesota DNR has found effective methods of managing lakes in Minnesota which receive a ton of fishing pressure through ever successful "slot limits". I think anyone who has fished Mille Lacs can vouch for that. The state could have chose options such as significantly raising the fee for NRs, or simply limiting the number of NR licences sold. Though, I believe they made the right decision by finding other management methods.

The more people that cherish a sport and more importantly, bennefit from it (businesses), the more people there will be interested in preserving it. The best example I can think of is the elephant herds in Africa. It is well documented that the countries who 100% "protect" elephants, have the fastest declining populations. The countries that have big game ranches and outfitters have the strongest, most stable, and in some cases growing populations of elephants. Why is this? Money talks baby. The local communities and businesses greatly benefit from the business the elephant hunting brings in. It is in their best interest to protect the resource. In the countries where hunting is prohibited, nobody gives a rip and the elephant population numbers reflect this.

Dennis Anderson has preached the choir about the declining percentage of hunters. The less people interested in anything, whether it be hunting, fishing, gun rights, gay rights, abortion or whatever, the less chance it has of receiving any attention at the state or federal level, or even the private sector. There is no method that more blatantly discourages hunting than NR caps.

Say for example ND gets real stingy and at some point prohibits NRs completely. The balance of guys shut out will have to either not hunt, or go somewhere else. Say they go somewhere else, SD for example. Now SD has a significant increase in hunters and they close out NRs. Again, NRs have to quit hunting, or go somewhere else. You may even have states retaliate and close their borders to NRs for other resources (MN prohibiting NR fishing for example).

The point is, the over all effect will be less people hunting and therefore less people with an interest in preserving the resource. That means less people calling and complaining to their government officials about habitat and conservation, less donations to DU, Delta, etc., and a net overall decline in the resource. You can see the viscous cycle.

For God sake though, I wish these flyway states would work together. The overall effect of one Mississippi flyway state reducing their limit, even for an extended period can't be that effective.


----------



## justund223 (Aug 28, 2006)

> NR caps isn't the answer. For example, the Minnesota DNR has found effective methods of managing lakes in Minnesota which receive a ton of fishing pressure through ever successful "slot limits".


Tough to throw a duck back after its been shot



> Say they go somewhere else, SD for example. Now SD has a significant increase in hunters and they close out NRs. Again, NRs have to quit hunting, or go somewhere else.


SD already has a cap and has seemed to work well for them


----------



## Bandcollector02 (Oct 4, 2005)

Too bad you competely missed the point...........


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Let's just burn all the CRP and drain all the wetlands. We can get together and hold hands, pick flowers and sing. Personally I just want to dance . :roll:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jbaincfl said:


> barebackjack - The only people that want a cap on NR in ND are the people from the "border" towns.


Are you sure about this? I happen to be from a small interior ND town, and I know ALOT of people in said small interior ND town who think the state is screwing the pooch by not capping the number of hunters who come here.

And they may be migratory, but while their in a state, they belong to that state and said states "DNR" (for all you minnesotans) can do with them what they deem fit.

Bandcollector- Please please please stop trying to compare fish to ducks! It doesnt work the same, so stop trying.
And I dont think anyone has ever said anything about completely kicking NR's out, merely limiting the number that can hunt each year.


----------



## ND trapper (Nov 14, 2006)

jbaincfl said:


> barebackjack - The only people that want a cap on NR in ND are the people from the "border" towns. If you talk to anyone from the small towns of ND they constantly comment how the "border" towns think they own ND and are just being greedy.


I live in small town ND and I'll tell you that it's the other way around. Alot of the landowners in the area wont let MN hunters onto their land because of that lawsuit. They all say the same thing, "who are they to tell us what to do in our own backyard". It's unfortunate because alot of good MN hunters that did not believe in that lawsuit are going to suffer for it. The lawsuit was nothing more than greed.



> And since when does anyone "own" migratory animals?





> hahaha, very true...


So we should only manage and conserve a resource if it fits your needs? Sounds like greed to me.


----------



## fargodawg (Sep 20, 2005)

funny thing this AM..
in an "interior Town" after my hunt, I went to get fuel.... while in two MN hunters were asking the attendant for spots to go........ attendant asks hunters where they are from........answer is "around fergus falls"...... old guy behind me says....."you guys ran out of birds THERE"...... laughed all the way back to the truck. I love the old guys. have a good season and remember that you dont need to pull a boat when you come to shoot "our pheasants. I dont bring my dekes fishing. gotta love the second boat parade when pheasant season starts.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

A couple of things spring to mind when I read this aeticle:

I didn't see anywhere in it that Dennis Anderson make any claims that his preference for a 4 duck limit versus the 6 duck limit (that is at least nominally based on scientific evidence) has any bearing whatsover to the maximum harvest allowable under the current conditions.

His entire tirade, it seems to me, comes down to HIS opinion of what constitutes a "proper" limit, The whole argument that "we don't NEED a 6 duck limit" can be put in perspective by changing the "6" with a "1".

If somebody said we should close the season entirely, NOT because the bird populations had dropped bu just because he thought "wr don't NEED to shoot ducks" you all would demand scientific proof; at least I HOPE you would.

Why does Anderson get a bye?

That said, I feel strongly that any state ought to be allowed to set any extra restrictions (above what is in the Haevest Framework) that is wants, no matter HOW foolish or stupid those requirements may be. If you are a NR of that state, go elsewhere to hunt; if a resident; well then it is YOUR fault that you state limits youe bag, oe youe days afield, or makes you wear Blaze Orange while duck hunting or whatrver it is. You don't like it? Get on you hind legs, organize like minded voters and CHANGE it.


----------



## Loos802 (Oct 8, 2007)

The problem with the Department of negative results is that they dont listen. When I was a kid the limit was 6 birds no more than 4 mallards, we would go out a shoot 4 green heads some of us kids would shoot a few teal, and then the Danvers slew started to flood one farmers land we pleaded with the DNR to purchase the land that was flooding from the farmer but the DNR decided to dig a drainage ditch around the slew and then could not figure out why the slew went dry and pushed the fly way out west to the dakotas. A 6 bag limit a 4 bag limit dosent really matter the MN DNR would rather spend millions of dollars to build a bike trail that goes from WI to the Dakotas instead of purchasing flood plains from farmers to create habitat. This last weekend was the best opener I can remember in the last ten years 4 of us harvested 2 geese and 8 woodies. All I can say is I thank God for the Dakotas and Iowa 3 of my favorite places in the world.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Bandcollector02 said:


> NR caps isn't the answer. For example, the Minnesota DNR has found effective methods of managing lakes in Minnesota which receive a ton of fishing pressure through ever successful "slot limits". I think anyone who has fished Mille Lacs can vouch for that. The state could have chose options such as significantly raising the fee for NRs, or simply limiting the number of NR licences sold. Though, I believe they made the right decision by finding other management methods.
> 
> The more people that cherish a sport and more importantly, bennefit from it (businesses), the more people there will be interested in preserving it. The best example I can think of is the elephant herds in Africa. It is well documented that the countries who 100% "protect" elephants, have the fastest declining populations. The countries that have big game ranches and outfitters have the strongest, most stable, and in some cases growing populations of elephants. Why is this? Money talks baby. The local communities and businesses greatly benefit from the business the elephant hunting brings in. It is in their best interest to protect the resource. In the countries where hunting is prohibited, nobody gives a rip and the elephant population numbers reflect this.
> 
> ...


 :lol: I have family that runs a resort on mille lacs and grew up working on their launch during the summers. The fact that you think it is a success story is a joke. How many resorts have been sold to the band in recent years because thy couldn't make reasonable profits. My uncles resort has done a good job of reacting to times and catering to different needs and that is why they have standed. But if you think that a 16-18 or 14-16" slot means the mn dnr has done a good job you are hilarious.

I have no problem with most NRs. It just turns out MN and WI have a lot of water hunters close enough to come here and be dumb enough to not know how roosts work along with other ND waterfowling standards. So they mess things up for everyone. It SEEMS people from other states actually look into things a little and learn of the style of hunting that is productive to keeping things pleasant for everyone in ND since they are driving so far.

Its the "I'm only here for a short time and I'm gonna kill as much as I can" attitude that really ticks people off. People with the same attitude cancelled their reservations at resorts on mille lacs when tighter slots had to be put on.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> Its the "I'm only here for a short time and I'm gonna kill as much as I can" attitude that really ticks people off. People with the same attitude cancelled their reservations at resorts on mille lacs when tighter slots had to be put on.


That is right. I see this when hunters are jump shooting ducks off the roost in the middle of the day, they even shoot them in road ditch ponds. How enjoyable is that??


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

MrSafety said:


> MN has NEVER done anything to protect it's local duck population........... :eyeroll:


I am pretty sure that the 9am opener start, the 4 pm close for the first week, and the motorized decoy restrictions have all been in place to protect the local population of ducks.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> If you read the CO reports you'll see that the average bag here in MN is usually 1 - 2 birds per hunter per day.


And that is part of the formula that G&F depts. base those limits on. The fact is, with survey evidence supporting it, that most hunters WILL NOT limit on any given day. If they (G&F) believe that the average harvest of 3 birds is sufficient to maintan a viable population and 2/3 of the hunter are only harvesting 1 or 2 allowing the other 1/3 to harvest 4-6 will still be within the harvest goals. It's all about averages and a sound management practice.

Same goes for any other game. 100% harvest is rarely considered when setting harvest objectives. If the buck harvest in MN was anywhere near 100% you can bet those guys would have to draw for tags just like ND rather than buy them across the counter.

Undoubtedly there is probably some ecconomical pressure to also keep limits high. But not necessarily because game in the hand will be less. Higher limits generally mean more time afield. When I go hunting I want to spend most of the day afield. I get as much pleasure by filling my limit within a 1/2 hour. While I do enjoy fast and furious on occassion I much prefer slow and steady and think many hunters would agree. I have been on duck hunts that were so good I would only take 1 bird per flock in order to extend my field time. If I were a non resident hunter I would find it hard to justify spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to hunt in the state to only get a couple of hours of hunting per day if that.

I would interject another thought on MN waterfowl problems. I don't think MN is that different than anywhere else that is seeing habitat loss. I would think that development on and around MN lakes the last 40-50 years has contributed greatly to loss of nesting habitat and even those wetland areas that are undeveloped do not seem to have the available nesting habitat we are currently seeing in ND.


----------



## scauphunter73 (Sep 23, 2004)

> And that is part of the formula that G&F depts. base those limits on. The fact is, with survey evidence supporting it, that most hunters WILL NOT limit on any given day. If they (G&F) believe that the average harvest of 3 birds is sufficient to maintan a viable population and 2/3 of the hunter are only harvesting 1 or 2 allowing the other 1/3 to harvest 4-6 will still be within the harvest goals. It's all about averages and a sound management practice.


dakotashooter2 - not sure if I quoted correctly, never tried on here brfore - anyway, I'd bet it's a lot closer to 5% or less that get their limit in MN, especially with the limit at 4, 5 or 6. So my point is the few guys that stay out the extra time to get their 5th and 6th birds will have almost no impact on moving birds out of MN sooner.

The 9:00AM opening day start, and 4:00PM close for the first couple of weeks does a lot more to reduce harvest than a 6 vs 4 bird limit. So does the overall season length. In order to really reduce harvest with limits they'd have to make the limit low enough that most guys would be affected.


----------



## scauphunter73 (Sep 23, 2004)

guess I did the quote thing backwards, sorry about that...


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

So you're saying the 9 a.m. start does MORE to reduce harvest when it used to be noon??


----------



## scauphunter73 (Sep 23, 2004)

No - I'm saying the 9:00AM start versus half hour before sunrise. The noon opener would reduce harvest further.

Over half the annual harvest for the entire state occures on opening weekend. I guess that's the idea behind restricting the hours more earlier in the season.

My overall point is that in MN the pressure comes from the fact that there's so many hunters out there, not the few that are actually shooting 4, 5 or 6 birds in a day.


----------



## Timmayboy (Oct 9, 2007)

Everyone is talking about the duck populations being so low because of limits being so high. In all my years of hunting I have gotton my limit in Mn only a few times . It is not that I am a bad hunter. I have had a lot better luck in the Dakotas due to habitat conditions. I live in west central MN which is probobly one of the best areas in the state. The conditions since the 90s have been extremly dry. We have had some of the mildest winters on hand for several years. So climate change has played into this as well. The ducks go where they can nest in the smaller sloughs and lakes of the Dakotas and Canada.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Timmayboy said:


> Everyone is talking about the duck populations being so low because of limits being so high. In all my years of hunting I have gotton my limit in Mn only a few times . It is not that I am a bad hunter.


Sorry, I disagree. I know plenty of people who have no problems shooting limits in Sota. Of course it's easy for Sotas to come out to the dakotas and whack ducks. Especially on the water since a lot of nodak people leave them alone on much of the water.


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

Here's my educated addition to the subject. Minnesota just sucks for hunting and their politics have always been a joke. Get used to it.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

your educated opinion :lol: good one.


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

USAlx50 said:


> your educated opinion :lol: good one.


Thanks :beer:


----------



## harryo (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree, MN DNR is a joke! Been living 30 miles west of the Twin cities all my life and with the people fishing our area, we can't seem to keep any walleyes around in our lakes because the DNR can't seem to understand that we DO NOT need a 6 fish limit, but we do need a minimum size of 13" state wide to keep some fish around. 
As soon as any of our stocked walleyes hit 10-11" every Tom, Dick and Harry come out and catch as many as they can, and keep as many as they can.
They also do not fine any of these rich A$$ holes that will come in from southern states that come up here driving there $80,000 Hummer and going back with 100 walleyes over the limit.
The DNR says they don't have the funds they would like?
If the DNR would start seizing the Hummers, fining these people $1,000 per fish over the limit and taking away there fishing privledges for life, this kind of crap would stop. It would also pay for some restocking and maybe put on a few more CO officers.
As far as the Duck opener..... I wish MN would give us a sunrise start on opening day. Most of our local ducks are gone by the 2nd weekend anyway. We put time aside to get in a few hunts a year, but we may as well stay home on saturday, hunt sunday morning and put the guns away until next season.


----------



## Timmayboy (Oct 9, 2007)

USAlx50 What!!! You believe you should limit out every time you go hunting?
When we go to the Dakotas we do not hunt over water.
We are also specific on what ducks we do take. No suzys


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

No I'm just saying if you have in fact been hunting Sota for that long and you have only shot your limit a few times you are:

A: not hunting very good areas of Sota
B: a pretty lousy hunter.

There is still some pretty good hunting to be had in Sota. I still go there from time to time. How many minnesotans put as much time scouting in to find spots/gain permission as the avg. hunter in nodak? Many I know of just go to the same old watering hole year after year and if the ducks aint there decoyin well then there "aren't any ducks in MN."

I'm not disagreeing that habitat conditions could use some improvement, and MN faces a handful of issues when it comes to waterfowl. Just saying there are still some good oppurtunities out there.


----------

