# Does ND need additional waterfowl rest areas?



## f.o.s. lover (Sep 27, 2004)

This is intended to spur discussion on what is best for North Dakota, North Dakotans, and the sport of waterfowling. This set of paragraphs took me a significant period of time to write and it still feels incomplete. I encourage ALL responses and feedback, however I have attempted to be considerate to all hunters and wish you do the same. I live in Devils Lake a place thousands of waterfowlers flock to each autumn. Devils Lake has become known as a watefowling mecca to many around these United States. In late september the duck hunting is exceptional for a week, we North Dakotans get to experience THE BEST duck hunting imaginable. North Dakota has consistantly produced more than its fair share of ducks if not pulled the load over that last 10 years as the canadian provinces production has fluctuated immensely. When October arrives it is a time many wish to be in ND and a time I wish to be in Canada or South Dakota. ND's waterfowl population becomes miniscule compared to what is was only weeks earlier. What happens? Many around this area and myself included attribute it to hunters in boats pushing birds off big water. Has anyone studied this idea and come up with difinitive answers as this is just our opinion? I was told that the NDG&F wishes to provide hunters with the most oppurtunity to gain access to hunt, big water included, which makes sense as I myself have been a person in a new area looking to hunt. The unknown outcome of knocking on strangers doors and maybe not having a place to hunt is more intimidating than launching a boat or hunting off a flooded road, but more often than not knocking on a door is more rewarding and also provides better hunting opportunities. Many nonresidents I talk to are now very iffy about coming in middle or late october as the hunting has been consistanly difficult over the last few years. It is difficult for me to see Sand Lake in SD holding 100,000 mallards at the end of October and Lake Alice holding 5,000 with no ice or weather conditions to force them south. If ND begins to lose it's reputation as a waterfowl destination this will hurt the states economy effectively harming all its residents. Limiting the numbers of hunters will definitely make the hunting better, but I personally like thinking about ND as a place anyone can go and have a successful hunt, some of my best hunting memories are introducing friends to waterfowling who wouldnt have even tried the sport had it not been for the ease of gaining oppurtunity to hunt in ND. Refuges are expensive, and extremely limit outdoor oppurtunities not related to waterfowl, wouldnt adding rest area's where people get to deer hunt, fish, and farm around be a much more simple yet extremely effective solution? This post might seem like whining but it is my as well as others experiences over the past few years that possessed me to write this.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

As long as you could protect the areas around the refuge so it cannot be leased. Otherwise the big money would lock up all the surrounding area and it would become a rich mans paradise and not really benefit the average guy.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

fos, a well written and thought-out post. An example is Hobart Lake in Barnes County, a National Refuge. A good share of the surrounding land has been leased off and on for many years. Don't know how to get around it. What do you suggest?


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

f.o.s. lover said:


> ND's waterfowl population becomes miniscule compared to what is was only weeks earlier. What happens? Many around this area and myself included attribute it to hunters in boats pushing birds off big water. Has anyone studied this idea and come up with difinitive answers as this is just our opinion? .


Hmmmm maybe a study should be done. Isn't this one of the purposes of banding. If you do a massive banding effort (not just one or two select areas like now) and see when and where most of the birds are being harvested like more during the resident only or when the pressure heats up and the birds get pushed. Are more of those birds getting harvested in ND in the first week or more in the states south to us right after the state opens it borders to all comers. Would a a banding study be good for something like this? I think so but...


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

Also in my opinion more rest water areas are needed but like stated before if you can hunt the land around them whats the point.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> A good share of the surrounding land has been leased off and on for many years. Don't know how to get around it. What do you suggest


 Sounds to me this would be a good place for the Barnes County Wildlife to do a community PLOTS


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

There is some research on the issue, e.g.: Fox and Madsen (1997) wrote:

"Undisturbed feeding on the most abundant food resources maximizes the probability that an individual bird will remain on a site."

(Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implcations for refuge design, Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 1-13)

Fox and Madsen say lots of things, but field hunters who harrass water hunters should consider the one above. Their summary is "Disturbance is bad."

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Mark,

I agree that if *all the feeding fields* were incessantly shot over, that would prompt many ducks (and geese) to move out. However, the concept that you aren't considering here is that there are usually many more feeding fields available than there are roost sites. In addition, ducks and geese can and will travel a long distance from the roost to feed. But they have to have an *UNDISTURBED ROOST*!

The probably of burning birds out of an area by field hunting is remote compared to the probability of moving those birds out by shooting the roost. Remember, if they are busted out of a roost, they are gone - if they are busted out of a field, they are usually able to find another.

I just do not agree with you that shooting ducks and geese on feeding fields has as adverse an impact on the birds as shooting the roost does.

Jim


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Jim,

I don't dismiss the experts so easily.

Until you provide some evidence, shooting = shooting, disturbance = disturbance, gone = gone.

(The one big difference Madsen & Fox noted was mobile hunting vs. stationary hunting. Moble hunting resulted in many fewer birds around later. They discussed moving punt-boats compared with anchored ones. D'idn't say if sneaking and jump-shooting may be similar.)

One could argue a lot of things if no evidence is required. One could argue that field hunters scare a lot more birds away, thereby having a much larger effect. Over water one might drop one of a pair or trio of ducks, scaring one or two away. In a field one might drop one out of 100 or 200 ducks, scaring away 199.

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Mark,

If your experts (Madsen & Fox) were comparing the effects of "moving" punt boats to the effect of "anchored" punt boats on waterfowl disturbance, I would use extreme hesitation in calling them experts.

The idea of punt boat hunting is to slowly sneak up on a flock of ducks or geese (or whatever the english gents would shoot) and bag as many as you could with a large bore punt gun. The cripples were then finished off with lighter shotguns like what we would normally use for hunting. They were not "anchored" in hopes a flock of birds would meander within range. I would agree however, that an "anchored" and immobile punt boat would exert minimal disturbance to waterfowl.

I hope misunderstood what you credited them with saying. If not, then I consider my anecdotal observations concerning roost shooting vs. field hunting way more valid than their observations. Either way, in my short span (43 years) of hunting waterfowl, I have *always* found that field hunting does not drive birds out of an area whereas roost shooting will almost always drive them out.

Jim


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

jhegg said:


> Mark,
> 
> I agree that if *all the feeding fields* were incessantly shot over, that would prompt many ducks (and geese) to move out. However, the concept that you aren't considering here is that there are usually many more feeding fields available than there are roost sites. In addition, ducks and geese can and will travel a long distance from the roost to feed. But they have to have an *UNDISTURBED ROOST*!
> 
> ...


Not totally true.....heavy field pressure will cause birds to leave.The past few years I have seen snows leave the refuge and get jumped out of every field they tried to feed in.The result is that they went back into Canada.This is the reason the our GNF has eliminated Wed. and Sat. afternoon hunting for snows.

Even during the golden years of snow goose hunting here.....the numbers of snows always dropped between the first weekend and second weekend of the season due to excessive field hunting,even though they spent most of there time on protected refuges.

Yes roosting pressure will move out birds but so will excessive field hunting.Only half day hunting will totally solve the problem.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

MRN,
If pressure on the roost isn't an issue. Then why do ducks always seem to end up on a refuge even though there are dozens of potholes nearby outside the refuge that would seem to offer the same thing? These same birds will go outside the refuge to feed but they won't sit on the water.

You and I both know that MS and PHD's allow you to publish in scientific journals they don't always make you correct or infallible. I've seen a whole bunch of bunk science. It often depends on who is writing the check.

Your study compares one aspect of disturbance. A general term. No where in the study does it declare which disturbance is worse or better. I have never debated the issue that disturbance is good. I have always said that hunting roosts is more likely to drive away birds compared to field hunting.

Anecdotal - I'll save you the typing because I know its coming.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> You and I both know that MS and PHD's allow you to publish in scientific journals they don't always make you correct or infallible. I've seen a whole bunch of bunk science. It often depends on who is writing the check.


 If that isn't the truth :beer:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Jim,

That's pretty disrespectful to some guys who actually know stuff that will help us maintain healthy waterfowl populations. I guess that's why Bobby and the rest of the NPWRC folks don't post.

Your publications on the topic didn't come up in Google Scholar. Error?

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Mark,
I haven't looked, but do your publications on the topic come up in Google Scholar?
Jim


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Jed,

No one said water wasn't an issue. That's a bankrupt position to stake. The issue is field hunters absolving themselves of responsibility by blaming others. No absolution is warranted.

Anyone can publish in a scientific journal - no degree is required. Its just a extreme case of data talks and BS walks. If you got the goods, run with the big boys, otherwise....

If you have data, I'm sure the journal has a receptive letters policy.

M.


----------



## f.o.s. lover (Sep 27, 2004)

Guys this turned into a debate about field hunting vs water hunting, not excactly the discussion I intended. Ducks and Geese are all classified as waterfowl and thus accordingly can and will be hunted on water. What I was thinking is that whether a hunter wants to hunt a field or a slough the birds resting on those areas not allowable to hunting are going to move to the fields and sloughs surrounding the rest areas during the day providing more hunting oppurtunties for everyone. You did bring up a good point about leasing around these area's becoming a problem, but I think that is a another discussion one which I planned to start by asking this question later, "Who owns the ducks?" What I would like to know from this discussion is whether the masses think additional areas like this will help hunting in ND or hurt it? Hunting in many parts of the country is becoming a sport for the rich, ND is one of those areas that is still untapped although many of us Ndakers are feeling the push. Many of us have ideas that we think will make hunting in this state better. My goal through this post is to bring all these idea's and people together to hopefully in years to come incorporate these ideas in the wildlife management plan for the state effectively making everyone's outdoor experience here better. I know of many people who have formed small groups and tried to make changes, however, that is not the way our government works. If a large mass of people (we hunters in all states) combine our ideas instead of pound them off each others foreheads we can make a difference. I am foremost a waterfowl hunter and would like additional waterfowl rest area's in this state, but as mentioned in earlier posts I dont want the land around them to be leased by guides or bought up and access severely restricted. If we as outdoorsmen could formulate a plan to accomplish this I think it would help ND remain the last true freelance outdoor state for generations to come.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The rest areas would have to be for only one year and then they would have to be moved other wise they would be leased.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

MRN,
I don't think field hunters have ever absolved themselves from the problem. Given the resources I think there are too many hunters whatever method they employ. But my own observations tell me that the birds can handle more pressure from the fields than on the water.

At this point I really don't give a rip what anyone does anyway. Having someone hunt the water is just another variable in the equation. I usually only hunt areas where I know the water is going to be left alone. To be honest I'm the least excited about a hunting season that I have ever been. Last year was a real wake up call to the reality of hunting in this state. Getting permission for a spot doesn't seem to mean anything anymore. People come and set up on me when I have permission.

Do we need more rest areas? I think we do. But I really think we need more birds, less gadgets, less guides, less advertising and more people who actually care about the future of our resources, instead of those who spend all their time trying to find ways to profit from them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rest area's would help.

One way to get around the land getting leased.....make a law that you can not hunt with in 500 yards (or some other distance) from a rest area. This will keep some of the land from getting leased. But yes the land out side of that could be leased....

But the thing about leasing feilds.....the birds will wise up and move further out. I know of many leased feilds for geese in my area. Yes the produce very well....but the geese are moving further out. They are flying 10-15 miles out of town to feed in feilds.

But if ND wants to help slim down pressure on birds (and get some very good nesting cover!) they should develope some rest area's. THis will also help for the future! If big practice farming and tiling starts to enter the state....this will help keep some land for duck breeding and nesting.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

FOS

You started your post by blaming water hunters. 


> Many around this area and myself included attribute it to hunters in boats pushing birds off big water. Has anyone studied this idea and come up with difinitive answers as this is just our opinion?


The Fox and Madsen review suggests that feeding disturbance is an issue as well. They suggest regions for undisturbed feeding is an important component in refuge consideration. (They have lost of other ideas too.)

Jim,
You're the one claiming to be an expert, dissing the real experts (e.g., Fox and Madsen). Their work appears in Google Scholar. Yours? No offense, but as an (in)famous biologist said, XX years of hunting makes someone old, not an expert.

GG,
Field hunters have long blamed water hunters for moving "their" birds, purporting that they are the victim, not the cause, of birds moving on. We agree on commercialization, that guides are a plague, and on the effect of too much pressure. We also agree that everyone, their dog, and their uncle should hunt the fields and leave the water alone. No one should bring a boat to ND. However, that doesn't change the fact that field hunting pressure affects birds, just as water hunting does. One could consider that the field hunting effects are worse, as ducks not only change where, but they also change when they feed (more noturnal - Cox and Afton - couple papers late 90's - but it's probably crap????).

M.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Rest areas would not help. Not yet at least. There are a few big lakes that could be protected, but we need the birds to come and stop here first. If you know of the building of lakes in southern Canada (not sure exactly the places) they provide the ability for the geese, mostly snows, to stay there till a strong north wind and blow right over ND. Seen it happen now the past 3 years. And yes having a PHD or MS helps you know what is happening. Just because someone has an idea does not mean it is right wrong or believable. I have seen many, many times when the local people think they could do better at conservation and such then what the G&F biologists could do. There is a reason the public does not control our lakes, rivers, and fields. In order for the birds to be here we need them to stop here. If they are not stopping here is what should be looked at.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

MRN,
I'm not saying that studies are not valid and it's not that I don't trust the scientific method. Scientific method is probably one of the most important procedural developments in modern times. However, my own experience in academia makes me skeptical of studies. I won't get into the motivations and egos of people who sit on committees, fight for grant money, etc etc. The incentives are not always aligned with sound science. I'm talking in general not on this particular subject.

Do birds change their feeding times? Yes. I have seen that with my own eyes.

Wildlife biologists could go a long ways in helping themselves by taking the time to explain things to the public in a way that they can understand. A great communicator and scientist rarely come in the same package. Most science minded people want to do their studies and in general, be left alone. Why? They are often bored with questions the general public asks and don't like the abuse. It is not glamorous work and you will only hear from the public when things are going wrong. But thats part of the job and they should do it anyway. They work for the public.

I know they know more than I do but I would still like to ask them questions. If I wanted to worship someone like a god I would go to church but this is science and I want to ask questions. Where would we be with Ptolemaic theory?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Since the G&F at least in the past have taken a position that establishing Rest Areas, would in many cases increase commercial activity and not result in more opportunity for hunters overall, I think that a solution to that needs to be addressed.

Current law does not allow them to set any limits on the surrounding land use. This as much as I dislike it, follows private property rights. So the only way to address it would for the G&F to have the funds to secure that land and control the use as far as hunting goes.

So the question comes how do we fund it? Would an additional $2.00 or $4.00 increase in fees be the answers ? I am open to opinions and options to do this!

Now in regards to the debate that has taken over this thread, I will say without a doubt, that hunting activity on a roost has a greater impact upon the ducks and geese than field hunting does, except in cases like what Ken described!

MRN, 30 years of hunting in this state, coupled with countless hunters who where subsistence hunters taking the same view that shooting a bird out of bed will move that bird very quickly in an effort to find a undisturbed roost.

Ducks and geese react the same to pressure on food sources, but it remains a fact that there are more food sources than there are roosting areas!

I do not need a PHD or any other educational diploma to show these statements to be true. On my Dads farm a few years ago, the geese and ducks where feeding in a barley field that had a lot of food on it. Those birds where hunted very hard on that land, by me, and a lot of others, including Old Hunter.

Yet because they had a safe roost, 2 miles away on a National Refuge they stayed and feed until the snow came and the water froze over.

On days that the field was hunted in the AM birds would find other places to feed or many times return to the roost and then come out later in the day. The only restriction that was really placed on hunting was that even on days when you could hunting in the evening we left it rest.

A couple hundred Canada geese give or take where harvested on that single 40 acre field starting Labor day weekend and going through Nov!

Granted new geese moved into the area, but a double banded goose was in among that group and we saw it most every time we hunted. Nobody ever got a clean shot at it, or it showed up when limits where full!
Just how many times that bird was in flocks that where shot at I do not know but I do know he was in at least 11 that I can account for!

And before you say it was possibly a different goose, we looked at the neck band many times with the spotting scope and it was the same goose!

Now when areas have adequate roosting areas that are off limits to hunting those areas hold birds, those birds attract and hold more birds and on and on! So even when pressure increases in the area, there are usually an influx of new birds willing to come to the decoys.

Now when I was in WI, a lot of fields where leased and hunted everyday. The birds stayed around, but avoided those fields during times hunters typically used them. Only when new birds moved into the area did many of those fields get any shooting. I also hunted an area that did not have much for resting areas outside of the city ponds and golf courses. Water and field hunters had about a week before the birds left, or started feeding at night!

In all my years of hunting ND, I have never seen enough sustained field pressure to move birds out of an area if other food sources where available. I have seen birds not use the same fields back to back,making it hard to pattern them. Thus they have adapted to the pressure in the fields. But bust that roost, and even a baited field will not have ducks in it the next day!!!!!

North west of Medina when the corn froze and many fields where rolled or cut down with out harvest, one such field was being used by 10,000 mallards and 1000+ black geese! Everyone in the area including the wardens knew about this field. The birds where on a private wetland and had not been disturbed. Two weeks of feeding had not even dented the food supply. Everywhere you walked there was shelled out corn or exposed cobs.

The land owner left on Friday to go to a wedding out of the area, and on Sat morning a group snuck down and blasted the birds off the water. The majority of those birds picked up and never came back! Now field hunting was not great, but many of us had very good luck getting birds coming back to the roost in small wetlands that where in between. That morning was the only time that we did not have a single mallard come in over the decoys.

Evidence that water pressure has more impact than field pressure? You tell me!!!!!

I would like to get paid to follow and document this in ND and compare the results to other areas. In my biased if you want to call it that, opinion based upon years of hunting this state, I could almost write the paper before the season even starts! Much like many studies that get funded. Research and continued grant funding require a significant result to perpetuate the funding!!!!!!!!!!

Thus ends my only post on this thread on this subject!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Ron,

I suspect that Mark will not be interested in your observations until they are published in a scientific journal. Your observations parallel mine, but alas...we are not the "experts", we are only old hunters. I find it somewhat sad when the "experts' opinion from Briton is considered more valid than the opinions of those who have lived here and hunted here our entire lives.

Mark,

I hope you can appreciate my sarcasm, even though the thought behind it is true. I realize that you live in acadamia and must abide by it's rules, but you can still open your eyes once in a while and see the world as it really is.

Jim


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

:rollin:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

GG,

The scientific method is self correcting - it has lead to every advance in western society. The stuff you speak is just short term noise in the process. Ever wonder why oriental societies developed differently from western society (and why Bear wang make dong bigger)? 
Most biologists won't post on sites like this - Cox and Steel3's were exceptions, but even they have quit or been booted. Bobby was a great resource - he saw crap 10 years before the rest of us understood.

Sorry Ron your thing was way too long for me to read. If only I cared more...

Jim - men like you were (are??) just as certain the world is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, the world comprised 4 elements, ESP exists, and the earth was created 4000 years ago. Good luck with that.

M.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Sorry Ron your thing was way too long for me to read. If only I cared more...


 :laugh:


----------



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

MRN said:


> GG,
> 
> The scientific method is self correcting - it has lead to every advance in western society. The stuff you speak is just short term noise in the process. Ever wonder why oriental societies developed differently from western society (and why Bear wang make dong bigger)?
> Most biologists won't post on sites like this - Cox and Steel3's were exceptions, but even they have quit or been booted. Bobby was a great resource - he saw crap 10 years before the rest of us understood.
> ...


It's really disheartening to see that when someone takes the time to type out a long well thought out answer, that you come back with "GEE Uhhh I guess that is too long for my attention span..."

Nice.

Are those scientific articles nice and short too? That logic really doesn't hold water.

Just remember Mark ... that science is always skewed based on human factors. You'd be wise(r) to really take GG's post to heart and think about it a bit deeper..

Ryan


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Hey I guess I will have to add "Believer in the world is *FLAT*" to my signature!!!!!!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Ryan,

Get used to disappointment. I sense lots of it.

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Mark,



> Jim - men like you were (are??) just as certain the world is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, the world comprised 4 elements, ESP exists, and the earth was created 4000 years ago. Good luck with that.
> 
> M.


Surely you can do better than that????? Men "like me" may believe those things, but I don't. I hope you are not devastated.

You just might want to do a Google search on peer review bias and deception. You may find that not all the published work of "experts" is what it is made out to be. If my lifelong observations don't agree with what some "expert" in England thinks, I'm not going to agree with Mr. Expert just because he is published. I really thought you would know better than to try to push that line.

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron.....great post! :beer:

I agree shooting a roost is worst than hunting a feild.....But if that feild is the only food source in the area.....You will then move the birds. Because I have seen that.

Yes I agree that Lakes in Canada are holding birds until a stiff north wind comes in and then they birds move to SD. But if there was some Rest areas I think the birds would hold in ND. Because if you had rest area's in the middle of the state (where the wind blows constant) the water would stay open and also with the food available....birds would stay. It might take 5-25 years for these rest area's to work....but they will work! Think about it like this.....in the spring when the snow line starts to move......then a storm hits north...these rest areas will hold or bring back the birds. Look at Squaw Creek. ----Yes I know a huge rest area....but it is one----

But like others have mentioned.....You will need to find a way to control the land around it some how. Or the rest area will need to be very huge and just own the land around it.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

The one key thing you guys are missing is the need and ability to attract the birds to stop there.


----------



## f.o.s. lover (Sep 27, 2004)

ND will probably never be the same as far as the migration goes. Especially if Canada passes a law that all non-res hunters have to be guided. There simply isn't the pressure to move them down, field or roost. What we need to do is find a way to keep the birds we do raise and keep the few birds that do migrate early find an attractive place to stay. ND raises plenty of ducks to host a highly successful season for an extended period of time. Yesterday I saw a field of 20,000+ ducks. The ducks are here now how do we get the ones we have to stay?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Does ND need more Waterfowl Rest Areas? Short answer; yes.

I would also like to see a Morning Only hunting regulation implemented for all waterfowl....


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

NDTerminator said:


> I would also like to see a Morning Only hunting regulation implemented for all waterfowl....


I agree!


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

There are many factors why the birds do not stop here...and yes lack of safe zones are one of them. In the fall we see the birds stay up on the lakes (that were just built) just over the border and see them go by. No amount of food or safe areas are going to make them stop. Since they can stay up there where the pressure is less and they have days to rest, it is easy to see why they stay up there till the last moment. In the spring they have only one thing on their mind, to get north and get, well you know. Producing more rest areas for the birds might help if only the resons why they stop less and less in the state is looked at also.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I would also like to see a Morning Only hunting regulation implemented for all waterfowl....


I think that would be fine, but what about the kids in school. I don't think we should tell them they either miss school or only hunt on weekends. I would be all for that except for kids?? What would you do about that???


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Morning only huntng all the way!!!!...the FEW kids that get to hunt in the afternoons would be have to take it as way to increase their opportunities. Most of the state's population is in the larger cities and those kids don't get the chance to hunt after school simply because of the geography....my point is not that it's unfair to the city kids but that those city kids get just as excited as hunting on the weekends.

I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that th geese hold in Canada due to only the lakes that were created up there....it might have small impact. The major reason they hold in Canada, IMO, if the almost complete lack of pressure on them when they are in Canada. The snow and north winds that move them out of Canada and into ND will generally blow through ND at the same time....thus they don't stop in ND in the numbers they used to back in the 70's. When they do get to the Federal refuges....by the way for you guys saying we need more rest areas to stop the geese and ducks....we do have those alrealy in the form of federal refuges in both the northern part of the state and in the SE....anyway when they get here the pressure is immense!

I'm a big advocate that Roosts should not be hunted in ND as it moves the birds out faster....hunting a roost may not affect it if hunted for a day but the constant pressure exerted on those roosts, by both R and NR hunters, is what's causing them not to hold the birds.

I'm also going to to suggest that the birds aroound the NW reguges in ND are harrassed non stop as well...try to get on feeding fields close to a refuge when the geese get to ND. The locals have the fields tied up and many of those locals are outfitters. The geese move from field to field and and are pounded every day! They move to the next stop and then that happens again. They have always been harrassed but there used to be basically weekend pressure again by both R and NR hunters....now unfortunately there are many making money from the resource by charging to "hunt" or should I say shoot on a daily basis.

So........to keep a level playing field, I thnk that EVERYONE should commit to at least trying the half day hunting of all ducks and geese. Maybe you could have no huntng after 4:00 so at least the ducks and geese coould eat in the fields in the evening and get back to the water at sunset and not get blasted by someone waiting for them. This would affect the NR, the R, and the Outfitter the same. What could be more fair......and if the local boys wanted to pot a duck or two after school they still could so that.


----------



## The Dak (Nov 23, 2003)

Wow, lots of digression in this one, but what else is new?

-Waterfowl Rest Areas are becoming increasingly difficult to enact for 2 reasons.

1) There needs to be complete buy-in by all surrounding landowners so that one single entity doesn't get an inholding in a refuge (shooting preserve). Complete buy-in is getting very difficult with resident goose issues and some landowners charging money for hunting or leasing out to guides.

2) Sometimes there is landowner buy-in, but after discussions with locals, area wildlife employees, and wardens, it is determined that the people that control the land in the area won't let people on anyways. So, it turns into an expensive bonus paid for by the public to be enjoyed by a select few.

The Dak


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

4:00 closing. Think of all the money ND would miss out on. :lol:


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

I grew up hunting in SD and we had 1/2 day hunting down there for geese. I believe ducks were open all day. I think half day hunting would be a good way to reduce pressure. We use to hunt geese in the morning and then start pheasant hunting at noon as that is when you can legally shoot pheasants (I would like to see ND go to this to but that is another thread). I feel it takes pressure off of both species. After years of witnessing geese shot off a quarter in the morning and watching them return and feed on that same quarter in the evening I feel that it does take the pressure off of them to a degree.

One would think that this would be a great comparison. ND waterfowling to SD but it is not even close in the way the resource is managed between the 2 states.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Field Hunter said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that th geese hold in Canada due to only the lakes that were created up there....it might have small impact. The major reason they hold in Canada, IMO, if the almost complete lack of pressure on them when they are in Canada. The snow and north winds that move them out of Canada and into ND will generally blow through ND at the same time....thus they don't stop in ND in the numbers they used to back in the 70's. When they do get to the Federal refuges....by the way for you guys saying we need more rest areas to stop the geese and ducks....we do have those alrealy in the form of federal refuges in both the northern part of the state and in the SE....anyway when they get here the pressure is immense! quote]
> 
> I have been hunting in Canada the past 12 years.The above statement is partially true.Over those 12 years the number of hunters has increased dramatically .So pressure is a lot more than in the past.It is the kind of pressure that makes the biggest difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ken,
Tried to say that but you much better at putting it into words.
Thanks


----------



## f.o.s. lover (Sep 27, 2004)

From what I have read so far there are two main fears with rest area's, guides leasing up land and landowners locking all the land down around refuges. After reading all your post and different opinions and not knowing or looking where many of you are from the main problem with bird outmigration and lack of inmigration is pressure. Which is odd if you look at only hunter numbers in ND over the last 50 years both resident for sure and I believe non resident numbers have decreased signifcantly. However, hunting by residents in Canada is nil, and heavy restrictions by SD, 4,000 non res a year have extremely limited pressure in that state. Leaving ND with an abundance of pressure compared SD and Canada. I agree completely with the idea that hunting in the afternoons would be beneficial. It would help teach the scouting aspect of waterfowling instead of reinforcing jump shooting. I would like to go even as far as modeling Canada as making one day a week where you can't hunt. Not sunday but maybe monday or wednesday just to keep some the pressure off the birds.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

djleye said:


> > I would also like to see a Morning Only hunting regulation implemented for all waterfowl....
> 
> 
> I think that would be fine, but what about the kids in school. I don't think we should tell them they either miss school or only hunt on weekends. I would be all for that except for kids?? What would you do about that???


Education has priority over recreation, so no, we don't tell kids to miss school for hunting. They hunt around their school schedule no matter what, end of story.

Another point is that unlike when I went to school, HS upperclassmen now generally make their own schedules so are not required to be in school at say, 0800 every day. In his senior year my son's first classes weren't until 0900 and sometimes later in the morning.

I certainly would have no issue with all day hunting a couple days a week to accomodate school aged hunters. During the general season we all ready have a regulation dictating half day hunting five days a week for geese. I've never heard a complaint about this being a hardship for young hunters.

It would be quite simple (and to my mind, just common sense) to expand that to include all waterfowl...


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

That makes no sense, Kids don't need full day hunting on the weekend, thay need it more on the weekdays after school.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

With our Delta youth hunt up coming, I have a number of kids that would qualify and each one of them are involved in football! I talked with most of the parents and each one said they try and get the kids out around Alice during the week for some slough time.

I have no issue with cutting back the shooting hours, but exempt the kids still in school! Not a big impact on the pressure, nor much of a road block for the adults!!!!

I also look at the rural areas, where kids do hunt after school! Just because it is not a common thing in larger cities does not mean a opportunity should be taken away from kids!

Kids out hunting are a lot less likely to be using drugs and alcohol!


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

It would be pretty tough to enforce two separate sets of regs (one pertaining to juveniles and one to adults) though, don't you think, Ron? Particularly when the juvenile wants or has to hunt with an adult.
Our NDGF Enforcement Division guys have more than enough on their plates during season as it is.

As I pointed out earlier, if this were an issue, it would have all ready been addressed in regard to the current goose hunting regs.

But this is all hypothetical, as to my knowledge there's no hint anything like this is even being considered...


----------



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

NDTerminator said:


> Our NDGF Enforcement Division guys have more than enough on their plates during season as it is.


And girl... don't forget Jackie 

Ryan


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Yep, can't forget her, Ben Elli!...


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Both the field hunters and water hunters have good points, but MRN in my opinion, has the most validaded data! I get awfully tired of hearing a lot of anecdotal stuff parroted back and forth until finally, unfortunately, it gets accepted as "Truth" by many who should be more open minded.
But people always believe and cling to and pass on whatever enforces their own values and beliefs, even in the scientific community. 
As a scientist for about 50 years, I wish I had a dollar for every "truth" I've seen that when put to a rigid well controlled (for multiple variables) scientific test, that even though these "truths" certainly sounded good in theory, that the exact opposite was in fact, true! Happens with amazing frequency! 
By the way, well done studies are almost always done and published independent of who is writing the check as full disclosure is required for most honest respectable scientific journals. And yes, negative findings DO get published, often to the frustrated resignation of the check writers! As far as check writers putting pressure on, or bribing creditable investigaters to slant results their way? Could happen, but there are more and more checks and balances to reduce/eliminate this sort of thing! And there are a lot of reasons and explanations for conflicting results reported by different ,yet credible, investigaters.
So leave it to the experts - sure they can be wrong, too. But more often it's the Monday Morning Quarterbacks or Bar Stool Biologists that off the mark!
Getting back to the original question - of course more rest areas could be beneficial! Both in the water and in the fields too, I suppose.
Of course when that dirty rotten scoundrel out of stater Minnesotan was trying to form his own rest area/refuge (no hunting allowed) there was a great hue and cry from most of the hunting fishing websites about how it shouldn't be allowed! 
We should encourage ANYONE, State and Federal or private individuals to do this type of thing! But the out of state "rich guy" paranoia doesn't exactly encourage this! 
But yes, more rest areas and refuges probably wouldn't be a bad idea!


----------



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

NDTerminator said:


> Yep, can't forget her, Ben Elli!...


I can't or she'd never forgive me! :beer:

Ryan

.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

HH In many cases arm chair quarter backs form opinions and many times they are not valid! However, in the case of pressure on birds and the impact it has on them, while still opinions, our observations are very truthful.

I will go of topic a little but let us step back and look at the USFWS using science in prognosticating record levels of ducks in the late 90's! There scientific method based that on the May pond counts. Yet when you look at the existing habitat that existed in the 50's vs the 90's just how could the population be higher with pond counts being similar or not exceedingly higher than the 50's? Yet anecdotal observations from even retired wildlife biologist are scoffed at!!!!! I only have met or talked with two individuals that work in or are trained waterfowl and wildlife biologist that felt the USFWS forecast was accurate who had more than 25 years of experience! Do you really think that 50+ of them got it wrong and only two got it right?

There are a lot of things of which in the outdoor world I have had an opinion on that I have found to be wrong. Most times it is as you said, but on this issue, I do believe that 30+ years of observation of ducks and how they react to pressure, factoring in weather,water conditions and food supplies is a good basis for forming and defending my position without having had a published paper on it!!!!!

Rigid controlled tests are not real world application! Because you set and control the variables in tests unless all that is done is to establish a base line and monitor the results and compare them to other tests doing the same thing!!!!!


----------



## packster (Mar 4, 2005)

My answer to the first question of rest areas is yes and no! Feild hunting, if over hunted will push the birds around and if a valuable food source is not found they will move or fly further to find that food. 
Now if you hunt that roost area they more than likely not come back.

If I had to vote on this subject, I would vote for 1/2 day hunting and/or closed days. 
I see it here 2 states down. We have the high pressure that is now a 7 day a week pressure. The ducks and geese don't hold up here any more either and continue south as the north wind blows. Outfitting in Nebraska is not as high as ND but is steadily growing. But I believe not only outfitters are to blame either. Most blinds down here are open for hunting 7 days a week that are private blinds.

Matt


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The idea of private refuges is so ripe for abuse it is nervewracking. Large commercial interests would jump on that like kids to a candy store. Its interesting that the only people that support that idea are nonresidents or recent transplants. VERY VERY BAD IDEA.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I understand what you are saying, Old Hunter. But right now some private individual can buy up as much land as he want, post it for everybody else, and have his own private refuge. That is legal and is currently done by a lot of instaters and out of staters. Perfectly legal in ND and always has been! And you can never change that, like it or not! Presumably this is what you are referring to.
What I'm talking about is someone buying up a bunch of land, and getting as perpetual easement AS A REFUGE where it is illegal for ANYONE, (even the guy who put up the money) to hunt FOREVER, and it stays a refuge forever! If it is owned and managed as a non profit corporation with no hunting allowed in its charter, FOREVER! The only exceptions would be, say, a limited culling season on does if they overpopulate, etc. A good example is the Cross Ranch. Sure, you say - just buy up some land and donate it to the state, etc. I agree, but some people just want to do their own thing, for their own reasons.
Anyway, that's a lot better than having another individual buy it and use it as his personal shooting grounds with everyone else excluded!
I'm not new in ND, having been here close to 30 years. But I truly believe it is time to leave archaic narrow minded somewhat paranoid thinking in a goose pit and at least THINK ABOUT and EXPLORE new ideas and possibilities that might help your great grandchildren keep hunting in the future. 
Perhaps it is such a foreign concept for North Dakotans to understand how a guy could make millions and want to use it to better the world rather than to spend it on themselves. Seems once you are classified as "RICH" you are automatically disliked even hated, and considered bad in ND! I've done well in business, but whenever I think of leaving some money to benefit the outdoors, I read some of these posts about "rich" people by people who can't understand why someone would actually give money away with no benefit to themselves, and say to myself, WHY??? The majority of the "ME"s would only grumble of a tax break, etc........ Now why should I do something like that? I'd love to benefit waterfowl, elk, upland game, etc. but darned if I'd like to benefit some of the present day ME ME ME hunters! In my lowly opinion there are some terrible paranoid greedy attitudes out there. If some people want to share, even if you can't bring yourselves to understand such a concept, the LET THEM!
Anyway, I'll shut up now. The original question - Yes, ND and everywhere else does need more rest areas and refuges, in my opinion, any danged way we can get them! And as many as we can get! And overshooting in the fields and water can make birds move, usually south because its that time of year! I'm out of here...........


----------

