# Hunter's Choice Good or Bad??



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Hunter's Choice
Tony Dean, The Forum
Published Sunday, November 25, 2007

Is the "Hunter's Choice" regulation for ducks a meaningful research effort or a hindrance to waterfowlers? I will be meeting with South Dakota waterfowl biologist Spencer Vaa, a proponent of "Hunter's Choice," next week. Until then, I think it's needless tinkering that can cause problems for hunters in the field.

Under the "Hunter's Choice," five states, including both Dakotas, have been selected to the experiment for a three-year period. The purpose will be to evaluate whether "Hunter's Choice" results in protecting species that are having trouble maintaining good numbers such as pintails and canvasbacks, or whether it's wiser to enact a season within a season, establishing only certain dates when key species could be taken by hunters.

My concern is the provision that allows hunters to take an aggregate bag of five ducks, but only one of the following; one hen mallard, one pintail or one canvasback. I have long considered regulations that depend on identification within flight to be senseless, especially during the poor light of the first half hour prior to sunrise or on cloudy, gray days.

Pintails are easier to identify than hen mallards because of their elongated, slender silhouette and canvasbacks are rarely seen by field hunters. However, in actual practice, many experienced North Dakota waterfowl hunters have told me that many early flocks are passed up because of the inability to separate drakes from hens. In addition, during the early part of the season, many species are still in eclipse plumage which makes identification more difficult.

"It sounds like a point system with another name," said well-traveled hunter, Charlie Potter of Chicago, who once served as executive director of Delta Waterfowl.

Under the "Hunter's Choice" experiment, duck hunters can only choose only one of the following - hen mallard, pintail or canvasback. Associated Press 
RELATED CONTENT 
Tony Dean says 
Like "Hunter's Choice," the point system also relied on the ability of hunters to identify ducks. Each species was assigned a point value and the limit was reached when the total points reached or exceeded 100.

Mallard drakes were 20 point ducks, while hens were, as I recall, 100 point birds. Shoot a hen during that early, low light period and you were done for the day. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officers tell of witnessing hunters stuffing those hundred point ducks into the mud.

Others made a practice of reordering the bag, always claiming to have shot the hen last. And some will insist that the biologists are always right. If so, please explain why two species of ducks that are having significant problems these days; scaup and pintails, were 10 point birds when the point system was in effect in many areas back in the 1970s.

That said the "Hunter's Choice" option places a heavier burden on hunters who want to stay within the law, a burden that is more difficult during low light periods.

Numerous North Dakota hunters have told me they have passed up on shooting flocks that arrive during the low light. That's the smart thing to do, even knowing that as light increases, the activity level of feeding ducks will decrease. Moreover it makes little sense to enact such a regulation while allowing openings during late September when many ducks are still in eclipse plumage.

In the end, habitat - not complicated regulations - is a better answer, though that's not an easy task. Without CRP, and good water conditions, we aren't going to see the good duck hatches of recent years in North Dakota.

More than anything else, North Dakota and all prairie states within the famed prairie pothole region need to protect grasslands and wetlands. Unfortunately, that calls for political leadership and I don't see that happening.

At least in North Dakota, it seems to me that a season within a season when ducks that are having problems, need the protection, is a better option. Under such a system which is currently in effect in other states in the Central Flyway, six ducks per day, still an unreasonably high limit, with season dates restricted by calendar for troubled species, seems more logical.

Even a season within a season is a more difficult job these days because of climate change. Migrations are occurring later each year, thus predicting when most pintails or canvasbacks are likely to be in North Dakota isn't easy either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Dean is the host and executive producer of "Tony Dean Outdoors," a television series that airs across the Upper Midwest. His daily radio show, "Dakota Backroads," airs 42 times daily on 39 North Dakota and South Dakota radio stations, plus two in Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected]


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Tony makes some very good points.It makes no sense to use the Hunter's Choice in low light situations or on the northern plains in the early part of the season.I would think the Fed's could figure that out.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Numerous North Dakota hunters have told me they have passed up on shooting flocks that arrive during the low light. That's the smart thing to do, even knowing that as light increases, the activity level of feeding ducks will decrease.


Maybe that is the point!! Don't shoot early in the day or early in the season when it is easier to decoy the birds. I wish they would just drop the limit on all ducks and be done with it!!!


----------



## dfisher (Oct 12, 2007)

I posted a similar question a few weeks ago, at the height of duck season here in North Central North Dakota.

I'm in total agreement that the Hunter's Choice is a viable option for waterfowlers who hunt fully colored ducks. Maybe even the vary latest season in NoDak it would be a reasonable law. But for what I've seen of the North Dakota duck season, the birds just aren't colored up enough to create shooting opportunities for waterfowl hunters; at least not a shooting opportunity that doesn't hold a high degree of chance and risk to the hunter. 
Besides that, what does hen mallards have to do with pintails and cans anyway? Should hunters who have put time and a lot of money into their sport be held back from the opportunity of bagging a nice bull sprig or can, or both, in a morning, just because they mistook a hen mallard for a young greenhead or actually fired at a greenhead and also hit a hen and then done the right thing and reduced her to bag? I think an emphatic NO is the answer to that.
Honestly, this law is made for the perfect world. Perfect eye sight, perfect conditions, perfectly colored birds, and hunters who are perfect at identifying ducks. Seldom do all these variables come into play in the field or slough. It's my feeling that in the real world of hunting ducks, ducks are still going to get shot, no matter their color or creed. Not everyone is perfect in real time duck hunting, and that, in itself, makes the Hunter's Choice the wrong choice for prairie pothole region that is overflowing with young of year and eclipse plumaged ducks.

Sincerely, 
Dan


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Tony Dean Outdoors 
Issues
Tony's Right on Hunter's Choice

Tony - Please excuse the lengthy email, but I want to thank you for the excellent article "Hunter's Choice yields reckless waterfowl management". This is a subject that has frustrated me for the past few years. I think duck hunters are being "snowed" by so-called duck managers with this and with Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM). I have been critical of the NDGF for proposing the Hunter Choice system to the FWS. As you point out in your article, these "gimmicks" have a history, and that history is of failure.

I couple years ago I worked on an article on this subject. I never sent it into be printed anywhere because I am not sure it was good enough, and I guess I sensed there wasn't much interest in the topic among the hunters. At the time I had taken a hard look at the mathematics' being used to support the AHM, and by extension, Hunter' s Choice. There are numerous flaws in the math in both areas. In proper context, the math is too simple to support the complex system it purports to support. In other words, the assertions made by duck managers can not be supported by the mathematics' being used - thus the AHM matrix does not have mathematical validity.

The main flaw is the mathematical models are "linear", and the system they are meant to represent is non-linear. In some AHM papers the term "uncertainties" is used in an attempt to address the flawed math. However, those attempts provide little solace in my book.

What AHM does is it takes the "naturalist" out of duck management. (i.e the Hawkin's and Duebberts' and Madsen's of days gone by who would observe things in the natural and human world and make and support conclusions based on those observations.) And it replaces the naturalist with a system that attempts to take a limited set of facts and form broad based conclusions on those facts. This is supposed to be a 'better' system, I have been repeatedly told, because it takes "guesswork" out of duck management. What they mean by that is they take the naturalist out of the system.

In the end, our harvest policy is geared to assist the southern states maintain a high kill rate if you think about who benefits by it.

Some mathematical specific's.

AHM - At the core of AHM is a variant of the basic linear population equation x(next) = rx(1 - x). In the equation r is the rate of growth, and the (1 - x) keeps the (mathematical) growth rate under control. ( I know this is the right equation because a few years ago I did some long-hand graphing using this equation and the AHM graphs and it worked out. I check my results with a professor from the U. of Nova Scotia and said I was on target.

And, last year at a big duck symposium is Bismarck the math guys behind AHM gave a talk. I attended and this base equation was part of their power point.)

The equation is called a "Malthusian" or "fish pond" equation. This is where the FWS politics comes in. For any of these linear population equations to work and graph properly, a "saturation point" or what AHM calls the "carrying capacity" has to be determined. AHM uses 11.5 million mallards as the carrying capacity of the prairie potholes. That number is based on the estimated mallard population from 1975. Everything else in our duck harvest policy is based on this number. Now, if you look at a bell curve with zero on the left side and 11.5 million mallards on the right side, 5.9 million mallards is located just passed the mid-point of the bell curve where it starts to slope down.

Therefore, AHM concludes that the goal of creating a "maximum sustained harvest rate over the long term" is best achieved if we have a spring mallard population on the breeding grounds of 5.9 million birds. That is why even though the mallard numbers are down year after year we still get liberal seasons.

As long as the estimated spring mallard population is above 5.9 million mallards the rest of the AHM matrix weighs heavy towards liberal seasons.

Here are some flaws in this system from my point of view. What AHM mathematically says is the optimum number of spring mallards in their model (5.9 million) is only marginally above the record low mallard numbers of 5.3 million birds! Linear equations work best in this number range, but that does not mean that those models are reflective of nature. For example, if you take a male and female bluegill and put them in a 10 acre pond with no other fish and plenty of food the bluegill population on the model will explode for a few years. If you estimate the carrying capacity of the pond to be 10,000 bluegills the graph will work great until the population passes the midpoint of 5000 fish and then slopes down to the carrying capacity of 10,000. The closer you get to 10,000 the more "uncertainties" come into play and you can't predict what the population will do. (i.e. it becomes non-linear) Therefore, the best population of fish for modeling purposes is right around the mid-point of 5000 fish. ( Also, a fish pond has much more static conditions. They are using this method on the prairie where the conditions are very dynamic.)

So, to make the AHM models look pretty and not go non-linear FWS uses 11.5 million mallards from 1975, and claims we should liberally kill mallards down to 5.9 million birds under many conditions on the breeding grounds. In my view, this defies commonsense. 1975. That year was picked because 73', 74', and 75' were wet years. Mathematically, 11.5 million means that the prairie could take no more mallards, it was completely saturated with mallards in 1975. The can't be true. With two more wet years maybe the population would have been 16 million? Who knows? The bottom line is there is no way of finding, absent unsupportable assumptions, a "real" carrying capacity over the prairie potholes. It's too diverse, too complex, and mallards may not be the best species to base the harvest policy for diving and other ducks on. Any number picked has as much, or little, validity as any other number.

Hypothetically, lets say there was some validity to using the estimated mallard population from 1975. Then, to have present validity, that would mean that the prairie has remained static in the past 32 years. (AHM means just that. It is an implied statement that nothing has changed on the prairie in 32 years!) It means there has been no drainage, no opening up of native prairie, no CRP, no changes in cropping practices, etc., since 1975.

That is what basing our entire harvest policy on 11.5 million mallards means, despite all evidence to the contrary. If you just take the studies of the impact of CRP and transpose that on the AHM carrying capacity it would bump the 11.5 million up, say to 16 million. Which would mean that just based on the mid-point of 8 million mallards we should not have liberal seasons because that would become the new "maximum sustained harvest rate over the long term" number.

Additional mathematical flaws in AHM are in the selected spring ponds in Canada that are used to determine the spring habitat conditions for the AHM matrix. Who is to say that the conditions of those ponds are representative of the spring conditions in ND and SD? I have seen claims that ND is producing as many ducks as the Canadian potholes presently, and most ND hunters are hunting local birds in October, but the harvest policy for most of the ducks shot in ND is based on the water conditions in Canada. What sense does that make?

HIP numbers are also flawed. The way they are designed and used can not be a accurate depiction of the true harvest rates. All duck hunters self-report there harvest for HIP during license renewal. From that, selected hunters are surveyed from each category. (Hunters that shot 1-10, 10 - 30, duck etc.) The problems with this are many. First, they are self-reported numbers done a year later and amount to a historical guess. Second, and this is important when considering Hunter's Choice, they only reflect self-reported legal kills. We know from enforcement cases that there are thousands and thousands of illegally killed ducks every year in ND. Some of the big outfitter uncovers, game check stations were there were a large percent of over bags were found, wanton waste cases where the warden watches duck dumping, etc. should tell duck managers that we have a real problem with HIP reliability. (But that is bringing back the naturalist into the system)

HC attempts to micromanage the bag of the honest hunter for a purported conservation goal, but right down the road there exists a killing operation operating with indiscriminate killing of hens, cans, pintails, etc. defeating any perceived conservation goal of HC for that region. And, the evidence shows that most regions of ND have and continue to have killing operations. HIP and the rest of this stuff is based on self-reported results assumed to be honest. As a prosecutor in the prairie potholes, I can state that those numbers are way off. They have to be. A few hunters that kill without limits have a big impact on harvest that is never factored in even though the wildlife division at the NDGF is right down the hall from the enforcement division and they have the evidence to show what is happening.

HC on top of the AHM system is very problematic. Tons of negative feedback from the field is being ignored about HC. No doubt HC will be spun as a positive, but that is just spin. I am glad to see that you are following it. I saw some emails where your article was being spun also. But you are right on. Thanks....Ladd Erickson

Ladd: Many thanks for your support. I received considerable criticism from the SD Game, Fish & Parks on this, mostly from one individual. I then met with Waterfowl Chief, Spence Vaa, who I like and respect. Spence went through the whole thing with me, but I have to say, I have not changed my mind, not one iota.

By the way, Ladd Erickson was instrumental in documenting the loss of wetlands due to NRCS meddling in Blue Earth county, MN, where virtually no wetland drainage requests were turned down over a multi-year period.

I find it interesting that most older waterfowl biologists merely shake their heads at AHM and, to an extent, at the Hunter's Choice. But then, they did their work in the field and not at a computer.

Tony


----------



## 9erfan (Oct 18, 2007)

> Besides that, what does hen mallards have to do with pintails and cans anyway?


hybrids?? other than that, not much. we already put a specific # on redheads & bluebills, why not cans and/or sprig?

here's my thought--limit is X number of ducks (the X is a whole different debate :wink: ) of which you may posses no more than 1 hen mallard (the oops duck!), either 1 can or sprig, no more than 2 redheads, etc., etc. FWIW

BTW, anyone still hunting SE SD?? I'd be interested in finding out. Thanks


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

Revised: My letter to Tony:

Tony,

Your recent article on Hunters Choice in the Fargo Forum has me in complete disagreement with you. For the record, this occurrence is quite rare. Typically, I agree completely with your pro-conservation endorsements. However, I believe your stance on hunters choice is inconsistent with your past pro-conservation stances.

I for one will be lobbying the North Dakota Game and Fish to keep Hunters Choice. It is without question the best limit framework I have seen yet. Far better than some of the stuff we have seen in the past. Primarily, the system "forces" hunters to do what they should have been doing all along, picking drakes! For years I have seen conservation groups like Delta and DU support the idea of picking drakes. Hunters Choice reinforces this concept. If baffles my mind that you could oppose this concept. As an added bonus, you can shoot an entire limit of mallards if you choose. Not just 4 out of 6 like they have in the Mississippi Flyway. For greenhead hunters like me, this is great!

Here is what I say to the naysayers:

The argument that you can't pick drakes in low light conditions is very weak. This is the argument of a slob hunter; someone who is out in the field for the sole purpose of shooting their gun. I don't here you screaming about the fact that you should be able to shoot hen pheasants because it is too difficult to pick roosters during low light conditions. In North Dakota, you can shoot pheasants 1/2 hour before daylight. I just don't get this point. You might recall, until the liberal framework of recent years, only one hen mallard was allowed in the bag. We did not hear this argument in the past. I fear it is a complaint that stems from the recent rise of "blood sport" videos; shoot has many as you can as fast as you can.

Secondly, one of the primary rules of gun safety is to know your target. If you can't I.D. birds, in my opinion, you have no business pulling the trigger. And you especially have no business calling yourself a waterfowler.

Third, I keep hearing some people say there is no biological evidence that saving hen mallards is good for the population. Yet, I don't hear these same people make this argument about pheasants. Show me the research that says shooting roosters only is good for the pheasant population. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hunters Choice is the system preferred by true waterfowlers. Myself and 3 buddies shot a limit of ducks opening day, September 22nd. Most of these birds were mallards, not a single hen was killed. See attached photo. In some cases, we let the birds land, identified the olive drab bill, and then flushed the bird. We decoy our birds. I agree that it would be hard to tell drakes from hens if you are a skybuster. Thus, hunters choice promotes shooting birds at the proper range; less cripples. It is a great system and I hope it is here to stay.

Thank you for your conservation efforts.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hydro....

The facts state that one rooster can mate with about 10 hens. Now I have never heard anything like that about ducks. I have heard that geese pair up. Know I have no idea about ducks. I have asked for people to help me out and fill me in. But I have not seen that yet.

I am still a no decision on HPC yet. It might take a couple of years to see the benefits or draw backs.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

As far as comparing pheasants to ducks.....you can't.The pheasant season opens the SECOND weekend of Oct.Almost all roosters except the really late hatched are colored up enough to tell even 1/2 hour before sunrise.Does anyone here really want to wait that long to open duck season???? :eyeroll: Might only get 2 weeks of hunting since they migrate out.....pheasants don't.....can hunt them into Jan.

Pheasants collect harems of hens......ducks mate with one at a time and stay with that 1 hen until she starts to incubate.....geese for life.......big difference there too.

As far as shooting pheasant hens.....GNF people have told me we could actually take some pheasant hens.In fact have the same limit of 1 hen as for ducks and it wouldn't make a difference,since hens die of natural causes anyway.

So we shouldn't compare the 2 they are totally different.


----------



## ND_duckman (Feb 17, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> Hydro....
> 
> The facts state that one rooster can mate with about 10 hens. Now I have never heard anything like that about ducks. I have heard that geese pair up. Know I have no idea about ducks. I have asked for people to help me out and fill me in. But I have not seen that yet.
> 
> I am still a no decision on HPC yet. It might take a couple of years to see the benefits or draw backs.


Ducks are seasonally monogamous. Although they will seek forced copulations when there is an opportunity for it. Basically if they get an extra chance to pass on their genes with another female they will.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> Ducks are seasonally monogamous. Although they will seek forced copulations when there is an opportunity for it. Basically if they get an extra chance to pass on their genes with another female they will.


O.K. good. So my point is valid.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

ND....

So you are saying that a drake will mate with one hen a season unless another single hen is around?


----------



## chris lillehoff (Jan 9, 2006)

i think that drakes are like me lol  :lol:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Hydro - great post!

The only exception is that I find I rarely agree with Mr Dean, but then again I only read his opinions if they are contentious enough for someone to post here.

I like the idea of one hen mallard - a mistake bird (or wearing jewelry). But folks need to learn some restraint. If you can't tell, don't shoot. I think it is a "sore loser" mentality - folks gotta realize that sometimes (most times) the birds win the encounter. Doesn't mean you're less of a waterfowler. No reason to blast some unidentified bird for the sake of blasting something.

M.


----------



## dfisher (Oct 12, 2007)

Well, the only thing that Hydro's post tells me, is that a lot of hen pheasants are more than likely being shot and stashed in the brush for coyote/fox lunch, just like hen mallards or pintails.

C'mon guys, use some common sense here. If a hunter can't tell a drake form a hen mallard in low light, or any other light, then more than likely, they aren't going to know a can or pintail when it comes swinging in either. So what are you saving with this system?

I don't know. I guess we all have an opinion about this issue and whether it's good or bad. I know from personnel experience that drake and hen mallards in early season North Dakota are difficult to tell apart, low light or not. I know of two ducks that I dropped the hammer on, during different outings, this year that I would have bet $100 on being hen mallards. When Bill the Chessy brought them in though...surprise, surprise, young greenheads. Make no mistake about this boys, I knew my target when I shot and fully expected a nice, fat, hen mallardy to come back with Bill the Chessy. No dice though...henish looking youngster. I'm sure a lot of you reading this could count a few times that you were "sure" of your target and were totally surprised as well.

No, Hunters Choice has no place in waterfowling regs in ND, SD, or anywhere else ducks brood. It cheats hunters with precious little time to hunt out of opportunities in the field. But, if it's kept as the limit of choice for our state, then perhaps we should look at changing shooting hours. Say from 9 AM to about 4 PM. Then visibility and light would be at its peak and we may save a duck or two for the next bunch of "slob" hunters in the next state down the line.

Dan


----------



## goosebusters (Jan 12, 2006)

Wow, that is a terrible idea, so we could start hunting right after the birds leave the field and stop hunting right before they return. I just don't see it being that difficult to identify waterfowl.

You can only shoot one hen Dan, why would you shoot at what you think to be a hen? Not trying to be mean, but with the difficulty people have with identification why wouldn't you use that hen allowance for an accidental hen.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree Dan.Well said.


----------



## dfisher (Oct 12, 2007)

goosebusters said:


> Wow, that is a terrible idea, so we could start hunting right after the birds leave the field and stop hunting right before they return. I just don't see it being that difficult to identify waterfowl.
> 
> You can only shoot one hen Dan, why would you shoot at what you think to be a hen? Not trying to be mean, but with the difficulty people have with identification why wouldn't you use that hen allowance for an accidental hen.


You can be as mean as you wish. I don't care. It's just a post and opinion.

I shot at what I thought to be hen mallards because there were no drakes, that I could see, availalbe and I wanted a duck to take home and have for lunch. These were the only ducks I harvested on these occassions as well.

I took these shots of my own free will, and because it was my right to do so under the Hunters Choice. Having dropped the hammer on these birds, had they actually been hens, I would have been high and dry, had the biggest bull sprig ever or a can the size of a honker come by. And that's one of the problems with the Hunters Choice.

Let's forget, for a moment, about the ID problems. Look at how this limit is restricting the hunter. What is the point of not being allowed to down a pintail or can if you shoot a hen mallard? It has been mentioned that the Mississippi flyway has only a four mallard limit with only one henny. True, but can you still shoot pins and cans, should they come in?

I realize that everyone should be able to ID all ducks on the wing, and picking out a nice greenhead to lower the boom on, is a nice thing. I don't doubt for a second that the vast majority of hunters on this site do just that. But there are those out there who shoot what is infront of them when the shooting starts, be it hen or drake. That's not gonna change. So why would any reasonable person think that, if a fella can't tell a young drake from a hen, or even cares to try to pick a drake out, its going to matter to them when the next flock comes in? Be it a flock of pintails, mallards, or a flock of mixed birds; gadwalls, mallards, and pintails. It's not going to matter. They are going to stand and shoot, hoping the right bird falls. For a state whose fine Game and Fish officers are spread so thin, the chances of these hunters being checked seem very slim at best.

As for the 9 AM start and 4 PM close; yes, that may be a bit extreme, but think of the ducks we'd save for our duck hunting allies in other states. Think of the NR issues and how that would curtail the efforts of many out of state gunners. Guys and gals who come and spend their hard earned money here in NoDak and shoot "our" ducks. Wouldn't it give you guys a warm, fuzzy, feeling deep inside to know of all the good you're doing for others? I mean saving NR's gas and hotel expense and providing a much stronger flight south for hunters waiting in other states is...well you'd be heros for sure.

Seriously though...suppose, like in fishing, 90% of the ducks are taken by 10% of the hunters, and all of these hunters are trying real hard to knock drakes out of the sky, wouldn't a strait three or four duck limit be a good thing? Three ducks, like three pheasants are enough for a morning's hunt anyway...right?

Good luck,
Dan


----------



## bowhunter04 (Nov 7, 2003)

> But there are those out there who shoot what is infront of them when the shooting starts, be it hen or drake. That's not gonna change. So why would any reasonable person think that, if a fella can't tell a young drake from a hen, or even cares to try to pick a drake out, its going to matter to them when the next flock comes in? Be it a flock of pintails, mallards, or a flock of mixed birds; gadwalls, mallards, and pintails. It's not going to matter. They are going to stand and shoot, hoping the right bird falls. For a state whose fine Game and Fish officers are spread so thin, the chances of these hunters being checked seem very slim at best.


So we should change the law because people aren't going to follow it? How much sense does that make? If we did this with everything, there would be no laws left. There are some who will break the law but these people will do this even if we switch back to a 1 or even a 2 hen limit. If they're just standing and shooting, they're still going to do that will a 1 or 2 hen limit. It's the people who follow the law who will be making the difference. That's how the law will help duck populations. If they want to go back to the old way, that's fine with me. But do it for the ducks or the hunters who follow the laws, not because some people aren't going to follow the law. I do, however, think they should go to a 3 duck limit with a few species specific limits (i.e. 2 wood ducks) that are already in place. 3 birds should be plenty for everyone.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

I say screw it. ND's the next best thing to Canada anyway, 8 honks and 8 ducks for everyone, brown its down. Can't wait to see the pretty pics.

lol


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Having been under the current rules two years, I don't see it as a big issue, early on one or two hen limits make little difference because you would still have to stop shooting hens after the second one anyway!

What I like about the current rules are the extension of the pintail and Can season into Nov. This year especially it was nice to be able to take a drake pintail late. Since I doubt I will be traveling south any time soon, it gives some of us a chance to harvest a bird worth possibly mounting.

I remember going to the G&F meetings when this idea was in the thought stage. Randy Kriel and Dean H, both addressed many of the down side and up side of this before it was implemented. I do not remember any waterfowl hunters in attendance speaking out against this program at those times.

It may have been because of the reduction in daily limits that many of us would like to see happen. Moving from 6 back to 5 had an appeal that most likely made a lot of the other things be ignored.

In regards to the current rules, I only had one hunt this fall where Id affected our hunting. It came not at the beginning but mid Oct. Light conditions and cloud cover made it very hard to pick out the drakes except for those with really good color. We spent an extra couple hours in the field that day because of it.

I hunted with a couple of new waterfowlers this fall as well. I know that the rules made them a lot more aware of what they where shooting at. Those days I spent most of my time helping them pick out birds they could shoot. I think that at their age, they have a better handle on duck Id which will serve them well into the future.

We have one more year of this possibly and then an evaluation of its affects will take place. I do not know if this is the direction we should continue or not. Getting accurate data to promote it or scrap it is really the question I have!

I do not disagree with much of what Ladd had to say in regards to the AHM issue.


----------



## fowl_play (Mar 31, 2006)

9erfan said:


> > BTW, anyone still hunting SE SD?? I'd be interested in finding out. Thanks


we are still hunting on the jim river and missouri, and a lake around yankton and not doing to bad.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I like everything about the rule except the 1 hen mallard part. I said it in another post it should be 5 duck bag with the option of 5 drake mallards 1 hen or 1 additional hen, Pintail or Canvasback.

And its not so much the Idea part as it is the hitting 2 ducks with one shell. So many times this year we pasted on big flocks of mallards because the drakes stayed in the center of the group or a hen was just a little to close. I have seen ducks that are 5-10 yards from the ducks that were being shot at fold up.

The way it is now kind of takes the fun out of it. It also creates waste. There was a good field that was off a highway so everyone could find it. I saw 4 different groups hunt it in less than a week. Later that same week I hunted it while I was there my dog found 2 hen mallards stashed under the corn and we only hunted one corner of the field I am sure I could of found more if I tried.


----------



## goosebusters (Jan 12, 2006)

I really wasn't trying to be mean Dan, I have hunted with people that have that mentality, where they shoot what is in front of them. They aren't even looking for a drake in the flock they just shoot. I just don't get it when the rules are set up the way they are, you can't afford to shoot a hen on purpose because early in the season you are going to probably shoot a drakelike hen. Just don't intentionally shoot hens unless you are hunting like a strictly Canada field and a random hen comes bombing in. If you really want to shoot her have at it. I'm just saying when you are duck hunting purposely shooting a hen is a bad idea. Also, if you were to hunt with me, you will get checked. I was checked 5 times last season so I always have to be by the book.


----------



## dfisher (Oct 12, 2007)

What about four ducks of any species? No matter, if those four are drake mallards, hen mallards, four pintails, four woodies, or four cans or redheads, or a combination. Four ducks period and you are done. Why wouldn't that work? There would be no issues then. While a lot of gunners can't ID ducks too good, all of us can count to four. No more problems. Drake hunters could still pick on the greenheads and, in my opinion, hunting would be far more relaxed and enjoyable, especially for young people. Hell, even three ducks would be good enough for me.

What if we, as hunters imposed our own limits? These could not exceed the state mandate, but if you went out and said..."I'm only going to try for a pair today, instead of a limit." Maybe go out to a slough and try for a limit of teal or gadwalls or something else and let the mallards go. How would that be? You know if one duck comes in...or a thousand come in, you don't have to shoot. Of course, you don't see many pics of guys standing around with one or two ducks layed out in front of them.

As for being a slob hunter just because you can't always ID a duck and make the mistake and shoot anyway, that's bull. Poor eyesight, inclement weather, or any other number of reasons may lead to opening up without properly IDing the bird. Do the guys who preach this go out with a group of other hunters and actually stop shooting when you, as individuals, feel as though you've knocked down a daily limit? Hell no they don't! Some do, I'm sure of it. But I think a lot of these holier than thou types go out and if the combined total is 20 birds for the group, they are shooting until the 20th bird in on the ground. What's the diff? A guy is a slob because he fires at a flock that he can't ID, but its okay to continue to shoot when you've acquired your limit for the day?

As for you "goosebuster," no problem. I'm not here to fight either and I'd hate to think that I hurt anyone or was mean. I just like an occasional written or verbal rough. You got checked 5 times this past year? Really. I think I saw only two other hunters the entire season. (waterfowl that is) But I don't range out too far either.

Good luck :beer: 
Dan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dan,

I don't think that is a good idea.The Dept. of Interior says the population of cans it to low to allow 4 per person and the pintail population has continued to drop.4 would be way to many.Not sure whay their rational is for only one hen mallard when that is the only sub-species that has a hen restriction......probablly because it is easy to tell drakes from hens when fully colored and mallards are the most popular species taken by hunters by far.

When I was growing up we wern't allowed any cans or either 1 can or 1 redhead.

I also don't think we should penalize hunters who take the time to identify what they are shooting at by making them take a lower limit.


----------

