# They are getting wound up in MN.



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

It seems that Dennis Anderson's "Empty Skies" article in the Trib has gotten some people wound up. It would be FANTASTIC to see some political action being taken by hunters and conservationists alike!

http://startribune.com/stories/533/5143494.html

The original article is here:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5131106.html

RC


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

and they are suing us to come to North Dakota to do that to our population....

Can we say...."wake up people"


----------



## Waterfowlerguy (Mar 4, 2004)

This is an issue that has needed to be addressed for a long time. It is also one that effects the quality of hunting in NODAK due to increased hunting pressure there. I hope if a rally is organized that we could get some support from you guys across the boarder. I don't care if it is because you are concerned about the pressure there or you just care about the ducks. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

farmerj said:


> and they are suing us to come to North Dakota to do that to our population....
> 
> Can we say...."wake up people"


I don't really get what you are driving at here. I hardly think that the MN lawsuit has anything to do with habitat destruction or bird populations in ND.

I am NOT a supporter of the MN lawsuit and I do not think that Dennis Anderson nor most of those trying to mobilize in MN are either. You make it sound as if all MNs are wildly suppportive of the MN lawsuit, when, in fact, you know that many, maybe most, are not.

One of the most common gripes here is that MNs need to worry about what goes on in MN and not ND. Now they appear to be doing just that and it isn't good enough either?

I think most here would be pleased to see their fellow hunters trying to make something happen on the political front as this is what they are trying to do as well.

RC


----------



## Waterfowlerguy (Mar 4, 2004)

Farmerj, I think there is also a great deal of difference in the attitude of land owners and farmers here on the preservation of habitat and small wetlands. It seems no matter where you go in this state they are paving something over, draining something, or building something. Its not hunters shooting all the ducks its the habitat loss that has devastated us here more then anything. We also need to allow farmers to make a livable wage off their crops so they don't need to plow every inch of land under just to survive. It is a big mess I just hope there is a solution out there that can keep ducks in the skies whether I can hunt them or not.


----------



## Waterfowlerguy (Mar 4, 2004)

Without this thing degenerating into an complaint session I do not support the lawsuit nor do I want to "come to your state and do the same thing there". I love your state and I respect the concerns you have about the quality of the outdoor experiences there. You are blessed to be a resident and a sportsman in such a place. Please remember that most hunters are ethical people who respect the game and the habitat. Also there are many of us who also support conservation organizations that spend much of the money we give in the Dakotas and Canada. This is for the betterment of the birds and I wouldn't have it any other way. So please do not broadly paint us as destroyers of our state or attackers of yours. It is about the land and game EVERYWHERE, the idea is to preserve what we have and improve what we don't. Please stand with us instead of taking the narrow view. Thanks.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*From the article*:


> A consensus is building among some hunters, among them Bud Grant, that serious consideration should be given to *closing the Minnesota duck **season for at least a year*. Not necessarily because hunting is hurting ducks (though recent seasons have been too long and limits too high), but because holding a duck-less season benefits no one except the DNR and manufacturers and sellers of hunting gear. And until those entities get on board what might be called a duck-management-revolution-in-the-making, there's little reason to benefit them alone by holding a season.


And where, pray tell, would those hunters go if the season were closed for a year? We'd have to sue 'em to keep their season open. :x

Seriously, look what a little bit of organizing can do. We Nodakers better take note.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

I do not duck hunt. Someting about cold weather and water to me don't mix....

In lihgt of that...I have uncles that farm. They have done very well in preserving their wetlands on their farms. Doesn't seem to bother them at all. Through improved farmering practices, they have been able to increase their yeilds, yet remain the same size in acreage.

Minnesota is a state operated from the metro area. It is very much out of touch with out-state Minnesota. If the Metro doesn't need it, why does the rest of the state?

I WAS a Minnesota resident for 30 years. . I quit hunting in Minnesota in 1988 as a result of a shooting incident from a metro hunter on public land. In October 1997 I moved to North Dakota. It wasn't until then I started to hunt again.

Outstate Minnesota needs to stand up to Metro Minnesota and tell them to knock it off..

Until you do, continue to see your natural resource dwindle.


----------



## Waterfowlerguy (Mar 4, 2004)

I agree they should have reduced limits across the flyways in ALL states. They should also consider closing the season here for as long as it takes no question about it. But make no mistake in thinking that the decrease in overall bird numbers is just a Minnesota problem. The issues of habitat management the the comercialization of hunting is a problem everywhere. Im sure that 30 or 40 years ago people in this state were talking much like you are about someone somewhere. While our sportsman and DNR people were asleep at the wheel we lost more then I care to think about. Be vigilant in guarding your resources but don't kick us in the teeth just cause we are on the other side of the fence. There are some of us who feel much the same about it as you do.


----------



## Waterfowlerguy (Mar 4, 2004)

Farmerj, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is scary how much these metro areas effect the rest of the state and even the country if you start looking at things like electoral votes. The differences between what people want in the two different areas in painfully obvious. As I said in a previous post if the sportsman and conservationists can get a rally together it would be nice to get some support of some kind from you guys regardless of the motivation.


----------



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

I like this Dennis Anderson. Closing the season is a good idea, BUT, I would also hope that ND would have a cap on NR and a smaller bag limit, they will definately see the pressure there from this if it happens. Wisconsin should also be watching this closely. I'll also bet MN raises some other licenses to cover their a$$'$ but it has to start with something and at least a ball is rolling a little.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

I am really excited to see this article and the responses it got. It sounds like there is quite a bit of support for the rally. The rally is only the beginning though. First, we need to make sure thousands of people will show up. Then, once it is over, we can't let it fade away and put it on the back burner. We need to keep this going and keep everyone involved, otherwise it will go nowhere. We need meetings to attend. We need something to organize the hunters together- I think a website would be great. Or maybe a special insert in the newspaper. How about a fund to help supports costs of all of this? We have to band together. This needs to be a national story, with news organizations from around the country reporting on it. I don't care what anyone says, Minnesota is not the only state with problems. I believe every state does. Maybe Minnesota can take the lead and set an example for other states to follow. Dennis Anderson is a savior to Minnesota citizens for writing his first article, and getting this wheel rolling. Bud Grant would be an excellent leader. We need to ensure that this rally happens and that changes will take place. It would be really counterproductive and disheartening to see none of this end up happening. I just really want to see this rally take place and to start seeing changes in Minnesota. I would love to be able to go hunting next year and shoot limits of ducks. But change will probably be slow. If I could get on some great hunts in Minnesota in my lifetime, and know I helped to do it, it would be a great feeling.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

The states south of us would like to see us close the season for a year. It would mean a few hundred thousand more ducks heading their way. They could help the entire situation by reducing their bag limits. I don't think that will happen though. Although habitat should be a flyway problem. The better habitat we have in future years will mean more ducks for them too.


----------



## Brad Hanson (Nov 13, 2004)

Prior to reading this I admit the Internet is an easy place to rant and vent...... so please gleen the substance and forgive the heat.

I would support a closing of the season if it would truley help our population. I have always believed that MN shoots a large share of its brood stock every year and needs to find a solution, is this it? Not sure but willing to work to make a change.

We have used the BS excuse for years that the population just shifted to the Dakota's and if there is ever a drought in that area they would return.......wadda load of crap! Let stop kidding ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have ruined our habitat, stopped trapping our varmits and shot off our brood stock! Its no wonder that when the few breeding ducks return and stay in MN to raise a family they have to do it on a dock or boat lift where there used to be a viable nesting area. Then we open the season early so we can sell more licenses (to fill the coffers of our DNR-department of no reason) This was the worst season I can recall, talking to many hunters around the state and I got tired of hearing....ducks havent come down yet!!!!!!!!! No they havent because they dont exist!!!!!!!! We have alot of WPA's in this state..... but heres a tip for Mr. DNR........to raise waterfowl its best to have water on the land! We have to have grassland for nesting but without water..dunno.. NO DUCKS for nesting.... I have always been supicious of the motives of our DNR's policies and how they are driven by the metro and not the resource. Easy to say but how many hunters that respect the resource would argue that policies coming from St. Paul have actully build any sporting activity much less hunting. I have been convinced that MNDNR wants to sell as many licenses as possilble but would prefer that no one catch or kill anything with that license.

The point was made that if we wear the white hat (like we have on Canada geese for years-another subject) Other states in our flyway must contribute as well. We must involve the feds or what gains we make will be taken by others! Lets all consider this a more global subject. If we start to quibble about yours and mine we should just give up now. I dont mind wearing the white hat if the rest join in. I have Ideas but I dont have the answer! I look forward to working to make the season better for all parties! As I take a deep breath..........thanks,


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Has anyone come up with a game plan to present to the MN governor,ledgislature,DNR?I am curious to see what kind of plans have been hashed out such as wetland restorations,grassland easments,etc.When I lived in MN the main duck that everyone targeted were bluebills(lesser scaup).They would build up on many of the shallow lakes to several thousand by the 3rd or 4th week of october and would provide great hunting until freezeup.Since the bluebill has fallen on hard times as of late,is there low population in the last 10 years or so causing much of the stir among MN hunters.The years I lived over there, that is the duck everyone targeted.You never seen much for mallards,or other puddle ducks.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Reading through this and thinking--Just exactly what is/can be done that will make a significant difference? and, Where will the money for it come from? Everyone knows that restoring land is a big task and is not very cheap, especially on the scale that it needs to be done in MN. I know they are doing a pretty big project on the wild rice lakes (or so MNDU says), and that probably would help,but the scale of this is huge, not just a couple hundred thousand acres.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

Accidental double post.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

There will be many questions that will have to be answered. I believe the most important step, however, has been taken, which is beginning to organize and mobilize the state's citizens(this is not solely for hunters). I see many ways to restore the land and protect it. I believe the number one thing that needs to be done is to prevent any more wetlands from being lost. We need stronger laws in MN against wetland destruction. We can't let developers fill in a fully functional wetland ecosystem and let them replace it with a dried up block of cattails or a pond with no nesting cover(housing development favorite), that supports not much more than a few red-winged black birds. I believe this would be one thing that could be accomplished rather quickly.

As far as buying land for preservation or restoration, the options to fund this are endless. The state lottery is one example. We could devote more funds raised from the lottery towards the preservation of wetlands. Cigarrette/alcohol tax increases? Waterfowl stamp price increase?

How about the national waterfowl organizations, like Delta, getting more involved. I know they like to put their money into the breeding grounds, where it "counts", but Minnesota could eventually *be* part of the breeding grounds again if enough effort and funds are put here. How about the state setting up a program similar to Delta's, where wetlands get protected forever, through a contract.

As has been stated before, the whole flyway needs to work together on this. What good would all our efforts be if the southern states allow very liberal limits and long seasons? How about even international cooperation? Having Mexico cut back their limits a little. Working with Canada to ensure healthy populations. This can spread much furthur than just MN. And this is what needs to be done, because waterfowling as we know it needs to be drastically changed, if any of us are going to enjoy it in the future.

The DNR is trying to hurry up and put together a plan for the recovery of ducks. This is an effort to make it look like they actually care and aren't just sitting around sticking each other's thumbs up their *****. And most likely they began putting this plan together after the article that was published last week. That is just sad. uke:

There are a lot of questions to be answered. At least we are finally beginning to do something in MN now, instead of sitting on our *** and *****ing about how bad the hunting is. For this I am extremely happy, and I will try as hard as I can to help this cause.


----------



## diver_sniper (Sep 6, 2004)

Close the season for a year? sounds good to me and most the guys on this site, but you have to remember, we are dedicated waterfowlers sitting on the internet talking about hunting while the season isnt even on. not all MN duck hunters are like us. It would be very interesting to see the reaction of some of the people that dont support the idea, or the people that only hunt 4 or 5 times a year. the people that spend lots of money, but not much time in field or on the water. Granted all the money that the DNR would be making off of lisences for that year would be lost, it would still be a good idea. And money will ultimately decide if this can ever happen. Hunting stores, certain motels, the state, ect., all would take a terible hit from stopping the duck season for one year. But stopping it would be the only way. if your just going to shorten it up to 30 days and 4 ducks for one year, why even bother. So many of the birds taken are shot in that time frame that very little would be preserved. I think if MN, SD, and ND all gave the birds a year of rest we would surely see the benifits. But to even convince one state to go through with this would be a monumental task. As said before the MN DNR loves selling lisences, but they havnt always shown a big effort to help make sure we have something to hunt. I wonder if all the money we spend to duck hunt doesnt go to help deer hunting and fishing, i see alot of attention around here for that, but waterfowl seems to have slipped into the shadows as unsaveable. and if MN did ever shut down the season for a year, watch out nodakers, you might have your worst year yet, you will likely meet the NR cap, and all of western minnesota will turn into a massive waterfowl refuge. With all the negitives i have stated, i support closing the season 100%.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

diver_sniper-
I'm not sure you understand, but the whole reason for closing down the season for a year isn't to increase duck numbers or give them a rest, it is to force the DNR and industies like lodging and sporting goods to lose money, because they haven't been serving the citizens of the state and waterfowl like the way they should. Making them lose money is the goal. It is to force them to take a good hard look at what they have been doing, which is nothing. Granted, it would also be good for duck populations, but that isn't the reason for doing it.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

People need to realize that when you discuss duck populations in Minnesota and what to do about the delemma, you have to remember that you are talking about two different groups of birds. 
The habitat loss is nothing new. We havent had a local hatch that amounted to anything since before the big drain. 
Our local birds are what they are. 
The other group of birds are the migrators which come down from the north. What puzzles me is that even since the drain, we still had respectable flights of divers coming through the state.
Of late that has dwindled and this year I didnt see any.
There was plenty of water right where there has been plenty of water during the years we had good late season shooting. 
Why no ducks then? 
I think it revolves around the fact that there is no food in that water for the divers to be attracted and kept here long enough to see.
There are ducks. I saw them in South Dakota. 
Im not sure what the reason is for the lack of food in west central diver country. Many blame the bait dealers. (Fatheads eating shrimp) Thing is though, if you have water that supports fathead minnows, they are going to be there regardless of weather or not somebody is trapping and selling them.
Carp? Yeah, they screw up the vegitation but that too is really nothing new. 
The lake I live on contains carp but still has the vegitation it did a few years ago when we had tons of divers around here but this year, I didnt shoot a singe one and only saw one goldeneye right before freeze up.
Shooting pressure has nothing to do with it as the birds were not pressured at all this year. No birds to pressure.
Like I said, there are ducks. My fear is that they will never come through here again like they did because not only can we not put our finger on just why, but of that which we speculate, I dont see a fix for.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I thought this would be Interesting to throw into the discussion

FWS Regional Office: More Money Needed in the PPR
Erosion of Dollars Hurting Duck Production on Breeding Grounds

How much habitat will it take to sustain healthy duck populations for future generations of waterfowlers to enjoy?

What kind of habitat do we need, and where do we need it?

First the good news: Thanks to years of scientific research, Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and a lot of old-fashioned elbow grease, the Region 6 Refuge Division of the US Fish and Wildlife Service finally has the answer to those questions.

Now the bad news: The price tag to permanently protect the habitat necessary to sustain waterfowl production at its current level is a whopping $1.4 billion, and that just covers the prairie breeding grounds in the US. Canada is another story.

More bad news: At current funding levels, the Service estimates it will take 155 years to protect the wetlands and 406 years to lock up the grasslands necessary to guarantee duck production into the future.

Whew.

Fortunately, Lloyd Jones and Ron Reynolds have no intention of waiting that long, and they hope duck hunters won't either.

Jones and Reynolds were the driving force behind the Prairie Pothole Region Waterfowl Production Area Conservation Strategy, a science-based, no-nonsense evaluation of how much habitat is necessary to "ensure the long-term viability of waterfowl populations in the US Prairie Pothole Region (PPR)."

The results of that evaluation might shock hunters who have been lulled into believing that after 70 years of conserving waterfowl habitat, the job is nearly done.

"We need to permanently protect another 1.4 million acres of wetlands and 10.4 million acres of grasslands," says Reynolds, who heads up FWS' Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET). "That's what it will take to maintain our current capability to attract and produce ducks on the US side of the pothole region."

"We've permanently protected 1.5 million wetland acres and 1.2 million upland acres," says Jones, refuge coordinator for Fish and Wildlife's Region 6. "That's enough habitat to accommodate 27 percent of the breeding-duck population that settles here."

Jones and Reynolds believe securing the $1.4 billion to protect the remainder of the breeding stock will require a concerted effort by the only group with a vested interest in getting the job done-waterfowl hunters.

"Duck hunters can be proud of what their conservation dollars have accomplished," says Reynolds. "Since 1958 their duck stamp dollars have permanently protected a lot of habitat across the breeding grounds."

"Over 90 percent of the wetlands and grasslands already protected on the U.S. breeding grounds were secured with duck stamp dollars," echoes Jones. "The rest is a combination of other public lands and habitat acquired by state agencies and conservation organizations.

"But we still have a ways to go, and we won't get the job done without the help of duck hunters. I don't see anyone else stepping up to do it."

The evaluation not only identifies how much habitat is necessary, it's very specific about what kind of habitat must be preserved. "We've targeted only quality habitat," says Jones.

When it comes to breeding habitat, saving the best-of-the-best means small wetlands and big blocks of grass.

"The wetlands most critical for duck production are the small, shallow wetlands in crop fields," says Reynolds, noting that 10 one-acre wetlands attract three times as many nesting pairs as one 10-acre wetland. "Those little temporary and seasonal wetlands are also the most at-risk. Currently the only protection these wetlands have is Swampbuster."

Jones and Reynolds are particularly concerned about efforts to divert duck stamp dollars from their intended purpose.

"It has actually been suggested that we replace the duck on the duck stamp with a non-game bird," says Reynolds. "Some bird-conservation initiatives that have not received much funding are looking to the duck stamp program as a source of money. We need to support other initiatives, but not at the expense of a program built by duck hunters.

"We have to protect the duck stamp-by the duck, of the duck and for the duck."

Jones says the duck stamp is critical because it's the only funding program ear-marked for ducks, and therefore is the most reliable source of dollars. He'd like to see hunters support an increase in the cost of duck stamps-"We haven't had an increase since 1991".

But increasing the revenue stream from duck stamp sales is only part of the solution to a challenge likely to require a myriad of additional funding sources.

"For one thing, we need to tap into NAWCA," Jones says. NAWCA stands for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and it's a Congressional appropriation intended to support the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Unfortunately NAWCA grants must be matched 50-50 by non-government dollars, and non-federal match is harder to find in the sparsely populated PPR than in some other areas of the country.

"We need duck hunters across the country to support their state agencies' contributions to waterfowl conservation on the breeding grounds, where it will do the most good," says Jones.

"More and more NAWCA has become an all-bird funding program," says Reynolds. "People have forgotten Congress' original intent, which was a funding mechanism for the North American Plan and its priority conservation areas."

(Editor's Note: To date, less than 15 percent of NAWCA dollars spent in the US have come to the PPR, and less than nine percent have gone to the Dakotas and Montana, the states responsible for over half the ducks produced in this country.)

If $1.4 billion sounds like a lot of money, it is. But Jones believes it would be money well spent.

"Waterfowl hunting generates $1.4 billion in economic activity each year," says Jones. "When you think about it, a one-time investment of $1.4 billion to permanently protect the habitat necessary to support a $1.4 billion industry is a pretty good investment."

Unfortunately, the meter is running.

"That $1.4 billion figure is today's dollars," Jones emphasizes. "It doesn't take into account increases in land values driven by farm subsidies."

Indeed, land values have skyrocketed across the Missouri Coteau in South Dakota, and as a result the cost for taking grass easements there has in some cases doubled.

The current price tag also doesn't factor in possible losses in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands. "For every acre of CRP we lose down the road, we have to add another acre to the grasslands we'll need to protect," says Reynolds.

Reynolds and Jones recognize that any effort to allocate more money for the breeding grounds is likely to meet with resistance from waterfowl and wildlife managers-and even some duck hunters-in other parts of the country.

"We don't want less money going to other regions," says Reynolds, "but we need more money coming here. We've documented that if you don't do it on the breeding grounds, you're not going to do it. We need to get that message across to duck hunters so they can help us find ways to get more money to the pothole region."

Jones and Reynolds make a compelling case for spending duck hunters' dollars on the prairie breeding grounds.

"If you look at the factors that influence change in mid-continent mallard populations, you'll see that 91 percent of those factors exist on the prairie breeding grounds," says Jones, citing research published by Steven Hoekman. "In other words, if we want to increase the mallard population there's only one place to get the job done, and that's on the prairie breeding grounds."

Jones says that while the US portion of the PPR accounts for just seven percent of the traditional survey area, it attracts 21 percent of the nesting ducks. Also significant is a production index showing that the US produces more broods relative to the number of breeding ducks than does Canada.

"The US pothole region has always held its own when it comes to duck production," says Reynolds, noting that the gap in the production index widened in the 1990s, partly because of wet conditions in the US, partly because of CRP and partly because of more intensive agricultural practices north of the border.

The Region 6 office didn't set out to identify population and habitat objectives; the original goal of the exercise was to advocate increasing the amount of federal duck stamp dollars coming to the prairies.

"At one point Region 3 and Region 6 were only getting 44 percent of the duck stamp dollars," says Jones. "We wanted to make a scientific case for 70 percent of duck stamp dollars coming to the Prairie Pothole Region, where the ducks are produced."

The PPR did get a welcome increase recently when Fish and Wildlife Director Steve Williams announced that 50 percent of the duck stamp dollars would be directed to the pothole region.

In the meantime, Jones and Reynolds decided to take their research one step further. "We realized the issue was bigger than accessing more money," says Jones. "We recognized a need to identify wider, broader objectives. We decided to set our habitat objectives based on population goals."

That job is now complete. All that's left is raise the money to meet those objectives.

And that brings us full circle to the group that has provided that source of funding since the migratory bird conservation stamp was authorized 70 years ago-duck hunters.

Bob


----------



## birddog131 (Oct 28, 2004)

farmerj said:


> Outstate Minnesota needs to stand up to Metro Minnesota and tell them to knock it off..


That is the truest statement out there! "Northern Minnesota" is Brainerd, and anything north of St. Cloud is not even considered to be important in the eyes of many politicians. Mr. Hustad has done a great job getting support for the outdoors in ND, i hope that whoever leads the charge in MN gets the support of all hunters in MN, ND and any other state that has concerned sportsmen/women.
I did see quotes in the Trib from Tony Dean, he is showing support and I applaude him for that. 
I don't know if closing the season is going to do any good, until farmers in MN change their land practices. It is sad, but the only way I think MN is going to get farmers to change is to subsidize them greater for leaving their land for wildlife.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

mallard said:


> When I lived in MN the main duck that everyone targeted were bluebills(lesser scaup).


The problem is that it looks like the terrible habitat and lack of scud have been the cause of their decline. If you can fix the habitat and they might bounce back...if it's even possible to be fixed at this point.

I still have my doubts about this rally. It appears as there has been no other organizing done but to get a rally to happen. My concern is that after a few months time after marching on the capitol, things will blow over and return to the status quo. Cancelling the season? Never going to happen. Even if you can get 25,000 guys to hang up their for a season, which would be A LOT, you still have 100,000 guys banging away and the effect it has is completely watered down.

I'm convinced that the only way to fix things is through the state legislature. Obviously Dennis Anderson feels the same way, hence the march on the capitol. What he should be doing is getting something organized (like ahem, an Etree :roll: ) to get all these people to start hounding their legislators.

A political rally will have an effect on state legislators. However, if nothing else is done to keep pressure on their ***** to get something done nothing is going to happen because a rally won't have a lasting effect. These people need to be hounded into submission to get some funding passed, plain and simple. With the exposure Dennis has right now he should be getting people to do that. Hell, tell everyone who is going to write their legislator and let them know they are going to be there. Try to meet with them if possible. Have all the people who can't go write a letter in support of the rally and why they wish they could be there and how they are there in spirit. Let the legislators feel some heat!


----------



## Brad Hanson (Nov 13, 2004)

I, and I'm sure, many hunters in MN are willing to do what it would takes to make the situation better. The problem is what is that solution? We are losing habitat at an alarming rate and the WPA's we have as a rule dont produce any waterfowl. I was discussing this subject breifly with someone that is more in the know than I am (for Sure) and according to this source most of the ducks we shoot after opener are produced in the prairie pot hole. So this would explain why by the second weekend when the few locals we produce are gone there is nothing to replace them. One -I believe the total number of ducks are down and two- without the proper habitat in MN the ducks just either pass through or avoid us all together. I guess if I understand the fight we are trying to pick.....We are tying to get the state to apply a larger amount of the duck dollars to better ducks in MN. Where are the Millions or Billions of dollars that our duck stamps and other contributions have accured gone? If every dollar that the MN duck hunter has spent on fees and contributions,state and federal, had been applied to making more ducks we would be swatting ducks like mosquitos. If I am wrong it will be proven in the end, but it seems that the monies raised by us have been used for other projects and programs that have not benifitted waterfowl in this state. I hope that Dennis or whoever is going to lead this fight can form a clear messeage and direction. Closing season? Maybe not but reduce the bag and length of the season? Not sure, but I believe if nothing is done we are headed down an ugly road.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

You guys in MN need an agenda! What is it? You can't just complain about the lack of ducks. You have to do more than that. You have to propose a solution. You can bet that the DNR will come up with a solution. It probably won't work. Their solution is only geared towards saving the upper level DNR jobs.

You have to do more than complain. State the problem (easier said than done!). Propose a solution. Keep the pressure on. Anything less will not be sucessful. Good Luck! If I can help, count me in!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Here's my agenda:

Improve water control and quality
Change farm tiling practices

I have said before I think the habitat is adequate for ducks but the water quality and water control is the big problem.

Now we need to move on from individual agendas like mine to a group one. Hopefully with enough input from concerned hunters we'll get one agenda to move forward with.

Dave


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Are there any high level positions at the MN DNR that are voted in or are they appointed?

If there are voted positions then you need to get the group to send a message that if the situation is not improved then people are going to get replaced.

Its been said before but I will say it again. Someone needs to get an etree set up. There is obviously some talent within the ranks of 120,000 waterfowlers. Or get the money together and pay someone to build you an etree. This would probably be your best bet. For one dollar per year from each waterfowler there could be alot of things done.

Just my :2cents:


----------



## mallardwacker (Dec 6, 2004)

I agree with alot of the subjects talked about here, but I think we need to start with the DNR. Now there is an organization the need an overhaul. IMO are run by morons. Here is an example: My home town of Westbrook has a game refuge 10 miles south of town that holds alot of game. There WAS a tree grove that took up about 20 acres located on the edge of the boundary that in the last few years attracted alot of hawks for nesting. Well to make a long story short instead of thinning out he hawks they, the DNR, cut down every single tree in that 20 acre plot. Now you tell me how smart that is? As far as I'm concerned, the DNR just wants to collect license fees to pay for the paper shuffling in the cities. Last I heard it took over 30 million dollars just to make that office run. Seems like hardly enough to me. 
I may be wrong but I think the problem starts with the DNR. We can march all we want but as far as I'm concerned we need to start with the DNR. In the long run they will end up calling the shots.
Instead of dealing with stupid lawsuits they need to address more important problems. IMO!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

mallardwacker, this site has many educated people in the ways and means of fish & wildlife studies. What the DNR did may be a good thing (I don't know), but maybe someone on here can give us a credible outlook on that decision.


----------



## mallardwacker (Dec 6, 2004)

I agree with you. I would like a good explanation. Because the officials that did this couldnt give me one. It just another example of people in the metro trying to tell the outstaters how to take care of the problems 100 of miles away and not having a clue what really needs to be done. Its just like anything else. No matter what is right and wrong its still a numbers game.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

When this has happened in the past, I have heard that it is to control disease and or raptors.

Bob


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

I've seen them cut down a few trees on big grasslands, but never an entire 20 acre woodlot. That's hard to believe. I've always thought it was to control the raptors also.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

First set up an E-tree,then put pressure on the ledgislators to get something done.I talked to my buddy by Park Rapids last night and he also said that the DNR is in dire need of an overhaul.He said they are basically unaproachable.You need acountability with your states game&fish.Suggest meetings with DNR personell in various parts of the state every year like we do in ND when you talk to your representative.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I agree mallard. Make them sell there plans to you. You as a taxpayer and purchaser of licenses are the ones they should answer to. I was so amazed when I moved to ND and was able to go and speak with Game and Fish personel at the advisory board meetings. Minnesota has for too long tried to "pave" the way with management. It's time they take a lesson from other agencies. This stuff really works. Another thing that is important about the advisory meeting is that it makes the sportsmen feel like they are part of the planning process and this helps get people motivated and involved in projects.


----------



## mallardwacker (Dec 6, 2004)

I guess if there is that many then maybe extreme measures should have been taken. Now its just a loss of habitat and protection.
As far as the DNR goes our only hope is that we have a governer that is a avid sportsman. We may as well start at the top and at least get him to listen to us and hope that he listens to the little guys for once.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Point One. The e-tree is a good idea. But, how does it get started? Minnesota does not have, to my knowledge, anything comparable to Nodakoutdoors.com to sponsor an e-tree. All of the Minnesota outdoors based websites depend heavily on the outdoor advertising. For those sites to set up an e-tree would be like Fishingbuddy having an e-tree in North Dakota. Not likely.

Point Two. Dennis Anderson has researched and written articles about an alternative to and overhaul of the DNR that follows the state of Missouri commission model of managing the outdoors for hunting. So, that is part of "the plan" if there really is such a plan.

Point Three. Some of you might remember my rant in the form of an article that appeared hear at Nodakoutdoors last summer about the commercialization of hunting. Rember "Make a Buck on a Duck?" It really would be interesting to see the hunting industry squirm if the season was closed down in Minnesota AND ELSEWHERE for a season to send a message. Can anyone tell me what Cabela's, Gander Mountain, Scheels, et. al. GIVE BACK TO RESUPPLY THE DUCK FACTORY after they sell all the equipment to kill the ducks that are produced there???? I certainly hope that they give big contributions to Delta and DU. But, they should be giving a hell of a lot more. That's what is needed. They need to help produce ducks. Sure they will just pass the cost on to us in higher prices. (Sort of the duck equivalent of a gasoline tax.) But, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Point 4. I don't think Minneapolis/St. Paul folks can be blamed for draining the rural wetlands that produced the lion's share of the ducks in Minnesota in the old days - 50 to 70 years ago. For those of us who have rural roots, we know that it was our grandfather farmers who drained those wetlands so that they could produce more for America. It was patriotic, though not wise in the long run. We are paying for it now with no ducks.

That's enough for tonight. Time to watch Letterman and go to bed.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Perry Thorvig said:


> Point One. The e-tree is a good idea. But, how does it get started? Minnesota does not have, to my knowledge, anything comparable to Nodakoutdoors.com to sponsor an e-tree. All of the Minnesota outdoors based websites depend heavily on the outdoor advertising. For those sites to set up an e-tree would be like Fishingbuddy having an e-tree in North Dakota. Not likely.


How about the Minn. Waterfowler's Association?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I was thinking the same thing Hustad. :wink:

It sounds like MWA is going to be leading the rally and laying the groundwork for what needs to be accomplished. If anyone would like to get on a list where they'll email you updates and info to you on the rally send an email to.... [email protected]

Perhaps this could be the start to an Etree???

For more on this check out...
http://refugeforums.com/refuge/showthre ... did=300788


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Forwarded to me by Scraper to post.

This is the change of wetlands in MN from the 1860's to today:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Wow!!!!   

That is a considerable change!


----------



## diver_sniper (Sep 6, 2004)

that really is terrible. you can see how the western half of the state has been pretty much destroyed.


----------



## tealeye (Mar 14, 2004)

I may be able to shed some light on why the DNR and other agencies cut trees on the prairie. Tallgrass Prairies, and the native critters which evolved there, historically never had trees. Periodic wild fires, like the prescribed burns they do today, kept trees and other woody vegetation in check. Native prairie birds such as sharpies and prairie chickens did not develop defenses against predators which roost in trees --- like hawks and most owls. So native birds are an easy meal for raptors. Therefore, the first thing to do when trying to reestablish or supplement native birds in a prairie with trees is --- get rid of the trees. Exotic birds such as pheasants and huns do much better than our natives in mixed prairie. It's a choice wildlife managers need to make -- do we encourage exotic/introduced birds or natives? Most folks side with supporting our native birds.

Why don't we just shoot the hawks instead of cutting down their perch trees? Even if the DNR wanted to they couldn't -- hawks (and most other migratory birds) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act -- which is an agreement the US has with Mexico and Canada. And that's a can of worms nobody wants to open.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Maybe instead of sueing each other and all the bickering that goes on between MN and ND you could come up with a hunter alliance that combined its efforts with members from both states for regional habitat improvement intead of limiting it to one state, ND outdoors is already a well established vehicle its efforts and etree could be expanded with a lot of effort by interested MN residents. Applying pressure to a wide spectrum of congressmen would get more attention on both sides of the state lines. Massive email campaigns by a much larger membership specifically directed towards various issues in either state would be more powerful if you were united. Those dork politicians listen to numbers and they have no real way to measure where the emails are coming from.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I have to admit that I do not know much about MN politics, However, I just checked out the Minnesota Waterfowlers Association and they still list Jesse Ventura as the Gov.  Maybe a member could have them update the website.

Looks like a good organization!!!

Bob


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Chris,

WMA is a good idea for the e-tree if they can overcome their reluctance to be an "in your face" organization.

PT


----------



## dugie_fresh (Jan 10, 2005)

I can't believe what I am reading on this subject. I see you all blame the farmers of Minnesota for draining the land and reducing the population of waterfowl. So what about the so called state of 10,000 lakes? Are you saying that there is no water for them to roost? With that many lakes there must be enough water to support a huge migration. Or are you saying that they have all been shot? That would be tough seeing that waterfowl are MIGRATORY and the country is seeing record numbers of waterfowl in the skies. The migration has moved west to North Dakota because the habitat in Minnesota has been ruined, I don't detest that. The way it was ruined I disagree with. The reason there are no ducks in Minnesota is because of the development on all of the lakes. Weedbeds they use for forage and the very places they once used as a roost were destroyed by man. The birds moved out because conditions were not favorable anymore. This decline of birds has just recently become a poblem right at the time when all the lakes have been developed. Farmers have been draining land for more than 70 years and there has been pleny of waterfowl for most of that time. I don't know if you all have been lied to, or just need an easy scapegoat that people are quickly willing to blame. I am from North Dakota, not a farmer from Minnesota, I just tell it like I see it. There is no doubt people come to North Dakota to hunt. Why wouldn't they. There are lots of birds, the people are friendly and the scenery is beautiful. I am also a hunter and do not have a problem with non-residents hunting here. I see a bunch of spoiled brats that are scared they will not be able to walk out their front door and get some birds.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dugie_fresh,

I shouldn't even respond to your post but.............I am going to call it like I see it.

The fact that MN has problems with its natural resources should be a wake up call to all. No matter where you live. Development of lakes is part of the problem for migrating birds coming through the state. Yes. But it is not the main reason that MN doesn't have many ducks. Small wetlands are much more important than 10,000 lakes.

To say that the drainage of wetlands in MN has not resulted in a huge reduction of waterfowl is not only ignorant it is just plain wrong.

I also have no problem with NR but it SHOULD scare the crap out of people who are able to walk out there front door and get birds. It will not stay that way without action. Inaction will lead to a situation similar to the one MN is faced with today.

You are framing the issue all wrong. The issue is not whether a person can or cannot get birds out their front door. The issue is whether it will stay like that. WHERE IS EVERYONE GOING TO GO WHEN ND DOESN'T HAVE DUCKS ANYMORE? With development and agriculture in our world today, complacency and inaction is the same as all out support of things that destroy our natural resources.

It pains me that I see and talk to people like you everyday who do not understand the magnitude of the situation we are in today and really do not understand why we should try to protect the natural resources of North Dakota.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

gandergrinder,

go back and READ what he says. it isn't laid out the best, but I think you flew right over his most important statement...



> The way it was ruined I disagree with. The reason there are no ducks in Minnesota is because of the development on all of the lakes. Weedbeds they use for forage and the very places they once used as a roost were destroyed by man. The birds moved out because conditions were not favorable anymore. This decline of birds has just recently become a poblem right at the time when all the lakes have been developed.


He nailed it on the head. It isn't all because of the farmers. There is still plenty of potholes in Minnesota. Maybe not as there once was, but a lot of the nesting area have been taken down as well. Which is more important?

You are also right is saying


> WHERE IS EVERYONE GOING TO GO WHEN ND DOESN'T HAVE DUCKS ANYMORE?


But are we going to allow what Minnesota has done to there habitat?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I absolutly agree that development has caused alot of the problems but MN has for years relied on the migration of ducks from other places instead of trying to grow its own ducks. The development of its lakes was just the final straw that totally destroyed MN chances of even attracting migrating birds. It was not the main reason however. Agriculture has had the greatest effect on waterfowl numbers bar none. I don't blame farmers they provide a good. I and everyone else buys it so we are as much to blame.

Minnesotans could make a change in their conditions if they were to get active and make their voices heard.

My point is that most Minnesota hunters think that waterfowling will always be good in ND so they will always have that option. How about working on their own back yard to make sure if things ever go bad in ND they will have something in there own state.

It ****** me off (I am not trying to generalize all MN hunters here but many) that many Minnesotans spend all their time complaining about ND rules and the state of MN's resources instead of spending that energy doing something that could directly help them.

How many Minnesotan's ***** about the resources yet they do nothing? Volunteer with a local conservation group, lobby, get involved somehow. That is what I am saying. Many of us blame all different things yet we don't educate ourselves on what is going on and don't get involved.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

:bartime:

I think GG hit that right on the head!


----------



## dugie_fresh (Jan 10, 2005)

GG and Farmerj,

Thank you for your points. I agree with most of them. I really felt farmers were taking all the blame and I wanted people to know the whole story. Many people from Minnesota don't even know that side of the story. I also felt that the mood was transferring to farmers in North Dakota for no good reason.

I'm all for conservation, but I also know that there's a natural cycle to everything. North Dakota is in a tremendous wet cycle right now that has filled that prarie pothole region with water and has increased hunting opportunities greatly. (I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.) Sooner or later the potholes will start to dry up. This is inevitable, you can't put a garden hose in every slough in North Dakota. There has been some steps taken that as a hunter I support. (WPA among other things) I just see non-residents getting ripped and I feel it's a little misplaced. They just want to hunt. I don't think its fair that people think only residents should be able to hunt just because we happen to live in the right place at the right time. The amount of non-resident hunters, and the birds they harvest is not hurting anything right now.


----------

