LAST LIBERAL SEASON FOR A WHILE?

[WOODIE13]

Been seeing this quite often on some other forums about reducing the season length and/or bag limits for ducks the next few years.

They are already reducing days/bag limits for the AP population of geese (migratory, not resident birds) in some of the Northern Atlantic flyway states.

Anyone else hear this or have any insight?

 

[GTMODawg]

I think its a wonderful idea but doubt it happens in an absence of a disease wiping out the population or some disaster on the breeding grounds. Very few hunters outside of commercial operations where baiting is not only legal but considered necessary (you can't add grain to water to attract ducks but you can add water to grain artificially) consistently come close to a limit now....lowering limits and the length of the season will make commercial waterfowl harvesting in the form of outfitting less profitable and there will be more opportunities for duck and goose hunters who do not write a check and allow someone else to do all of the work up to and including pulling the trigger. I am fully in support of shortened seasons, lower bag limits and sensible seasons...ie seasons set more on migration patterns than dates on a calendar and dates on weekends and holidays over dates from Tuesday to Thursday when most people with a job not guiding duck hunters for profit can't hunt anyway.

I am also all for opening up more of the areas owned by the public which are suitable for hunting ducks and geese to the hunting of ducks and geese. There is ample areas in most of the country on private land which is either not hunted at all or hunted by commercial guns only for ducks and geese to loaf and rest on. More areas on refuges and more areas where ducks and geese are found which are suitable for hunting should be opened up to hunters. I have been lambasted for espousing these views on duck hunting websites and amongst hunters but I sincerely think any sort of commercial hunting operation ought to be subject to the same restrictions that non commercial hunting is required to follow (no baiting, either adding grain to water or water to grain), sensible seasons based on migration patterns and weighted toward more opportunities for all hunters instead of more opportunities for commercial gunners and allowing us to use property we all own as we wish without interference from the state. I will bet that many on this forum also disagree with this.....but why wouldn't anyone want MORE opportunity for more hunters instead of fewer???

 

[across the river]

I think its a wonderful idea but doubt it happens in an absence of a disease wiping out the population or some disaster on the breeding grounds. Very few hunters outside of commercial operations where baiting is not only legal but considered necessary (you can't add grain to water to attract ducks but you can add water to grain artificially) consistently come close to a limit now....lowering limits and the length of the season will make commercial waterfowl harvesting in the form of outfitting less profitable and there will be more opportunities for duck and goose hunters who do not write a check and allow someone else to do all of the work up to and including pulling the trigger. I am fully in support of shortened seasons, lower bag limits and sensible seasons...ie seasons set more on migration patterns than dates on a calendar and dates on weekends and holidays over dates from Tuesday to Thursday when most people with a job not guiding duck hunters for profit can't hunt anyway.

I am also all for opening up more of the areas owned by the public which are suitable for hunting ducks and geese to the hunting of ducks and geese. There is ample areas in most of the country on private land which is either not hunted at all or hunted by commercial guns only for ducks and geese to loaf and rest on. More areas on refuges and more areas where ducks and geese are found which are suitable for hunting should be opened up to hunters. I have been lambasted for espousing these views on duck hunting websites and amongst hunters but I sincerely think any sort of commercial hunting operation ought to be subject to the same restrictions that non commercial hunting is required to follow (no baiting, either adding grain to water or water to grain), sensible seasons based on migration patterns and weighted toward more opportunities for all hunters instead of more opportunities for commercial gunners and allowing us to use property we all own as we wish without interference from the state. I will bet that many on this forum also disagree with this.....but why wouldn't anyone want MORE opportunity for more hunters instead of fewer???

You can plant and flood all you want. Just because you don’t have private land to do it on and/or don’t want to, doesn’t mean you don’t have the same opportunity as anyone else.

 

[WOODIE13]

The last 3 years we haven't had any really cold weather to lock up the great lakes until after the season and any cold fronts that we did get came in from the west or southwest, definitely not ideal to move in new birds, but will definitely push the birds we currently had out.

Also heard the canceled the mid winter survey the last few years and Canada isn't doing theirs this year because of the Rona and closed borders.

Spin the wheel...

 

[chase870]

Habitat destruction is the number one threat to waterfowl. The Farmers in the Canadian prairie drain and plow up every pot hole they can. I have watched the landscape change every year. The breeding grounds shrink year by year

 

[tucker80]

An article from North Dakota Game & Fish

https://gf.nd.gov/news/4868

 

[across the river]

There are two separate issues. One is actual duck numbers due breeding habitat that can vary greatly year to year depending largely on rainfall, snow cover melting. Even with all the habitat loss, wet years typically yield “good” hatches and dry years yield poorer hatches, so you can get a lot of fluctuation.
With that being said, we slayed them in the mid 90s one areas where you you be much more hard pressed to see ducks the last several years when the overall population is higher than it was then. Hunting success is more dependent on weather than it is if the population is up or down 20% from the previous year. If snow cover has barely made it out of Canada by mid January, then the ducks are spread out over the entire country, verses all of them being concentrated in the lower third to half of the country if a blizzard pushed through and turn most of the states white. Weather pattern changes have far more to do with hunting success most years than the survey numbers. Sort of like you get a lot more people passing through Georgia from Florida when a hurricane is on the way than you do during a typical week any other time. Has little to do with how much Florida’s population is up since the last hurricane.

 

[GTMODawg]

You can plant and flood all you want. Just because you don’t have private land to do it on and/or don’t want to, doesn’t mean you don’t have the same opportunity as anyone else.

You are 100% correct. I could go out and buy land which was already developed or develop it myself....I have the means on a small scale. It still doesn't make baiting ethical. Adding water to grain is as unethical as adding grain to water, anyway you slice it.

I have, in the past, been involved with commercial waterfowl hunting. It is also ethically questionable to hoard a public asset which is produced with funding from the public for private financial gain....commercial waterfowling as practiced today is every bit as unethical and damaging to the resource as market gunning was back in the day.....arguably worse given the huge concentrations of birds in tiny areas where disease and natural disaster can wipe out huge numbers in one event.

If you are outfitting on public land have at it. Everybody has a shot at the public resource and some folks don't have the resources but can pay you for yours. Thats fine. Intentionally attracting and holding birds through baiting in order to make a few bucks is about as low as a person can get, in my opinion.

 

[across the river]

You are 100% correct. I could go out and buy land which was already developed or develop it myself....I have the means on a small scale. It still doesn't make baiting ethical. Adding water to grain is as unethical as adding grain to water, anyway you slice it.

I have, in the past, been involved with commercial waterfowl hunting. It is also ethically questionable to hoard a public asset which is produced with funding from the public for private financial gain....commercial waterfowling as practiced today is every bit as unethical and damaging to the resource as market gunning was back in the day.....arguably worse given the huge concentrations of birds in tiny areas where disease and natural disaster can wipe out huge numbers in one event.

If you are outfitting on public land have at it. Everybody has a shot at the public resource and some folks don't have the resources but can pay you for yours. Thats fine. Intentionally attracting and holding birds through baiting in order to make a few bucks is about as low as a person can get, in my opinion.

Any person who says they are the same in my experience has never actually planted.

 

[Evergreen]

You are 100% correct. I could go out and buy land which was already developed or develop it myself....I have the means on a small scale. It still doesn't make baiting ethical. Adding water to grain is as unethical as adding grain to water, anyway you slice it.

I have, in the past, been involved with commercial waterfowl hunting. It is also ethically questionable to hoard a public asset which is produced with funding from the public for private financial gain....commercial waterfowling as practiced today is every bit as unethical and damaging to the resource as market gunning was back in the day.....arguably worse given the huge concentrations of birds in tiny areas where disease and natural disaster can wipe out huge numbers in one event.

If you are outfitting on public land have at it. Everybody has a shot at the public resource and some folks don't have the resources but can pay you for yours. Thats fine. Intentionally attracting and holding birds through baiting in order to make a few bucks is about as low as a person can get, in my opinion.

Let's see, I buy my land, put a flood control device on it, I work the field, plant the crop, pray for the weather to cooperate, buy a well or pump, and then fill it up with water is the same as jo smo putting a 100 dollars worth of corn out in a woodie hole? The ethics are vastly diffierent

 

[Duckbuster82]

You are 100% correct. I could go out and buy land which was already developed or develop it myself....I have the means on a small scale. It still doesn't make baiting ethical. Adding water to grain is as unethical as adding grain to water, anyway you slice it.

I have, in the past, been involved with commercial waterfowl hunting. It is also ethically questionable to hoard a public asset which is produced with funding from the public for private financial gain....commercial waterfowling as practiced today is every bit as unethical and damaging to the resource as market gunning was back in the day.....arguably worse given the huge concentrations of birds in tiny areas where disease and natural disaster can wipe out huge numbers in one event.

If you are outfitting on public land have at it. Everybody has a shot at the public resource and some folks don't have the resources but can pay you for yours. Thats fine. Intentionally attracting and holding birds through baiting in order to make a few bucks is about as low as a person can get, in my opinion.

I disagree. Adding grain to water and adding water to grain are not the same at all. If you place grain in a certain spot in the water they are coming to that spot. They are forced to give up all their normal tendencies to take caution to commit to an area. You can literally not hide, not call, not decoy and kill birds over bait. Try that in a planted impoundment. Birds are very weary coming in to an impoundment.
I do not hunt private at all. I am very thankful for the people that spend their time and money to plant impoundments. Without them there would be no reason for birds to come to our area. They do more for the overall population than what they take. They give birds food and refuge, both of which can not be found on most public water ways.
As far as guiding on public water it is a sticky situation to me. I make my living on the water fishing not hunting. I think they are two completely different entities since you can not be replicated fishing in a private manor like duck hunting. I spend all of my time and money hunting public. When money gets involved it produces lots of issues. Guides will often feel as though it is their right to hunt there and you not to since they are making their living there. There is a reason most states ban guiding in their wmas. Guides should not reap the rewards of what is public.

 

[gawildlife]

Let's see, I buy my land, put a flood control device on it, I work the field, plant the crop, pray for the weather to cooperate, buy a well or pump, and then fill it up with water is the same as jo smo putting a 100 dollars worth of corn out in a woodie hole? The ethics are vastly diffierent

Not a duck hunter but that reads like mental gymnastics to justify unethical behavior to me. Money and labor doesn't absolve guilt, unless you're a democrat.

 

[WOODIE13]

Just one is legal and the other isn't, plain and simple

 

[Evergreen]

Not a duck hunter but that reads like mental gymnastics to justify unethical behavior to me. Money and labor doesn't absolve guilt, unless you're a democrat.

Since your not a duck hunter I can somewhat understand your post even if I don't agree with it. I havent broke any law by flooding a field so I'm guilty of nothing and well within state and federal regulations, fields can flood naturally in the right location, but grain does not fall from the sky anywhere naturally.

I'd have to use your money, slave labor, pass a law saying you can't duck hunt anywhere, then head off to shoot ducks in my flooded rice field supplemented with yellow acorns to be a democrat.

 

[gawildlife]

Legal and ethical are not the same thing.

 

[king killer delete]

One problem is more hunters
And a reduction in the resource. Destroy wet lands add in a lack of rain and of course you have less ducks. Today it is easy to become a duck hunter . You can buy boats already rigged out with blinds camo paint jobs ready to go. Add in decoys that are already rigged and buy you a dog already trained and you are ready to duck hunt. Nothing wrong with any of this but at one time you had to have skills and do it yourself. As far as planting and managing a duck pond nothing wrong with that it’s legal and it takes allot of work. Going to a pond river or lake and baiting is cheating and illegal. The problem is it is fashionable to be a duck hunter. Allot of young men want to be seen as tuff and identify themselves as tuff guys by becoming duck hunters. These young hunters are about killing allot of the time and they will sky blast anything that comes even close to being in range. It has become easy to be a duck hunter. I remember when I spent all summer painting my boat ,working on my decoys reloading my shells. Not that way today. That has removed allot of the satisfaction of being a duck hunter. Now I’m not saying all young duck hunters are bad but when you add more hunters to an already stressed resource what do you expect?

 

[king killer delete]

Legal and ethical are not the same thing.

You opinion of a legal practice that has been done for as long as the sport has been around is not correct. It is ethical and is a respected practice by duck hunter who know. Now if you plant and do illegal things it becomes unethical. I have duck hunted for over 60 years now and there is nothing wrong with building a duck pond. It provides waterfowl areas of rest and food sources. If you over shoot it the waterfowl just leave. It also takes allot of work.

 

[across the river]

Not a duck hunter but that reads like mental gymnastics to justify unethical behavior to me. Money and labor doesn't absolve guilt, unless you're a democrat.

Legal and ethical are not the same thing.

Let’s say it was pheasants in South Dakota instead of ducks. A guy has 100 acres and loves to hunt pheasants. He pours 50lbs per acre of sorghum seed on a harrowed up but frozen field in November. What is the benefit? Other than some birds eating the seed for a short period of time and him getting to maybe kill a few, there is really
no benefit, and what little there is is short term food. Now let’s said the same guy had instead planted the same 50lbs per acre on his land in the spring and grown 100 acres of sorghum. He has now multiplied that 50 lbs per acre into hundreds or thousands of pounds per acre of food for deer, birds, etc….. he has also turned that 100 acres into thermal cover for deer, pheasants, birds etc…… that lasts months. Pretty obvious that they aren’t the same
to anyone who looks at it logically. Similarly, if I plant 5 or 50 acres of corn and flood it I have multiplied that corn into many times the amount of food, I provide thermal cover, a place to hide, habitat for other waterfowl and birds, and overall expanded the amount of habitat. If I throw the equivalent amount of corn in the creek behind my house just to shoot wood ducks over, I have not provided anything additional in terms of habitat or benefit to the ducks or other animals. Anyone with any common sense can see it isn’t in any way the same. That’s like saying the guy who inherited a $100,000 and invested it or built a business with it that grew to millions, is no different than the guy who also inherited $100,000 and is now broke because he spent it all on cars and women.

 

[king killer delete]

Let’s say it was pheasants in South Dakota instead of ducks. A guy has 100 acres and loves to hunt pheasants. He pours 50lbs per acre of sorghum seed on a harrowed up but frozen field in November. What is the benefit? Other than some birds eating the seed for a short period of time and him getting to maybe kill a few, there is really
no benefit, and what little there is is short term food. Now let’s said the same guy had instead planted the same 50lbs per acre on his land in the spring and grown 100 acres of sorghum. He has now multiplied that 50 lbs per acre into hundreds or thousands of pounds per acre of food for deer, birds, etc….. he has also turned that 100 acres into thermal cover for deer, pheasants, birds etc…… that lasts months. Pretty obvious that they aren’t the same
to anyone who looks at it logically. Similarly, if I plant 5 or 50 acres of corn and flood it I have multiplied that corn into many times the amount of food, I provide thermal cover, a place to hide, habitat for other waterfowl and birds, and overall expanded the amount of habitat. If I throw the equivalent amount of corn in the creek behind my house just to shoot wood ducks over, I have not provided anything additional in terms of habitat or benefit to the ducks or other animals. Anyone with any common sense can see it isn’t in any way the same. That’s like saying the guy who inherited a $100,000 and invested it or built a business with it that grew to millions, is no different than the guy who also inherited $100,000 and is now broke because he spent it all on cars and women.

Best post I have read in a while?

 

[paulito]

Agreed