I received a survey today, by email, from the GA DNR, wanting responses to some questions concerning mallards in the Atlantic Flyway. As I understand it, they're going to lower the limit for the 2019-2020 season from four to two. That's a pretty drastic cut.

Has anyone else heard this, or been asked to participate is such a survey?

SRH

I've received an email from the PA Game Commission stating that very same thing.

Haven't gotten that survey. I did get a USF&W packet and return mailer for sending in woodcock wings, however. Around here, raising or lowering the mallard limit would make no difference. They just aren't a factor here like they once were. They could raise the limit of snow leopards while they're at it and it would have the same impact. Gil

Haha! Well played sir!

Very true, Gil. The tone of the survey seemed to be to try to gauge the reaction of duck hunters to the limit reduction. From what I understood, the decision has already been made.

This is mostly woodie country. I go to AR to shoot mallards.

SRH

Word I got was Mallards reduced and Canada Geese reduced to one. Not official yet but those are the parameters they are working off. Most know the public hearing have almost no impact on final regulations.

Two mallards won't be worth the trouble to go hunting.

Here's my take...

Liberals have infiltrated the Federal Wildlife jobs and the state Game and Fish jobs.

If they had their way there would be no hunting of wild game and those that had money would be left to hunt game farms like they do in England.

I'll still go. There's always the possibility of filling out the 6 duck limit with woodies, gadwalls and teal.

I'm not as staunch about shooting mallards only as my Arkansas buddies across the river from you, Joe. Idruther eat teal and woodies anyhow.

SRH

Here in the central Flyway I would welcome it, maybe it would convince the duck dynasty bunch that it is t worth the work. Selfish I know.

It's hard to fathom a place that is reducing the take on waterfowl. Here they are proliferating with numbers never seen before in modern history. They seem to thrive on the farming practises here while upland bird have been decimated

Atlantic flyway nesting geese population is down. Might be the same for Mallards. Local ducks are not included in migratory nesting numbers. I’ve seen local geese go from none in my youth to thousands. Ducks as well. But they are a drop in the bucket compared to the migration numbers. In fact like most areas local geese are a pest which gets early hunting pressure to trim their numbers back.

If they keep increasing the price of licenses they won’t have to worry about lowering limits. That’s my knee jerk reaction

I haven't hunted waterfowl for years because I don't really care to eat ducks or geese. But the politics behind hunting is very important to me. And it seems to me that those of you who do hunt waterfowl should be asking yourselves some questions here.

The number of active waterfowl hunters in the U.S. has dropped by at least 50% since the early 1950's, and the percentage decline in waterfowl hunter numbers is even greater in Canada. And according to this study, as recently as 2015, the problem was an increasing number of ducks and a decreasing number of hunters:

https://deltawaterfowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LoomingCrisis.pdf

You all were fed the line of crap that License price increases over the years would make things better. Then we also had the promise or Big Lie that going to lead-free ammunition would reduce the population declines that were occurring in the 1960's. And supposedly, going to that much more expensive and ballistically inferior shot did increase the populations.

Yet now you guys are being told something else again by the Fish and Game Biologists. I saw what my own State Game Commission did to ringneck pheasant and deer hunting through mismanagement. As someone already said, it seems that the decision has already been made, and this survey is just a formality so they can say a majority of you agreed with it.

People forget that if it wasn't for the VOLUNTARY restraint exercised by sportsmen, there would be no migratory waterfowl left to argue over.

Most flyways have 2 management choices available to them.
Smaller bag, or fewer days.

If your common species are doing well, but another is doing poorly, they won't cut days to lower the bag on the struggling specie.

I am in the Mississippi flyway. People are so accustomed to a 60 day season, and 6 birds, God help the USFWS when we get a bad spring and dry summer and have to go back to 30 days and 4 ducks.

I knew Eastern Shore goose numbers (excluding greater snows) were bad. Duckhunter.net has all kinds of management discussions on these things. Lots of east coast watermen hanging out there.

Got the same survey here in Virginia.
When I first started duck hunting here in central Virginia,in the mid-60's a mallard was a trophy duck-- nearly all "big" ducks bagged were blacks, and, over the years the ratio reversed. Now, mallards dominate with only a very modest increase in blacks, despite a greatly reduced limit on blacks.
If one takes the time to read the USFW's rationale for the proposal, one will how flawed the it is-----for example, they openly state that mallard populations have decreased less than 1% annually since the early 2000's in the Atlantic Flyway compared to three other species--only ONE of which has a significant breeding population in the Atlantic Flyway! Secondly, the Flyway kill aren't local birds-- most are migrants---they're NOT locals, as we seldom kill mallards until late December.
Keith made some very valid points, and I urge all to read the flawed proposal on the USFW's website. I, for one will continue to spend a lot of money (largely wasted) on the sport--under protest. If they want to try another useless tack they can re-institute the stupid "point system", and eliminate hens from the bag limit.

They used to shoot them in the spring, because, well you know, they were only migrating through anyway.

So did we have a bad spring and a dry summer that is responsible for this proposed lower limit?

I checked the National Weather Service for data on precipitation for Pennsylvania and Ohio last week, because I can't recall wetter year. Spraying any herbicides or pesticides was a waste of time and money because we rarely got three consecutive dry days, even in the normally dry late summer period. Everyone is complaining how hard it was to do any roofing or painting outdoors. Several years ago, when we had drought conditions, it was blamed on Man-made Global Warming, and we were warned that this was our future. So are they telling us that Donald Trump fixed that problem? According to NWS data, my area is 200% to 300% above normal rainfall for the last 180 days. The map showed above normal precipitation for much of the country east of the Mississippi. So it wasn't my imagination.

I always see numerous flocks of ducks and geese on local lakes and rivers, including several flocks of mallards a few days ago. Geese are at pest levels, and I wish someone would exterminate them and give them to people who won't work in place of Food Stamps. I can't tell the difference between a migrating and non-migrating duck or goose until I see them still hanging around in mid-winter looking for open spots on icy lakes and ponds. But I wish I enjoyed eating them because there is no doubt in my mind that the populations are healthy in my area. My freezer would be full if we had near as many pheasants and ruffed grouse.

So what are the reasons behind this? Where is BrentD when we need someone to make up answers and denigrate us for asking valid questions?

Keith, I am not in the Atlantic flyway.
I am on the eastern edge of the Mississippi.
I am also active in flyway management. I go to the CWAC meetings Citizens wildlife advisory committee, and follow the discussion at our flyway council meetings.

It's very likely the producer states and provinces in that flyway had poor production and downstream counts are dropping.
Also, as I manage about 20 wood duck boxes, whatever quantity of woodies aggregate further south from here, their recovery is entirely due to sportsmen.

Sportsmen that chose to grudgingly protect the resource when it was almost gone.

People that see migratory waterfowl at their terminus don't always have a clear picture of what the flyway is experiencing upstream. A terrible (INO) management example, is the special consideration AR and LA are given because of the economic effect duck hunting has there.

Just spent $125 for a 10/day nonresident hunting license for waterfowl including a $13 state duck stamp. I’ll hunt one day next week with my three sons who have also bought licenses. I’ll shoot my 10 gauge Parker with handloaded bismuth shot ($150 for 10 lbs). This is all my choice but I can’t help feel I’ve been bent over by some Great Oz. I’m 58 and my first hunting+fishing license was $12. You did not need a license until you were 13. It’s becoming a rich mans activity.

eeb;
I'm 80 & my first Hunting & Fishing license was $5.00. The first duck hunting I ever did ducks were on a point system, each kind of duck had a certain number of points. The first duck you killed which put you = to or over 100 points made your limit. As I recall Mallards were 30 points & Redheads were 90 points. I believe at that point Canvasbacks were either totally off limits or were 100 points. The problem here was two people could be hunting together & one man could have three mallards & a redhead while the other had one mallard & a redhead, yet both had their limit because one shot the redhead too early in the hunt. I don't recall how many points a Woodie had then but was rather high.

I have not eaten a large variety of ducks but I really liked woodies & redheads, mallards not near as good to me. The woodies were battered & fried about like a chicken. Didn't taste like a chicken, but was very good eating.

This is true and it will be the death of hunting for sure. It has already started that way.

But your first license, at $12 was a resident license, I'd wager and the value of those $12 in today's money is, hmmm, abit more than $12. In state licenses everywhere I have looked, have not kept even close to the cost of inflation. Meanwhile, the state agencies are being systematically defunded and forced to depend more and more on excise tax returns from the feds and license monies. Since in state licenses cannot be increased easily due to political liability, that leaves out of state tags to go sky high. If you think that's bad for birds, try big game out west.

(1) Mallards from interbreeding are taking over from blacks in my region.

(2 Ducks and geese are plentiful, and it's bad form to take a limit, which we can any day within 2km from home. Four of us called time today when we had six.

(3) When the guys I shoot with observe lowering population of any species, we don't shoot them regardless of what regulations allow.

(4) Waterfowling around here is not a rich man's activity, way less expensive than golf, curling and chasing women.

One fact is for sure: migratory bird numbers in N. America are at an all time high:

1. I hear say the birds aren't in the Atlantic flyway so harvests reduced. Why is that?
2. 50 bird limits per day on white geese in W. Canada
2. The birds didn't make it that far south this year (heard it from my hunter clients from the USA many times over. That is a factor of many things but climate mostly)
3. The migratory route shifts (that is my comment because even in Alberta it shifts up to 400 miles east to west depending on feed, water, snow/freeze up line.
4. Higher license costs have no impact on hunting except for the whiners
5. In my country it is bad form not to take a limit (King Brown not sure what world of ethics you live in)
6 Yesterday I had all the birds in Calgary drop in on me in 30 minutes. Two of us shot our limit in 15 minutes. Not rubbing it in but birds here are plentiful even when the local areas are frozen.
7. As King Brown said hunting in Canada is cheap to hunt. Lots of land, small populations, rural people who live simply and a law that incriminates paying for access. God bless those who saw it fit to install that law in Canada.

What is my point? Hearing too may whiners who don't know what resources they have that others don't. Alberta was THE place to go in the 1920's for upland birds and even into to 1970's Then the Gov't dramatically reduced the number of released pheasants and southern Alberta went to hell. Small town bars and motels shut down because they were dependant on the 'no vacancy' for hunting season. Interestingly the Govt of Alberta has decided that pheasants have an economic value and over the last few years have increased the release number and increased the seasons by 2 months in most regions. But farming practises have decimated the other wild bird populations to the point many areas are shut down to upland birds. (that comment is pertaining mostly to sharp tail and greater prairie chicken)

I hear Stan and others talking up the hunting on doves and quail. I would love to live in an area that had those populations and opportunity. We have doves here but no season. Quail non existent.

Bless what you have and pray for what you don't. But whiners have no place in my world.

I should have thought to do this upon starting this thread, but I went back into my trash bin and found the email. Here is the introduction to it.

"The Atlantic Flyway is in the process of developing a new harvest strategy for mallards. As many of you already know, the bag limit for mallards in the Flyway is being reduced from 4 to 2 starting in the 2019-20 hunting season. We will likely not be able to move away from a 2-bird bag limit until a new harvest strategy is developed. Biologists have already begun working on this important issue and as we craft a new strategy, the attitudes and desires of our constituency, you the hunter, are critical. Your desires for harvest and for how many birds you encounter on the landscape will be integral in how we set our seasons into the future for mallards, and more importantly, as we try to improve the hunting experience in our respective states.

Please take the time to give this survey your full attention. The results of this survey will assist us in developing a regulatory process that will provide the maximum amount of opportunity, while still insuring the long-term health of our treasured waterfowl resource."



Georgia - https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/4644908/AF-mall-GA


SRH

This is a croc. As Tamid says, it's just more whining. Rich man's game ........... pshaw! I regularly drive 1200 miles to Arkansas and back to hunt ducks for 4-5 days at the trip. I do the whole trip for between $400 and $500, licenses, fuel and shells. You could bump that up to about $750 if I used the going rate for mileage costs of $.535/mile. I don't count food because I'd be eating if I stayed home. And actually I could knock some off the mileage costs because I'd be putting miles on the truck if I stayed home, too.

In one sense any sport hunting is a rich man's game, compared to the income level of much of the world. But, I don't think that's how the comment was meant. Flying to England or Spain to shoot driven birds is a rich man's game. Going to Africa to hunt any of the Big Five is a rich man's game. Not that it's for everyone, but you can still shoot high volume doves in Cordoba for four full days for under $6K, if you plan and do it right, with a group. It costs more than that to plant one 30 acre field of sunflowers for doves here, and you might not get but one good shoot out of it.

This is all just complaining to be complaining, IMO. Those who want to hunt badly enough can find a way without taking out a mortgage to fund it.

SRH

I don't often agree with jOe, but in my opinion he's right on the money. Keith, I've worked extremely closely with Delta, particularly with Jim Fisher, on a couple of Delta initiatives that drastically affected the esthetics of my hunting property at Delta Marsh. And not in a good way. However, I don't regret it for a second as it was the right thing to do for the birds and the overall health of the marsh. We are already seeing the difference.

IMHO, Delta Waterfowl is so far ahead of DU (certainly in Canada) in being an effective and consistent voice for hunters. Science based and strong advocates for hunting and gun ownership. DU seems to have lost it's way in the last 20 years, pushing hunting to the back of the line.

Most duck hunters I know and have hunted with over the last 40 years are NOT rich men. They are passionate about the activity and make sacrifices in other areas to be able to engage in their love of waterfowl hunting. It is the overall, incessant regulatory burden and social admonishments that will be the end of hunting, not the cost.

Just an aside as per weather.

I'm not that far away from you here in Ontario. I'm just across the Lake from Rochester. We had an very dry spring and then NO rain from late June until about Aug 10. If you weren't watering your lawn, it was toast. A few little sloughs in the area dried up. A pair of nesting swans that come to one every year had to bugger off....I doubt any of the cygnets made it this year. No ducklings in them. The only waterfowl that seemed okay were the resident Canadas, marching their broods around town and stopping traffic as usual.

When I began duck hunting in the early '60s the duck limit was two. I've never taken two mallards in a day around here in my life. Duck stamps are $25 and I have a free old age GA license for everything else. Long as I can hobble down to the duck pond I'm still going to be after'em...Geo

Duck hunting pressure is much reduced from what it was in my youth. One short creek had over 20 blinds on it, now only has four. Six of the eight duck hunting clubs are gone, consolidated down into two. Another portion is owned by the State and over half has no duck hunting activity on a regular basis. People no longer want to rent it for duck hunting. A few hunters will sneak in with blinds built on boats and try to shoot a few ducks. But what was a marsh with several thousand ducks harvested in it is lucky if they take 500.

There is just not the interest in duck hunting by the younger generations. As a boy half my friends were active duck hunters and I bet that has dropped down to one if thirty or fifty. They are more into deer hunting and turkey hunting. Plus trapping the marsh for muskrats has drastically diminished. Where I use to be able to rent my marsh out for a small fee I now almost have to beg people to trap it. Muskrats do a fair bit of damage if their population gets out of control. So people just are not out on the marsh anymore.

Years ago, when duck populations were much lower, there was some talk about having a season or two with no hunting, so populations could recover. They studied it and concluded that hunting had almost not impact on duck population. Nesting habitat and nesting success were the critical factors. So while reducing bag limits might seem like the real answer, if you have bad nesting success, like they site for the last several years, then ducks and geese will struggle to recover.

Tamid, I appreciate your mentioning ethics. There seems a big difference between hunters and anglers concerning sustainability and sportsmanship. I've been involved in both as advocate for a stronger ethic for waterfowl and the noble Atlantic salmon.

A couple years ago I addressed American donors to the Atlantic Salmon Federation in Washington on keeping salmon around as long as possible. The fish are doomed, endangered now, facing extirpation and extinction while catch-and-release result in estimated four- to six-per cent mortality.

Twenty-five years ago, I presided, in a sense, over destruction of one of the world's greatest fisheries for cod off Canada's East Cast, as executive director of the Fishing Masters Association representing East Coast deep-water trawler captains. They told me all fishermen steal; it was close to truth.

A lot of factors relate to "management" other than human pressure. I believe a stronger ethic of sustainability and sportsmanship should be part of it. There are so many brook trout here the daily limit is 10, year-round. Taking limits because we can is unreasonable to a growing constituency here.

The day, a dog attending preferably, should be enough, a modest bag a premium.

That's really surprising, considering the limit is 7 mallards here in WA, with no more then two hens. Breeding conditions and weather patterns must really be different up north in the Atlantic Flyway. Hope it turns around.

Part of the reason you get a 108 day season and 8 birds/day is that there are no people north of California, and they essentially can't hunt them south of you.

Your birds are coming all the way from the Aleutian chain in many cases.

The Pacific flyway has it's own set of problems.
The water issues on the west coast are very complicated.
But essentially, no water, no waterfowl.

I'm surprised more people here don't read the waterfowling magazines.

For the central flyway, I notice the first good hard freeze in the potholes. Birds might finally start to concentrate some and move down. Maybe.

They blew out of here a week ago

I guess we are fortunate that we have you to keep us enlightened.

SRH

Stan, it has been quite a surprise to me that on this site, where people are so passionate about double guns, and clearly love their waterfowling, the participants on this thread have shown no knowledge of the management system that makes their waterfowling possible.

If a flyway council ordered the reduction in Mallard harvest to 2 birds /day, that is evidence of a catastrophic situation.

It's not a grand conspiracy promulgated by entrenched bureaucrats to deny sportsmen their pleasure.

Something has gone wrong in the Atlantic flyway, and the bag reductions are essentially a last ditch (short of outright closure)effort to save the resource.

It's not the misunderstanding of some about the reduction of the limit that surprises me. It is your condescension in assuming that " the participants on this thread have shown no knowledge of the management system that makes their waterfowling possible." Your words.

Just because the participants who post here don't parrot what they might read in magazines you have no right to assume that they (we) don't read them, or other sources of current waterfowl information as well. There are many people who read here and almost never post. You're lumping everyone into the same pie.

And, it's even more telling that you have to have this pointed out to you. It is condescension at it's worst.

SRH

If you have a chance to read the link to the survey, the sky may not be falling.

Stable counts in the breeding grounds, and larger decrease in harvest than counts. If they aren't denying the sportsmen, who're apparently self regulating, who's ego gets satisfied by penalizing prior to establishing a reason for the penalty?

Are you sure that is a management system that is making waterfowling possible?

Don't confuse him with the facts, craig.

SRH

I thought the same thing myself. But Grey Man doesn't seem willing to enlighten us about what his waterfowling magazines say about the populations of Mallards in the Atlantic flyway. Get your own damn magazine.



This thread wasn't about conditions on the Pacific flyway. If it was, it might be understandable if biologists and game managers were seeking a harvest or season reduction there. According to the National Weather Service Hydrology and Precipitation maps I looked at, the west coast has been dryer than normal in 2018 while most of the east coast and mid-Atlantic region has been wetter than normal. Much of it has been much wetter than normal. Maybe the ducks got too wet!

https://water.weather.gov/precip/

Scroll down to Year to Date under Time Range in "Timeframe", and Departure from Normal or Percent of Normal in "Product".

What's really surprising to me isn't Grey Man's condescension... I'd be more surprised if he wasn't condescending. Actually, I'm more surprised that BrentD hasn't given us his scholarly and unassailable reasoning for the proposed bag limit reduction. Believe it or not, BrentD knows even more than the Grey Man. Probably some complex mix of anthropogenic climate change, a coyote/coopers hawk partnership, over-harvesting by King Brown, and the use of lead ammunition by eastern deer hunters that we mere mortals would never understand.

My first mother in law was easily confused by facts before her death. My second mother in law just ignores facts all together like a few here do.

There would be no public waterfowling if it wasn't for the determination of a relatively few grey men.

Here's a nicely prepared set of FAQ's from the State of Virginia.
https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/Atlantic-Flyway-Mallard-Bag-Limit-Reduction-FAQ.pdf

Reader's will see relatively bleak inferences toward the end. Anytime a biologist starts talking about being below sustainability levels, it's not just bad news, it's tragic news.

When 'biologists' assess blame by penalizing one group, wouldn't it make sense to connect the dots that lead to waterfowl hunters rather than infer anything? Sportsmen have always been the true conservationists through the support of their time and money as well as by their actions.

Do we really need fellow readers trolling for emotions by inferring that the sky is falling? Just kidding, if half is good, a complete ban has to be better, right?

Good point craigd. If we are truly below sustainability levels, then we could be one dryer than normal spring away from disaster. Killing even one puts the declining population in jeopardy. In that event, a total closure of harvesting mallards would be justified... if the data was real.

sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty-- the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level

This part of Grey Man's link from virginia.gov jumped out at me:

A long-term decline means that either survival or production (or both) is too low to maintain the population size. However, banding data indicate that eastern mallard survival rates are not measurably different now than they were in the 1990s, when the population was stable. Production estimates obtained from the USFWS Parts Collection Survey have not decreased from that time either. Yet the population decline is evident. This indicates there is a problem
with either one or both critical data streams.

Seriously??? So production rates have not decreased from the 1990's, and neither have survival rates. Hunter numbers have continued to fall, and mallard harvest has decreased by about 40% in that time period. Yet bag limits need to be reduced by 50%??? This is getting interesting, even though I'm not a duck hunter. All I know about it is what I've read here, and the numbers of mallards I see in my little corner of the world. I don't need any biologists to tell me that grouse populations have declined, and that ringneck pheasants should probably be on the endangered species list in my state. I see it myself when I am hunting them or taking my guns for a walk. Those of you who spend a lot of time hunting ducks hopefully will tell us if mallards are really getting scarce, or if there is something else going on here. At this point, it would be easy to blame a decline on wounding from steel shot, and toxicity from tungsten or bismuth, and to call for bans on those too.

I wouldn't be so skeptical and cynical about Fake News if there wasn't so much Fake News.

Some of those "relatively few Grey Men" who saved public waterfowl hunting for the unwashed masses ought to be able to fill in the blanks.

I belong to a duck Club next to the Montezuma Refuge in the finger lakes region of western NY. We have kept detailed hunting records since 1986. Mallards have traditionally made up just under 50% of our bag. In the last 12 years our success rate has dropped from 2.6 ducks per hunt to 1.5 ducks per hunt. All of the reduction in success is due the fewer mallards taken every year in light of stable regularization. The mallard count in the Atlantic fly has dropped from 800,000 to a little over 400,000. From my observations and hunting records mallard numbers are way down. In our area other factors many have caused some of the decline. The Montezuma Refuge has expanded by 3500 acres in the last decade which allows more safe/ non hunting areas for the birds. Mallards seem to be arriving later and later which means our marsh could be frozen during peak mallard migration.

I have confidence that biologists are reporting what we're seeing although they sometimes lag in accommodating populations with regulations.

Hunters hereabouts are way down in numbers. I don't know where pressure fits in the sustainability debate. But hunting without a dog is a sin.

Just roaming around the tules the last two days, my Lab picked up six mallard cripples shot earlier in the morning.

Watching with interest.
The North American waterfowl situation and issues are probably very different from ours.
The pursuit of them here is now highly emotive and political. Here, there are people who have made it their life's mission to close down duck hunting, and the increasing urbanisation of the population and disappearance of habitat under drainage and development is putting ever-increasing pressure on hunting. Beware.

So what can we infer from this observation???....

Perhaps the biologists have trouble counting mallards hidden in the bullrushes.

And perhaps the use of ballistically inferior steel and non-tox shot is causing even more crippling losses than previously thought.

I was hoping for more real world observations about mallard populations in the Atlantic flyway, from the guys who actually hunt them. I find it somewhat strange that we often hear from plenty of hunters who lament the low numbers of grouse or quail in recent years, but I don't recall hearing the same concerning mallards in the Atlantic flyway. And wasn't it strange that Grey Man provided us with a vague pdf from the state of Virginia when he has all of those great waterfowl magazines to tell us what's going on with the ducks? Vague pdf is actually an understatement because it didn't even begin to answer why the mallard populations are supposedly at levels below sustainability in a wetter than average year. It would be easy to not care about it, but I just don't think that all biologists and all wildlife managers are doing right by the sportsmen who fund most of their activities.

All the baby ducklings
laying in the grass
all their little heads bit off
cos no one eats the arse.
O.M

Here's a little treatise produced by lying ignorant bureaucrats that are stealing your money and ruining your fun, on AHM.
Which is the system used to spoil your duck hunting.
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/AHMReport2019.pdf

You do know that King just told us that waterfowl hunter numbers are down. Why are we worried about hunters, they're just fun loving grey toppers, or spoiled brats?

With increasing resources and habitat dedicated to them and taken from hunters, when are we going to get a little treatise on the impact of bird watchers? Do waterfowl really thrive on baby bimmer accessible roads and observation decks in their safe zones? Seeing how temperature sensitive the watchers are, it just may be that the spring migration up to the nesting grounds is being impeded. Come on CZ, seventy something pages, what's the point?

Well, the point is that someone asked to be clued in.
There is the document that explains it all in great detail. Complete with references and appendices.
Every flyway, and all the people in charge.

When a person gets down to the nitty gritty pertaining to their flyway, and how AHM is being applied to their region, they can call any of the ...people... listed in the appendix.
And then proceed however they wish. Of course I hope their efforts are enlightening, and positive. But there is no guarantee of that.

I'd like to think there are some people that might enjoy learning how these decisions are made. But maybe not.
A 72 page doc covering an entire continent isn't really all that long. Not with references and tables added in.
A person can easily skip to the parts that effect them, and skip that which does not.

If someone is particularly engaged in the topic, they can argue about the composition of the factors used in the AHM model for their flyway. The who to argue with is therein.

If they don't get anywhere at the Federal level, they can pursue the matter further with their individual flyway council, or further yet, with their individual state agencies that have agreed to adopt the flyway AHM system.

I don't know the facts but my guess is non hunting areas don't make for a better duck population.

Anyone that knows anything knows that concentrating ducks or any wildlife is just asking for the spread of decease.

All of these "safe zones" should be open for hunting. So the ducks would be forced into their natural migration patterns.

Point is we had more ducks and better hunting before we had these safe non hunted feeding zones.

No excuse to feed ducks. If their habitat won’t support them they have wings to fly where it can. Concentration of birds does increase the risk of major disease outbreak with rapid die offs. To feed dicks, as a back foot way to reduce hunting opportunities is very unwise. Did people forget most of the wildlife habitat was bought with taxes on sportsman, donated by them or their heirs. The area these anti hunters have paid for could be covered by a large tarp.

The links to the documents are appreciated. My hope is that a waterfowl hunter can sift through it and determine why they're given the blame for the numbers. What was enlightening and not so positive to me is how 'their efforts' were interpreted and characterized.

Seems like the future of the Atlantic flyway is camera hunts with no more than three pictures loaded at a time. Just trying to be positive.

Two pictures, craigd. This is a forum of gentlemen. All the 3 shot hillbillies are over in the I Love My Ithaca at shotgunworld.


____________________________
The batteries in those cameras better be non tox.

King, did you think to take shot samples from those crippled ducks in order to determine how many were hit with steel shot?

Six would put you seriously over the limit now and might be a Federal offense with jail time next year.

6 in two days is probably NOT over the limit.

I know as fact each cripple was shot with steel. My buddies use steel exclusively; I TM. I wasn't with them with my dog earlier on those days. They are conscientious, good shooters, never take a limit, no more than a couple for the plate, home no later than 8:30a.

The law here says all reasonable efforts must be made to retrieve what has been shot. The wind was "flat-cam"---as they say on our Eastern Shore---so they went home for a small aluminum skiff to retrieve their ducks. As I said earlier here, if I were king there'd be no waterfowling without a retriever.

"...As I said earlier here, if I were king there'd be no waterfowling without a retriever."

Although I usually agree with your comments...please clarify your statement.

From the regs.."The regulations require hunters to have an adequate means of retrieving birds and immediately make every reasonable effort to retrieve a migratory game bird that has been killed or injured, and if it is still alive that they kill it"

..."so they went home for a small aluminum skiff to retrieve their ducks."

Not sure how this is considered 'immediate'. Just say'n.

Wonton Waste is not to be allowed if you are a honorable hunter. It did keep me out of real trouble 40 years ago. I was duck hunting just below the Delaware state line in Maryland. Shot a Black duck which hit the water and dived. Up it came about 30 yards away and dove again. Once it got into the tide current it was on a high speed highway moving away from me and across the state line. So I get into my boat with my retriever to collect it. Ended up a mile across the line by the time we got close enough for the dog to get him. That Black duck dove several times trying to get away. Black ducks are tricky to retrieve sometimes. But in the end we got him just in time to see the Delaware DNR coming.

Duck season was closed in Delaware but open in MD. They stopped me and asked me what the blank I was doing. Showed them the duck. Explained I shot it in MD but the tide carried it across state lines. They were not happy. Considered charging me with hunting out of season. I had my shotgun in the boat. Sometimes you need to swat cripples to recover them. I did have hunting licenses for both states so I was legal in that reguard but duck season was closed in one. They still did not think it gave me the right to cross state lines. My position was it was a a federal offense to not attempt recovery so under wonton waste I was required to get my bird. They agreed after much debate it was reasonable but I should not make a habit of coming into their state like this. They did escort me back to my blind to see that I had been hunting in MD. By then ducks were done moving for the morning and I had to call it a day.

What we need is to get the Federal government out of farming ducks and open up these safe zones to hunters.

I think both would promote a healthier duck population and hunting.

A collective angst, dal. I'm sick of the waste, the waste. Sky-bustin', shooting from edges of open water from blinds in the lee, any wind offshore, no way of retrieve, no boat, no dog. Waterfowling to me is all about the dog.

I've been at it for 75 years and my general observation is that a majority of hunters are slobs and the poachers I hunted with (in season) in early years went to extremes to get their birds because of their subsistence living. It was just done.

I grew up in a fishing village. Wildfowl were a staple. My relatives and neighbours were poachers, sold ducks for $2 a pair. When I lived there an orange in a stocking was eagerly anticipated for Christmas day.

We stripped to to our skins to fetch a duck when we didn't have a boat while hunting along lakes, and spent the best shooting hours after daybreak on open water, rowing after cripples, if we didn't have a dog.

I've never seen a warden afield in all my hunting or fishing. I've never seen purposeful over-limits. Wardens aren't needed if the old poachers' ethic applied within our seasons. I proselytize with buddies, "For god's sake, get a dog."

For a guy that knows so much about Scott's, I'm surprised to see those remarks a second time.
I believe it safe to say, that the Federal gov't got IN TO the protection of waterfowl precisely because there were people that believed as you do.

The acquisition of land was a good thing but then to feed the ducks and concentrate and keep them there and forbid hunting is a bad thing.

Ducks are concentrated beyond belief along the Mississippi river in the refuges....you think that's a good thing for the ducks and the hunters ?

Maybe you should take a tour of the Government duck housing projects along the Mississippi river and check out the over crowding.

When I was a boy baiting was legal but not within 500 yards of your blind. We had a marsh full of birds. Not concentrating into small hot spots. But people are greedy and dumb. A few abused it so all lost. I figured for each bird killed in a baited area 50 ate for free. But those days are long gone until you hear it’s the government or some anti hunter group feeding birds.

King I agree with your lament against slobs. People are so stupid in trying to hit birds at stupid ranges. Sky busting screws everybody. Birds get so scared they won’t finish. Cripples are lost. Even birds working one blind will be shit at by another. If hunters would just limit themselves to no shot outside 25 yards their success rate would go up four times or more.

If you took a slob hunter to a Sporting Clays range and charged him two buck a shot at birds 45-60 yards away he’d quickly stop but the same idiot will shoot three shells at that same target if it’s a duck. And do it again and again. And clay targets are much less evasive than a duck.

If you can’t recover a bird there is no reason to shoot it.

I believe you king that duck hunters can be some of the most unethical of hunters, with deer hunters not far behind. I prefer to hunt my lakes and marshes without a dog as cripples can be much easier to dispatched from a boat. After a flurry of shooting the birds can also be more quickly retrieved by boat. But I think you and I shoot waterfowl in much different circumstances. I much more prefer to spend time with gentleman upland hunters myself.

Those are rather broad and priggish statements: being some of the most unethical hunters are duck hunters with deer hunters not too far behind. The biggest game hog I ever knew was one of your gentlemen bird hunters. Routinely shot birds over the limit.

let me clarify then...generaly speaking...in my experience....in my area of the world.

There's no legal way---or any way, to my mind---to penetrate a dense marsh should you know where the duck is hiding, certainly not by a set of oars. It's illegal to chase down a cripple under power.

My Labs have picked up broken-wings 400m from where they went down, almost always from places I hadn't imagined. An energetic broken-wing duck or goose can move faster than anyone in a marsh or field of corn.

As for picking up after a flurry of shooting, my Lab last week brought in five dead from the water and two cripples in blind retrieves from a nearby cornfield in less than seven or eight minutes. Try that in a boat.

As Ted would say, Jebuz.

We already knew dal, Mr fancy sheets, crystal glasses and queerbeer.


___________________________
Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Jerome Seinfeld

Queer beer....i don't drink American beer...well only yuengling...every time I have the opportunity.

I definitely hunt in a different way/style then you guys king...not better...just different. All the best.

Actually not that hard at all. Although I have never tried to launch a boat in a cornfield.

Over my 50 years of hunting I have seen slobs with dogs and slobs without dogs, and have personally hunted extensively with and without dogs. A dog doesn't make an ethical hunter, and neither does the absence of one. It is solely dependent on the person holding the gun.

I have been around countless hunters with dogs who I wouldn't want to ever spend another day afield with again due to their (and their dogs) boorish and ill trained behavior. And I have hunted with men who could put any retriever to shame with how skilled they are at marking a downed bird in heavy cover and make a quick retrieve.

We do not need elitism in the hunting fraternity, and the dog vs no dog mantra is one of the oldest fallacies in the book and is based solely on ignorance.

Well said, Flintfan. Very well said.

And yes, I have used a boat and motor in a flooded cornfield to shoot and retrieve ducks. And whats more, I have seen crippled ducks escape a swimming dog.

SRH

Tell us about your duck hunting circumstance Dal....were all eArs.

your a smart guy Joey....take your meds then read how king hunts....then imagine something different....more inline with flint.

Elitism is part of all avocations, crafts and professions. There's more than one way to consider it. Google defines elitism as dominant in a system or society and OED, which I use, defines elite as the choice part, the best of.

You see it in a negative sense as not needed in the hunting fraternity. I agree, and I consider myself as part of an elite in my craft and fraternity because of what I bring to it as a leader; Not as dominant but in a practical sense for a common purpose.

I've lost three birds in the last 51 years, none my dog's fault. I've suffered your examples of egos with poorly trained dogs. I'm enraged by the waste from a majority of waterfowlers. Exaggerated ego doesn't drive me.

I've seen many hunters mark falls of dead birds in thick cover but not one who could say accurately where a cripple went after falling in marsh of cattails and tules. I'm a minority dedicated to bringing home what we shoot.

If that's elitist, I'll wear it proudly.

Kings definitely an elitist when it comes spewing total and utter BS, telling tall tales, being a fake & fraud, and when it comes to bloviating, he has no equal. No doubt, he's an elite in all the above categories. Well done King, well done.

Thanks, LeFusil. That's better than your president thinks of Canadians.

Don’t worry about what my President thinks. You being Canadian and all, you should worry more about that dingaling you have running your country.

Ain't that the truth!

You're right again, LeFusil. Like he said.

We have a 6 bird/daily bag limit on ducks here, and now a 5 bird limit on Canada geese. Since Rowdy (my 3 year old Lab) and I hunt "solo" now-a-days, I am satisfied with 3 or 4 drake mallards, and 1 or 2 big geese. But as I usually hunt rivers and farm ponds/flooded corn fields- if we miss picking up a cripple, I count that against my daily bag-

I would rather take 3 male mallards cleanly in range with 4 shells (and a M12) then shoot up a box of expensive steel loads to bag a limit of 6 ducks. Don't laugh, I've been an invited guest on a few hunts where that shell to bagged birds ratio is a frequent event.

We both have ding-a-lings at the helm: USA and her great neighbor to the North. Main difference: Trump manages to speak English, your PM is fluent in English and French-- ding-a-lings are part and parcel of the political structure of the world today, fact of life I fear.

Trump's no ding-a-ling. He's the very antithesis of a ding-a-ling. Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of ding-a-lings.
JR

As are: Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein- et al.. I didn't include the distaff side, as IMO, they do NOT belong in politics--
But Trump, like Barracks Bag-Boy Obammy, had Zero experience in Military Ops, Foreign and International Affairs--

Trump fired most of the top former Military men he had first appointed to his Cabinet-- major mistake in the light of the never-ending threat to the USA from the "sandbox terrorist groups extant in the Middle East.

Hey King, kudos to you and your code of honor. Since when do the 'best leaders' sit around belly aching about others and their dogs?

Francis, very few PsOTUS are accurately appreciated for their achievements while in office. When history writes the verdict on Trump, I'll bet you it won't refer to him as a ding-a-ling. Wanna bet?

SRH

Pres. Trump fired the backstabbing generals who were trying to maintain their status in The Swamp and the Good Ol’ Boy Club. Nothing to do with not listening or not knowing about military decisions or foreign affairs.
JR

Our pro-2nd amendment President Donald Trump is astute enough to understand that over 30 million illegals coming across our Southern border constitutes an invasion of the country. How many of his predecessors were content to simply allow it to happen, even to the point of rewarding the invaders with taxpayer funded benefits and amnesty? Most of the liberals who are making a big deal of him wishing to pull 2000 troops from Syria had no complaints about Obama pulling many more out of Iraq and handing the country over to terrorists.

It's interesting to note that Nancy Pelosi was advancing new gun control laws even before even before she was sworn in as Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has introduced Universal Background Check legislation even though she knows virtually all of the recent mass shooters bought their guns through legal channels, and passed the required background check. But I'm sure a lot of our FUDD's would still insist that supporting anti-gunners like Pelosi does not make them in any way responsible for Liberal Left Democrat attacks on our gun rights.

Time will tell- I voted for Trump because I couldn't stomach the alternative choice in 2016. And as a NRA member, I agree that "Da Donald" does support our 2nd. Amendment rights, in a world gone crazy with school shootings and other random acts of terror. But- Trump is NOT a leader, in the sense of other POTUS we have experienced. A leader keeps the team together and on focus-- not in a constant state of turmoil.- RWTF

Pres. Trump is leading, Francis. He is an Agent of Change and leads by a different method than traditional politicians. Draining the Swamp is leadership, bigtime. Embrace!
JR

While of course there are exceptions, to argue against this is willful ignorance. I spent the first 30 years of my hunting life primarily hunting waterfowl.

Here! Here!

IMHO the single most important act of leadership any president could be doing in today's America (true for Canadian prime minister as well) is to break up the ruling cartel of career elected officials at the government teat and the bureaucrats who enable them (and vice versa).

Trump, nutty as he is, has shown more real leadership than any US president since Reagan. Here's hoping for a richly deserved second term.

Stan- I might be tempted, but first, I have to know who is writing those future pages in history. How much were you thinking about wagering, FWIW?

Our great Country has survived, in spite of having endured the likes of: Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Tricky Dick Nixon, Slick Willie Clinton, and Obama.

My biggest concern, at present point in time, is Trump's stubborn belief that a wall or similar permanent barricade along the border States to Mexico will solve problems of drugs and illegals seeking refuge in the USA.

Let me say that I do NOT live in that area of the Country- all I know about walls is from History, and to some extent, from George Patton Jr. He said: "fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity"-

You can tunnel under one, fly over one, or with shape charges, blow a hole in one. El Chapo slipped out of the jail cell and booked out through an underground tunnel--

Trump is wrong in his statement about 90% of the illegal drugs coming into America from Mexico-- Miami FL seems to be the "key to that highway" from what I surmise--

We have a influx of Mexican migrants in our rural areas, due to the many apple orchards, and as I know all the farms with orchards nearby, and am somewhat fluent in Spanish- so I when they offer me some "Acapulco Gold" I reply-- "Mil gracias, pero quizas un Modelo, muy frio, otra vez."' El Zorro

Barack Obama and Eric Holder's Fast and Furious scheme was intended to prove that illegal guns were being smuggled across the Mexico border so they could pass new anti-gun legislation.

Anti-Gun Democrats should be thrilled to have a Big Beautiful Wall to prevent those illegal activities by the Drug Cartels.... and Obama.

Re-Elect Trump in 2020 ----- Fund the Wall in 2019 ----- MAGA!

Yup- that infamous "Fast & Furious FUBAR"--hard to know how 2 idiots like Obama and Holder would have come up with that-but they did. All our tax dollars pissed away on a scheme that only career politicians could dream up--destined to fail right from the get-go.

In looking back over our past failures in the POTUS ranks, I used to debate between "Tricky Dick" Nixon ("No American troops are in Cambodia)-and other such lies, and "Slick Willie" the Draft Dodger-- But neither of these numbnutz can even come close to old Barrack Obama-- 8 years down the crapper-and two Liberal women on the Supreme Court under his presidency-- we'll never get over that disaster.

So, with that as background, Donald Trump doesn't seem so bad- We know where he stands on the Second Amendment- and with Anthony Scalia gone, things were looking a bit grim for gun owners-Kagan, Sotomeyer and Ginsberg-- not "our friends" exactly.

Truth be known Obama and Holder were in cahoots/on the take with the drug cartels...following the money should be an easy way to catch them.

It's the only logical reason.

The truth will never be known because the democrat dictators shut the investigations down.

Now Joe don’t be a conspiracy nut. The FBI did a complete investigation and found nothing. Spent over an hour on it. Asked a few questions with people even in the room. Quite thoughtful of their rights, so nobody was forced to tell anything under oath. Worked for Hillary. Comey was done with his investigation before lunch even if he came in an hour late.

Maybe, KY Jon- FBI doesn't stand for Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity now-a-days. Not that I long for the old J. Edgar Hoover era in the FBI again. How come the BATFE (or ATF) didn't get into this major-league SNAFU, bust out Holder for the crook is really is (yet today) and clean house on the whole sorry lot?? RWTF

Too many people know where too many bodies ar buried in DC for real justice or real change.

If they were smart the party not in power would run on the strict term limit platform. Propose a limit of six years for a president, eight total years for congress and one term for a senate. After term limited out four years off before Congress or senate run again then lifetime ban after that term limit. Get rid of he 20-30 year “public service”. The public is tired of them ruling for life.

Act like they're dam kings or something....most should burn at the stake.

I could go along with all of that.

Who cares what you think.

You should jOe, because what Jon proposed about term limits would go a long way to correcting the political ills in both our countries. The biggest problem we have is the professional politician.

Pay attention....that reply was not to John.

Getting back to the subject line...

Any time you concentrate wildlife you risk spreading disease.

Goverment run refuges that are not hunted concentrate ducks and spread disease.

Open the government refuges to hunting and the duck populations will get better.

Plus refuges have changed the local natural flyways.

It's a box of chocolates, we'll never know what we get next. Three years ago, who would have thought a beto or crazio cortez or tliab would be the answer to our biggest problem. When hill said some village was going to raise our kids, did she know that she was protecting them from the m-effers?

Why are you picking on jOe here James? He was obviously replying to BrentD, the turd who dishonestly acts like there is no moderation here and who gets all bent out of shape if certain people post the exact same kind of thing he himself has done on many occasions;





jOe is an absolute gentleman compared to BrentD, and jOe isn't advising everyone to stop donating to support this site. Time to take off those blinders and see that jOe isn't the real problem here. Hypocrisy, dishonesty, faux civility, and F.A.G.'s (Fake Ass Gentlemen) are a much bigger problem.

He's not the first person not to notice who the reply was to.

Re: Lowering limit on mallards in Atlantic Flyway [Re: canvasback]

This reply was to yOu.

It's easy to see who has DU and Delta Waterfowl up their arsez.

For the record I have not supported DU for more than 20 years now once they firmly decided to excise hunting and hunters from their raison d’etre, except to bleed us for money.

I do strongly support Delta Wayerfowl. Conceived and founded at the hunting property that borders mine at Delta Marsh in Manitoba by the founder of General Mills, James Ford Bell, with an emphasis on scientific inquiry influenced strongly by Aldo Leopold. Delta stays true to those founding ideals.

I somewhat concur- I am still a member at large of DU-- do not belong to the Delta Waterfowl assn. But I see that Cabela's endorses them. The fabled Delta marsh area- Jimmie Robinson, Clark Gable, many others were invited guests in past eras to savor the fine water-fowling there-

I know of a few DU banquet attendees that have never hunted duck or goose- they go for the social atmosphere, and perhaps to win a gun in a raffle. But they have indeed, become a "Big $ operation"..

I endorse Delta Waterfowl not Ducks Unlimited. Jim

Francis, when I was growing up in the sixties, our next door neighbours, Telf and Edna Miller, had been the managers of Jimmy Robinson’s place during its heyday. The walls of their home were lined with photos of people they had hosted......Humphrey Bogart, Robert Stack and Clark Gable to name just a few.

I completely agree with these points.

Speaking of paying attention jOe, my comment was directed at your reply to BrentD. Good ideas shouldn’t be ignored because of who supports them.

I’ll do it again so you can follow.

Jon said something smart. Brent said Jon’s idea was a good one. You said “who gives a shit what you think, Brent”. I said “you should jOe, because Jon’s idea is a good one”.

Got it? Notice how stupid your subsequent posts now seem?

James, here on the Atlantic Flyway, I've hunted waterfowl for 75 years, living near sanctuaries on the Eastern and North Shores of the province. I'm looking at a harbour with a refuge as I write this.

I haven't seen concentrations in refuges where ducks and geese aren't flying to other parts of the harbour to farmers' fields or ponds and lakes. I'm not aware of disease reports.

Raw sewage was fouling the harbourI until I forced the town of Antigonish to build a sewage treatment plant by threatening legal action under health, municipal and water acts.

I'm not questioning what others are seeing, only what gunners are experiencing in our waterfowling paradise. (A string of 15-20 geese---no vee---just flew by my window, 15 metres above our mature pine and black spruce.)

King- we have mallards, a few mergansers and buffleheads, and Canada Geese galore here during the winter months-unless the river that borders our property freezes over- then they move South- We are also in the Atlantic flyway. There may be future concerns about outdated septic systems in a near-by subdivision, and some farm land run off's- but as there are no dairy farms nearby, manure run-off into the local watersheds is not of concern.

Nature as her own system of checks and balances, does she not? A cat-tail marsh is her idea of a filtration plant- has worked for years.

King, my take on it (and why I echoed jOe's comments about refuges) is based on the idea that the problem doesn't start with the need for refuges....it starts with generalized loss of habitat. And the only way to counter that is to establish more duck friendly habitat everywhere that can be. And, as been found so clearly by both looking to our past and the current example in Africa, if you want to save a species that is suffering because of loss of habitat....get hunters involved, not government. Hunters will put up money endlessly when there are clear objectives that support their passion.

So government established refuges that bar hunting, bar the use of that resource from those most likely to support and care for that resource. Only in the minds of office bound government bureaucrats, with hidebound ideology, does that make sense.

Might as well chime in here with a letter recently sent to the head of DU about what has happened to wetlands, both public and private, throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. I'm sure wetlands in other flyways have suffered the same fate. No response from DU of which I have been a member for decades.

October 25, 2018
3962 89th Ave SE
Jamestown, ND 58401

Dale Hall, President Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
One Waterfowl Way
Memphis, Tennessee, USA 38120

Dear Dale,

“We’ve lost our shorelines” an old North Dakota duck hunter remarked to me about thirty years ago. Another, an airlines pilot, claimed there was “no better duck hunting than in those hard-bottomed pasture sloughs.” I agreed, having hunted ducks on the prairies since 1948 where as kids in western Minnesota, we also shot most of our ducks in pastures or hayfields along country roads and from boats in the deeper marshes. Most of those birds were locals. Now I can drive for hours in that area in midsummer and not see a brood of ducks or those of most other waterbirds. DU members well know that we, other conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy, along with state and federal departments and agencies and even some individuals have spent a lot of money in the Prairie Pothole Region preserving and restoring wetlands and improving upland nesting habitats, yet brood production remains generally poor.

I’m like a lot of DU members that yearn to do some outdoor work to benefit our cause. We renew our memberships at annual banquets and auctions and get a chance to chat with fellow hunters about waterfowl and hunting, but, unlike our local wildlife clubs, member projects are almost unheard of, at least here in North Dakota, the heart of the U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole Region. I would like to see DU change course a bit, by taking wetland management efforts down to the local level, and am convinced shoreline restorations would be the most beneficial projects for waterfowl and other waterbirds in the entire Region.

Why shorelines? Numbers of broods on privately-owned wetlands is often much higher, than on public waters, especially during wet years. Here in central North Dakota where I have lived for 55 years, I see most broods on private wetlands in cropfields, hayfields, and pastures, and far fewer on public land, especially seeded grasslands idled for soil conservation or wildlife production. I believe wetlands in pastures are the most productive and for good reason; they are located under conditions that most closely simulate the natural state of grasslands worldwide, ecosystems created and maintained by grazing animals and fire. These wetlands are meadows and marshes that stand alone as temporarily or seasonally flooded basins or border wetlands where water is usually present throughout the growing season.

Ecologists and botanists recognize many types of plant communities in forests, deserts, and seacoasts. These communities are relatively stable compared to those in continental climates like those of central North America. The migratory big game herds that once roamed the world’s grasslands were responding to these changes in search of food, much like breeding ducks that move to areas of the Prairie Pothole Region where water conditions are most favorable. Studies show that in this region, most ducks and other waterbirds feed in plant communities that develop in shallow sunlit waters along shorelines rather than in deeper areas or those shaded by tall vegetation. We often see this in cropland as well as grassland when basins with crop residue or even bare tilled soil flood after spring snowmelt or heavy summer rains. The main attractant for breeding birds is the invertebrate protein essential for egg production and food for their broods. Waterfowl biologists have long been aware of these habitat needs. For example, managers often clip or hay shoreline vegetation or raise water levels to inundate dry grasslands to simulate the natural conditions of grazed vegetation in shallow sunlit water.

Most of today’s hunters have never experienced the joy of bagging ducks, snipe, and rails while walking the cowpaths and shallow waters around grazed wetlands. These wet meadows and shallow marshes disappeared when the prairies were cultivated even if the basins remained undrained, the natural vegetation replaced by taller, usually introduced or hybrid plants such as cattail and and canarygrass. Willow and cottonwood germinated in many cultivated meadows and were lost for crop or hay production.

But what happened to the ducks? Hunters formed Save The Wetlands in Minnesota as farm equipment got bigger and shallow wetlands became nuisance areas, with drainage often assisted by government. I remember cleaning smelt for one of their banquets in Fergus Falls in the mid-1950's. I feel those efforts and those of DU were the beginning of the massive wetlands acquisition and easement program that has protected so many wetland basins in the Prairie Pothole Region. After this phase, emphasis began on habitat improvement. Here I believe the government agencies and DU overreacted to research that showed how attractive certain types of upland habitat are to breeding dabbling ducks. We did all we could to shade the ground. First we removed the cows and mowing machines off, then we seeded the recommended nesting cover mix, closed vehicular traffic with fences, erected our signs, and then our activities mostly ceased whle we watched most native wildlife associated with the wetlands in those protected areas disappear as the both the wetlands and seeded uplands were idled.

These wetlands, whether in discrete basins or bordering more permanent water bodies are now sorely in need management; burning and grazing are the most natural treatments and should be considered optimum when done in combination.

I believe prescribed burns should be the first step on most areas devoted to waterfowl production in the Region. Repeated burns may be required on long-idled basins where woody plants have become dominant. Burning also improves the height and density of plants in long-idled uplands, where thick layers of plant litter shade the soil. It is not a difficult task to burn many wetlands in the Region, as manmade firebreaks such as roads and cultivated land abound. This is where supervised DU volunteers could do a lot of beneficial work.

The ideal combination of a burn/graze rotation may be available in some areas of the Region where livestock raising is still important. Willing grazers may be found near the larger tracts of land devoted to waterfowl production. Large wetlands with a small amount of associated uplands could be converted to useful temporary pastures or added as units to existing pastures. Here DU volunteers could help build and maintain fences, gates, and cattle guards. The famous French marshes of the Camargue have for centuries been managed with prescribed burns and grazing by domestic animals and are now the only place in the country where some native birds still breed.

The Nature Conservancy and The Prairie Enthusiasts are two organizations that actively manage native prairie with fire and grazing. I am a member of both. In the Region, TNC in particular focuses on the aggressive use of prescribed fire on the thousands of acres it owns. The group has recently reached out to the North Dakota Grazing Lands Coalition, a relatively new group of farmers and ranchers devoted to holistic land management. I would like to see DU take a similar role while providing members a chance to actively work with the waterfowl we cherish.

Sincerely,

Hal Kantrud

Hal, IMHO a great letter. My fear is it is falling on deaf ears and the situation you describe eloquently illustrates my point from my previous post.

Which is that, while hunters are prepared to roll up their sleeves as well as get out their cheque books, the eco minded non hunters DU has decided to align themselves with are not so inclined.

Venerable old DU has taken a lot of hits in recent years. Still, when I visit Saskatchewan in the Fall I keep seeing all the DU projects just in the area I hunt. They've done a great deal for waterfowl and conservation in general over the years. I'll keep on keeping on supporting them...Geo

Yes. And with my membership came letters urging participation in in a new waterfowl forum. Poof! taken down quickly.

But back to mallard populations. Here is a recent one, and I at least got meaningful response. DU could do a bunch of these demonstration plots with chump change.

20 Nov. 2018
3962 89th Ave SE
Jamestown ND 58401

Dear District 6 Advisory Board members and attendees,

First, thanks to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department for the fine work you do for our natural resources.

I suggest we spend a bit more money on managing wetlands with prescribed fire. It’s been known for a long time that weather, especially fire from lightning and grazing by everything from insects to bison developed grasslands worldwide, but we seem to mostly ignore it around here. Peek out the car window and you will quickly see many sloughs that have turned into thick bands of old cattail, and in many places thick with willow and even cottonwood trees. The best grasses for livestock and hay that once grew in these places are gone, shaded out and smothered, mostly by hybrid cattail that swept across the state about fifty years ago. And as the native meadow and marsh plants disappeared the birds and mammals went with them.

There is a lot of public land, including State Game Management Areas in southeast North Dakota where these overgrown conditions exist. My thought is that if parts of them, perhaps with some adjacent upland grasslands, were burned, then eventually put on a rest, burn, graze rotation, they would make wonderful demonstration areas where landowners could see the results of wetland restoration with prescribed fire and possibly apply the techniques to their own wetlands to produce both economic and wildlife benefits.

Sincerely,

Harold Kantrud

My point is that these smaller plots would serve as demonstration areas, like small units of the big managed marshes in SK. They would be projects local DU members might be able to help with. The farmers and ranchers who own the would begin to get income from the units when the wetlands once again become productive of hay or forage.

If you care to wade through it, here is my letter to The Nature Conservancy where I tried more of an ecological approach, but kept my plea for more participation in projects by members.

The Nature Conservancy
Meeting date 21 Sept, 2018'
Capital Gallery,
109 N. 4rh St.
Bismarck, ND 58502

Dear TNC,

I have an eye problem that precludes my attendance at the meeting. Please accept this letter as my contribution as a volunteer.

“We’ve lost our shorelines” an old North Dakota duck hunter told me about thirty ago. Twenty years before that, another, an airlines pilot, claimed there was “no better duck hunting than in those hard-bottomed pasture sloughs.” I agreed, having hunted ducks on the prairies since before the Korean War where as kids in western Minnesota, we also shot most of our ducks around wetlands in pastures or hayfields. Most of those birds were locals. Now I can drive for 50 miles in that area during midsummer and not see a brood of ducks; except for a few herons and egrets, waterbirds are almost non-existent.

I’m like a lot of TNC members that yearn to do some outdoor work to benefit our cause. We renew our memberships and get a calendar and a magazine. But unlike our local wildlife clubs, member projects are almost unheard of, at least in the northern prairies. I would like to see the Conservancy change course a bit, by putting some effort into private lands. I believe the most beneficial small projects in this area would involve shoreline restorations.

In the prairie region, other conservation groups such as Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, along with state and federal departments and agencies have spent a lot of money acquiring, preserving, and restoring wetlands and improving upland nesting habitats for waterfowl, yet in my opinion brood production and use of these habitats by other birds is generally poor. Conversely, numbers of broods on privately-owned wetlands is often much higher than on public waters, especially during wet years. Here in central North Dakota where I have lived for 55 years, I see most broods on private wetlands in cropfields, hayfields, and pastures, and far fewer on idle land, especially seeded grasslands idled for soil conservation or wildlife production. I believe wetlands in pastures are the most productive and for good reason; they are located under conditions that most closely simulate the natural state of grasslands worldwide, ecosystems created and maintained by grazing animals and fire. Studies have shown that meadows and shallow marshes have greater bird species diversity than other habitat types.

Ecologists and botanists recognize many types of plant communities in forests, deserts, and seacoasts. These communities are relatively stable compared to those in the world’s grasslands that undergo constant change in response to continental climates. The migratory big game herds that once roamed the world’s grasslands were responding to these changes in search of food, much like breeding birds that move to areas of the Prairie Pothole Region where water conditions are most favorable. Here, most breeding and many migrant waterbirds are attracted by the invertebrate animal foods produced in plant communities that develop in the warm, shallow sunlit waters along shorelines rather than in deeper areas or those shaded by tall vegetation. Similar, though not as productive communities can develop even when the grasslands have been destroyed, as when basins with crop residue or even bare tilled soil flood after spring snowmelt or heavy summer rains. Again, the main attractant for breeding waterbirds is the invertebrate protein essential for egg production and brood survival.

Waterfowl biologists have long been aware of these habitat needs. For example, managers often clip or hay shoreline vegetation or raise water levels to inundate dry shorelines to simulate the natural conditions of grazed vegetation in shallow sunlit water.

Most of today’s nature lovers have never experienced the joy of seeing and hearing the phalaropes, sandpipers, willets, and godwits while walking the cowpaths and shallow waters around grazed prairie wetlands. These meadow and marsh plant communities disappear under cultivation, even though the soils where they once flourished are not artificially drained. During dry years, annual crops can be raised, but when water returns, communities of pioneering plants, often short, non-native annuals, quickly develop. If surface water persists for several consecutive years or cultivation ceases, stands of tall perennials such as cattail and canarygrass quickly become dominant. Litter buildup often impedes further cultivation and if idle conditions persist, woody perennials such as willows and cottonwood can render the former meadows and marshes unfit for crop or even hay production. Tens of thousands of acres of both public and private wetlands in the eastern Dakotas and western Minnesota are now ecologically and economically dead.

But what happened to the ducks? Hunters formed Save The Wetlands in Minnesota as farm equipment got bigger and shallow wetlands became nuisance areas, with drainage often assisted by government. I remember cleaning smelt for one of their banquets in Fergus Falls in the mid-1950's. This effort and those of Ducks Unlimited (DU) were the beginning of the massive wetlands acquisition and easement program that has protected so many wetland basins in the Prairie Pothole Region.

Looking back, I feel the government and DU overreacted to research that showed the attractiveness of certain types of dense upland nesting cover to breeding ducks and underestimated the importance of feeding areas. Most efforts created shaded ground where grazed prairie once abounded. In tracts containing wetlands, farming and livestock operations ceased. Grass or grass/legume mixtures were seeded, and if stands were established the lands were left idle, often for ten or more years. The result? Most prairie birds disappeared. Especially hard hit were species that fed in shallow water or nested in short upland cover where insects are their principal food.

Grasslands worldwide developed under a regime of a highly variable climate, fire and mammalian herbivory, and the wetlands lying within these grasslands were subject to the same natural forces. These wetlands are the source of much of the biodiversity. So I suggest that the Conservancy put more emphasis on habitat restoration, especially in wetlands, both on its holdings and private land. The tools should be burning and grazing, alone or preferably in combination. This is where groups of volunteer members, under the leadership of Conservancy personnel, could greatly benefit the ecological health of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Prescribed burns on many idle wetlands are not difficult and equipment needs are minimal. More often than not the basins are surrounded by cultivated land and roads that provide reliable firebreaks. I envision small groups of TNC volunteers, led by an experienced person or TNC employee, conducting prescribed burns on these wetlands and assisting with burns on TNC land. Firebreaks in the common mid-grass communities (bromegrass or mixtures of bromegrass with alfalfa and quackgrass) that border most roads in the region are easy to construct simply by burning between wheeltracks, and no water is required. I have done miles of these singlehandedly and have not had an escaped fire. After these firebreaks are completed, all that is required is to wait for the proper wind direction and use backing fires to finish the burn. Smoke management for traffic safety is seldom a problem, and if it is, two people on the road with flags on the edges of any low-visibility areas are all that is needed.

Shoreline restoration by grazing would be a bit more difficult. Grazing by cattle, horses, or sheep would all be of great benefit and ideal if conducted after burns as is done with horses on the world-class French wetland, the Camarque. In our region, I see TNC members helping to build and maintain fences and gates either permanent or temporary, and possibly helping load and move livestock. Landowners would welcome a bit of additional income from wetlands that currently provide none. Farmers without livestock could offer temporary pastures to neighbors. Much forage is currently wasted in idle wetlands. Hay production on these wetlands should also be considered.

In short I would like to see the Conservancy engage in wetland land management activities like The Prairie Enthusiasts, of which I am a member, does on small tracts of upland prairie in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota. Volunteers clear and burn brush and trees, gather and plant seeds and plugs, remove trash and old fences, etc. These activities have greatly increased the abundance and diversity of native plants and animals, a goal in common the The Nature Conservancy.

Sincerely,

Hal Kantrud
Jamestown ND

Straighten me out on gunning in refuges, James. Agree on protecting habitat. Waterfowl populations and hunting opportunities outside refuges improved when refuges were established here. Ducks and geese move in and out or don't seem to "tend" at all in refuges/sanctuaries around here.

Guys I hunt with don't limit because there's always a chance to bring birds to the pan. Geese don't seem to favour refuges as protection, mostly keeping to their old feeding patterns. The Tragedy of the Commons would be on my mind if sanctuaries were opened with no rest anywhere for the birds.

What am I missing? (I don't know if it has anything to do with it: I've seen game wardens and conservation officers on sidewalks and going about in trucks and vans but never while waterfowling anywhere. That shoots down my Tragedy concerns but whatever is going on it seems to work: lots of birds.)

King, not so much with ducks but any refuge of any sort I see in the fall is thick and by that I mean in the 1000's and 10's of 1000's with Canadas. And they know the difference to a T. This field they are in, that one they are not.

But that's really beside the point. What I support is science based retention of wetlands, few to none waterfowl "refuges" (I'm separating out from that places like national parks you can't hunt anything in) and bag limits that represent a harvest-able total.

I'm making no comment on the OP....I don't know enough about mallard populations along the East Coast. What I'm really on about is the classic government overreach. And the public servants unshakeable belief that they know better than everyone else. Refuges are a way to discourage hunting, the way governments use them today.

And George, those little DU projects you appreciate so much in Saskatchewan.....odds are most were completed decades ago....when DU still had the hunters' backs. I see the same signs in Manitoba. I don't see many new ones.

The one project I've been involved with lately (as the land owner) was what turned out to be a $3.5 million project that was a joint venture between Delta, DU, Manitoba and a bit of involvement by the feds....and me. The reality is I sacrificed the beauty and isolation of my 250 acres (along with having to agree to weekly access across my property) for the betterment of the whole marsh. And I was, by the nature of the problem in the marsh they were/are trying to solve, the only landowner involved. Despite assurances they wouldn't, they utterly destroyed the ambience of my place. The government coughed up most of the dough, DU took the management lead, Delta provided the science, the ducks win, I got screwed.

If I may interject, King, and I know you weren't addressing me, it doesn't work that way, necessarily, here. I have hunted lands adjoining refuges where the attraction was just as great as that on the refuge. But, the numbers of ducks were clearly only a fraction of that which I could see on the refuge.

One instance I remember clearly........I was hunting private land which was a flooded soybean field. 150 yards away was a levee which was the boundary of the refuge. I saw a windmill, or a tornado, of ducks over the refuge, maybe 300-400 yards away. If you have never witnessed the sight, it consists of thousands of ducks circling to alight, over an area already containing thousands of ducks. Those in the air are circling, as jet airplanes circle an airport, waiting to land. It is an amazing sight.

Anyway, the ducks clearly knew the refuge was a safe haven, with no shooting, and chose it over our flooded bean field, which was a very attractive place. They know the difference at times, no question.

That particular instance was near Cotton Plant, Arkansas. But, the same scenario occurrs in other places, including Reelfoot Lake, TN.

SRH

The refuge system seems to work quite well for waterfowl in the Midwest. Without it, birds would be in Arkansas before Halloween. You can hunt waterfowl on the refuges in some instances, but that hunting is rarely very good. Better hunting in in the fields surrounding the refuge to a distance of a couple tens of miles out. Lots of guys specialize in hunting snow geese in particular that way. This fall I was watching duck hunters that knew what they were doing, and they did very well indeed.

It is also a method that has worked for some commercial fisheries as well.

I don't see a problem.

Stan- we see the same scenarios here in MI- on the managed waterfowling areas- Allegan Todd Farm, Fish Point, Point Moullie, Harsen's Island and the Muskegon wasterwater floodings (aka- "The poop factory")You can bet your last $ that those birds know the boundaries of the refuge (no shooting) zones, and only a real strong wind and overcast day can maybe get them in range for you.

I believe the waterfowl refuge system is generally funded by the sportsman, but subject to be taken by non hunting interests. I know these refuges can hold waterfowl in an area longer than they may stay, but the birds have become conditioned and the 'bird watching' zones are ever expanding, in many examples. When the birds are crammed in like sardines, refuges aren't all that different from golf courses.

Not seen any ever expanding bird watching zones. Only a few of the biggest have any appreciable bird watching at all in my state.

The difference could be pressure on the ducks, Stan. There seems fewer hunters here as the years go by. Hunters who've given up use their pickups to drive to mailboxes at end of their driveways.

My experience in our harbour, depending on ice or open water, sometimes involves blinds and decoys on a tiny island and a marsh on outside edges of a refuge, common feeding places.

Local birds and northern migrants have more feeding places outside the refuge. They don't huddle inside for protection. I've a dozen guaranteed good chances of my choosing within 2 1/2 miles of the refuge.

I'm not aware of hunters hereabouts ever asking for access to refuges. Could it be your circumstances are like pictures I see of anglers elbow-to-elbow on popular US streams: bim-bam, skybustin', refuges good places for birds to be?

My opinion is that refuges should be nothing more than refuges. Opening them to hunting would defeat their purpose, I think.

However, the practice of baiting the birds to keep them on the refuge should be halted. Keeping birds in Wisconsin by feeding them to prevent natural migration, (short-stopping) is not only an unfair intervention against Arkansas hunters, but could very well be a death trap for the birds...Geo

In defense of the managers of NWR's and WPA's, most know that prescribed burns and opening up shorelines to the sun with livestock or even mowing machines help create better habitat for breeding waterfowl and a host of native meadow and shallow-marsh birds. Its just that they do not have the time, personnel, and equipment needed, and are hobbled by a mountain of regulations and red tape. And livestock producers are getting hard to find. Another problem is that many of the WPA's are very small. I know of several surrounded by water on three sides and a road on the other that could be safely burned and greatly improved, at least temporarily, by one person with a flip of a Bic. But they remain idle, seemingly forever, with most passers-by having no idea the area was once prairie, including the low grasslands we call wetlands.

What John Madson wrote about the tallgrass prairie ("On the Osage" [1990])is certainly true for the mixedgrass prairie of the Prairie Pothole Region of the US and Canada: "a singular system defined by climate, size, and the interactions of fire and grazing bison. Because those factors are no longer functioning on a balanced whole anywhere in North America, true tallgrass prairie can be considered extinct as a natural functioning ecosystem."

All we have to work with are tiny remnants of the system, but that does not mean we should give up trying to simulate natural conditions as best we can.

Hunting on Desoto Bend NWR is (maybe was) very controlled. Waterfowl blinds were reserved and checked out like motel rooms. It was not very good hunting, not even over the cornfields on the refuge. Hundreds of thousands of birds leave daily to feed sn DC spend the day off refuge where thry are hunted hard.

Halk, you are spot on. The habitats are small and not well managed simply because the DNR has been stripped of its operating budget and lacks people and equipment to do it. The will and the knowledge are there, but not the resources.

So true Brent. Same with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. They do a great job with what they have, however.
Its an area I wish DU would take an interest in, especially here in the PPR where most of our ducks are produced.