Would You Be Willing To Participate In This Type Of Group?

[Fish Felon]

First off, thanks for the feedback, support and constructive criticism. This is why I enjoy going on these rants.

It's clear my use of the term 'waterfowl management' is too broad and needs to be narrowed. get-n-birdy made a lot of excellent points about problems with waterfowl management and I didn't even consider that take on this. The distinction I shouldn't have assumed is that those issues are thought of more as habitat issues or habitat management.

I also shouldn't have assumed there'd be familiarity and understanding of the nature and atmosphere of the symposium. It really has absolutely nothing to do with habitat. There's talk of it, mention of projects and success stores, lots of complaining on loss and quality of what remains, but in the end nothing 'on the ground' is effected.

This program is designed to bring together hunters and professional resource managers to discuss important waterfowl issues.

If you have any questions about this wonderful educational program, please contact the State Office

It's meant as an educational gathering but it ends up being political---I.E. a certain group of people sways government to get the policies they approve of to become law.

The goal of the group I want to put together is to counter that. The only goal of the group would be to hopefully impact what we see printed in the regulation booklets.

I like to huff and puff on here and talk big but I'm not an idiot, if I am not only going to spend my valuable time in the real world on this but ask others to spend their valuable time as well I'd want it to be worth doing. Meaning I'd put full effort into ensuring it gets taken seriously. I'm not going to stand up and get in a public shouting match over who's right and who's wrong with Cox, Zentner or anyone else. I'm simply going to politely ask the questions "Why?"

"A teal season is a terrible idea. It'd put too much pressure on our local ducks!"
"Hear Hear!!!"

[Hand raised]

"Why? Why would it put too much pressure on the local ducks? i don't get it. In WI, MI and IA they haven't had any issues with the teal season putting negative pressure on their 'local' ducks and either causing them to migrate out en masse or worse, show a detrimental effect to the breeding population the next year. I'm certainly very worried by these concerns you raise and would like to know more so I too can pass them along and raise awareness. Can you or any of the professional resource managers present please explain in greater detail what ways teal seasons put adverse pressure on local ducks? Please point me in the direction of the research or other documentation or findings that illustrate your point because i'd really like to read them too for an even greater understanding.

I can't wait to hand the mic back because I'm really excited to hear your answers but first I just want to say a quick thanks to everyone who made this wonderful educational program possible. It's so nice to have a resource like this for people to attend and learn the science behind this stuff instead of listening to a bunch of biased hunters shouting their unfounded opinions over one another. OK, I'll shut up and listen now...Thanks again!"



You get the drift and can probably guess where things might go after that....



Then again they might actually cite a bunch of legit research and wipe the shit eatin' grin off my face and force me to pull of pretending like I had been sincere or look like a total dipshit. It wouldn't be the first time I made an azz out of myself in a large public setting...definitely in the realm of possibility.

[lanyard]

The challenge in the format cited (i.e. "educational" gathering at Waterfowl Symposium), is the guys you'd be pseudo-debating have 50 years of their lives tied in up in research, waffling positions, and organizing a consensus that is laden with hypocrisy.

Essentially, they'll kick your ass for the one-two punch that a) they have enough numbers in their brain they can cite studies that never existed and b) none of them have enough conviction to NOT agree with, at least in partiality, with anything that's been said. It's like arguing with a college professor or a beat reporter.....

I think your concept has legs. But that takes work.

[get-n-birdy]

I will say this much, we all as waterfowl hunters need to start holding the powers that be, too even a sliver of accountability. We all need to start chirping and bitching to our rep's and every DNR employee we come across.

So I am in, but I'm fairly disjointed with my thought process and tend to see things from really odd and weird angles.

[Trigger]

The expectations of most Minnesota waterfowl hunters is so piss poor bizarre,


Laughable if you think anything is going to change the minds of probably one of the dumbest waterfowl hunting states and cultures in the country.

Not just their expectations, but their understanding of waterfowl and waterfowling in general is painfully low, yet they are all eager and willing to preach their ignorance like its gospel. It hurts my head at times.

The last line is probably true. But it would make me feel better to atleast tell all of them that I know they are dumb, even though they are to dumb to realize how dumb they are.

[shnelson]

For what it's worth, I feel much of the waterfowl focus group meetings held years ago was focused on the science, and it would seem that many of the changes that came from said meetings reflected the non-NGO's strong support for such matters.

Steve spent a lot of time educating us with slide shows and the DNR's findings. Much of the public or "randomly pulled hunters" panel was receptive to the science, and oddly enough, that's the direction the DNR went with their changes. MWA fought hand and fist against three wood ducks despite what we saw in the presentations, and we still got it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I saw first hand what happened when the DNR gathered input from a briefly educated group and gained their support, almost polar opposite of what the NGO's were screaming about.

I can't say I'd contribute much besides a warm body to up the count, but I am in favor of said revolution. I do think you will have a difficult time recruiting a strong member base that is as educated as it is passionate about waterfowl hunting, and in my opinion that's the root of the problem.

[lanyard]

I think the frustration being driven right now is that the "no teal season" reversed the trend that came after Landwere showed up.... MN was becoming "normal".

This abrupt about face smacks heavily of cronyism and gerrymandering.... and Minnesota " special".

[shnelson]

I think DA's constant nagging and drivel against Landwher's management decisions were a large contribution to the shift. Squeeky wheel gets the grease and all that, even worse when that wheel has the ability to quickly persuade public opinion against you.

Those of us in support of the changes and new scientifically-adaptive DNR probably didn't contribute as much praise as we should have. That, and we as a whole have no tactful way of rejecting or supporting regulation changes other than "this sucks".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Mr. Lee]

I am surprised the "concerned duck hunters" are still around. I thought most of them had died off. There can't be many of them left.

[tornadochaser]

I am surprised the "concerned duck hunters" are still around. I thought most of them had died off. There can't be many of them left.

Their spoiled lawyer and dentist kids who know nothing but the same "hunt the same spot"/type of waterfowling will probably take over the org. Ran into one of those types the weekend before Halloween when I was back in MN. Toyota Tacoma, deaf golden retriever, set up 10 yards from the landing, 3 wind spinners, sun in his face and complaining about no ducks. I showed him a limit of wigeon and wood ducks and he couldn't ID the wigeon.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Quack]

Just noticed this in the Oct 30 Outdoor News as I was preparing to pitch it:


No teal season next year either