Landwehr's Reason for No Teal Season

[Trigger]

Here is the copy and paste of the email Landwehr sent me in response to mine, questioning him on why he went against his previous statement to me (it's now my signature) several years ago concerning making decisions and why he decided to use feelings instead of science when turning down the teal season. And keep in mind during this, I did not mention a concern for bag limits in my email, or a desire to kill more ducks, I simply pointed out the standard debate point that teal are known to be under harvested and at historically high populations- which I'm sure he knows anyways.
Personally, I was a little taken back and surprised at his response. How he kept bringing up how many ducks he feels hunters should ethically take was strange to me. Sure 6 mallards is a lot for a family of 4, but 6 teal won't feed a family of 5. It's some strange reasoning to deny us a teal season in my opinion.


----Sorry for the delayed response; lots going on.



I, too, am a diehard waterfowler, but regret the job responsibilities have greatly infringed on my available time. Historically, I spent 20-30 days per year hunting, almost exclusively in MN. I have also been intimately involved in waterfowl habitat issues and in the regulations setting process in several roles for almost 3 decades (flyway tech committee, DU state conservation director), and tried to focus my BS and MS work in wildlife management on waterfowl conservation.



So at 60 years old, I have to ask, how many ducks do you need to shoot? Seriously, is your only consideration on what constitutes good hunting determined by the maximum number of quarry bagged? Some folks feel the need to take the maximum number of ducks the current population can stand, without also asking what is a reasonable bag from the sporting standpoint. Our bag limits for pheasants (2 until December, then 3), grouse (5), squirrels (7), rabbits (10), mourning doves (15) don’t change from year to year even though populations clearly do. Waterfowl is the only small game group where seasons change based on estimated continental populations. Bag limits need to reflect sustainable harvest, but also – I believe – ethical sportsmanship, allowing for a bag that can be completely used by the hunter and their family. I think 6 ducks is on the top end of that spectrum, and past surveys have shown that most duck hunters are satisfied with 5-6 ducks. Many think 6 is too much.



This year in MN, you can hunt geese more than 100 days, and you can hunt ducks 71 days. With a bag limit of 6 ducks, this is the greatest opportunity for bagging ducks that you have ever had. Again, it makes me wonder, how many ducks do you need to shoot?



There is growing evidence that the MN resident population of waterfowl – those that are born in MN and return here to nest – are in a state of long-term decline. Back in the 1970s, research suggested that early season hunting was having an impact on local breeders, and from that research the 4pm closure was developed. Obviously, it could be a habitat issue, but we don’t know. While we collect a lot of data on ducks, there is way more that we don’t know than what we do know (for instance, we don’t band many wood ducks or ringnecks, so survival estimates are pretty imprecise). Any expansion of opportunity – even a teal season or bonus teal – will put more pressure on MN ducks.



So there’s the balance, and as Commissioner, all regulations ultimately are my responsibility (not Steve’s). The regulations that are ultimately set are a balance of science and social considerations. Opinions on that are as many as there are waterfowlers, so I never expect everyone to be pleased. But someone has to make the decision, that someone is ultimately me, and I stand by the outcome.



Tom Landwehr, Commissioner

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources----

[h2ofwlr]

Like I said many times this year - it was not Steve's decision - you had to go higher up the management. There is at least 2 other DNR employees he consults with. But like he said - ultimately it is his decision.

And from my take on his writing above - the no teal season was largely based on the concern of added pressure on the local over all duck population.

And his reference to what are enough ducks is about why he elected not to have the bonus teal during the regular season.

So there you have it. And it is what it is....

Thank you Trigger for taking the time to inquire and posting up Commissioner Tom's response.

[gimpfinger]

So get rid of youth day if it's all about pressure to local ducks.

Team Power Dump

[gimpfinger]

This guy needs to go and go now.

Team Power Dump

[Bullet21XD]

"Obviously, it could be a habitat issue, but we don't know".

Bull shyte! We do know that's the main issue.

I still think it's total BS his feelings are what decided not to have a teal season. He should know...not everyone can hunt every day. Not everyone can kill a limit every day. Not everyone will kill a limit every day. Just stupid reasoning!

I do agree with the added pressure on ducks, but...that's what hunting seasons do. It's not his place to decide if we have enough opportunity or not. He should be promoting as much opportunity as possible. That's better business for the DNR. As for the opportunities he listed...I, as well as many others...couldn't give a F less about how much we can hunt geese. As a duck hunter, I'd like to hunt ducks as much as allowed. Nothing more.

[Quack]

How much money does Landwehr "need" to make? I mean, his previous salary was enough to make him leave the nature conservancy & become DNR commissioner. He should have turned down Daytons pay increase. Really, how much does he need to make??

He complains about not being able to hunt as much... Me to. Working stiffs need flexible time options like extra days and more weekends. 71 days? Yeah right. My opportunities get real pathetic after Halloween and worthless after Veterans Day. Not to mention that little job thingy that gets in the way.

[Nershi]

It's not his job to determine how many ducks we 'need' to shoot, or how much pressure the ducks can handle, that's the feds job. He shouldn't be letting his ethics or social considerations affect our game laws.

It's time for landwher to go.

[HnkrCrash]

The moment he said that habitat "could be" an issue is when I stopped taking his drivel seriously. With a garbage response like that, it certainly doesn't surprise me that he didn't bring up the fact that the average moron MN duck hunter shoots under 7 ducks per season anyway despite all the "opportunity" which he clearly opposes. A typical weak talking point so as not to piss off the at lobby and suck more dollars for studies.

Great analogy with the example of his salary. I work 50+ hours a week and doubt I get paid as much as he does. I think he makes enough, so he should probably get a pay cut. It is what my feelings dictate after all.

[Fish Felon]

I'm going to email an apology to Steve Cordts for placing blame on him. I've slowly been realizing h2ofwlr is right and that Cordts has been in favor of the season but has to toe-the-department-line. Actually it's just Landwehr's line, others in the DNR I've corresponded with have all said they personally support a teal season. It's clear after seeing Trigger's email (he never responded to mine) this is exclusively on Landwehr.

This is such bullshyte!

Landwehr thinks mandating his morals and pushing them on people he's supposed to be serving is an ethical use of the authority of his position. This goes beyond narcissism...the guy has a God complex....plus he's a complete hypocrite after what he said defending the wolf season. He's obviously a very unethical person if he's this comfortable publicly using conflicting standards for how the DNR sets seasons to suit his personal beliefs and interests.

The salary example is great! As others have pointed out, it's not his phucking job to limit the days we can hunt and the amount of ducks we shoot....unless it's determined from a science based management perspective to be too much.



Landwehr needs to go and we never should want a duck hunter (or any hunter) as commissioner again. Why do hunters always want a new commissioner to also be an avid hunter? Hunters passionately care about hunting. They get very emotional about it. As a result they make biased decisions surrounding them off their feelings.

I want a non-hunter commissioner. Someone who's a numbers guy that's totally objective because he personally doesn't give a shyte about what he's managing. He won't have an emotional investment. He'd be guy that can go to work and follow uniform processes and procedures, objectively review science-based-data, and make management decisions from it. I don't want a guy that enjoys engaging with hunters, sharing stories and input with MWFags, and looks forward to hunting on his weekends. When the guy I want gets emotional emails from uninformed idiot hunters about a decision the DNR made he just deletes them and then thinks about drinking some scotch and going golfing on the weekend.

[Big Doe Hunter]

You cannot eat ethics. I wonder how he feels about the current limits or no limits for snow geese in surrounding states and Provinces?