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

[Fish Felon]

I've come to the conclusion that the most effective means to get what we want, or at least somewhat deter the jerks from doing what we don't want, is to form a group.

Most effective=smallest waste of my time and anyone else's that is like-minded enough to get involved in said group.

What I'd be looking to do is get together a small group of guys, 15-20 would be all it'd take, to form some sort of pro-USFWS duck hunters group. The goal of this group would be to do the least amount of work possible to successfully torpedo the MWA-Concerned Duck Hunters-Wood Duck Society ilk from stopping common sense regulations and seasons from happening.

I really 'effing hate that I'm even considering this but Doug Smith's retirement got me thinking about the state of affairs for MN wildlife management and waterfowl management in particular. It was only recently I started emailing him about what he was doing and pointing out how biased his writing came across due to the select sources he chose to publish. One thing I stated was that in his writings he was letting these guys speak on behalf of all MN duck hunters when in my opinion they represented only a small minority. By effectively giving them a monopoly in the largest circulated press in the region for their thoughts and opinions unabated he had essentially allowed them to dictate popular opinion and thus policy.

Everything I talked about doing previously I followed through on and did...and am still doing. I really thought I had a smoking gun in my juxtaposition between the wolf season and teal season, and I still think I do. There are definitely a few ways the teal season decision could be challenged in the court of appeals....but who has the freaking time and conviction for that? I don't. I don't even have time to post my drivel on here anymore.

Howling For Wolves will definitely be using everything I gave them to challenge the impending wolf season whenever it happens, but when is that? I had high hopes they'd want to go after the DNR right away but why would they? The wolf season is closed and they know they have a future fight coming so why play the ace up their sleeve when they haven't even seen the flop? The bottom line is that Tom Landwehr's hypocrisy will be exposed and hopefully it will lead to a big enough win for HWF that it will make the sportsmen and the sportsmen groups in this state realize this is the future and scare them into doing something about it before it's too late.

Long story longer, in the interim we still have a bunch of jackwagons that will still be pushing against additional opportunities for duck hunters even though nothing from a scientific management standpoint should hinder them from going forward. I want to push back.

What I envision would be similar to what the tea party is to the republican party, a bunch of little shytes that stop the mainstream members from pushing their agenda unopposed. The options would be to start a new MWA chapter (not big on this option), take over a defunct chapter (probably very easy to find and do), or form a loose group with a singular message; we stand behind the USFWS and their scientific management approach. I'd set up a website to make it look somewhat official and call it something simple like "Hunters Supporting the Feds." There'd be no dues, any thought of doing volunteer work or giving back, the only goal would be to roll at least 15 deep into the waterfowl symposium to challenge whatever BS is spewed, and that'd be it. Maybe we'd meet once before that to pound a bunch of beer at a legion or vfw meeting room or out ice fishing just so we're on the same page.

Our goal would be to be present and sit in a corner and every time some guy like Jim Cox grabbed the mic to go, "This is the most ridiculous thing ever!" We'd then take our turn and ask, "Why? The science is all very sound and this has been researched extensively...do you have some peer reviewed studies to share that we aren't aware of, or are you just giving the room your uninformed opinion?"

Basically we'd be there to stop these azzclowns from perpetually putting the onus of doubt onto the wildlife departments when they have nothing to bring to the table or back their concocted opinions. We'd be there to put the onus back on them. If the MWA thinks we're shooting too many wood ducks then we're going to make it very apparent they need to use their resources to fund a peer-reviewed study to justify that opinion.

[Big Doe Hunter]

Count me in.

[tornadochaser]

In.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[lanyard]

I'd start as an advisor. The product and mission statement need some work before I join the management team.

4 "P"s~ Price, Product, Placement and Promotion apply to lobbying groups also. If not, you end up an ineffective pie like the Wall Street squatters. or Black Lives Matter. Don't be that guy, don't be the guy wearing the shirt of the band he's going to see......

[Trigger]

I would probably be down for something like that. I get bored in the winter.

[Fish Felon]

I guess I'm missing how you're thinking it would have any parallels to Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street Lanyard. Those groups are a bunch of malcontents who are anti-establishment that want to bytch about what they perceive is a problem without offering up a single idea for a possible solution to said problem they're trying to point out...

...sort of like the MWA---Concerned Duck Hunters---Wood Duck Society at their symposiums.

The aim of this group is to support the establishment.

USFWS=the establishment. The DNR should also be the establishment and has been at times but is usually an arm of the anti-establishment lately,, especially with Landwehr at the helm.

For whatever ungodly reason, unlike Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street, the anti-establishment crowd has won in Minnesota when it comes to waterfowl management. They have done so by offering up absolutely no solutions to the problem they've created; because in my opinion, and the opinion of all the mountains of scientific research compiled over decades of waterfowl management, the problem they keep beating their drum about doesn't exist.

The reason this has happened is in large part due to them literally having a monopoly on the press. Don't believe me? Go and find me more than a handful of articles (or any) where anyone besides someone on the payroll of either the DNR or USFWS isn't speaking negatively about a proposed regulation change.

“It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my life,” said Jim Cox of Cologne, a former member of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council and former president of the Minnesota Waterfowl Association. “It makes no sense at all. Why even do the yearly counts?”

Added Cox: “I’m concerned the Fish and Wildlife Service is losing all credibility in how it counts ducks and uses that information, and I think they’re losing the confidence of duck hunters.”

Dave Zentner of Duluth, who headed Capitol duck rallies and is a member of the Concerned Duck Hunters Group, which believes the regulations now are too liberal, also is skeptical.

“It sounds like convenience for the bureaucracy,” he said.

That excerpt from a Doug Smith article is when I became fully aware of the problem. I emailed Smith to point out how absolutely biased his article was and frankly shameful. You have Cordts and some guy from the USFWS explaining the rule change logically and professionally and then he lets these guys absolutely just bash them. Smith knew full-and-well that Cordts doesn't have the ability to defend himself or the regulations he's in charge of enforcing. It's not like he can be quoted as saying, "Jim Cox is a fuggin' retard."

I ripped Smith pretty good for allowing Cox to speak on behalf of all duck hunters and told him that I was offended because he certainly doesn't speak for me and he doesn't speak for the majority of the duck hunters in the state in my opinion, and that he owed Cordts an apology. I honestly don't why Cordts would even give a quote or talk to the press for how they treat him (he's forced to I assume). I also pointed out to him how biased his articles read and that he needs to be aware of the influence he has and that he has a duty as a journalist to write his pieces more balanced. I told him that if he ever wanted some juxtaposing quotes from some duck hunters who fully support the USFWS and their research based decisions they adhere to, to hit me up....and to not forget these guys that he keeps quoting for some reason and making them look like authority figures HAVE NOTHING. Nada, zip, zilch. They have nothing but their opinions. They have contributed nothing of substance. The USFWS or the DNR come out with data and research gathered using sound methods that are peer reviewed and these guys get to bash those findings, offer up nothing of their own merit to the contrary, and somehow put the onus of proving the research is correct back on those who conducted it after no flaws were pointed out? WTF?!?!

USFWS: "After numerous scientific studies our findings show the earth is round."
Cox: "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! The USFWS is losing all credibility. We can all see when driving down the highway the earth is flat!"
Zentner: "The USFWS says the earth is round, sounds like a convenience for the bureaucracy to me. Nahhh."
Brad Nylin: "I gotta say, we're watching these numbers pretty close...they're definitely raising some eyebrows."
DNR: "After listening to hunters at the 48 round table discussion meetings we held statewide, we have our concerns about the earth being round as well. We're going to send out a survey to gauge how many hunters are concerned about the earth not being flat."

Who are these clowns? Seriously? What is 'The Concerned Duck Hunters Panel?' You know what it is? It's some dbag who grabbed a few of his old biologist friends that were active in the field fifty years ago and formed a 'panel.' He also happens to fish steelhead and be butt buddy's with DA so that gives him press which apparently gives him credibility.


I get worked up about this stuff because you know what? I know the side I'm standing on is right. Everything of substance in this debate is on our side....let them have all the opinions they want....as long as they realize they're no longer going to be able to throw them out there without a group of fellow duck hunters dissenting and questioning those opinions and putting the onus on them to prove them or at the very least bring forth something of substance that might support what they're saying besides their own personal observations.

The goal of this group would be to calmly assert a presence at the symposium to defend all the scientists and the research they objectively worked hard on to produce from people who have been allowed to unfairly challenge and disparage their work while offering nothing of their own.

The goal of this group would be to calmly call out the hypocrisies in the DNR's wildlife management protocol if it should arise. I.E. if Tom Landwehr again goes on a diatribe pontificating to the group to question what is 'ethical' in terms of how many ducks need to be harvested we can gratefully grab the mic and read off a list of quotes where he forcefully asserted the DNR's role and precedence in how seasons are set circa the wolf decision.

Whomever the Smith replacement is at the Strib they'll most likely be there and they'll receive a dose of reality that Smith was unfortunately never given; the hundred or so duck hunters in a Bloomington hotel ballroom in February DO NOT represent or speak on behalf of the 70,000+ waterfowl hunters in the state. They'll have a group opposite of the concerned duck hunters to quote in articles so a singular side is no longer allowed to steer opinions their way.

My intent isn't to be there to stir the pot, although that will certainly happen. If you've never been present at one of these symposiums to witness guys like John Molkenbur make an azz out of themselves and thinking the louder they talk and wag their arm about something they think is idiotic (like a teal season) makes them right, you'll know why our side needs to roll in 15 deep minimum. They're not going to like it when we point out their logic is flawed and they have nothing to back up their opinion....

....no one has ever done it before.

[Bullet21XD]

I too am skeptical of the way the USFWS counts birds. We cannot possibly have the numbers of ducks they claim, and have such high percentages of unsatisfied hunters. PERIOD.

But truthfully, in the end...I really don't give a phuc. as long as they are for promoting MORE opportunity, I'm on board.

And I do agree, we simply need consistency when it comes to wildlife management. Use sound scientific judgement based on the information that is available. Nothing more.

[lanyard]

FF~ the last one got a bit TLTR.

When Matter and Anit-Matter meet, they obliterate each other. Meaning: Each of the things you list as your reasons for existence are the same as the ass clown groups, it's just the Anti-Matter to their thesis. We're going to show up and SUPPORT the science, we're going to call out the hypocrisies of THEIR guys..... great. You and Zentner can stand toe to toe having a bitch slap contest.

"I get worked up about this stuff because you know what? I know the side I'm standing on is right." Unfortunately, this is typically determined by history. Winners and losers of any battle start out with this mindset, and it often carries over for eons after. See: How the South feels about the Civil War.

What happens when the science is wrong? What happens when USFWS gets Hilary as a boss or The Don, and now they are limiting hunting or draining to provide "crop foods"... or being disbanded?

Shorten your statement, include that you/your group don't know everything yet, broaden the mission enough so it can adapt to changes in available knowledge/practices/etc., then develop a format by which you editorialize a decision so the BS gets distilled to key points and have a dash board that makes it easy for the Sheeple to understand.

Being mad as hell and not going to take it anymore is far too easily cooped. Organized, prescient, and progressive is where the battle is won, for the sole reason the other jackholes are mad as hell and not going to take it any more.

[jriegel]

I am in to do nothing more than stand there in support. I am sick of getting the shaft, can we try to get spinners at the beginning of the season too like every other state?

[get-n-birdy]

One thing that majorly frustrates me is the refuge situations that have arisen. Not just NWR, or no trespassing areas on WMA's, but poop pits, golf courses, un-huntable areas within city limits, on lakes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Hunters are being pushed into less and less space. Those spaces are usually crap areas, that are not even worth hunting for a semi-retarded waterfowl hunter. Most sit in them with no thought of seeing a flight path at the other end of the marsh and moving to go hunt it. Then come out the next day and hunt the same spot, expecting different results, huh? The same is with any group this a$$ hat state puts together. It will be filled with the same dip chits that think a teal season is not a good idea. The expectations of most Minnesota waterfowl hunters is so piss poor bizarre, they think there's no other way or different way of doing anything. When I see most peoples spreads or areas they setup in, I just shake my head. I'd love to start flying over guys spreads and show them how utterly stupid they look from above. 6 goose decoys, 2 dozen mallards, a small line of divers in a J hook, plus a spinner or two, with the same look as all the guys on every slough, pond, lake, marsh and river in the state. Then watching the confidence with which they have in their shooting ability is mind numbing. To expect these same hunters to have more than 2 brain cells, is asking way to much in my dumb a$$ opinion. For 70% of our state's hunters, stupidity is the rule of thumb and expectation. They eat what they are spoon fed by guys like DA, Cordt's and uncle Tom as gospel.

If it was up to me currently, I'd like to bitch slap everyone in the DNR, the NWR system and the big ag community. The old guard has taught the new guard nothing other than to cling to mediocrity. There's so many opportunities to do things differently, in so many different areas of the state, but they utterly have a strangle hold on their old habits and ways of doing things. Ignorant to doing the same thing over and over and over and over again is going to eventually yield different results, huh? Most areas that hold birds and birds use, eventually get the piss pounded out of them or turned into a refuge because the birds use them, and hunting is shut off, why? I personally feel like I'm the bad guy to the USFWS and the MNDNR. Why shouldn't I? As hunters we are treated as the bad guys and punished for anything related to hunting. Opportunities that could be taken advantage of, are shut down. The regulatory process is police state like. The habitat on public land is not managed at all. We raise tax revenue from the PRA and DF, yet it seems there's less and less management every year, why. They remind me of the teachers unions, we need more, we need more, we need more, we need more, we need more. Every levy, things are going to show vast improvements. Then ten years later nothing has changed, but one more levy will change that, huh? One more tax increase will give the teachers what they need to improve test scores and give our kids a better education. Yet kids are dumber than ever, and we spend more per student than ever, huh?

The funding issue is a struggle, I get that.

The fictional pretense there is within the DNR towards where and what it's goal is, baffles me? Manage the F'in resource, that's it. You're not an add agency or PR department. The fish has/is rotting from the head down. I have seen a lot of great things going on in other states. Within the MNDNR, all I see is a constant flow of bs. I don't trust them, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me constantly, shame on me.

To end this disjointed rant, good luck.

Most waterfowl hunters in this state have no clue what good habitat is, what it looks like, how to create or manipulate it, or that there's better, different ways of doing things. Help, help me Ronda, we average less than 2 days limits of 12 birds, for an annual harvest per hunter, that's so pathetic, it's poetic. We can have a possession limit of 18 birds, yet few ever get there through out the whole season. 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.