Minnesota Waterfowl Hunting

If Cordts isn't part of the decision making, why do we have him as a waterfowl specialist. And why doesn't he say he has no say in the decision making when asked about decisiona that are made?

And this is the first anyone has ever said that. I think fowler is lying.

Very good point trigger.

What bugs me is that their excuses last year were flat out lies. They didn't survey hunters and they apparently don't give a flock about how well the season went in the other states that are part of the experimental seasons. If they don't want a season just man up and tell us and feel free to load us with all of your non-biological reasons for the decision.

I have never had much trust in our government but I used to put the dnr in a different category. Not so much anymore.

Anybody have an email for cordts?

get-n-birdy wrote:Minnesota has always prided itself that it's constituents are much smarter than the other 49 states. When in all actuality we are educated to the point of ignorance and don't have a drop of common sense at times.

There is no sound biology in regards to why we are not taking part in the teal season. It is all fear based mongering.

Justvlike the vaunted 4pm closing that has helpwd increase the duck population so much in minn. Lol. The southern boys love the incompetence in Minnesota!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I don't know it off the top of my head, but cordts email that's on the dnr page somewhere is the one I use, he usually gets back to you with some decent (albeit full of lies) responses. Unless you use swear words and call him an idiot.

Swartzy wrote:I have a feeling they pushed for it in the past thinking they would never get it. That way they look good for the hunters. Then backed away once they were actually allowed. I don't think they ever thought they would be allowed to have early teal.

That would be a safe bet actually as to what happened.

Trigger wrote:If Cordts isn't part of the decision making, why do we have him as a waterfowl specialist. And why doesn't he say he has no say in the decision making when asked about decisions that are made?

He has some say (he makes recommendations) - but the higher ups have final say. And if I have to explain this one more time, then the person that brings it up is who this remark is about:

get-n-birdy wrote:Minnesota has always prided itself that it's constituents are much smarter than the other 49 states. When in all actuality we are educated to the point of ignorance and don't have a drop of common sense at times.

What are the names of the higher ups then? Is it a panel? How many people? Majority rules?

Back when you used to tell everyone to email Cordts, why didnt you just say to email the higher ups as well? I had no idea this was a thing because you never told me before. Crap!

Ahhh... actually at times I have said to email others too...

The problem with the higher ups is will they even see the email? Meaning they get so many at best a secretary goes through them. This is no different that corporate America.


Names? Well so should I catch the fish for the fishermen? Or teach the potential fisherman to fish. Go fish.

Senators and house members read my emails but dnr reps won't eh?

Does anyone recall fowler telling anyone to email these people?

Are you making chit up again fowler?

If all of this is actually true they may as well fire cordts. He's the 'waterfowl specialist' and basically the spokesman on waterfowl decisions yet doesn't make the decisions. Wtf is the point?

I'd like some names fowler. If what you say is true id like to email these folks. I don't have time to fish on the intranets. Some of us do that in real life.