Minnesota Waterfowl Hunting

get-n-birdy wrote:Hunter numbers are declining at a pretty good rate. If that trend continues, and there's no catastrophic decline in waterfowl populations, hunters will harvest less and less waterfowl. If there's less hunters, harvesting less waterfowl, what the purpose of keeping regulations the same? If there's a sustainable number of waterfowl for 140,000 hunters to have a 6/60 season, then we drop to 70,000 hunters, does the safely harvest-able number stay the same? Or do limits and season lengths stay the same because we don't want to seem like game hogs?
.

I do see your point in this, but not sure the Fed's would ..........and they pretty much control all season lengths and limit's........

get-n-birdy wrote:The NWR system, which interestingly enough was paid for by what and created by whom? Seems intent on less and less areas within their borders for less and less hunting opportunities. A couple whopping crane gets anywhere near certain area's open to public hunting and they shut areas down, this stuff is idiotic.

This must be an upper Midwest thing, because most other states allow a fair amount of waterfowl hunting opportunity on the NWR's. And most of them are good...meaning th y let you hunt places where you can kill birds.

I thought the NWR system was initially put in place for migrating birds to have safe rest stops along their fall and spring trips. Why the big push to hunt them?

Southern & mid latitude refuges probably allow hunting for a couple reasons: people down there are duck killers and wouldn't tolerate public money for non-hunting refuges and lack of other public hunting opps.

I'd like Canada's season lengths and daily limits. I doubt it would affect the population much, if any.

Nershi wrote:I'd like Canada's season lengths and daily limits. I doubt it would affect the population much, if any.

I agree, except for no species specific limit on canvasbacks. Not sure of other provinces but I know you can shoot 6 in ontario. I could see that potentially hurting down here in the states where they stage and winter. Other than that I like it.

Trigger wrote:[quote="Nershi"]I'd like Canada's season lengths and daily limits. I doubt it would affect the population much, if any.

I agree, except for no species specific limit on canvasbacks. Not sure of other provinces but I know you can shoot 6 in ontario. I could see that potentially hurting down here in the states where they stage and winter. Other than that I like it.[/quote]
In Manitoba you get 4 birds between Canvasbacks and red heads
(2 reds and 2 cans, 4 cans no reds, 3 and 1, you get the idea)

Sask is 8 ducks of which only 4 can be pinners. No sex restrictions. I didn't count their days but their season is way longer than ours.

I don't see why allowing us to hunt through December and into January would hurt the duck populations. I would guess less than 5% of hunters would be still hunting ducks after most water freezes which is typically before the normal season closure now (unless we have an El Nino).

If we could shoot 8 we would probably need a sublimit on Cans, Pins, Bills and Wood Ducks. Maybe 3 cans, 4 pins, 4 Bills and 4 wood ducks. I am sure if they gave us this season the average duck per hunter per season in Minnesota would remain pathetically low like it is now.

If the feds did decide to adopt Canada's liberal seasons I am sure Landwher would shut it down anyways. That would make us hunters way too greedy.

Nershi wrote:Sask is 8 ducks of which only 4 can be pinners. No sex restrictions. I didn't count their days but their season is way longer than ours.

I don't see why allowing us to hunt through December and into January would hurt the duck populations. I would guess less than 5% of hunters would be still hunting ducks after most water freezes which is typically before the normal season closure now (unless we have an El Nino).

If we could shoot 8 we would probably need a sublimit on Cans, Pins, Bills and Wood Ducks. Maybe 3 cans, 4 pins, 4 Bills and 4 wood ducks. I am sure if they gave us this season the average duck per hunter per season in Minnesota would remain pathetically low like it is now.

If the feds did decide to adopt Canada's liberal seasons I am sure Landwher would shut it down anyways. That would make us hunters way too greedy.

Exactly.

If hunter numbers continue to fall, why couldn't we get regulations similar to Canada?

Have always heard the reasoning for the "liberal" season and limit structures in Canada was because of the low hunter numbers. So if the trend continues south of that imaginary boundary, in their own theory, there's no scientific reasoning for current regulation models in the USA, other than a border drawn on a map.

And there wouldn't be any drastic uptick in hunting pressure. Look at how our current "liberal" reg's still produces a whopping 8 birds per season per hunter totals. With the drop in hunters, it's relatively simple math.

Biggest hurdle imo for hunters, still is refuge type scenarios where hunters can't hunt birds. That's the biggest problem waterfowl hunters face and will eventually be the reason numbers dwindle down to nothing.

So for guys like DA, it's not that there won't be any ducks in 2020, it'll be we will have tied our own hands to spite our face.

Pure stupidity!

It's not morally wrong to be a duck hunter and shoot ducks. It is scientifically ignorant to claim to be a hunter, yet feel you are in the wrong for killing birds, when they can sustain being harvested. That's a moral slippery slope you can't stand up on without falling on your own a$$.