Jim Cox

[Trigger]

Eh, the voice of water fowlers that agree with what they promote. I would think if they were the voice the "community" wanted they'd have more members.... but that's just me.

This made me laugh. Because it's true.

[Bailey]

Jim Cox and his crew of aging waterfowlers are very short sighted. They are putting their personal interests above those of the general waterfowl community. The younger hunters coming into the sport are not just interested in watching sunrise like a 75 year old man is. When you first start hunting you are usually pretty focused on bagging waterfowl and that changes as you age. You would think they would want to do these to promote the future of the sport but as his age group dies off they are not being replaced by younger hunter. The future of duck hunting is pretty grim as far as hunter recruitment so you need to think outside the box and offer as many opportunities as you can. Instead we have a group of narrow minded old men who are only interested in their own personal agenda.

[Quack]

Even though I disagree with the ultra-conservative waterfowlers, I've been around long enough to know their view has nothing to do with personal agendas. These guys genuinely believe their stance will improve hunting for everyone.

And for those who don't think "Minnesota is special" in regard to waterfowl hunting & populations, we are. No other state or province has the combination of high breeding duck numbers & high hunter numbers.

I don't agree with how the ultra-conservatives think about that fact, but it is fact.

[Trigger]

Jim Cox and his crew of aging waterfowlers are very short sighted. They are putting their personal interests above those of the general waterfowl community. The younger hunters coming into the sport are not just interested in watching sunrise like a 75 year old man is. When you first start hunting you are usually pretty focused on bagging waterfowl and that changes as you age. You would think they would want to do these to promote the future of the sport but as his age group dies off they are not being replaced by younger hunter. The future of duck hunting is pretty grim as far as hunter recruitment so you need to think outside the box and offer as many opportunities as you can. Instead we have a group of narrow minded old men who are only interested in their own personal agenda.

You're exactly right. But what's scary, as I'm sure lanyard has pointed out in the past (I'm not smart enough to have thought of this on my own) they sincerely believe they are doing this for the future, and they truly believe this ultra conservative stance is the path to skies blackened with ducks and 500,000 waterfowlers in the state.

[Bailey]

Thank

Eh, the voice of water fowlers that agree with what they promote. I would think if they were the voice the "community" wanted they'd have more members.... but that's just me.

So the question is, Who's Buying?

The Answer: an aging group of hunters who tend to mark days more by the number of sunrises they have left than the number of birds they shoot. It's a natural progression and I don't fault any of them. After going through the last years of my dad's life (dead at 65 from cancer), I can appreciate that stage differently. However, that stage is OWNED by sentimentality. And that's what is driving the Jim Cox, Retired Hunters, etc. That, and a sense of "us vs. them" with DU, Delta, and and new ways to count ducks that drive liberal seasons.

So, they can claim "voice of Minnesota Waterfowlers", make a play, rally their troops, and skew results for these reasons: 1) they have members; 2) they have actively connected members that have the "ear" of decision makers.

You, you don't get coffee: coffee is for closers.

The 3 years prior the more liberal regulations promoted by Landwehr resulted in higher harvest totals. And the 3rd wood duck put the Duck Huggers over the edge. When it comes to teal, the mis-identified birds would likely be mallards.... and wood ducks. As stated by Nylin in the one article with Doug Smith, "Those three wood ducks could be hens......" As a "water fowlers" org, they see habitat = ducks = hunting opportunity.... they don't see hunters = habitat = ducks.

That distinction is what will either allow waterfowl hunting a chance at a slow, long death with some remnant opportunities (long tail), or, if the change isn't made, will drive the sport in the ground.

DA and the crowd better figure out we're going to run out of hunters before we freaking run out of ducks... .but by then they'll be pushing daisies and we'll be counting sunrises.

AND: not the same Cox, not by a iong shot.

Yep the cox crew is dying off and don't get it.

Even though I disagree with the ultra-conservative waterfowlers, I've been around long enough to know their view has nothing to do with personal agendas. These guys genuinely believe their stance will improve hunting for everyone.

And for those who don't think "Minnesota is special" in regard to waterfowl hunting & populations, we are. No other state or province has the combination of high breeding duck numbers & high hunter numbers.

I don't agree with how the ultra-conservatives think about that fact, but it is fact.

High breeding numbers? Hardly. We breed about 1/5 of what each Dakota does and not much more than Wisconsin does. They also have high hunter numbers. Is Wisconsin special?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[get-n-birdy]

Even though I disagree with the ultra-conservative waterfowlers, I've been around long enough to know their view has nothing to do with personal agendas. These guys genuinely believe their stance will improve hunting for everyone.

And for those who don't think "Minnesota is special" in regard to waterfowl hunting & populations, we are.

Oh we are certainly "special", dare i say "super special" in a lot of ways, when it comes to Minnesota waterfowl hunters and managing habitat and regulations for waterfowl hunting.

They can believe all they want that their "agenda" will improve hunting for everyone, but where's the poop or even the stink, to prove it? And just cause they believe they are do-gooders, it's still their agenda. I'd say that their stance on not wanting to doing anything different from their belief or listen to others opinions, proves in fact it is an agenda. The ultra conservative stance is an agenda, from a fundamentalist belief, that they know better, just for the sake that they are more conservative than the masses. That's pure farking and punching in this rocket mans opinion.

I am continually dumbfounded by waterfowl managers in this state. I don't hate them or think they are completely retarded, but most of the time they seem like it. The main focus is habitat and I get that. But when there's lots of habitat not just mismanaged, but not managed even on a small scale, it's farking irritating. Then there's certain projects that keep getting funding and funding and failing and failing. I think we need new blood and a whole new thought process to roosting and resting area's, plus finding and creating better hunter opportunities vs just thinking restoring the prairie to pre-settlers days, when the buffalo still roamed the prairie in unfathomable numbers, when we've altered the the landscape so drastically, is beyond ignorant to think, if we bring back nature, to an un-natural world, the ship will right itself. That agenda excell's in ignorance, par for the course with this "super special" state of waterfowling we have in Minnesota

[Trigger]

Even though I disagree with the ultra-conservative waterfowlers, I've been around long enough to know their view has nothing to do with personal agendas. These guys genuinely believe their stance will improve hunting for everyone.

And for those who don't think "Minnesota is special" in regard to waterfowl hunting & populations, we are. No other state or province has the combination of high breeding duck numbers & high hunter numbers.

I don't agree with how the ultra-conservatives think about that fact, but it is fact.

I have heard the same about why MN is special, but it's been from the same guys who wait out the migration on "Bluebill Point", hoping for 1965 to happen again. Is 500,000 ducks (so few we aren't even counted in the federal spring surveys anymore) and 75,000 waterfowlers really that special? North Dakota pushes 60,000 hunters a year and millions of ducks. They sound more special than we are. I bet wisconsin and Michigan get close in both categories as well.

[Trigger]

Even though I disagree with the ultra-conservative waterfowlers, I've been around long enough to know their view has nothing to do with personal agendas. These guys genuinely believe their stance will improve hunting for everyone.

And for those who don't think "Minnesota is special" in regard to waterfowl hunting & populations, we are.

Oh we are certainly "special", dare i say "super special" in a lot of ways, when it comes to Minnesota waterfowl hunters and managing habitat and regulations for waterfowl hunting.

They can believe all they want that their "agenda" will improve hunting for everyone, but where's the poop or even the stink, to prove it? And just cause they believe they are do-gooders, it's still their agenda. I'd say that their stance on not wanting to doing anything different from their belief or listen to others opinions, proves in fact it is an agenda. The ultra conservative stance is an agenda, from a fundamentalist belief, that they know better, just for the sake that they are more conservative than the masses. That's pure farking and punching in this rocket mans opinion.

I am continually dumbfounded by waterfowl managers in this state. I don't hate them or think they are completely retarded, but most of the time they seem like it. The main focus is habitat and I get that. But when there's lots of habitat not just mismanaged, but not managed even on a small scale, it's farking irritating. Then there's certain projects that keep getting funding and funding and failing and failing. I think we need new blood and a whole new thought process to roosting and resting area's, plus finding and creating better hunter opportunities vs just thinking restoring the prairie to pre-settlers days, when the buffalo still roamed the prairie in unfathomable numbers, when we've altered the the landscape so drastically, is beyond ignorant to think, if we bring back nature, to an un-natural world, the ship will right itself. That agenda excell's in ignorance, par for the course with this "super special" state of waterfowling we have in Minnesota

I agree 100%. The thoughts that has invaded Minnesotans simple minds and got us into this situation is the hard lined stance of "just get the habitst back to what it was 150 years ago... nothing but". And that's it, that's the end of the convo. But it doesn't so us any good because it's impossible (and unnecessary, but that's a different convo).

[lanyard]

I equate the "do it for the ducks" sentiment to the "I've worked hard...." crowd.

Working hard, caring more, etc are inputs (cost/investment) not measures of output (efficiency/return)

Rather than total of harvest per hunter the measure should be total harvest as a component of total population.

If we have half the hunters if ten years ago then each hunter remaining would need to harvest twice as many birds to maintain status quo.

So, half the hunters seeing an increase of 25% in Wood ducks DOES NOT EQUAL a 25% increase in total Wood duck harvest.

[Stute Slap]

Still trying to figure out where people hang out that duck regs in MN make you embarrassed......

Arguing on a forum with Al... that I would understand

Was no teal a bad call likely influenced by a few? Yes
Are those same few active in places like MWA, Concerned Waterfowlers, Lecgacy Committee? Yes
Are some of those actively supporting "status quo" through their influence? Yes
Does MWA have an "official" stance on teal? No

Not sure how many times this needs to be hashed:

1) the MWA is a WATERFOWL org, not a WATERFOWLER org.... the fact they favor any harvest is half-ass surprising.

2) Al~ congratulations on delineation.... again. However, to 99% of EVERYONE, that makes about as much sense as the 114th Congress not accepting responsibility for anything the 113th Congress did.

3) I'm not going to go all Fish Felon on this, but see below for an "unofficial" response to 3 wood ducks....

4) Unless the MWAs blog counts, from "Bonus Teal in this Year's Bag" July 31, 2014 "Recall the DNR isn’t pursuing an early teal season this year. (MWA was opposed to an early season, too.) But that doesn’t mean the agency won’t go for the bonus teal during the early part of the season. Keep in mind that things still could change, but we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the DNR offer those bonus birds."

5) So, no, Landwehr DOES NOT listen to others, MWA and Cox, et al had ZERO influence in the decisions. The resulting higher harvest rates of liberalized seasons DID NOT make anyone send a note to Landwehr and say, "see, you greedy little piggy". Cox and MWA, et al, DID NOT do any lobbying amongst the powers nor with the people~ there is a mission statement that says so! Their opinions, being expressed in the StarTribune have ZERO impact on public sentiment, because of course, those are their PERSONAL opinions, and not that of the organization...... Thankfully, the MN DNR is THE ONE place on earth that democracy reigns, untouched and unsoiled by cronyism.

from an article on increased harvest by Doug Smith, Star Tribune, Sept 20 2014:
[i]"Count Brad Nylin among them. The executive director of the Minnesota Waterfowl Association supported the DNR’s decision to start the duck season earlier but opposed increasing the daily wood duck bag limit, then two, to three.

“You see the numbers and say whoa, the three ducks could all be hens,’’ Nylin said. “It is a concern. I’d be much more comfortable saying only one can be a hen.’’

But Cordts said wood duck banding studies so far don’t show a problem. The DNR is banding more wood ducks this year to boost the sample size.

Nylin said he’ll be watching for the results.

“I’m OK with shooting three wood ducks if the data can support it won’t hurt the population. But that has yet to be determined.’’"


Generally I think we lost an opportunity with the teal season. Generally I think the people that didn't want a teal season organized better since they had organizations and networks established. Generally I don't think my life is greatly affected.

And I'm amazed every time I look at this site and see that a thread titled Jim Cox is up to 3 pages

Lanyard I think you are incorrect.

This taken right from MWA's mission statement that Fowler pasted-
4) Recruit new hunters, expand hunter opportunity, and teach ethical skills and behaviors that will ensure our hunting heritage.
5) Protect hunting rights, shooting sports, and associated activities for all Minnesotans.

So it is a waterfowler org......and is a f'ing joke that they clearly state "expand hunter opportunity" and were clearly against the Teal season.