Jim Cox

[Bailey]

[quote="h2ofwlr"]^^^ A VG point, as that very may well account for the recent spike in WD harvest.

Doesn't that chart show a wood duck harvest decrease since 2012?[/quote]
But Cox and the boys can feel good.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[lanyard]

Fair enough, I'll retract my derogatory comments regarding previous generations of hunters' proficiency....

Fact remains: seasons are more liberal, and generally, less ducks are being shot in total.

Ducks per hunter per season hasn't changed significantly over time. Which basically means there are still a lot of "duck hunters" that don't shoot much.

Quack, I already stated I retract the comments regarding previous vs. current hunter capability to harvest.... that's not my argument.

My argument is not ducks per hunter, hunters per duck.

I'm going to go with round numbers to make the math easier, the numbers are wrong and I don't care to get exact right now.

For this exercise, assume a static population, the number itself doesn't matter, but the assumption is the starting population is sufficient to support the hunting:

If in 1990 150,000 hunters shot 10 ducks per hunter the total harvest would have been 1,500,000 ducks.

If in 2012 100,000 hunters shot 15 ducks per hunter the total harvest would have been 1,500,000 ducks.

But as you point out, hunter success hasn't changed, they still shoot 10 ducks per hunter. So in 2012, 1,000,000 ducks were shot: but the total population of ducks hadn't changed.

So bring in the Landwehr argument, "How much is enough". Well, IF the science holds there is not a statistically significant difference in the number of ducks, but in the number of duck hunters, it would seem that 15 ducks per hunter is enough. If the duck hunters had increased to 200,000 you'd be looking at 7.5 ducks per hunter to get the "sustainable" harvest rate.

When the current conservation mindset was established it was around a large population of hunters. One thing everyone seems to agree on: there's a shat ton less hunters. Being against a new hunting opportunity because it increases harvest per hunter ratios doesn't hold to logic that the harvest rates need to be set to the duck population NOT THE RATE OF HARVEST PER HUNTER.

The early teal/bonus teal/mistake duck season setting was essentially not allowed because the rate per hunter had gone up: individual hunters were having too much success so it must be hurting the duck population, particularly our local birds.

The challenge I have to this blind conservatism is this: what hunters? DA has articles saying we've lost half in the last 15 years. 75,000 hunters would need to shoot 20 birds each to get to the previous total harvest (in this example).

[get-n-birdy]

Fair enough, I'll retract my derogatory comments regarding previous generations of hunters' proficiency....

Fact remains: seasons are more liberal, and generally, less ducks are being shot in total.

Ducks per hunter per season hasn't changed significantly over time. Which basically means there are still a lot of "duck hunters" that don't shoot much.

Quack, I already stated I retract the comments regarding previous vs. current hunter capability to harvest.... that's not my argument.

My argument is not ducks per hunter, hunters per duck.

I'm going to go with round numbers to make the math easier, the numbers are wrong and I don't care to get exact right now.

For this exercise, assume a static population, the number itself doesn't matter, but the assumption is the starting population is sufficient to support the hunting:

If in 1990 150,000 hunters shot 10 ducks per hunter the total harvest would have been 1,500,000 ducks.

If in 2012 100,000 hunters shot 15 ducks per hunter the total harvest would have been 1,500,000 ducks.

But as you point out, hunter success hasn't changed, they still shoot 10 ducks per hunter. So in 2012, 1,000,000 ducks were shot: but the total population of ducks hadn't changed.

So bring in the Landwehr argument, "How much is enough". Well, IF the science holds there is not a statistically significant difference in the number of ducks, but in the number of duck hunters, it would seem that 15 ducks per hunter is enough. If the duck hunters had increased to 200,000 you'd be looking at 7.5 ducks per hunter to get the "sustainable" harvest rate.

When the current conservation mindset was established it was around a large population of hunters. One thing everyone seems to agree on: there's a shat ton less hunters. Being against a new hunting opportunity because it increases harvest per hunter ratios doesn't hold to logic that the harvest rates need to be set to the duck population NOT THE RATE OF HARVEST PER HUNTER.

The early teal/bonus teal/mistake duck season setting was essentially not allowed because the rate per hunter had gone up: individual hunters were having too much success so it must be hurting the duck population, particularly our local birds.

The challenge I have to this blind conservatism is this: what hunters? DA has articles saying we've lost half in the last 15 years. 75,000 hunters would need to shoot 20 birds each to get to the previous total harvest (in this example).

When you start looking closer into those harvest numbers, hunter numbers and days afield, over the last half a century, things become very creative mathematically, very quickly. We should have a 10 bird limit, with a 100 day season and a 10 day possession limit at the very least, looking at the drop in hunter numbers and the "paper ducks" the USFWS says we pump out. There's a lot of math that's just not adding up imo?

[Quack]

Lanyard- I believe we are in agreement all the way around. My statement about ducks/hunter/year is not in conflict with any of your main points.

[Bailey]

I would say turning down the teal season actually drives more hunters away then actually brings more in. But at least landwehr can feel high and mighty about himself. He probably thinks Wisconsin are crazy people for taking it. Plus they have no 4pm closing and they have lots of hunters and less habitat then us.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Trigger]

Hunter opinion, for or against, any regulation...should never be a factor.

All you have to do is spend about 5 minutes reading what is posted on the "Minnesota Waterfowlers" Facebook page to see how truly misguided and ignorant the vast majority of those who hunt ducks from this State are. That page changed my mentality to 'Flip it! There is NO WAY anyone can fix all these retards'

Nothing can save this State's duck hunters, not a person, organization or regulation.

That is all.

This is 100% accurate.

[Trigger]

And with a teal season, it's not going to be every single license holder out there hunting. Look at how many "hardcore" tough guys complain about the September opener because of flippen mosquitos. Early on in the teal discussions, Cordts estimated abkut 30,000 guys would have participated. Sure it could be drastically different, but it sounded like a fair estimate to me.

[lanyard]

Lanyard- I believe we are in agreement all the way around. My statement about ducks/hunter/year is not in conflict with any of your main points.

Cool.

The thing is re: paper ducks vs real ducks~ if there's less hunters and more/same ducks, would think harvest per hunter would go up.......

So, it would seem, that there is a decline in ducks commensurate with the decline in hunters.

OR

The migration has always been an "balance". It always strikes me when reading the MacQuarrie Trilogy, how often he and Mr. President are trying to figure out birds after the locals get shot and before the migrating flights arrive. Read, "The Little Push".... or how they are always seeking that period when the blue bills show up.... read "Canvasback Comeback".... or those odd days where the weather was "...a bit too fine for duck shooting...." read Blue Bill Day.

There's typically two types of duck hunters: 1) the group that thinks what they experienced is THE BEST, the good old days were always good, and "things ain't like they used to be"; 2) the other group things that what their are experiencing now is the first time anyone anywhere has EVER experienced something so unique and special (see the Minnesota Waterfolwers Facebook group)

In actuality: maybe the "good ol' days" were better, but I doubt for most they were that much better.... just easier. Hunting Minnetonka and Prior Lake back in the day was likely a pretty decent deal for some metro-fied types to lug the boat, motor out, see birds, shoot a couple, etc. But guessing it was still 20% of the peeps killing 60% of the birds.

In actuality: the Noobs think e-calling, mechanical decoys, trailers and hoodies were produced for their shot at superhero status, kind of like they are all Tony Stark's with their Iron Man suit on going duck hunting. Since the first phonograph, since the first repeating arms, since waxed canvas and ghillie suits, since live decoys, etc. some choad has been putting on his version of the Iron Man suit and going duck hunting. He likely didn't have as many stickers, but JFC you didn't invent the tail gate shot or shooting limits or being a DB.

.........

I say all of that to make this point: the conservative MN Watefowl "voice" lies in the "good ol' days" group and for some reason are scared chitless of the "Noobs" and their wanton waste tendencies.

It reminds a lot of my grandmother when it comes to fishing: you keep everything damn it, when I grew up in the depression you never knew when you were going to eat next or catch another fish..... Well, I get the Good Ol' Days crowd saw a ton of empty skies, but defending today's population from tomorrow's bogey man doesn't follow any sort of population cycle.

[Stute Slap]

Lanyard- I believe we are in agreement all the way around. My statement about ducks/hunter/year is not in conflict with any of your main points.

Cool.

The thing is re: paper ducks vs real ducks~ if there's less hunters and more/same ducks, would think harvest per hunter would go up.......

So, it would seem, that there is a decline in ducks commensurate with the decline in hunters.

OR

The migration has always been an "balance". It always strikes me when reading the MacQuarrie Trilogy, how often he and Mr. President are trying to figure out birds after the locals get shot and before the migrating flights arrive. Read, "The Little Push".... or how they are always seeking that period when the blue bills show up.... read "Canvasback Comeback".... or those odd days where the weather was "...a bit too fine for duck shooting...." read Blue Bill Day.

There's typically two types of duck hunters: 1) the group that thinks what they experienced is THE BEST, the good old days were always good, and "things ain't like they used to be"; 2) the other group things that what their are experiencing now is the first time anyone anywhere has EVER experienced something so unique and special (see the Minnesota Waterfolwers Facebook group)

In actuality: maybe the "good ol' days" were better, but I doubt for most they were that much better.... just easier. Hunting Minnetonka and Prior Lake back in the day was likely a pretty decent deal for some metro-fied types to lug the boat, motor out, see birds, shoot a couple, etc. But guessing it was still 20% of the peeps killing 60% of the birds.

In actuality: the Noobs think e-calling, mechanical decoys, trailers and hoodies were produced for their shot at superhero status, kind of like they are all Tony Stark's with their Iron Man suit on going duck hunting. Since the first phonograph, since the first repeating arms, since waxed canvas and ghillie suits, since live decoys, etc. some choad has been putting on his version of the Iron Man suit and going duck hunting. He likely didn't have as many stickers, but JFC you didn't invent the tail gate shot or shooting limits or being a DB.

.........

I say all of that to make this point: the conservative MN Watefowl "voice" lies in the "good ol' days" group and for some reason are scared chitless of the "Noobs" and their wanton waste tendencies.

It reminds a lot of my grandmother when it comes to fishing: you keep everything damn it, when I grew up in the depression you never knew when you were going to eat next or catch another fish..... Well, I get the Good Ol' Days crowd saw a ton of empty skies, but defending today's population from tomorrow's bogey man doesn't follow any sort of population cycle.

Is it spelled Chode or Choad........either way haven't heard that one in awhile, classic.

[Bailey]

[quote="Quack"]Lanyard- I believe we are in agreement all the way around. My statement about ducks/hunter/year is not in conflict with any of your main points.

Cool.

The thing is re: paper ducks vs real ducks~ if there's less hunters and more/same ducks, would think harvest per hunter would go up.......

So, it would seem, that there is a decline in ducks commensurate with the decline in hunters.

OR

The migration has always been an "balance". It always strikes me when reading the MacQuarrie Trilogy, how often he and Mr. President are trying to figure out birds after the locals get shot and before the migrating flights arrive. Read, "The Little Push".... or how they are always seeking that period when the blue bills show up.... read "Canvasback Comeback".... or those odd days where the weather was "...a bit too fine for duck shooting...." read Blue Bill Day.

There's typically two types of duck hunters: 1) the group that thinks what they experienced is THE BEST, the good old days were always good, and "things ain't like they used to be"; 2) the other group things that what their are experiencing now is the first time anyone anywhere has EVER experienced something so unique and special (see the Minnesota Waterfolwers Facebook group)

In actuality: maybe the "good ol' days" were better, but I doubt for most they were that much better.... just easier. Hunting Minnetonka and Prior Lake back in the day was likely a pretty decent deal for some metro-fied types to lug the boat, motor out, see birds, shoot a couple, etc. But guessing it was still 20% of the peeps killing 60% of the birds.

In actuality: the Noobs think e-calling, mechanical decoys, trailers and hoodies were produced for their shot at superhero status, kind of like they are all Tony Stark's with their Iron Man suit on going duck hunting. Since the first phonograph, since the first repeating arms, since waxed canvas and ghillie suits, since live decoys, etc. some choad has been putting on his version of the Iron Man suit and going duck hunting. He likely didn't have as many stickers, but JFC you didn't invent the tail gate shot or shooting limits or being a DB.

.........

I say all of that to make this point: the conservative MN Watefowl "voice" lies in the "good ol' days" group and for some reason are scared chitless of the "Noobs" and their wanton waste tendencies.

It reminds a lot of my grandmother when it comes to fishing: you keep everything damn it, when I grew up in the depression you never knew when you were going to eat next or catch another fish..... Well, I get the Good Ol' Days crowd saw a ton of empty skies, but defending today's population from tomorrow's bogey man doesn't follow any sort of population cycle.[/quote]
The good old days crowd is starting to die off. Alot of those supposed concerned hunters an in their 70's and 80's. We are going to be losing alot more hunters over the next 15 years as its an aging group. You'd think they would open their minds to the future but I guess as they say people don't change.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk