I saw this on another site...We were last with the greatest decline of any state in harvest last year. Do y'all think it's accurate?
50. Mississippi -61%
% harvest decline in Miss.
-
mallardchaser
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Madison
-
mallardchaser
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Madison
% harvest decline in Miss.
State Hunters/ Harvest / Brd/Huntr
Louisiana - 96,890/ 2,056,857 / 21.23
North Dakota - 33,905/ 694,712 / 20.49
Arkansas - 64,314/ 1,123,766 / 17.47
California - 74,335/ 964,183 / 12.97
Missouri - 40,924/ 487,120 / 11.90
Oklahoma - 20,377/ 242,022 / 11.88
South Carolina - 22,788/ 254,056 / 11.15
Texas - 144,495/ 1,483,650 / 10.27
Mississippi - 24,755/ 245,025 / 9
Louisiana - 96,890/ 2,056,857 / 21.23
North Dakota - 33,905/ 694,712 / 20.49
Arkansas - 64,314/ 1,123,766 / 17.47
California - 74,335/ 964,183 / 12.97
Missouri - 40,924/ 487,120 / 11.90
Oklahoma - 20,377/ 242,022 / 11.88
South Carolina - 22,788/ 254,056 / 11.15
Texas - 144,495/ 1,483,650 / 10.27
Mississippi - 24,755/ 245,025 / 9
-
Delta Duck
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: The Delta
- Contact:
% harvest decline in Miss.
Does that mean that Mississippi boyz can't shoot as well as other state boyz?
% harvest decline in Miss.
Just means we didn't have no damn ducks.
-
Don Miller
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 6430
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Holcomb/Money, MS
- Contact:
% harvest decline in Miss.
I know that the duck numbers in Ms. were down from the year before, but there is no way that some digit head could crunch numbers, that don't exist, from the past 2 years and come with an exact percentage. I know everyone on this board reported every duck and species of duck that they killed in the state of Mississippi. Yea, right. When it comes to percentages and ducks, there has got to be a huge margin of error. When asked how does the USFW get accurate counts on the breeding duck population, A high ranking offical replied, "You count the number of wing and divide by two." Statistics, when it comes to counting ducks, is not an exact science. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
% harvest decline in Miss.
I don't believe there is anyway to accurately count ducks. They claim that they do fly overs in the nesting areas, but there is no damn way to count every duck from a plane. I don't understand why they always adjust our season when the northern states are the ones with the ducks for the majority of the year. They don't play with their season every year. If they would look at how long northern states get to hunt WHILE THEY HAVE DUCKS verses how long MS gats to hunt WHILE WE HAVE DUCKS there is no way they can tell me that we kill more ducks than any northen state. They have ducks all through their season. And we get ducks IF our weather is right. The ducks are up there before their season all summer laying eggs. We get them for 3 weeks while the weather is somewhat cold. It just gets under my skin how they can say that MS kills more ducks than a northern state and adjust our season and not theirs. They should give them the same dates we get and see how they like it. Then swap it every year. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
% harvest decline in Miss.
Now boys, we all know that numbers don't lie. But i have crunched enought to know 'you can make them say what you want.
This is the reason I don't Buy the numbers I'm seeing posted on the breeding numbers. I assume (makes an a** of me everytime)the count ponds the same way the count ducks. They use a very exact science -- flying over land and counting the water they see in the breeding areas. What about the water they don't see???????
This is the reason I don't Buy the numbers I'm seeing posted on the breeding numbers. I assume (makes an a** of me everytime)the count ponds the same way the count ducks. They use a very exact science -- flying over land and counting the water they see in the breeding areas. What about the water they don't see???????
-
mallardchaser
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Madison
% harvest decline in Miss.
The DW man himself said it's certainly not scientific, the counts..How many are they counting twice, how many are they missing?
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
% harvest decline in Miss.
Well, well. These latest figures do not appear to support the evil robo theory that goes somthing like this: robos are so effective that overall harvest numbers will be increased despite all other factors (ie weather, breeding numbers, etc.). I am not against banning the robos, mind you, I just have been amazed at the absurd arguments about their effectiveness that have been perpetuated in the effort to get them banned. Amazing isn't it: when harvest numbers decrease, it is always because duck numbers are lower, weather is not ideal, etc. etc.; but when harvest numbers are up, it must be the evil robo duck effect---it couldn't possibly be due to increased duck numbers and favorable weather conditions, could it? Nope, that type of thinking makes too much common sense and would put some of the duck "scientists" out of work.
Another quick point about these figures---it looks like those Minnesota hunters will have to complain about some other state than MS when it comes to their annual whining about low duck per hunter statistics. Never mind that Minnesota's overall harvest numbers are ALWAYS much higher than MS. Now that they have taken out their past-years'frustrations and jealousy against the South by bashing Trent Lott, who will they bash next?? The answer to this undoubtedly will be revealed to us by one of the Minnesota whiners in a future edition of "waterfowler.com" coming this fall.
Another quick point about these figures---it looks like those Minnesota hunters will have to complain about some other state than MS when it comes to their annual whining about low duck per hunter statistics. Never mind that Minnesota's overall harvest numbers are ALWAYS much higher than MS. Now that they have taken out their past-years'frustrations and jealousy against the South by bashing Trent Lott, who will they bash next?? The answer to this undoubtedly will be revealed to us by one of the Minnesota whiners in a future edition of "waterfowler.com" coming this fall.
% harvest decline in Miss.
Ole Bufflehead - you are right on point. Waterfowler.com sucks and I told the editor that last year. They accused us of being a bunch of terrorists. A little extreme in my opinion. I'll post his email address if I can find it so everyone can personally send him the high sign.
-
webfoot
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Jackson, MS-Born in the Delta
% harvest decline in Miss.
I posted this here earlier in the year...
He claimed he saved Duck Season!
Stopping Attacks on Minnesota's Duck Hunting Season
In November of 2001, Paul Wellstone once again stopped U.S. Senator Trent Lott from trying to extend duck hunting season in Mississippi. The special favor for Mississippi duck hunters would have lowered bag limits and could have shortened the hunting season in Minnesota. Wellstone persuaded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to cave into pressure and extend duck hunting season in the South.
This wasn't the first sneak attack on Minnesota duck hunters. In October 1998, Paul Wellstone blocked a last minute special favor for Mississippi duck hunters that Senator Trent Lott snuck into the omnibus budget bill that extended the Mississippi duck-hunting season. "Senator Lott's rider is arbitrary and only benefits the Southern states," Wellstone said at the time. "Harvest distribution within and among the flyways could change and Minnesota's hunters would get the raw end of the deal."
Senator Wellstone's Web Site Link
He claimed he saved Duck Season!
Stopping Attacks on Minnesota's Duck Hunting Season
In November of 2001, Paul Wellstone once again stopped U.S. Senator Trent Lott from trying to extend duck hunting season in Mississippi. The special favor for Mississippi duck hunters would have lowered bag limits and could have shortened the hunting season in Minnesota. Wellstone persuaded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to cave into pressure and extend duck hunting season in the South.
This wasn't the first sneak attack on Minnesota duck hunters. In October 1998, Paul Wellstone blocked a last minute special favor for Mississippi duck hunters that Senator Trent Lott snuck into the omnibus budget bill that extended the Mississippi duck-hunting season. "Senator Lott's rider is arbitrary and only benefits the Southern states," Wellstone said at the time. "Harvest distribution within and among the flyways could change and Minnesota's hunters would get the raw end of the deal."
Senator Wellstone's Web Site Link
% harvest decline in Miss.
Webfoot - this guy's name is John Moline - jmoline@waterfowler.com. He totally disrespected every duck hunter in the state of MS when he replied to my "email to the editor". Obviously his "sportmanship" stops at the MN state line. Pop him an email if you disagree with his site's content. I wouldn't know anymore...I have a personal boycot on it! Don't get me started this early in the year! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
-
MSDuckmen
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Brandon, Ms
- Contact:
% harvest decline in Miss.
Many of you boys are taking this totally out of context.
First I believe they are doing the best they can do with what they have to work with. The % is not fact only an estimate and you have to see it as such.
They estimated that we took 600,000+ the year before and I don’t buy that either.
I’m no expert on how they count or get the data but I don’t have a better idea for doing it that is cost effective. (Do you?)
We have to have a common sense approach to the count and know that the numbers are not exact and that most likely they are in error toward the hunters and harvest. The birds should come first and I believe the bio boys make sure they do.
I too believe that the spinners played a part in the harvest numbers we had this year. I feel they would have been even lower without spinners (do you believe otherwise if so why use them?)
I will go out on a limb and even say that I feel we are in for another hard season as the weather pattern is pointing that way already.
The simple bottom line on our harvest rate is weather controlled as it has been for decades before.
If you look at this years numbers all states north of us had a better season than we did, (all in the Ms flyway) Even Tenn. had a better harvest than we did.
We blame the numbers as not being true but it is the hunters that fill out the surveys and even the ones picked will sometimes lie, or not fill them out. So we are then going to blame the bio boys for not giving us good data. You cannot ask each and every hunter what they did, as most will not give good data anyway, you must take a sample of the whole and use it to get your numbers. Some years will be more accurate than others will. Nature of the beast.
As for our north friends complaining about us killing all the birds and asking for more days. One year won’t change that.
Better tomorrow
First I believe they are doing the best they can do with what they have to work with. The % is not fact only an estimate and you have to see it as such.
They estimated that we took 600,000+ the year before and I don’t buy that either.
I’m no expert on how they count or get the data but I don’t have a better idea for doing it that is cost effective. (Do you?)
We have to have a common sense approach to the count and know that the numbers are not exact and that most likely they are in error toward the hunters and harvest. The birds should come first and I believe the bio boys make sure they do.
I too believe that the spinners played a part in the harvest numbers we had this year. I feel they would have been even lower without spinners (do you believe otherwise if so why use them?)
I will go out on a limb and even say that I feel we are in for another hard season as the weather pattern is pointing that way already.
The simple bottom line on our harvest rate is weather controlled as it has been for decades before.
If you look at this years numbers all states north of us had a better season than we did, (all in the Ms flyway) Even Tenn. had a better harvest than we did.
We blame the numbers as not being true but it is the hunters that fill out the surveys and even the ones picked will sometimes lie, or not fill them out. So we are then going to blame the bio boys for not giving us good data. You cannot ask each and every hunter what they did, as most will not give good data anyway, you must take a sample of the whole and use it to get your numbers. Some years will be more accurate than others will. Nature of the beast.
As for our north friends complaining about us killing all the birds and asking for more days. One year won’t change that.
Better tomorrow
% harvest decline in Miss.
Key to the waterfowl counts are two words: relative index. And I ain't talking about your sister [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
There's not enough money in the world to fund the manpower, fuel, planes and other logistical neccesities to try to count every single duck or breeding pond in the world. And waterfowl shift from year to year, depending on nesting habitat conditions (1/3 the northern hemisphere's pintail population may, for example, breed in Alaska in some years, and waterfowl production in Minnesota generally increases when the prairie potholes are wet). So...they fly the same transects every year, count the ducks, and make estimates relative to preceding years. It's and index that indicates "more" or "less". To fly different areas from year to year would be to compare apples and oranges.
Relative to preceding years, there were fewer ducks counted this year. Like duck man said, it ain't perfect but it's the best we hunters have. Like Yogi Berra said, when you come to a fork in the road take it (which I guess is what flyway biologists do).
As to the subject of this thread, I think -61% is fairly accurate based on the majority of comments I've heard from other hunters this past year. It was alot for sure.
[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Double_R ]
[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Double_R ]
There's not enough money in the world to fund the manpower, fuel, planes and other logistical neccesities to try to count every single duck or breeding pond in the world. And waterfowl shift from year to year, depending on nesting habitat conditions (1/3 the northern hemisphere's pintail population may, for example, breed in Alaska in some years, and waterfowl production in Minnesota generally increases when the prairie potholes are wet). So...they fly the same transects every year, count the ducks, and make estimates relative to preceding years. It's and index that indicates "more" or "less". To fly different areas from year to year would be to compare apples and oranges.
Relative to preceding years, there were fewer ducks counted this year. Like duck man said, it ain't perfect but it's the best we hunters have. Like Yogi Berra said, when you come to a fork in the road take it (which I guess is what flyway biologists do).
As to the subject of this thread, I think -61% is fairly accurate based on the majority of comments I've heard from other hunters this past year. It was alot for sure.
[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Double_R ]
[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Double_R ]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 4 guests