My Duck Research Project

[Ordek Avci]

I don't think you can equate not seeing as many ducks in your state and there not being as many ducks on the continent. I'm a youngster from SC and I hear stories and see pictures from before my time and SC was jam up with ducks. Coastal rice plantations, lots of corn farms, swamp land and exotic grasses in our lakes made for some crazy duck numbers. The last few seasons I hunted in SC any big duck was seen as a bonus. You just got your two wood ducks and you went home. Does that mean that the Feds have bad counting methods? Numbers are inflated? I say no.

As someone who studied wildlife biology and worked in the field for a couple years, I'll be the first to say that it's not an exact science. Numbers are estimates and any estimation is going to have some margin of error. But these are some of the best biologists in the nation, working with the best possible gear, and the best possible methods. Being 33% off seems very unlikely to me.

There are a thousand things that could be causing the decline in duck numbers in the South. Change in farming practices, more refuges, weather patterns, spinning wing decoys, people going north to hunt the early seasons, juvenille mortality rates, and a thousand others that we could come up with. Something like migration has so many factors involved in it that there is no way to narrow it down to one thing. It's more than likely going to be a combination of many different things. And though I don't argue that the migrations have declined, there is always the chance that the decline you are seeing is due more to the fact that your specific duck hunting hole is seeing a decline, not the continental population as a whole.

I went from SC, where I was happy to get wood ducks, an occasional mallard, and as many ringnecks as I was able to choke down to CO where I limited out (7 duck limit) the first two days of each split. If you asked me, the duck numbers has just blown through the roof! I say that just to point out how our perspectives don't necessarily reflect reality.

Until we have reason to believe otherwise, I think we have to trust the numbers the feds are giving us and trust their judgment on season length and bag limits.

And these threads always remind me of a quote one of my professors said in my first wildlife 101 class. "Wildlife biology is the only field in which you can obtain the highest degree possible, put in years and years of good, hard experience, and your average hunter or fisherman will "know" more than you." We don't argue with doctors when they tell us we've got such a such disease. Let's trust these guys too. Most of them are hunters just like us and all of them depend on these resources for their livelihood. They have just as much reason to care as we do.

[Bankermane]

I wish they had a Senior Weekend after the season.

[Rice]

Let's just do away with next season and don't shoot any ducks and let people starve because the ducks ate all the food and then we will just see what happens?

[southernmallard]

I don't think you can equate not seeing as many ducks in your state and there not being as many ducks on the continent. I'm a youngster from SC and I hear stories and see pictures from before my time and SC was jam up with ducks. Coastal rice plantations, lots of corn farms, swamp land and exotic grasses in our lakes made for some crazy duck numbers. The last few seasons I hunted in SC any big duck was seen as a bonus. You just got your two wood ducks and you went home. Does that mean that the Feds have bad counting methods? Numbers are inflated? I say no.

As someone who studied wildlife biology and worked in the field for a couple years, I'll be the first to say that it's not an exact science. Numbers are estimates and any estimation is going to have some margin of error. But these are some of the best biologists in the nation, working with the best possible gear, and the best possible methods. Being 33% off seems very unlikely to me.

There are a thousand things that could be causing the decline in duck numbers in the South. Change in farming practices, more refuges, weather patterns, spinning wing decoys, people going north to hunt the early seasons, juvenille mortality rates, and a thousand others that we could come up with. Something like migration has so many factors involved in it that there is no way to narrow it down to one thing. It's more than likely going to be a combination of many different things. And though I don't argue that the migrations have declined, there is always the chance that the decline you are seeing is due more to the fact that your specific duck hunting hole is seeing a decline, not the continental population as a whole.

I went from SC, where I was happy to get wood ducks, an occasional mallard, and as many ringnecks as I was able to choke down to CO where I limited out (7 duck limit) the first two days of each split. If you asked me, the duck numbers has just blown through the roof! I say that just to point out how our perspectives don't necessarily reflect reality.

Until we have reason to believe otherwise, I think we have to trust the numbers the feds are giving us and trust their judgment on season length and bag limits.

And these threads always remind me of a quote one of my professors said in my first wildlife 101 class. "Wildlife biology is the only field in which you can obtain the highest degree possible, put in years and years of good, hard experience, and your average hunter or fisherman will "know" more than you." We don't argue with doctors when they tell us we've got such a such disease. Let's trust these guys too. Most of them are hunters just like us and all of them depend on these resources for their livelihood. They have just as much reason to care as we do.

Do you mind if you are quoted?

[Ordek Avci]

No, I don't mind being quoted at all. But remember, those are just my opinions. They're like buttholes. Everyone has one and everybody else's stinks but your own.

Will this be in your research project? Do you need more citation info (my real name, degree, etc)?

Chris

[bgore]

I honestly believe that the migration has slightly shifted causing the number of birds seen in Mississippi over the past ten years decline. I cant say that the numbers have declined, because i neither live in Mississippi nor do i hunt there; However I have noticed an incline in the number of birds over the last ten years in southwest lauisiana. I do not think that the fed's are 33% inaccurate. I feel that they are pretty close. I think that maybe the migration shifting had something to do with DU and all there activities that they have put in place over the past 20 to 30 years.

First of all, I do not think that the annual duck population number announced by the Feds is accurate. I feel their numbers are as much as 33% too high. You just don't see the numbers of ducks that we had in Mississippi 10 years ago.

I would prefer a 60 day season which would end 31 January. The bag limits would be 5 per day, with some species less to none.

[bgore]

damn Chris i wish i would have went to page two and read your statement before i put my two cents in. i wouldnt have said anything. I think that you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. VERY WELL SPOKEN!



Bgore
South La Marsh hunter.

[Ordek Avci]

Thanks bgore. I've seen and heard these types of arguments in four different flyways. There's no easy answer to these types of questions and the distrust of the USFWS is something that I have never understood.

Like I said, everyone has an opinion. This is just mine.

Chris

[southernmallard]

No, no need for your name and degree.

Unless you would like for it to be included?

[crow]

Ordek, the reason biologists are not as trusted as are doctors...maybe the restrictions and rigor are not the same for those attempting to get in. Bear in mind that I am an educator and I believe until we police our own ranks, we deserve the criticism we get and the lack of support concerning our judgement. We simply let too many poor practicioners stay in the professions! As well, doctors do not have to factor in the political whims of those making laws and deciding the spending of tax dollars (remember how we got a 60 day season and the end of Jan?). True professions do not allow decisions to be made other than for the betterment of those receiving their services.

Maybe we should have an oath that approximates the Hippocratic oath required of all doctors before they are admitted to the practice. Seems as if some of the first words are, "First, do no harm!" Yep, maybe we ought to think about that one!

crow

[crow]

Sorry! Got too busy preaching to answer your question.

If I wanted to make one decision that I know would benefit the duck population for one year and that decision was solely to increase the population.....I would shorten the season. To shorten my beliefs based on research...hunter days kill ducks, not limits. Of course, if I did both, it would have an increased result. But, if I had to choose one, it would be season length. Hunters will average the same numbers of ducks per day no matter what the limit is, so limits only matter based on the number of days hunted. Put those days where they benefit the ducks, not duck hunters.

But, politics matter in the matter of conservation. Duck hunters spend dollars and they vote. Dollars and votes have influence on politicians. Bottom line...don't ever expect decisions made by USFW to ever be made solely on research regarding the animal or bird.

Yours in conservation....and preaching.

crow

[Ordek Avci]

I totally agree crow. But I would guess (though I don't know this for sure) that the decisions made at that level are a lot more based on politics than biology. The number counts are done by actual biologists in the field. People with Masters degrees and PhDs that struggle to get temp jobs (I just had a BS and know how difficult it was). To go vertical in most government agencies you have to be a talker and/or politically connected. I'd imagine within the federal ranks, it's even worse.

And I'll also add that data can be skewed, whether intentional or not. Like I said, almost anything wildlife related is just going to be estimations and they always have room for error. I just went off on my little rant because of the comment before about the numbers being off by 33%. I don't claim that the numbers are perfect nor do I claim the decisions are always based on pure science.

Living for the Lord. Working for the man.
Chris