Just found this....extended season comments

Wingman · Postby **Wingman** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 11:16 pm

I just found this over at SDH. I copied and pasted. It might be worth mailing these folks.

Wingman

DO YOU WANT AN EXTENDED SEASON STARTING THIS YEAR?
PLEASE READ AND ACT
THIS MEANS YOU
THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IS ACCEPTING COMMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE AWAY PENALTY DAYS THAT WERE ISSUED WHEN SOME STATES OPTED TO GO TO A JANUARY 31 CLOSURE DATE. THE PENALTY DAYS WERE INSTITUTED AS PAST OF THE FIVE YEAR EXPERIMENT WITH A JANUARY 31 CLOSEURE. THE THREE STATES THAT TOOK THE LATE CLOSING WERE DOCKED NINE DAYS TO PREVENT A "POSSIBLE OVERHARVEST"
IF THIS CHANGE TAKES PLACE IT WOULD RETURN NINE DAYS TO SEASON IN ALABAMA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI. THE SEASON WOULD STILL CLOSE ON JAN 31. OTHER STATES AFFECTED INCLUDE LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, AND KENTUCKY.
THIS CHANGE WOULD GO INTO EFFECT THIS YEAR. WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS THROUGH AN ARTICLE IN THE SUNDAY OCTOBER 21, EDITION OF THE HUNTSVILLE TIMES (Huntsville, AL)

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we)
proposed in previous documents to establish annual hunting regulations
for certain migratory game birds for the 2001-02 hunting season. This
proposed rule would change the regulatory alternatives for the 2001-02
duck hunting seasons for States in the Lower Region (Arkansas,
Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee) of the
Mississippi Flyway to allow for a season length of 60 days beginning no
earlier than September 29 and ending no later than January 31.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed ``liberal'' regulatory
alternative for the Lower Region of the Mississippi Flyway by October
26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the public record.

IMPORTANT:
ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 26, 2001
THIS MEANS THAT YOU MUST DO IT TODAY OR IT WILL NOT GET THERE.

YOU CAN CUT AND PAST THE FOLLOWING LETTER

Cheif
Division of Migratory Bird Management
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
ms 634-ARLSQ
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Sir,

This letter is to inform you of my support for the proposed liberal regulatory alternative for the lower region of the Mississipi Flyway hunting season. Unless there is compelling scientific evidence against allowing for the full 60 days in the Lower Region of the Mississippi Flyway then I see no reason to not provide the region with a full 60 day season. I do not believe that there is a significant negative impact to be felt from the additional days of hunting. I strongly support the January 31 duck season closure and six duck limit for the six lower Mississippi Flyway States that is consistent with the Adaptive Harvest Management model for 2001-2002 duck season. I feel strongly that no penalties should be imposed on any of the states that choose the January 31 duck season closure. The 9-day penalty is unwarranted for these states.
I urge you to support the proposed liberal regulatory alternative season dates for the lower region of the Mississippi Flyway and give these states the full 60 day season.

Sincerely,

Postby **GulfCoast** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 8:13 am

Thanks for the information, Wingman.

Anatidae · Postby **Anatidae** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 10:10 am

For what it's worth........ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The penalty days were instituted as part of the five-year experiment with the January 31st closure

This seems like a breech of contract we entered into in 1989, when we were just DAMN THANKFUL to get the framework adjusted to allow hunting 'til January 31st. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]Oh, NO! [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

If you're going to conduct an 'experiment' to study Adaptive Harvest Management, that is supposed to run for 5 years......how can you assemble 'credible data' to support your claim that there is NO negative impact on the resource.....by changing the perameters of THAT experiment. [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

To me, this wreaks of 'yeah, we got what we wanted' even though our then, Senate Majority Leader (who I'm very thankful to have representing my interests) pulled an under-handed political manuever, to pull it off'......WE WANT MORE! We want all we can get while we have the 'power' to get it? [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]

PLEASE......is THAT really a mentality that we want to subscribe to and risk projecting an image of 'red-neck' duck hunters from Mississippi, that only want what's good for themselves......without regard for the impact on the resource? [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Not ME! Call me old-fashioned (and, by now, maybe a few other names), but when I make an agreement with someone, I stick to my part of the agreement.....'just the way I was brought-up.

O.K......we get the extra days. Is that just a preventive measure in the event that the USF&WS comes-back with the results of some 'trumped-up' study to determine the impact of motorized decoys on the resource? Yeah, it's gonna happen....and they'll either take away the extra days AND/OR ducks, too.......particularly since we appear to ACT BEYOND REASON? Of course, voluntary retirement of the 'moto' is not a viable option, I'm sure.

I would ONLY support a 'change' in the days allowed if someone can assure me that there will be NO 'back-lash' or political 'fallout' from this proposal, PERIOD! Sam Polles et al, pursued this campaign, honorably.....I think we ought to consider maintaining that integrity, even though we have had reason to suspect that the USF&WS may not have been playing above the table in all cases. You can't always have yo cake and eat it, too! [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Now please....I submit these comments purely for thought. They are not directed at anyone in particular.....I just get a little 'passionate' in my discussion of things that might have an affect on my duck hunting. I'm not taking sides or taking issue with what anyone has voiced, here....just struggling to understand the point of the proposed 60-day allowance. 'Gonna have to be some other reason than...."that's what I want". I'm going to vote my proxy on the side of 'cautious objectivity', for now. Fire away! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Anatidae · Postby **Anatidae** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 12:06 pm

One more thing......If I didn't convey this in my previous post, I smell a RAT! [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

I'm real skeptical about a proposal, this close to the season. What GOOD REASON would they (USF&WS) have for allowing ALL the states in the 'lower region' (AR, LA, MS, TN, AL, KY) 60 days unless they have conclusively determined that there is NO negative impact on the resource from....<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Late-season harvests <LI>a 6-duck limit AND <LI>the use of 'motorized' (spinning-winged) decoys </UL> I mean, be realistic......'you think they gonna give us all THAT without some trade-off? HARDLY!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Other states affected by this change are LA, AR, and KY

Well, those are the states that currently have a 60-day season. Are they proposing to restructure their 60-day framework and allow hunting thru Jan 31st? Or do they remain the same? Man, you talk about some fallout from that.....I can hardly wait! [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]

As far as the 'form letter' goes....it doesn't accurately reflect my view or address MY concerns. It reads like the obvious self-serving agenda it is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Unless there is compelling scientific evidence against allowing....

'Not exactly how I would've worded that, but the intent is good. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I do not believe......

Statements like that have no 'scientific' basis.....purely speculative. Who cares what we 'believe'?...it 'ain't' about us. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I strongly support.....I feel strongly......the 9-day penalty is 'unwarranted'

You know, the intent is good, but basically what is being conveyed (since it's obvious, the author is not a knowledgeable consultant, submitting his recommendation to the 'Service', based on exhaustive and conclusive research and thorough analysis), is that "I REALLY WANT ya'll to let us kill all the ducks we can, before ya'll realize HOW BADLY you screwed-up!" [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Boy, that's really scientifically based, isn't it? Hell, that's just a 'wish list'....that's NOT what we need. 'Shows our ignorance. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]

Again, just food for thought. [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] Thanks for bringin' this to our attention, Wingman. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]I agree, Model 12....'not trying to sway anyone, necessarily......just ranting [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] To each, his own.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Anatidae ]

Wingman · Postby **Wingman** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 6:51 pm

Anatidae, from the way you type, I bet you have lungs the size of 55 gallon drums [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Wingman

blacklab101 · Postby **blacklab101** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 8:14 pm

If I typed and thought as much as Anatidea, I'd definately have to have me a secretary to do it for me!!!!! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: blacklab101 ]

Model12 · Postby **Model12** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 11:40 pm

I've been fortunate enough to hunt all over the country and there is nothing we can do to alleviate the fact that we're known as redneck duckhunters... [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] I say, if we get it and you like it...hunt it....

Anatidae · Postby **Anatidae** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 9:18 am

'Sorry.....I do tend to get a little 'wordy' at times. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] My goal is to reduce my thoughts to their simplest form [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]......as you pointed out, I still struggle with that......my apologies, fellas. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]

My lung capacity is only 5.6 Liters [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]WOW!.....that IS considerably larger than average. Thanks for the subtile reality check. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Who is online