Hemingway,
I agree with all your points, but if we cant depend on the feds to create a safe limit that will assure future duck numbers , who can we depend on? If this is the case duckmen is right we should never shoot a hen. We have to do it on our own because the feds are mow-rons. I personally feel like they would be more stingy with the hen limits if we were harming them.
shooting hens ?
-
MSDuckmen
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Brandon, Ms
- Contact:
shooting hens ?
Well longbarrel
Mr. higher level has this to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Tell me Mr. longBarrel how many fewer eggs does a dead hen lay?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
How many female's pair again that are dead. what % pair again, and if they live and produce smaller clutches just how dang many clutches does a dead hen have? just how fricken much smaller and less viable is that dead hen.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Sure -- I'm all for it lets just stop duckhunting all together. (apples and oranges again)
Well this study has everything to do with it. It already shows the impact of removing the drake from some pairs. And you boys want to say it is ok to kill the hens even when it tells you that the ones not being killed are showing less clutches due to mate loss.
What is really funny about this whole thing is that you want to focus on the higher level remark instead of the hen issue.
If your going to kill the hen then do it.
Kill all the bi!ches until the limited is dropped down to three birds again. He11 I'm all for it. Then you weekend warriors won't be out there messing up what I do. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
You can't defend shooting a hen short of it being legal. This study shows that and no other study has been done to show adaptive harvest rates on hen. (period)
Now you young boys want to continue the issue that is your choice and I'm not Benny so I'm not going to force this down your mouth. You claim to be adults and all your wanting to do is talk smack.
The post asked and I gave my answer with data to prove it. Show me the data to prove otherwise and I will gladly change and become a hen murderer. (one of the best I might add) [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Mr. higher level has this to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
"Widowed females laid about 2 fewer eggs in first clutches than control females in 1997, but numbers of viable eggs in first clutches were similar. Widowed females also laid 3.75 fewer viable eggs in second clutches in 1997 than control females..."
Tell me Mr. longBarrel how many fewer eggs does a dead hen lay?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
So breaking the bond of male/female pairs has a proven negative affect on the reproduction of mallard ducks. Even though 95% of the hens paired again, the damage was done. There clutches were smaller and less viable.
How many female's pair again that are dead. what % pair again, and if they live and produce smaller clutches just how dang many clutches does a dead hen have? just how fricken much smaller and less viable is that dead hen.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
If you are claiming to be on a "higher level" shouldn't you pass up on the drakes, because it is shown that you also damage the following year's clutch size and offspring viability.
Sure -- I'm all for it lets just stop duckhunting all together. (apples and oranges again)
Well this study has everything to do with it. It already shows the impact of removing the drake from some pairs. And you boys want to say it is ok to kill the hens even when it tells you that the ones not being killed are showing less clutches due to mate loss.
What is really funny about this whole thing is that you want to focus on the higher level remark instead of the hen issue.
If your going to kill the hen then do it.
Kill all the bi!ches until the limited is dropped down to three birds again. He11 I'm all for it. Then you weekend warriors won't be out there messing up what I do. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
You can't defend shooting a hen short of it being legal. This study shows that and no other study has been done to show adaptive harvest rates on hen. (period)
Now you young boys want to continue the issue that is your choice and I'm not Benny so I'm not going to force this down your mouth. You claim to be adults and all your wanting to do is talk smack.
The post asked and I gave my answer with data to prove it. Show me the data to prove otherwise and I will gladly change and become a hen murderer. (one of the best I might add) [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
shooting hens ?
Xpress, I read the posts and felt that alot of it was there to try to convince people (most who dont really care about studies and such)that are going to kill em all regardless. My point was simply this. Killing hens hurts the duck population (Call and Ask DW about this) moreso than killing drakes. It's has been proven (wonder why limit keeps you at 2 hens?) and there is not much room for debate. As usual, people are gonna argue the point just for the sake of arguing or to justify what they are doing. Very seldom do you have any significant number of hens without a significant number of drakes. So why not take the greenheads instead. I have killed hens and probably will kill some this year, but if I have to go home without a limit because the only shot I had was on a susie, I just wont have a limit. I guess I just took it for granted that everyone understood that until I read these posts. The Game and Fish commssioner is in my office right now I'll ask his opinion on it and post back.
shooting hens ?
I wouldn't kill a limit of hen's but when times are hard like they are now for most of us, SOMETHING HAS TO DIE!
shooting hens ?
Man, this is interesting.
Duckmen cites a study, designed and implemented to test for effects of late-season widowing of hen mallards. In the first year of the study .... no effect. In the second year of the study .... and effect. Conclusion: in some years (not all) later hunting seasons may reduce reproductive potential of hen mallards.
The study has nothing to do with population effects of hen mortality. This study provides some of the evidence AGAINST later seasons.
Then a man who has argued FOR later seasons uses this study to make a point about hen mortality?? Curious ...... especially in the face of DECADES of band-recovery data for hen mallards, spanning duck seasons ranging from 20-days with limits of 1 per day (1961 and 1962) to seasons of 93 days with limits of 7 per day (Pacific Flyway through the 70's until 1985) or 60 days with limits of 2 per day (Mississippi Flyway), where survival rates can actually be compared. Not a new topic ... as evidenced by LongBarrel's (I think) citations.
I respect anyone's choice about shooting or not shooting hens, but I don't think it has conservation implications at a population level. When you consider that direct recovery rates of banded hen mallards show that we kill something like 6-10% of the population (as opposed to 15-20% of the males), you could kind of predict that. Over 90% of the female mallard population isn't the least bit impacted by harvest regulations. In other words, an all-out ban on hen's would only impact 10% of the population; what do you think a reduction from 2 to 1 would mean?
Lastly, we are gathering more and more evidence of bias amongst hunter-killed ducks. In locations like WMA's in Missouri, Catahoula Lake in LA, and public hunting areas in California, we've had the opportunity to compare hunter-killed birds with those trapped using other methods considered to be more random (night lighting, gill nets, decoy traps, or shot by researchers hiding in non-hunt areas to kill feeding birds). In general, hunter-killed birds are smaller, have less fat, weigh less, have higher ingested lead and blood lead levels, and have higher rates of parasite infestation than birds in the same place at the same time collected using other methods. This suggests that birds killed by hunters (or saved by hunters not shooting them) are NOT the individuals with the highest average probability of surviving the winter and reproducing next spring. This may be one of the mechanisms of compensatory mortality.
I'll never argue with the fact that dead hens won't lay any eggs but caution that not shooting hens won't necessarily lead to more ducks in the future.
BTW, the Robert Cox in the paper cited by Duckmen is my best friend and we don't shoot hens intentionally either. But it's more of a mature waterfowler thing rather than a conservation practice.
[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Steel 3's ]
Duckmen cites a study, designed and implemented to test for effects of late-season widowing of hen mallards. In the first year of the study .... no effect. In the second year of the study .... and effect. Conclusion: in some years (not all) later hunting seasons may reduce reproductive potential of hen mallards.
The study has nothing to do with population effects of hen mortality. This study provides some of the evidence AGAINST later seasons.
Then a man who has argued FOR later seasons uses this study to make a point about hen mortality?? Curious ...... especially in the face of DECADES of band-recovery data for hen mallards, spanning duck seasons ranging from 20-days with limits of 1 per day (1961 and 1962) to seasons of 93 days with limits of 7 per day (Pacific Flyway through the 70's until 1985) or 60 days with limits of 2 per day (Mississippi Flyway), where survival rates can actually be compared. Not a new topic ... as evidenced by LongBarrel's (I think) citations.
I respect anyone's choice about shooting or not shooting hens, but I don't think it has conservation implications at a population level. When you consider that direct recovery rates of banded hen mallards show that we kill something like 6-10% of the population (as opposed to 15-20% of the males), you could kind of predict that. Over 90% of the female mallard population isn't the least bit impacted by harvest regulations. In other words, an all-out ban on hen's would only impact 10% of the population; what do you think a reduction from 2 to 1 would mean?
Lastly, we are gathering more and more evidence of bias amongst hunter-killed ducks. In locations like WMA's in Missouri, Catahoula Lake in LA, and public hunting areas in California, we've had the opportunity to compare hunter-killed birds with those trapped using other methods considered to be more random (night lighting, gill nets, decoy traps, or shot by researchers hiding in non-hunt areas to kill feeding birds). In general, hunter-killed birds are smaller, have less fat, weigh less, have higher ingested lead and blood lead levels, and have higher rates of parasite infestation than birds in the same place at the same time collected using other methods. This suggests that birds killed by hunters (or saved by hunters not shooting them) are NOT the individuals with the highest average probability of surviving the winter and reproducing next spring. This may be one of the mechanisms of compensatory mortality.
I'll never argue with the fact that dead hens won't lay any eggs but caution that not shooting hens won't necessarily lead to more ducks in the future.
BTW, the Robert Cox in the paper cited by Duckmen is my best friend and we don't shoot hens intentionally either. But it's more of a mature waterfowler thing rather than a conservation practice.
[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Steel 3's ]
-
MSDuckmen
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Brandon, Ms
- Contact:
shooting hens ?
Steel3
As always you give us another way to look at things and that is good cause you learn that way.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
The interesting thing is that in my view for the study to show evidence AGAINST later season shooting you would also need to do this study earlier in the season like the beginning and middle. Who’s to say that you don’t get the same results as you do the end.
Don’t get me wrong I think the study is great and has value.
Value I feel is showing the that we are possibly doing more harm to the hens than previously thought.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I understand what your saying but I would say it is worth it. Just how many hens is 10% ?. 100,000 – 200.000 ?
That many more clutches that will never happen.
Good Post Steel3 even with the darts!
Maybe it is more of a personal conservation practice and that is enough for me.
As always you give us another way to look at things and that is good cause you learn that way.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
The study has nothing to do with population effects of hen mortality. This study provides some of the evidence AGAINST later seasons.
The interesting thing is that in my view for the study to show evidence AGAINST later season shooting you would also need to do this study earlier in the season like the beginning and middle. Who’s to say that you don’t get the same results as you do the end.
Don’t get me wrong I think the study is great and has value.
Value I feel is showing the that we are possibly doing more harm to the hens than previously thought.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
an all-out ban on hen's would only impact 10% of the population; what do you think a reduction from 2 to 1 would mean?
I understand what your saying but I would say it is worth it. Just how many hens is 10% ?. 100,000 – 200.000 ?
That many more clutches that will never happen.
Good Post Steel3 even with the darts!
Maybe it is more of a personal conservation practice and that is enough for me.
-
LongBarrel
- Regular
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Tupelo
shooting hens ?
Duckmen,
Are we in agreement that the study has nothing to do with hen mortality, now? [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
Are we in agreement that the study has nothing to do with hen mortality, now? [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
-
goosebruce
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: here
shooting hens ?
Wow, steel 3's rears his head the same day wildman jeske emails me outta the blue, whatsa matter ya'll slow? hehe.
Not Shooting hens may not put another duck in the sky. But it sure as hell aint hurting...
The duck you remember the most, is the one you could have killed, but you didnt. Why brag about getting on the green, then lower yourself to if it flies it dies syndrome? Also, built in excuse, I coulda shot more, but I wouldnt pull the trigger on a hen.
Nobody is a 100%. Accidents happen. Sometimes the all out sheer this duck season sucks comes over you. Hell i shot a shovelhead yesterday, and I havent done that in 3 years. Sometimes it happens. We got a gig, works real well. Shoot a mal hen, you just donated $5 to delta. Shoot a pin hen, you just sent $25. Maybe saving hens doesnt matter long haul, but those monies do.
Larry, only thing I wonder about your statement is, if 10% of the mallard hens are effected (i.e. killed), and one hen would ideally only effect 5%, what kind of percentage of mallard hens are effected (once again, for the sake of this point killed) in the late seasons this study was proposed. I had this study thrown up in my face last month by Tom Jes, and I still don't buy all facets of it. Especially funny to me since he neglected to show the part of the study that showed no effect one year, vrs a possible effect the next, and then quoted you out of context on it. If the arguement about one hen would make any signifcant %, what % does the late season actually kill?
Saw a DU calander in a guys camp monday night, that said most mallards pair up by dec 10th. Doesnt explain what i see in the air, or on the water, but makes me wonder if someone belived that enough to put it on a habitat organizations calander, then hunting 50 days past that date compared to 40 doesnt make a hoot. Of course, they had blacks paired up a week later, and no mention of when black/mallard hybrids pair, which tells me they pulled that stuff outta their butts, but thats another story. travis
Not Shooting hens may not put another duck in the sky. But it sure as hell aint hurting...
The duck you remember the most, is the one you could have killed, but you didnt. Why brag about getting on the green, then lower yourself to if it flies it dies syndrome? Also, built in excuse, I coulda shot more, but I wouldnt pull the trigger on a hen.
Nobody is a 100%. Accidents happen. Sometimes the all out sheer this duck season sucks comes over you. Hell i shot a shovelhead yesterday, and I havent done that in 3 years. Sometimes it happens. We got a gig, works real well. Shoot a mal hen, you just donated $5 to delta. Shoot a pin hen, you just sent $25. Maybe saving hens doesnt matter long haul, but those monies do.
Larry, only thing I wonder about your statement is, if 10% of the mallard hens are effected (i.e. killed), and one hen would ideally only effect 5%, what kind of percentage of mallard hens are effected (once again, for the sake of this point killed) in the late seasons this study was proposed. I had this study thrown up in my face last month by Tom Jes, and I still don't buy all facets of it. Especially funny to me since he neglected to show the part of the study that showed no effect one year, vrs a possible effect the next, and then quoted you out of context on it. If the arguement about one hen would make any signifcant %, what % does the late season actually kill?
Saw a DU calander in a guys camp monday night, that said most mallards pair up by dec 10th. Doesnt explain what i see in the air, or on the water, but makes me wonder if someone belived that enough to put it on a habitat organizations calander, then hunting 50 days past that date compared to 40 doesnt make a hoot. Of course, they had blacks paired up a week later, and no mention of when black/mallard hybrids pair, which tells me they pulled that stuff outta their butts, but thats another story. travis
-
MSDuckmen
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Brandon, Ms
- Contact:
shooting hens ?
LongBarrel
NO WE ARE NOT [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
NO WE ARE NOT [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
shooting hens ?
Steel 3,
I agreed with almost every thing that you said in you earlier post until you goty to that part about it being a maturity thing not to shoot hens. That insinuates that a anti-hen man is at a "higher level" of waterfowl hunting and that is just not so.
Excellent info though.
Hey Duckmen and Steel 3- You guys have got to hook me up on all this info. Who knows I might stop shooting hens.
Maybe we could have a cool one and discuss it.
I agreed with almost every thing that you said in you earlier post until you goty to that part about it being a maturity thing not to shoot hens. That insinuates that a anti-hen man is at a "higher level" of waterfowl hunting and that is just not so.
Excellent info though.
Hey Duckmen and Steel 3- You guys have got to hook me up on all this info. Who knows I might stop shooting hens.
Maybe we could have a cool one and discuss it.
shooting hens ?
Steel shot started this stuff and he just sits back and enjoys. Be active man. We need to know your stand. I know it but you should enlighten the rest of our friends.
You hen-killer.
You hen-killer.
-
Black_Dawg
- Veteran
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Kentucky
shooting hens ?
she dies!
-
4-EYED GADWALL
- Veteran
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Covington La/Delta
shooting hens ?
All I know is I got 282 more ducks to kill. Then I'll start wondering what I shoulda killed.
Just like anybody else. So half of ya can blow this goody 2 shoes **** out your tale.
Duckmen you probably are an excepttion. You crazy F*%cker.
Just like anybody else. So half of ya can blow this goody 2 shoes **** out your tale.
Duckmen you probably are an excepttion. You crazy F*%cker.
shooting hens ?
There you go 4 eye, theres that fowl language we all know and love.
shooting hens ?
I'm sorry but if you can go all season, kill consistent limits and only kill a few hens all season, You ARE on a "HIGHER LEVEL" than the "It flies, It dies" bunch. If you don't agree your not any better than they are. I'm sick of the slob hunters trying to justify it. True waterfowlers try not to shoot hens period end of damn sentence. dammit caught myself agreeing with travis. thats a first.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests