DuckSouth.com

There's a big difference in whining on the internet and affecting change. The difference is effort....anyone can type a few wrods on the keyboard and go on about their apathetic lives. Kindof like voting - hard to complain about political leadership when you didn't vote.

All National Wildlife Refuges are currently under Congressional mandate to complete comprehensive conservation planning within the next year or two. The process must incorporate public input from surveys and public hearings. The purpose of the review is to set in motion a management plan that, among other things, "ensures that the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses receive priority consideration during the preparation of CCPs; To provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent, and compatibility of uses on refuges, including priority
wildlife-dependent recreational uses."

It is my understanding that the Yazoo Refuge Complex, which consists of Yazoo, Panther Swamp, Hillside, Mathews, and Morgan Brake had their public hearings, were y'all there to let your views be known and recorded into written record? If not, you missed a golden opportunity to participate in implementing local policy.

The North Mississippi Refuges Complex, which includes Coldwater, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie NWRs is going through the process right now and will conduct public hearings within the next year or two. That will be your chance to intelligently and effectively argue your case for increased public recreational opportunities on those properties. Call their office and request notification of the hearing dates.

Finally, all federal agencies are very sensitive to Congessional inquiries. If you've not written your Congressman, do so.

Takes a little more time and effort that ranting on the inet, but you'll be preaching more to the sinners than to the choir. What will you do?

More info:
http://www.firstgov.gov/fgsearch/result ... 02fw3.html

EXCELLENT POINT Double R! My original post mentioned a letter writing campaign that has already begun. If I hear of specific meetings, and I can attend, I will. It takes more than yapping to each other to make these things happen - and I am confident that if enough pressure is put in the right places changes can be made.

This ain't the USSR - yet.

Double R,

I can remember a couple of years back a collage buddy of mine went to work for the North Mississippi Refuge Complex. I thought this was great. An educated forester/wildlife biologist that is an avid waterfowl hunter is now on the inside. He will get something done. I can remember the conversation well. I have repeated it twice this week discussing this very issue. It went something like this: SB says "Man, Congratulations on the job. Since you are on the inside now, I hope you can get more waterfowl hunting opportunity for the hunters." Fed. guy: "Nope. We don't need to open these refuges to hunting." SB: "What? You being the avid duck hunter you are. No, to more hunting opportunity? No, to hunting lands bought with duck stamp monies? What biological reason is there to support 100% of the land base being a waterfowl sanctuary, especially on those large areas? " Fed. guy:" Well then, you need to open your waterfowl sanctuary at Mahannah." SB: " Our sanctuary at Mahannah comprises 1/13 of our land base. I would be satisfied if only 1/13 of your refuge's land base was sanctuary." Fed. guy: "Well......Hmmm......Uhhhh......Hmmmm.......Well..I still don't think we should allow hunting."

Needles to say nothing has changed in regard to more waterfowl hunting opportunity. Double R can you guess who that Fed. guy was?

Waterfowl sanctuaries are a key ingredient to a complete Waterfowl Habitat Complex. It is understood that sanctuaries are needed. What does science recommend on the percentage of a land base needed as sanctuary to fulfill waterfowl's life requirements?

If we are going to do what science say's then let's do all of it. Don't just pick and choose. My point being I want to see predator control on the nesting grounds.

SB,
Do you mean the the sanctuary land base must provide safe haven 24/7/365, or could the sanctuary be hunted 6 hours a week? I just don't like the idea of federally funded 24/7/365 sanctuaries. If Greenpeace wants one, fine, let them fund it, but if hunter's dollars are used the ducks should fly at least a few hours per week.

The hunting opportunity provided to those actually hunting the sanctuary pales in comparison to the opportunities provided to those hunting surrounding private lands and those further down the flyway. Continued sanctuary status of the same land will guarantee that ducks will eventually imprint to use ONLY the sanctuary acreas on future migrations, thus corrupting the natural migration patterns.

If the Soggy Bottom Refuge contains 10,000 acres, and you had control, would you:
a) never allow hunting on any part
b) allow hunting on its entirety 1 morning per week
c) designate a portion to be huntable and allow limited hunting (x days per week).
d) designate a portion to be huntable under normal season hours.

If you chose C or D how much of the 10,000 acres would you make huntable?
(for those not paying attention my choice is B)

If you chose C or D how much of the 10,000 acres would you make huntable?
(for those not paying attention my choice is B)

I was paying attention and I vote for E.
Which would be allow hunting on a limited amount of the area until noon daily for the season.
I feel there should be a safe house for the birds. A Santuary should exist that will keep them from any harassment. Asking how much area would depend on the enviroment that your dealing with. Just Giving a % of the land is crazy. If the area needs it then give it. If the birds don't need it then make it less. If you start small and the numbers grow, then increase the safe area to a 10th the size of the total.
One thing we hunters need to understand is that it is not and never should have been about the numbers we kill. The quality of the hunt is what matters and if the birds have a safe place to rest and feed they will move around giving good opportunity for waterfowls even away from the WMA.
The idea of one day a week would knock alot of people out of hunting those areas, and since I pay for stamps and supplies just as you do I would expect to get my chance just as you.
There are others that don't hunt that also buy permits to bird watch and they should have consideration just as we do. The refuges were not and should never have been developed strickly for us to hunt. It's for the birds. IMO

If you rotate the huntable areas within the 10,000 acres, not just the times, wouldn't that help? Going broader, how about rotating all the sanctuaries so they could be hunted at least SOME of the time..in theory, it seems the ducks wouldn't get used to the same "safe havens" from year to year, or day to day, and would be more spread out.??

Duckmen,
I disagree. I don't think hunting ducks 6 hours per week in a sanctuary constitutes "harassment". It does promote natural migration similar to what would have occurred 100 years ago before the advent of government supported refuges. If you hunt part of the refuge and not another part then you've only reduced the size of the sanctuary and created another WMA. I say hunt everything but only on a limited basis.

Option B is by far the easiest (other than A) for the public to comply with (which area can we hunt today, this year, etc. ?) and easiest for the gov't to enforce.

Come on SB, I'd really like to know your answer. No right or wrong answer to this - just your opinion. Send me a PM if you want to.

Crow, we are all enthused that you will burden yourself with such a task. Thats mighty nice of you to volunteer.

I agree with DeltaDuck about not ignoring certain scientific evidence because it is convenient. Consistency will prevail.

My opinion on hunting hours: Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday until noon. If you allow it to be hunted everyday until 4pm or sunset, it will be ruined. If you don't believe me, just look at Malmaison.

H20 Dog. I vote that Sharkey Bayou be open to the public only on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays as long as I get to hunt Braxter's Hole one day a week. Can I get you to second that motion? All kidding aside, I think that opening up some restricted areas one or two days a week is a great idea. Back in the 50's, Claypool Reservoir (privately owned) held as much as 40% of the total duck population in Arkansas during the season. A week after the season there would only be a handfull of ducks on it. Case in point, the ducks will find the areas with no hunting pressure.

h2o_dog,I don't know enough about the Soggy Bottom Refuge to make an opinion. If I was to do that from here, behind the computer with no past history or experience on this refuge, all I would be doing is armchair biology or now days, computer biology. Most likely, Soggy Bottom Refuge would not fit in just one of those categories previously mention, but maybe in a combination of those and some newly created categories. Would a sanctuary still be a sanctuary if hunting was allowed? Or, would it be a hunting area with limited hunting opportunities? Ask a waterfowl biologist what percentage of a land base needs to be sanctuary. I don't believe they can give you a science based answer. It is known that sanctuary is a required component for the complete waterfowl habitat complex, but I don't know of any research that has determined how much sanctuary is needed. That could be a hard question to answer. Why? Each piece of property has its own characteristics. Not just within its property lines but in the surrounding area also. Most people look at their property in a snap shot and not the local area. I have seen in a NRCS publication that ducks need all life requirements within a 10 mile radius. I'm not quoting them, but just going from memory. I had never seen the area nailed down to 10 mile area and do not know where this figure came from. It is a starting point though.

Sanctuary is needed. Is 100% sanctuary needed? Maybe. Maybe not. Each property is unique. I would think that a large land base would not need to be 100% sanctuary. A portion of it would be beneficial though.

Most hunters want what fits their own personnel needs not what is best for the wildlife. I am no different than most hunters in this regard. How many times have you ever hunted a piece of property, either public or private, and said to yourself, "If I owned this place I would do this or that." Very few times I bet you said I would leave it as is. Public land managers manage wildlife through managing the users. To a degree, the State and USFWS manages resident and migratory wildlife by managing the users. How? Through the setting of seasons and bag limits.

If indeed the idea is to keep the birds from keying in on areas and by hunting pressure keep them stirred up I would advocate opening th esancturaies on this plan:

Open them to youth/senior/disabled hunters only and on a limited basis, say wed/sat/sun til noon.

Not only would this keep the birds moving but it would provide opportunity for recruiting new hunters and showing appreciation to those who less able to hunt hard.

I fear however that this would only lead to more griping about how "unfair" these rules would be.


M.B.

M.B. I think that is a very good idea. How many times a year do these guys get to hunt. One simple trip to a hole for us is hard work for them. It ought to be at least a little rewarding for their effort.

I think next season...No WMA's..No NWR's...Hell I'm gonna go to the mall and set up a spread....maybe a loaf of stale bread, and a hockey stick...save $$ on the steel shot....And I may only hunt it twice a week...lol