I know my opinion does not count for very much, but its MY OPINION none the less!!!
Have a good day!!!
Look for duck season to shorten
Wildfowler, Relax, Did'nt mean to set you off like that!!! I never said that what they were saying last year did'nt make sense. Never said what they were saying the year before did'nt make sense!, BUT... string what they said together for the last 7 or 8 years, and it all starts to fall apart! Like you, I have no proof of this. Its just some of the things I seem to remember from the past!!! Things I termed gloom & doom. Just my honest opinion. No censorship on OPINIONS on this board, Is there???
I know my opinion does not count for very much, but its MY OPINION none the less!!!
Have a good day!!!
I know my opinion does not count for very much, but its MY OPINION none the less!!!
Have a good day!!!
OFFSEASON ?,..... Ain't no such thing !
-
mallardchaser
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Madison
-
Wildfowler
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4868
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Mis'sippi
Hey buddy, I'm glad to hear your opinion and I was trying to stifle you or anything like that. When I first heard you mention "doom and gloom" I assumed you were referring to DW. I've just never heard anyone think that DU was preaching doom & gloom before.
The whole notion of DU being a doom and gloomer just struck me as being terribly funny based on everything that I've heard people say about DU over that past couple of years.... Anyway, I certainly don't think that my opinion is the only one worth having around here. Just a friendly debate.
It's kind of slow this time of the year. Isn't it?
The whole notion of DU being a doom and gloomer just struck me as being terribly funny based on everything that I've heard people say about DU over that past couple of years.... Anyway, I certainly don't think that my opinion is the only one worth having around here. Just a friendly debate.
It's kind of slow this time of the year. Isn't it?
driven every kind of rig that's ever been made, driven the backroads so I wouldn't get weighed. - Lowell George
-
webfoot
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Jackson, MS-Born in the Delta
FYI
The Adaptive Harvest Management Group is meeting this week in Jackson. The group is strongly looking at proposing a Restrictive Season (30 days and 3 ducks).
Spring precipitation at this point is not looking good, the worst drought in the pothole region in 30 years, however May pond counts have not been taken and July duck counts are some months away. Many questions remain into the future.
Question: Why drop from a liberal framework from last year to a restrictive season this year?
Question: Would the hunting community accept a two step drop without a harsh backlash at the system framework?
Question: Does economics work in the framework consideration?
Do you have questions or an opinion?
Spring precipitation at this point is not looking good, the worst drought in the pothole region in 30 years, however May pond counts have not been taken and July duck counts are some months away. Many questions remain into the future.
Question: Why drop from a liberal framework from last year to a restrictive season this year?
Question: Would the hunting community accept a two step drop without a harsh backlash at the system framework?
Question: Does economics work in the framework consideration?
Do you have questions or an opinion?
"We face the question whether a still higher standard of living is worth its costs in things natural, wild, and free." - Aldo Leopold
webfoot - who makes up the AHM Group and does your statement represent a collective opinion on their behalf? In other words, have all of the fly way representatives made this assessment at this point?
To answer your question...yes - there is going to be backlash in the hunting community considering that it is 4/8/03 and frameworks are supposed to be based on pond counts in several weeks. It's a credibility issue in my opinion. Why go to 30/3 from 60/6? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why go from one extreme to the other? I just don't get it.
To answer your question...yes - there is going to be backlash in the hunting community considering that it is 4/8/03 and frameworks are supposed to be based on pond counts in several weeks. It's a credibility issue in my opinion. Why go to 30/3 from 60/6? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why go from one extreme to the other? I just don't get it.
run me out in the cold rain and snow
-
Johnboy114
- Veteran
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Ocean Springs
-
webfoot
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Jackson, MS-Born in the Delta
Adaptive Harvest Management Task Force
March 20, 2003
The AHM Task Force met via conference call on February 24, March 6, and March 12, 2003. A summary of the calls follows.
Communications Protocol
The Task Force reviewed and approved the protocol for communicating their work:
Meeting summaries and other on-going work related “documents†will be approved by the Task Force before distribution. Once approved, Task Force members will distribute them to the various groups they represent. The IAFWA will distribute the documents through their established channels.
Conclusions/recommendations from the Task Force will be approved by the Task Force and then submitted to the IAFWA Executive Committee for
approval/distribution. “Process†questions and inquiries from outdoor media will be handled as needed by the facilitator. Communications related to recommendations will be handled through IAFWA channels.
Changes to AHM in 2002
In 2002 a number of changes were made to the midcontinent-mallard AHM protocol, which is used to prescribe hunting regulations for the three western Flyways. The most significant changes were revision of the population models to correct for an apparent bias in estimates of survival and reproductive rates, and extension of framework dates in the moderate and liberal regulatory alternatives. According to the AHM Working Group, these revisions are expected to result in fewer liberal seasons, more closed-season prescriptions, and an increase in annual variability in hunting regulations. Based on the best biological information available, however, there appears to be considerable opportunity within the AHM process to alleviate some of these adverse consequences, while still insuring long-term protection of the waterfowl resource.
Potential changes to the AHM protocol include constraints on the use of the current regulatory alternatives or revision of harvest management objectives. As long as the overarching goal of AHM remains sustainable harvesting, decisions concerning these changes can be based primarily on how regulations best serve the interests of the hunting public.
One-Step Constraint
Given the charge to review policy issues in AHM, the Task Force investigated a number of possible, strategic changes to the current AHM protocol that might help minimize closed-season prescriptions and annual variability in regulations. Based on this review, the Task Force urges the Flyway Councils to give serious consideration to a constraint on regulatory changes greater than one step each year.
According to the AHM Working Group, this one-step constraint is expected to greatly reduce the frequency of closed-season prescriptions, as well as virtually eliminate annual regulatory changes greater than one step. This constraint also is expected to produce amore even distribution of the frequencies with which the various regulatory alternatives are applied. Notably, this constraint is not expected to significantly affect average
mallard population size or harvest, nor average population size of the nine other principal duck species breeding in the midcontinent region (gadwall, wigeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, shoveler, pintail, redhead, canvasback, and scaup).
Potential Constraints and Policy Changes
The Task Force is continuing to evaluate other potential regulatory constraints, as well as other policy changes with potentially more profound implications:
(1) In AHM, the central objective is to regulate hunting in a way that provides for the long-term viability of duck populations and associated hunting opportunities. In one case (midcontinent mallards), however, an ancillary objective is to maintain population size at or above the goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Because the primary purpose of the NAWMP population goal is to guide habitat-management efforts, questions have been raised regarding whether those goals should be considered in setting hunting regulations and, if so, the extent to which they should be emphasized (particularly during periods when environmental conditions are below average).
(2) Because AHM helps ensure long-term resource conservation through an optimal use of specified regulatory alternatives (whatever they may be), proposals to modify the set of regulatory alternatives primarily involve social trade-offs. In this light, how many regulatory alternatives should there be? Among the alternatives, what are desirable or acceptable ranges of season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates? How often should the set of regulatory alternatives be reviewed and what are appropriate criteria for modifying them?
Additional AHM Information:
In regulating waterfowl harvests, managers face four fundamental sources of uncertainty:
(1.) Environmental variation - the temporal and spatial variation in weather conditions and other key features of waterfowl habitat; an example is the annual change in the number of ponds in the Prairie Pothole Region, where water conditions influence duck reproductive success;
(2.)Partial controllability - the ability of managers to control harvest only within limits; the harvest resulting from a particular set of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty because of variation in weather conditions, timing of migration, hunter effort, and other factors;
(3.)Partial observability - the ability to estimate key population attributes (e.g., population size, reproductive rate, harvest) only within the precision afforded by existing monitoring programs; and structural uncertainty - an incomplete understanding of biological processes; a familiar example is the long-standing debate about whether harvest is additive to other sources of mortality or whether populations compensate for hunting losses through reduced natural mortality.
4.)Structural uncertainty increases contentiousness in the decision-making process and decreases the extent to which managers can meet long-term conservation goals.
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) was developed as a systematic process for dealing objectively with these uncertainties. The key components of AHM include:
(1) a limited number of regulatory alternatives, which describe Flyway-specific season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates;
(2) a set of population models describing various hypotheses about the effects of harvest and environmental factors on waterfowl abundance;
(3) a measure of reliability (probability or "weight") for each population model; and
(4) a mathematical description of the objective(s) of harvest management (i.e., an "objective function"), by which alternative regulatory strategies can be evaluated.
These components are used in a stochastic optimization procedure to derive a regulatory strategy, which specifies the appropriate regulatory alternative for each possible combination of breeding population size, environmental conditions, and model weights. The setting of annual hunting regulations then involves an iterative process:
(1) each year, an optimal regulatory alternative is identified based on resource and environmental conditions, and on current model weights;
(2) after the regulatory decision is made, model-specific predictions for subsequent breeding population size are determined;
(3) when monitoring data become available, model weights are increased to the extent that observations of population size agree with predictions, and decreased to the extent that they disagree; and
(4) the new model weights are used to start another iteration of the process.
By iteratively updating model weights and optimizing regulatory choices, the process should eventually identify which model is most appropriate to describe the dynamics of the managed population. The process is optimal in the sense that it provides the regulatory choice each year necessary to maximize management performance. It is adaptive in the sense that the harvest strategy "evolves" to account for new knowledge generated by a comparison of predicted and observed population sizes.
March 20, 2003
The AHM Task Force met via conference call on February 24, March 6, and March 12, 2003. A summary of the calls follows.
Communications Protocol
The Task Force reviewed and approved the protocol for communicating their work:
Meeting summaries and other on-going work related “documents†will be approved by the Task Force before distribution. Once approved, Task Force members will distribute them to the various groups they represent. The IAFWA will distribute the documents through their established channels.
Conclusions/recommendations from the Task Force will be approved by the Task Force and then submitted to the IAFWA Executive Committee for
approval/distribution. “Process†questions and inquiries from outdoor media will be handled as needed by the facilitator. Communications related to recommendations will be handled through IAFWA channels.
Changes to AHM in 2002
In 2002 a number of changes were made to the midcontinent-mallard AHM protocol, which is used to prescribe hunting regulations for the three western Flyways. The most significant changes were revision of the population models to correct for an apparent bias in estimates of survival and reproductive rates, and extension of framework dates in the moderate and liberal regulatory alternatives. According to the AHM Working Group, these revisions are expected to result in fewer liberal seasons, more closed-season prescriptions, and an increase in annual variability in hunting regulations. Based on the best biological information available, however, there appears to be considerable opportunity within the AHM process to alleviate some of these adverse consequences, while still insuring long-term protection of the waterfowl resource.
Potential changes to the AHM protocol include constraints on the use of the current regulatory alternatives or revision of harvest management objectives. As long as the overarching goal of AHM remains sustainable harvesting, decisions concerning these changes can be based primarily on how regulations best serve the interests of the hunting public.
One-Step Constraint
Given the charge to review policy issues in AHM, the Task Force investigated a number of possible, strategic changes to the current AHM protocol that might help minimize closed-season prescriptions and annual variability in regulations. Based on this review, the Task Force urges the Flyway Councils to give serious consideration to a constraint on regulatory changes greater than one step each year.
According to the AHM Working Group, this one-step constraint is expected to greatly reduce the frequency of closed-season prescriptions, as well as virtually eliminate annual regulatory changes greater than one step. This constraint also is expected to produce amore even distribution of the frequencies with which the various regulatory alternatives are applied. Notably, this constraint is not expected to significantly affect average
mallard population size or harvest, nor average population size of the nine other principal duck species breeding in the midcontinent region (gadwall, wigeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, shoveler, pintail, redhead, canvasback, and scaup).
Potential Constraints and Policy Changes
The Task Force is continuing to evaluate other potential regulatory constraints, as well as other policy changes with potentially more profound implications:
(1) In AHM, the central objective is to regulate hunting in a way that provides for the long-term viability of duck populations and associated hunting opportunities. In one case (midcontinent mallards), however, an ancillary objective is to maintain population size at or above the goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Because the primary purpose of the NAWMP population goal is to guide habitat-management efforts, questions have been raised regarding whether those goals should be considered in setting hunting regulations and, if so, the extent to which they should be emphasized (particularly during periods when environmental conditions are below average).
(2) Because AHM helps ensure long-term resource conservation through an optimal use of specified regulatory alternatives (whatever they may be), proposals to modify the set of regulatory alternatives primarily involve social trade-offs. In this light, how many regulatory alternatives should there be? Among the alternatives, what are desirable or acceptable ranges of season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates? How often should the set of regulatory alternatives be reviewed and what are appropriate criteria for modifying them?
Additional AHM Information:
In regulating waterfowl harvests, managers face four fundamental sources of uncertainty:
(1.) Environmental variation - the temporal and spatial variation in weather conditions and other key features of waterfowl habitat; an example is the annual change in the number of ponds in the Prairie Pothole Region, where water conditions influence duck reproductive success;
(2.)Partial controllability - the ability of managers to control harvest only within limits; the harvest resulting from a particular set of hunting regulations cannot be predicted with certainty because of variation in weather conditions, timing of migration, hunter effort, and other factors;
(3.)Partial observability - the ability to estimate key population attributes (e.g., population size, reproductive rate, harvest) only within the precision afforded by existing monitoring programs; and structural uncertainty - an incomplete understanding of biological processes; a familiar example is the long-standing debate about whether harvest is additive to other sources of mortality or whether populations compensate for hunting losses through reduced natural mortality.
4.)Structural uncertainty increases contentiousness in the decision-making process and decreases the extent to which managers can meet long-term conservation goals.
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) was developed as a systematic process for dealing objectively with these uncertainties. The key components of AHM include:
(1) a limited number of regulatory alternatives, which describe Flyway-specific season lengths, bag limits, and framework dates;
(2) a set of population models describing various hypotheses about the effects of harvest and environmental factors on waterfowl abundance;
(3) a measure of reliability (probability or "weight") for each population model; and
(4) a mathematical description of the objective(s) of harvest management (i.e., an "objective function"), by which alternative regulatory strategies can be evaluated.
These components are used in a stochastic optimization procedure to derive a regulatory strategy, which specifies the appropriate regulatory alternative for each possible combination of breeding population size, environmental conditions, and model weights. The setting of annual hunting regulations then involves an iterative process:
(1) each year, an optimal regulatory alternative is identified based on resource and environmental conditions, and on current model weights;
(2) after the regulatory decision is made, model-specific predictions for subsequent breeding population size are determined;
(3) when monitoring data become available, model weights are increased to the extent that observations of population size agree with predictions, and decreased to the extent that they disagree; and
(4) the new model weights are used to start another iteration of the process.
By iteratively updating model weights and optimizing regulatory choices, the process should eventually identify which model is most appropriate to describe the dynamics of the managed population. The process is optimal in the sense that it provides the regulatory choice each year necessary to maximize management performance. It is adaptive in the sense that the harvest strategy "evolves" to account for new knowledge generated by a comparison of predicted and observed population sizes.
"We face the question whether a still higher standard of living is worth its costs in things natural, wild, and free." - Aldo Leopold
Webfoot - thanks for the post.
The meeting notes primarily focus on process and how to change policy. There is nothing quantifiable in there. The question still remains - how can they recommend a change to a restrictive season from a liberal season without the actual data that is needed to make the determinination? Either we have become too good at accurately speculating or it is a SWAG.
The meeting notes primarily focus on process and how to change policy. There is nothing quantifiable in there. The question still remains - how can they recommend a change to a restrictive season from a liberal season without the actual data that is needed to make the determinination? Either we have become too good at accurately speculating or it is a SWAG.
run me out in the cold rain and snow
-
webfoot
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Jackson, MS-Born in the Delta
A good meeting tonight in Jackson with Rob Olson head of U.S. operations for Delta Waterfowl.
I look forward to the input from Softcall, Wildflower about their perspective outlook on the discussion on the upcoming season, possible proposed dates and additional information that Rob shared with us. These guys are first-rate and intuitive.
Remember cooperatively we all can transform waterfowling by supporting both DW and DU. Make your voice heard support our heritage with your membership and your participation.
I look forward to the input from Softcall, Wildflower about their perspective outlook on the discussion on the upcoming season, possible proposed dates and additional information that Rob shared with us. These guys are first-rate and intuitive.
Remember cooperatively we all can transform waterfowling by supporting both DW and DU. Make your voice heard support our heritage with your membership and your participation.
"We face the question whether a still higher standard of living is worth its costs in things natural, wild, and free." - Aldo Leopold
I just wanted to make a clarification to Webfoot's post. There is a Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) Working Group and an AHM Task Force. The Task Force is relatively new, 6 months +/-. The AHM Working Group has been around basically since the beginning of the AHM process. The AHM Working Group is currently meeting in Jackson. The meeting is being hosted by the MDWFP.
Scott Baker
Webfoot , Softcall, I'm just making an attempt to get this straight. Its kinda hard with all the info. you guys generate.
In the online news link you provided, It states that we have been in a 70 year decline as far as production numbers go. Do either of you remember the forcast for the 98 season? It stated there would be a record number of birds on the flyway. I guess my question is "how could this be" if we were on the tail end of a 70 year decline? also what happened between 98 and now? Those birds never materialized! I could understand it better if there was a slight decline from year to year, but it went from good to bad seemingly overnight. I also know that some hunters had fairly good luck during this period, but not many. Indicates more of a dieoff than reduced production numbers to me. This is all in the past. No need crying now.Here is something that does interest me though!!!
Predation... only 1 of 10 successful nests ever hatch an egg! your link states that this is largely due to predation!!! Call me an idiot if you like but there is a problem we CAN control. If you have 10 nests of chicken eggs, and these eggs are important to you, very important. You see where a coon has destroyed a couple of them, are you going to wait untill you are down to 1 nest to do something about it...?.... Heck no! your gonna spend some time and MONEY if need be to kill that damn coon!
The Delta Duck has been pushing predator control for some time now, and personally I'm starting to agree with him!
If we raised the number to 3 or 4 nests out of 10, this alone would give us our ducks back in just 3 or 4 years (no I did'nt do the math) just an educated guess! Or maybe an uneducated one
Like I said, dont loose patience with me, Just make me understand.
I wish you both a good day!!!
In the online news link you provided, It states that we have been in a 70 year decline as far as production numbers go. Do either of you remember the forcast for the 98 season? It stated there would be a record number of birds on the flyway. I guess my question is "how could this be" if we were on the tail end of a 70 year decline? also what happened between 98 and now? Those birds never materialized! I could understand it better if there was a slight decline from year to year, but it went from good to bad seemingly overnight. I also know that some hunters had fairly good luck during this period, but not many. Indicates more of a dieoff than reduced production numbers to me. This is all in the past. No need crying now.Here is something that does interest me though!!!
Predation... only 1 of 10 successful nests ever hatch an egg! your link states that this is largely due to predation!!! Call me an idiot if you like but there is a problem we CAN control. If you have 10 nests of chicken eggs, and these eggs are important to you, very important. You see where a coon has destroyed a couple of them, are you going to wait untill you are down to 1 nest to do something about it...?.... Heck no! your gonna spend some time and MONEY if need be to kill that damn coon!
The Delta Duck has been pushing predator control for some time now, and personally I'm starting to agree with him!
If we raised the number to 3 or 4 nests out of 10, this alone would give us our ducks back in just 3 or 4 years (no I did'nt do the math) just an educated guess! Or maybe an uneducated one
Like I said, dont loose patience with me, Just make me understand.
I wish you both a good day!!!
OFFSEASON ?,..... Ain't no such thing !
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 23 guests