Change To Federal Mallard Pop Goal and Impact on Seasons

Lots of good stuff here.

I can appreciate what you are all saying about hunter numbers, and I'm sure it is true, but I think those fewer hunters are having a wider impact geographically. Hunter numbers are down, while Arkansas sells 100,000 stamps where it used to sell 35,000. Kansas has such a "problem" with nonresidents that they are enacting new regs on all public land (including Federal) to restrict nonresidents to hunting Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday only.

In chatting with some Kansas residents, what's driving it isn't that the ducks are too pressured, it's that the resident hunters just don't want that many people in the marsh with them. The growing numbers of nonresidents and some bad behavior made them an easy target. Kansas is another one of those states that is a victim of its own success, like Arkansas for ducks, Illinois for deer, the Dakotas for pheasants, etc.; between social media and the State tourism/economic development, there are no secrets.

And so, even if numbers are down it's hard for people in "focused" states to believe it when the parking lots and ramps are as crowded as ever, ground is increasingly leased and more and more expensive, and the seasons are getting worse in terms of duck harvest.
 
Kansas has such a "problem" with nonresidents that they are enacting new regs on all public land (including Federal) to restrict nonresidents to hunting Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday only.
Click to expand...

I know non-resident hunter restrictions are an issue in a number of states, and several provinces. It's a death knell for waterfowling long term, the wave of resident favoring regs will only spread. At least in the US, if I'm elected King, there will be no different regulations permitted for residents vs non residents on any migratory species. Deer, turkeys, pheasants, rabbits are a state management issue, and rightfully should be regulated exclusively by the state. Not so waterfowl, doves, woodcock. We all pitch in to support migratory birds with our duck stamps and PR funds (some of which goes to non migratory species), and our seasons are all set by Federal framework. All for one and one for all.
 
This, from Eric: "Waterfowlers in general have selective memory and that drives expectations, and especially dissatisfaction." Add all other hunters, plus commercial and recreational fishers, plus bird and wildllife watchers. For most people, the best day they ever had is the way it always used to be.
 
Rick Pierce said:
Lots of good stuff here.

I can appreciate what you are all saying about hunter numbers, and I'm sure it is true, but I think those fewer hunters are having a wider impact geographically. Hunter numbers are down, while Arkansas sells 100,000 stamps where it used to sell 35,000. Kansas has such a "problem" with nonresidents that they are enacting new regs on all public land (including Federal) to restrict nonresidents to hunting Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday only.

In chatting with some Kansas residents, what's driving it isn't that the ducks are too pressured, it's that the resident hunters just don't want that many people in the marsh with them. The growing numbers of nonresidents and some bad behavior made them an easy target. Kansas is another one of those states that is a victim of its own success, like Arkansas for ducks, Illinois for deer, the Dakotas for pheasants, etc.; between social media and the State tourism/economic development, there are no secrets.

And so, even if numbers are down it's hard for people in "focused" states to believe it when the parking lots and ramps are as crowded as ever, ground is increasingly leased and more and more expensive, and the seasons are getting worse in terms of duck harvest.
Click to expand...
I think one of the issues may be that while hunter numbers are down, the people who are hunting are hunting more. If this guess is correct, tracking hunter numbers is not a good predicter for either crowding or overall harvest. I'd be interested what the annual surveys tell us about long-term effort per hunter. There is an old saying in fisheries that 10% of the anglers account for 90% of the catch. Probably true in waterfowling, too.
 
Jeff

In my experiences a major cause of crowding comes from state regulations that limit access to productive hunting areas during the season, thus funneling hunters into fewer areas or forcing those that want to hunt a particular area to use the same area simultaneously as others. Instead of creating more opportunity and greater access and spreading hunters and pressure out, state management philosophies seem to be "Let's limit access, make that access a complicated process, and watch hunter satisfaction fall like a stone."
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree that less waterfowl hunters are doing more hunting, cuz they better have some very deep pockets. There maybe a few but on the whole I dunno. The days of hunting as much as one could in the their own area, plus going to other states and provinces is much more expensive and complicated than it was. I've cut back due to age and the reasons I've stated. I keep in close contact with some that are what we deem "hardcore". They are stymied by the same reasons. Waterfowlers must now deal with "multi use areas" on a basis that they have not seen before. The more there are folks with other interests other than waterfowling and less waterfowlers the more it does not favor waterfowlers. With less habitat the competition will only get greater as to how it is used and add to the economy. When and if Bird Watchers vastly outnumber Bird Hunters..... Oh my.

Just for the record I am a Bird Watcher and a Bird Hunter like many of us here.

my 2 cents
 
Eric Patterson said:
Jeff

In my experiences a major cause of crowding comes from state regulations that limit access to productive hunting areas during the season, thus funneling hunters into fewer areas or forcing those that want to hunt a particular area to use the same area simultaneously as others. Instead of creating more opportunity and greater access and spreading hunters and pressure out, state management philosophies seem to be "Let's limit access, make that access a complicated process, and watch hunter satisfaction fall like a stone."
Click to expand...
Vince Pagliaroli said:
I respectfully disagree that less waterfowl hunters are doing more hunting, cuz they better have some very deep pockets. There maybe a few but on the whole I dunno. The days of hunting as much as one could in the their own area, plus going to other states and provinces is much more expensive and complicated than it was. I've cut back due to age and the reasons I've stated. I keep in close contact with some that are what we deem "hardcore". They are stymied by the same reasons. Waterfowlers must now deal with "multi use areas" on a basis that they have not seen before. The more there are folks with other interests other than waterfowling and less waterfowlers the more it does not favor waterfowlers. With less habitat the competition will only get greater as to how it is used and add to the economy. When and if Bird Watchers vastly outnumber Bird Hunters..... Oh my.

Just for the record I am a Bird Watcher and a Bird Hunter like many of us here.

my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, those are both about the responses by huners and mangers to declining amounts of habitat. As always that's a different story in different places, both because areas with more development are losing habitat a lot faster than those without it, and because state and local land managers take different approaches to less habitat/more crowding. I'd like to see some actual statistics on this rather than our guesses--which are heavily influenced by our local conditions. My perspective is from a largely undeveloped state with extensive freshwater and tidal wetlands that result in widely distributed waterfowl populations that are not usually concentrated in small areas--with only a handful of exceptions. (Merrymeeting Bay in the early season; coastal salt marshes in the late season.) Even then, the number of duck hunters is pretty small, and unless you are hunting Merrymeeting Bay on one of the two opening days, finding a place with productive hunting is just not that hard. Our biggest problem is that ducks in many of our spots are a here today/gone tomorrow scenario, and when present it's often at low density, so there are lots of days we don't see much and very few days we kill a limit (with the exception of Canada geese). It's hard for me to imagine scenarios where much of the good habitat is privatized, or where what's available to the public is restricted to highly managed state and federal WMA's.
 
Jeff,

You live in one of the bright spots in the Atlantic Flyway (the flyway with the least birds of the 4). Plenty of water, public access and fewer waterfowl hunters. The more water & food the better it favors the waterfowl and not the hunters. The birds have plenty of places to go once they are pressured and a hunter can still try to find em with few issues and some work. That's Hunting.

NY has plenty of water but limited access in many areas for a helluva lotta reasons. The changes that I have seen in 3 flyways (not just Atlantic flyway) over my span of time has been significant. Money talks and Blue collar walks.... Freelancing has been greatly diminished for again many reasons. Were you live a waterfowl hunter can get by with very little equipment and have a quality experience, as it used to be just about everywhere. Times have changed, and in That regard those were better days and that's not just nostalgia. As far as some waterfowl populations and longer seasons THESE are the good old days. Waterfowling is steeped in history it's all part of the aura thing. "Back Then" makes good reading, provides a wealth of knowledge and very good hunting gear.

When waterfowlers are more "boxed in" by less access, WMA, etc. it effects the enjoyment of the hunt. Some can handle that better than others and the ones that can't go do something else. I dunno what the answer is to improve the number of waterfowl hunters in the present and future. Hope someone finds it soon.


my 2 cents
 
There is a lot going on in this thread, but I'll try to comment some of the topics.

A caveat first, I've been outta the game for the most part for 6 years but I'll try to answer questions when I know the answer. I hope I can answer some of the questions and comments without sounding too preachy or too academic. I think these topics need to be discussed and understood.

I know there is are lots of discussions going on asking if we are killing too many ducks, so I'd like to make a few points and add a few of my opinions.

Eric, you first question is about dropping the NAWMP goal of 8.5 million mallards as an objective of AHM. It is my understanding that the Mississippi and Central Flyways requested this be dropped as an objective mainly because the goal was developed as an aspirational average population size and never meant to be used in setting of harvest regulations. Incorporation of the NAWMP goal devalues harvest when below 8.5 million mallards. The removal of this constraint was also informed by everything we have learned a lot about duck population dynamics since AHM was implemented in 1995. So in answer to your second question, yes, we have learned that current harvest rates/ levels are sustainable.

In my mind much of this discussion is really about hunter satisfaction. But satisfaction is a really complex thing to measure and even harder to manage. Are you satisfied with by full strap, or the chance to take a limit, or a great retrieve by your young pup or your grandkids having a good time or other things? I know my level of satisfaction varies with every hunt. So, it feels like much of the discussion is really hunters talking about being dissatisfied because they didn't shoot a limit or felt crowded/couldn't find a place to hunt. They might have shot a few ducks but didn't get a full limit. But if the limit had been 4 and they shot 4 then it would have been a good day. From a managers point of view, how do you set regulations that leads to greater satisfaction? Simpler regulations? Fewer hunters? More ducks? Fewer hunters on wildlife areas? Can we really manage to meet hunter expectations?

I'd like to point out that as harvest levels increase that hunter harvest/day tends to decline. Here is an example from an old fisheries management text. Think about it as the more harvest pressure increases the harder it is to get the next duck or fish. Maximum sustained yield is the current management goal. Hunters have told managers that they want the largest sustained yield which is that MSY point on this graph. So as you can see you get fewer ducks per day at higher harvest levels. Would harvesting more ducks per day but fewer ducks overall lead to greater satisfaction? Would you support managers lowering limits if it resulted in it being easier to harvest ducks. I have heard some hunters cheer on the idea of lowering limits to drive hunters out of the marsh. Is that really the result we want?

Figure 1



Duck populations are resilient. Habitat is what drives the populations at current harvest levels. We are in a drought and it's going to get worse unless we get widespread epic rains across the prairies starting today. But we are not overharvesting them. We have seen duck numbers this low before and they recovered. There isn't the habitat base to support higher levels of production and recruitment during a drought. Predation rates on hens and young birds are higher during drought as well. The ducks that are out there are mainly smart adults that respond to hunting by finding safe spots when pressured. The drought along the Gulf Coast and abnormally warm winter changed the distribution and density of ducks last hunting season. The combination of lower population, poor recruitment, warm temperatures and wintering ground drought was a quadruple whammy for duck hunters in the Mississippi and Central Flyway especially in the traditional high harvest areas.

Yes, hunter numbers are declining, but hunters feel crowded because the huntable habitat base is declining in migration and wintering areas. Hunter density is higher now because the remaining hunters are crowded into smaller areas. I am sure this also leads to dissatisfaction and the perception that there are no ducks or there are more hunters. Hunting may not be killing ducks but hunting pressure is causing them to spread out and stay put or only feed at night. Likewise, the unusually warm weather allowed birds to stay in areas much further north than normal.

The science we have to manage waterfowl populations in North America, especially ducks, is the best in the world. Our monitoring programs are the envy of the rest of the world. Hunters should support this science and not bash it. Its is hard enough to maintain the monitoring program in declining budget times and with so many other priorities. If hunters can't support or actively undermine the science then it will be even harder to maintain the our management system. I can't stress the point enough that hunters need to act cohesively to support the tradition of hunting and the science that supports it. There are lots of people trying to close down hunting, even more who see the shifting constituency and are looking to find new constituents and others who are opposed to managing wildlife and think that we should let natural processes take over.

Lastly, there are some great students and professors that are studying waterfowl, their movements, response to disturbance, recruitment, etc. I encourage all to find the social media pages of these labs along with the waterfowl NGOs. Learn what is going on out there, you'll be amazed at what we are learning from ducks. Also support the groups that protecting and managing habitats. I remain optimistic because of the energy of the new generations but we need to support them.

It's great that we can discuss these topics here on duckboats.net. I look forward to everyone's thoughts.
 
That's useful stuff, Brad.

Can you provide a little more detail on what's on that chart? Looks like fishing effort is on the x axis. What is the y axis? Total harvest? Population size? And what are the lines labeled a and b, and the two unlabeled lines?

I'm in the camp that would gladly trade stricter bag limits for better hunting. I care much more about how many birds I see and have an opportunity to work close enough for a shot than I do about how many I take home. But I'm not sure the biology is such that changing bag limits would make much difference in my local duck populations or hunting experience.

I am really interested in any assessment of how hunter effort and number of hunters have changed over time. Hunter effort is a lot harder to measure.
 
Thank you for your input Brad!

Who is doing the study to waterfowl's response to disturbance? I'm curious as to how and when they measure disturbance as well as what type of disturbance(s). I'm interested in these findings. Thanks again!
 
Jeff Reardon said:
That's useful stuff, Brad.

Can you provide a little more detail on what's on that chart? Looks like fishing effort is on the x axis. What is the y axis? Total harvest? Population size? And what are the lines labeled a and b, and the two unlabeled lines?

I'm in the camp that would gladly trade stricter bag limits for better hunting. I care much more about how many birds I see and have an opportunity to work close enough for a shot than I do about how many I take home. But I'm not sure the biology is such that changing bag limits would make much difference in my local duck populations or hunting experience.

I am really interested in any assessment of how hunter effort and number of hunters have changed over time. Hunter effort is a lot harder to measure.
Click to expand...
Jeff, yes, the Y axis is total harvest or yield. So a is cumulative harvest or yield and b is effort or catch per unit of effort. It's a simplistic model of yield vs. effort in an exploited population. But I think it is helpful for demonstrating the concept that if we manage for maximum sustained harvest it becomes harder to harvest each successive critter.
 
Fantastic post and input. Listen, can you hear that? The sound of grown men discussing important topics like grown men, as compared to across the tracks world of anything-goes social media platforms. Feel like a prodigal son returning home.

This topic has my head spinning. Am genuinely fearful for the future of waterfowl hunting. Short of a Noah-build-an-ark weather event combined with a decades-ago cold winter, personally feel it’s going to meteorically crash into the duck hunting card house.

As a recent guest aptly described it, the North American model is “crowd funded conservation.” We are blessed beyond measure to have a science-backed model consisting of federal and state agencies, universities, NGOs, all funded, essentially, by hunters’ interest. Hunters’ time and money prove the point that hunting is conservation. Likewise, our current situation demonstrates that it’s simply not enough. Brad nailed it: habitat loss. I sincerely believe that ever issue plaguing modern-day duck hunting—from crowded boat ramps to hunting pressure, shifting distribution and migration patterns, declining waterfowl populations and, hell why not, environmental change itself—can be summed in the two words “habitat loss.” Duck hunters time and money alone is not enough to hold the fort. The last 20 years prove it.

And you know what worries me most? It’s how the contemporary waterfowl hunters may likely respond to the challenge. Already, there’s the-sky-is-falling naysayers questioning the science, pointing to the sovereign nations of Mexico and Canada (that collectively account for less than 10% North America’s waterfowl harvest annually), to other hunters’ local practices, to spinning winged decoys, to state and federal managers, to science-based models they don’t understand, that they don’t trust (thanks, Fauci), or that do not reconcile with their personal duck blind observations and and expectations, to an overwhelming sense of entitlement to the resource. And get this—loudest outcries are originating from places that historically kill 10% of North America’s ducks themselves! Consistently the most mallards!

Our science-based North American Model is truly the envy of the world. We’ve lapped second place a few times already, and most countries are just sitting on the sidelines by comparison. For that reason alone, i trust it. Perfect? Hell no. But show me something that is. Bring solutions, improvements, not conspiratorial complaints. About 90 years ago it was Dust Bowl dry, even though we had way more historical prairie habitat in the PPR. The world’s greatest generation didn’t huddle in tinfoil hats pointing fingers at everyone else but themselves. Instead, they organized themselves, collectively offered solutions culminating into formation of Ducks Unlimited, world leader in wetlands conservation, and into North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Do we have it in us today to do similarly? That question worries me.

There are generations, now, that’ve never known anything but liberal frameworks. The United States lost 1,000,000 hunters around the time steel shot was mandated—which likely had more to do with truncated limits than with no-tox shot? What’ll happen next time? How far can our numbers shrink before we’re irrelevant. And what a wicked catch-22 for the ducks.

A recent guest described over 70% of duck habitat in his western KY study area, as expressed in kilo calories, as existing on private lands. A recent FWS guest agreed it likely holds true nationwide. So, will it be the public land hunters or private hunters that quit? And if it’s the private land hunters that quit committing time and money to habitat we’ve got what? More habitat loss. Now what?
 
Paul Taylor said:
Who is doing the study to waterfowl's response to disturbance? I'm curious as to how and when they measure disturbance as well as what type of disturbance(s). I'm interested in these findings. Thanks again!
Click to expand...

Here are a few that am aware of. There’s likely many more.


Bradly Cohen
Heath Hagy

Nick Masto
  • How Mallards Utilize and Experience Landscape
 
Paul Taylor said:
Thank you for your input Brad!

Who is doing the study to waterfowl's response to disturbance? I'm curious as to how and when they measure disturbance as well as what type of disturbance(s). I'm interested in these findings. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
Paul, there are several students working on mallard movements and disturbance. A couple of labs working on these topics are the:

Cohen lab at Tenn. Tech and https://www.instagram.com/osborne_lab/?hl=en

There are a number of other professors running great research projects with some amazing students.

Looks like Ramsey beat me to it.
 
I find the science behind the waterfowl interesting. I never knew there was such a dedicated infrastructure to studying this.

Incidental observation but I have seen mallards and canvasbacks hiding in local development retention ponds right next to marsh with duck blinds during the season. I figured they are the smart ones.

Rick Lathrop
 
Brad, Ramsey, Et. al

Of all 317 thousand plus posts on this forum I don't recall one as thoughtful and insightful as this one. For certain the sport of water fowling will face challenges covered in this thread. Over the years I've heard it said many times "I hope they shorten the season and reduce the bag so folks will quit and I'll have more to myself." The people in this thread are the antithesis of that selfish mindset, for we all know the cost associated with waterfowl population management is large and political influence needed for conservation and financial support comes when there is a user-base large enough to exert influence. Without that user-base drastic decline in waterflow habitat will certainly happen and it will impact wildlife far beyond our quarry.

As I mentioned to Brad in a private message I intend to refer back to his post in the future and that now includes Ramsey's as well. I said earlier I wasn't going to use my energy again to discuss such matters with those that scoff at the science behind modern waterfowl management practices. I've rethought that position. When we do not speak up it gives a leg up on a narrative that undermines the science needed for the future. I'll leave the following quotes from just one post on IG for you to digest...

"You science people are doing more harm than good. "

“science people”!!!! 😂

"they count birds by guessing randomly out of a helicopter I mean come on"

"both agencies have their heads up inside a body cavity"

"so what your saying is they (USF&WS) fudge the numbers to keep the money train rolling ?"

"I was wondering if season dates were accounted for in that data I guess I over estimated the science guys again"

"It’s no secret that anything the Gov touches, they f*ck up. We lost 50% of the BPOP of Mallards since 2016 but we’re still shooting 4 and hunting 60 days and thats somehow okay bc a BS outdated AHM model says so."

"when did AHM last make a change or recommendation on their stance with our duck populations? I understand the point of why they exist, I don’t believe the AHM is actually living up to their purpose"

"we are at a point where those in the know need to be more open with sharing the data"

"I’ve heard folks in this comment section defend this hog wash harvest data by stating well it’s the only data we have. Just because someone calls it data does not mean it’s reliable or accurate."

"This science crap is wack"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top