Dear friends, some very important news regarding USFWS Regs and the Scaup Limit

Mark Rongers

Mark Rongers

Active member
Dear friends,

Recently, I was privileged to be included in dialog between Rob Olson, President of Delta Waterfowl, and Dr. Scott Petrie who heads up the Long Point Scaup Research Project. The subject was around the topic of the Scaup, and what (if any) changes may be made to the limits for taking them as per the USFWS.

Rob Olson's letter is posted further down on this note. He granted me permission to post it at websites where concerned waterfowlers participate, in an effort to capture our views on the subject. These observations will be shared with the USFWS when Rob and other concerned groups sit down with the USFWS this Summer.

Please consider this situation, and if you can contribute, please share your thoughts. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Here's Rob Olson's note;

From: Delta Waterfowl Foundation []
>>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:05 PM
>>To: Alan D Afton; 'Albin Tremblay'; 'Bruce Turner'; 'Dave Ankney';
>>'Gerry Yetman'; 'Ken Torkelson'; 'Kevin Teneycke'; 'Martin Lowney';
>>'Mike Sullivan'; 'Steve Wendt'; 'Trevor Swerdfager'
>>Subject: Scaup Harvest Strategy
>>
>>We are contacting you to make you aware of Delta Waterfowl's
>>serious concerns regarding a proposed scaup harvest strategy that
>>will effectively reduce the scaup limit from 2 to 1. Attached is a
>>letter outlining our concerns with the proposed scaup harvest strategy.
>>
>>We appreciate and respect the complexity and enormity of the USFWS'
>>responsibility in setting harvest regulations. However, Delta
>>Waterfowl believes reducing the scaup limit at this time will
>>create more problems than it will solve for scaup, other species,
>>and waterfowl hunters at a time when the scaup population is in no
>>immediate danger.
>>
>>We have received an outpouring of apprehension regarding the
>>proposed scaup limit reduction from waterfowl managers and
>>biologists across all flyways and levels of government. Although
>>the official public comment deadline has passed, we encourage all
>>those who share our concerns to provide commentary to the USFWS.
>>The Service's Regulations Committee will be meeting to consider the
>>scaup harvest strategy on June 20 and 21. If they adopt the
>>proposed strategy with all of its potential problems, then it is
>>likely that scaup limits will drop to one bird per day.
>>
>>Delta Waterfowl is supportive of a collaborative process to solve
>>the challenges facing the USFWS and all waterfowl managers in
>>ensuring the long-term viability of the scaup population. Delta
>>Waterfowl is willing and able to contribute to this process as
>>outlined in the attached letter.
>>
>>Please call our Scientific Director Frank Rohwer (225-578-4146) or
>>myself (204-956-7766) if you have any questions or concerns
>>regarding our position on this issue. Thanks for your time.
>>
>>Rob Olson
>>President
>>Delta Waterfowl Foundation

God Bless All,

Mark Rongers
 
"However, Delta Waterfowl believes reducing the scaup limit at this time will
create more problems than it will solve for scaup, other species,
and waterfowl hunters at a time when the scaup population is in no
immediate danger."


Mark,

This is not an issue I've been following very closely, so maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm puzzled by the letter you posted. It states DW's objection to the proposed USFWS scaup limit change, but it doesn't provide any substantial reasons. I'm particularly puzzled by the statement above that reducing the scaup limit will create more problems for scaup. How can that be? Or am I misreading the paragraph?

Also, there's a reference in the letter to an "attached letter" the outlines concerns about the proposed change. Is that where the substantial part of this issue is discussed?

Rick
 
Mark,

This is not an issue I've been following very closely, so maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm puzzled by the letter you posted. It states DW's objection to the proposed USFWS scaup limit change, but it doesn't provide any substantial reasons. I'm particularly puzzled by the statement above that reducing the scaup limit will create more problems for scaup. How can that be? Or am I misreading the paragraph?

Also, there's a reference in the letter to an "attached letter" the outlines concerns about the proposed change. Is that where the substantial part of this issue is discussed?

Rick
Click to expand...

The USFWS doesn't have any substantial reasons to reduce harvest. The scaup harvest reductions have been in place for going on 6-7+ (?) seasons and have not impacted scaup populations positively OR negatively. This is obvious to anyone that realizes that the harvest levels (of even full limits of scaup) are still compensatory.

I'd infer from the statement "[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]that reducing the scaup limit will create more problems for scaup" means that the support for the traditions and consequently the monies raised from those hunters will be reduced and the voice of those people demanding more research (paid through all manners of the support of the hunters) will be reduced. There's already very little research being done, this would just put a last nail in the coffin...

What strikes me as odd is that the MOST NUMEROUS diving duck is having restrictions placed on it without any peer reviewed, sound biological studies having been done. What you have is voodoo science by the 2 main USFWS biologists (Boomer & Johnson) that in my opinion was conjured up to justify their personal beliefs. If you don't believe that, ask any of the scaup researchers copied on that letter (Afton, et al) that have done more research and are actively pursuing publication of studies (which get peer reviewed)....

What irks me even more is when hunters roll over on their backs and say "Well, if they're having trouble, we SHOULD limit ourselves until we figure out what the problem is". Fine, if you don't want to shoot them (of course, this translates to the "don't shoot hens" mentality, which is easily disproved through science), DON'T. But if you think that reducing limits of scaup down to ONE is going to "help" them in the long run, you're speaking for the minority of hunters that the majority would consider "elitist" in the first place.

Hunters should stand up and shout "Well, if they're having trouble, we need to figure out why. In the mean time, if hunting remains a compensatory act, we should fully support full limits and encourage more people to hunt and support the unique tradition of diver hunting while raising more funds to be used specifically for scaup research."
[/font]
 
Thanks Paul. That certainly clarifies a few things. I was wondering why the letter didn't simply express what the problems are in the way that your response does. If the only reliable scientific evidence shows that hunting limits (or at least the modest limits currently in place) do not adversely affect scaup populations, then that makes sense.

I do have another question, however. You state that the "don't shoot hens" mentality is "easily disproved through science." The studies I've heard mentioned, on this website as well as other places, (I haven't seen them myself) indicate that shooting hens does not adversely affect populations of puddle ducks, but it does adversely affect diver populations. Do you take issue with that?

Rick
 
maybe instead of limiting the bags for scaup, the "leaders" in conservation like DU and DW through their annual banquets and fundraisers should focus certain aspects of those fundraisers on allocating money specifically for bluebill research. maybe commission an artist for a limited edition bluebill print, or gunning rig of decoys. i go to 7 out of the 14 banquets in vermont and the folks that spend the most money are the ones looking to buy "limited edition" stuff not because they like the looks of it but simply because of that title. so maybe trick those big spenders into helping this cause, and the ones that know about this issue and support these organizations and conservation, im sure wouldnt mind adding some artwork to their collection to help the bills. we dont get a whole lot of bluebills over this way so one a day limits, wouldnt be cause for a riot but i dont think thats the way to do it.

and the hen issue in vermont or at least on lake champlain you had better shoot the ducks that come in or ther're just gonna be shot at the next blind. its not a flyway where you can choose male or female if you want to fire your gun during the course of the day. besides can anyone tell the difference once ther're on the grill!

eddie
 
Mark,

I know you are an extremely honest and benevolent individual and we have shared some communications in the past. I am very happy for the success of your business and wish you all the luck as I am always excited to see hunting boat manufacturers succeed, and I have really enjoyed seeing the new boat models you have brought to market. Keep up the great work!

However, Ochem's razor suggests that your concern for the proposed Scaup limit reduction lies somewhere in the success of your ability to sell layout boats and gear, the use of which primarily is for targeting the very same Scaup in question. Even understanding how good of a guy you are, it is hard to believe that your viewpoint is objective on the issue. No offense, we all have to make a living, and if someone or something is threatening your's or mine livelihoods it is understandable that anyone would show some defensiveness. But I think you're wrong on this issue.

I love Bluebills and have really been concerned for their welfare. I think anyone that has objectively followed the issue will agree that although we don't fully understand what is causing their decline, the fact remains that they are in dire straights compared with their historical populations. I'd like nothing better than to go out and shoot 10-bird limits of 'Bills like we used to in the good old days, but I'm so concerned for them that I have imposed a personal limit of zero. That doesn't stop me from waterfowling, but it does change my strategy and does alter some of the equipment I might buy if I were targeting 'Bills instead of other species.

Since I stopped shooting Scaup a few years ago, I'd like nothing more than a moratorium on Scaup harvest until we get the problem(s) figured out. A limit of one per day is probably as good as we'll ever get, so I have no problem with it. Until we understand why Scaup are fairing so poorly, I'd like to see everyone stop shooting them, or at least stop targeting them, and if a limit of one per day will do that, I'm all for it.
 
Bret, once again your ass is speaking for your mouth. Not only when it comes to Mark's intentions but the "dire straits" that you believe scaup are in.

Actions speak louder than words and Mark's actions over the years are testament to his concern for the future of scaup and most definitely NOT a selfish attempt to keep his layout boat market intact. If you knew the background on the company or his reliance on the income to live, I might give you a shred of credibility. (not to mention, it's spelled "Occam's [or Ockham's]" razor and all things being equal, your conclusion of the "simplest solution" is subjective in nature with no basis in real data, hardly qualifying as an occam's razor postulation).

Now, on to your obviously incomplete research regarding scaup. First though, I must bow to you, for your 10's of thousands of ducks shot makes my experience pale in comparison, not that your anecdotal experiences have any scientific relevance.

What I can't comprehend is that the "research" done by the USFWS' biologists that are promoting a reduction in harvest are NOT attempting to have their results peer reviewed. Why not? Do they not believe that it's valid science? Are they trying to keep their own agenda going for as long as possible? (and if you don't think that that's possible, you don't know enough waterfowl biologists...).

Anyone that DOES objectively follow the issue, aside from reading about them in Wildfowl or their DU magazine, will understand that THE MOST NUMEROUS DIVING DUCK has yet to reach anything close to additive harvest levels.

Just reading ONE abstract from a reputable study reveals a conclusion of "Overall, annual survival rates have not changed over the 54-year period we studied." And "In all age and sex classes, DRR [direct recovery rate] increased in a quadratic fashion as release date approached opening day of hunting season. When we adjust our recovery rates so they become harvest rates, our estimates of harvest rate generally follow those estimated by Boomer and Johnson (2005) through the 1980’s, but after that, our estimates tend to be much lower than theirs for the 1990’s and 2000’s (Figure 2) thus, calling to question the quality of input data and validity of the Boomer and Johnson (2005) modeling results."

The problem with your moratorium is that it will do nothing for the recruitment rate or increase in scaup numbers.... The scaup killed by hunters will just die some other way.

Anticipating your reply (some babbling nonsense, an insult to my manhood, and questioning my skills as a hunter included), my response is: What has the reduction in bag/season done in the past 8-9(?) seasons that we've had restrictions? If reducing the bag limit will save the scaup or increase the number of scaup returing north to breed, how come it hasn't?

One simple answer is: Because hunting DOES NOT affect the scaup population additively...
 
Sir:

Your opening remark, "Bret, once again your a$$ is speaking for your mouth." is not appreciated on this forum; at least not by me.
 
Sir:

Your opening remark, "Bret, once again your a$$ is speaking for your mouth." is not appreciated on this forum; at least not by me.
Click to expand...

I guess BDaves insults to Mark were veiled enough to be acceptable? Yeah Paul can be an a$$ and BDaves can ignore all science and give backhanded compliments.
I can accept him believing Mark is wrong but tying it to Mark's supposed lack of objectivity because he sells boats is not right. I'm sure Mark will thank him for his viewpoint because that is the kind of guy he is. There is almost no one I trust more then Mark to have rational and objective thoughts on the future of waterfowl and hunting. You may not agree with him but he isn't worried about selling more or less boats when it comes to scaup.

btw Mark actually never says what his view on this subject is but just shared Rob Olson's thoughts.
I also don't think it makes a difference because the USFWS will do what they want. We have a stupid 5 duck limit and they made it seem like it was our idea.

Tim
 
Dear friends,

Great feedback so far, and exactly the kind of dialogue that needs to be passed on to Delta Waterfowl and all those who will view it. I encourage everyone to comment, no matter what your stand.

Dear Brett and Paul,

Thank you both very much for your kind words. I am humbled by them. Brett, I would suggest that you please review my original note above, as I have not stated what my views on this subject are. Rather, I am only going to carry all of the comments added to this thread back to Delta Waterfowl and allow them to analyze what good hunters are saying about this subject.

In closing, a heartfelt thanks to all who have contributed so far. Long live the Scaup!

God Bless All,

Mark Rongers
 
Sir:

Your opening remark, "Bret, once again your a$$ is speaking for your mouth." is not appreciated on this forum; at least not by me.
Click to expand...

If you were looking for some veiled response that was "nice", you haven't been around long enough to appreciate WHAT people on this forum are looking for. Or the history of his responses and arrogant attitude.

His response was misdirected, mean-spirited, and above all, IGNORANT of the facts. Some pussy-footed response won't get the point across that his subjective, anti-hunter opinion on the status of lesser scaup will result in people that aren't as educated on the subject repeating his offal and furthering a decline in diver hunters supporting a tradition.

If the USFWS is going to rely on 3 year old papers by its biologists that weren't even sent out for peer review or publishing (and is rife with inaccuracies in methodology), in the face of mounting data to the contrary, they should expect the full retaliation by those affected. When the papers proving the flaws in their methodology make it through the pipeline to be published (and most have been peer reviewed and/or presented at conferences), the full legal means will then force the USFWS to address the issue... We can only hope it doesn't need to get to that...
 
M. Paul (BTW-what kinda dork goes by an initial and a middle name?) Either go by your first or your second, but choose ONE. No, it does NOT make you sound smarter or cooler!

My post was pointing out that although I know Mark is not merely concerned with the scaup limit as it pertains to his ability to sell layout boats, the fact is that since his company IS DIRECTLY RELATED to selling equipment that targets this species, his input will most likely and rightfully be viewed by many as less than objective. He still has every right to engage in the discussion, but should understand that his position or interest in the subject may be misconstrued.

As a biologist, I disagree with your statement: "The problem with your moratorium is that it will do nothing for the recruitment rate or increase in scaup numbers.... The scaup killed by hunters will just die some other way." This is an untested theory, and I don't agree with it. As an example, why would we have a spring conservation order for snow geese if hunting doesn't affect the overall population of them? The fact is that hunting can have a huge affect on the population of huntable species, certainly as much or more than the other major causes of mortality.

As another example- why can't we shoot six Canvasbacks every day? They're gonna die anyway from some other factor- why don't we just shoot them? Likewise, why did they close the season on them a few years ago? Again-doesn't make sense to close the season on a species if they're gonna die anyway! Much of the concepts of "recruitment rate" and fecundity with waterfowl have been postulated to placate the powers-that-be when time comes time to set limits. The simple fact is that if all other factors remain the same- hunting DOES decrease the populations of species more than if hunting were not allowed. Obviously I am in complete support of allowing the shooting of waterfowl as long as it is CONTROLLED to allow a species to maintain a reasonable population to ensure genetic diversity. I won't delve into the concept of gene fixing as it pertains to genetic diversity because you obviously wouldn't understand, but suffice it to say that large populations usually have greater genetic diversity which is good thing for long-term survival of a species.

Peer-reviewed ot not, every study that has related to Scaup has resulted in inconclusive findings. There are several possible contributing factors, some of which we may be able to control if we can ascertain if they are directly responsible, but until we know with a greater level of certainty, let's give Scaup a break. Stop drinking the "hunting does not affect duck populations" kool-aid and get some real intelligence instead of starting a flame war.
 
YOU, a biologist? Or an "almost biologist" that may have graduated with that degree but has no practical experience? Since I know or know of pretty much every major scientist studying scaup, and you aren't one of them (or a waterfowl biologist at all, and obviously not well read), why should anyone lend credibility to what you have to say?

Oh, and I'll make the 3rd grade attack quick & easy: who spells 'Bret' with only one "t"???

Your argument that Mark, as a waterfowl supply company, is less objective regarding conservation issues would presuppose that EVERY company that had a stake in any type of hunting is LESS objective regarding conservation is ludicrous. The only one misconstruing his post is YOU (for one, by putting the words into HIS mouth).

Your scientific reasoning skills are about as sharp as an egg. Untested theory? Lemme guess, you're one of those people that believes in carryover, eh? Additive vs. compensatory harvest is not only NOT untested, but a widely accepted fact among wildlife managers. The only thing that's untested is the affect of compensatory harvest models on species where the model wasn't developed based on the unique life stages of certain under-studied species such as sea ducks. There's no argument among the professionals whether or not additive vs. compensatory harvest theories are valid.

On top of that, the estimated harvest levels of scaup (which are determined the same way as mallards) show that harvest has a minimal impact on mortality. Even the USFWS biologists will admit to that. They just have the same chicken little "the sky is falling" attitude and decided that they'd change the only thing they could to make them feel better when it doesn't actually do anything. It's funny (in a sick & twisted kind of way) that they'll use the science to take birds away, but won't use it to give 'em back. Makes you question their science!

Peer-reviewed ot not, every study that has related to Scaup has resulted in inconclusive findings. There are several possible contributing factors, some of which we may be able to control if we can ascertain if they are directly responsible, but until we know with a greater level of certainty, let's give Scaup a break.
Click to expand...

Bret, I'm calling your bluff, you haven't read a lick of the research out there or you wouldn't make such asinine statements. They're anything BUT inconclusive! Both sides are pretty sure of what they concluded, one side is just better at the science. Prove me wrong, cite the papers.

You ask, "why would we have a spring conservation order for snow geese if hunting doesn't affect the overall population of them?". Answer: It was the only politically acceptable method to initially attempt to reduce the population. WHEN the field biologists flat out stated from the beginning that it wouldn't work, that killing adults and destroying eggs on the breeding ground was going to be the most effective, quickest method.

Then you follow with: "The fact is that hunting can have a huge affect on the population of huntable species, certainly as much or more than the other major causes of mortality." after your statement about the snow geese. My question is: Has the spring season saved the tundra? Has hunting removed enough birds from the population to reach the goals determined to be necessary to stop the destruction of the tundra?

Why can't we shoot 6 canvasbacks a day you ask? My first thought would be, 'Cause we aren't as good as you, Bret. After that, I'd say that those harvest levels combined with their population would result in additive harvest and lower their population. It's really that simple.

You are seriously mis-guided. Let's see, you don't believe in additive vs. compensatory, you think that current spring hunting seasons are saving the tundra, and now you don't believe the science regarding recruitment rate and fecundity?? Are you joking?? Recruitment rate is what drives a population. Maybe you should read up on some of the current research being done on pacific brant.

The simple fact is that if all other factors remain the same- hunting DOES decrease the populations of species more than if hunting were not allowed. Obviously I am in complete support of allowing the shooting of waterfowl as long as it is CONTROLLED to allow a species to maintain a reasonable population to ensure genetic diversity.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else not see what is blatantly wrong with these two statements? You say that hunting decreases the population of a species then say it's ok to hunt as long as it allows a species to maintain a population? How can you have a decrease that results in a maintained population (no change)?

Yeah, hunting causes a decrease in a population. So does disease, predation, old age, etc. Only thing is, that's a SHORT term decrease (well, at least, that's the way hunting seasons are managed for). EVERY population of animals is in a constant dynamic change. In spring, the population shoots up, and by fall it decreases. Over the LONG term hunted species are managed for maximum sustainable populations that are healthy (at least that's the goal). Back to compensatory harvest, hunting is allowed to take from the population what could be normally expected to die naturally, without the cumulative effect exceeding what would happen without hunting. It's been used for years and I don't recall any populations becoming extinct or even threatened as a direct result of managed hunting.

I won't delve into the concept of gene fixing as it pertains to genetic diversity because you obviously wouldn't understand, but suffice it to say that large populations usually have greater genetic diversity which is good thing for long-term survival of a species.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's a statistical minimum number required to ensure genetic diversity. 3 million plus scaup far exceed that number. And if you can't follow additive vs. compensatory harvest or recruitment rate, I believe that grasping the concept of gene fixing far exceeds your reach.

Stop drinking the "hunting does not affect duck populations" kool-aid and get some real intelligence instead of starting a flame war.
Click to expand...

You flamed Mark and started spouting misinformation. Prove me wrong, cite papers, cite research.
 
Last edited:
YOU, a biologist? Or an "almost biologist" that may have graduated with that degree but has no practical experience? Since I know or know of pretty much every major scientist studying scaup, and you aren't one of them (or a waterfowl biologist at all, and obviously not well read), why should anyone lend credibility to what you have to say?

Oh, and I'll make the 3rd grade attack quick & easy: who spells 'Bret' with only one "t"??? My parent's did. Did YOUR parent's call you M.PAUL? If they did you obviously have more problems than understanding biology.

Your argument that Mark, as a waterfowl supply company, is less objective regarding conservation issues would presuppose that EVERY company that had a stake in any type of hunting is LESS objective regarding conservation is ludicrous. The only one misconstruing his post is YOU (for one, by putting the words into HIS mouth). Boy are you naive.

Your scientific reasoning skills are about as sharp as an egg. Untested theory? Lemme guess, you're one of those people that believes in carryover, eh? Additive vs. compensatory harvest is not only NOT untested, but a widely accepted fact among wildlife managers. The only thing that's untested is the affect of compensatory harvest models on species where the model wasn't developed based on the unique life stages of certain under-studied species such as sea ducks. There's no argument among the professionals whether or not additive vs. compensatory harvest theories are valid. OK, let's stop shooting everything for 3 years and see what happens to their populations.The vast majority of species will show an increase as long as the habitat and conditions remain the same as pre-ban. The LONG-TERM affect may well be a catastrophic population decline for some species due to such things as loss of habitat (often man-made) or change in conditions (drought), but to think that every duck (or any other bird/mammal) that is shot every season would have died of natural causes that fall anyway is supremely ignorant. "Harvest models" are just that: models. Models attempt to support a THEORY. THEORIES are educated GUESSES. The bottom line is that NOBODY knows for sure. Certainly not you. Certainly not me. But I'm not the one saying "shoot them anyway" until we figure it out! Why should Scaup be any different than Canvasbacks? Close the season and see how they do. If they do better, open the season again. Sounds like simplicity has you baffled.

On top of that, the estimated harvest levels of scaup (which are determined the same way as mallards) show that harvest has a minimal impact on mortality. Even the USFWS biologists will admit to that. They just have the same chicken little "the sky is falling" attitude and decided that they'd change the only thing they could to make them feel better when it doesn't actually do anything. It's funny (in a sick & twisted kind of way) that they'll use the science to take birds away, but won't use it to give 'em back. Makes you question their science!

Peer-reviewed ot not, every study that has related to Scaup has resulted in inconclusive findings. There are several possible contributing factors, some of which we may be able to control if we can ascertain if they are directly responsible, but until we know with a greater level of certainty, let's give Scaup a break.
Click to expand...

Bret, I'm calling your bluff, you haven't read a lick of the research out there or you wouldn't make such asinine statements. They're anything BUT inconclusive! Both sides are pretty sure of what they concluded, one side is just better at the science. Prove me wrong, cite the papers. I've read the studies. "Both sides are PRETTY SURE of what they concluded"? I want something a little more conclusive than "PRETTY SURE"! Let's turn it around; since I'm lazy why don't you cite proof of the exact causes that have directly led to the population decrease of Scaup? And then PROVE to me that hunting has no effect on the population of Scaup.

You ask, "why would we have a spring conservation order for snow geese if hunting doesn't affect the overall population of them?". Answer: It was the only politically acceptable method to initially attempt to reduce the population. WHEN the field biologists flat out stated from the beginning that it wouldn't work, that killing adults and destroying eggs on the breeding ground was going to be the most effective, quickest method. AHA! So you're admitting that POLITICS has just as much (and probably more) to do with hunting regs as does research? You're proving my point.

Then you follow with: "The fact is that hunting can have a huge affect on the population of huntable species, certainly as much or more than the other major causes of mortality." after your statement about the snow geese. My question is: Has the spring season saved the tundra? Has hunting removed enough birds from the population to reach the goals determined to be necessary to stop the destruction of the tundra? The prevention of the destruction of the tundra was not the ultimate goal. Prevention of a catastrophic population decline due to habitat destruction was tha goal. Has the population sufferred a catastrophic decline?

Why can't we shoot 6 canvasbacks a day you ask? My first thought would be, 'Cause we aren't as good as you, Bret. After that, I'd say that those harvest levels combined with their population would result in additive harvest and lower their population. It's really that simple. OK, so additive harvest only works with Canvasbacks but not Scaup?

You are seriously mis-guided. Let's see, you don't believe in additive vs. compensatory, you think that current spring hunting seasons are saving the tundra, and now you don't believe the science regarding recruitment rate and fecundity?? Are you joking?? Recruitment rate is what drives a population. Maybe you should read up on some of the current research being done on pacific brant.

The simple fact is that if all other factors remain the same- hunting DOES decrease the populations of species more than if hunting were not allowed. Obviously I am in complete support of allowing the shooting of waterfowl as long as it is CONTROLLED to allow a species to maintain a reasonable population to ensure genetic diversity.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else not see what is blatantly wrong with these two statements? You say that hunting decreases the population of a species then say it's ok to hunt as long as it allows a species to maintain a population? How can you have a decrease that results in a maintained population (no change)? Maximum population is different than maintained population. Hunting decreases the opportunity for MAXIMUM population. I'm OK with controlled hunting that allows for a maintained population. Scaup are not "maintaining" their population. Why do you think that is?

Yeah, hunting causes a decrease in a population. So does disease, predation, old age, etc. Only thing is, that's a SHORT term decrease (well, at least, that's the way hunting seasons are managed for). EVERY population of animals is in a constant dynamic change. In spring, the population shoots up, and by fall it decreases. Over the LONG term hunted species are managed for maximum sustainable populations that are healthy (at least that's the goal). Back to compensatory harvest, hunting is allowed to take from the population what could be normally expected to die naturally, without the cumulative effect exceeding what would happen without hunting. It's been used for years and I don't recall any populations becoming extinct or even threatened as a direct result of managed hunting. "Over the LONG term hunted species are managed for maximum sustainable populations that are healthy (at least that's the goal)". And it's a VERY INEXACT science! But more importantly, you're talking outta both sides of your mouth. Without a doubt, hunting is a tool used to MANAGE game populations. So you're saying that this "MANAGEMENT" has no effect at all on their populations? Then why use the concept of Compensatory Harvest? If they're gonna die anyway, then why do they need to be MANAGED? Do you really believe that all the ducks that are shot every year would die of natural causes in the same 5-6 month period if they weren't shot? It's a nice theory to help support hunting, but is certainly not accurate IMHO.

I won't delve into the concept of gene fixing as it pertains to genetic diversity because you obviously wouldn't understand, but suffice it to say that large populations usually have greater genetic diversity which is good thing for long-term survival of a species.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's a statistical minimum number required to ensure genetic diversity. 3 million plus scaup far exceed that number. And if you can't follow additive vs. compensatory harvest or recruitment rate, I believe that grasping the concept of gene fixing far exceeds your reach.

Stop drinking the "hunting does not affect duck populations" kool-aid and get some real intelligence instead of starting a flame war.
Click to expand...

You flamed Mark and started spouting misinformation. Prove me wrong, cite papers, cite research. You haven't cited anything to prove me wrong. Since you're the one who's declaring himself to be the "keeper of all things holy as relates to Scaup", show me the proof of why Scaup are declining and also show me the proof that hunting has absolutely no affect on the population of Scaup. You can't. There's nothing but theories right now. Just like the theory of Global Warming, I say the benefit of doubt goes to the possible negative consequences if we don't stop contributing to the problem. Until we see a positive population change for Scaup, we should stop shooting them. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. BTW- what kind of credentials do you have to support your argument? That is, besides knowing some waterfowl biologists and reading some papers? Sounds awfully "unscientific" of you.
Click to expand...
 
I just received an email with a quote on the sig that fits well in this exchange:

"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary and for those who do not, none is possible."
 
In the interest of educating those interested, here's an excerpt of an abstract presented at the NADS in dakota:

"The continental scaup population has experienced a marked decline (Afton and Anderson 2001), followed by recent restrictive harvest regulations. Boomer and Johnson (2005) used a Bayesian approach to model harvest of the continental scaup population (Figure 2). However, we are concerned about their model performance, given the potential large bias in scaup BPOP estimates and potential for bias in scaup harvest estimates. Moreover the recent switch to HIP complicates long-term analyses using harvest data. Their accompanying model of scaup population dynamics assumed completely additive harvest mortality, an assumption that is largely untested. Accordingly, we believe there is a need to make use of past Lesser Scaup banding efforts to directly estimate unbiased measures of survival and harvest rate and that this new approach allows us to do so."

And:

"In all age and sex classes, DRR increased in a quadratic fashion as release date approached opening day of hunting season. When we adjust our recovery rates so they become harvest rates, our estimates of harvest rate generally follow those estimated by Boomer and Johnson (2005) through the 1980’s, but after that, our estimates tend to be much lower than theirs for the 1990’s and 2000’s (Figure 2) thus, calling to question the quality of input data and validity of the Boomer and Johnson (2005) modeling results."
 
well i must say this thread has been nothing but entertaining and informative. Without doubt Mr. Gery and Mr. Daves are both very passionate about the bluebill and its welfare however seem more interested in a verbal sword fight then thinking of constructive ways to get some one with a larger say in things to listen to the hunting public and make decisions based on the publics opinions. maybe its different for a federally managed game animal then it is for a state managed animal but here in Vermont a board of 14 members selected by the governor hold public meetings to offer a say to the hunting community in changes to the management of our whitetail herd.

im glad that Mr. Rongers has chosen to stray from this "epic battle of wits." judging from the posts he has made on this site that i have read, even if his business does suffer losses due to either voluntary or mandatory restrictions on bluebill harvests the conservation and security of the bluebill specie would be his silver lining.

eddie
 
Dear friends,

There has been some great dialog here. No matter what your position, your comments are greatly appreciated.

I have a letter that Rob Olson drafted and sent to the USFWS. It states Delta Waterfowl's position on this matter. Due to its size and format, I cannot figure out how to load it here. If you would like me to send it to you, please email me at; mightylayoutboys@hotmail.com and I will gladly do so.

Thank you for your ongoing interest.

God Bless All,

Mark Rongers
 
Dear friends,

There has been some great dialog here. No matter what your position, your comments are greatly appreciated.

I have a letter that Rob Olson drafted and sent to the USFWS. It states Delta Waterfowl's position on this matter. Due to its size and format, I cannot figure out how to load it here. If you would like me to send it to you, please email me at; mightylayoutboys@hotmail.com and I will gladly do so.

Thank you for your ongoing interest.

God Bless All,

Mark Rongers


Thanks for posting this, Mark! My apologies to you for my previous post that questioned the motives behind your original post. Sometimes I react a little too quickly and often a little too harshly. Fwiw I wasn't questioning YOUR personal ethics, but rather the the perception of the ethics of the hunting industry and indeed all industries as a whole. The hunting industry is not really different than the pharmaceutical industry or the auto industry. They're all in business to make a profit, and will do everything possible to ensure that they do so. Even things which put peoples lives in jeopardy such as the case with pharmaceuticals or auto makers. Or influence the harvest limits of game species in the hunting industry.

Everyone has to protect their piece of the pie, and to a certain point that is justifiable. I'm just suspicious and cynical that many companies go too far to exploit the resource for short-term gain and aren't concerned about the long-term. Even many hunters are this way, so I'll always be quick to be concerned about the long-term since I think most are not. I have faith in your ethics and I wish the rest of society was the same way, then I wouldn't feel the need to overreact. Thanks again for the heads-up.

Bret Daves
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top