Duck Stuff

[DComeaux]

We do a lot of work in our marsh during the off season - and to only have a 30 day or even a 40 day season may not make all that work worth the effort. You can cut the limit to 3, 4 or 5, but let us have the 60 day season.

We may not do as much work as you guy's but I'd be okay with a 45 day season, two week split, shutting it down in early January. 4 birds would also be fine with me. Between Blake and I, 8 birds would would bring contentment, 12 with 3 men is more than enough.

Two years ago I made a hunt in late January and made a scotch double on a mallard pair. I assumed they were paired as they came in alone, together, and it still bothers me a bit today. I notice this pair bonding every year but push it aside mentally to end the season. As I've aged my respect and concern for the birds and animals we hunt has only deepen'd.

I just think we can do this duck hunting stuff in a less impactful way then we're doing now. We're in a free-for-all jamboree at the moment and money is behind it. As Jim Ronquest mentions in the video, we've gotten better at the game with the technology and tools and we've upped the pressure immensely. Somethings got to give.

[SpinnerMan]

I assumed they were paired as they came in alone, together, and it still bothers me a bit today.

Then you don't want to hunt Canada geese. They pair for life. Mallards will repair quickly plus Suzie's a slut and the drakes are rapists so she will reproduce even if you shoot her mate on the breeding grounds. Mallard breeding is not a pretty thing to see, especially in high density areas. It's far more likely to look like gang rape than a beautiful courting ritual. I've seen hens that have all the feathers on the back of their head ripped out by so many drakes grabbing hold for the ride while they push her head under water. It can be kind of disturbing to watch.



If you shoot one of a pair of Canadas, get on the call. The pair bond is so strong, there is a good chance you can call them back. I do that every year. Shoot the drake with suzie, she ain't coming back looking for him.

Watching mallards mate every year, I'd be really curious how many pairs that form in LA last by the time the hen lays the first egg months later. I'll bet it's pretty low. I read something a while ago. If I remember right, most clutches don't have one father, but many.

The most hilarious thing that I see quite often during breeding season. There will be 3 or 4 drakes hanging out on the pond. A hen mallard will fly in about 20 yards over the lake and go quack, quack, quack (duck for howdy boys) and she will kick it into overdrive and all the drakes will immediately jump off the pond and go screaming after her and you can usually watch them chase her around for a long time.

[Ducaholic]

We do a lot of work in our marsh during the off season - and to only have a 30 day or even a 40 day season may not make all that work worth the effort. You can cut the limit to 3, 4 or 5, but let us have the 60 day season.

Days Afield = Pressure & Disturbance. Reducing the limit will help but it's not the total answer to the pressure equation IMO. Just for the record I'm not advocating either.

[Johnc]

We do a lot of work in our marsh during the off season - and to only have a 30 day or even a 40 day season may not make all that work worth the effort. You can cut the limit to 3, 4 or 5, but let us have the 60 day season.

Best comment on this thread. I totally agree. Especially as a working man. I want opportunity

[SpinnerMan]

We do a lot of work in our marsh during the off season - and to only have a 30 day or even a 40 day season may not make all that work worth the effort. You can cut the limit to 3, 4 or 5, but let us have the 60 day season.

Best comment on this thread. I totally agree. Especially as a working man. I want opportunity

The problem with that is the reason for cutting the season length is to cut the harvest rate. For me, cutting the limit would have saved only a few ducks over the last decade. Cutting limits only has a significant reduction in the harvest rate for those people consistently shooting limits.

For example, quickly pulling up the USFWS annual harvest reports. In LA, the average birds per day in 2010 and 2011 was 3.3 birds per hunter per day. What is the distribution of the birds per day? You can get 0,1,2,3,4,5, or 6. So just making up some percentages judging from you all's reports it would be 5%, 10%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 10%, respectively. This distribution gives a 3.25 bird per day average.

If that distribution is right, cutting the limit to 5, so those days you would have got 6 now means you stop at five. However, it doesn't change the days you would have got 5 or less with a 6 duck limit. That reduces the average harvest by only 0.1 bird per day. 97% of the birds that would have been killed are still killed with a 5 bird limit. If you cut the limit all the way to 3, the birds per day would still be 2.45 or 75% of the total harvest. To cut the average harvest in half, you would nut to cut the limit down to 2. And I'd bet that probably over estimates the reduction in the harvest rate because I don't think any other state has nearly as high of an average of ducks per day per hunter as LA, so they are far less likely to get limits making their total harvest less sensitive to the limits.

Cutting days is just a lot easier to reduce harvest rates. If you want to keep the same harvest rate but have twice as many days, you have to cut the daily bag limit by probably 2/3rds or more. While I agree with the sentiment 100%, the problem is that it simple doesn't achieve the objective when the harvest rate has to be reduced. The average guy just rarely has his harvest limited by the limit.

Let's just pray the populations never fall to the point that it becomes necessary. If they do, there really isn't any other choice but to cut days to make a big cut in harvest rate.

[Duck Engr]

However, at the end of the month a few of us are traveling to NY to hunt Lake Ontario. My one buddy wants to hunt all 5 Great Lakes and Ontario will be his 5th. My 4th, I couldn't make the Superior trip. Would I pay what I'm paying and drive that far for 3 ducks max? I really don't think so. I really enjoy these trips, but like you said, there is still a limit where it is not worth the cost/effort.

My local duck hunting isn't a lot of work and its convenient so even shooting very few ducks makes it worthwhile for those few days of the year that things come together.

This, in my opinion, would alleviate some pressure. It would cut down on man-days afield while keeping hunter numbers the same. A big difference between now and year’s past is many more people travel, myself included, long distances to hunt ducks. I wonder if we can find a bag limit where it’s not enough incentive to travel long distances but still keeps hunters in the game locally.

[Johnc]

We do a lot of work in our marsh during the off season - and to only have a 30 day or even a 40 day season may not make all that work worth the effort. You can cut the limit to 3, 4 or 5, but let us have the 60 day season.

Best comment on this thread. I totally agree. Especially as a working man. I want opportunity

The problem with that is the reason for cutting the season length is to cut the harvest rate. For me, cutting the limit would have saved only a few ducks over the last decade. Cutting limits only has a significant reduction in the harvest rate for those people consistently shooting limits.

For example, quickly pulling up the USFWS annual harvest reports. In LA, the average birds per day in 2010 and 2011 was 3.3 birds per hunter per day. What is the distribution of the birds per day? You can get 0,1,2,3,4,5, or 6. So just making up some percentages judging from you all's reports it would be 5%, 10%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 10%, respectively. This distribution gives a 3.25 bird per day average.

If that distribution is right, cutting the limit to 5, so those days you would have got 6 now means you stop at five. However, it doesn't change the days you would have got 5 or less with a 6 duck limit. That reduces the average harvest by only 0.1 bird per day. 97% of the birds that would have been killed are still killed with a 5 bird limit. If you cut the limit all the way to 3, the birds per day would still be 2.45 or 75% of the total harvest. To cut the average harvest in half, you would nut to cut the limit down to 2. And I'd bet that probably over estimates the reduction in the harvest rate because I don't think any other state has nearly as high of an average of ducks per day per hunter as LA, so they are far less likely to get limits making their total harvest less sensitive to the limits.

Cutting days is just a lot easier to reduce harvest rates. If you want to keep the same harvest rate but have twice as many days, you have to cut the daily bag limit by probably 2/3rds or more. While I agree with the sentiment 100%, the problem is that it simple doesn't achieve the objective when the harvest rate has to be reduced. The average guy just rarely has his harvest limited by the limit.

Let's just pray the populations never fall to the point that it becomes necessary. If they do, there really isn't any other choice but to cut days to make a big cut in harvest rate.

I agree with this. BUT there is not a population problem,there is a distribution problem

Just like with specks. There is no population problem in this flyway. I just saw 500000 in a 2 mile radius,the problem is that is 500 miles away.

So we take what we can down here and stop crying. Speck wise. And if you can’t kill them then learn how

As far as ducks,if they are purposely being held up shame on them,but that’s not all of the issues.

Once again if the flyway population is good then stop crying and let people hunt

[SpinnerMan]

there is not a population problem,there is a distribution problem

I wonder how much of that problem is an adaption problem. Why wouldn't the populations shift from areas where they are at highest risk to areas they are at lowest risk as long as their needs are met? It would seem to be the natural course of events.

[Johnc]

there is not a population problem,there is a distribution problem

I wonder how much of that problem is an adaption problem. Why wouldn't the populations shift from areas where they are at highest risk to areas they are at lowest risk as long as their needs are met? It would seem to be the natural course of events.

Exactly what has happened goose wise and the juvenile geese are now imprinted

[Johnc]

The birds are fine. And there are pits all over up
There too.

What there is NOT is crawfishing all over and still plenty of habitat for resting unmolested

It’s done here. Be happy with the crumbs we still get a chance at and go about life

These birds don’t “belong “ to any state anyway

[Rick]

What there is NOT is crawfishing all over and still plenty of habitat for resting unmolested

Though I've no doubt it varies by area, AJ's told me their problem can be too little pressure to stir game during stable weather. If ya gotta have problems... Not that that isn't subject to change there, too.

[DComeaux]

The birds are fine. And there are pits all over up
There too.

What there is NOT is crawfishing all over and still plenty of habitat for resting unmolested

It’s done here. Be happy with the crumbs we still get a chance at and go about life

These birds don’t “belong “ to any state anyway

Yeah, we're pretty much screwed......and I don't think anyone has ever made that claim.

SW Louisiana has a serious pressure issue. I can't speak for the rest of the state.

[Johnc]

The birds are fine. And there are pits all over up
There too.

What there is NOT is crawfishing all over and still plenty of habitat for resting unmolested

It’s done here. Be happy with the crumbs we still get a chance at and go about life

These birds don’t “belong “ to any state anyway

Yeah, we're pretty much screwed......and I don't think anyone has ever made that claim.



SW Louisiana has a serious pressure issue. I can't speak for the rest of the state.

I agree the pressure from the bell city drain ditch through Kaplan is phenomenal speck wise

[Johnc]

I also really believe that duck wise,in the fields,they go nocturnal so quick

Yes,on adverse weather days you see birds,but the other 80 percent where are they?

Rafted in gulf? Hiding in the cattails in lacassine? Probably both

[DComeaux]

I also really believe that duck wise,in the fields,they go nocturnal so quick

Yes,on adverse weather days you see birds,but the other 80 percent where are they?

Rafted in gulf? Hiding in the cattails in lacassine? Probably both

In the middle of white lake.

[Johnc]

I also really believe that duck wise,in the fields,they go nocturnal so quick

Yes,on adverse weather days you see birds,but the other 80 percent where are they?

Rafted in gulf? Hiding in the cattails in lacassine? Probably both

In the middle of white lake.

Well that’s true.

I do think adaptation because of natural means is one thing,but I don’t think intentional short stopping is right

Makes waterfowl a possession instead of letting the natural flow of things develop or occur,,good or bad

I am discouraged either way,but kind of salt in the wound if the playing field is not level

[Rick]

Some a lot closer to the guns than one might think. Shot these on an unhunted portion of Cherry Ridge a few days after we ended our first split with three birds. There's a blind of ours on a pond bordering the trees seen on left near the video's end, and two of Cherry Ridge's between it and the birds. Have seen a lot more packed in that safety zone during better seasons.

[Rick]

I do think adaptation because of natural means is one thing,but I don’t think intentional short stopping is right

Makes waterfowl a possession instead of letting the natural flow of things develop or occur,,good or bad

John, how would you define "short-stopping" and word legislation to end it?

[Johnc]

I do think adaptation because of natural means is one thing,but I don’t think intentional short stopping is right

Makes waterfowl a possession instead of letting the natural flow of things develop or occur,,good or bad

John, how would you define "short-stopping" and word legislation to end it?

I would say hunting over ANY unharvested crop,not just corn

Yes that may kill teal season as much as that kills me to say

[Johnc]

I will be honest,before seeing all those geese packed into that little area in Arkansas,I thought no way these food plots make that much difference.

Now,I am not so sure. You add all these 10 to 20 thousand holdings and makes a lot quick

[Rick]

So now that the crawfishing trend is to unharvested rice for earlier crawfish harvest, those using it in your area would also put your farm off hunting limits for being en route to or from a then-"baited" area. Bummer.

[Johnc]

So now that the crawfishing trend is to unharvested rice for earlier crawfish harvest, those using it in your area would also put your farm off hunting limits for being en route to or from a then-"baited" area. Bummer.

If that’s the case you completely shut down any ag in swla.

[Rick]

You got it. Be careful what you wish for.

Of course Dave would be fine down in the marsh - for however many months it took those driven out of ag land blinds to price him out of the sport.

[Johnc]

You got it. Be careful what you wish for.

Of course Dave would be fine down in the marsh - for however many months it took those driven out of ag land blinds to price him out of the sport.

Which would take any time at all
Because when money or price is not a concern for the wealthy it’s game over for the common man

[DComeaux]

.

[DComeaux]

You got it. Be careful what you wish for.

Of course Dave would be fine down in the marsh - for however many months it took those driven out of ag land blinds to price him out of the sport.

Not many will want the marsh life. It'll be way more expensive than a plot of corn, not to mention you're one storm away from starting all over again.

Crabs were delicious this evening. We ended up with just over 4 dozen in 8 traps. Crab and shrimp stew tomorrow evening for the wife, kids and grandkids.

20191102_120402.jpg

[Rick]

Not many will want the marsh life. It'll be way more expensive than a plot of corn, not to mention you're one storm away from starting all over again.

That's probably why Pecan Island has sprouted so many nice new camps after the storms.

[Ducaholic]

YBe careful what you wish for.

it’s game over for the common man

A lot of folks would say we are already there.

[DComeaux]

Not many will want the marsh life. It'll be way more expensive than a plot of corn, not to mention you're one storm away from starting all over again.

That's probably why Pecan Island has sprouted so many nice new camps after the storms.

Maybe it's some unsuspecting new money being dumped into temporary fixes for a while. A man needs deep,deep pockets when dealing with the never ending process of rebuilding or patching other people's property (marsh).

[Johnc]

YBe careful what you wish for.

it’s game over for the common man

A lot of folks would say we are already there.

Yes I agree.