aunt betty wrote:Its gotten ridiculous the amount of paperwork bullshit we have to do. Feed info into the "mill" that never gets analyzed or shared back...Pisses me off.
That's all the papers I must carry to be legal everywhere I go.
PAPERLESS SOCIETY!!!
Hello?
aunt betty wrote:Wow. Oldest one I have.
FlintRiverFowler wrote:aunt betty wrote:Wow. Oldest one I have.
Damn Betty, you're a midget.
You looked tall on the news.
I'm up to 66.5" now. I think jehler is taller than me by a little bit.FlintRiverFowler wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:aunt betty wrote:Wow. Oldest one I have.
Damn Betty, you're a midget.
You looked tall on the news.
Oh I see you were 16. I was probly around that height at 16 too.
betty is taller than Olly...FlintRiverFowler wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:aunt betty wrote:Wow. Oldest one I have.
Damn Betty, you're a midget.
You looked tall on the news.
Oh I see you were 16. I was probly around that height at 16 too.
jehler wrote:betty is taller than Olly...FlintRiverFowler wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:aunt betty wrote:Wow. Oldest one I have.
Damn Betty, you're a midget.
You looked tall on the news.
Oh I see you were 16. I was probly around that height at 16 too.
50/50
FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
QH's Paw wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
If you really believe that statement, please explain the outcome of the following population trends.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Newre ... _final.pdf
Specifically, explain how hunting caused, created or impacted all of the high and low points in these population reports. I think if you study the report closely, you will see a shadowing of sorts, with other species in the same year you are using as your example and, there were no limitation or closure, outside if usual annual restrictions for the other species.
My suspicion is that you might find a weather event or pattern that caused a decline in breeding.
The 2 most limiting or effectual factors on bird number is, have and, always will be weather and habitat or, possibly lack of habitat.
aunt betty wrote:QH's Paw wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
If you really believe that statement, please explain the outcome of the following population trends.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Newre ... _final.pdf
Specifically, explain how hunting caused, created or impacted all of the high and low points in these population reports. I think if you study the report closely, you will see a shadowing of sorts, with other species in the same year you are using as your example and, there were no limitation or closure, outside if usual annual restrictions for the other species.
My suspicion is that you might find a weather event or pattern that caused a decline in breeding.
The 2 most limiting or effectual factors on bird number is, have and, always will be weather and habitat or, possibly lack of habitat.
Our methods of agriculture effect habitat and migration patterns. The BIGGEST factor IMO effecting waterfowl today is modern agriculture methods.
Take away diesel fuel and see what happens to waterfowl populations AND wetland acreage.
QH's Paw wrote:aunt betty wrote:QH's Paw wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:assateague wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:That is ridiculous.
I would say we could get all hunters to boycott it this year, but that's not gonna happen. It's like crack. Ill pay whatever to get my duck hunting high, and so will all of you.
Imagine how good the duck numbers would be though if every duck hunter took the season off for just one year.
You wouldn't even notice a difference in duck numbers if every hunter took off next year. We're a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking.
My intent is to start a huge debacle... I mean debate here.
. In 2009, a population survey by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife showed an increase in canvasbacks from 488,000 to 662,000, after a hunting ban on the birds during the 2008-'09 waterfowl season.
So that's like what? A 36 percent increase? From one closed season.
If you really believe that statement, please explain the outcome of the following population trends.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Newre ... _final.pdf
Specifically, explain how hunting caused, created or impacted all of the high and low points in these population reports. I think if you study the report closely, you will see a shadowing of sorts, with other species in the same year you are using as your example and, there were no limitation or closure, outside if usual annual restrictions for the other species.
My suspicion is that you might find a weather event or pattern that caused a decline in breeding.
The 2 most limiting or effectual factors on bird number is, have and, always will be weather and habitat or, possibly lack of habitat.
Our methods of agriculture effect habitat and migration patterns. The BIGGEST factor IMO effecting waterfowl today is modern agriculture methods.
Take away diesel fuel and see what happens to waterfowl populations AND wetland acreage.
Like I said, habitat and weather. What changes the habitat well, that's a subset of the problem.
QH's Paw wrote:How the habitat was changed wasn't my point, that's your point. It is still habitat change whether you unnaturally flood it, pave over it or till it under, you are affecting the habitat.
QH's Paw wrote:We don't really have any decent pheasant hunting here anymore either. Most of the pheasant here are put and take, pay to play type hunting.
A question about your state stamps, can you get the actual stamp on request? Here in Oregon, we can request to get the stamp and they send it to us(the actual stamp). Most people don't do it so the state basically get's to use more of the money for "whatever".
FlintRiverFowler wrote:Do all states have lifetime sportsman licenses? Covers everything except alligator and duck stamp here. Costs 500 bucks. Or 200 bucks if its for a child under age 3.
You can also buy the yearly sportsman license for 65 bucks per year.
Olly wrote: We're still the bastard pirates of the duck forum world.
The Duck Hammer wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:Do all states have lifetime sportsman licenses? Covers everything except alligator and duck stamp here. Costs 500 bucks. Or 200 bucks if its for a child under age 3.
You can also buy the yearly sportsman license for 65 bucks per year.
Texas lifetime is $2000 for hunting and fishing. Covers everything but a duck stamp.
aunt betty wrote:Here's last year's duck stamp.
Here's mine.
The Duck Hammer wrote:FlintRiverFowler wrote:Do all states have lifetime sportsman licenses? Covers everything except alligator and duck stamp here. Costs 500 bucks. Or 200 bucks if its for a child under age 3.
You can also buy the yearly sportsman license for 65 bucks per year.
Texas lifetime is $2000 for hunting and fishing. Covers everything but a duck stamp.
Olly wrote: We're still the bastard pirates of the duck forum world.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 244 guests