BGcorey wrote:if salinity level correlates with gadwall numbers. It would sure explain why we’ve killed less and less each yearDComeaux wrote:Darren wrote:Rick wrote:Could remember a site showing where a number of transmittered mallards were and found a 2007 link to it on the refuge board, but the link is no longer active. Haven't a clue if they learned anything.
Also recall a more local mallard tracking study and Larry saying that rather than all shifting to refuges hideouts, most remained out among us. Suppose one lesson from that study was that they're better at our game than we are.
There was one with grays not long ago; can't recall any official results or reports from it that I had a look at. Did find the following on a refuge forum thread Larry provided some feedback on back in 2009. Of note this is largely a SW La study, not statewide.What we have learned thus far:
1) Gadwalls are difficult to get on bait. Despite having LOTS of gadwalls on bait during the trapping phase of the mallard telemetry study in SW Louisiana a few years ago, we ended up trapping most of the gadwalls for this study without it. Jacob Gray would set rocket-nets in scouted habitat and fire it when a few gads were "in the area". That meant few ducks captured per rocket shot, extended trapping period, and more technician help.
2) There seemed to be no difference in habitat-use data from birds with external backpack transmitters and those with implanted transmitters. So we should be able to lump the data across transmitter type in estimating habitat use because of similar (or no) effect of transmitter.
3) First year analysis showed gadwalls spending 2/3 of their time in intermediate marsh, 15% in fresh, and 15% in brackish, with very little use of saline marsh, swamp, or agricultural habitats.
4) Because of the extended capture period, there is a problem generating survival estimates.
5) There seemed to be no problem with radio-marked bird making the spring migration.
Obviously, these are very cursory results with very little detail as Jacob has recently completed the data-collection as his marked birds have migrated north. He is now analyzing those data and writing his thesis.
I'm hoping our water stays low, as well as salinity. I'd sure like to get the gadwall back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
DComeaux wrote:As I get older I don't care for that cold stuff anymore, it's just too uncomfortable. I have the clothes for it, but it's cumbersome. I like 40's, and I just want to be comfortable, especially when cold doesn't translate to more birds. That one hunt with high wind, temps in the teens, no thanks.
Rick wrote: I'm decidedly among those believing there have long been both photo-period and food driven mallard migrations.
SpinnerMan wrote:I wonder if it applies to more than mallards.
Rick wrote:Perhaps the gadwall have joined the wigeon that were once plentiful in our area and disappeared to points unknown a decade or two back. I've long thought of them as mostly brackish waterfowl, as we don't see nearly as many in our fresh marsh or rice as I hear of from those closer to the coast. But we do shoot some.
Fwiw, the four species logs still available to me thanks to Olly and this site (2014 - 2017) show them running 5th, 4th, 4th, and 7th, respectively, among the species we took. During our first split's general big duck dearth my guys shot just 14 gadwall (vs 23 mallards), which was not surprising, given the givens.
What might be more puzzling was that when colder weather changed our general big duck fortunes in the second split, my guys still shot just 12 gadwall (vs 168 mallards).
aunt betty wrote:Rick the good ole days exist but you have to race in boats to do it...and there will be all the species you want...
DComeaux wrote:I was going to ask you about that, and even went through your species logs. In the conversation of marsh and gawall, I don't remember seeing many gadwall on your straps.
Currently, regulations at 50 CFR 20.21(i) prohibit
persons from taking a migratory game bird ‘‘by the aid of
baiting, or on or over any baited area.’’ A baited area is defined as
the ‘‘area where shelled, shucked or unshucked corn, wheat or
other grain, salt, or other feed whatsoever capable of luring, attracting,
or enticing such birds is directly or indirectly placed, exposed,
deposited, distributed, or scattered.’’ The regulations further
provide that the bait must have been removed for ten days before
the area would no longer be deemed ‘‘a baited area’’. The regulations
provide exceptions for areas of standing crops, and areas
where grains were scattered as a result of normal agricultural
planting or harvesting, bona fide agricultural practices, or manipulation
of a crop grown for wildlife management purposes.
This section mandates that the Secretary submit to Congress a
report analyzing the effect of this legislation, and the general practice
of baiting, in migratory bird conservation and law enforcement
efforts under the MBTA. The report is due no later than five years
after the date of enactment of this bill.
The first is whether baiting itself has a significant impact
on conservation of migratory birds, and specifically whether this
impact can be compensated by adjusting the bag limits and seasons.
The second is whether the addition of a scienter requirement
for baiting-related offenses will affect migratory bird conservation
by increasing the practice of baiting among hunters. The third, and
most important, is whether the addition of a scienter requirement
will affect law enforcement efforts. In particular, the report should
consider whether the new standard has hindered enforcement efforts
because of difficulties in demonstrating that a hunter knew or
should have known that an area was baited. The committee intends
to reexamine this issue in five years, after this study is completed
DComeaux wrote:Have read where some habitat persons and biologist disagree with this practice of "hot crops" for ducks, and prefer moist soil units with natural vegetation.
Ericdc wrote:What I’ve thought this whole time is that waterfowl managers at the state and federal level manage the resource on a flyway level. What is their motivation to make changes if the resource is not being negatively affected?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DComeaux wrote:Ericdc wrote:What I’ve thought this whole time is that waterfowl managers at the state and federal level manage the resource on a flyway level. What is their motivation to make changes if the resource is not being negatively affected?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, when are you moving to Missouri?
Ericdc wrote:DComeaux wrote:Ericdc wrote:What I’ve thought this whole time is that waterfowl managers at the state and federal level manage the resource on a flyway level. What is their motivation to make changes if the resource is not being negatively affected?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, when are you moving to Missouri?
??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests