Darren wrote:I can see how distinguishing between the golf geese and the big migrators could be a management challenge.
SpinnerMan wrote:[
The GCG weight 10-12 lbs with an occasional one quite a bit bigger...
Rick wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:[
The GCG weight 10-12 lbs with an occasional one quite a bit bigger...
The two seemingly to me quite a bit bigger Mid Ohio Valley residents that prompted me to put them on a local sporting good's certified fish scale both barely topped 13lbs, despite my thinking the second appreciably bigger than I remembered the first. Never weighed our run of the mill residents, but they were noticeably larger than the Mid Continent migrants - that I never weighed either.
Been some years back, but the fellow who owned Drop Zone sponsored an 18lb Canada contest on the then popular goose forums with the prize for the first such being a dozen of his ultra expensive full-bodies. No one shot a qualifying bird that wasn't eaten by a coyote or some such after the shooter weighed it until year-by-year the weight was eventually dropped to 15lbs.
5 stand wrote:Darren, I'm a member but you might as well consider me a guest. My English and writing skills suck. So I don't post much anywhere. But I do enjoy keeping up with all you guys. The other day in Decomex log, you were talking about bismuth. Here's some reading material, from Dave in Arizona. He has a really good blog in my opinion. Maybe it'll help in your bismuth decision. I hope you try them for a whole year, and report on each hunt in your log as it happens. If I was going to shoot bismuth I would try the number fours, I tend to stretch my barrel (as Rick would say)so number 5 doesn't have enough downrange energy for me.
https://pipesf16.wordpress.com/bismuth- ... -analysis/
5 stand wrote:Darren, I'm a member but you might as well consider me a guest. My English and writing skills suck. So I don't post much anywhere. But I do enjoy keeping up with all you guys. The other day in Decomex log, you were talking about bismuth. Here's some reading material, from Dave in Arizona. He has a really good blog in my opinion. Maybe it'll help in your bismuth decision. I hope you try them for a whole year, and report on each hunt in your log as it happens. If I was going to shoot bismuth I would try the number fours, I tend to stretch my barrel (as Rick would say)so number 5 doesn't have enough downrange energy for me.
https://pipesf16.wordpress.com/bismuth- ... -analysis/
5 stand wrote:Beware of EMI (parent company of heavy metal) they're great marketers.
There is no tungsten in heavy metal anymore. They put bismuth in it now.
The only shell that has tungsten in it from emi is $4 or more a shell.
5 stand wrote:I shouldn't have made that statement.
They do claim that it has tungsten in it.
Hevi x - Shot density of 10.1g/cc.
Bismuth is 9.6 g/cc.
Steel is 7.8 g/cc.
Darren wrote:Had pulled this from Larry's LDWF commission presentation that I thought was interesting. The LOUD contingent of disgruntled hunters makes our current seasons out to be the worst ever, times have not been so poor before, they say. Reacting from their rants on social media and other forums would have one think they're right, but not so apparently.
In fact, 15 years ago, in the alleged glory days some certain groups like to refer to, a mere 9% of polled hunters were pleased at all, and over half were obviously quite unhappy with their seasons. But this season over 1/5 hunters was satisfied to some degree, and that PO'd contingent dropped over 10%.
Now, has the scale slid, the goal posts moved? Perhaps. In other words, what was deemed "OK" back then is now seen as a "good" season, for some that's likely the case, being more easily satisfied in current times than years back.
Duck Engr wrote:I think Darren’s broader point is not many folks have a waterfowl memory like you do Rick. It’s easy for people to remember 99-00 and 09-10 seasons as being “the good ole days” but forget that 04-05 sucked wind. They think all 10 years in between were good too. I listened to an interview with Pat Pitt a while back and he mentioned everyone thinking it was “over” in the early to mid 2000s before the end of that decade turned things around again.
Rick wrote:Darren wrote:Had pulled this from Larry's LDWF commission presentation that I thought was interesting. The LOUD contingent of disgruntled hunters makes our current seasons out to be the worst ever, times have not been so poor before, they say. Reacting from their rants on social media and other forums would have one think they're right, but not so apparently.
In fact, 15 years ago, in the alleged glory days some certain groups like to refer to, a mere 9% of polled hunters were pleased at all, and over half were obviously quite unhappy with their seasons. But this season over 1/5 hunters was satisfied to some degree, and that PO'd contingent dropped over 10%.
Now, has the scale slid, the goal posts moved? Perhaps. In other words, what was deemed "OK" back then is now seen as a "good" season, for some that's likely the case, being more easily satisfied in current times than years back.
"Glory days"? Don't know where you were in 2005, but we were still feeling the post mid '90s-2000 slump where I was. Which was blessed with our marsh's east blind, while the rest of our camp, which was still stuck in the rice, struggled for ducks and thanked their lucky stars the specks were still around. If judged for ducks by my blind, it was a fine season, but by the overwhelming majority of our rice - to include where I'd enjoyed the prior peak, it sucked.
Duck Engr wrote:I think Darren’s broader point is...
That doesn’t seem to be unique to SWLA unfortunately, minus the crawfish of course.Rick wrote:Duck Engr wrote:I think Darren’s broader point is...
Much as I like and respect Larry, the "broader point" is that anyone who thinks the once waterfowl rich ricelands of SWLA haven't gone to crap on all but a few large holdings more interested in holding birds than raising crawfish and those adjoining such relative refuge isn't hunting there.
DComeaux wrote:I gave up a marsh lease of 15 years in the late 90's early 2000's when the bottom fell out.
Today and the last 10 years is no where near what I experienced 35 to 40 years ago. For me it's at the same suck level as the late 90's early 2000's.
Darren wrote:Looks like you gave up that marsh lease at the wrong time???
Darren wrote:As for 35-40 years ago, there were fewer total ducks, if I recall correctly, but perhaps a higher contingent making it to S. La.
Ducaholic wrote: With that said the same high traffic areas of the 70's are the same high traffic areas of today for the ducks migrating southward in my neck of the woods.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests