Good news for next season-

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by JRS, Dec 17, 2016.

  1. Specktacular

    Specktacular Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Like I said, "In other words, they just don't get it or they don't care to get it."
    Incidentally, that's what Hillary and the DNC thought and look what it got them when the public decided otherwise.
     
  2. Speckslayer

    Speckslayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Sanger
    What you fail to understand is that your position is nothing more than an unproven opinion. CWA and I both agree with you but that is irrelevant until studies are done to prove our position. That takes time and money. It also takes political clout and respect for the people you are working with.

    Your Hillary comparison is also irrelevant. Presidents are chosen by the people and the people's opinions matter. The pintail limits are set by the USFWS who use studies, population modeling, bird counts, trends, and other information to set limits.

    A better comparison is that everyone on here complaining about the limits is like the Trump protesters who were marching the streets denouncing Trump. They might have made themselves feel better by protesting but their actions accomplished NOTHING.
     
    marsh-mello and Squaller like this.
  3. Calikev

    Calikev Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    12,088
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Location:
    Oakdale, Ca , USA
    We are told lowering mallard limits has very little impact.....ok trust the biology then. That is what we tell folks who worry about the mallard limit being too high.

    So now we are told lowering the Pintail limit has an impact. Different species with a different dynamic so apparently it is Federal biologists who know something. The CWA won't change the Feds minds until the data reflects the right conclusion. That conclusion hasn't been reached yet so we need to trust the Feds biology.

    Is it feel good biology? No because it is the same model they have used for years. Does it need to be adapted? Perhaps it does but it isn't going to happen because hunters want to kill more. It will take a mountain of evidence to change the matrix. So far that isn't happening but they are trying.

    Personally I would rather see funds go into building infrastructure to produce more local mallards on public areas in the Central Valley. Lots of money being shelled out for something we have very little control over. I prefer to see CWA put money on the ground in CA but I might be in the minority there.

    Pintail are sissies. They are not easily adaptable and need ideal conditions to populate. Many other species are much heartier and easily adapt. Local mallards are especially adept at relocating and nesting in less than ideal conditions. So imagine if there were millions of dollars out into a habitat nesting effort for mallards? They have a program now but it is a fraction of what it should be.

    Kevin
     
    freefall, Real Green and mudhen like this.
  4. Hunter/Gather

    Hunter/Gather Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,003
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Location:
    Humboldt CA
    JBennet,
    I don't disagree with any of you points. We pay now or we pay later, and it might not be significant over the long term.

    But looking at the first cycle of this, it is setting the limits on inaccurate info. Yes we would have had one sprig this season, based on the dry prarie region and where the population is. Instead we got two, so some number of additional birds were taken that won't be going north. This next spring is going to be a very high pond count on the prairies, likely record high on at least some of it. There will be nesting cover on ground too wet to plow, and hopefully won't be until after the hatch. It should be a very good year for pintail nesting success. And yet we will have a reduction in the limit. That is not going to be a confidence builder in managing the seasons, unfortunately. The realtime info would certainly be more explainable for why the limits go up and down.

    With technology the information needed to make the basis for setting seasons is only getting quicker. Granted the challenges of the legal process to set seasons is going in the other direction.

    Mitch
     
  5. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,908
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Would they change the LTA to 30 years for all species? I would imagine so since it is pretty hard to justify doing it just for one. Many species have experienced record high numbers within the last 30 years. This would mean that the "new LTA" for those species would be much higher than it currently is. The pintail situation would be resolved, but one down year and you'd have the same situation with other species that we currently have with pintail. Be careful what you wish for...
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  6. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,908
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    And despite all of that, unlike the pintail, their populations remain at or above LTA and most populations are trending upward. I don't know exactly how the formula works, but it seems that population relative to the LTA and population trends carry far more weight than actual population numbers.
     
  7. Specktacular

    Specktacular Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    I don't fail to understand anything. You might wanna try educating yourself. The facts speak for themselves. It's not an unproven opinion. There are countless studies proving that bag limits do not impact future breeding populations and any reputable biologist will confirm it. The studies are out there.
     
  8. marsh-mello

    marsh-mello Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,689
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Ca
    It's a little more complex than some peoples simple understanding...there are many species which have restricted bag limits. It is the recommendation and acceptance of those recommended bag limits which do not affect the breeding populations. This is one of the reasons why our duck limit is 7...it is one reason why the scaup limit is a season within a season, it is another reason why the canvasback limit is two. It is the MAJOR reason why as CaliKev stated the limits will not change without the science which has been done by those same biologists....which is where there may be room for further investigation.

    Some assume a great deal and tout the imbalance between the hen and drake ratio repeatedly...which quite frankly doesn't explain your reasoning to simply shoot more. It may in fact be the mortality of the hens as they nest and those factors coupled with habitat conditions and weather and a myriad of other interrelated random factors drive the understanding and management of wildlife population management.

    While it might feel good to rant and rave about the amorphous and silent big government...it is staffed with people just like our very own history of respected and competent waterfowl biologists. There is no conspiracy a foot and those with limited exposure and understanding of the entire field of wildlife management who have a degree in a medical field or basket weaving make as much sense as everyone criticizing what you do for a living without the education nuance of experience gained through one's professional lifes work.

    Is there a need for expanded studies and refinement of our understanding and decisions with regard to pintail....I along with others can concur. But to wholesale rant and act as if you have the answer to anything with an incredible lack of professional credibility all the while generally chastising others who do without specifics and recommendations and support for alternatives obtained through a scientific basis is ludicrous.

    It makes me shake my head much in the same manner in which people complain about their favorite fields being disced. Or complain about habitat degradation in a general sense without talking about specific areas or fields...get down to the nitty gritty and know what you're talking about if you want to taken seriously.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
    Calikev, Phil N and chuam like this.
  9. Speckslayer

    Speckslayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Sanger
  10. CalBaer

    CalBaer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,685
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    You forgot to add Instagram as well as the guys that start their Diesel trucks at 2:30 AM. Absolutely insano!!!

    As far restrictions, we've discussed this ad nauseum. Daily bag limits are mostly "feel good" biology. Heard this quite a few years ago from a respected biologist. Took a while for it to sink in. We don't have the hunter numbers to be a major factor in reducing populations. Whether we as a Flyway harvest 150,000-300,000 sprig, it won't make a difference. As far as sprig, the PPR holds the key. That population fluctuates on the boom and bust wet cycles of the prairies. Unfortunately, we don't get the boom any more due to expanded agriculture practices since the early 70's. The AK population is stable. The PF population is stable, too. Enjoy your 2 birds for the next 30 days.
     

Share This Page