The issue most important to ducks and duck hunting in Minnesota no longer is whether hunters should be allowed six birds daily or four -- four is what hunters will get this year, as they did last -- but rather why the Department of Natural Resources doesn't begin to limit hunter access to birds here.
This is the big deal up and down the Mississippi Flyway: the availability of resting areas for ducks that are evermore under gunning pressure from the time they leave their breeding grounds in the north until they reach the Gulf of Mexico, or thereabouts.
Minnesota duck managers know this, or should, and, for the sake of ducks that remain in Minnesota in the fall, and their hunters, the DNR this year should have begun to restrict hunting each day from noon until sunset, if only on state wildlife management areas.
If there is to be anything resembling good hunting in Minnesota again, such a restriction will have to be enacted.
? ? ?
U.S. and Canadian wildlife services reported this summer that spring continental breeding populations of six of the 10 most common duck species were up significantly.
Only scaup, pintail, canvasback and wigeon numbers were reduced from a year ago.
Based on this upswing in breeding birds, and the fact mallard numbers were stable (or slightly up) continentally, and the fact also that prairie Saskatchewan and Manitoba were extremely wet -- laying the groundwork for a good nesting season -- a "liberal" hunting- season structure was set again for U.S. hunters this year.
"Liberal" means 60-day seasons (at least), with six-bird daily limits.
But in Minnesota in recent years, "liberal" has not meant good duck hunting. Some of the poorest seasons for hunters here in recent times have occurred when duck hunters elsewhere were enjoying reasonably good success.
The question then becomes: What is going on in Minnesota -- traditionally home to more duck hunters than any other state -- and what can be done here in the near- and long-term to improve conditions for ducks, and for duck hunting?
? ? ?
What do we know for sure about ducks and duck hunting in Minnesota?
We know we haven't been able to stop wetland drainage.
Curb it, yes -- to a degree. But stop it? No.
Nor have we been able to manage growth and development in ways that ensure the cleanliness -- and therefore health -- of our lakes, rivers and other waterways.
Nor have we acted swiftly enough to manage hunters and hunting in the face of dramatic habitat changes, and the poor hunting and declining duck numbers that have followed.
Result: More and more Minnesota waterfowlers are giving up on their home state and moving to greener hunting pastures elsewhere, such as North and South Dakota and prairie Canada.
? ? ?
Here's one version of events that helps explain Minnesota's duck woes:
? Vast areas of wetlands in the state's southern, western and northwestern farmlands -- more than 90 percent of those that existed before white settlement -- have been drained.
? Wetlands and other waterways that remain in these areas are severely degraded. Farmland tiling and runoff are big problems. Water level "bounces" after heavy rains and spring melting are another. So, too, the resulting lack of sego pondweed, wild celery and other vegetation favored by ducks and other wildlife. The proliferation of carp that has occurred since their introduction to the state in the late 1800s also bodes ill.
? Additionally -- and these are issues of the Legislature's and DNR's making -- many wetlands that remain are licensed to minnow dealers for use as rearing ponds. Also, aerator permits in recent times have been issued willy-nilly to fisherman-patrons of small ponds and shallow lakes, preventing winter freeze-out in these of carp, minnows and other foreign critters.
? In an historical context, these changes occurred in a blink of an eye, about 100 years. But it hasn't been until the past 20 years or so that ducks and duck hunting seem to have changed so dramatically for the worse in Minnesota.
? This falloff primarily is due to the above landscape changes. But complicating matters for Minnesota ducks and duck hunters have been the long (60-day) seasons with liberal (six ducks daily) limits set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since the late 1990s.
? These restrictions probably were the correct ones for the Dakotas and certain other states, some even, like Minnesota, in the Mississippi Flyway. But here, our hunters, as many as 120,000 strong, essentially have had three species of birds of late to kill -- the mallard, wood duck and blue-winged teal.
? Contrast this with the Dakotas, which spread their six-bird limits and long seasons over (primarily) five or six species, including (in addition to mallards and the various teal species) relatively abundant gadwall.
? The relationship of high limits and long seasons to the number of ducks available might be particularly vexing in Minnesota this fall. Granted, due to recent poor seasons, Minnesota might put only 80,000 to 90,000 hunters in the field beginning Sept. 30. But, according to the DNR's spring breeding duck survey, we have only half as many mallards in the state as we did two years ago.
? Meanwhile, as is popularly believed among Minnesota hunters, the flyway that in autumns past routed many Canadian ducks over Minnesota seems to have moved west. And why not? The habitat is sufficiently poorer here than there, and sufficiently scarcer as well. Additionally, except for this spring and last, prairie Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been dry, making them poor duck producers and the Dakotas, in turn, relatively good producers. And Dakota ducks seem less likely to fly over Minnesota than some Canadian ducks.
? Ironically, in the face of all of this, the Minnesota DNR has in certain instances attempted to dig the state out of its duck hole by giving hunters additional opportunities to kill ducks, not fewer. Case in point: The season typically has opened in Minnesota at noon in an attempt to mitigate what can be a significant opening-day kill, thereby increasing the chance more Minnesota ducks will remain in Minnesota longer in fall. Now the season opens at 9 a.m., not to benefit ducks but duck hunters. And the period during which shooting must end at 4 p.m. -- a restriction again intended to keep Minnesota-bred ducks in the state longer -- has been shortened by about half. (The DNR gets credit for restricting spinning-wing decoys during the early season.)
? Meanwhile, elsewhere in the flyway, real acknowledgement has been made that hunter pressure is -- in the context of present-day factors affecting ducks -- a very, very big deal. Take Illinois and Missouri, both of which have labored long, hard and well in recent years to plant habitat that will hold ducks in their states. And part of that "holding" involves not only limiting hunter access on prime public lands (at least) but limiting also the time each day hunting is allowed.
? This is only common sense; anyone who has ever hunted ducks knows they respond foremost to hunting pressure. And in the context of the landscape changes that have occurred across the land, particularly in Minnesota, hunting pressure is among key factors affecting ducks and duck movements. And one of the only ones we can accomplish near-term.
? Yet in Minnesota, not only hasn't the DNR sought to restrict hunter access and shooting hours, even in a limited fashion, it still labors under the bizarre notion that its "Youth Waterfowl Day," set again this year for mid-September, does nothing to dissuade ducks from hanging around in Minnesota until the real opener two weeks later.
? ? ?
Here's what needs to be done to bring ducks and duck hunting back to Minnesota in something resembling past norms:
? The way ducks (and other fish and wildlife) are managed in Minnesota needs to be changed. The DNR needs not to report to the state's governor but to a citizens commission empowered by statute or constitutional fiat to manage the state's resources in their best interest. The agency also needs a constitutionally dedicated source of funding so legislators can spend their time productively -- such as imagining conversations with state supreme court justices -- rather than hamstringing the will of the people in their attempts to conserve the state's woods, waters and fields.
? When the above comes to pass -- and it will, sooner rather than later -- conservation in Minnesota can begin in earnest.
? Until then, the DNR needs to get ahead of the duck-management curve, leading and developing hunters' educated opinions, not bending to their two-bit whining. The keystone here for the DNR will be to make a strong case among hunters for the creation of safe areas for ducks so more of these birds can reaffirm and re-establish traditions of nesting and/or migrating through the state.
? For four reasons, this won't be easy. One, the DNR lacks a tradition of acting proactively, and especially experimentally, in behalf of ducks. Two, state and federal waterfowl managers seem now to want to whack Canada goose populations pretty hard in an attempt to reduce their numbers, a notion that runs counter to establishment of restricted-hunting areas for ducks. Three, before either of the above can occur, Youth Waterfowl Day needs to go away, to be replaced by an event of equal importance to participants but diminished effect on the resource -- and the DNR seems unwilling to do this. And, four, too few duck hunters and other conservationists have shown a willingness, to date, to apply the kinds of political pressure needed to see these changes come to pass.
So, sure, go ahead, enjoy the duck season.
But until duck management in Minnesota is changed, and management also of the state's other resources -- and until hunters show a newfound willingness to ensure these happen -- the chances that duck hunting will grow worse in the state, rather than better, are really quite good.
Check Out Our Forum Tab!
Topic: dennis anderson's article from sunday redstar about duck's N geese (Read 2388 times)
