DComeaux wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:Lots of interesting stuff in that article. You can probably see what you want to see.
“As resource managers, we tend to discourage flooding corn and other crops as a way to attract waterfowl or provide habitat for them. We would much rather see landowners and clubs conduct moist-soil management, which provides better habitat overall than a flooded corn field. It may be hard to believe, but ducks use moist-soil habitat at far greater rates than flooded corn when both are available,” says Eichholz, adding, “Biologically, giving ducks corn is like giving kids candy, but they will choose higher-quality foods typically found in moist-soil habitat if it is available. They know what they need to eat in order to survive. Lots of studies have shown that, although ducks do prefer corn when the weather is real cold.”
So if they all go to moist soil instead of flooded corn, southern Louisiana is really screwed
I'd much prefer to see those installed in the flyway, but I'm doubtful that many would go through the expense in the name of conservation. That's why I think Du and delta use corn as an incentive for landowners. The intentions may be good, but no one looked at the side affects.
I think there is way more of that than you realize actually happening. I've seen a lot of moist soil added in my area and none of it by DU or DNR or anybody that is directly concerned about its benefits to ducks, but it still benefits the ducks. Remember the link to all the projects in Illinois. They were all effectively creating or improving moist-soil or other types of more natural habitats. I was also at a local chapter DU meeting years ago. The budget for the park district of the county we were in was greater than the entire budget for all of DU. So while I think what DU does is good, I think its impact is wildly overstated. I think they help identify problems and solutions, but orders of magnitude more work is done outside their influence. I really think it is happening all along the flyways and of them for reasons unrelated to waterfowl, but has to do with our far greater understanding of the value of these types of wetlands to water quality, flooding, as well as to wildlife of all types. Also, they are just more aesthetically pleasing.
DComeaux wrote:if those fields have that much food after harvest then why allow flooded corn in the migration corridor in the name of conservation?
Eichholz acknowledges flooded corn is a divisive and contentious topic among hunters, and he calls the ambiguous regulations “silly.” However, he sees no reason the practice should be banned from a biologist’s perspective. Any additional habitat is better than no additional habitat, even if it is seasonal and relatively poor overall.
More is more in terms of habitat if I am interpreting his argument.
I agree with Eichholz that there is no reason to ban it, but I think it is done far more because it makes hunters happy than because it is the best use of resources for the ducks. The same reason that you want to ban it is the same reason others want it to be part of the management plan. If the local area were not planting and flooding corn, they would catch so much hell, so they just do it.
DComeaux wrote:I hunt near (3 miles west) of an 86,000 acre refuge that does not allow hunting. A major portion of this refuge closes to all outside human activity on December 1st, and remains closed until March 1'st. It has a small potion planted (brown top I believe) near the road and this is flooded just prior to teal season. The remainder is natural moist soil that is well managed. I've always been thankful for this place as these fowl do need safe areas, especially with today's hunting pressure.
Maybe that is a far greater explanation to your poorer hunting success. The birds know where to go and simply go there.
“What do you think happened on those places that were closed to hunting and human activity at 1 p.m.? Ducks started pouring in after 1 p.m. On places that were open all day, the ducks started pouring in right after sunset,” says Raedeke. “Hunting pressure and human disturbance dictate how much use flooded crops get more than the crops themselves.”
A study conducted in Ontario found similar results. It examined duck use of flooded crop impoundments that were hunted and found the birds stopped using those areas almost entirely during daylight hours a few weeks into the hunting season. Nighttime use jumped dramatically.
The ducks go where the people are not as soon as they learn where the people are not.
Giving them a safe haven, gives them a safe haven. And they will use it.
We need to mix it up so hunting is better while the season is on. If that resulted in cutting the season length because we killed more birds per day on average
Remember everywhere is a refuge outside of hunting season. The goal is to maximize the enjoyment of our limited resource. That involves increasing the sustainable harvest and maximizing the enjoyment of harvesting that resource. More uniform and predictable success is going to be part of that. To do that, we can't let them pile into refuges and sit there until it is dark.
Akin acknowledges some birds do leave the comfort of those impoundments and provide decent shooting at times for surrounding hunters, but that typically happens when the planted food is depleted later in the season. It can also occur when the ducks have been shot at a few times.
I want them to leave more often so there is more spillover to the surrounding areas. If they aren't being shot at, you will get a lot less spillover. You'd almost certainly kill more ducks if you 86,000 acre refuge allowed hunting as would obviously the people hunting on that area. Same total duck harvest, but in fewer days. I think that is what most people want relative to what we have today.