The Politics of Duck hunting

Rich... you are correct about the Donnegan Patent. It has NEVER been defeated in court. In fact, when New York State required all residents last year to pay for salt water fishing licenses the Town of Southampton said no, that right is granted to us by the Donnegan Patent. It went to court and guess what.... New York State Saltwater fishing licenses are FREE because Southampton and a few other towns covered in the Donnegan Patent took New York State to count and WON.


If I remember correctly from my old Baymen days on long Island. The town of southampton controls the fish in the sea and the birds in the air by the grace of something called the Donnegan Patent which goes back to the 1600s or so. This was a grant by the King or Queen of England to the people in southampton town. I always thought that things like this were the reason we fought the revoloutionary war. A sharp lawyer could probably have fun with this in our judicial system, but the southamptom guys have very deep pockets, and would out littigate everyone else especially us lowly hunters. By the way back in the seventies someone told us that shinnecock canal was state waters. We saw tons of sand eels there, after one set of our net the southampton clam cops were all over us like flies on stink. If a local friend hadnt got word of this and told the cops he owned the net and we worked for him, Im sure we would have spent the nite in jail. Rich
Click to expand...
 
This is an interesting conversation. I have waterfront property on an island in the MIssissippi River. Now my abstract states my property line which I pay taxes on goes from the middle of the street to the middle of the slough (The box shown in red). The area show in blue is a Corp of Engineer right of way. I can't legally do anything in that blue box without written approval from the Corp of Engineers. Then on top of that the green line is a 20' public right of way. That means legally if a boat pulls up to shore and the occupants decide they want to park there and set up camp or fish from the bank I have no legal right to ask them to leave. So the little area where the "A" balloon is shown is the only piece of my property I can really say I have control over. Doesn't quit seem right to be taxed on all that land that I can't control now dosen't it?

Now the little box on the opposite shore is a place the birds like to sit and so do I. That property is called a bird sanctuary but the state doesn't acknowledge it. I have asked the DNR if I can legally hunt there and I'm told yes but just don't get out of the boat and go on shore to pick up a dead bird or a cripple because I'd be on "PRIVATE LAND". Now here's my question. How can they tell me not to get out of the boat if I can't tell someone on my "PRIVATE LAND" to get back in their boat? Double standard or lack of knowledge? Some may be asking...Aren't you a little close to the bridge? There is no rule on how far away from a bridge you have to be in Illinois according to the DNR.

I guess the whole point of this is do your own dudilegents and know the law where you live before you hunt. Here in the Tampa Bay area they have successfully stopped hunting around the bay by naming all the mangrove areas and bays with names such Aquatic Preserve or Birding Preserve.

property_line.jpg


Take care,

Ed L.
Click to expand...


I've heard you "can't" hunt anywhere Ed - get it (that's a very poor example of a joke at your expense).

Just to be clear on what your post. This is a good example of things gone terribly bad. Here is where it can get very sad very quick. You don't own the water over the top of the river bottom but you do own the river bottom. Want to guess who ends up paying the damage to the river bottom should a gas pipeline be buried there and explode? I've seen it where the "property owners" are partially liable. Explain that one?

Couldn't agree more on the do your homework comment. It has led me to some unbelieveably great hunting sites. It also makes me more credible when talking to game wardens and others who question what I'm doing. And I don't agree with some on this thread that you should just give up and hunt somewhere else. If you are law abiding (and not a nuisance by hunting 50 feet from someone's bedroom window), then stick to your guns (no pun intended). Giving up equals giving in to me. Once you give in, say good bye to your hunting priviledges/rights.

Mark W
 
and most of those blinds aren't even touched all season...... just about the only way a spot gets freed up is if someone gives it up
 
and most of those blinds aren't even touched all season...... just about the only way a spot gets freed up is if someone gives it up
Click to expand...


They likely won't ever give it up, because they know as you they would never get it back. Is it legal to sub-lease such blind spots on a season by season basis.
 


I've heard you "can't" hunt anywhere Ed - get it (that's a very poor example of a joke at your expense).
Click to expand...


HAHAHA.......Of course it's sad to think your right sometimes! And that pipe line you mentioned goes from Iowa to Illinois across the island about 1000 yards down river from my house.

But if your interested I can show you a map that the combined explosion rings would change the flow of the river and create a lake upwards of 50 miles across with Clinton Iowa in the center. Who comes up with the criteria for these environmental impact studies anyway!

Have a good day.

Ed
 
This doesn't answer the question "exactly", but you can extrapolate the data to see that he's at least "close". (Info taken from www.flyways.us.) Mexico
Currently, there are no annual estimates available for hunter harvest in Mexico. However, a study by Kramer et al. (1995) gives a good indication of the magnitude and species composition of the annual waterfowl harvest in Mexico. From 1987 to 1992, Kramer et al. conducted a census of harvest in all the traditional waterfowl hunting areas of Mexico, visiting each major area in a different year. Then they applied area-specific correction factors to adjust for under-reporting by hunters. Finally, they summed the results for each area across years to obtain estimates of average annual harvest for all of Mexico. Generally, the waterfowl harvest in Mexico is less than one percent of the total North American harvest.
Click to expand...

Kevin, the only thing in there that answers my question is that "Currently, there are no annual estimates available for hunter harvest in Mexico." The rest of it seems to be quite ridiculous to me. Using numbers that are nothing more than SWAGs based on information from hunters that are "underreporting" to create statistics is about as useful as tits on a boar hog. So, I'm not sure how you extrapolate the data to even get "close" using information that is TWENTY YEARS old and is based on made up data.

Dani
 

Kevin, the only thing in there that answers my question is that "Currently, there are no annual estimates available for hunter harvest in Mexico." The rest of it seems to be quite ridiculous to me. Using numbers that are nothing more than SWAGs based on information from hunters that are "underreporting" to create statistics is about as useful as tits on a boar hog. So, I'm not sure how you extrapolate the data to even get "close" using information that is TWENTY YEARS old and is based on made up data.

Dani
Click to expand...


It's certainly dated and certainly not perfect science. Thus, it is unreliable information. BUT, it is the best information I could find and probably better than your "guess" or mine.

I just saw that US hunters shot 18 million ducks/geese last year. For Mexico to shoot 1%, that means 180,000 birds. Using an American hunter going to Mexico for a four day hunt and shooting 25 birds/day avg., he will shoot 100 ducks. That would equate to 1,800 hunters going to Mexico every year. There are not that many Mexican duck lodges so I tend to believe the 1% number (or something half way close to it).
 

Kevin, the only thing in there that answers my question is that "Currently, there are no annual estimates available for hunter harvest in Mexico." The rest of it seems to be quite ridiculous to me. Using numbers that are nothing more than SWAGs based on information from hunters that are "underreporting" to create statistics is about as useful as tits on a boar hog. So, I'm not sure how you extrapolate the data to even get "close" using information that is TWENTY YEARS old and is based on made up data.

Dani
Click to expand...


It's certainly dated and certainly not perfect science. Thus, it is unreliable information. BUT, it is the best information I could find and probably better than your "guess" or mine.

I just saw that US hunters shot 18 million ducks/geese last year. For Mexico to shoot 1%, that means 180,000 birds. Using an American hunter going to Mexico for a four day hunt and shooting 25 birds/day avg., he will shoot 100 ducks. That would equate to 1,800 hunters going to Mexico every year. There are not that many Mexican duck lodges so I tend to believe the 1% number (or something half way close to it).
Click to expand...


Excellent find Kevin and I think that gives strong support for what D Dominski suggested. I'm astounded, but the estimates put the harvest data right in the ballpark.

As far as the commentary that the numbers presented by Kramer et al. are SWAGs - that is often said about all waterfowl population numbers (I don't agree with such statements). All waterfowl numbers are extrapolations made with assumptions, this is a tool in science widely used and accepted by all population biologists. I don't know if the study was done well with the right assumptions, but that wasn't the question. It could be just as easily said (and often is by people who don't know what they are talking about) that "we" don't even really know how many ducks are in North America, since we haven't actually counted them. Well, we do know pretty well how many ducks we have and that is by counting some of them and extrapolating from there - a standard within the scientific community.

Dani called out D and data was found that confirms D's statement solidly. To call into question the methods at this point is hogwash. First because the methods used are standard methods and second because the hogwash caller hasn't actually read the paper. Additionally, no offense to Dani as I'm sure she is plenty bright, but she doesn't have the training to critically evaluate the paper even if she had it in hand.

Sorry Dani, but you made a gamble and called a guy out and as hard to believe it as it is, pretty good proof exists.

T

 
Tod, IF the harvest information was provided by "Biologists" then it would qualify as "same as other data" as you indicate. But it wasn't. It was secured from the Lodges and then the hunters. BOTH of whom are notorious liars and underestimaters, and then those "guessess" were built upon to come up with some made up harvest. None of it is supported by BIOLOGIST input and therefore is not the same as the data that you cite.

PLUS the data presented is 20 years old for Mexico and current for the U.S. It's pretty far fetched to equate 20 year old data to current if you ask me.

As to Mr. Dominski, since you had to wait for someone else to respond to my question to you, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse someone else of "not reading much" since clearly you didn't have the information that Mr.Layne provided.

Dani
 
Last edited:
Tod, IF the harvest information was provided by "Biologists" then it would qualify as "same as other data" as you indicate. But it wasn't. It was secured from the Lodges and then the hunters. BOTH of whom are notorious liars and underestimaters, and then those "guessess" were built upon to come up with some made up harvest. None of it is supported by BIOLOGIST input and therefore is not the same as the data that you cite.

PLUS the data presented is 20 years old for Mexico and current for the U.S. It's pretty far fetched to equate 20 year old data to current if you ask me.

As to Mr. Dominski, since you had to wait for someone else to respond to my question to you, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse someone else of "not reading much" since clearly you didn't have the information that Mr.Layne provided.

Dani
Click to expand...


Dani, you can try to squirm out of your challange all you want, but fact of the matter is that your after the fact arguments don't do it for me.
 
Sounds like you do not read much, but that is what I would expect. At least you can add!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


When you have nothing intelligent to add to a conversation . . . resorting to personal attacks is always a good answer . . . hahaha!!!


"What a maroon" Bugs Bunny.
 
Tod, IF the harvest information was provided by "Biologists" then it would qualify as "same as other data" as you indicate. But it wasn't. It was secured from the Lodges and then the hunters. BOTH of whom are notorious liars and underestimaters, and then those "guessess" were built upon to come up with some made up harvest. None of it is supported by BIOLOGIST input and therefore is not the same as the data that you cite.

PLUS the data presented is 20 years old for Mexico and current for the U.S. It's pretty far fetched to equate 20 year old data to current if you ask me.

Dani
Click to expand...

Dani, my point is that someone went down there and investigated the harvest and came up with the best numbers they could get (they even extrapolated for under reporting). It may not have been biologists and it was 20 years ago. But it it's got to be better information that you or I could pick out of the sky based on a few stories we've read or a few people we've talked to. And, as Todd said, that's how things are done in the duck world.

Think about how big our country is. Think of all the guys hunting both coasts. Think about about how big WA, OR, CA, LA, TX, KS, MO, and many other duck spots are and how many ducks and hunters there are in each of them. Then think about Mexico. LOTS of desert and lots of poor people with no access to guns. Then throw in a few waterfowl meccas and a few gringos killing a lot of ducks every day. Who's going to kill more duck - a bazillion people in the US or a few gringos in Mexico?

If you don't believe the low number, what do you think it it?
 
Sounds like you do not read much, but that is what I would expect. At least you can add!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


When you have nothing intelligent to add to a conversation . . . resorting to personal attacks is always a good answer . . . hahaha!!!


"What a maroon" Bugs Bunny.
Click to expand...


Hey Kevin, did you find a source for the research on the honesty and ethics of Mexican politicians versus those on Long Island? Thought maybe you could help David out by passing that information on to those of us who don't read much...;)
 
and lots of poor people with no access to guns.
Click to expand...

You don't think poor people have ways of catching and eating ducks without guns? I should have got a picture of the day one of the guys walks in from the greenhouse with pair of live Mallards he caught after they flew in through the vents.

He looks at me with a big smile and says "Para casa!"

I say "No, para a fuera."

The smile dimenishes "Para casa?"...he looked as though I took away his dinner...oh wait, I did. Needless to say, they were released frightened but physically unharmed and we went on a 13 acre chase to get the other drake that had been trapped as well.

Reading back on David's original post, I question why he even brought up hunting Mexico except for the opportunity to brag...
 
Kevin worthless data is worthless data regardless of whether its the only data or not. You're suggesting that since it's the only data that that makes it valid. Simply put I don't buy the validity of it when it was fresh and I sure don't buy the "it's THIS PERCENTAGE of the American harvest 20 years later." Call it GIGO.....GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT. Further your assumption is that the only people that visit Mexco to shoot ducks are Americans. That is as flawed as the archaic data in the only report that you were able to find.

And do you not think that the Outfitters in Mexico and the people that go there know that Americans dislike the "pretty much shoot all you want to" attitude of the visiting hunters? Do you not think that they substantially understate what is killed so as to make it possible for people to puff up and state, with no science to report it, "all the ducks killed in Mexico in a year don't equal all the ducks killled in the U.S. on opening day"...or whatever this weeks permutation of that age old saw is?

Fact is that if you have the money you can do anything and everything you want in Mexico, Eagles to tweety birds, and the Outfitter is going to smile, point and ask "Uno mas"? Do you really think that when queried the Outfitters will share that information when they know it is being used to determine a harvest number?

Sorry if that doesn't "do it" for you, or anyone else.....I'm sure I'll live knowing that.....

Dani
 
Last edited:
Tod-

Trying to "squrim out"? How do you figure that refusing to accept 20 year old "non-peer reviewed" numbers for Mexico as compared to present day numbers for the U.S. is "squirming out"? You're a Sceintist Tod. I doubt very seriously that if someone said that the population of Spruce Budworms in a study area was "XXXXXX" and those numbers came from asking the Rural Postal force and the local arborist and was then adjusted for "under-estimation" and then that data was being compared to current "scientifically gathered and vetted information" that you'd accept that as "valid" data.

That said, I wasn't trying to "do it for you" and could care less if "after the fact does it for you."

Dani
 
Kevin-

Here's some "numbers" for you.

According to the HIP surveys for the US in 2010, the estimated number of waterfowl shot was 14,867,000±4% and the estimated number of hunters was 970,200. So, going by those numbers the average number of waterfowl shot in a year per duckhunter is 15.3. If you're interested, you can take a look at the information here:

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/migratory%20bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202009%20and%202010%20hunting%20seasons.pdf

So, if a hunter stays three days and shoots 50 ducks in Mexico, in three days he's just shot THREE TIMES the "average" US hunters bag in a year. The stated limit in Mexico is 25, though often that is per "shoot" not per day. So it is conceivable that a person could go out in ONE DAY shoot 50 ducks and in one day shoot three times the "average" US hunters bag in a year. But, for simplicity sake we'll just stick to a person hunting once a day and the limit being 25 a day.

Anyway, 1% of the total number of birds shot in the United States is 148,670 birds for Mexico (using the information that you presented us with). If the AVERAGE hunter stays in Mexico for three days and kills 50 ducks during his whole trip, it takes 2,974 hunters to hit 1%. If they kill the "limit", which would be 75 birds, it takes about 1,982 hunters to reach that one percent. And if they kill more, as in "you can kill all you want", that the number of hunters required to hit that 1% mark gets smaller and smaller. And keep in mind that the Mexican season goes from essentially when the birds start showing up until they leave (beginning of November through mid-late March depending on which outfitter you choose to go with). Now a question for you. Do you think that the Mexican duck hunting industry is supported by as few as 2,000 "shooters" a year?

Dani
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top