USFWS is UPSET about the Megaduck Challenge....

booger · Postby **booger** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:02 am

Folks, a percentage of bands go unreported each year. That base percent has been established over the years with various tests, complicated math, reward band experiments and so on. Yes it may be hard to undertsand that so much un-reporting of bands exists but it does. That figure has to be factored into the Adaptive Harvest Management formula (just like the REPORTED bands do) in order to make sense of the health of the specie.
If suddenly, EVERY band was reported that would skew their base line of unreported bands, thus throwing the ADH for a loop and the biologist work down the drain, and they'd be back to square one. Or at least back to square one until the goofy contest goes away and the previous base line presumably restored.
That is my amatuer biologist explanation, I'm sure someone else can explain it better.

DuckyDan · Postby **DuckyDan** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:05 am

sounds good to me.

Meeka · Postby **Meeka** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:26 am

Well, I have been doing it that way for years and that is the way I've always done it and 1 + 1 has always equaled 7.

It is no wonder we can't get accurate counts on ducks!

timberjack · Postby **timberjack** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:31 am

Right on, Meeka..........my sentiments exactly.

Model12 · Postby **Model12** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:47 am

SHEESH!!! Allot of good points there guys. I didn't realize there were so many unreported bands each year until I heard a "duck Hunter" explain that no way would he report his bands. It would cut the value to a fraction when he listed them on EBAY!!!!!! :shock:

Once again here we go...trying to make some MONEY on everything we do. I'll be glad to see the day when these wanna-bees go back to deer whackin and leave the duck hunters alone...my 2 cents....

Hot Rod · Postby **Hot Rod** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:55 am

I think the Megaduck program is a very bad deal for all duck hunters. I read that even after they were told why they shouldn't execute the program, their simple reply was, we're going to anyway because we have too much money in the deal. That's a load of crap. It's all about the money that they're going to take in from membership. As others have stated, it will encourage money hungry goofballs to poach and break other laws. Not only that, there will be more skybustin and other yahoos in the marsh as if there aren't enough already. This is not a good idea.

My 2 cents,

Hot Rod

SB · Postby SB » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:19 pm

DuckyDan and Booger have a pretty good grasp on how these band reports are used and the purpose of band reporting rates. Only a small percentage of the bands put on ducks that are harvested by hunters are reported by those hunters. Band reporting rates are used in harvest models. This proposed program could skew the data. How much? No one knows. That is part of the problem.

DuckyDan, you asked what the reporting rate was? I don't know off the top of my head. The information is out there though. I do know the 800 number increased band reporting rate when it went into effect. Research had to be done to determine how this, the 800 number, affected the reporting rate to update the models.

oltcutdown · Postby **oltcutdown** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:53 am

Seems like I heard one time that the band reporting rate was in the range of 4-8%. Don't know if that was before the 1-800-327-BAND on not. Other surveys detirmine the 'honesty' of hunters filling out surveys. The USFWS has correction factors for all of these data. What I get out of this is the same thing as Booger, the band reporting rate will skyrocket making all the data uncomparable, and will surely lead to decreased limits due to overestimated harvests. I bet that since band reporting rates were so low, and the then new Adaptive Harvest stuff came out, the feds used the 1-800 program to get a new, more accurate recovery/reporting baseline number. With this megaduck crap, that data will be out the window.

I ran into a guide from Southern Illinois years ago that flat out refuses to call in bands. His thinking is by reporting them, the feds will cut seasons, limits, etc. When in truth, the feds have already estimated the bands he didn't turn in by looking at surveys that tell them that only 4-8% of recovered bands are reported.

Bottom line is this, all game animals have a monetary value, and without it, we would't have any Pittman Robertson funds, Dingell Johnson funds, etc. to try and manage them. But this crap is rediculous!! Seems to me if the organization, for lack of a better term, was acting in the benefit of migratory waterfowl, they would have the sense to realize they are actually going to be hurting the birds and those of us who chase them by skewing data, having seasons cut, hunters not buying licenses and stamps. After all, we have to have that PR money to make shure Bald Knob, Wheeler, and Cache NWR are planted to the hilt so that they never leave the sanctuaries! :roll:

Seriously, what concerns me is, how many folks you think would stop at the limit, or just to try a roll another drake to see if it's got THE band. In my opinion the people putting this thing on don't give a damn about us or the ducks, they just looking to get paid. My suggestion is this, if you read the rules on this megaduck thing, you don't have to send them any money to enter, but you do have to report through them and follow all there rules and regs. I aint signing up for that shiat, and I hope you don't either. My .03

Don Miller · Postby **Don Miller** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:10 am

I am not trying to take sides here, but it seems to me that something such as Megaduck would give a truer band count than what the USFWS has been doing for years. How can the USFWS call their band report data correct if there is such great room for error, be it questionable "historical data" or not. It is just not scientific. They could be off on the band data as much as 30%. Someone posted above that 1+1 always equals 7. That is kind of my thoughts on this issue. If the USFWS wants a more scientific band count, they need to do something themselves along the lines of what Megaduck is trying to do. The other thing is that they say this could skew the numbers for Adaptive Harvest. If the truth is what they are after, so be it. If the duck numbers are in trouble and we need to go with a 45 day season, then let's have a 45 day season. I don't think and true sportsman will disagree with that. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. All of this talk about the Megaduck Challange has made me sceptical of just how scientific the USFWS numbers really are.

ducks&bucks · Postby **ducks&bucks** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:46 pm

I'm a newbee, so help me out. If only a small number of bands are reported each year, why would that number be used in setting bag limits and seasons? I've heard people on this site that have killed or heard of someone killing a banded duck that was several years old. So how can they tell if a banded duck was killed or just few over my spread with one tail feather missing :oops:

and made it to Mexico? Don't get me wrong, I think banding is a valuable tool, but maybe not for harvest numbers. As for Megaducks, if the Feds dont change their formula to compensate for the increase in reports, it will hurt banding information.

ducman77 · Postby **ducman77** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:13 am

Well this contest is not going to make me hunt more or less. I am going to hunt every day that I am able. I will call in every band I get so this is no big deal to me. I hope everyone else fills the same way and I hope that this little contest will not make anyone go and kill over the limit and also start all that sky-bustin. I am out there for the pleasure of duck hunting not duck killing. If I kill some when I go thats cool and if I dont there is always another day. Duck hunting is my passion and if the gov't took it from me I would not have anything to look forward to every November.

bigwater · Postby **bigwater** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:06 am

Man i have been tryin to make this post for three days now.. how do i feel about this challange well lets see... on one hand i can see the argument being made by the service and all its concern over skewed data.... however, (every time you come to a traffice light do u call it a red light or a green light) what i mean by this is ... why is it assumed by the feds that the the new data will be negative.. i mean it seems to me to be shallow to only think this way... Maybe SB can answer this question for me? Is there not a voice among the powers that be that says... hey you know guys this may make us change our formula... but maybe this change could be for the better...

Now for the most part the science used by the feds is of course sound.. However there have been times when the science has needed revising.. lest we forget the methods used in determining the fall flight index... even officals inside the service have been quoted as saying that the science used in determining this number (the fall flight index) hasn't always been the soundest...

with all that being said i'm not really all that fired up about this event... it could lead to alot more competition and greed... things we dont need...

oh yea one more thing... the first entry on this subject u know the one that takes u to the waterfowler.com link. whoever was writing for waterfowler starts off with a quote by henry david thereau (sp). henry says something about if he knew for sure that some man was a comin to his house to do him some good that he would scat like hell... what in gosh sakes is this fellow talkin about... was he under the influence of opium or had he been drinkin shoe polish... you know a lot of the boys that wrote back in the day.. well lets just say they made otis cambell look like the mayor...

later bigeater i mean bigwater...

crow · Postby **crow** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:58 pm

Simple solution.....If this group wants to do something really good for waterfowl...just put the big money bands on snow geese. We need to kill a pot load of those sky carp anyway, and that would encourage more goose hunters. There are about a blugillion geese out there that need killing, anyway!

bigwater · Postby **bigwater** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:22 pm

crow excellent point ... the only problem i would see with that would be that it would truly encourage outlaw types to use a rifle... and scope the big concentrations located in fields for bands and strictly bands..
later bigwater...

Meeka · Postby **Meeka** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:38 am

Maybe the USFWS is afraid to change the formula. Why, I don't know.

I am guessing they once decided that the reporting rate was too low and needed improvement. So they made reporting easier by implementing an 800 # and I guess the reporting rate increased. Then. they had to figure out then what part of the increase was due to the 800# and whether any part of the increase was due to other factors, like more ducks. All this is speculation by a mere hunter, but it sounds like the USFWS has revised the formula before. Kudos to them if they did.

Why can't they get better information now and once again decide what part is attributible to the megaducks thing? One problem I see is that the megaducks thing is not controlled by them. Will it be here next year? If not, you just have one season out of whack.

So why don't they do something themselves to improve reporting? Can they not get out of the box. Some folks think privatization of government services is good; private businesses can be more efficient and innovative at times. Why not allow non-goverment entities to be involved? If the USFWS thinks the reporting rate is way low, why not get all the entities or businesses that are interested in ducks to get together and decide how to do better. Right now it just seems they recognize band reporting rates are way low but do not want to do better in that regard. Do any of you run your businesses like that?

USFWS is UPSET about the Megaduck Challenge....

megaduck challange

Who is online