USFWS is UPSET about the Megaduck Challenge....

[Don Miller in Birmingham]

Meeka, you hit the nail on the head! My thoughts on this subject exactly. If they are truely looking for truth in banding data, change the formula accordingly. They did it after they implimented the call in 800 number. The only reason they are so upset is that it is people outside the federal governments control that is putting on this Megaduck Challange. I have said it several times before and will say it again I just don't buy the USFWF' arguement about it "skewing the data".

[booger]

I can't take it anymore and be nice. Some of the comments are just plain dumb. As for business analogies, business is designed to make profits, research/science is designed to produce good RELIABLE data.

Does D.U. support this? NO

Does Delta Waterfowl support this? NO

Does the USFWS support this? NO

Can any of you find a biololigist that supports this?

Why does anyone support this?

[sportsman450]

I think the FWS feels a little threatened that somebody else is taking part in their studies and frankly they're coming off as a bunch of TOOLS.....

This is probablythe most accurate thig said on this thread!!!

And,if they think they can accurately figure the percentage of bands that are called in ,it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the increase,and to adapt accordingly.

[Don Miller in Birmingham]

If a 30 to 40% margin of error is considered good research, I will give half of my annual income to PETA. I just don't buy the arguement that this thing will totally throw a monkey wrench in already unreliable data. Does 1+1=7, according to what I have read about the USFWS' banding data it does. I'm just stating my opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Opinion are like a$$holes, everybody has one. So take it for what it's worth, an opinion.

[Bustin' Ducks]

Mass Kiliings..Hell I'm was just tryin' to think how many times last season I limited out...in all season it maybe been 3 times!!!!!! 250K..on a duck..well it'd be nice but if there are NO ducks in Dec/Jan (like last year)...then guess what...you won't have to worry about the 250K band!!!my .02

[Ringbill]

Most of the negative aspects of the megaduck deal have already been addressed. I would like to reiterate, though, that the bottom line on band recovery models, what we use banding data for to estimate survival rates that figure in to AHM models is that they are intended to precisely estimate some parameters like survival. When things change abruptly then reporting rates may be underestimated, and so far the only way to estimate reporting rates is through reward band studies. I know it sounds strange, but changing reporting rate and not fully understanding HOW reporting rates changed is a BAD thing. It is very similar to the release of the 1-800 bands prior to understanding how putting the number on bands changed reporting rates.

One other thing I am curious about...if all band numbers from a given year are made public, what stops someone from getting the numbers and saying they recovered some of those birds (that is, they simply call in a number off the list). The odds of getting caught may be low, but this would be a very bad thing. All they ask for is the band number and location...you don't send the actual band in unless it can't be read....just some random thoughts.

Ringbill

[DuckyDan]

When doing an analysis on a data set, whether it be a some type historical data from a business, money, or even duck numbers, you want the information to be consistent. I know the assessments of the duck population aren't 100% accurate, but in this case, consistency is accuracy. You don't want a lot of variance in your data. Where there is a lot of variance in data, there is more risk, and therefore less accuracy in being able to predict the outcome. For example....would you rather buy a stock that's value was all over the place, up one day real big, down real big the next day, with no way of telling what it will do next or would you rather buy one that is showing a steady growth and looks consistent on a chart over the last 5 years? Which seems "safer"? You'd rather have the steady one because you can "trust" it more. That's why USFWS is worried about this. Their system may not be 100% accurate, but it works. It's a consistent means of assessing the duck population. There's nothing wrong with improving the band count. I'm not saying that at all. I wish EVERYONE would report their bands, but this much of a change all at once COULD, not saying that it WILL, but COULD mess up counts of duck populations, which in turn will come back to bite all of us in the booty eventually.

I don't want to sound like a party pooper, I'd love to be the one who got the $250K band! Lord knows I could use the extra cash! I'm just afraid of what the outcome of the program COULD, not saying WILL, bring.

Just my $0.02.

[Bigpoppa]

At the risk of horking someone off....here goes.....I dont have a problem with it at all. I think some of the surveys and data that is reported now is way off. I dont see how this could make things worse. I think it will boost the enjoyment. I am going to hunt anyway, and I love it and I will do the right thing. Most hunters are this way, this will give us something extra to talk about in the blind and at camp. A few little duck bands no matter what they are worth is not going to disrupt or destroy the work that the Fish and Wildlife service has put in.

[DuckyDan]

No offense taken here. I'll be out there with the rest of ya'll this year, just like always. It makes no difference to me( the money ) whether or not I go hunting. To be frank about it, I don't think money alone could motivate me enough to go through half of the junk I've gone through over the years just to kill a few quackers.