Waterfowl Possession UPDATE

[Fishnclifff]

The old thread went well but long.
here is the latest from WDFW::

Dear Mr. Pepper:

 

Thank you for your recent emails about waterfowl possession limits.  I agree that interpretation of the wording regarding waterfowl possession limits in state and federal regulations is confusing.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) federal regulations supersede state regulations for waterfowl, and USFWS has received similar comments.  According to the USFWS Pacific Flyway representative, an interagency team developed by USFWS has been tasked with the charge to review possession limits and that team will make recommendations for changes.  The issue identified here is one of several under consideration for clarification/possible change.  Since this is a federal regulation, changes in Washington regulation really can't be made without concurrent changes in the federal regulation.  I appreciate your concerns about this issue, and our agency will be providing input to USFWS regarding possession limits as their review process progresses.

Sincerely,

Don Kraege, Manager

Waterfowl Section

WDFW

[bobcat]

Just watch- they'll end up doing a punchcard like I said before. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Is it fair that some people kill 300 ducks in a season and others only kill 5?

[boots]

Just watch- they'll end up doing a punchcard like I said before. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Is it fair that some people kill 300 ducks in a season and others only kill 5?

I'm not sure "fairness" is applicable. The guys who kill 5 ducks per year are given the same opportunity as the guys who kill 300, but one could argue that the guys who are out there getting limits every weekend are using the opportunity to its full potential.

[bobcat]

"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?

[TheSkyBuster]

50?  I'd be buying a new punchcard every other week. 

Bobcat-
As it is I have to buy a liscence, small game or big game (which I buy anyway), a state migratory waterfowl endorsment, and a federal stamp. I would be opposed to more fees (hassels) then I already have.  I shot around 200 birds last season.  Would you say I'm taking an "excessive" amount of the waterfowl?  is that more than my fair share?   I mostly hunt on public land which means I work hard to shoot that many birds.  When you say 300 ducks seems excessive does that mean that killing a Trophy bull elk every year is excessive?  I have yet to take a decent elk myself, but I know the birds I shoot equal out to quite a bit less meat in the freezer than even a good size deer. The most abundent duck around here is the Mallard which has been steadily increasing in numbers for several years. Some of the diver numbers are declining but for the most part ducks counts are increasing.  Currently I do not feel that the number of ducks we can harvest in a season should be limited.  Like Boots said some of us are using our opportunity to it's full potential. 

[GregFowler23]

Well that still didnt answer any questions, all The WDFW is saying they will make "recommendations", give me a break! They're pathetic. Everyone one just needs to except the fact the other people will shoot more ducks then others will. Its ok.

[CP]

Why does WA state need such a law at all, it is covered by federal law and the federal law is plainly written and easy to understand.

[bobcat]

I don't really care what they do. It's just an idea, and one that I'm surprised "they" haven't considered. Skybuster, I'd be oppossed to any more fees also, if I were you. But I don't kill hundreds of ducks each season so a punchcard seems like a good idea to me.  Seriously, at least with a punchcard they could then do away with the 14 bird possession limit. Which, if you killed 200 birds last season, you must have been in violation of the law, correct? Wouldn't you rather have a legal way to kill, and keep, all those birds?

[teal101]

Great idea on the punch cards.  More revenue for the WDFW to spend elsewhere and more hoops for the average joe hunter to hop through.  With the way it's been they're going to regulate this sport into the ground.

There are no studies saying harvest has anything to do with population.  None.  Period.  They're beginning to conduct some on local woodducks in a western state (they wont say which one to not skew the numbers), to see if limits are even necessary AT ALL.

Ignorance is bliss, but when it comes to something we have to fight hard to even continue doing legally, why shoot ourselves in the foot and create more hassles and restrictions.  First they'll make it 50 bird punch cards then they'll make it limit of 5 punchcards per year on down till they make it worthless to even go out.  Going to punchcards is a step backwards, we need to fight to keep what liberal regulations we have already.

[boots]

I did not read the entire original waterfowl possession thread (after it was at 5 pages I decided it was a lost cause) but I can see both sides to the argument on punch cards.

That said, in my opinion, implementing a harvest card system has a "tax the rich because they can afford it" mentality. Average Joe-Hunter who shoots 12 ducks per year will not be effected by the punchcards (just like lower income brackets would not be affected by a higher tax rate in a progressive tax system). The only hunters that would be affected are the ones who consistently shoot lots of birds.

In the same sense that lower income and higher income people don't always see eye to eye on tax issues, hunters who don't harvest as many birds will not necessarily see eye to eye with the hunters who get a lot of ducks each year.

[TheSkyBuster]

I don't really care what they do. It's just an idea, and one that I'm surprised "they" haven't considered. Skybuster, I'd be oppossed to any more fees also, if I were you. But I don't kill hundreds of ducks each season so a punchcard seems like a good idea to me.  Seriously, at least with a punchcard they could then do away with the 14 bird possession limit. Which, if you killed 200 birds last season, you must have been in violation of the law, correct? Wouldn't you rather have a legal way to kill, and keep, all those birds?

I was and still am "Breakin the law"    and now my friendly neighborhood butcher shop is breaking the law now because I just took about 20 lb's of duck breasts down there to have made into duckeroni.  

Now is it still in violation of the law after it's duckeroni? or does that only count when they are in frozen duck breast form in my freezer?  

[h2ofowlr]

The punch cards are a joke.  We have to do it for sea ducks, brant, snow geese.  It's a pain in the a$$ especially when you forget a pen or it won't work.  If you want guys to shoot less birds, then shorten the season.  Plain and simple.  If it's a 90 day season then it needs to be taken into consideration that there are individuals that will hunt everyday of the season.  Multiply 90 times a possible 7 ducks or 4 geese in this state.  That can be a sizeable portion of meat.  Bag limits can vary from state and flyway.  They need to keep the posession to 14 ducks / 8 geese per day.  To exclude cleaned, processed, "frozen" birds.  If one is willing to break the rules and double limit in a single day, that individual is putting his a$$ on the line for a healthy ticket.  Most follow the rules, but just like everything else in society there are those that believe they are above the rules and let the punishment fit the crime.  If the gamies wanted they probably could locate ones carcasses in the field and test to verify when they were shot depending on body temp., decomposition, etc.  If you make your birds into pepperoni more than likely you bring it in by volume being 15lbs, 23lbs, 40lbs.  Your not going to bring in 14 duck breasts that might amount to about 4lbs of meat to have it made up.  The rule is probably as stated, so it gives the feds or gamies more leeway to go after someone if they want.  They can add more items to build a stronger case.  In general they know that those that hunt waterfowl will have processed and frozen legally taken waterfowl and then have it made into a variety of things.  Many individuals will get out, time permitting to stock up on wild game, so they can enjoy it and make it last into the year.

[seth30]

IMHO if your eating the duck, and not just wing shooting than your numbers shouldnt be a issue.   

[Fishnclifff]

Now is it still in violation of the law after it's duckeroni? or does that only count when they are in frozen duck breast form in my freezer?  

It was alledged in a forum like this one, back in the SE, that hunters were ticketed for being over the limit in the blind, because they had dead birds and their duckaroni sticks added up to more than the daily limit. Possession ends only after it is consumed theory.


To come out and say we should not be able to harvest the limits set by the feds and the state, because some one feels it is just wingshooting, can kiss me you know where. We are hunting per the guidelines and rules set forth by the same governing body that sets the rules for your hunting preferences. These peoople can keep  their  to themselves.


This effort to change the rule, is to get a clear definition of what possession means and avoid a BS conflict such as the one stated above.
There is no need to hamper duck hunters with further regulations. We have enough.

[Fishnclifff]

"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?

Bobcat,

I can kill 728 ducks in a season , following the federal and state daily limits. Legally.
The Duck Commander crew set their goal at 20000 ducks for the last season. Perfectly legal, with enough hunters.

Where the rub lies, is, what is the definition of the 14 rule. When can I say i don't possess a duck anymore? There is no definition by the state.
The feds say I can give it away of gift it away. Either of those, I need tags and have to keep records.
Some say possesion ends only after it is consumed. Those words are  Not written any where.

We are looking for a clear defined definition of what the term possession really means, not just someones opinion.