Waterfowl Possession UPDATE

[bobcat]

So why are you making this such a big deal then? It is what it is, everyone has there way of interpreting it.

I didn't think it was me making a big deal out of this whole issue. I just suggested that a punchcard might be a good option and a few people freaked out. Heck have a punchcard and no daily limit. What good is a daily limit anyway when some people are killing 300 or more ducks in a season? If I only hunt ducks one day out of the 90 days, why can't I kill 25 ducks in that one day? This whole discussion is kind of pointless anyway, because as bigtex said, they won't come to your house and count the ducks in your freezer.

The one thing I would like to see changed is that if a person is camping while on a hunting trip they should not have to follow the possession limit of 14 ducks. Your camp should be treated the same as if it was your house. But what happens when you're driving home and have 49 ducks for each licensed hunter in the vehicle?

[TheSkyBuster]

I think a waterfowl punchcard would be a good idea.........if it also came with a wolf punchcard 

[Fishnclifff]

I understand both sides of the punch card and i am not in favor of it.

Bobcat,

The rules define how many ducks you can shoot in a day, and how many you can possess in the field. That is not in dispute.

Where the 2 times the daily limit rule applies is what s confusing under the state rule.
The season is 104 days. A person is allowed 7 ducks per day.
The fed rule limits you to 2 daily limits in your possession in a day.

The state rule says you can only have 14 ducks.
 Where can i have these ducks?
When can i have these ducks?
 When dont I have to count these ducks anymore?
None knows for sure.

This why we are trying to get something concrete established.

[The Weazle]

I really dont think a punch card is the way to go.  If I dont send in my salmon card, I get charged like $10 the next season, if its in the computer when I buy a new license...but I still get a license.  If over harvesting of ducks/geese was an issue, there would be way more enforcement of the interpretation of the possesion limit.  I think they put that in place for people who travel, so that they cant go home with 50 birds in a weekend hunt without some real proof that it was a group hunt.  Punch cards are a joke.  Crab, salmon, steelhead, westside pheasant, etc...all you do is pay a measly fine for not turning it in.  I could be wrong, but I have lived here for 16 years, and sometimes the cards get turned in, sometimes they dont because I am on deployment, but I have never been denied a license the following year...(I will mention that they dont get not turned in intentionally, there is just a lot going on prior to deployment, and punch cards arent high on the list of things to do prior to shipping out).

[sakoshooter]

"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?

Waterfowl hunters already buy two(2) punchcards or stamps to be exact. One state and one federal duck stamp. This is not counting their big/small game license. Actually we've been doing this since I was a kid. That's a lot of puch cards.
As for excessive - my own ethics tell me that when I can not or do not eat all I harvest, it is then in excess and I become very picky in the field as to what I do harvest. That's just me. When you're shootin em just to give to the neighbors cuz there's no way you can eat em, then you're going to have to ask yourself that question. But that ethics thought can certainly be applied to fising as well. I know a lot of salmon/steelhead fishermen that harvest rather than catch & release and give them away simply because their freezers are full.

[ducksdogsdownriggers]

Got a buddy who lives/hunts/guides in Maine.  Their migratory regs actually define termination of possession:
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/laws_rules/hunting_trapping/mig_birdlaws.htm
Termination of Possession
For the purposes of this part, the possession of birds legally taken by any hunter shall be deemed to have ceased when such birds have been delivered by him to another person as a gift; or have been delivered by him to a post office, a common carrier, or a commercial cold-storage or locker plant for transportation by the postal service or a common carrier to some person other than the hunter.

[Fishnclifff]

This just affirms what we are trying to resolve.

Their rule says they are in your possession unless you put them in someone elses possession.

 So we all have to rent cold storage lockers to keep all of our meat to take to the butcher.

[h2ofowlr]

If you don't turn in your snow goose, sea duck, or brant card at the end of the season you are not eligible to receive it the following year.  That would piss off a lot of people.  I know of several local clubs that harvest totals are over 1500 birds per season.  Duck hunting is high dollar, so hopefully those would fight the punch card option if it was proposed.

[sakoshooter]

Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
We were told that the possession limit rule was in place to prevent slob hunters/poachers from taking a limit of birds in the am and returning in the pm. It's basically an unenforceable rule as it is and realy won't be any more enforceable if we get our definition change other than the fact that a very high percentage of us waterfowlers won't be technically in violation most of the year.
This glich was found due to bs'n on this forum and a couple others. It'd be no different if we found a glich in the deer or elk regs that was similar. We'd want it changed, wouldn't we? Well, that's all Fishncliff and I are trying to do here. I'd much rather see you send you comments in support of our idea to Olympia rather than try to make it more complicated on here.
Sorry Fishincliff, This has been going on a long time and many probably don't know the time you and I have put into this. I had to voice my opinion.

[Fishnclifff]

It's all good Sako,

I quit responding because of all the blathering.

I too want all waterfowl hunters and upland game hunters to get involved.

It is being reviewed at the fed level now, so maybe there is hope.

I'm working on getting the same message to some forums in TX and ARK so maybe they can add some heat to the feds too.

Just a side note. this is the Texas definition of possession limits::  


Texas defines daily bag and possesion as this:

"No person shall possess more than one daily bag limit of freshly killed birds while in the field or while returning from the field to one's hunting camp, automobile or temporary lodging facility (see General Rules - Donation or Gift). For the first day of any season the possession limit is the daily bag limit. A person may possess additional migratory birds after they leave the field, if the additional birds they possess are tagged with a wildlife resource document from the hunter who killed them. Migratory birds finally processed at the permanent address of the possessor are not considered part of the possession limit."

[bigtex]

Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."

WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.

[sakoshooter]

Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."

WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.

It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"

The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.

[bigtex]

Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."

WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.

It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"

The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.

Ya, exactly!
 They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"

[Fishnclifff]

I sent the Texas definition to USFW and WDFW for their consideration.

[sakoshooter]

Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."

WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.

It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"

The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.

Ya, exactly!
 They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"

'Processed' has too many implications by it'self. Cleaned needs to be part of the verbage in order to cover birds that have simply been 'cleaned' and frozen. 'Processed' covers the same birds if they've been de-boned or turned into sausage etc.