An increase in the pintail limit???

[mouthcallinmatt1]

Isn't this what we've been saying? Let's hope some weight is put on this and the commission adopts CWA's recommendation.

****USFWS EXPERIMENT IN RESTRICTIVE HARVEST REGULATIONS HAS NOT INCREASED PINTAIL POPULATIONS****

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has required reduced pintail harvest in the United States since 1988 in response to the declining North American pintail population. However, these restrictions do not appear to have had any impact in helping pintails. A report prepared by Michael Runge of the U.S. Geological Survey and Scott Boomer of the USFWS in February 2005 (Population Dynamics and Harvest Management of the Continental Northern Pintail Population) shows long-term stability in annual survival of pintails despite variable harvest regulations over time. Average annual survival of adult pintails (74% in males and 64% in females) has not changed over the period from 1965 to the present, and first-year survival of young pintails increased slightly through the 1965 to 2003 period, which had both high and low bag limits; thus, these trends cannot be attributed to restrictive harvest. In addition, an upcoming paper in the July issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management by Chris Nicolai and his co-authors reports that 90% of surviving northern pintails banded on the important nesting area of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta returned there. Most of these pintails winter in California, suggesting a relatively discrete subpopulation, and these birds survived at very high rates that also have not changed over time despite changes in harvest regulations.

Several years of excellent production of young, as evidenced by high pintail harvest age ratios during wet years in Prairie Canada, suggest that “super production” events produced and sustained high pintail populations during the 1970s. The Runge-Boomer report states that pintails no longer have the reproductive potential they did in the 1970s because of various types of upland and wetland habitat losses and long-term drought.

During the prolonged prairie drought of the 1980s and early 1990s, pintails counted in the prairies decreased precipitously. Pintails are known to seek northern regions of Canada and Alaska when preferred prairie breeding grounds are dry (the prairie “over-flight” phenomenon). As shown in the Runge-Boomer report, such movements are to the north and west, and as this occurs, many pintails fly out of survey regions, so the numbers counted during the annual May Survey show exaggerated declines. Runge-Boomer corrected for these movements and found that the underestimation was in the range of a few percent to as much as 80% (typically 30 to 60%)! This disparity between the unadjusted and corrected counts has widened over time as the pintail population shifted away from traditional southern prairie breeding grounds.

The lack of evidence that harvest impacts pintail numbers and the present abundance and stability of pintails breeding in Alaska clearly support increased harvest opportunity. The USFWS data show that harvest has had no impact on pintail survival during the past 40 years. California hunters have been subjected to excessive pintail restrictions for more than a decade despite the fact that pintails are typically the most abundant wintering duck in California and the Pacific Flyway. The data indicate that some additional harvest, especially of drakes, will not harm the pintail population. The large populations experienced in the 1970s will only be achieved again if recruitment (production of young ducks that survive to join the breeding population) from the prairies increases and is sustained, especially in wet years.

Tradition in harvest regulation changes demands conservatism in the face of uncertainty, but given the data presented by the USFWS and current population size and distribution of pintail, CWA advocates adding two drakes to the bag limit after December 1st when drakes are clearly distinguishable from hens ( a three-pintail limit, of which only one may be a hen). In addition, CWA advocates that the USFWS quickly address the deficiencies in the Runge and Boomer report. The Pacific Flyway Council’s recommendations
follow:

1) The assumption that hunting mortality is completely additive to natural mortality in the current pintail harvest model is unsupported and should be modified,
2) Specific stock management of pintails must be addressed in light of the Nicolai et al. scientific paper, and
3) Sex-specific harvest regulations for pintails should be incorporated after December 1.

In concert with such changes, CWA will recommend and assist in increased pintail banding efforts to improve the precision of annual survival calculations. We will also lobby for funding for the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game and offer our biological assistance to support appropriate population monitoring to assess impacts of our proposed changes, if implemented. We will encourage federal waterfowl population biologists through both traditional and political channels to seek these more reasonable pintail regulations for California hunters.

[wisterboy]

Do you think that the DFG is going to put this into consideration. I dont know why they think that the pintail population is going down. Wister holds a lot of Pintail each year and all we can do is sit there and watch them land in our decoys and not being able to do anything about it besides throwing a rock at them.

[EL CAZADOR]

The state can't go beyond the Federal guidelines and the Feds have put the lid on pintails. Basically, there isn't a Pacific Flyway model for spring, only a national one. Hopefully this new revelation will increase our limits.

[Socal Waterfowler]

The more the better. I would love to come in with 3 chokos. But you know there will be those one's who come in with 3 hens if they do raise the limit. :dove hunters with waders suck:

[bzzboyz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The more the better.[/b]

Easy for you guys out West to say. Ya&#39;ll are loaded down with em&#39;. Down here there to few and far in between to be raising the limit.

[rtin]

Originally posted by mouthcallinmatt1@Apr 6 2005, 03:04 PM
3) Sex-specific harvest regulations for pintails should be incorporated after December 1.

I would like to see an increase in drakes to 2 and it wouldn&#39;t hurt my feelings if they pulled hen harvest. There still would be the DHWW factor though.

[EL CAZADOR]

Originally posted by bzzboyz@Apr 7 2005, 07:55 AM
Easy for you guys out West to say. Ya&#39;ll are loaded down with em&#39;. Down here there to few and far in between to be raising the limit.

all the more reason to have a separate flyway model for pins.

[longduck]

would nice to get more than one drake.....i&#39;m in

[benelliblaster]

I like what I&#39;m hearing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As shown in the Runge-Boomer report, such movements are to the north and west, and as this occurs, many pintails fly out of survey regions, so the numbers counted during the annual May Survey show exaggerated declines. Runge-Boomer corrected for these movements and found that the underestimation was in the range of a few percent to as much as 80% (typically 30 to 60%)![/b]

Very interesting

It would be fun to experience only a fraction of what my Dad experienced when the the pintail limit was 7! I love when those beautiful birds roll in late morning & mid-day during the lull. Come in from waaaaaaaaaay up working your spread all the way down. What a sight!

Great, now I got my hopes up. Lets hope this goes thru

[mouthcallinmatt1]

Originally posted by bzzboyz@Apr 7 2005, 07:55 AM
Easy for you guys out West to say. Ya&#39;ll are loaded down with em&#39;. Down here there to few and far in between to be raising the limit.

We can make the same argument for Blue Wing Teal. We don&#39;t get many hear...way less than you get pintail...and we can shoot 7 of them. That&#39;s makes no sense at all. If there aren&#39;t many in Texas then there won&#39;t be many shot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Several years of excellent production of young, as evidenced by high pintail harvest age ratios during wet years in Prairie Canada, suggest that “super production” events produced and sustained high pintail populations during the 1970s. The Runge-Boomer report states that pintails no longer have the reproductive potential they did in the 1970s because of various types of upland and wetland habitat losses and long-term drought.[/b]

This quote is IMO the key factor to increasing the limits regardless of the distribution of these birds in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. The population levels of the 70&#39;s, which have been the long term goal to attain again, were inflated above normal population levels and as the quote states, ARE NOT going to be obtained again due to the changes in habitat and long-term drought. If we had counts of any species in the 1800&#39;s should we still stick to those numbers? NO!

The total population of pintail (if I recall correctly) is not that much different than widgeon or gadwall yet we can shoot 7 of them. Since this report shows that the pintail population is stable despite a 7 bird or a 1 bird limit...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

long-term stability in annual survival of pintails despite variable harvest regulations over time[/b]

...why not increase the limits. I think a hen restriction is a good idea. Allow one hen for a mistake bird. How someone can mistake a hen for a drake still doesn&#39;t make sense to me but I know there are guys that can&#39;t pass up a shot even though they aren&#39;t sure what they are shooting at. The DHWW factor isn&#39;t even a factor...those guys will shoot at whatever they want despite what the limits are. If they screw up the bird gets dumped (if they can even ID it) whether there is a 1 pintail limit or a 3 pintail limit so don&#39;t use the DHWW excuse to restrict the limits.

I hunted when the pintail limit was 7. It was amazing and I hope to see those days again. Since I was around at that time I do have to say that I think we are seeing less pintail in the Salton Sea area than we did 20 years ago. The flocks of birds that would come in and work the clubs and the refuge were bigger then. This is not to say we still don&#39;t have a lot of pintail there but there is less...not necessarily due to a decreased population but due to the birds changing their wintering areas. What many of you don&#39;t know is that 80% of the clubs in Imperial Valley had a feed zone for ducks. There was a 300 yard buffer around the feed area where you couldn&#39;t hunt. There were clubs that complained that the feeding clubs were holding all the birds. This led to the banning of the feed zones. IMO, and that of many others, is that the feed zones kept more birds in the area and supplemented them for what the refuge didn&#39;t provide along with the loss of more desirable crops in the valley. I think a lot of the birds that used to stay in the valley keep going south into Mexico now or they are staying up north due to the rot water that wasn&#39;t an issue in the 80&#39;s.

I know population dynamics are a lot more complicated than my common sensicle view but you can&#39;t fault me for wishful thinking.

[huntducks]

Go to Mexico you can shoot 15 a day

I hunted during the pintail hay days of the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s and I see about 75% of what was back then, USFWS needs to set limits of these birds by flyway.

I know I got a picture floating around some place with 14 drakes that 2 of us shot if I find it i&#39;ll post it, hunting out of parking lot 17 at Mendota was pintail heaven.