Instead of slamming each other for saying the "wrong" things; how about doing something constructive -

Now is time for your input to be made to TPWD regarding this seasons waterfowl dates and limits.

First; read the "Federal Frame Work" for the central flyway that all states must fall within. (each state defines start and stop dates and can even reduce limits as long as they stay within the federal frame work) It can be found at: http://www.flyways.us/regulations-and-harvest/current-federal-regulations

Then; go to the TPWD survey site and see what the state is planning to set the dates and limits at. Enter your feedback in the survey form. (or just sit on your butts and yap at each other.) The survey is at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/201008_late_migratory.phtml

your welcome.

. . and yes, TPWD is planning to end the season one week ahead of when the feds would allow. (on the 23rd instead of the 30th)

. . and yes, TPWD is planning to reduce the number of pintails you can take to one instead of the two that the feds would allow.

Your right. First question gives the proposed bag limits and only reads as one pintail.

The proposed daily bag limit for ducks is six, to include no more than five mallards ; three wood ducks; two scaup ; two redheads; one pintail; one canvasback; and one “dusky” duck . For all other species not listed, the bag limit shall be six. The daily bag limit for coots is 15. The daily bag limit for mergansers is five, which may include no more than two hooded mergansers.

Oh come on now . . you cant get away that easy !!

. . and your opinion is ???

(would post the little guy eating popcorn if I new how)

Good post dog. I completed the survey.

So the feds are allowing 2 pintails but the state is going to only have one?

That yes it should be two and I gave that opinion on the form. I almost wonder if that was put together before the final federal framework came out. Or what other reason would they have for not allowing two?

Changing the season ending date is going to be tough to do. If I remember they already know most hunters prefer it to run late, but the decision to end it earlier is at the request of waterfowl biologists and related to pair bonding in late winter and its effect on the success of those mated pairs at the breeding grounds after departing north. That is not my personal opinion, but I am all ears to what anyone has to say.

From my post earlier:



When I first read it I thought the two pinners were more or less a done deal, but now that I read it again the author is simply referring to the federal framework. I'm not sure how to take it... too tired or stupid or both...

But, if two pinners are the deal this season it sure would make that long drive to the coast more tempting.

To Sniper Johns point, the TPWD survey was posted prior to the posting date of the Fed's proposed frame work. Maybe they didn't know what frame work would be at the time ?

I agree Larry, that seems to only quote the Fed frame work and doesnt really say that that's what TPWD will adopt.

All very good reasons to participate in the survey. Would really like to get clearification from TPWD on what they plan to do. (not whats called out in the survey ?)

One more item . . the wording in both the Fed frame work and TPWD for the Texas west zone dark geese limits says "5 birds, not more than one can be a spec." Isn't this different than last year ? Seems like we could only take 4 canadas last year.

Last year you could only shoot four canadas and one spec, this year you can shoot five canadas OR four canadas and a spec

maybe

If you read TPWD survey it states
"The Service has not issued regulatory frameworks for the 2010-2011 hunting seasons for migratory game birds; thus, the department cautions that the proposed regulations are tentative and may change significantly, depending on federal actions."

Looks like it could change but I am going to put my comments in anyways. I want that 2 pintail limit!

I filled it out too. Thanks for the Post.

thanks littledog...this is exactly the kind of stuff this forum needs a little more of...not trying to take a shot at anyone i probably waste more time asking gear questions that the next guy, but this is the kind of thread that actually matters...thanks again

donski

done-sauce

Im sorry John But that is BS. Texas ends the season a week early so the snow goose E-Callers can get out there and hunt before the snows head back North. Snow goose guides have more pull in Texas than all the duck hunters do.

So what is all the complaining about? It sounds like they at least believe the reasons for only 1 pintail and a week shorter season. I doubt they would just implement these things just to spite hunters so I take it as them doing it for the better of the birds. They get paid do make that call so I will go along with what they say.

Oh and I took the survey too.

Well, ok. How about some research then.

Last years public comments are public record.
http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/texasregi...NSERVATION.html

There are no Ecaller comments of that nature I see. But to give an idea how TPWD is taking the pair bonding issue to heart. Look at some of the comments asking to extend the season from last year. I highlighted the response in the first two and posting some others, but not all of them.

Thirty-seven commenters opposed adoption and stated that the season should open later to allow more hunting in January. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the season dates as adopted were based on nesting studies showing that early-nesting females have better nest success than late-nesting females. The department believes that allowing ducks to form pair bonds on wintering areas should enhance the possibility of better nest success on the breeding grounds. Therefore, the department has adopted seasons that eliminate hunting pressure during the last week of the framework. The department also notes that the seasons as adopted opens one week later than deer season. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are no studies proving that late-season hunting prevents or impacts the formation of pair bonds prior to migration and that running the season to the end of January would likely have a statistically insignificant impact on the percentage of pair bonding. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while there are no studies definitively correlating late-season hunting pressure to bonding failure, there are studies showing that the earlier pair bonding occurs, the higher the likelihood of reproductive success. The department's approach is to err on the side of caution. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that nesting success is much more a result of habitat conditions on the breeding grounds than whether pair bonds are developed on wintering areas. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are a number of variables (habitat conditions, weather, water availability, bonding, etc.) that affect a definitive understanding of the biology of nesting success. Clearly, habitat conditions on the breeding grounds are critical to nesting success; however, it is axiomatic that the number of ducks making it to the breeding grounds is irrelevant if they do not form pair bonds and reproduce. The department believes that a reduction in hunting pressure late in the season will enhance pair bonding and nesting success, and there is no doubt that neither will be harmed by such a reduction. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season is too early and will discourage youth because there are no birds available at that time. The department, although sympathetic, disagrees with the comment and responds that the youth-only dates cannot be located elsewhere without significant disruption of hunter opportunity. Although the peak of duck migration occurs later in the year, the youth-only season cannot be placed during a season segment, during a split between season segments, or following the end of the regular season. Placing the youth-only season during a season segment would reduce overall opportunity because adults would be unable to hunt. Placing the youth-only days during the split between segments would defeat the purpose of the split, which is to allow ducks to rest. Placing the youth-only days at the end of the season would defeat the purpose of closing duck season a week before the end of the framework, which is to encourage pair-bonding and increase reproductive success. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

If the pair bond deal was a real problem the feds would shut the season down the week earlier. Dark goose season always ran longer than duck. Texas shuts it down early also. You have to shut down all the seasons to be able to use the E-Callers.

You do realize our duck seasons did not used to run so late. It was actually politics that extended it, not shortened it. I find this one a real interesting read. The USFWS never did want the season to run as late as it does in the South. They had no choice it seems. You have Trent Lott to thank.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/novdec99/flyway.html

And to add more for your reading pleasure and for those that care to learn about such things.

I don't know where TPWD gets their research on the seasonal pair bonding issue. But I did find this study.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/mateloss/index.htm

We will get 2 pintails this year. The state survey came out before the federal frameworks.

Id like that extra week too.

The point is to win over the commission and get a later duck season, you would have to find a way to disprove the pair bond deal as being effected by late season hunting. As of last year every comment on extending the season was shot down for that reason. You will have to provide them published science that disproves hunting seasons impact on it and explains the opposing information in whatever advice they are getting from biologists or whatever studies they are going by. It would be extremely difficult to win them over I am sure.