# Buy a hen



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

I think it would be a sweet study to have some sort of buy a hen mallard program. Start out the season with 3 free hen 'tags' as part of your licenses, cause mistakes will happen. After that you have to buy $5 'tags' before shooting any hens. I don't think people understand how many more birds would be around if nobody shot hens, and with mallards being so easy to identify it would be a good sample test. If people are caught with a hen and no tag- throw in another $125 ticket for each one to help our struggling DNR. What do you guys think - hopefully a federal experiment for a 4 yr period.

Just seems worth a shot to me, perhaps comes upon an idea that will help financially, as well as increase bird numbers. Why not take a chance at making a lot better hunting? So I obviously voted yes.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

people can preach save the hens all day long. regulation allows for what it allows for...either live with or u don't. Natural mortality rates kick in to the big picture.....go read up on it.


----------



## westside (Jan 5, 2008)

Stupid idea, all that would happen is more dead hens laying in the corn rotting


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

If you trust the work of our waterfowl biologists, then there is no reason for a different program since the population can support a hen take. Now, if your own personal belief is to not shoot hen's, you can practice that at any time on your own.

No-hen-kill to me is like catch and release on fish. Noble gesture, but it is a personal choice.

If biologists feel as though the population can support a hen kill, then it should be available as part of the limit.

I know you said Mallards, but there are lot's of birds that this is just not feasible since it takes them multiple years to develop colors, G.E.'s, Bills, Buffies, Scoter, Old Squaw etc...


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

TSS Caddis said:


> If biologists feel as though the population can support a hen kill, then it should be available as part of the limit.
> 
> I know you said Mallards, but there are lot's of birds that this is just not feasible since it takes them multiple years to develop colors, G.E.'s, Bills, Buffies, Scoter, Old Squaw etc...


1. The thing is, Canadian biologists apparently think killing 4 hens is not bad for numbers, while most states think 1 hen each is suitable. There are obvious flaws to their guesstimations.

2. I was only directing this towards mallards, as obviously many drakes are impossible to identify as you pointed out. In any case, hunters must be able to identify what they are shooting at anyways to stay within other limits, this would just be another.

Shi Kid- I started out college going into Wildlife Biology (until the jobs disappeared) and have put in a great deal of time studying waterfowl. Hunting pressure adds to mortality rates no matter what, so why not try to minimize that rate? Waterfowl are no where near reaching possible carrying capacity, so why not just TRY something to increase our numbers?


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

westside said:


> Stupid idea, all that would happen is more dead hens laying in the corn rotting


That should tell everyone about your abilities to identify a hen, or at least how pitiful your respect for the law is.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Ieatantlers said:


> 1. The thing is, Canadian biologists apparently think killing 4 hens is not bad for numbers, while most states think 1 hen each is suitable. There are obvious flaws to their guesstimations.


I think the mentality is less hunters = less kill. Duck limits in Alaska, Argentina etc... are classic examples.


----------



## SuperBlackEagle2 (Nov 4, 2005)

Sometimes I shoot my Hen Mallard, sometimes I don't. If I have birds in my face all day, I will pick out Drakes. Other times if it's slow, I shoot the one that I'm allowed. That doesn't make me feel bad, and it doesn't make me a bad person. Now the people that shoot too many, and chuck 'em in the brush....that's a different story. Your idea wouldn't do anything to change that problem, only increase it. 
If the regs say I can shoot one hen mallard, that's good enough for me.


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

i will shoot what lands in the decoys and is legal. 
if the biologists say its ok to shoot 2 hens (which is most places except MI) and thats what i see... down they go. Given the opportunity to harvest all drakes, i will certainly do my best.

I won't pretend to understand the breeding populations of mallards and what impacts them. I've HEARD that hunter impact plays an insignificant roll overall.. but like i said - i'm a software developer, not a avian biologist.


----------



## westside (Jan 5, 2008)

Ieatantlers said:


> That should tell everyone about your abilities to identify a hen, or at least how pitiful your respect for the law is.


Never said I was doing it super genius, take the time to read then hit the reply button,its still a stupid idea, just more people tossing dead hens in the corn and letting them rot because they killed their quota for the year,


----------



## basskiller46 (Feb 27, 2008)

Why would you not shoot hens you know hens arent going to make babies by themselves. What good does a bunch of hens do with out drakes .Now im not a experianced duck hunter but this is what i learned in biology.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

basskiller46 said:


> What good does a bunch of hens do with out mallards.


Just know, you are not intelligent. Mallard is a type of duck. Drake is a sex reference. - That makes me feel better about my decision, I am arguing against ignorance- I mean, super genius.



westside said:


> Never said I was doing it super genius, take the time to read then hit the reply button,its still a stupid idea, just more people tossing dead hens in the corn and letting them rot because they killed their quota for the year,


Well most people actually obey the laws, at least that I know. So why would you assume people throw hens in the corn, ever? If a person had his 3 hens and didn't want to shoot another, why would he then? My original question was directed towards those who shoot their one hen intentionally, I assumed everyone could identify a duck they are shooting at.


----------



## basskiller46 (Feb 27, 2008)

Ieatantlers said:


> Just know, you are not intelligent. Mallard is a type of duck. Drake is a sex reference. - That makes me feel better about my decision, I am arguing against ignorance.


Oops :lol: i just noticed that. But you knew what i ment. A female is no good without a male. Sorry about the typo i guess according to you im an idiot. The DNR allows hen for a reason im sure they didnt get a degree in biology just to make laws.


----------



## westside (Jan 5, 2008)

Ieatantlers said:


> Just know, you are not intelligent. Mallard is a type of duck. Drake is a sex reference. - That makes me feel better about my decision, I am arguing against ignorance.


That kid is about 13 years old why don't you try explaining the difference in hen to drake ratio in mallards mr Ialmostwasabiologist instead of belittling him


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

2 questions before I vote-

Will the tags be unlimited? 

Can I use multiple tags in 1 day??


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

Michigan has been instituting a voluntary restriction on hen mallards already. The federal framework allows for *2 *hens. CWAC (the years that I've been on the committee-I'm now the Vice Chair) has always opted for more restrictive hen bag limits.
Natural mortality has it's place in nature. The take of drakes is clearly more than that of hens and that is a positive situation.
*IMO* the reality of the Great Lakes Mallard decline (which is real) is directly related to the over harvest of local mallards. This decline has coincided with the liberal 60 day seasons and the 2 day late season. Longer seasons take a heavy toll on local birds with a short period of migrant dilution. When the migrants are gone, Great Lakes mallards are concentrated and guys hammer them. *"Great hunting, it's when all the birds are here".* No-it's when the locals are concentrated and you can hunt them more successfully. The local mallards, which migrate last, are bearing the brunt of that "great hunting".
Sorry to hijack the thread, however, this has been an issue which has been festering in me belly!


----------



## Dahmer (Jan 22, 2007)

Ieatantlers said:


> I think it would be a sweet study to have some sort of buy a hen mallard program. Start out the season with 3 free hen 'tags' as part of your licenses, cause mistakes will happen. After that you have to buy $5 'tags' before shooting any hens. I don't think people understand how many more birds would be around if nobody shot hens, and with mallards being so easy to identify it would be a good sample test. If people are caught with a hen and no tag- throw in another $125 ticket for each one to help our struggling DNR. What do you guys think - hopefully a federal experiment for a 4 yr period.
> 
> Just seems worth a shot to me, perhaps comes upon an idea that will help financially, as well as increase bird numbers. Why not take a chance at making a lot better hunting? So I obviously voted yes.


This will not work until you get all the flyways,Canada and Mexico to agree on hen mallard limits. It's pretty bad when Canada and Mexico can blaze away at hens. Mallards aren't the only ones look at what the feds did with the bluebill and canvasbacks, 1 bill limit for 40 days and Canada (Lake St. Clair) can shoot 6 all season long and shoot 4 can's when are season is closed for them.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Dahmer said:


> This will not work until you get all the flyways,Canada and Mexico to agree on hen mallard limits. It's pretty bad when Canada and Mexico can blaze away at hens. Mallards aren't the only ones look at what the feds did with the bluebill and canvasbacks, 1 bill limit for 40 days and Canada (Lake St. Clair) can shoot 6 all season long and shoot 4 can's when are season is closed for them.


Dahmer- I agree totally, why would countries hunting the same birds be able to shoot such different limits. I wish there was more of aa Internationally Waterfowl Institution that could spread out bag limits. 

Westside- I don't look at a person's profile to see they are 13 before I respond to them, sorry if I offended you (Even though no matter what age, you should be able to identify what you are shooting at) I will post a pic of a nice 2 birds for one shot from earlier this year- showing the young poster a hen and drake mallard ( which is why I know mistakes happen and people should be allowed 3 hens per year)

KLR- I would say that tags are unlimited, but no more than 1 per day. For the youth hunt- let them shoot unlimited- as long as the parents are paying for their 5 bucks a bird

Here you go Westside-


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

looking at the canada/usa thing wrong IMO. canada hunters pressure and kill take is like 1% of what we kill and pressure in central flyway. They could hunt 365 days a year and still not kill as many birds as we do. 

caddis original post is correct.


----------



## Coldwater Charters (Sep 17, 2000)

I drake can breed a 100 hens and will too the lucky duck. So less drakes doesn't really do much to the population for the following year. 

The problem is most of the novice duck hunters which probably is the higher percentage of duck hunters just shoot ducks and not drakes. Not that they want to but haven't hunted long enough to be able to intentify on the wing. 

I always have to tell some hunters where the drakes are as they approach so we can just shoot drakes. I hate having a limit of hens in hand hardly before the morning starts. Makes for hesitant shooting. 

I think the biggest mortallity rate is during the breeding period. Get rid of the preditors and we would have more ducks then you could shoot in a season. Hunting pressure has little to do with the populations or a small percentage.


----------



## basskiller46 (Feb 27, 2008)

Would writing a letter to DU work?Tell them that we have lots of potential in our state and see if they will start some more projects here. We are surronded by the great lakes arent we? I know one letter wont do much but a bunch of letters from people on this website might work or one really good letter.I always remember having dozens of ducks everyday behind my house in the fall and spring but not this year. I think something needs to done.Im done arguing i dont think arguing about a damn hen is going to help much.


----------



## R.J.M. (Jun 10, 2007)

Not sure on this one, so lets kick it around? What if you were allowed your ( HEN LAST ) In other words you may shoot your hen of xxx specie's only after you have filled your daily male bag limit of that species.( Not all species would be affected ) Take three Drake Mallards and then you can shoot your hen to limit out on Mallards.


1- this will help the hens 

2-If you have to super ID your birds the sky busting will -cross my 
fingers, be somewhat controlled. And maybe the cripes

OPEN FOR THE CONS ON THIS


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Bellyup said:


> Your answer still does not satisfy me. If there are so many DU projects going on in inland MI, why am I not knowing about them without asking ? I read about a lot of projects in DU magazine..... I know what it cost to preserve an acre in ND and SD according to the DU Magazine. With the asking for additional funds for the areas and the easments they need to buy. Why couldn't somehting like that work here ? We have a pretty decent local population, lets build it up. We are obviously not in a major flyway.
> 
> I know, I am living a pipe dream.


DU has worked with us quite extensively in the past few years. I can think of 3-4 projects we've collaborated with them on and they are solid nest producers in the spring.

taggart marsh restoration
detrich(sp) restoration
22-28 (old federal marsh)
mclure restoration


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

basskiller46 said:


> Would writing a letter to DU work?Tell them that we have lots of potential in our state and see if they will start some more projects here. We are surronded by the great lakes arent we? I know one letter wont do much but a bunch of letters from people on this website might work or one really good letter.I always remember having dozens of ducks everyday behind my house in the fall and spring but not this year. I think something needs to done.Im done arguing i dont think arguing about a damn hen is going to help much.


About 15 years ago I did some research on how much money is raised by DU in Michigan and the Mississippi Flyway each year and compared it to the amount of money spent in Michigan and then agains the amount spent in the flyway as a whole and states/provinces that contribute to our migration. It was staggering how little of our money went somewhere that we in Michigan would see the benefit. I then wrote DU and did receive a response from someone locally who stated they were aware that at the time the vast majority of our money left our flyway and was not used to benefit us in any way, but hoped that would change in the future. At that point I quit donating. Now I understand a lot of our birds are hatched in the dakotas and Sask., BUT, when you looked at the numbers back then, most of the money raised in the flyway was going to areas that had no impact on our flyway. Being a Michigan hunter I care about hunting opportunities in Michigan and want ALL of my money to benefit my state in one way or another, whether it be nesting states/provinces that contribute to our migration, staging areas in Michigan to help hold birds or wintering grounds down south, and back when I looked into it this was not even remotely the case. Hopefully things have changed since I looked into it, but feel free to see for yourself.

Any charity that you consider giving money to, you should really research the heck out of where your money will actually go, whether it be DU, United Way or anywhere else.


----------



## franky (Apr 14, 2004)

KLR said:


> Ieatantlers said:
> 
> 
> > KLR- I would say that tags are unlimited, but no more than 1 per day. For the youth hunt- let them shoot unlimited- as long as the parents are paying for their 5 bucks a birdquote]
> ...


----------



## basskiller46 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> DU has worked with us quite extensively in the past few years. I can think of 3-4 projects we've collaborated with them on and they are solid nest producers in the spring.
> 
> taggart marsh restoration
> detrich(sp) restoration
> ...


Its a start but im sure if we pushed them a little more with letters or something there could be more projects or atleast get them to fund some of the managed areas or other projects.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

wavie said:


> Nope, the research shows that the determining factor of GL Mallards, especially in MI is that the little ones are not making it to flight stage. Wether that be habitat or preditors or something else. Yes GL hunters harvest more mallards raised in the GL's than the praries or boreal forest region.
> 
> 
> I always get a kick of comparing limits in the USA to Cananda, apples to oranges. Have the US lobby a swan season in Canada and maybe Canada will lobby the US to increase duck limits. Anyway you look at it, it aint going to happen.
> ...


I'd like to see the "research" which shows that the problem is getting to flight stage. The reports brought up at the CWAC meetings by Dave Lukkennen (sp) seems to be a lack of breeding pairs. These numbers are derived from the spring population surveys. Low breeding pairs and low pond counts. The hypothesis is that with better water conditions in the spring (as we had this spring) we should see an increase in the following springs nesting pairs. The jury is still out. We shall see.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

LoBrass said:


> I'd like to see the "research" which shows that the problem is getting to flight stage. The reports brought up at the CWAC meetings by Dave Lukkennen (sp) seems to be a lack of breeding pairs. These numbers are derived from the spring population surveys. Low breeding pairs and low pond counts. The hypothesis is that with better water conditions in the spring (as we had this spring) we should see an increase in the following springs nesting pairs. The jury is still out. We shall see.


There is no question our water is making a comeback. I think you will see increase in breeding pairs as our water tables go up. We're no different than Prairie states....if we don't have marshes or sustainable wetlands then birds just don't breed here.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

Call me crazy, but it seems to me that ever since beavers have become a "nuisance' alot of old beaver ponds do not exist anymore. 

Alot of the beaver ponds I know of have been destroyed or the beavers trapped, and a lot has to do with "deer habitat" or access to deer stands.


----------



## boetscrew (Sep 11, 2006)

I wasn't going to jump in on this but shooting a hen should be every ones choice. I will say our group tries not to, put first light and drakes that don't have all there color early in the season it does happen. Not shooting hens is not going to bring back all the ducks, the big thing is nesting areas, we loose more and more wet lands every year look around your areas, housing and factory devolements area taking those nesting areas. Places where you once hunted. Farmers are tilling every sq inch of land they can and I'm not bashing them I grew up being a farmers grandson. DU is trying to buy up land. Here is an artical from Delta Waterfowler 
The prairie pothole region raises 70% of North Americas ducks. Since we have settled the prairies man has had a dramatic affect on the landscape. Wetlands have been drained, native grasslands have been lost, and new and increasing predator populations are foraging in the remaining cover. Because of low fur prices few trappers are active on these landscapes. As a result of these changes the duck factory is operating well below historic levels. This is especially true in intensively farmed portions of the prairie pothole region. As a result of these dramatic changes, nest success for ducks has declined over time and is operating at below maintenance levels in many areas Recent studies have identified a habitat threshold, a relationship between the amount of grassland nesting cover and nest success. It has been determined that when 30-40% of the land is in permanent cover (ie. grasslands) nest success is 15-20%. Knowing that this habitat threshold exists allows managers to make decisions for waterfowl management throughout the prairie pothole region.
In many areas of intensively farmed landscapes the habitat threshold may not be attainable due to financial and political realities. Areas with high wetland densities will commonly attract 60-80 pairs of ducks per square mile, however most of these breeding pairs will not produce a single brood. Deltas student research program has discovered that predator management can return areas back to productive landscapes for ducks once again, increasing nest success by two fold, averaging an increase from 24 to 48% nest success. Delta and its partners are using predator management in a targeted manor to areas that have high breeding densities - but are below the habitat threshold and subsequently experience low nest success.







Delta and its partners will apply predator management on blocks of 23,040 acres of attractive but unproductive habitat and return them to productive systems once more. 2007 saw a total of 9 trappers working in North Dakota, 2 in Saskatchewan and another 2 in South Dakota. These efforts are evaluated on several fronts as part of our student research program and we are studying the effects on shorebirds, scaup and other diving ducks, We are also considering the effect beyond the border of the block, duck nesting densities on areas trapped multiple years, nest and duckling survival, etc. Delta needs your support of this endeavor. 

Also the prairie potholes of ND are dry and the farmers are now putting corps in those areas, back in 1996 it was wet roads flooded out ducks on every pot hole, today they have very dry conditions pot holes are being burned off. Long term this will be good when we get back in a wet cycle. 

Again just sharing info and my 2 cents.


----------



## jimmy johans (Feb 19, 2007)

I hunted Nayanquing once this year and I was appalled. Group next to us shot ducks and never even looked for them. I found 4 dead birds in field right out front. 2 more on ride back in. These people will not buy tags.
I am in industry and all I was thinking wa sif the antis seen these dead birds this place would close. tag or no tag the violaters will violate


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

TSS Caddis said:


> About 15 years ago I did some research on how much money is raised by DU in Michigan and the Mississippi Flyway each year and compared it to the amount of money spent in Michigan and then agains the amount spent in the flyway as a whole and states/provinces that contribute to our migration. It was staggering how little of our money went somewhere that we in Michigan would see the benefit. I then wrote DU and did receive a response from someone locally who stated they were aware that at the time the vast majority of our money left our flyway and was not used to benefit us in any way, but hoped that would change in the future. At that point I quit donating. Now I understand a lot of our birds are hatched in the dakotas and Sask., BUT, when you looked at the numbers back then, most of the money raised in the flyway was going to areas that had no impact on our flyway. Being a Michigan hunter I care about hunting opportunities in Michigan and want ALL of my money to benefit my state in one way or another, whether it be nesting states/provinces that contribute to our migration, staging areas in Michigan to help hold birds or wintering grounds down south, and back when I looked into it this was not even remotely the case. Hopefully things have changed since I looked into it, but feel free to see for yourself.
> 
> Any charity that you consider giving money to, you should really research the heck out of where your money will actually go, whether it be DU, United Way or anywhere else.


Caddis, what organizations would it be the best to join ? I can only afford a couple, so I want it to count. I know there are others out there like me who simply hunt and don't get to involved into the political side. I wish I could, but I simply can't stomach some of the crap that goes on, I still have a little common sense left, and there is no room for an aggresive person willing to get it done, fast. Ten years from now won
t do, five years from now won't do, we need it now. With realty in the tank, what better time for DU or something to step up and acquire some land to restore. 

Shi Kid, I hear you, I just never heard about those projects, my point. I guess I just don't know the proper steps to obtaining the info, and am not in the loop.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

reeltherapy said:


> I was just trying to say that if its legal...it leaves the rest up to your personal choice...I commend you for not shooting hens... myself on the other hand, will shoot hens for the fact that on alot of days...the only birds flyin...are hens. and i hate goin home empty handed. I didnt mean to make any one mad, but i just have a bit of a problem with the DNR and some of the rules they come up with. Dont get me wrong, i hunt legally. But i dont like alot of the restrictions they put in action. I do realize though, that restrictions are for a reason, and i obey them. Hunting is my life, and i get a bit touchey when restrictions keep getting tighter and tighter. thats all.


Yeah I get ya. I shoot a hen or two each year as well, although I try hard not to. Even in duck heaven (North Dakota) I got a bit jumpy on one of the early morning flocks and picked off a hen by mistake...my fault completely. 

I used to hate going home empty handed too. But after so many years of doing this, I've moved into a different zone...being out there is 90% of it for me any more. Call it loss of desire or aggressiveness if you want, but the funny thing is I'm enjoying my hunting a lot more now than when I was younger and I really took a skunked hunt hard.

I especially enjoy the trip to North Dakota. Yes, there are gozillions of birds there. But I'll tell ya what...it's as much fun talking with the locals in the diner out there as it is shooting a limit. It's a different culture from what we have here. The minute I cross into North Dakota, it's like a breath of fresh air. Hard to describe.


----------



## boetscrew (Sep 11, 2006)

I belong to DU and Deltal Waterfowl, Deltal mag has come a long way has lots of info, with a very good web site.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

Bellyup said:


> Caddis, what organizations would it be the best to join ? I can only afford a couple, so I want it to count. I know there are others out there like me who simply hunt and don't get to involved into the political side. I wish I could, but I simply can't stomach some of the crap that goes on, I still have a little common sense left, and there is no room for an aggresive person willing to get it done, fast. Ten years from now won
> t do, five years from now won't do, we need it now. With realty in the tank, what better time for DU or something to step up and acquire some land to restore.
> 
> Shi Kid, I hear you, I just never heard about those projects, my point. I guess I just don't know the proper steps to obtaining the info, and am not in the loop.


Join Waterfowl U.S.A. 80% of our money stays local. 
The chapter I work with (Southwestern Lake Erie) Does great things that you can SEE. We have been instrumental in the acquisitition of 6+ pieces of property which is now open to public hunting and provides fantastic nesting cover. We have paid for hydro-axe work, put out nesting structures and monitor over 200+, and put on seminars to educate young and old alike. Our latest donation was $10,000.00 to help acquire The Howard Farm which is located just east of Toledo along Lake Erie. We purposely called ourselves what we did to INCLUDE Ohio guys as we all hunt the same birds. Regional focus, that's what we are about.
DU is great on the continental scene, we just wanted to do local work so we started the Waterfowl U.S.A. chapter.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> There is no question our water is making a comeback. I think you will see increase in breeding pairs as our water tables go up. We're no different than Prairie states....if we don't have marshes or sustainable wetlands then birds just don't breed here.


 
Very well said. I couldn't agree more. I actually hunted swampland that my family has owned for many years for the first time this year in over 10 years. The water level in the swamp was completely gone until this season and has since risen to levels almost equal to that of 10 years ago. I truely feel that more areas like this will equal more birds. As far as hens, leave it a personal preference. We all want responsible management for the most part. No-one at the DNR can know as much about bird counts as us hunters that are there day in and day out. Just my .02.


Come on late goose. Get down, cover up, come getcha some.
Jim


----------



## LSCflatsman (Oct 31, 2007)

> Not shooting hens is not going to bring back all the ducks, the big thing is nesting areas, we loose more and more wet lands every year look around your areas, housing and factory devolements area taking those nesting areas. Places where you once hunted. Farmers are tilling every sq inch of land they can and I'm not bashing them I grew up being a farmers grandson. DU is trying to buy up land.


Not sure how this is affecting the west side of the state, but the eastern Great Lakes watershed especially the Lake St. Clair system is absolutely choked with phragmites. Over the past 30 years, I've seen the complete elimination of ten's of thousands of acres of waterfowl habitat due to the invasion. Native cattails and grasses that provide nesting habitat are all but gone in most areas. Anyone who hunts the Harsen's Is. waterfowl unit knows what I am talking about. Most of the canals are almost impassable because the phragmites are filling them in. Take a look at St. Johns marsh next time your in the area. Pretty much lost. When I was a kid, you could motor a boat all the way from Lake St. Clair right to M29... now it is just an impenitrable forest of phragmites. Dickenson Island and surrounding wetlands... choked! It's proven that waterfowl can't utilize phragmites choked marshes so even though they still look like wetlands, they might as well be deserts. The problem is that the phragmites are so aggessive that native plants are being overrun... 

Here are some excerpts from an article written in 2001 Detroit News... "
At the 3,000-acre St. John Marsh near Fair Haven in St. Clair County, phragmites are not
only a menace to local aquatic plant life, they also pose a serious threat to duck hunting at the
marsh and nearby Lake St. Clair. 'Potentially, it could end duck hunting there in the St. John Marsh,'"​Pretty much a done deal... 
"St. John Marsh is regarded by biologists as one of the most productive wetlands of its kind
in southeast Michigan. But it's not the only wetland in the state or country where phragmites have taken root."​"The plants have taken over about 100,000 acres of wetland in Michigan. (That equates to roughly 30 Harsen's Island management units) The weed
marches, uncontrolled, from marsh to marsh and from one roadside ditch to another, said​Kurt Getsinger, a research biologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers"
Keep in mind this was 7 years ago... Read the whole article at: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2261&destination=ShowItem
This is quoted from Maryland DNR website... "Maryland has lost nearly *45* percent of its wetlands. The aggressive invasion of phragmites into Chesapeake Bay wetlands is contributing to further loss and degradation of our remaining wetland habitats." 
According to the USFW Service, "Michigan once was 30-percent wetlands, with 11.1 million acres. The agency estimated that 5.6 million acres remained in the 1980s." 
That was almost 30 years ago!!! Where are we today? 
This is just the tip of the iceburg. I'm sure that the national statistics will be mind boggling...​


----------



## neil duffey (Feb 22, 2004)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> people can preach save the hens all day long. regulation allows for what it allows for...either live with or u don't. Natural mortality rates kick in to the big picture.....go read up on it.


ding ding ding...

although i support th next guy not shooting a hen, go for it... im allowed one a day because the population can handle it... so im not going to really care. if a hen and a drake come in, sure i try to get the drake... but if a lone hen comes in, im poppin it... im sorry but im not a duck snob, i like to eat em, male or female... and im not above cappin a hen.


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

hens. they all taste the same.


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

LoBrass said:


> I'd like to see the "research" which shows that the problem is getting to flight stage.


A Brighter Future for Great Lakes Mallards 
DU Special Research Report 

DU researchers find that the conservation strategies needed to build mallard populations in the Great Lakes states differ from those needed to improve duck production on the prairies 


*THE RESULTS *

After extensive data analyses, *DU scientists determined that brood survival, nest success, and over-winter survival, respectively, were the most important factors limiting mallard breeding populations in the Great Lakes states. Brood survival was much more of a limiting factor for Great Lakes mallards than for prairie mallards *(see pie chart comparison). During the Great Lakes study, brood survival varied significantlybetween 24 percent and 55 percentbut averaged only 39 percent. This means that for every clutch of 10 eggs that hatched, slightly fewer than four ducklings survived on average. 

Brood survival was most closely related to wetland vegetation and forest cover in the surrounding area. Ducklings survived at much higher rates in vegetated wetlands than in those that had been plowed and farmed to the water's edge. Especially valuable wetland vegetation included emergent plants such as cattail or bulrush, and wet meadow grasses and sedges. Other important brood habitats included wetlands rimmed by scrub-shrub vegetation, typical of the Midwest . Proximity of forest cover appeared to negatively affect brood survival, likely because of a greater abundance of raptors such as great horned owls and red-tailed hawks, which can be significant predators of hens and ducklings. Overall, wetland conditions appear to have the greatest influence on brood survival in the region, but the quantity of brood habitat may also be important as ducklings may have higher survival on landscapes with more high-quality wetlands. 

The study found that nest success had less of an impact on mallard populations in the Great Lakes states than on the prairies (see pie chart comparison). Radio-marked hens in the Great Lakes study had nest success of about 16 percent overall, slightly above the 15 percent level required to sustain a population. The observed variation in nest successbetween 10 and 24 percentappears to have been closely related to the intensity of agriculture within a three-square-mile area of nest sites. The more acres of row crops within this area, the lower the nest success. Nest success fell below 15 percent on landscapes where approximately 46 percent or more of the area was planted in row crops, such as corn, wheat, or soybeans. Pastures and hayfields, however, did not appear to have an adverse effect on nest success. Interestingly, older hens had higher nest success on average than those attempting to nest in their first year. 

A third limiting factor for Great Lakes mallards was over-winter survival of hens. This had a much greater effect on mallard populations in the Great Lakes states than on the prairies (see pie chart comparison). Although this was not directly measured in this study, DU researchers had to determine annual and seasonal survival rates to conduct complete life-cycle analyses of the birds. Band-return data were used as well as survival estimates from radio-marked hens monitored in the study. Overall, the researchers found that annual survival among female mallards from the Great Lakes states was approximately 51 percent, slightly lower than the 58 percent annual survival estimated among prairie-nesting mallards. Breeding survival among female mallards during the summer also was not really that different75 percent in the Great Lakes states compared to 72 percent on the prairies. However, the difference in over-winter survival between the two groups was dramatic. Only 69 percent of hen mallards from the Great Lakes states survived the winter, compared to 80 percent of prairie-nesting mallards. Generally, two factors have the greatest influence on over-winter survival: wintering habitat conditions and harvest. 


And with DU you can now earmark where your funds go.


----------

