# 2018-19 Waterfowl Seasons



## TheHighLIfe

BFG said:


> I quit hunting in Michigan not because of the increase in the fees for non-residents, but because of the rate at which it increased. It doubled, and it was [email protected]%. The way I figured, if I kept paying, they would continue to increase the fee without seemingly any limitations.
> 
> Less and less hunters every year. Don't make the license cost a barrier to the activity.
> 
> Yes, I am aware that hunting is expensive, and I'm being a cheapskate. Read what I wrote above again...it wasn't that they increased non-resident fees....it was how much they increased them that drove me, my son(s) and plenty of other NW Ohio guys back to our home state.
> 
> I still buy a MI fishing license because I have friends with boats in MI marinas. I don't buy any supplies in Michigan if I can help it, save live bait from Fisherman's Cave during perch/ice season.
> 
> Many on here laughed and scoffed at my original comments when the changes first came about 3 or 4 (?) years ago. Guess I wasn't totally off my rocker when I said the increase was ludicrous, otherwise the powers that be wouldn't be trying to amend their stupid rate increase by offering a reduced price for short-term tourists.
> 
> I know...if I want to play I have to pay. I had been paying...for about 20 years. Not anymore.


----------



## TheHighLIfe

BFG said:


> I quit hunting in Michigan not because of the increase in the fees for non-residents, but because of the rate at which it increased. It doubled, and it was [email protected]%. The way I figured, if I kept paying, they would continue to increase the fee without seemingly any limitations.
> 
> Less and less hunters every year. Don't make the license cost a barrier to the activity.
> 
> Yes, I am aware that hunting is expensive, and I'm being a cheapskate. Read what I wrote above again...it wasn't that they increased non-resident fees....it was how much they increased them that drove me, my son(s) and plenty of other NW Ohio guys back to our home state.
> 
> I still buy a MI fishing license because I have friends with boats in MI marinas. I don't buy any supplies in Michigan if I can help it, save live bait from Fisherman's Cave during perch/ice season.
> 
> Many on here laughed and scoffed at my original comments when the changes first came about 3 or 4 (?) years ago. Guess I wasn't totally off my rocker when I said the increase was ludicrous, otherwise the powers that be wouldn't be trying to amend their stupid rate increase by offering a reduced price for short-term tourists.
> 
> I know...if I want to play I have to pay. I had been paying...for about 20 years. Not anymore.



i have hunted in about 12+ states. i was always amazed at how cheap the michigan lisences were for non-residents, compared to what we have to pay when we travel. i applauded that increase, but our new fees are still cheap compared to other state non-resident fees. especially because we have one of the finest states in the nation for hunting all kinds of species on state land - not having to get permission, join private clubs, or pay guides, like almost all of the other midwestern states.

we do not live in a public access or game population poor state - like ohio. we should get a premium for what the lisence entitles you to do

you should be looking at the glass half full, not half empty - the fee for what you get. you got away with ridiculously low fees for years

then again, if your response to the hike is to protest by refusing to purchase things in michigan, we do not need you here. we should have the state police at the line to stop you

go blue!


----------



## craigrh13

BFG said:


> I quit hunting in Michigan not because of the increase in the fees for non-residents, but because of the rate at which it increased. It doubled, and it was [email protected]%. The way I figured, if I kept paying, they would continue to increase the fee without seemingly any limitations.
> 
> Less and less hunters every year. Don't make the license cost a barrier to the activity.
> 
> Yes, I am aware that hunting is expensive, and I'm being a cheapskate. Read what I wrote above again...it wasn't that they increased non-resident fees....it was how much they increased them that drove me, my son(s) and plenty of other NW Ohio guys back to our home state.
> 
> I still buy a MI fishing license because I have friends with boats in MI marinas. I don't buy any supplies in Michigan if I can help it, save live bait from Fisherman's Cave during perch/ice season.
> 
> Many on here laughed and scoffed at my original comments when the changes first came about 3 or 4 (?) years ago. Guess I wasn't totally off my rocker when I said the increase was ludicrous, otherwise the powers that be wouldn't be trying to amend their stupid rate increase by offering a reduced price for short-term tourists.
> 
> I know...if I want to play I have to pay. I had been paying...for about 20 years. Not anymore.


So you’ll still boycott even if there’s a $80/7 day option?


----------



## BFG

Far Beyond Driven said:


> What's it like, $150 for you to hunt here?


Yep. The cost isn't what is prohibitive....the manner by which it was increased and the justification for the increase is what is so troubling. "Screw you if you aren't from Michigan" was a common theme on this and many other boards. 

IMO, you shouldn't be biting the hand that helps to feed you. The Lake Michigan salmon industry is dying a slow, painful death. What will be the response when fishing license sales drop? Raise the cost, first for non-residents but eventually all of you will be paying more. The fisheries biologists in Lansing are working hard to ensure that lake trout will become the favorite part of your daily catch. The ecosystem in Lake Michigan is upside-down and the word is out but yet for whatever reason, it still costs more to fish in Michigan waters for a non-resident than it does anywhere else around the lake. Charter clientele do not want to catch lake trout. It's also hard to get excited about cohos and browns, which leaves kings and steelhead. Steelhead are cost-prohibitive as the primary quarry as the runs are long and fuel isn't cheap. Kings....well, let's just say that natural reproduction has taken over and some years are gonna be better than others. But hey....while we are at it, let's raise the cost of our non-resident licenses. 

Michigan literally has everything an outdoorsman could ever want. The variety of opportunities to hunt, fish, and recreate in your state are endless. Yet...something simple like marginally increasing non-resident hunting and fishing license fees was permitted to go down a path of flat out political greed whereby the fees were doubled. Doubled. I've read where guys will say..."good, let them pay more to come here." Fine. What happens when they stop coming? All those new CO's will have to get paid from some account. From where will that money come? You. And along with the decline in license sales you will also see a decline in dollars allocated to the GMU's and other habitat protecting projects around the state. Remember, just like taxes, these things rarely if ever go backwards. 

Bottom line...you want as many people hunting and fishing in your state as possible. Those out of state dollars mean something...whether residents want to admit it or not. 

Ohio could screw the entire Midwest were it to decide to gouge non-residents for fishing licenses, but the powers that be in Columbus understand that even though we kick Meatchicken's ass every November on the football field, we still want non-resident license sales (and the dollars from ancillary items that accompany those sales) every single year. $42 for a chance to fish the Walleye Capital of the World with no possession limit and the chance to catch the fish of a lifetime. What a bargain. It's why our launch parking lots, hotels, etc. etc. are full from April through November every year along the Lake Erie shoreline. Hell, even when we bust (usually) out of staters for over-bagging and such, the fines and penalties are minimal. That part of the state fully understands what recreational dollars mean to their livelihood. Apparently such is not the case just yet in Michigan.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

7 day option doesn't work really well for waterfowl and people like BFG that live close to the border. That's more for vacation people hunting here as a destination, which is not very many. In the cases of the close to the border people, you're going to jump around as conditions dictate, and that doesn't work if you have to block out a window to hunt...


----------



## DecoySlayer

I think that a few lower cost options for non-residents is a good idea. We need the tourist dollars.


----------



## craigrh13

Far Beyond Driven said:


> 7 day option doesn't work really well for waterfowl and people like BFG that live close to the border. That's more for vacation people hunting here as a destination, which is not very many. In the cases of the close to the border people, you're going to jump around as conditions dictate, and that doesn't work if you have to block out a window to hunt...


The cost difference between an annual license here in Michigan and Ohio is $25. $150 here and $125 in Ohio.


----------



## craigrh13

Comparison of surrounding states. We really aren’t out of line for what is offered.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/ComparisonNonresidentHuntingLicenseFees_411659_7.pdf


----------



## DecoySlayer

What we are missing is the monies from those who want to just hunt a couple of days. You can buy a one day license in LA for $29 for waterfowl.


----------



## craigrh13

DecoySlayer said:


> What we are missing is the monies from those who want to just hunt a couple of days. You can buy a one day license in LA for $29 for waterfowl.


I agree a cheaper 3 day option would be nice instead of just the $80/7 day option. The current regime is very open to feedback and has been doing an excellent job at taking our opinions or suggestions seriously. I’m sure they would be more than open to hear from out of state hunters,state guides or just anyone else about the need for such a thing.


----------



## just ducky

Far Beyond Driven said:


> 7 day option doesn't work really well for waterfowl and people like BFG that live close to the border. That's more for vacation people hunting here as a destination, which is not very many. In the cases of the close to the border people, you're going to jump around as conditions dictate, and that doesn't work if you have to block out a window to hunt...


I sympathize for those close to the border who used to like to "jump over" when conditions and hunting were good. But I think what they've come up with now (the $80 option) is reasonable, and aligns more closely with our neighboring states. Sorry to say it, but the number of non-residents who would purchase a full year license (apparently BFG was one of them) are few and far between. You can't set policy, or in this case state law, for a handful of people. There are just too many variables to take into account. I would love North Dakota to give me a deal on a full year non-resident license because I've gone their annually since '99, and I'm at the point where I could go more than once per year. But I pay well over $100, and the MAXIMUM I can hunt is 2 weeks...period. I don't have an option to hop over there when the conditions are right. I select my dates well in advance, completely blind to what's happening with the weather and flights. So I'm not trying to dump on anyone here, but what I see is the DNR has now come up with a reasonable option for non-residents. Not as good a deal as you once had, but still reasonable when you compare with neighboring states. Change is hard....


----------



## TheHighLIfe

looking at the glass half full, that works out to $11.43/day on the 7 day, $1.50/day for seasonal (sept 1 - dec 9). my bet is non-residents piss away way more money than that on movie rentals and sporting events of 2-3 hour duration, 1-2 drinks of booze, a pack of cigarettes, spoiled food, leaving their car running.... take it by the hour - $1.43 and 15 cents. you cannot beat that deal. and some of that the money goes to help wildlife populations.


----------



## just ducky

at the risk of re-flaming an old feud, what I think you have here is some non-residents used to have a REALLY good deal. Along came the new licensing package, and that deal went bye bye. Now the state is offering up something in the middle...nowhere near as good of a deal as before...but comparable to other area states.

FWIW, I was involved in some of the discussions on the then proposed licensing changes. By the time the DNR realized that they had completely left out a short-term option for NR waterfowlers, it was too late...the package was done. It was not a blatant attempt to double the cost for NR waterfowlers. The changes were complex, and this was an oversight. They've been working on a fix since, and as we all know the wheels of government move slowly. And if you think they will soon try to get ANOTHER raise in fees, think again. This change was DECADES in the making, and takes legislative support in this state. In the current economic climate, that is nearly impossible to get. In fact, it was a HUGE win to get this package approved at all. 

Again, sorry your past deal is no more, but this is consistent with other area states.


----------



## FISHMANMARK

just ducky said:


> what I think you have here is some non-residents used to have a REALLY good deal.
> 
> Again, sorry your past deal is no more, but this is consistent with other area states.



Yep.

The pricing structure was brought inline with other states in one fell swoop versus incremental increases.


----------



## hmrx

We could be like South Dakota where only 3500 non resident waterfowl licenses are available though drawing. Things aren't so bad here.


----------



## DecoySlayer

Do we want more tourist dollars, or less? Given the choice, based on price, and hunting opportunities, I would take LA over ND every day.


----------



## TheHighLIfe

DecoySlayer said:


> Do we want more tourist dollars, or less? Given the choice, based on price, and hunting opportunities, I would take LA over ND every day.



if someone is bitching about spending $80 to hunt 7 days, we probably will not see many 'tourist dollars' from them - they are probably packing up peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sleeping in their car - haha


----------



## DecoySlayer

TheHighLIfe said:


> if someone is bitching about spending $80 to hunt 7 days, we probably will not see many 'tourist dollars' from them - they are probably packing up peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sleeping in their car - haha



I didn't say anyone was complaining about that fee. I just said that more choices would be a good idea.


----------



## TheHighLIfe

DecoySlayer said:


> I didn't say anyone was complaining about that fee. I just said that more choices would be a good idea.


i agree that choices are good. it is frustrating that anyone would think our non-resident fees are unfair, excessive in comparison to other states, or a cause to not buy them and not hunt in michigan

but it looks like almost everyone in this thread feels the same way - except for 'Whiney' in OH

go blue!


----------



## DecoySlayer

TheHighLIfe said:


> i agree that choices are good. it is frustrating that anyone would think our non-resident fees are unfair, excessive in comparison to other states, or a cause to not buy them and not hunt in michigan
> 
> but it looks like almost everyone in this thread feels the same way - except for 'Whiney' in OH
> 
> go blue!



It was pretty bad when you had to buy a $150 tag just to duck, or grouse, hunt for a couple of days.


----------



## TheHighLIfe

just ducky said:


> Again, not trying to inflame this discussion. But you're DAMN RIGHT I'm celebrating this change!!! What you don't understand as a NR is that our state's resources WERE dying under the old system, and had not been revised in DECADES!!! The big change came in the 90's, when the funding sources were changed. Our state parks, rec areas, state game areas, etc. were IN THE OLD DAYS (i.e. pre-Gov Engler days) funded with general fund monies...I.e tax dollars. In the Engler administration, our state very abruptly moved to a "user-pay" form of funding, where users of a specific resource in essence funded them now. Great idea. The problem was what the legislators failed to realize, or ACCEPT, was that the current licensing/permitting structure could not support the resources on their own funding. So without a sizeable increase, we would've been closing state parks, shutting down boat launches, shuttering state game areas, laying off CO's, and on and on. The old process for funding died when the sources of funding were changed by the legislators. Something drastic needed to be done. Our "recreational passport" system now in place for funding parks has been a phenomenal success, and we now have very stable funding for them for decades to come!! Was it a tough choice? Sure was. Something drastic needed to be done. And finally, we got some legislators with the BALLS to do it. I recall the committee discussions about potentially losing some customers. But it was necessary for the long-term survival of our state's precious resources. And it was decades over due.
> 
> Now you can complain all day long about the drastic percentage of increase that was passed, and I'm not saying it wasn't huge, but it was CRITICAL that something major be done. Would we rather close parks, recreation areas, boat launches, etc, or would we rather see fee increases? That was the choice. A "user pay" system is good in theory, but the fact was Michigan's entire process of hunting/fishing licenses, park permitting, state game funding, funding conservation officers was so outdated that it could not sustain anything on it's own unless something major changed. Thus the large changes.
> 
> And before you think that only NR's got stuck with a large increase, ask most any deer hunter in this state (who number 1/3 to 3/4 MILLION people) what they thought of the new licensing package. I'll tell you...they HATED it. And almost killed it. Until the DNR explained, re-explained, and re-explained again what I just said above. Had they not finally agreed to "bite the bullet" and pay nearly double what they used to pay for a license, we would be closing facilities now, and laying off CO's. Instead our facilities are in better shape than they have been in years, and we are HIRING CO's.
> 
> You have one single view as a non-resident. And I'm not saying you aren't entitled to it. But As Paul Harvey used to say....now you know the rest of the story.



well said, ducky!


----------



## just ducky

TheHighLIfe said:


> well said, ducky!


I'll tell you this...very, very few hunters in this state understood our former funding process, nor did they realize the significance of changing the funding sources the way they did in the 90's. But the impact was devastating to the DNR, and all of us who use our outdoor resources. This licensing change was YEARS in the works, and although nothing is perfect, this certainly has stabilized our funding...at least for now.


----------



## hmrx

Real problem with funding is the continued, over the last 25 years, reductions in general fund contributions. Now more pay as you play but, license are pay for most. The state has found a way to exclude large amounts of tax dollars into the Dnr budgets. Look at it this way ,how much money does healthy salmon populations bring to a fishing port? I would say a lot, therefore the state or local governments should be putting in general funds to pay for it. Everyone benefits not just license holders.


----------



## just ducky

hmrx said:


> Real problem with funding is the continued, over the last 25 years, reductions in general fund contributions. Now more pay as you play but, license are pay for most. The state has found a way to exclude large amounts of tax dollars into the Dnr budgets. Look at it this way ,how much money does healthy salmon populations bring to a fishing port? I would say a lot, therefore the state or local governments should be putting in general funds to pay for it. Everyone benefits not just license holders.


I don't disagree. But the state, and the federal government, are slowly but surely moving towards "user fee" arrangements in response to complaints from people who say their tax money should not be used for things they don't use. I'm afraid we're all going to see more, not less, "pay to play" funding processes in the next few decades.


----------



## hmrx

I don't disagree either. However all businesses benefit in an area where wildlife or fisheries users go. Hard to put a dollar figure of the benefits but, they still are there. If that was the case why should one pay for school taxes if you don't have kids. Everyone still benefits even if it's only secondary in nature or even if your not the prime user. Things just make life generally better for all citizens.


----------



## just ducky

hmrx said:


> ...If that was the case why should one pay for school taxes if you don't have kids. ....


Which has actually been debated for decades here in Michigan's legislature. Again, I'm not for or against "user fees". Just stating where things are headed


----------



## Wolverine423

Highball28 said:


> I hate the ******* teal season on the west side. Good for the east side but all the wood ducks that don't get shot during the teal season are super educated already in the west when the regular season rolls around.


Really? Well maybe you need to pick up your huntn game. Such horseshat! LMAO


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

I hunt the same marshes Highball28 does, and have to say between the youth hunt and the teal hunt, opening days are not what they used to be. Where we used to see 500 woodies on opening day, now you're lucky to see 50.

This is not against either hunt, I've taken my daughter on the youth hunt and carried as well for geese and / or teal if the dates lined up.


----------



## just ducky

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I hunt the same marshes Highball28 does, and have to say between the youth hunt and the teal hunt, opening days are not what they used to be. Where we used to see 500 woodies on opening day, now you're lucky to see 50.
> 
> This is not against either hunt, I've taken my daughter on the youth hunt and carried as well for geese and / or teal if the dates lined up.


I'll go one step further...since we instituted an early goose season in what, like '94, the opening days aren't what they used to be. For example, at Maple River, which is close to my house, back in the late 80's early 90's we would go in there with a canoe the week before the duck opener and see literally thousands of woodies, teal, mallards, and yes, a couple dozen or so geese. It was incredible to see the ducks that staged in there. Then came the early goose season, and guys going in there in September and bombing those damn geese. Well a vast majority of the ducks now leave the area as well. Just the facts....


----------



## TheHighLIfe

just ducky said:


> I'll go one step further...since we instituted an early goose season in what, like '94, the opening days aren't what they used to be. For example, at Maple River, which is close to my house, back in the late 80's early 90's we would go in there with a canoe the week before the duck opener and see literally thousands of woodies, teal, mallards, and yes, a couple dozen or so geese. It was incredible to see the ducks that staged in there. Then came the early goose season, and guys going in there in September and bombing those damn geese. Well a vast majority of the ducks now leave the area as well. Just the facts....



i have been saying the same thing for years about the d****d bow hunters ruining the gun opener for deer. i used to count shots during the opening hour, and often heard 300+. now it is like 30-50. 
yes, there used to be more birds on duck openers, but we still basically limit out, and one can already have 30+ waterfowl days under their belt before opening day. a no-brainer trade!


----------



## hmrx

I agree far fewer local birds on duck opener for the reasons already stated. The question is are they just relocated or many young brown ducks shot for teal. Deeper northern lakes never get many teal before the greenwings show in october. Lots of shooting before the regular duck openers.


----------



## craigrh13

Who cares about opener? The best huntingnisnt until Halloween-late November anyways.


----------



## Urriah

Out of all the people I've heard bellyache about people shooting non-teal in the early season, I bet less than a quarter of them have actually called the RAP line about it. I'd start with that issue if you want to complain about something...


----------



## hmrx

Apparently some have crystal balls that agree with them. Most call them like they see them. All depends where you hunt.


----------



## John Singer

Some of you are not alone in your opposition to the early teal season. For instance, Minnesota did not elect to participate in the 3 year experiment for the same reasons that many of you state.

https://www.twincities.com/2014/05/24/an-early-minnesota-teal-season-depends/

hmrx: You are the one that acting like you have fragile crystal balls. You claim to "call them like you see them". 

If you have truly are observed people violating during the the early teal season, have you called the RAP Hotline and turned them it? 

If you have not observed this, you are just blustering on the internet.


----------



## hmrx

JS. The short answer is yes. For your info my balls are just fine. Amazing how a common metaphor gets turned into a blow below the belt. Stay on target above the gutter. Read the research, a fine summary done by Widnr exsists. The USFW required a trial observation period over 3 years in Mi,Wi and IA combined of only 180 observations by "trained observers". A mere 20 per state per year, not many. Yes the observations were increased in some instances but, still an unusually small number. The USFW threshold was met of less than 14% non teal species shot at or harvested were observed. The number seemed to get better over the trial period. Hence we have our teal season. So non teal species do get shot whether one wants to admit it or not. Hopefully over time the the numbers will get better.


----------



## John Singer

hmrx said:


> JS. The short answer is yes. For your info my balls are just fine. Amazing how a common metaphor gets turned into a blow below the belt. Stay on target above the gutter. Read the research, a fine summary done by Widnr exsists. The USFW required a trial observation period over 3 years in Mi,Wi and IA combined of only 180 observations by "trained observers". A mere 20 per state per year, not many. Yes the observations were increased in some instances but, still an unusually small number. The USFW threshold was met of less than 14% non teal species shot at or harvested were observed. The number seemed to get better over the trial period. Hence we have our teal season. So non teal species do get shot whether one wants to admit it or not. Hopefully over time the the numbers will get better.


I apologize for the innuendo.

I have to admit to you and agree that I was not a fan of the teal seasons in northern, waterfowl production states when they were first proposed. If you do a search through the archives of this forum, you can find my posts regarding this.

I have observed that some inexperienced and some slob hunters either cannot or will not identify ducks properly. I have called in violations that I observed to the RAP hotline.

I also know that some ducks (such as shovelers) are easily mistaken for bluewing teal. 

Also, I agree that the pressure in wetlands from the early teal season negatively affects the quality of the youth waterfowl hunt at places like Fish Point. I have observed this personally in recent years.

However, I am definitely a fan of the increased waterfowl hunting opportunities. We have an obligation to police ourselves and conduct our hunts in a legal/ethical manner. I too hope that violations will decline rather than increase.

I think we may agree more than disagree on these issues.


----------



## hmrx

JS. I concur. I would bet we agree on more than you think concerning ducks in general. Passion for the resource and policing our ranks for future generations is so vitally important. Your opinion is always important.


----------



## DirtySteve

John Singer said:


> The longer season may affect the young mallards and wood ducks. By that I mean that they are likely to be more wary come the regular season as there are likely to be hunters during the teal season in wetland habitat.
> 
> However, I doubt the incidental take is significant. That was the conclusion of the three year experimental seasons.
> 
> If you are really concerned, there are two things that you can do.
> 
> 1. Don't poach. Do not shoot young mallards and wood ducks. Be sure of your target.
> 
> 2. Report people that you observe poaching. Here is a link to the RAP Hotline: https://secure1.state.mi.us/rap/
> 
> The phone number is 1-800-292-7800. They even take text messages now.


The flaw in the logic is that we already have the early goose season where people are out shooting all over the wetlands. The additional shots from a few teal wont make a hill of beans difference with how skiddish the mallards and wood ducks are come opening day.


----------



## craigrh13

DirtySteve said:


> The flaw in the logic is that we already have the early goose season where people are out shooting all over the wetlands. The additional shots from a few teal wont make a hill of beans difference with how skiddish the mallards and wood ducks are come opening day.


Exactly.


----------



## John Singer

DirtySteve said:


> The flaw in the logic is that we already have the early goose season where people are out shooting all over the wetlands. The additional shots from a few teal wont make a hill of beans difference with how skiddish the mallards and wood ducks are come opening day.


I disagree. The flaw in your logic is that the early goose seasons have been in place for nearly 30 years. The teal hunts have increased the pressure on marshes and wetlands. Many have noticed this and the state of Minnesota has elected not to participate for this reason among others.

Surely, most successful goose hunting effort occurs on dry crop fields. The hunts that occur on water are often not in areas where teal and wood ducks are found.


----------



## craigrh13

John Singer said:


> I disagree. The flaw in your logic is that the early goose seasons have been in place for nearly 30 years. The teal hunts have increased the pressure on marshes and wetlands. Many have noticed this and the state of Minnesota has elected not to participate for this reason among others.
> 
> Surely, most successful goose hunting effort occurs on dry crop fields. The hunts that occur on water are often not in areas where teal and wood ducks are found.


The good thing is we are hunting migrating waterfowl. So if for some reason people are running into empty marshes on opening day(I have not experienced that on public land) then just wait and there will be plenty of birds filtering through.


----------



## John Singer

craigrh13 said:


> The good thing is we are hunting migrating waterfowl. So if for some reason people are running into empty marshes on opening day(I have not experienced that on public land) then just wait and there will be plenty of birds filtering through.


I appreciate full well what you are saying. In places like Saginaw Bay, new birds arrive by the regular opener to replace those displaced by pressure during the early seasons. You and I had discussions last fall about the birds passing through the east side of the Bay.

However, in much of northern Michigan, there are habitats that support broods of birds that do not attract migrating birds. I am pretty confident that the early teal season can negatively affect the youth hunts and regular season hunts in these habitats.


----------



## craigrh13

John Singer said:


> I appreciate full well what you are saying. In places like Saginaw Bay, new birds arrive by the regular opener to replace those displaced by pressure during the early seasons. You and I had discussions last fall about the birds passing through the east side of the Bay.
> 
> However, in much of northern Michigan, there are habitats that support broods of birds that do not attract migrating birds. I am pretty confident that the early teal season can negatively affect the youth hunts and regular season hunts in these habitats.


I believe there is some minor disruption in areas. However, overall? I don’t believe it matters much. I’ll take more days to hunt anytime it’s given to me.


----------



## John Singer

craigrh13 said:


> I believe there is some minor disruption in areas. However, overall? I don’t believe it matters much. I’ll take more days to hunt anytime it’s given to me.


Again, I agree. However, some will complain that their opening days are not the same. They may well be right.

I too prefer the opportunity to hunt on more days.


----------



## craigrh13

John Singer said:


> Again, I agree. However, some will complain that their opening days are not the same. They may well be right.
> 
> I too prefer the opportunity to hunt on more days.


I believe weather and habitat is the bigger reason to blame but that’s my opinion. Even then, I’m ata point where I don’t even care about opening day anymore. Too many damn people.


----------



## DecoySlayer

craigrh13 said:


> I believe weather and habitat is the bigger reason to blame but that’s my opinion. Even then, I’m ata point where I don’t even care about opening day anymore. Too many damn people.


I still believe that the migration patterns have changed as well. 

I agree about skipping opening day. If I don't hunt private property, I don't hunt the first day.


----------



## Cork Dust

DecoySlayer said:


> I still believe that the migration patterns have changed as well.
> 
> I agree about skipping opening day. If I don't hunt private property, I don't hunt the first day.


Actually, you are both right: weather and habitat have resulted in changed migration patterns, particularly in the last three years.


----------



## DecoySlayer

I believe the biggest change is more water in the center of county. Ducks are lazy, they will only do what they have to. 

One thing is for sure, things change. At one time there were massive flocks of snow geese that overflew Michigan during rifle season. Now I hardly see any. There were no Canada geese here, now they are everywhere.

Changes in vegetation in the Lakes, less celery, more invasives. 

There has not been a drastic change over the past few years, it's been slow and steady. It will change again. The only thing we can do is keep, and improve, as much wetlands habitat as we can. Join Ducks Unlimited, and/or, start working at the Pointe Mouillee Waterfowl Festival and Michigan Duck Hunter's Tournament and do your part. THEN, when migration patterns shift back this way, they will have a place to stay.

By the way, if I remember correctly, Pointe Mouillee had one of it's best years last year for ducks. Hard work pays off.


----------



## TheHighLIfe

John Singer said:


> Some of you are not alone in your opposition to the early teal season. For instance, Minnesota did not elect to participate in the 3 year experiment for the same reasons that many of you state.
> 
> https://www.twincities.com/2014/05/24/an-early-minnesota-teal-season-depends/
> 
> hmrx: You are the one that acting like you have fragile crystal balls. You claim to "call them like you see them".
> 
> If you have truly are observed people violating during the the early teal season, have you called the RAP Hotline and turned them it?
> 
> If you have not observed this, you are just blustering on the internet.



there is no law stopping people from being ignorant.
some guys shoot more than their limit of hens and toss them, but i doubt minnesota would decline a duck season because of them
we should not deprive responsible and knowledgeable hunters from a teal season because of a handful of ignorant hunters - some of whom may be new to hunting and will get the hang of distinguishing teal from wood ducks with some more experience. i doubt they go out with intent to shoot wood ducks and young mallards instead of teal.


----------



## craigrh13

TheHighLIfe said:


> there is no law stopping people from being ignorant.
> some guys shoot more than their limit of hens and toss them, but i doubt minnesota would decline a duck season because of them
> we should not deprive responsible and knowledgeable hunters from a teal season because of a handful of ignorant hunters - some of whom may be new to hunting and will get the hang of distinguishing teal from wood ducks with some more experience. i doubt they go out with intent to shoot wood ducks and young mallards instead of teal.


Kind of like punishing all gun owners for the acts of a few morons.


----------



## Cork Dust

TheHighLIfe said:


> there is no law stopping people from being ignorant.
> some guys shoot more than their limit of hens and toss them, but i doubt minnesota would decline a duck season because of them
> we should not deprive responsible and knowledgeable hunters from a teal season because of a handful of ignorant hunters - some of whom may be new to hunting and will get the hang of distinguishing teal from wood ducks with some more experience. i doubt they go out with intent to shoot wood ducks and young mallards instead of teal.


Ask your average native NoDak waterfowl hunter what their impression is of Mn hunters...oddly consistent responses. My favorite was the guy guiding down in the southeast part of the state that changed the signs on some land owned by a Mennonite farmer cooperative to NO Hunting. He then proceeded to attempt to attempt throw our group off "his land", oddly he changed his tune when my hunting partners produced their cell phones to contact the real owners whose land they have hunted for years...


----------



## just ducky

John Singer said:


> I disagree. The flaw in your logic is that the early goose seasons have been in place for nearly 30 years. The teal hunts have increased the pressure on marshes and wetlands. Many have noticed this and the state of Minnesota has elected not to participate for this reason among others.
> 
> Surely, most successful goose hunting effort occurs on dry crop fields. The hunts that occur on water are often not in areas where teal and wood ducks are found.


well I disagree with you also. IF...most of the early goose hunting was to occur in dry fields, then yes. But many, MANY marshes get busted in this early season. And a lot of it could be by people who don't hunt waterfowl later in the season, but like to get out in September when the weather is nice to "shoot something", and as a warm up to their bowhunting for deer. I have several friends who do the goose shoot, but NEVER hunt waterfowl after that.


----------



## BFG

Pressure is pressure, doesn't matter when it happens, and the reality is that when pressure occurs, wildlife will change their patterns. 

When one factors in early goose, teal season, and then youth seasons....it's not difficult to see why the early part of the regular season can be trying. 

I gave up hunting the opening weekend a long time ago. Craig is right...best hunting is between Halloween and Thanksgiving/Christmas anyway.


----------



## Cork Dust

just ducky said:


> well I disagree with you also. IF...most of the early goose hunting was to occur in dry fields, then yes. But many, MANY marshes get busted in this early season. And a lot of it could be by people who don't hunt waterfowl later in the season, but like to get out in September when the weather is nice to "shoot something", and as a warm up to their bowhunting for deer. I have several friends who do the goose shoot, but NEVER hunt waterfowl after that.


Shootig geese over roost water is as dumb a practice in Michigan as it is in NoDak, independent of season segment.


----------



## craigrh13

just ducky said:


> well I disagree with you also. IF...most of the early goose hunting was to occur in dry fields, then yes. But many, MANY marshes get busted in this early season. And a lot of it could be by people who don't hunt waterfowl later in the season, but like to get out in September when the weather is nice to "shoot something", and as a warm up to their bowhunting for deer. I have several friends who do the goose shoot, but NEVER hunt waterfowl after that.


The local lakes load up with hunters in the early goose season. Why? Not everyone can get permission to hunt fields. So if they want to hunt they are forced to hunt public water. 

Saginaw bay had quite a few hunters on it last year targeting geese. I am sure that’s nothing new.


----------



## population control

Your a no good roost hunter if you kill a goose over water !!! At least that what everyone tells me most of the time on here. Lol!!! 

Pressure does change the game. No doubt. I’ll hunt anytime the seasons open. If that means swatting bugs or freezing my ass off , so be it.


----------



## DecoySlayer

I HATE hunting when the mosquitoes are out! I hated hunting in SC when the rattlesnakes were out and active. The scorpions, the spiders that ate deer, the chiggers. You can have my space at when it's warm.


----------



## John Singer

Hunting geese over water is not illegal in MI. If you feel that it is unethical, then do not do it. 

While I do prefer hunting over land, I will hunt over water if I do not have access to a feeding field. 

Why do you feel it is dumb?


----------



## just ducky

Cork Dust said:


> Shootig geese over roost water is as dumb a practice in Michigan as it is in NoDak, independent of season segment.


not agreeing or disagreeing, but it is happening here a lot, for some of the reasons others have already said.


----------

