# 2010–2011 Utah Waterfowl Guidebook



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Here's the almost-final draft of the 2010-2011 Waterfowl guidebook. Please take a look and let me know if you have questions or see any glitches. Thanks!


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Oh, there it is. Thanks Amy!
I love the fact that you put a pelican in the picture section. It seems that quite a few people don't know the difference between them and a swan. :evil:


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Oh, there it is. Thanks Amy!
> I love the fact that you put a pelican in the picture section. It seems that quite a few people don't know the difference between them and a swan. :evil:


 :lol: Maybe they should include the "Utah" Snow goose in the proc as well. Its called a Seagull, people!!!


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Amy, the guide looks great! One thing I noticed was on page 27 the definition of waterfowl lists ducks, geese, swans, mergansers and brant. What about coots and snipes?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I think coots should be in there but not sure about snipe. Good question!


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> One thing I noticed was on page 27 the definition of waterfowl lists ducks, geese, swans, mergansers and brant. What about coots and snipes?


Definitely a good question. I followed up with our migratory game bird coordinator, Tom Aldrich, who noted, "Coots are in a classification of their own and snipe are technically a shorebird. They all are migratory game birds."

I also looked up the official rule, which is _R657-9 - Taking Waterfowl, Common Snipe and Coot_. All three are specifically (and separately) mentioned at the beginning of the rule. To keep things simple, we just refer to the proclamation as the Utah Waterfowl Guidebook.


----------



## Hunter_17 (Mar 15, 2008)

How come they do not have all the ducks in the proc? Like teal, GE and more? Just wondering


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Hunter_17 said:


> How come they do not have all the ducks in the proc? Like teal, GE and more? Just wondering


The main reason is printing costs. To keep costs under control, we only include illustrations of species that are easily confused (lookalikes) or that have certain limits. So many good photos and illustrations are readily available online (try Google Images) and in field guides, this seems to be the best approach.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

> Protection from discrimination: The Division
> receives federal financial assistance from the U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service and must abide by federal
> laws. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
> ...


A question came to mind after reading this on page 5 of the guidebook, and noting that they have reserved 15% of the swan tags for kids under 15 years old (also the special youth big game tags). 
This could be considered age discrimination.

The question that came to mind is this...Are these youth programs putting our federal wildlife funding at risk if someone decided to sue the DWR or started writing letters to the feds??


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Goshawk said:


> A question came to mind after reading this on page 5 of the guidebook, and noting that they have reserved 15% of the swan tags for kids under 15 years old (also the special youth big game tags). This could be considered age discrimination.


I checked with the Division's legal counsel on this, and here is his reply:

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, as a federal aid recipient, is generally prohibited under 42 USC § 6102 from administering any program or activity receiving federal assistance in a fashion that discriminates, excludes from participation, or denies benefits to any person on the basis of age. However, 42 USC § 6103(b) expressly authorizes federal aid recipients to take age into account when necessary to the "normal operations" of the program or activity. In addition, 42 CFR § 17.313 states that when "a recipient operating a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to _children_, such use of age distinctions _shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity_." (Emphasis added).

The Division's programs and activities providing youth increased hunting opportunity are designed to fulfill the critical operational need of recruiting and retaining hunters to maintain the funding base for wildlife management in the future. Not only is additional hunting opportunity extended to youth, but license and permit fees are generally reduced as well. Inasmuch as the Division's operations are funded almost entirely from license sales, and youth participation in hunting sports continues to slide both nationally and locally, recruiting and retaining youth hunters through increased opportunity and reduced fees is critical to wildlife management in Utah.

Based on the statutes and laws discussed above, the Division's programs and activities that provide special hunting opportunities for youth, do not rise to the level of unlawful age discrimination even when they result in fewer hunting permits available to adults.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Not to mention that 85% of the tags are available to anyone. That ratio seems appropriate to me.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

Amy said:


> Based on the statutes and laws discussed above, the Division's programs and activities that provide special hunting opportunities for youth, do not rise to the level of unlawful age discrimination even when they result in fewer hunting permits available to adults.


Good deal ....It just had me doing a double take. Thanks for the explanation....carry on. 8)


----------

