# Wood duck limit....?



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

It was talked about a bit last year, and I was reminded of it recently. 

With the recent rise in the local Wood duck populations, do you think it's time to place a bag restriction on them? 

I would say that it would defiantly, be a rare thing for someone to shoot 7 in one day, and for the most part those that gun them use some self restraint. But while they are far form common, that are getting to be more so. 

I'm not really on either side of this, because quite frankly I've got the only one I ever care to shoot, but I'm curious to see what the general consensus is.

Later,
Kev


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

it'd be in favor of it. there's not many cons and a lot of good pros. i'd love to see a strong population of woodies around here. if there are only a few hundred wood ducks and people keep cleaning out the populations around the breeding boxes, it'll take a long time to see strong numbers.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I don’t ever hunt the areas where the bigger numbers seem to be out here.

But with limited numbers; I’m kind of surprised there is not a restriction on them in Utah. 

Back south where we have huge numbers of them, we are still restricted to 3 a day (Arkansas, Missouri, Miss, Louisiana, Oklahoma are for sure). 

I could easily see how they could get gunned out, but so far that possibility doesn’t seem to be keeping their numbers from expanding. I guess if it becomes a problem, they could always limit them.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

I've hunted them in GA and KS. The limit on them in GA is TWO, and the limit on them in KS at that time, ten years ago, was TWO. These are both states with healthy populations of wood ducks. In GA there's LOTS of em the guys treat them like we treat coots. Here in UT, despite the efforts of many to help their numbers with the wood duck box thing and other conservation projects most of us will never shoot one. If you want more wood ducks you can't be wiping out whole flocks when you see them. But, thats the Utah mentality, if it's there, kill em all before someone else beats you to it! I think they should put a restriction on them. 

ONE per person sounds about right. Hell, up until last year you could only kill one canvasback and I see HUNDREDS more of those ducks every year than I do woodies. Until last week I'd seen six wood ducks in Utah in my life. Four of them were on this quaint little pond in Parry. I have permission to be in there to hunt deer, and ducks if I wanted... I didn't want to shoot them out of respect for the land owner telling me that there really weren't that many and we should probably let them be. But, I have a feeling I won't be seeing those ducks again any time soon... :?


----------



## prohunter (Mar 6, 2010)

Hey Tex What deer hunt is going on now?


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

well i do not think that utah should not put restriction on the wood duck . i say kill 7.most of the wood ducks rise here in utah are all on privite ground .


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Illinois and Iowa have good numbers of Wood Ducks. They allow 4 per day.


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

I think I would probably support a woody bag limit for Utah. I would say 1-2 per day would be more than adequate.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I just want a couple wood ducks for Tex to mount for me and I would be happy.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

prohunter said:


> Hey Tex What deer hunt is going on now?


None that I know of... The tags my wife and I had were mitigation tags for that landowners orchard. That hunt ended the end of Dec.


----------



## captain (Nov 18, 2007)

richard rouleau said:


> well i do not think that utah should not put restriction on the wood duck . i say kill 7.most of the wood ducks rise here in utah are all on privite ground .


Ah yes, that sounds like a good idea :roll: . If anyone was wondering about what Tex was saying when he mentioned the selfish Utah mentality, allow me to point out exibit A. By the way I have had the oportunity to kill wood ducks on public land on several occasions.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

yep, witout a second thought to it... limit em. One per day. ABSOLUTELY!!

Richard... :| seriously? HOLY-B-JEEZOUS... :evil: :O•-: 
THINK MAN THINK!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

captain said:


> By the way I have had the oportunity to kill wood ducks on public land on several occasions.


...hmmm, you dont say... 

and if some would do just a little homework, could have for nearly twenty years. :O•-:


----------



## Zach Hedrick (Nov 22, 2010)

I've got mine for the wall, so I'd be happy with not shooting anymore, but I think a 1 bird limit is fair for those that want one for the wall, while still keeping the population growing.


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

My thoughts were more along the lines of 2 or 3, just because they tend to be in bunches. But I'm tending to lean more toward 2.

Like I said, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've had 4 total opportunities to harvest a Wood duck, was able to capitalize once. That's all I need.

It seems pretty evident from the prior posts, that most states with a high population, have a restricted bag. Might be something to that.

Later,
Kev


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

I was told by a reliable source that said the reason most states have restricted limits is they're relatively easy to harvest. I personally think they're kind of a dumb duck. Especially when they come in to the roost pond at last light. The times I had chances at woodies in other states I literally could have shot dozens of them. Like Kevin said, they hang out in bunches and that makes it easy to kill a pile of em. Right, Zach...  

I'd prefer only one be the limit, but for the reason Kevin mentioned 2 might be more realistic for most. And, it would be a happy medium for those who simply must shoot another one cuz they're there...


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I agree. I have killed 9 in the last 4 years and i think there should be a 3 bird limit with a shorter season. I love shooting them but i could practice restraint with no issues. If it means a stronger population i am all for it.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> I was told by a reliable source that said the reason most states have restricted limits is they're relatively easy to harvest. I personally think they're kind of a dumb duck. Especially when they come in to the roost pond at last light. The times I had chances at woodies in other states I literally could have shot dozens of them. Like Kevin said, they hang out in bunches and that makes it easy to kill a pile of em. Right, Zach...
> 
> I'd prefer only one be the limit, but for the reason Kevin mentioned 2 might be more realistic for most. And, it would be a happy medium for those who simply must shoot another one cuz they're there...


Squealers (our affectionate term for them) for the most part seem stupid because you will find them very hard to call in and work in a traditional manner, the fact that they pretty much just will rocket right into a decoy spread with little or no enticement is the number 1 reason for this. Tex is right, they like to roost in the same spots on the river or in the flooded timber, it is very easy to shoot out a flock of them, couple that with in a lot of places down there, they are largest resident duck that breed, is the reason I was told they had a restriction on them, is it true, who knows? But I got that info from a biologist for the G&F back there.

Warning, in a lot of areas back there, they will tease the crap out of you for shooting squealers, it is kind of like shooting boot lips out here. :lol:


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

well i guess captain did not like what i said . i shot wood duck on public land in southern utah .no i am not selfish.why should we put more restriction on waterfowl


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Rich... Honestly man... c-mon.... does the notion of hunting these micro populations into oblivion not strike you as a bad thing?


about the limit:

ok two would be cool, esp from a collectors point of view. but restrict to one hen per person per season. now now now, i know the "waterfowl in flight identity challenged" type among us just had an anureism but... if you cant ID it, DONT shoot!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

richard rouleau said:


> .why should we put more restriction on waterfowl


 I don't know, maybe to prevent overharvest of a species that is not that numerous?

States are free to set more restrictive bag limits than the federal guidelines as they see fit, they just can't make more liberal ones. States exercise this option a lot.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

prohunter said:


> Hey Tex What deer hunt is going on now?


the deer hunt in question were land owner mitigation tags, that were good until 12/31. Tex and his wife were given a voucher by the wildlife manager. Real great guy in my opinion


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> richard rouleau said:
> 
> 
> > .why should we put more restriction on waterfowl
> ...


Why would you want to put any/more restrictions or limitations on anything?

I'd say make things more liberal if anything.
I'd start with say..... no limitations on how many shells you can have in your gun (yeah, I know that we'd have to work on that pesky Federal Law before we could do it) and another way up on my list a ways is that there should no limitations on where you can go to hunt waterfowl, by whatever means you can get there, no rest areas limiting hunters ability to cover more ground, etc.

Conservation *sucks* and is a terrible idea.

Why shouldn't someone be allowed to hang out in the same spot over and over and blast 7 woodies a day until there aren't any more?

Why would you want to limit someone from doing whatever they **** well please?

"Whatever goes" should be the rule shouldn't it????


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Are you serious? Or are you just being completely unreasonable to ruffle feathers? -O|o-

BTW, ruffling feathers is MY job! :mrgreen:

You wanna see what NO conservation looks like, go over to China. They have NO conservation at all. And, as such they have no wildlife whatsoever. (besides monkeys) NONE! It's all gone, killed, eaten, and destroyed. When you walk through the woods over there and you see no birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, lizards, snakes, NUTHIN. They've eaten it all. My wife spent two months over there and said she couldn't believe her eyes. The only animals they have over there are in cages under their houses waiting to be eaten and some pets.

Conservation *SUCKS!* Just ask 6 billion Chinese...


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Awwww I got under someone’s skin! 


Yeah he wants to ruffle my feathers, but old son is once again treated to disappointment, cause I ain’t bothered a lick by him.

If I have to explain the difference between that kind of restriction versus the kind paddler proposed then in my view you are beyond help, if you do understand it; you can either choose to grow up and contribute something constructive to the sport or continue wasting your time running your mouth.

Speaking of which, this is all I have time for, I need to get down the Delta meeting, you know the one where they are planning the upcoming banquet. 

BTW TEX is spot on too.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Awwww I got under someone's skin!
> 
> Yeah he wants to ruffle my feathers, but old son is once again treated to disappointment, cause I ain't bothered a lick by him.
> 
> ...


Don't try and give me pink roses, I'm not your mother.

Please humor me and explain the difference if you will please.

Unlimited access by ATV(you would descriminate against the ATV crew would you?), mud motor, airboat? No restriction on the amounts of shells a gun holds, etc.?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Short version: There is conservation based on actual verifiable science such as season and bag limits and there is “conservation” that is based on personnel bias and assumptions which is what that motor less proposal you support is based on. No need to explain further, everyone out there knows which conservation is BS.


----------



## sparky00045 (Apr 1, 2008)

I rememeber years ago golfing at rose park and seeing wood ducks on the jordan river, and no one would belive me, i knew they were here, that was the only ones i ever seen in utah.

They are a pretty duck.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Short version: There is conservation based on actual verifiable science such as season and bag limits and there is "conservation" that is based on personnel bias and assumptions which is what that motor less proposal you support is based on. No need to explain further, everyone out there knows which conservation is BS.


Wow!!!!!!!!!

I had no clue that all federal and state waterfowl regulations were based on "actual verifiable science." 
I guess hopes for a wood duck limit are years into the future here in Utah since there hasn't been a substantial population of them for so long. It will probably take a couple million dollars and 4 or 5 years of careful study to determine if our limits should be similar to those that are already in place back east or whether to leave the current regulations that are in place. I can see your point that "personal bias and assumptions" shouldn't come to play in making regulations.........So at least 3 or 4 more plus years of 7 wood duck limits here in Utah is the answer to this thread. Until at which time, IF there is a study done, limits can be reduced.

So potentially, according to mojo1, it could be several years, if at all (based on actual verifiable science) that a wood duck limit can be discussed and regulated.

Makes sense to me now.....Thanks mojo1!!!!!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I would support a wood duck limit. I'd say 2 per day is a good number. I'm not sure it will effect how many are shot right now, but as time goes on, it could make a difference.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

1BandMan said:


> Makes sense to me now.....Thanks mojo1!!!!!


Your welcome!

see you figured out the process without hardly any help, I knew you had it in yah.

BTW, I never said the process made sense! :lol:


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> 1BandMan said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense to me now.....Thanks mojo1!!!!!
> ...


I knew my chest waders would come in handy for things other than hunting.

I'm just wishing that they were "nose waders" though,.......it's pretty deep in here right now.


----------



## Carl Taylor (Jul 23, 2009)

I hear all you have to do is put a wooden shanny on a pole, rap on it a few times and WHAMO, they come out like popcorn outa the popper hopper....[attachment=0:15rjp359]RAP-on-the-Box-1.gif[/attachment:15rjp359]


----------

