# CWA asks for 3 Pintail limit



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

This is a direct quote from Take 'Em Magazine

"CWA ASKS FEDS FOR 3-BIRD PINTAIL LIMIT
The Pacific Flyway Council-one of four that advise the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on waterfowl regulations-recommended on March 27 making it a high priority to review and possibly revise the federal regulatory model for determining pintail bag limits. Currently it is only a long-range priority for the Harvest Management Working Group of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
California Waterfowl Association requested this move because a growing body of research suggests that restrictive pintail limits have not helped pintail populations, and that pintail numbers have not rebounded to 1970s abundance because of changes in their breeding habitat. Raising the pintail limit to three per day would help test whether increasing hunter harvest will suppress the population without risking irreversible population damage."

I think Utah would be a better "test area" for the 3 Pintail limit over California.:grin:


I often wonder what the Utah Waterfowl Association is or does, besides having a facebook page where everyone fights and argues.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Love it. The perfect limit would then be 3 pins, 2 cans and 3 GWT.:grin:


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Fowlmouth said:


> I often wonder what the Utah Waterfowl Association is or does, besides having a facebook page where everyone fights and argues.


That's basically all they do. Oh and tell each other how cool they are all the time. But don't worry! Now that they drank the koolaid and jumped into bed with $FW, they will be managing our WMAs, resources and water, right out of the hands of the public hunter. Can't wait!! SMDH....


----------



## utahbigbull (May 9, 2012)

paddler said:


> Love it. The perfect limit would then be 3 pins, 2 cans and 3 GWT.


Or 7 Gadwall


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Its too bad that the UWA is so one minded.. If your topic/conversation/argument/feedback differs from the admins opinions/agenda on that page they just simply block you out of the conversation all together and silence your voice that way..

Best thing I did for my sanity was leave that group.

too bad, because I did enjoy seeing the good stuff on there from time to time.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

king eider said:


> With that fight ongoing where are you? On the sidelines?


I'm a Carpenter, My main focus in feeding my family and putting a roof over their heads at all cost. Over anything else.

I haven't been afforded the time to jump into a political battle with the fed's.

I fully support and donate to any organization I see fit that supports my beliefs.
Sure, I'll admit that the UWA is "fighting some" battles that I can jump on board with but, that doesn't mean I will give them my full support.

let me say a few things that I dont like:

I don't like that they have what I would consider "secret" meetings to discuss topics that have never been announced to the UWA members, then they talk about being our voice.. Voice of what? I haven't been given a discussion topic that I can read and review, I haven't been given an opportunity to come to a hearing/banquet/fundraiser etc to participate in a public form instead of "sitting on the side lines" no, I haven't been given that opportunity when I was a member.

I dont like how the "higher ups" jump on there and tell me to vote for "so and so" because he's a good guy and its who we as waterfowlers need in office.

I dont know any of you, HOW do I know he is a good guy? How do I know he is really on MY team? How do I know there is not something else going on that I cant see because "hey, we are all waterfowlers, there for we are all on the same side, Right?"

No, I want to learn who he is, I want to read his Bio, I want to learn of all the good things he has done before I cast my vote

And by the way.. I don't know who he is. Good/bad its just an example

I also dont like how I defend myself in a passive way against some particular bullies and I'm the one who gets blocked out of the conversation all together? what? how does that work.

Its an Association, I believe a stronger Association is made up by its members being afforded as many opportunities to be hands-on through donations, service, public meetings, open discussions on public matters. As soon as conversation goes private, often its not what the public wants to hear..

Its NOT that way, posting some comments on FB is not an official discussion.

The way it looks to me is a group of 10 people who say they are 5K+ strong..

I believe the UWA is in "some" ways a good thing but, It can be better no doubt if We the people of the UWA are given equal opportunity to get hands-on as much as possible..

I think there are only a handful of people who are more passionate about waterfowl and the preservation thereof as I am so, when I support a group I want to make Dam good and sure they are protecting 100% of my best interest.

And not just join a group because it sounds cool.

I'm in no way singling you out KE but, if the UWA can give me more reason to jump back on board then id be glad, and the pride felt being involved in an organization like i described would be more meaningful.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

As long as you guys have anything to do with $FW in the waterfowl world in Utah, I know lots of guys who won't give you any support. Myself included. You had a good thing going until you started pushing a private agenda. Just because you have 50K "interactions" on your Facebook page does not mean you have 50K supporters. Something you need to remind yourself of.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

king eider said:


> From time to time one must make strange bed fellows to get things done for the better good.


Honesty has given me far greater blessings than dishonesty.

Id like to hear about some of the new changes that are being or will be made, I'd like to read a revised mission statement and policies if any, and any Future short and long term goals being made in more depth.

please, private message me right here on UWN when those changes go into effect and id love to reevaluate my stance on UWA.

Thanks..


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

king eider said:


> UWA has no obligation or connection with SFW other than maintaining a cohesive dialogue on mutual topics. We respect each other as conservation groups. The UWA has received no financial money from them. We declined the offer they made to us. However they have given considerable amounts to local WMA's. When they have the access to the secretary of the dept of the interior then it's best to keep a relationship with them rather than alienate ones self.
> 
> Don't confuse or misconstrue my comment about FB interactions. I am happy to say our support is growing and we are becoming a recognized brand. The marsh and hunting heritage can use all the support it gets at the state level.
> 
> So you going to walk back your ignorant comment about the UWA drinking the SFW koolaid??


I'm suspicious of any group that aligns itself with Zinke. See the thread on the Great Outdoors page. He got along great with our legislative leaders. Why do we keep electing people who want to destroy the things we treasure?


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

king eider said:


> So you going to walk back your ignorant comment about the UWA drinking the SFW koolaid??


You must not be much of a public lands big game hunter in the state of Utah, or you just don't pay attention. Anything $FW touches, gets ruined, changed or altered to fit their agenda. And to be clear, that agenda does not benefit anyone who is a general season public lands hunter. They have destroyed countless opportunities for many groups of people in the western United States, yet at the same time seem to somehow benefit the high dollar hunters they love to represent at the same time. To think they would do anything for "free" or just to help out, is completely insane. They never do something for nothing. They will always want something in return. You let them in. You let them donate. And now that you have let them get their foot in the door, it's only a matter of time.

As far as, things happening behind the scenes, right there is the entire problem with all of this. It's behind the scenes. Not out in the open for everyone to see what's taking place. Behind the scenes is where they shady things can and do happen. And now that you have $FW trying to wiggle their way into the last great resources they haven't destroyed yet, it's not if, it's when.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

sheepassassin said:


> As far as, things happening behind the scenes, right there is the entire problem with all of this. It's behind the scenes. Not out in the open for everyone to see what's taking place. Behind the scenes is where they shady things can and do happen.


This is the problem I have with groups. I hate the closed door meetings where a handful of individuals push their agendas and speak for the rest of us 24,000 waterfowlers. The closed door meetings are bull$hit when they are about public resources. There definitely needs to be transparency so we can all have a voice.

There was an online survey that the DWR sent out last year, where questions were asked about changing season dates, having a 2 day youth hunt and things of that nature. I'm fairly certain it's not the DWR coming up with these ideas on their own. 
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/16-waterfowl/183138-waterfowl-season-survey.html


----------



## OverTheEdge (Sep 12, 2013)

paddler said:


> Love it. The perfect limit would then be 3 pins, 2 cans and 3 GWT.:grin:


That would be 8 Jon. The PL would certainly be 3 Pins and 4 GWT!


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

king eider said:


> Sometimes you have to be bedfellows with those you may not 100% agree with to get things done.


Again, I disagree with this kind of approach.

this is what raises a red flag to me. How about building up a better, more friendlier relationship with the entire Utah waterfowling community.

Not just on Facebook but, expand. Website, email signups/notifications.
Hold fundraisers, even if it is as simple as a shooting event with clay pigeons, .22 range, doughnuts, set up a donation box. Something simple to better introduce this "movement" hell, id donate to an event like that.

Build up the UWA bigger and better with friendlier relations by allowing people to take part of the things that were mentioned in previous posts.
Build unity with a common goal. I know several people who have left the UWA or think its a joke, A lot of the guys that have left or dont engage in the group are probably the people you as a group should be focusing on gaining back because these are incredible people who are very smart and talented and generous

Then you go to the hill with 5, 10, 15? maybe 20 thousand voices and you wont have to jump in bed with shady people.

Its not 1 soldier that wins a battle, its the entire battalion, everyone plays a part.

Good things coming soon to our fed WMA's?

I pray it isn't further restricting/limiting public access

meetings should never be had behind closed doors when someone claims it will benefit the public.

"bad things will be made to look good and good things will be made to look bad"


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

king eider said:


> Yet push back like yours is one of the many examples of hunters eating their own because they don't get 100% of what they want. So they would rather throw rocks at those trying to do the right thing.


How about groups like yours stop leaving the public in the dark and let the light shine through. Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

so claimed "voice of the public"


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

king eider said:


> We have a meeting coming. Hope to see you there. Join our facebook group to learn more in the coming weeks.


send me the date, I wont join until I can provide my fully support


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

The person who gets the most defensive, usually has to most to hide. That statement comes to mind when reading your posts.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/263929757011728/permalink/1900195850051769/

Right here, one of the bigger UWA representatives, is not only sticking up for $FW, but being their puppet, just like so many before him. You did not directly come out and say you support them 100%, but if you read between the lines, you clearly see them as your friends. This is where it all starts. Like I stated before, they start by donations and giving you their support. But later down the road, they ALWAYS want something in return. And with the dnr as their most favorite bed buddy, they get what they want. i suppose either way you can't lose. With all your private ground access you have to hunt birds on. So what if they do a little "tweaking" here and there to make waterfowl hunting better for "everyone". You said it yourself, you don't always like your bed buddies. But you jump on in with them anyways.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

king eider said:


> Jeff is not a representative of the UWA. Although he is a great guy and works hard to help the habitat. We did not take the $$ they offered. However we do have an open dialogue of communication if needed. Keep up with your conspiracy theory in this, what a joke. Haters gonna hate. Still irrelevant.


Time will tell. Just like every other jar of cookies they dip their hand into, won't be long until this ones empty as well.

Pretty defensive for someone who claims to be so transparent and open. There's always more secrets than what's being told in these groups


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

OverTheEdge said:


> That would be 8 Jon. The PL would certainly be 3 Pins and 4 GWT!


Correct. So, the perfect limit would be 3 pins, 2 cans and 2 GWT. Of course, 8 would be better, so let's raise the limit as well.


----------



## OverTheEdge (Sep 12, 2013)

paddler said:


> Correct. So, the perfect limit would be 3 pins, 2 cans and 2 GWT. Of course, 8 would be better, so let's raise the limit as well.


We could have likely gone to an 8 bird bag back in the 90's when we were negotiating the harvest regulations to be used in Adaptive Harvest Management. But our best hunter survey information suggested that Pacific Flyway hunters (including Utah hunters) were very satisfied with 7 birds as long as we maintained our long seasons. We not only maintained our long seasons but actually extended them to 107 days. Doesn't get much better than that! Although 3 pintail would be nice (and I believe the population could handle the additional harvest), I don't think it is likely unless we are willing to go to shorter seasons, and perhaps a lower overall bag. Not a good trade in my mind. California hunters and CWA might accept that trade as their seasons tend to be best in the later half, and shortening them would not be a big price to pay.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

The Feds jumped the gun last year with the 1 pintail limit. I would assume this year it will be back up to two.


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

I will like see a 3 bird limit on pintail


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

richard rouleau said:


> I will like see a 3 bird limit on pintail


I'd just like to see a good cold winter to get the birds down here but 3 pinners would be nice

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

I still fill that if I behave myself and pass on pintails all season. In January I should be able to shoot limits of 7 drake pintails for two days. 14 birds total for the season. Call it a sprig buffet! Good he!! that would be fun making a pile of those gorgeous SOB's. 

Ya I know dream big.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Scratch sprig buffet.

Lets go with Pinner Palooza!!


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Pan seared pintail breast, it doesn't get any better than that.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

King Eider, what happened to all your comments posted on here? Are you retracting your statements then?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> The Feds jumped the gun last year with the 1 pintail limit. I would assume this year it will be back up to two.


agreed big time. the three pintail limit would be nice. but im good with two.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

goosefreak said:


> King Eider, what happened to all your comments posted on here? Are you retracting your statements then?


It would appear that way


----------



## utahbigbull (May 9, 2012)

dkhntrdstn said:


> agreed big time. the three pintail limit would be nice. but im good with two.


I agree, two will def be better that the one bird limit this last season!!


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm okay with a 2 Pintail limit. Too bad last season was only 1, there were a ton of them from the start of the season until the end. It was a banner year for Pintails. There were days when that's the only ducks I saw, and I'm talking thousands and thousands.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

goosefreak said:


> King Eider, what happened to all your comments posted on here? Are you retracting your statements then?


I would guess so. This was an awfully confusing thread to read (after being away from internet for 4 days) until I figured that out.

If it were up to me, I'd make it a 3 pintail limit, with a maximum of one hen. I think there are enough drakes to warrant the 3 bird limit, but I'm not sure I'd like the regulations to allow someone to shoot 3 hens in a day if the population is struggling. Maybe it doesn't matter, though, since most people preferentially shoot drakes anyway.

Regardless, I'm at least hoping for a 2 pintail limit next season. Only 6 more months... :|


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Clarq said:


> I would guess so. This was an awfully confusing thread to read (after being away from internet for 4 days) until I figured that out.
> 
> If it were up to me, I'd make it a 3 pintail limit, with a maximum of one hen. I think there are enough drakes to warrant the 3 bird limit, but I'm not sure I'd like the regulations to allow someone to shoot 3 hens in a day if the population is struggling. Maybe it doesn't matter, though, since most people preferentially shoot drakes anyway.
> 
> Regardless, I'm at least hoping for a 2 pintail limit next season. Only 6 more months... :|


Yes, it sounds confusing if you weren't able to read all the comments before they were retracted.

Bottom line Clarq, before you/anybody support any organization do your own homework and find out for yourself if that organization really does look out for your best interest. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean its always the truth.

I apologize to Fowlmouth for taking part in high jacking his thread..

AS FOR THE PINTAIL LIMIT!!

I'm all for a 3 bird limit IF it is sustainable but, I would defiantly appreciate the limit going back to 2.

I always say I'm gonna try and shoot a few less mallards but, this year I'm a little more serious about that, GWT and pintails. I never pass on a good drake pintail anyways.


----------



## Raptor1 (Feb 1, 2015)

Shot more pintails last year than any previous year, so I was OK with the 1 limit, but 2 would definitely have been better on some days for sure. Last year was the most pintails I have ever seen during a season for sure. My preference would be 2 pintail limit with only 1 being a hen.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Raptor1 said:


> My preference would be 2 pintail limit with only 1 being a hen.


That's what it has been in the past when they allowed 2 Pintails.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

goosefreak said:


> King Eider, what happened to all your comments posted on here? Are you retracting your statements then?


I deleted them. That's what happened. And no I'm not retracting my statements. Just don't care to argue with guys over the internet forums. Relearned a lesson I've been taught far to many times...


----------

