Hunt Fish Grill

It never fails that waterfowlers arrive to opening day at a fever pitch. As football season progresses, the reality of migrating waterfowl, falling temperatures and brushing blinds sets in. Much like the modern bass fishing phenomenon, duck hunters are lathered up by scores of situational gadgets and gear designed to make hunting more successful and comfortable. A stroll through any outfitter's shelves feel much like a modern carnival.  Motorized doohickeys and obnoxious accessories clutter an already complicated list of duck hunter's "must haves". It doesn't take long to wonder what's more fun, hunting for ducks or shopping for duck hunting gear.

A new hunter might even start to think that he couldn't even afford to take up the sport. The truth is, if you think you have to have all of that stuff, you probably can't afford it. There is a grain of truth in that, though. Fleeting are the days that a hunter could take a $200 shotgun and three decoys to walk in to a spot on public land and actually make a run on a limit of ducks. Sure you can carry a $200 shotgun and yes I recommend fewer decoys, but finding a decent walk-in spot? Forget it.

When duck hunters had only one parka and a basic decoy to worry about, things were simple. Shopping for gear was limited to whether or not your waders leaked and the focus was on hunting. The only people in the swamps wanted to hunt ducks regardless of the misery. Those same swamps are now flooded with guys who just love buying gear. Those same guys that would leave 30 minutes after sunrise and trailer their $12,000 custom duck boats loaded with $3,000 worth of new decoys and gear. Those very same guys that shoot coots, crows, beavers, squirrels and sometimes each other by accident. Don't get me wrong, their dollars fuel the system the same as mine, but what happens when hunter numbers go up and the target game populations stay the same?

You can bet that millions of dollars are being spent to to study waterfowl populations and habitat. You can also bet that almost none of that money is going to help hunters enjoy the sport more via increased bags. If it were as simple as planting and flooding corn fields for public use, my crew would be in the waterfowling hall of fame by now. We have the unique opportunity to hunt tens of thousands of acres of public WMAs dedicated specifically to waterfowl hunting. What's funny about it (and why it already sounds like a complaint) is that nobody kills any ducks off of those lands any more. Why? Great question, that I'm sure many people wouldn't mind being addressed.

Trends in waterfowl hunting are nothing new, and most certainly can be traced back to biological or climate related causes. 15 years ago we enjoyed moderate success on several species of ducks in most any of our WMAs. It wasn't like we hammered limits every outing, but you could pretty much kill birds nearly anywhere you threw out a decoy. The first issues were drought years. We all assumed that the lack of water had somehow adversely affected our favorite spots either by affecting the vegetation or the food organisms that ducks feed on. Drought years were tough, but at least we felt like we knew why. Then it kept happening and even when there was water, there were no ducks. We blamed it on crops, weather, heavy hunting pressure and pretty much every excuse you could engineer.

What always made it seem worse was when large numbers of ducks did show up and sit on the refuge for a few weeks, while we sat and watched them from miles away. I know it's a sensitive topic and really there might seem like any real solution would be cheating, but just think about the cause and effects here. If there are genuinely successful increases in waterfowl populations and breeding rates, then the money that hunters pour into the system every year is working. What happens when hunters stop pouring money? You might think it sounds absurd that the "sport of kings" could just fade into obscurity, but think about our culture and the "get it now-drive through" society we live in.

Hunters are as entranced with buying gear on the internet as anything else, what's to stop them from buying turkey decoys, or predator decoys instead? Why not trade your mud boat in on a nice bass rig? If you trust nothing else in this world, believe it as gospel that men will find something more fun to do with their time and money than "not kill ducks" every season. They just will not do it. You could speculate that far less than 20% of active waterfowlers are actually purists these days. That is to say that they'd hunt dawn til dusk all season without buying much in the way of gadgets and could care less whether a shot is fired. It's just how it is, and assuming that purists make up so little of the pool, losing the majority of more casual hunters is a very real threat. Consider that the casual waterfowl hunter goes less than 6 times/year and comes up empty handed for two or three seasons. It's more than just likely that he'd find another more productive way to spend his free weekends(and dollars) throughout the year. This directly affects the flow of money into and out of the resources that support habitat and hunting.

It's much more than guaranteeing results to satisfy a short term desire on the sportsman's part. If you think about it, success drives the whole machine. Certainly this kind of logic drifts into some pretty sensitive territory, growing ducks "just to shoot them" type of mentality, but you simply can't pour this level of resources into programs with the immense level of support offered by hunters and not enjoy a reasonable return on investment. Face the facts, hunters don't attend supporting charity events like Ducks Unlimited banquets for any reason other than they expect the dollars to increase their bags. It's a trade that so far has worked brilliantly for the ecological/conservation programs and the conscience of the American sportsman. Feel better about your sport by giving back, and it is truly match made in heaven since most conservation "activists" can hardly generate the kinds of dollars that sportsman spend every year on their own, particularly just for the sake of improving habitat for wildlife.

What happens when the smoke clears and there's no ducks? It's a scary question that terrifies not only the deep corporate fundraising machines like Ducks Unlimited, but Government agencies and the billion dollar retail industries associated to the sport. It's not all doom and gloom, but in the midst of an all-time global economic disaster, it's pretty easy to connect the dots. Sportsmen cling to their chose pursuits ferociously and would give up their seasons only as a last resort. The question for the decision makers is when are we actually at the last resort? You could take lightly a poor hunt, poor season or even a poor decade for waterfowling, but consider the economic impact of thousands of sportsman over the course of a weekend, season or decade. What becomes hundreds of millions of dollars in a hurry could start to fade in the blink of an eye if left in the background unattended.

Solutions? Obviously if I had them all, we'd work on getting them in place. I've pondered such added value ideas as "multi-state" licenses and "refuge rotation" to stir the pot and keep the interest up. When it comes to the almighty dollar it seems that states are less willing to play nicely and share, even if it means an overall increase in hunter satisfaction and spending. The bottom line is that hunters expect results, especially regarding projects funded directly by tax dollars or charities they support. You wouldn't want to take a hard line on the subject, but there's wiggle room. Satisfied and successful hunters pour millions back into projects that afford ecological research and habitat programs benefiting far beyond the wet spots where hunting takes place.

We catch ourselves blaming private landowners and wealthy clubs for our lack of success, when usually that's just a function of frustration. In our case, thousands of birds flood our area every year and sit on refuges for a few weeks. We can see that they're here and hunt all around them but typically are merely paying to feed birds with crops we paid for, protected by boundaries that we also pay for. It's a touchy subject for sure, but if you think it's an issue now, let the dollars go away and imagine even less results. Conspiracy theories about fundraisers fluffing population numbers to grease the positive cash flow gears have been around for years, and honestly you would never be sure what the truth is. We sit in blinds trying to understand aerial survey techniques and why a flooded field sees no ducks every year. It seems we're ultimately less interested in explanations and more excited by the promise of results and change. Considering the amount of money I spend every year, I'd have to agree. Sometimes you just want to enjoy a little ROI.