ORIGINAL: jakelogsdon
The concern for conservation is there, however the SWD ban was not the way to go. The numbers in Arkansas have steadily gone down over the past three years. If that is the case the SWD ban had no effect whatsoever as far as conservations goes. So why continue it?
Okay, I'm going back on my word here. I will try my best to remain civil. First, let me say I agree with pretty much everything else that you posted, we do need to focus on other areas as well. However, I am a bit confused by the quoted statement. I assume you're talking about harvest numbers having declined? I am not sure I see the logical connection between a lower harvest and the spinner ban being inneffective. In fact a lower harvest would seem to indicate the ban might have had some effect. Or are there other "numbers you are talking about" i.e. bird count numbers? I am not sure how a lower bird count would show thatthe ban was inneffective though.
I honestly haven't looked at harvest numbers for last year, but I do know that almost every club I hunted with in Arkansas North of US 82 had record, or near record harvests.
The issue, as far as I'm concerned,isn't what the overall effect was, in fact most of the "damage" done by spinners occurs before the birds reach the state. My point is, if Arkansas wanted to fly the flag of conservation and be a leader, as they claimed when they banned spinners and cut the bag limit to one hen, then they should stick by their guns. Instead they bowed to political pressure. As stated earlier this is a prime example of regulations being based in politics rather than a genuine concern for conservation. The same statements applyto the raising of the limit on hen mallards.
oldreloader, that is pretty much what I gathered about the decision too, scary isn't it. Politics trump conservation...again.
jakelogsdon, you are absolutely correct, we are facing some very big problems in the near future...and it is a war I am not sure the ducks will win.