Just one month ago we discussed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) plan to propose opening the duck hunting season earlier, sometime in late September. The aim, if it happens, is to give Minnesota hunters “first crack” at early migrating blue wing teal and wood ducks before they leave Minn esota, thereby increasing hunte r harv

Such a change might make Minne- sota hunters feel they’ve had a better season, while actually doing nothing for the real Minnesota duck problem. That problem, in general terms, is too few ducks raised within our borders and too few migrating ducks stopping here to rest and feed – and make themselves available to our hunters – while enroute to Southern wintering areas.

Now, the Minnesota DNR is proposing a start time on the duck season’s opening day of one-half hour before sunrise, rather than the current 9 a.m. time. This would be the second step away from the decades-long rule of opening the duck season at noon on the first day. The behavior of ducks on opening day hasn’t changed, but the management logic – if we can call it that – apparently has.

The new logic seems to be that more ducks could be shot by Minnesota hunters on opening day. What’s wrong with that? Nothing, if just killing more ducks is the ultimate goal. But maybe it shouldn’t be. The logic behind opening the duck season at noon, as it was for so long – and then at 9 a.m. – is partly education, of both hunters and ducks. That education opportunity will be hurt by a pre-sunrise opening hour.

Ducks that have never been shot at, or have not been since the close of the last duck season, lack the caution they soon acquire after they’ve been educated on opening day. Until they do, ducks have little reason to fear our flocks of calmly resting decoys, before discovering they’re backed up by hunters with shotguns.

In the near-darkness of pre-dawn, a duck’s amazing eyesight – its greatest defense – is less effective. Ducks are also most active in moving between feeding and resting areas at dawn and dusk. All else being equal, ducks are more vulnerable at these times.

One of the effects of the noon, or even the 9:00 a.m., opening hour, was to shift the odds a little more in the ducks’ favor on opening day, giving them a chance to learn about the new dangers they’ll face under less lethal conditions. It may seem like a contradiction to hunt and hope to shoot ducks, while at the same time having concern for their welfare. But that’s the paradox faced by the hunter, something best reserved for another time. It’s not just a question of whether more ducks will be killed on opening day if Minnesota opens its season a half-hour before sunrise. I think we can count on that. It’s also a question of which ducks. This brings us to the hunter. I’ve only hunted with a very few who I believe can reliably distinguish duck sex and species in low light, especially after 10 months of not shooting under hunting conditions.

Today’s hunting regulations are predicated on knowing which species are legal targets, how many hens you can shoot and when to stop shooting this or that species for the day. Duck identification is the name of the game in today’s waterfowling.

Add to this the understandably greater anticipation and excitement of opening day and – I hate to admit – some level of competitiveness on heavily

hunted waters and you have a prescription for mistakes, such as shooting too many wood ducks, or too many hen mallards.

Administrators in public agencies are more and more being held accountable and asked for tangible results. Taxpayers and politicians are looking over

their shoulders to make

sure there is reasonable “bang for the buck.” This is

understandable, especially in tight economic times. But it can lead to choices made for reasons as much political as principled and focused on the short term rather than the long term.

Maybe it shouldn’t be that way in the world of wildlife management. But when an agency depends on funding support from politicians in the legislature and revenues from angler and hunter licenses, DNR administrators feel pressure to deliver measurable results. Perhaps, not unexpectedly, there is a desire on the part of administrators and even biologists to deliver the “product” of more ducks in the hand.

Raising more ducks in Minnesota and attracting more migrating ducks to fly over our state’s waters, must often seem like insurmountable tasks. But encouraging Minnesota hunters to shoot more ducks from a presently limited supply and under conditions that run counter to the conscientious rules and habits we’ve been living with, does not seem like the right management direction to take.