Should the feds lower our daily bag limits

The way it is right now in NC we can pretty much hunt when we want, where we want and if we are good and lucky at the same time we can take 6 ducks. I like being able to hunt when I want and where I want and to be able to take 6 ducks when the stars line up... but the fact of the matter is something needs to be done, and it's not necessary to reduce limits if we increase habitat. I've seen a lot of you talk about the "food" problem on the baiting threads...now I'm not talking about baiting here, I'm saying that maybe if the NCWRC made a better effort to provide food for wildlife on our public lands then maybe we would have more ducks, quail, healthier deer, more turky's etc... IMO this is the root of the problem. We can put as many band aids we want to on it but that is just a temporary solution. If we as hunters don't find a way to help the NCWRC improve the habitat we do have by creating better feeding/breeding grounds then we WILL have to reduce bag limits...and that is just a band aid. Maybe a better solution would be to figure out a way for the NCWRC to either make more money in order to do this or to better allocate their funds. Either way, if we don't solve the problem at the root then the problem will just keep coming back and get worse each time it does come back. I would be willing to pay an extra $50/year to duck hunt if I knew that the NCWRC was putting that money into habitat... Bottom line is we have to protect the habitat we have and we have to do more to improve it by planting food sources. How many guided hunts have you gone on, for deer, turkeys ducks, etc where the landowner has not done something on the land to make it more attractive to wildlife??? If you owned a 10,000 acre piece of land would you do something to make it more attractive to wildlife??? Of course you would, so what I am saying is that our public hunting land should be treated the same way and the NCWRC can not do it without the financial support of hunters. Decreasing bag limits is the lazy man's way of putting a band aid on the problem instead of actually solving it. I'm not calling anyone here lazy so don't take it that way, just saying that there is a much better way to solve the problem than reducing bag limits. Just my 35 cents.

Crash...this is not just a local problem. My theory applys world wide. Liek I said we can solve the problem or we can band aid it for a while until the problem goes away by itself....I mean when your bag limit goes to zero. This would not happen in our lifetimes but if we don't SOLVE the problem then it will eventually happen.

Lets look at ducks like dollar bills...

If money is tight and you are strugling you have 2 choices...make more money or spend less. If you choose to spend less and hope that you can make more in the future you are only finding a temporary solution. If you spend less and bust your hump to go out and make more money then you are solving the problem at the "root". Then you can go back to your original spending habits b/c you have found a way to earn more money. Both decisions will probably get you by in the end, but one is just more fruitful and perminent than the other.

So maybe the solution is to temporarily reduce bag limits...but if you don't improve the habitat we currently have then don't ever expect the bag limits to be increased perminantly.

Now let's look at ducks like dirt... If you plant a field in corn for 5 years in a row without adding any lime or fertilizer, what are you going to do about the loss of crops? Eat less corn or fertilize your field???? Eating less corn would work but fertilizing the field would be better.

Just my 15 cents...I think I'm almost up to a dollar now so....off to make more money. See ya later. :thumbsup:

Crash, I agreed we need to reduce the bag limits, temporarily, but I added that we need to do waaaayyy more than we currently are to protect and improve the habitat we currently have. I'm not sure why you are arguing against me on that. It does have relevency in this thread b/c it is the problem that brought you to start this thread. The declining waterfowl population will not be stopped by reducing the bag limits alone, and if we do not work harder and spend more money to protect the habitat we do have then eventually we will have to reduce our bag limits to zero. All I am saying is that in order to solve the problem we have to attack it at the root, which is working harder, raising more money and spending it on protecting and improving the habitat we already have....that way we don't have to reduce bag limits again, and again. I wasn't trying to hijack your thread or piss you off, just adding a very relivent point. It's an obvious point but one that most hunters are not taking seriously enough.