April 28, 2006 Mad Duck.org
The Sportsman’s Voice
For Waterfowl Conservation
ONE MAN’S VIEW
By David F. Zentner
I began hunting at age 10 and remain an enthusiastic hunter at the age of 69.
Although I am a lay person, wildlife and habitat conservation have been very important
to me since junior high school days. I have great respect for the wildlife management
profession. My early mentors instilled in me the importance of supporting our wildlife
management professionals. I was told then, and I believe now, it is best in the long run
for our game and fish.
So, how can I speak on the complex subject of continental duck management with
such strong conviction that we are – and have been for some time – headed in the wrong
direction? I may not be a professional, but in my lifetime as a hunter, conservationist,
cooperator with many of the pros, I do not hesitate to say that I feel that today’s
managing philosophy around duck harvest has strayed significantly from an original
philosophy to err (if at all) in favor of the duck. In addition, managing agencies seem to
have abandoned earlier commitments to the traditions of “fair chase.”
Here are some observations I’ve made based on experience. When I became a
hunter in the late 1940’s, the duck season was 35-45 days, the limit four birds, and the
waterfowl habitat from north-to-south and east-to-west was far more abundant and in
better overall condition. Back them electronic technology, easy access to wetlands, the
ability to comfortably travel long distances, and internet communications on where the
birds might be were non existent. Today we have several of our most popular species in
decline, below long term target goals by enormous amounts, less habitat, deteriorated
habitat, predator explosions, and long and liberal duck seasons! Go figure.
I would love to share letters I have received from expert hunters who are in their
seventies and eighties who write about how “the duck” is gone and how sad they are,
often angry as well. They’ve killed more than their share and they know it; they are
simply saddened by what they’ve seen. Some of these letter writers have hunted six,
seven, even eight decades. Management professionals often write off such observations
with the “anecdotal” word. The pros point out that duck hunters’ views are too narrow,
that duck hunters will never have the “big picture” of what is taking place in North
America in so far as ducks are concerned. The professionals tell us that migration
patterns are changing due to agricultural changes, hunting pressure, warmer autumns, and
other factors. No doubt these changes do influence flights and what hunters see. But such
talk reminds me of a movie about buffalo hunting that I watched as a boy. The buffalo
hunters were doing poorly. Each night back at camp they would share stories about their
lack of success and trade rumors about where the buffalo might be found. They kept
changing camps to find the buffalo. After many camps they knew the buffalo were gone.
Are there parallels? This year because pintails were up eighteen per cent, (yet
still at or near recorded all time lows) the regulations extended the one bird daily limit for
the total season, versus the “season within a season” we had last year. My point is not
that the change is a big impact, my point is how eager, how addicted professional
managers are to liberal seasons, to killing birds, to the idea of compensatory mortality.
Our regulators would have you and I believe that they scientifically manage duck
populations with great objectivity. I agree good management has occurred and that many
past and present managers care about our flocks. But let’s face it, much of the regulatory
process is a political struggle between the states and the federal folk, with the overall
duck kill divided between the politics of the north and south. The satisfaction of the duck
hunter is often put before the welfare of the duck. The waterfowl bureaucracy has little
interest in issues of fair chase and ethical leadership.
To blame our agencies for all of duck hunting’s present woes would be grossly
unfair. Duck hunters, duck clubs, and politicians who influence and manipulate the
system so that some duck hunters can kill more ducks are a big part of the problem.
Hardly a day goes by that someone comments in the outdoor press about the “antis” and
the threats they pose to hunting. Let us take an unflinching look in the mirror. If I were
observing duck hunters as a nonhunter, my impression is very likely quite negative. I
would see competition vs. cooperation and reliance on technology vs. emphasis on skills,
coupled with pathetic bird identification in many cases. We need to get a lot better on
average at what we do. By improving, our satisfaction rate will go up considerably,
emphasis will be on quality not quantity and there will be far less traction for the folk
who would like us to go away.
Let us begin by establishing what I believe is a reasonable daily bag limit –
NEVER MORE THAN FOUR. We fractured the four-bird bag in the 1970s starting with
the days of the point system, and then by setting species specific higher limits for surplus
this and surplus that. Now, we are told there is little biological benefit in reducing the
limit from six to four, that the cut must be deeper – say to two – to really bring back the
breeders. That may be statistically defensible, but it does not meet the litmus test of
moving the system in favor of conserving, in fact moving the culture back to one of
conservation. In the absence of harvest data certainty, the daily bag limit should be
adequate, not maximal. If we adopt a four-bird limit, I am convinced that slowly but
surely some duck hunters will quit at two or three, just as anglers who practice catch and
release stop way short of killing a limit.
Unlike anglers, we have yet to figure out how to re-cycle ducks except by
substituting the camera for the shotgun. My experiences have included witnessing the
collapse of fishery stocks that were not due to degraded habitat, pure and simple they
were over exploited by liberal regulations. When more conservative regulations were
enacted the fish responded very quickly. Now, ducks are not fish, but I will say this,
emphasis on habitat in the fish and wildlife programs of many land grand colleges is so
over riding that many professional managers near retirement before they have enough
experience to begin to wonder a bit about management priorities.
And what about the duck managers, what do they think? To be honest, I am not sure. I
wish I was. I do know that in the years since I and others have begun to question liberal
bags and seasons more than a few folk currently involved with duck management have let
us know they agree in no uncertain terms. To be fair, others have strongly expressed their
support for the present system of Adaptive Harvest Management, and their belief that kill
has little to do with population trends. Others while not as outspokenly supportive as the
first group go off the record and encourage us to “keep asking tough questions”.
Are you bewildered by all of this? I am not. What I’ve seen in my years of
hunting and fishing makes me very comfortable in pushing for fewer birds killed and
more breeders returning to the nesting grounds. If I am wrong, what have I done to the
resource? I am right, and hunting under liberal regulations is causing additive mortality
(harming the breeding population), then what are the consequences not only for ducks,
but also for the future of hunting? Where will the next generation of hunters come from,
some of whom might be greatly interested not just in hunting, but also in active
conservation work?
There are many contradictions in today’s game codes and in agency
pronouncements. Hen mallards are generally afforded more protection than drakes, yet
some prominent waterfowl managers loudly proclaim there is no biological basis for any
protection for hens not given to drakes. Agencies base their compensatory mortality
arguments in part on high population turn-over rates, yet ducks are relatively long-lived
birds with some very accurate repeat nesting over several years. Recent studies show not
all hens are created equal and that conserving hens in order to optimize the usually more
successful veteran breeder makes good sense. Which is it? And, in the recovery of some
species, waterfowl managers claim results related to closed or greatly restricted seasons a
very valuable tool.
I believe the time is past due to bring the hunter and the manager into closer
relationships, to manage more conservatively, and to once again begin to confront tough
issues with courage, candor, and a long-term point of view. Our duck surveys are
valuable tools, yet managing harvest in part by analyzing data from surveys that cover
one per cent of the continent is very problematic to me, the margin for error is likely
considerable.
I believe the duck badly needs more conservative managers – managers that are to
put it bluntly more humble, less certain that they are 100 percent right. I believe hunters
need to be more involved. What do we want out of our hunt? Do we want all the ducks
we can squeeze out of the politics involved in “dividing up the kill”? Do we want to
emphasize every gimmick and use every bit of technology to harass birds throughout
their range and throughout the day? Or, do we want to improve our skills, maintain an
abiding interest in fair chase, and celebrate ducks, dogs, friends, the sound of wings
overhead? If we take care of the ducks, the ducks will take care of us.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Glenn
Bookmarks