Waterfowl Management:
What Does it Stand For?
By John L. Devney
As is often the case in any profession, certain terms and philosophies eventually become the accepted dogma. Each of us can look to our own lives and see just how institutionalized and stuck in the mud our own thinking can become, and we can clearly see it in those around us as well.
As a student of language, I often try to see how words are used and see if they have any usefulness today. After reviewing the writings of Aldo Leopold in his seminal 1933 work Game Management, I am struck how he defined wildlife management.
“Game management is the art of making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use,” wrote Leopold.
It is clear from Leopold that the field of management and its associated activities had but one clear, stated objective—to increase the abundance of game, and we can assume that Leopold would have found this to be the sole measure of success.
Today the field of wildlife management has become as muddied as our society as a whole. Biologists and managers once responsible to hunters, anglers and trappers are now faced with a diverse user base and a society that, for the most part, is far removed from the land. As a result, they and their departments—whether it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or our state game and fish agencies—find their attention and limited resources divided among a myriad of perspectives and constituents.
Waterfowl management has the same problem in that it has lost sight of the objective as stated by Leopold. The problems facing ducks are the same ones we had when waterfowl management began and will likely be the greatest challenge facing our flocks throughout our lifetimes—that of poor production on the breeding grounds.
How has waterfowl management responded? A great deal of good has been done. Habitat conservation efforts have saved many a wetland, and a concerted effort has been forged to conserve upland nesting cover as well.
We have CRP on the prairie breeding grounds as a result of thoughtful policy work by conservation interests, forward-thinking agricultural leaders and policy-makers, and even the beleaguered Canadian prairies may see a landscape cover program in the coming years with a ton of hard work and a little luck.
Yet despite the positives there is some reason for concern. For example, an adjustment was recently made to how North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) monies can be distributed. Because the loss of habitat in the prairie provinces has been monumental, the bulk of NAWCA money has traditionally gone to prairie Canada. Under the revision, money can now be used where non-federal matching dollars are most abundant.
This action essentially de-emphasizes the prairie pothole region, which is where the biological bottleneck for ducks exists. This cash grab will undoubtedly allow for some to more easily access federal dollars and accomplish beneficial wetland habitat work in wealthy areas like California, Texas, and the Carolinas.
But what impact will it have on ducks? A lack of emphasis on the prairies will mean these restored or newly created habitats on the wintering grounds and in mid-latitude states will have fewer ducks to utilize them.
New directions are not always beneficial or visionary, especially when they don’t appear to align with stated objectives. How are projects in the Caribbean, Hawaii or even key wintering areas going to help us achieve our primary goal of putting more ducks in the sky?
This new direction spreads the precious few resources at the disposal of waterfowl management a mile wide and an inch deep, and it is easy to see the results we will reap from this action.
There will be many projects aimed at maintaining the biodiversity of wetlands. While that’s an exceptionally noble accomplishment, it’s far from the definition Leopold penned in his thoughts on game management.
If waterfowl management wants to see meaningful accomplishments on behalf of our flocks, it must to listen to the science and acknowledge that the greatest limiting factor facing ducks is lack of nest success on the breeding grounds, and it must reaffirm a commitment to the prairies as the most critical area of concern.
If we are truly trying to make significant accomplishments for ducks, we must throw the collective weight of NAWCA, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and hunter dollars where they will provide the greatest good—on the prairie breeding grounds.
Additional project areas, while of tertiary benefit, will do little to secure the future flights we all desire. It is time to focus with laser-like accuracy on improving conditions on the prairies rather than scatter our attention and resources.
It is time to put ducks first.
