I thought that some of you might find this of some interest.
Duck hunters are about to find out if history always repeats itself.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the support of the waterfowling community, began a five-year experiment called "standardized regulations" -- the goal of which was to stick with the same limits and seasons for several years to determine the impact of hunting on the resource.
Unfortunately, nature threw us a curve. As the experiment was about to begin, one of the worst droughts was growing on the breeding grounds, and duck populations already were falling. In fact, the prairie-nesting pintail was already in serious trouble.
But the agency, once again with the support of major players in waterfowl management, decided to stick with its experiment. That meant staying with regulations based on a point system that allowed 10 ducks per day -- even the ailing pintails.
A furious debate broke out. Some states and hunters argued the agency should end the experiment immediately to preserve what was left of the resource. Others argued the experiment was important, and that ducks couldn't be stockpiled anyway because hunting was "compensatory." That is, the hunting harvest took only birds that would die of natural causes anyway.
Two years later, as the drought stiffened and pintail numbers collapsed, the agency finally threw in the towel. But by then the combination of habitat loss and high harvest numbers had taken its toll, and waterfowl populations had been driven to modern lows. Duck hunting entered one of its darkest periods, and a 30-day season with a three-duck daily limit was set.
That history is relevant in view of decisions made last week.
Once again, the USFWS is in the middle of a experiment in standardized regulations, using a formula-driven system called Adaptive Harvest Management to select season lengths and bag limits. The formula is based largely on two factors: the nesting ponds and mallards counted on the breeding grounds each spring. Last week, as it has each year since its inauguration in 1997, the system recommended the most liberal option: a 60-day season and a six-duck daily limit.
This was done even though Canada's prairies are in the grip of a record drought, and the U.S. nesting grounds appear to by drying up as well. It was done even though the populations of nine of 10 key duck species had fallen from last year. Only mallards had stayed even, but that was enough to prevent the formula from dropping to moderate.
There were voices within the waterfowling community that wondered if the agency should consider stepping outside the AHM formula. They are concerned that AHM relies too heavily on a single species (mallards) to manage a resource composed of 10 key species. They are concerned that the computer models used for counting production and harvest have been proven inaccurate. They are even more concerned that production is not given enough weight in regulations selection.
More than anything, however, they are concerned by the fact that duck populations always track habitat conditions one year later; that is, poor habitat one spring results in poor returns the next.
Given that tradition, it is almost a guarantee the number of mallards counted on the prairies next spring should drop considerably. And if the drought stays in place, next summer the AHM formula might point to the "very restrictive" option -- 30 days.
But those voices were a decided minority. Most of the waterfowling community was eager to stick with the formula and the experiment, through good times and bad. Just like 20 years ago.
All of which means next spring duck hunters may very well see if history always repeats itself.
Bob Marshall can be reached at bmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3787.
08/11/02
© The Times-Picayune. Used with permission.
Duck hunters are about to find out if history always repeats itself.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the support of the waterfowling community, began a five-year experiment called "standardized regulations" -- the goal of which was to stick with the same limits and seasons for several years to determine the impact of hunting on the resource.
Unfortunately, nature threw us a curve. As the experiment was about to begin, one of the worst droughts was growing on the breeding grounds, and duck populations already were falling. In fact, the prairie-nesting pintail was already in serious trouble.
But the agency, once again with the support of major players in waterfowl management, decided to stick with its experiment. That meant staying with regulations based on a point system that allowed 10 ducks per day -- even the ailing pintails.
A furious debate broke out. Some states and hunters argued the agency should end the experiment immediately to preserve what was left of the resource. Others argued the experiment was important, and that ducks couldn't be stockpiled anyway because hunting was "compensatory." That is, the hunting harvest took only birds that would die of natural causes anyway.
Two years later, as the drought stiffened and pintail numbers collapsed, the agency finally threw in the towel. But by then the combination of habitat loss and high harvest numbers had taken its toll, and waterfowl populations had been driven to modern lows. Duck hunting entered one of its darkest periods, and a 30-day season with a three-duck daily limit was set.
That history is relevant in view of decisions made last week.
Once again, the USFWS is in the middle of a experiment in standardized regulations, using a formula-driven system called Adaptive Harvest Management to select season lengths and bag limits. The formula is based largely on two factors: the nesting ponds and mallards counted on the breeding grounds each spring. Last week, as it has each year since its inauguration in 1997, the system recommended the most liberal option: a 60-day season and a six-duck daily limit.
This was done even though Canada's prairies are in the grip of a record drought, and the U.S. nesting grounds appear to by drying up as well. It was done even though the populations of nine of 10 key duck species had fallen from last year. Only mallards had stayed even, but that was enough to prevent the formula from dropping to moderate.
There were voices within the waterfowling community that wondered if the agency should consider stepping outside the AHM formula. They are concerned that AHM relies too heavily on a single species (mallards) to manage a resource composed of 10 key species. They are concerned that the computer models used for counting production and harvest have been proven inaccurate. They are even more concerned that production is not given enough weight in regulations selection.
More than anything, however, they are concerned by the fact that duck populations always track habitat conditions one year later; that is, poor habitat one spring results in poor returns the next.
Given that tradition, it is almost a guarantee the number of mallards counted on the prairies next spring should drop considerably. And if the drought stays in place, next summer the AHM formula might point to the "very restrictive" option -- 30 days.
But those voices were a decided minority. Most of the waterfowling community was eager to stick with the formula and the experiment, through good times and bad. Just like 20 years ago.
All of which means next spring duck hunters may very well see if history always repeats itself.
Bob Marshall can be reached at bmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3787.
08/11/02
© The Times-Picayune. Used with permission.
Duck hunters are about to find out if history always repeats itself.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the support of the waterfowling community, began a five-year experiment called "standardized regulations" -- the goal of which was to stick with the same limits and seasons for several years to determine the impact of hunting on the resource.
Unfortunately, nature threw us a curve. As the experiment was about to begin, one of the worst droughts was growing on the breeding grounds, and duck populations already were falling. In fact, the prairie-nesting pintail was already in serious trouble.
But the agency, once again with the support of major players in waterfowl management, decided to stick with its experiment. That meant staying with regulations based on a point system that allowed 10 ducks per day -- even the ailing pintails.
A furious debate broke out. Some states and hunters argued the agency should end the experiment immediately to preserve what was left of the resource. Others argued the experiment was important, and that ducks couldn't be stockpiled anyway because hunting was "compensatory." That is, the hunting harvest took only birds that would die of natural causes anyway.
Two years later, as the drought stiffened and pintail numbers collapsed, the agency finally threw in the towel. But by then the combination of habitat loss and high harvest numbers had taken its toll, and waterfowl populations had been driven to modern lows. Duck hunting entered one of its darkest periods, and a 30-day season with a three-duck daily limit was set.
That history is relevant in view of decisions made last week.
Once again, the USFWS is in the middle of a experiment in standardized regulations, using a formula-driven system called Adaptive Harvest Management to select season lengths and bag limits. The formula is based largely on two factors: the nesting ponds and mallards counted on the breeding grounds each spring. Last week, as it has each year since its inauguration in 1997, the system recommended the most liberal option: a 60-day season and a six-duck daily limit.
This was done even though Canada's prairies are in the grip of a record drought, and the U.S. nesting grounds appear to by drying up as well. It was done even though the populations of nine of 10 key duck species had fallen from last year. Only mallards had stayed even, but that was enough to prevent the formula from dropping to moderate.
There were voices within the waterfowling community that wondered if the agency should consider stepping outside the AHM formula. They are concerned that AHM relies too heavily on a single species (mallards) to manage a resource composed of 10 key species. They are concerned that the computer models used for counting production and harvest have been proven inaccurate. They are even more concerned that production is not given enough weight in regulations selection.
More than anything, however, they are concerned by the fact that duck populations always track habitat conditions one year later; that is, poor habitat one spring results in poor returns the next.
Given that tradition, it is almost a guarantee the number of mallards counted on the prairies next spring should drop considerably. And if the drought stays in place, next summer the AHM formula might point to the "very restrictive" option -- 30 days.
But those voices were a decided minority. Most of the waterfowling community was eager to stick with the formula and the experiment, through good times and bad. Just like 20 years ago.
All of which means next spring duck hunters may very well see if history always repeats itself.
Bob Marshall can be reached at bmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3787.
08/11/02
© The Times-Picayune. Used with permission.
Duck hunters are about to find out if history always repeats itself.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the support of the waterfowling community, began a five-year experiment called "standardized regulations" -- the goal of which was to stick with the same limits and seasons for several years to determine the impact of hunting on the resource.
Unfortunately, nature threw us a curve. As the experiment was about to begin, one of the worst droughts was growing on the breeding grounds, and duck populations already were falling. In fact, the prairie-nesting pintail was already in serious trouble.
But the agency, once again with the support of major players in waterfowl management, decided to stick with its experiment. That meant staying with regulations based on a point system that allowed 10 ducks per day -- even the ailing pintails.
A furious debate broke out. Some states and hunters argued the agency should end the experiment immediately to preserve what was left of the resource. Others argued the experiment was important, and that ducks couldn't be stockpiled anyway because hunting was "compensatory." That is, the hunting harvest took only birds that would die of natural causes anyway.
Two years later, as the drought stiffened and pintail numbers collapsed, the agency finally threw in the towel. But by then the combination of habitat loss and high harvest numbers had taken its toll, and waterfowl populations had been driven to modern lows. Duck hunting entered one of its darkest periods, and a 30-day season with a three-duck daily limit was set.
That history is relevant in view of decisions made last week.
Once again, the USFWS is in the middle of a experiment in standardized regulations, using a formula-driven system called Adaptive Harvest Management to select season lengths and bag limits. The formula is based largely on two factors: the nesting ponds and mallards counted on the breeding grounds each spring. Last week, as it has each year since its inauguration in 1997, the system recommended the most liberal option: a 60-day season and a six-duck daily limit.
This was done even though Canada's prairies are in the grip of a record drought, and the U.S. nesting grounds appear to by drying up as well. It was done even though the populations of nine of 10 key duck species had fallen from last year. Only mallards had stayed even, but that was enough to prevent the formula from dropping to moderate.
There were voices within the waterfowling community that wondered if the agency should consider stepping outside the AHM formula. They are concerned that AHM relies too heavily on a single species (mallards) to manage a resource composed of 10 key species. They are concerned that the computer models used for counting production and harvest have been proven inaccurate. They are even more concerned that production is not given enough weight in regulations selection.
More than anything, however, they are concerned by the fact that duck populations always track habitat conditions one year later; that is, poor habitat one spring results in poor returns the next.
Given that tradition, it is almost a guarantee the number of mallards counted on the prairies next spring should drop considerably. And if the drought stays in place, next summer the AHM formula might point to the "very restrictive" option -- 30 days.
But those voices were a decided minority. Most of the waterfowling community was eager to stick with the formula and the experiment, through good times and bad. Just like 20 years ago.
All of which means next spring duck hunters may very well see if history always repeats itself.
Bob Marshall can be reached at bmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3787.
08/11/02
© The Times-Picayune. Used with permission.
Times Picayune Ducks
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 4 guests