Latest / Ducks Unlimited Podcast / RELOADED EP217 - Waterfowl Harvest Management Series, Part 8: Adapting to Change, 1970s to the 1990s

Transcript

RELOADED EP217 - Waterfowl Harvest Management Series, Part 8: Adapting to Change, 1970s to the 1990s · Ducks Unlimited Podcast

• 0:03
  VO: Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited Podcast, RELOADED, where we bring you the best of our past episodes. Whether you're a seasoned waterfowler or curious about conservation, this series is for you. Over the years, we've had incredible guests and discussions about everything from wetland conservation to the latest waterfowl research and hunting strategies. In RELOADED, we're revisiting those conversations to keep the passion alive and the mission strong. So sit back, relax, and enjoy this reload.
• 0:35
  Mike Brasher: We are again very fortunate to be joined by our guests from the the past seven episodes, Ken Babcock and Dale Humberg. And, you know, by this time, pretty much everyone should feel like Dale and Ken are our best friends. But to to bookend our series of conversation with these two guys, I wanted to give them an opportunity to remind us of their their career participation in the Waterfowl Conservation Enterprise. They've been in a number of stops along the way, and so I think it'd just be appropriate, again, to remind people of their the important roles that they have played. So, Ken, let me start with you.
• 1:07
  Ken Babcock: Sure, Mike. I was introduced to the world of waterfowl as a as a a young boy in Northeast Arkansas and took that interest with me to the coastal marshes of Louisiana where I got my graduate degree at LSU. And after getting out of school, I spent ten years working as a waterfowl biologist, three in the state of Mississippi and seven in the state of Missouri and was able to serve on the technical section where I had the absolute pleasure and and great opportunity of rubbing shoulders with some of the the giants in the waterfowl management world. After short period of time away from the formality of the flyaway councils and tax sections, I did come back as a member of the council and served in that capacity for about about ten years. In the late nineteen nineties, I retired from the Department of Conservation and went to work for Ducks Unlimited where I worked the first 10 of my career with DU at the Southern Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi.
• 2:15
  And in the last seven years, I worked out of the central office in Memphis where I was involved with overseeing the work of all four of Ducks Unlimited regional offices. And that gave me the introduction to the importance of habitat and managing habitat. And I'll be for forever grateful for the opportunity that the states of Mississippi and Missouri and the organization Ducks Unlimited provided me.
• 2:43
  Mike Brasher: And Dale, the same opportunity for you, recap your professional career for us if you would.
• 2:47
  Dale Humberg: Thanks, Mike. I had the great fortune in the early nineteen seventies to be able to work for Iowa's waterfowl biologist, Dick Bishop. It was at that point in time that I got to band birds and nightlight ducks and all all the really cool stuff that many of us got in this business to to do. I was able to go to grad school then at Michigan State under Harold Prince and some some good friends there. I was really fortunate to be hired when Kim decided he wanted to be administrator in the jet city, that opened up a waterfall job in the state of Missouri, and I had the great fortune to be able to serve in that capacity as Missouri's waterfall biologist for twenty five years, went to the central office.
• 3:35
  I didn't learn from Ken, but I went to the central office, was responsible for the the science division for five years before I put a professional capstone on my waterfowl career by coming to Ducks Unlimited as chief scientist in in 2007. Still doing an occasional project with Ducks Unlimited, but at this point in time I'm enjoying the flexibility of retirement and and enjoying recording podcasts with you.
• 4:03
  Mike Brasher: Yeah. Turns out you're pretty darn good at that, so that's what happens when you show skill levels, keep getting asked back. So thank you for that, Dale. And and now I I I wanted to give you guys a chance to remind people of your your professional credentials, your careers, because, I mean, if it it certainly has should have come out by now in the length of our conversation, the depth of our conversation, the expertise that you have, the institutional knowledge that you have, and certainly your commitment to helping do some of the research to get us back into the early parts of the twentieth century. So, yeah, I just felt it was appropriate to give that kind of a recap.
• 4:42
  So thank you for that. And let's pick up where we were with the last episode. We had we'd concluded that episode talking about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. We had also spoken about stabilized regulations experiments of the of the early eighties and and how that was a the the nineteen eighties in general was a significant time in the the changing of the way some we we thought about some aspects of this. But but we wanna go back to the nineteen seventies because we breezed through that era in terms of what was happening with harvest regulations, and there were a few other issues that are worth talking about here.
• 5:19
  And and, Dale, I'm gonna I'm gonna throw this first question to you, and there's gonna be quite an opportunity to to freelance with this one to talk about aspects as we feel appropriate. But it relates to the increasing use of zones and splits and perhaps even some other regulatory options at that time to adapt our harvest our harvest regulations to to make to to provide opportunities for our our hunters. So what can you tell us about the expansion of the use of zones and splits? What was behind those? And I know the people were starting to think about some distributional changes of waterfowl at that time.
• 6:02
  So where would you like to start with this conversation?
• 6:05
  Dale Humberg: Well, Mike, I think we mentioned in an earlier episode that just by the nature of waterfowl and migration internationally, how habitat is distributed differently from the breeding grounds all the way to the winter, how much it changes from year to year, and how opportunities in some states, by the nature of their habitat and all, are quite a bit different than others. And so just by the nature of the beast, we're dealing with a distribution of birds and a distribution of opportunity, they're not equitable, if you will, whatever term that means, but but they're certainly not equal. There's been an effort over many many years to try to make at least opportunity, if not, the potential for more equitable harvest, whatever you might wanna call it, more fair, if you will. It's kind of hard to describe. There's a number of terms whether it's fair, equitable, traditional, any number of different terms used over the years that account for the efforts over time to do things like the experimental teal season that we talked about.
• 7:17
  Here's birds that migrate early, generally not available during the regular season, so why not provide opportunity to to hunt teal in in some states. There was an effort to provide a September season in Iowa for a while. That was an opportunity to taking days out of their regular season in September to shoot birds regardless of the waterfowl species. There was an effort in Mississippi to extend the season, to provide opportunity because the birds didn't get there till quite a bit later. And so over time, there's been a number of different efforts to provide opportunity through special seasons, whether it be for Scott, for Teal, you name it, that made things at least in some people's perspective fair.
• 8:07
  Seeking perhaps more equal opportunity, if you will, that has gradually proliferated, if you will, into systems of zones and splits, so that you manage either in geography at a scale smaller than statewide or managing opportunity in time through seasons that are split, early days, mid season days, late days, that account for when birds are available in certain types of habitats, and for hunters that hunt with different styles, big open water or rivers late season versus early season marshes versus field hunting, for example. So there's a lot of different styles, there's a lot of different preferences. There's a 100 hunters involved, there'll be a 110 different views about what the season ought to be and and what's best for me. Guaranteed that this year is going to be different than next year. And so there's always almost a a chase your tail type aspect to splits and zones, and they have gradually been used in greater and greater degree to provide for at least what's perceived to be equitable opportunity.
• 9:24
  Maybe not equitable or traditional harvest, but to change the opportunity to hunt birds during certain times and places and dates and the like.
• 9:33
  Mike Brasher: Dale, defining or measuring what is traditional or equitable is nearly impossible, would you say?
• 9:42
  Dale Humberg: It is. It is. We actually had especially during some of the early years as we dealt with season structures and and regulations packages under adaptive harvest management, spent time on, well, how would you define equitable? How would you define traditional? And so there was a lot of discussions.
• 10:03
  As you might imagine, the the answers to that are myriad, whether you're from different states, have different hunting opportunity or whatever. And so so, yeah, it's it's really difficult to define terms used are equitable, equal, traditional, those types of things, none of them are well defined. That's kind of I had to beholder.
• 10:25
  Mike Brasher: As you mentioned at the very outset, it is the nature of what comes along with the management of and the appreciation for, the pursuit of, the passion for a a resource that is migratory and that is highly mobile and that responds to variations across the habitat and or across the landscape in both space and time, and often we that that is one of the most frustrating aspects of managing a resource to help satisfy the the desires of the people, but it is also responsible for the success of those populations and how they are able to constantly adapt to an incredibly dramatic and rapidly changing landscape. And so we have to I think it's okay to both appreciate and be frustrated by that characteristic of this resource. Would you say so, Dale?
• 11:16
  Dale Humberg: There's no question, Mike. It's important to acknowledge also that many of those changes are occurring at a rate faster than we can keep up with it. And so in some respects, we're almost chasing our tail with changes in bird distribution, changes in hunter numbers and their distribution. There's a whole lot of things going on out there, many of them at a rate faster than we can respond to.
• 11:40
  Mike Brasher: Dale, I wanna ask you one final question here on the zones and splits, and then I wanna get some thoughts from from Ken. With the proliferation of the zones and splits as you talked about, I I think there are some notes here that remind me that the Fish and Wildlife Service eventually said, hey. We need to kinda rein this in a little bit. Let's let's work off of a limited set of options with regard to zones and splits. Can you recap those a bit for our listeners that may be interested?
• 12:04
  Dale Humberg: As you might imagine, as we came out of the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties, there was almost annual efforts by one state or another or one flyaway to another or within a flyaway, efforts to add a zone, change the number of splits that were allowed, the numbers of days, you know, any number of different pretty creative solutions to this question of of equal opportunity or or whatever. So the Fish and Wildlife Service, to their credit, said guys, if you're changing these on an annual basis, our ability to measure the impact is really hampered to the point of of being impossible. And so they established in 1991 a rule, if you will, that you can change your zone and split configuration only every five years. And so states at that point had to select on year one what their zone and split configuration would be and live with that for the next five years. What that's enabled us to do is over time, at least had some semblance of stability in season structure so that you could measure whether or not the the distribution of harvest changed dramatically from year to year, from state to state, or whatever it might be.
• 13:26
  So it I think it was an important addition. Whether or not, given the dynamics of birds and migration, hunting conditions year to year and so on, we've been able to evaluate any clear impact. I'm not sure. I do know that over the last twenty five years plus, there have been a lot of different changes in the numbers of zones allowed, the numbers of splits allowed, and it it can get to be quite a checkerboard in time and space anymore.
• 13:57
  Mike Brasher: Ken, I want to come to you now and talk about the the nineteen sixties as as sort of an era when some of these very significant changes in waterfowl distributions, waterfowl migration patterns began, and that, I believe, is part of what we were hearing Dale talk about with regard to a desire to get a bit more creative with our zones and splits and try to provide our hunting opportunities that match with the timing of when the birds were arriving. And certainly, you see some long term there are some changes in bird distributions and timing of those distributions that can lead to that level of creativity. So geese, Canada geese, I think, specifically, were one of the first groups of birds where we started to see some fairly significant changes in the distributions. And you were around as a tech representative, I believe, at that time. So can you tell us what that what was going on then and what it was like being part of those discussions?
• 14:51
  Ken Babcock: Well, these these changes, particularly as they related to Canada geese, probably began in the forties and fifties. At one time, geese in the central part of The United States and, you know, I would say including the three eastern most flyways migrated through the fall into wintering areas, coastal wetlands of Texas and Louisiana on into to Florida and and maybe Georgia and the Carolinas. But in the forties and fifties, the numbers of those birds that migrated into those more southern areas declined. And at the same time these declines were occurring, refuges, particularly national wildlife refuges north of the what were considered to be the traditional wintering grounds saw increases in populations of Canada geese. And there were lots and lots of discussions over that time about a term that many of us still have bad dreams about called short stopping.
• 15:51
  The implication was that these birds were stopping because of directed management efforts to increase numbers of birds in Midwestern and Northern areas at the expense of of birds going on to the South. Over the course of the years, we have learned an awful lot about about this change. There's no doubt that it that it occurred. But for instance, in Canada geese in the in the Mississippi Flyway, it was determined that that segment of the population that continued to go south had harvest rates, band recovery rates, two to three times higher than those that decided to spend the winter in Illinois or Missouri or in the case in the in the in the Central Flyway of Kansas and maybe maybe maybe Nebraska. So and and and over time, I think we have come to accept the fact that these changes were primarily related to changes in the landscape.
• 16:56
  When those Canada geese used to find their way in into Louisiana, for instance, to spend the winter, they went it on the coastal marshes. The advent of of agriculture north of there, particularly in Missouri and Iowa and Nebraska, Kansas, and places like that, those birds found that they could make a living on soybean fields and and cornfields. And if there were places that were provided for protection, that made it even easier for them to do that. But, for many, many years, there was lots of arguments. And and in fact, there were regulations that were set in some of the key concentration areas, particularly in Illinois and Wisconsin and Missouri, where there were actually quotas established.
• 17:44
  And there were very sophisticated methods of setup to be able to to actually evaluate the harvest and close the season on a twenty four hour notice when that quota had been had been achieved. And that just added to the to the survival rates of those birds that were in those concentration areas to the North, but it did not satisfy the concerns of those folks in the South that no longer saw Canada geese coming in there. One of the things that I think kinda helped change this was restoration efforts of giant Canada geese all up and down the flyways. And all of a sudden, states that no longer had migrating Canada geese, they had resident populations of geese. Also, some of the changes in in management of some of the some of the wetland areas, some of the refuges changed that.
• 18:38
  And today, there's probably a much broader migration of Canada geese through the through the flyaways north to south than there than there was at one time, but there's still lots and lots and lots of Canada geese that will make a living in the Midwestern Northern most states as long as they've got food and open water.
• 18:59
  Mike Brasher: Now, Ken, there's a a pretty funny story that I've heard you tell. I'm gonna get you to tell at some point, but I wanna make sure it's appropriate context. Was it in relation to Canada geese and what was happening with those, or was it with respect to snow geese?
• 19:15
  Ken Babcock: This was actually in the in the early to mid seventies, and it was related to snow geese because by this time, many of the states to the South had reconciled to the fact that Canada geese were not gonna migrate there in the numbers they once did. But then all of a sudden, some of the Midwest refuges in the Central part of The United States started to hold larger numbers of snow geese across, again, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa. They were staying longer in larger numbers. And the concern was is that here we go again. You got all the Canada geese short stopped and now you're gonna start to work on on the snow geese.
• 19:57
  And I was a waterfowl biologist at that time and I flew weekly surveys, primarily the North Northern part of the state. And I had stopped for lunch in Saint Joseph, Missouri and was looking out there from the airport cafe and lo and behold, there's a plane from the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission landed and pulled up there and a good friend of mine by the name of Hugh Bateman gets out of the airplane, walks into the cafe and when he saw me, he said, what are you doing here? And I said, well, I work here, but I'd like to know what you're doing here. And he said, well, I've been sent here to see just how many snow geese you guys have concentrated up here in Missouri right now. And I said, well, you got a map, I'll show you where to find them.
• 20:42
  You have to spend your time looking for them. And it it was kinda funny at that time, but then two weeks later when I got a call from the chief of the wildlife division, Mike Malosky at that time and said, I want you to go to Texas and Louisiana and see if there's if there are no snow geese down there. You go down there and look, these guys are claiming we've got them all. But, I mean, it was a great trip and I got to see some of my friends down there, but it was a time that lots of consternation. I like to think that it's over in terms of the goose situation, but I think it was a matter of of birds adapting to changes in habitats on migration areas.
• 21:20
  When I grew up in Northeast Arkansas, we never snow we never saw snow geese unless they were migrating over. But now today, you have snow geese that winter in Northeast Arkansas and Southeast Missouri. And what has actually occurred while these birds used to winter on the the the Gulf Coast and a lot of that coastal area was converted to rice, The snow geese figured out that, you know, we can make a living on a rice field. We don't have to go grab through the through the the marshes and along the coast. We can we can do pretty well.
• 21:55
  And then they figured it out that they grew rice all the way up to Mississippi Alluvial Valley into the Southeastern part of of Missouri. And so we're seeing more snow geese stay for longer periods of time in the Midwest just like we did with Canada's. And there's some concern that maybe the same thing could be occurring with regard to mallard ducks as these habitat conditions change, as the climate changes, as we're seeing milder and milder winters for longer periods of time. It'll be interesting to see what occurs.
• 22:29
  Mike Brasher: And the same can be said for white fronted geese as well. I think we're well, I don't think. I know we're seeing that also. And so having worked on the Gulf Coast, I've told that story a number of times or heard and heard that stories a number of times and seen shown the graphs of the decline in snow geese on in Coastal Texas once once the capital of snow goose hunting in North America. And now it's only a fraction of the number that were there historically, and, you know, the same thing appears to be happening to some degree with white fronts moving into, you know, to exploit some of the rice that you talked about farther up the flyway.
• 23:02
  Heck, just the other day, I was within within the city limits of Memphis, Tennessee, I saw a flock of about eight. I believe they were Ross's geese on Shelby Farms. Inside the city limits of Memphis, Ross's geese. I mean, maybe that's a regular occurrence. Dale, did you ever see or Ken, did y'all ever see any of that when y'all were here?
• 23:21
  Ken Babcock: No. Not at all.
• 23:23
  Dale Humberg: But there are a lot of Ross's geese in in the Midwest these days historically. That wouldn't have been the case at all.
• 23:30
  Mike Brasher: Yeah. And so those those things birds, man. Again, as I said not too long ago, that is one of the aspects of this resource that that can be both frustrating and fascinating. And, you know, it's if there's ever a group of birds that is going to to be able to adapt to some of these changing landscapes, it's some of those that are in this, some of the highly flexible species in the in the group of waterfowl, and so it's kind of fun fun to study those. Dale, anything to add to this discussion of sort of changing distributions, the frustration that it brings with it, the challenges that it brings with it?
• 24:04
  I know there's this term that that some of those some of that time during the at least in the Mississippi flyaway has been affectionately termed the goose wars and how states were, you know, kinda pointing fingers at one another saying, you're holding all of our geese, and and that led to lots of lively debate, shall we say. Do you have any memories or any other insights you wanna share here?
• 24:30
  Dale Humberg: Yeah. I have memories.
• 24:33
  Mike Brasher: You'd rather forget them.
• 24:34
  Dale Humberg: Some of them very but no. My I think it's important to acknowledge that those distributions and the rate at which they're changing often has been, as as we've discussed before, occurring faster than our ability to keep up with it. If we've made an error over time, it's trying to maintain traditional distributions or harvest opportunity or whatever in the face of those changes, and sometimes we kinda kinda shoot ourselves in the in the foot as we try to maintain some of those traditional aspects in the face of change. It's important to recognize with Canada geese that we we just, at that point in time, couldn't think of Canada geese the same way we thought about mallards, for example. Canada geese were from from populations that used certain portions of the breeding ground, pretty specific migration areas, and really specific wintering areas.
• 25:30
  And so managing them by population or by by flock or segment was a whole lot more possible at that point in time than it is now as they're swamped by giant Canada geese and and the differentiation among populations and so on is not nearly as significant in importance as it was twenty five years ago.
• 26:00
  VO: Stay tuned to the Ducks Unlimited Podcast sponsored by Purina Pro Plan and Bird Dog Whiskey after these messages.
• 26:16
  Mike Brasher: We'll move on here. We could talk about, the distributional aspects of waterfowl and waterfowl harvest management at length. But in the interest of time here and trying to finish out on on this particular episode, I have a few other topics that I wanna talk about. One of which is sorta was operating in the background for much of the well, for for multiple decades, and I think it came to a head in the, well, fifties, sixties, seventies. You well, you guys would tell me exactly here, lead poisoning.
• 26:50
  Ken, I wanna pose this first question to you. At what point in your recollection or your your experience did lead poisoning really begin to come to the forefront in terms of the discussions facing the the Flyway technical committees and councils?
• 27:12
  Ken Babcock: When I was in graduate school, it was my first introduction to the factor of lead poisoning among waterfowl. My major professor had a long term study going on Catahoula Lake, which is an infamous area in terms of lead poisoning. It's a a large hard bottom lake, 25, 26 miles long, couple of miles wide in Louisiana, heavily hunted, and lots of lead had been deposited there. It was also an area that was was allowed to free range of livestock at that time, and lots of the livestock that ranged through there were hogs that had been turned loose. And this professor was concerned about lead poisoning because there was large numbers of carcasses found every year that when they could find them before the hogs got to them, they were determined to be have died from lead poisoning.
• 28:14
  And this is an area that traditionally wintered tens of thousands of waterfowl, if not hundreds of thousands of waterfowl in in certain times. And there were actually some collections done in that area that I was involved with that found out that about 25% of the free flying flock of waterfowl or the wintering waterfowl there carried what was considered to be lethal loads of lead in their digestive system. So I I I learned about it then and then, of course, it was a very important part of of some of the instruction that I had in terms of waterfowl and this would have been in the in the mid sixties. But people like Frank Bellrose and others had determined that pretty significant numbers of waterfowl were dying each year from ingesting lead shot. This was shot that was deposited by hunters hunting in an area.
• 29:09
  And if it it was an area that was hunted heavily year in and year out and you had hard bottom like they did at Catahoula Lake, that shot stayed available for years and years and years. And it it was determined then that and and some estimates, I think, Frank Bellrose and some of his early works suggested that maybe as much as ten percent of the of the fall and winter population of waterfowl succumb to lead poisoning. That's pretty significant. And so I I guess I've was aware of it early in my career and then became really aware of it as we finally got to the point of trying to decide to do something about it.
• 29:49
  Mike Brasher: And when would that have been, Ken? When did it really come to the forefront of of the Flyway Tech Committees and councils?
• 29:55
  Ken Babcock: Dale probably can remember that better than I do. But as I recall, it was in the late seventies, early eighties that there were efforts that came along to say, we've gotta try to do something about this. And again, as we were starting to say, well, if shooting waterfowl is not that big a factor, and there were people who estimated that maybe as many many ducks in some areas were dying from lead poisoning after the season, then were shot during the season. Those of us in the professional ranks felt a responsibility to try to address that and we began to work with some of the ammunition companies to try to to try to find a solution.
• 30:36
  Mike Brasher: Dale, what is your recollection of those discussions, the Flyway tech sections, Flyway Council's involvement in in trying to address that issue? How much debate was there among the tech I know there was obviously a lot of consternation among our hunter constituent, but just if you could recall some of that discussion, some of your time associated with that issue.
• 30:58
  Dale Humberg: The professional community, for the most part, was not in disagreement about the the lead poisoning issue. It had been with us for a long long time. It had been well documented shoot in the '19 early in the nineteen hundreds. Alexander Wettenwort, for example, did some work at Bear River, Utah and and found as many as 22 pellets per soil sample that he collected. And so, I mean, it was well established.
• 31:28
  And from the standpoint of professionals, waterfowl professionals, I don't think there was any disagreement that it was was was an issue. The question was more along the lines of how effective would an alternative be to lead shot, and that's where, oh, as early as the sixties, there were efforts to look at lethality studies of steel shot as one of the alternatives, in fact, at that point in time, the only alternative that was available. And so most of the issue was not so much about whether or not it was a problem, but the extent and the distribution of the problem. And so that's what led to a number of the studies in the 1970s into the early eighties that looked at the frequency of lead poisoning, we looked at, oh in Missouri for example, we looked at 20,000 gizzards over a few years just to look at the incidence of lead shot. We collected birds that historically would have been called cripples, we went out after the season and picked up cripples, well virtually all those are lead poisoned, and so we began to look at blood lead levels, the level of blood lead in bones, for example, to try to get a handle on the relative frequency with which birds were exposed to lead.
• 32:49
  As as Ken pointed out, Bellrose had estimated two to three percent of The US waterfowl are lost to per year to lead poisoning. That would have been in the in the late fifties, early sixties. As soon as they've been here quite a long time, our challenge beginning in the mid seventies or so was, well, can we find an alternative? And then what's the nature of the regulations that would emerge from that point going forward? Issues related, you know, by hunters and so on and and a lot of the professional public related to, well, just how many are dying, how effective are the nontoxic shot alternatives, what is the impact possibly that those alternatives might have on the equipment itself, a barrel damage, scouring of barrels, or choke expansion, those types of things.
• 33:40
  There were a number of issues, some real, some maybe created to distract us from the real issue which was birds dying of lead poisoning.
• 33:52
  Ken Babcock: And Mike, one other thing I would mention that complicated this further, the incidence of lead poisoning varied among habitat types. For instance, if you went into the coastal marshes of of Louisiana or other places where there were soft substrates, the lead did not stay available to waterfowl as long as it as it might in other areas. And not only that, but the diet that the birds were on. And one of the things that determined pretty quickly is that if you've got birds that are on hard grain diets like corn, they have a tendency to grind the the lead shot up quicker and it's distributed into the body early on and will cause lethality. So and there were some people even in the profession that said, look, lead poison is not a problem in our part of the world.
• 34:42
  And it probably was a problem. It probably wasn't as significant a problem as it might have been in in some other areas. But it's it was a real blessing that we stayed focused on trying to deal with it and ultimately came up with what today I think is a reasonable solution.
• 35:01
  Mike Brasher: At some point in the future, we'll probably have an opportunity. I'd certainly be interested in this personally digging into the details of some of those some of the lead poisoning studies, some of the lethality studies, and, you know, kinda chronicling that journey, those that issue in a bit more detail. We're not gonna do that here. What I wanna do at this point, Dale, is ask you to kinda sum up what was the turning point in actually getting a a nationwide ban on lead shot for the use of waterfowl. So, yeah, where are we there?
• 35:32
  Dale Humberg: Yeah. Mike, I think that's a really good question and maybe not a surprise to folks was that it wasn't the waterfowl management community that held sway with regard to the establishment of nationwide non toxic shot regulations. It was the National Wildlife Federation's suit with regard to lead poisoning of eagles that that changed the whole picture. Even though we recognized that waterfowl were dying from lead poisoning, and we looked at alternatives, and and by the late nineteen eighties had done a pretty good job identifying lead shot alternatives, non toxic shot alternatives to lead, but it wasn't until that suit was filed and and lead poisoning was identified in Eagles that it really was the turning point.
• 36:26
  Ken Babcock: Mike, I'd I'd like to mention at this point in time, and it's ironic how things occur, but the gentleman who who led that that effort and actually worked with the lawyers to draw up that suit against the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to eagles, were endangered species, was doctor Alan Wentz, employed by the National Wildlife Federation at that time. And doctor Wentz, as many people know, ultimately became the chief conservation officer for Ducks Unlimited. So he started making contributions to waterfowl management long before he joined Ducks Unlimited. And this was one of of of what I would consider a landmark decision because I'm I'm convinced, although it it'll never be quantified, that we removed a significant mortality factor of ducks when we got lead out of the habitat that they utilize all through the fall and winter.
• 37:23
  Dale Humberg: I think it's significant, Mike. I don't know of a lead poisoning die off in Missouri, which was the area we studied extensively over a decade and a half. I'm not aware of a lead poisoning die off in Missouri over the last thirty years since the establishment of non toxic shock rate requirements, and it was significant prior to that.
• 37:42
  Ken Babcock: Yeah. I would say amen to what Dale just said. Dalton cut off some of the wetlands in St. Charles County historically had major losses of waterfowl due to lead poisoning. And as Dale mentioned earlier, you pick those up saying they're cripples, but then when you would do the analysis of the blood, the bone, and you'd find out that most of them were actual lead poisoning.
• 38:06
  Mike Brasher: It's good to hear those those kind of stories that have a, you know, a positive turn, have a positive outcome. I know that it was painful making that transition. My dad was one of those people that lamented the change. I I can't remember a lot of the remarks that he would make, wishing he didn't have to use steel. He can't kill well with it and all that kind of stuff.
• 38:25
  But, yeah, we that's that that is a a discussion for much more detail in terms of the advancements we've we've made in terms of lethality of of shotshells. And so, yeah, it's good. Thank you guys for for sharing your your thoughts and your experiences there and your observations about how it has improved the condition for for waterfowl across the country. So so the implementation of that of the ban on on lead shot in in 1991 in The States and then 1999 in Canada, yeah, we achieved pretty significant accomplishment there. And so I I do wanna move on now with the from from that particular topic.
• 39:03
  I wanna move to, I guess, you would say the the early nineties, another very significant time period. And the the item we wanna talk about here is adaptive harvest management when it came onto the scene. We're and and we are going to have some follow-up episodes here with doctor Jim Nichols where we will talk about adaptive harvest management in great detail. But I wanna get Dale and Ken's thoughts on Adaptive Harvest Management as they were active in the state agency side of these discussions. So I guess, Dale, I'll just ask you, talk about that time period, the nineteen nineties.
• 39:41
  What was it in your opinion from your perspective that that got us to the point where we said where we said, you know, we we need to really think about doing something different? Who and who are some of the key figures there?
• 39:53
  Dale Humberg: Good point, Mike. You know, it's it's interesting that we just on the heels of talking about the goose wars, if you will, and and lead poisoning and steel shot and all, which were were painful, mind you, but we got through it and made great progress. Adaptive harvest management, although introduced with some degree of conflict as a backdrop, really has become in much shorter order a significant change in how we manage waterfowl. As we mentioned earlier, coming off of the SEIS eighty eight, where the primary theme there was stabilized regulations, there was a work group, a stabilized regulations work group that was established shortly after that, that really began looking into the analytical and and data based processes that would support a regulations process that was much more explicit in terms of objectives and so on, much more data driven than what had been in place prior to that. As with many things that we deal with in waterfowl management, it it is prompted by a bit of controversy.
• 41:08
  And as you might imagine coming out of the mid eighties to early nineties when we were in the midst of severe waterfowl management regulations that limited harvest. There was real interest in seeing a liberalization whenever possible, and it was in 1994 that we really began to see a bit of a turning point in waterfowl management opportunity, a waterfowl harvest opportunity, and the flyaways unanimously in 1994 agreed that needed to be able to see some liberalization that year. That's not really what occurred and there was a fair amount of anxiety back and forth and what resulted in '94 was was an alternative of either season length or bag limit, a combination of the two, for that '94 season. Folks were not happy. And as a result, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and here I'm gonna let Tim Tim to talk, because he was on that task force that said that we're essentially, bottom line, we're not gonna do this again.
• 42:12
  And I turned it over to Ken at this point because it was it was such an important turning point from the standpoint of of of an executive decision going forward that led to adaptive harvest management.
• 42:23
  Ken Babcock: Yeah. But I certainly would not want to underplay the importance of that working group that Dale mentioned and working group upon which he actually served provided the foundation for making this move forward. But Dale was correct. There was a a president at that time was out of the state of Arkansas and there were some people in Arkansas not very happy about what was going on in terms of the regulations packages that year. And the meeting was called with the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and one of the chief of staffs out of the out of the president's office, and that's exactly right.
• 43:05
  They looked at the the guy from the president's office looked at the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said, we're not gonna do this again next year, are we? And fortunately, we had an answer. And that answer was what came out of that working group. And the the whole idea of adaptive harvest management with regard to waterfowl was a spin off of things going on at that time within the wildlife profession of of adaptive resource management. Put as simply as I can put it because that's the way I understand it best.
• 43:37
  It starts with the idea of establishing a a clear objective. And every decision that you make with regard to what you're gonna do in terms of managing that wildlife resource, and in this case, the harvest of waterfowl is directed towards that objective. And it was political interference, if you will, that caused what I think is probably one of the most important turning points in terms of managing waterfowl because it helped squelch a lot of the consternation that had been going on for decades about season links and bag limits and regulations and things like that. So it it was an opportunity that was there. And when a problem arose, the folks on the technical side said here is an answer to how to solve.
• 44:26
  Mike Brasher: Dale, as Ken said, I and I've heard you were a significant participant in some of those technical in in that task force, that harvest management work group. Not exactly I'm not recalling the exact name of that that that group right now. But share your thoughts on adaptive harvest management. Why I I think you were in favor of it, but share your thoughts on it. Why did you think it represented a better way of doing things?
• 44:55
  Dale Humberg: That's a good point, Mike. The you know, I've I've gotta give credit to the folks that were leaders of that effort, folks like Fred Johnson, Jim Nichols, Ken Williams. There there were some folks that were involved in that that made me feel like I'd gone back to graduate school for years. My goodness. What an education.
• 45:19
  As Ken points out, the whole idea of the adaptive management framework is that, we we have uncertainty, about decisions, but we're not very explicit about the nature of the decisions. What is your objective? What are the competing hypotheses? We talked earlier about additive versus compensatory mortality. How are those competing and how are we going to measure the outcome that helps us inform future decisions?
• 45:52
  And so what that whole process talks about then is is limiting the number of options you might have rather than, well, like we talked about earlier, five days more than last year and one bird less than the bag, that that tinkering if you will with limit with bag limits and season lengths from year to year to year really doesn't help. So limit the number of management options, be really clear about what the monitoring in feedback loop looks like. How are we going to know, and then how are we going to use that information to update what we know about or what we think we know and have expressed in our hypotheses about harvest management and birds' responses to harvest management. And then how are we going to change our decisions in the future based on what we've learned? It's the whole idea of adaptive management, specifically related to harvest management, involves the relative impact of additive mortality, if that's true, competitor mortality, if that's true, the nature of density dependence on the breeding grounds or throughout the year.
• 47:04
  So it really brings to focus those key questions that have to be embedded in in our objective of how we manage birds and learn in the process of managing birds. The key aspect of adaptive management was the early discussions of adaptive harvest management that exposed the broad range of the objectives that were kind of embedded in the harvest management debate over over decades. And it wasn't until that discussion with the harvest management working group that people began to say, well, my objective is to maintain relevant duck populations, or I wanna maximize season length, or I want to maintain regulation flexibility, or gain knowledge about maximum opportunity or maximum harvest. And so just the fact that it led to that explicit discussion of objectives was really, really important part of this process.
• 48:01
  Mike Brasher: Dale, what did the level of acceptance and speed of acceptance by the different state agencies look like with regard to adaptive harvest management? Did it was it rather sudden? Were there was it variable? Some states representatives needed more convincing. How did all of that play out?
• 48:21
  How rapidly did people begin to kinda accept that maybe there's something to this
• 48:27
  Dale Humberg: Well, I understand some of it was coincidence. Some of it was that we had just come off of that extended period of restrictive regulations, and anything that would keep us from having to go through that again was was accepted. Much better than maybe it would have been in the midst of, say, of the the liberal regulations or whatever. There were two key elements, I believe, to that early discussion. One was we needed a champion at the technical level that day in and day out, that was his job.
• 48:58
  And and Fred Johnson, who I have great respect for, was was key as the the the primary director, if you will, of that adaptive harvest management working group and spent day in and day out, really being the champion at the technical level and and also of course at the at the administrative level. But there were also champions at the administrative level and I'd have to say Ken Babcock was one of a number of those types of folks that that I think if you were to characterize it as a bottom line, we don't have to convince everybody, but we've got to convince the few people that everybody listens to. And that was the key part of of that whole process was was convincing the the people that would champion the process both technically and administratively. And I I think that was was key to this process being accepted at the rate it was.
• 49:53
  Ken Babcock: Again, I mentioned earlier that the establishing an objective that everybody would agree to was the key to start with that. But as Dale pointed out, and you can't overemphasize it, it is also making a commitment to learn what what the decisions that you made, what impact they had on the objective that you had agreed to at the start. And if you're not willing to make that a part of it, then then don't don't don't start in the first place. And then also, if you do learn that the decision you made was not in line with your objective, being will be willing to admit that and change your decision as time comes. And and over time and we've got now twenty years of this.
• 50:41
  And each year, we have learned a little bit more that'll make the next decision a little bit better than even the last one we made, but certainly a lot better than probably the first decision that was made twenty years ago.
• 50:55
  Dale Humberg: You know, Mike, I think it's it's really notable that and Jim Nichols is one characterized this whole process as being pre adapted for adaptive harvest management. Basically, we had a strong history of monitoring. We had population surveys and banding and harbor surveys. We had a system wherein people already were used to have used to collaborating across state, federal levels, and so on and so forth across flyways and so on. We had a well established administrative and technical framework already in place, the flyway system.
• 51:29
  And so we had already developed a mutual trust in the motivations, a dedication to do the work, and a desire for a lasting outcome. And so those things in combination, like I said, as as as Jim Nichols characterized it, we were pretty adapted to be successful. That along with the champions of the process, I think were key. Mike, I think it's probably important for us to acknowledge one key aspect is that adaptive harvest management is not synonymous with liberal duck seasons. We've been extremely fortunate over the last two decades at least that we've had good habitat conditions, good population levels and so on, and adaptive harvest management hasn't necessarily been tested to the degree that might under deteriorating habitat conditions or declining populations.
• 52:19
  And so it's an incredibly important advent in waterfowl harvest management, but in some respects, it may not be tested and we certainly don't want to equate adaptive management to liberal duck seasons.
• 52:35
  Mike Brasher: That's a great point, Dale, and rest assured, one of these days, we will be tested with drought in lower population sizes, and so we'll we'll see how it goes at that point. That'll be exciting times for sure. Maybe not necessarily happy times, but that'll be some things to talk about there for sure. Guys, at this point, I I want to begin wrapping up this series of episodes with the two of you. This has been an absolute pleasure of mine.
• 53:00
  One thing I will tell the listeners and acknowledge to the listeners understand that the nature of our conversation too with with Dale and Ken have probably had a bit of a Mississippi flyway flavor, understandably. We do we do realize there are important issues that have transpired through the years in in each of the other flyaways, and we're gonna make an effort to reach out to some folks in in those other flyaways to see what what key aspects we might want to add to some subsequent episodes. But, yeah, I had access to Dale and Ken, and I knew they were involved and had been involved for many years in these important issues of harvest management. And plus, I had easy access to their cell numbers, and so that made them made them easy target. But I I hope all of our listeners appreciate the insight and the depth of of knowledge that they brought to this.
• 53:56
  As a concluding question that I want to pose to each of you, Ken, I'll I'll direct this to to you first. You know, looking back, you've been been in this profession. I'm not gonna disclose the number of years. You can if you want. Let's just say for quite a while, what are your most lasting memories and appreciations for what we've been able to accomplish with respect to harvest management and its role in our overall goal of conserving waterfowl populations in North America?
• 54:32
  Ken Babcock: Well, that's a hard one, Mike, and I could probably talk a long time because I've got lots and lots of memories because I've I've done this for lots and lots of years bordering on fifty to be to be frank about it. But I guess if I was going to zero in on a couple of things, I would first say that it's the pleasure of working with professionals across this nation, across this continent for that matter, that have a concern and a care for the waterfowl resource. And while we did not always agree on things, we always agreed not to be disagreeable and that we would focus primarily on the resource and the welfare of that resource more than anything else. The second aspect is that the the the the constituency that we serve, the waterfowl hunters, the people who love wetlands, the people who love other wildlife that are associated with wetlands that may like waterfowl for no other reason than to than to look at them have been supportive with their dollars, with their time, with their talents, with their energy in terms of making this profession the success it is. We actually made a move, and I mentioned earlier the North American plan being the the in my opinion, the the watershed moment when that plan was developed in the mid eighties.
• 56:01
  That plan also, as I said, called for updates periodically. And and in 2012, the Waterfowl management community decided that we're not going to just update the plan in 2012, we're going to revise it. And we're going to take all the things that we have learned over the last twenty five years and try to put them into play. And the thing that we figured out is that we need to integrate the work we do on habitat. We need to integrate the work that is done in terms of managing the harvest.
• 56:34
  And more importantly, we're going to integrate and specifically recognize the social aspect, the social science, the people part of this waterfowl equation. So, you know, I I would say those would be the two things, the great professionals that I've had the pleasure of working with over all these years for the welfare of waterfowl, but also the people that put up their money and made it all possible and love this waterfowl resource as much as we as professionals do.
• 57:06
  Mike Brasher: And Dale, the same question to you.
• 57:09
  Dale Humberg: Yeah. I wish Ken hadn't read my notes. Ken hit the first point he made, I think, hits it right on the head. The opportunity to work with waterfowl professionals, and not just in in a flyaway, in The US, in Canada, whether they were from state agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the number of really dedicated professionals that we've been able to work with over the years is just unbelievable. It's intriguing that, you know, I got out of graduate school in the mid seventies and thought, okay, their education's done, now I can start to work.
• 57:50
  Well, I think I mentioned earlier I spent the next fifty years in graduate school. This profession gives us an opportunity if we're open to it, to constantly learn new things, and what an incredible opportunity to have been able to be associated with people that have that capacity to continue asking good questions and then strive to answer them. Certainly, just doing this job has provided opportunity because of the migratory nature of what we're doing. The the bird involved and the habitats involved. I got to fly surveys in the in the Far North for twenty five, thirty years, and who gets to do that unless you save up a long time to go on vacation there?
• 58:33
  And so by the nature of the job, got to visit some places and learn some things that never would have had exposure to do likewise. The one thing I think that might be important for us to note also is that despite the changes in habitats and waterfowl distributions, the hunting landscape and everything else, there are some really cool things going on with regard to recovery of species. Maybe not waterfowl, but if we look at the number of trumpeter swans, the number of bald eagles, and and other species associated with wetlands that we've been working on, they have really recovered nicely, and I'd like to think we had a bit of a role to play in that process as well. So now I can't imagine doing anything different over the last several decades. I would like to think I could have done it a whole lot better, but boy, what an opportunity.
• 59:28
  So, Mike, thanks for asking.
• 59:30
  Mike Brasher: Yeah. Well, thank you to each of you for those most appropriate comments. I can tell you already in my young career, I I can it's like like you're reading my notes as well if someone were to have asked me that question. I don't have as as lengthy a list and lengthy of experience to draw from to to come to those conclusions, but it's the conclusions are nevertheless the same, and so thank you for that. You know, I also have to just say a a personal thank you to each of you for your relentless is an appropriate word here.
• 1:00:01
  Participation and commitment to recording these episodes. We have had no shortage of challenges. You know, if if you would've told me five years ago that I would've spent probably the better part of a combined better part of a week preparing for and recording a series of podcast episodes with the two of you, would say, no. You're crazy. But but I can tell you that I'm I appreciate the opportunity to have done so.
• 1:00:24
  It's been certainly been the highlight of this year to hear some of these stories. Getting connected on some of these episodes hasn't always been the easiest. I'll certainly admit that. We have have some technical challenges, But, boy, what I've gotten out of it in terms of the research and what I've what I've learned, what I've listened to, and hearing your experiences has certainly been incredibly valuable, and I appreciate it and certainly a highlight of my my young career to have this opportunity. So thank you personally for me to to each of you.
• 1:00:53
  So thank you guys for that.
• 1:00:54
  Ken Babcock: Feeling you're mutual, Mike, and thanks for the opportunity.
• 1:00:57
  Dale Humberg: Yeah. Certainly. It goes both ways, Mike. I appreciate the opportunity. It's it's been fun to reminisce about the the opportunities and and the like, and you've you've presented us that opportunity.
• 1:01:07
  Mike Brasher: So I I think this will be likely be the last time that we have you two as guests on this history of harvest management special series. If something comes up and we wanna reconnect with you, though, like I said, I know where you are. But for now, we're gonna be moving on to some additional guests. To listeners, I want you to know there will be many more episodes to come. Please stay tuned.
• 1:01:28
  We have much more on the history of waterfowl harvest management to bring to you. And so, yeah, thank you for supporting the podcast. A very special thanks to our guest on this episode, Ken Babcock and Dale Humberg. They've been gracious with their time over all of these episodes, and I I personally thank them for that as well as thank them for being being a friend. As always, we thank our producer, Clay Baird, for the work that he does on these podcasts and and editing them and getting them posted for you, the listener.
• 1:01:55
  And, of course, to you, the listener, we thank you for your time and support of the podcast. Thank you for your feedback, and most importantly, your support of wetlands and waterfowl conservation.
• 1:02:04
  VO: Thank you for listening to the DU Podcast sponsored by Purina Pro Plan, the official performance dog food of Ducks Unlimited. Purina Pro Plan, always advancing. Also proudly sponsored by Bird Dog Whiskey and Cocktails. Whether you're winding down with your best friend or celebrating with your favorite crew, Bird Dog brings award winning flavor to every moment. Enjoy responsibly. Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe to the show and visit ducks.org/dupodcast. Opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect those of Ducks Unlimited. Until next time, stay tuned to the Ducks.