Latest / Ducks Unlimited Podcast / RELOADED EP209 - Waterfowl Harvest Management Series, Part 5: Conventional Wisdom Gives Way to Data

Transcript

RELOADED EP209 - Waterfowl Harvest Management Series, Part 5: Conventional Wisdom Gives Way to Data · 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 here in episode five of our discussion on the history and evolution of waterfowl harvest management in North America, and admittedly, most of this conversation is related to how harvest management has unfolded in The US. I I do wanna clarify that. We are again rejoined by Dale Humberg and Ken Babcock, both of whom spent much of their career in in waterfowl management at the state agency level, and and thus were active participants in a lot of these discussions and and decisions regarding waterfowl harvest management, in their case, in the Mississippi Flyway. And so we on our previous episodes, we had or previous episode, we had made it to the nineteen fifties, and that becomes a very important decade in itself. We can actually, as we go through time, look at each of these decades and say, well, this was a very significant occurrence in that decade, and this was a significant occurrence in in this decade.
• 1:29
  And so we're gonna touch on some of that here in the nineteen fifties, and, Dale, I wanna start with you where we we talked on the previous episode about the creativity of our early pioneers in waterfowl harvest management using the best doing the best they could with the information they had available. And as a reminder, this oftentimes helps us to get in the frame of mind of what those people might have been dealing with back in those days. In the early nineteen fifties, we did not have the waterfowl breeding population and habitat survey. We did not have an annual indication of what the population was doing or how habitat conditions were unfolding in key breeding areas. We didn't have that information.
• 2:05
  The datasets that we had with which to inform and understand harvest regulations, harvest of this wild resource were very, very limited compared to what we have today and certainly even as they developed in the late nineteen mid to late nineteen fifties. So that's probably a relevant place to start is to remind ourselves constantly of what the understanding was, data data availability was back in those days, and that's gonna be reflected in some of what we saw with regard to variation from year to year and across flyways in terms of harvest regulations. So, Dale, perhaps start out and talk about that a little bit for those people that may not have may not have studied one of our harvest regulations back in the nineteen fifties, which is probably gonna be most of us. Give people some understanding of how those things varied from year to year and, you know, how we how we tried to to get there, do the best we could.
• 2:56
  Dale Humburg: Well, certainly. You know, preface that with acknowledgment that the start of a bunch of this occurred once we realized from banding data that birds were utilizing certain parts of the country, were recognized to share certain flyaways or flyaway corridors, if you will. And so the earliest information from banding gave us some initial insights. Starting in the mid fifties with the the breeding population survey, we we gained another source of information upon which to base Waterfowl harvest management. And by the early sixties, information about how many birds actually were harvested, who harvested them, and and and and what number and where.
• 3:42
  So those things in combination set the stage for biologists to apply based on information, best recommendation from year to year. Certainly, we saw some dramatic differences year to year beginning in the mid to late nineteen fifties. We often think of that period of time as the good old days and certainly, by the time you got to 1958, when you're dealing with ninety five days in the Pacific Flyway and sixty days in the Atlantic, seventy in the Mississippi Flyaway and so on. Four ducks daily in the Atlantic and Mississippi and so on and so forth. Those certainly were the good old days, but when you think about the early fifties, it wasn't as liberal as we might think.
• 4:28
  1954, fifty five days, for example, the Mississippi Flyway, eighty days in The Pacific. By '55, they added ten to fifteen additional days depending on the flyway. And the old information we look at was characterized as the best flights since 1952 are anticipated. And so we're dealing with the period that can be viewed today as the gold good old days being more variable than what we than what we might have, based on 2020 hindsight, have thought or characterized those years to be. By 1956, same season length.
• 5:06
  1957, we added additional days again. And so by 1958 to 1960, we were dealing with certainly the most liberal regulations over the last several decades. So, yeah, it's it's tempting to maybe revise history a little bit, at least in our memory, and not acknowledge how variable regulations were, how variable populations were during that decade of the nineteen fifties.
• 5:35
  Mike Brasher: Dale, I want to build on what you said. I wanna provide some specifics for our listeners that may be interested in this when we talk about 1955 as offering the the best flight since 1952 being anticipated. You mentioned the ten to fifteen additional days over 1954, but the Atlantic And Mississippi Flyways were given seventy days. The Central Flyway was given seventy five days. A Pacific Flyway was given eighty days.
• 6:01
  And across those four flyways, the the bag limits were Eastern Flyways, five in the Central Flyway, and then the Pacific Flyway again here being the the most liberal of the four flyways, seven in the daily bag limit unless there's something in here, unless six with a provision for three depredation birds. What was that about, Dale? Don't think I've ever seen that.
• 6:25
  Dale Humburg: There was a perception at that point in time that excessive numbers of pintails and widgeon were depredating crops of interest, And so there was an opportunity to add additional depredation bird harvest, pintails and wigeon in this instance, to the to the harvest. And so again, an example of some regulation creativity, if you will, during that era.
• 6:51
  Mike Brasher: And more creativity here, another one of your bullets says that splits were allowed, but with a 10% penalty, that's pretty creative. Certainly, I don't think we have that anymore, do we? States wouldn't go for that
• 7:02
  Dale Humburg: these And days, you don't certainly at that point in time, the assumption was that if you had a split season, you were optimizing for different parts of your state, for example, or or different parts of the flyaway for harvest at opportune times. Also, a split allowed for a second opening day. And so there was at least a perception that there was a cost in having a split season, thus the 10%, and in some years, other years, a 20% penalty for having those split seasons.
• 7:36
  Mike Brasher: And then also the Mississippi flyaway shooting hours closed a half hour before sunset to protect wood ducks. So the the reason I point out some of these specifics is, well, number one, some of the listeners are interested in these specifics. I would be one of those people wanting to know the details. That's just the way I am. But then also just to emphasize the almost innumerable number of decisions that waterfowl harvest management managers can make and imposed can impose in order to achieve what they think are their or what we've identified as our desired objectives.
• 8:05
  And the the record of all of these different harvest regulations illustrates that we've tried many of them. And so even today, as we think about in some ways, I think it may be fair to to describe as the increased complexity or the number of moving parts in some of our harvest regulations as we see them today, we can go back in time and see even finer levels of decisions and restrictions that have been imposed. So this is we we've in many respects today, we have tremendous stability in certain aspects of our harvest regulations, but there are still things that we continue to work on based on our understanding of the population. And so we'll get into some of those as we as we move forward in this discussion, but I just wanted to point out some of these some of these detailed differences in harvest regulations that existed in those in those early days. So, Ken, I wanna give you an opportunity to comment on that, but also I wanted to after doing so, I wanted you to talk with us, transition to the other significant event in the mid 1950s, the establishment and implementation development and implementation of the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey.
• 9:14
  That's one of the it's widely regarded as the largest the and longest running wildlife survey in the world, so we definitely wanna give it some due discussion for its importance in waterfowl harvest management, population management. But talk about those two things. Any early thoughts on the variation and regulations that we've discussed and then also the significance of the breeding population and habitat survey?
• 9:40
  Ken Babcock: Well, yeah, Mike. And as we've discussed before, you know, the waterfowl managers throughout time, their primary objective has been to sustain waterfowl populations. To sustain waterfowl populations not only for hunters, but for all people who enjoy waterfowl. And the fact that that's just part of the of the wildlife landscape. And so the decisions that they were making, and they were working off of the aspect of conventional wisdom that the more days you hunt, the more ducks you kill.
• 10:11
  The bigger the bag limit, the more ducks you kill. The more you hunt during the ideal times, which are sunrise to sun or at sunset, you're gonna kill more ducks. And so it was using conventional wisdom to make some of these decisions, and that's why I think we saw some of these changes. But the advent of the of the breeding ground survey to get the breeding population estimate every year actually gave these waterfowl managers of that era targets to consider. As we were getting information from the breeding grounds on numbers of ducks, if they were higher this year than they were last year, then we can be more liberal.
• 10:55
  If they were lower than they were last year, then we've got to be more restrictive. And the changes in these used all of the elements of of bag limit and season length, the mention of split seasons. I remember when that penalty was in place and it was on into the seventies or eighties when that penalty was taken out. And Dale is correct. It was the belief that a split season creates an additional opening day and conventional wisdom.
• 11:25
  And in some cases, it's backed up by real data. Opening day kills more birds than than any other day during the season. So all of these things came into play. But this breeding population survey gave a target, a a data point that harvest managers could utilize to guide the decisions or their recommendations that they were making in this regard. But one of the other elements of this survey and and I mean, you're exactly right.
• 11:55
  The longevity of it, the consistency of it is probably one of the greatest achievements in wildlife management, in my opinion, that has been made and it needs to be continued. But one of the things that it did was not only did they count birds in terms of this survey, but they counted ponds in the surveyed area. And the survey area obviously was over the key breeding areas of of United States and and and Canada, in the prairies, and then some instances on into the Boreal Forest. But they not only counted numbers of birds, but they counted ponds that were available as a reflection of the quality of the habitat that the birds were facing that year. So it it was a a very important element.
• 12:44
  And as we get into discussions, as we get on into the to understanding more about waterfowl biology and we get into understanding things like like adaptive harvest management, both of the elements, not just the numbers of birds, but the condition of the habitat became very important during that time.
• 13:01
  Mike Brasher: Ken, I think that's a good point. Reference to our growing understanding of waterfowl ecology, waterfowl biology. Were we beginning to develop understanding or at least pretty basic understanding of the importance of of those prairie breeding grounds for waterfowl at that time? Do we have in hand at the at that time some of our our our found research on waterfowl ecology, breeding ecology?
• 13:30
  Ken Babcock: Yes. And Dale had mentioned this earlier that some of the banding that was done and if you if we went back and looked at banding station longevity, we would find that the bandings that were done even by people under the under the direction of Frederick Lincoln that had provided so much of the foundation for waterfowl management. Those data and the analysis of those data gave us a really good understanding of where these birds went to to breed. And it was based upon that data and that understanding that the transects for these surveys were established. So no no question about it.
• 14:15
  Those early that early information about waterfowl biology provided a great framework from which to develop these breeding ground surveys that are probably one of the most important elements of waterfowl management that we have even still today.
• 14:32
  Mike Brasher: Ken, one of the other things that we get from banding data from band returns, and it's crucially important in our understanding of the effects of harvest on waterfowl population dynamics is the survival analysis. Were we making any progress on survival analyses in the fifties? When did that come along? I know we'll we'll probably talk about that in great detail later on, but just to kinda provide a benchmark, did we have any understanding of the effects of survival and harvest in in those in those days?
• 15:03
  Ken Babcock: Well, I would I would I would certainly yield to Dale in terms of the specifics on this. But I I think that use of that information and a and a desire to gain that understanding probably didn't come about until into the seventies when people like David Anderson and some of the other folks took these long term banding band recovery datasets, breeding population datasets, and began to try to develop models to gain that information. But I think Dale probably has a better understanding of that time frame, but I think it was probably more into the seventies. But but certainly, the gathering of the data that became part of the analysis that was done a decade or two later was certainly a big part of what was going on in the fifties.
• 15:48
  Dale Humburg: Well, there certainly was early analysis of the rate at which bands were recovered and so on. A lot of it through life tables and the like. And as Ken pointed out, in the mid 1970s with Anderson and Burnham's work, really kind of changed the way biologists thought about banding analysis and its application. So that really was an important turning point. You know, we've talked several times about the turning points in waterfowl harvest management, waterfowl management overall, and the mid seventies and the work that that Anderson and Burn did was was just real notable with regard to banding and and band analysis.
• 16:31
  Mike Brasher: We wanna move on to the nineteen sixties here pretty quick, but Dale, I wanna give you an opportunity to mention anything else of significance in the nineteen fifties. I don't wanna go through a year by year of the harvest regulations because they're they're pretty they did vary a bit, but there does seem to be some relative stability as we got into the late fifties. But certainly, the nineteen sixties is an era of significant change, but before we get there, anything else we need to discuss in the late fifties, Dale?
• 16:59
  Dale Humburg: The only thing I think that's notable is that imagine hundreds that came out of the 1950s that had gotten used to seventy day seasons in the in the in the Mississippi flyaway for example, longer ninety four days in the Pacific and so on, kind of got used to this incredible opportunity. So come the early nineteen sixties with dramatic changes in habitat conditions and bird numbers, must have been a real eye opener for folks. So it's no surprise that biologists and hunters alike were challenged with this change in bird availability, habitat conditions, and the only way at that point in time that biologists had to respond was through regulations. And that's what introduces that decade of the nineteen sixties.
• 17:46
  Ken Babcock: Mike, there's one other element in the fifties I think that's important to mention because we we've always talked about the input from folks other than the than the US Fish and Wildlife Service or just the Flyway Councils. But in the in the early fifties, there was a director of Fish and Wildlife Service Advisory Committee that was established. And I know that that continues even today in in a in probably a different form. But that offered an opportunity for delegates from the National Waterfowl Council, which obviously represented each of the four flyaways. People from the National Audubon Society, Outdoor Writers Association, the Isaac Walton League, Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Management Institute, and I know from my personal involvement in the sixties and into the seventies, ultimately, Ducks Unlimited became a a an important element of that.
• 18:45
  But it was a council that was set up. There was a meeting held annually starting in in 1953, I think, where all of the data with regard to waterfowl population status, harvest status was presented to all of these folks to offer comments. Obviously, many of these organizations represent people who have an interest in waterfowl other than just honey. But I think it was a very important element that again led to the partnership and the collaboration, cooperation among all the waterfowl interest across United States.
• 19:24
  Mike Brasher: That's a good point, Ken. We've we talk often about how nothing that we do in this field is done individually by an individual person or an individual agency, and this dates all the way back to those early days. So the institutions and the structures that were put in place back then and the partnerships that were based back then kinda continued on in some form or fashion to this day. And so thanks for pointing that out.
• 19:52
  VO: Stay tuned to the Ducks Unlimited Podcast sponsored by Purina Pro Plan and Bird Dog Whiskey after these messages.
• 20:08
  Mike Brasher: Now I want to transition to the sixties, and I'll confess, guys, having started my professional career in the late nineties, early two thousands, graduate work in the late nineties and early two thousands, I think back across the decades of the history of waterfowl conservation and milestones and significant events that occurred in those decades. The 1960s is an era that I don't think about a lot, But when you you think about the nineteen fifties is when we started our our population and habitat survey. The nineteen seventies becomes the benchmark in terms of population size for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Then the eighties is NAWAMP, and the nineties is and and then we go forward from there. The nineteen sixties is a bit of a gap in my mind.
• 20:58
  I've never really looked into it a whole lot, to be honest. But when you look at the and we're gonna talk a lot about this. I know the nineteen sixties is certainly not not a gap in your mind, but when you look back at the the b pop record, it's actually an era when we experienced some of our lowest breeding population levels. And so that's how this begins from the '19 from 1959 to 1960, I believe. There was a dramatic decline in the population levels of ducks on that estimated on that survey.
• 21:31
  And what came with that were some rather dramatic changes in harvest regulations. Dale, your research tells me here that in 1958, the Mississippi flyaway was afforded seventy days of hunting, and then by 1962, they were afforded only twenty five days. So over a relatively short period, we went from seventy days to twenty five days, and, of course, that's because of some dramatic population decline. So Dale set this up for us what was we hear a lot about the drought of the nineteen eighties and and and nineties, early nineties, but what was happening in the nineteen sixties? What did that landscape look like then?
• 22:09
  Dale Humburg: Well, I think there were two things that occurred at that period of time. One certainly was the dramatic change in habitat conditions and bird numbers from the late nineteen fifties to the early nineteen sixties. Following that was a dramatic change in hunters and harvest. We reduced by more than half the number of waterfowl hunters from the late fifties to the early sixties. I can recall during the early sixties, couldn't wait to see what the regulations are gonna be because they changed so rapidly from year to year.
• 22:42
  And by the early nineteen sixties, you know, we were down to twenty five days, thirty days in the Mississippi flyaway. Thirty days with two birds or twenty days in three. And so the dramatic change in regulations reflected the dramatic change in habitat conditions. As we discussed before, the only lever that waterfowl managers had and certainly used aggressively was harvest management. And the nineteen sixties are probably the the most notable reflection of our willingness given our desire to be good conservationists to apply harvest regulations based on waterfowl numbers and their trends.
• 23:27
  Mike Brasher: Now remind me guys, Ken, I'll ask you first. When did you first start serving in the in the flyaway system?
• 23:35
  Ken Babcock: My first flyaway council meeting was representing the state of Mississippi in 1967.
• 23:43
  Mike Brasher: And then Dale is your Dale, yours would have been a decade or so later than that?
• 23:48
  Dale Humburg: Yes. Yep. I started hunting in the late nineteen fifties and began as a waterfowl professional in the mid nineteen seventies.
• 23:57
  Mike Brasher: Okay. So we have a time period now where you guys are active hunters, and Ken, you are an active participant in the waterfowl harvest management process at the state level in this case. So it's gonna get fun here as we get into these discussions because you're gonna be able to tell some personal experiences. So can I guess with that, I'll just go straight to you? You can reference any of the any of the harvest regulations as they may have been implemented, population declines in the sixties, but then take us up to some significant events in the in the late sixties that were particularly noteworthy.
• 24:33
  Ken Babcock: Well, and and Mike, it was it's interesting that you say that in your mind, this is kind of a a period of void. There was certainly a lot going on in terms of the management of waterfowl. One of the things that probably goes undetected when we looked at at the breeding populations during that period is obviously from the breeding population surveys, we knew that the breeding areas were declining in quality. But at the same time in the fifties and sixties and and and my home being in Northeast Arkansas and driving back and forth between Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Lake Charles, Louisiana and Northeast Arkansas, I witnessed a major change in a three or four year period in the wintering habitat, migration habitat for waterfowl in the Central part of The United States. And I think oftentimes we don't consider that as much as we should.
• 25:35
  One of the things also that occurred during this period with some of this change was changes in migratory patterns of waterfowl, the most significant of which were Canada geese. The folks in in in the South that had wintered Canada geese for for decades or centuries, all of a sudden saw these birds spending more time in the Midwest or further north in the Southern Part of The United States. And most of this was probably due to the fact that while they couldn't eat acorns and pinna trees that fell in bottomland hardwood forest, they found corn and soybeans and rice to be pretty much to their liking all the way up to to places in Minnesota even where these birds could stay. So I I think that at the same time that the breeding population survey data were showing great declines in terms of habitat quality, subsequent breeding populations, there were also things that were going on in terms of habitat for waterfowl up and down the flyways across the country that probably was not measured and not always figured in terms of the influence because for many many years, we operated with the belief that so goes to the prairies, so goes the breeding ground, so go to waterfowl populations.
• 26:57
  And to there's no doubt that's the most important element. But, we have learned that there are other parts of the world that are very, very important in the annual life cycle of waterfowl as well.
• 27:10
  Mike Brasher: Yep. That's a great point, Ken, and it is something that we haven't talked probably any about here on this series of episodes yet, but waterfowl don't stop eating when it comes when fall and winter rolls around, we know that, and they don't just use the food for keeping themselves alive. It plays an important role later on in the breeding season, preparing them for that breeding season. Everyone that's in this profession, that is a student of this resource, knows that we have to provide for their needs year round, and we have great science through the years that has demonstrated the the effects of that. We still struggle to understand all the inner workings of it.
• 27:48
  We're getting closer, but you are absolutely right that these these effects, the habitat changes throughout all parts of their range are important. And so the other the other thing that I noticed was from from the notes that we have here for this episode that was happening in nineteen sixties, as you've talked about, there was a lot of attention being paid to the to waterfowl populations and what was happening to them in response to these habitat changes. So, Dale, talk about and and this was some attention that was actually occurring at very high levels, at at congressional levels. So highlight a couple of those developments for us, you could Dale, in terms of the type of discussions that were occurring up on the hill.
• 28:28
  Dale Humburg: You know, it's interesting, Mike, you mentioned earlier that there almost seems to be a bit of a void in the history of Waterfowl management, at least from our recollection. But when you look back through the administrative record, it's really notable that in 1963, for example, there was three different sessions by a house subcommittee to hear perspectives on waterfowl wildlife population management. And that record really does a good job of reflecting the degree of disagreement, if you will, essentially setting up the hypotheses that we work on today with regard to the role of the gun versus the role of habitat, the role of waterfowl numbers versus the role of waterfowl hunter numbers. There was acknowledgment at that point in time that in 1958, there were 2,100,000 stamps sold. And the birds harvested at 5.6 ducks apiece was dramatically greater than what occurred by the early nineteen sixties, when you were down to less than 900,000 ducks stamps sold.
• 29:35
  And so that congressional record does a really good job of documenting the degree to which there was concern, the degree to which there was dramatic differences in opinion perception about what was important, what had occurred with regard of the harvest management, what had occurred with regard to birds, the relative importance of regulations and bird management versus hunter management. Without hunters, we lose a really important support base for waterfowl harvest management. Interestingly enough, they reconvened in 1965 another house subcommittee hearing. And so it's really notable that some of the things that we take for granted today in terms of our objectives for waterfowl management and so on, saw their roots in those discussions. It's kinda interesting that the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service at that point in time clarified the Fish and Wildlife Service objective as duck populations in the range experienced from 1956 through 1962, maintenance maintain sufficient habitat to distribute the population in an equitable manner, and making ducks available to 2,200,000 hunters.
• 30:55
  What's really notable about that is that similar to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in the mid 1980s, there's an objective there for populations, for habitat, and for hunters. They were way ahead of their time, and so it was a really notable period with regard to waterfowl management.
• 31:13
  Mike Brasher: Dale, I think that's a great point. You know, the you think about what what motivates congress to have certain discussions about issues, and ultimately, it's one of the key determinants is what's important to their constituents. And waterfowl hunters, waterfowl conservationists through the years have consistently demonstrated a strong enough interest, a strong enough passion for this resource resource that they make it known as constituents of their congressional representatives that this is something that is of such importance to them that they want them to do something about it. Now members of congress can't, and and the president, and our our governmental system can't always provide the immediate answers, but it it results when when people express their interest, their passion for this resource to those representatives, it translates into action, at least discussion and and hopefully action that's gonna be beneficial in helping move things in a way that are that that those constituents want. And so that's that's just a kudos to the the supporters of this resource and being being involved enough in that political system to to ensure that their representatives discuss these things that they find important to them.
• 32:22
  So just a a kudos to to everyone that has participated in that process. Dale, looking again here at the notes, it was also during this time period that I think we began to see some recommendations for species specific regulations. We haven't talked much about this thus far, but up to this point, the in the nineteen sixties, other than the closed seasons, what do we know about species specific regulations? Was this the first time they began to emerge?
• 32:54
  Dale Humburg: Certainly there were hints of it during that period of time. We saw beginning in the mid 1960s, for example, the recognition that a special bag limit on mallards was going to be important as opposed to earlier than that, a bag limit on ducks just regardless of species of four for example. But now we begin seeing in the early to mid nineteen sixties, a recognition that different bag limits on mallards might be necessary. An opportunity for bonus bag limits for or extended season opportunities for SCOP was an example. Two additional SCOP or ring necks in Southern Louisiana is an example.
• 33:36
  It was any any sort of different entrees, if you will, into the species specific bag limits. And of course, that led as we undoubtedly will discuss to some early experimentation with the point system and so on beginning in the late nineteen sixties.
• 33:56
  Ken Babcock: Mike, I think you hit on a on a point that I think is is is worthy of mention. In my opinion, based upon my early experience with the flyways, this was a period when there was not great cooperation among the states in some of the flyways, particularly in the Mississippi Flyway. And and and I have little doubt in my mind that these house hearings, these oversight discussions were triggered by state fish and wildlife agencies on behalf of their constituents in their states. And these were triggered I had mentioned earlier the fact that some states who harvested very few waterfowl had very few hunters felt like that these restrictive seasons on them were unwarranted compared to a state like Louisiana or Texas or California where they harvested hundreds of thousands, if not millions of waterfowl. So that was one of the elements.
• 34:58
  And in fact, in the Mississippi flyaway, this became known as a year either a half state or a half not state. I don't remember where that line was drawn but the the have states were the ones that harvested most all of the ducks and the have not states were those that harvested very few and they didn't feel like they should be they should be penalized. The other aspect was distribution of opportunity. And I mentioned the species most notable in that regard was changes in in in Canada geese. Today, we see this occurring with other species as habitats change as as climates are having an impact on migration patterns.
• 35:39
  But there's little doubt in my mind that these hearings in the sixties were were brought about because of of disgruntlement of waterfowl waterfowlers in some states because of the regulation changes that were being made. There were either even some states at that stage at the time, and one that I would mention is most notable was Louisiana that felt like emphasis in terms of of harvest as being the factor may not be may not be the the best approach to take. But again, it was the only lever that we had. But I I think these hearings were generated by people who were not particularly happy with this yo yo effect in terms of regulations that were set year after year. Again, another block in the foundation that very important to today's waterfowl management regimes.
• 36:36
  Absolutely. Thanks for pulling that out there, Ken. We still have a great deal to cover. We are I mean, this is
• 36:43
  Mike Brasher: such a such a fan fascinating topic and has so many different and interesting pieces to it. We haven't even gotten to the little dust up that occurs in the late nineteen sixties, Ken, that I know you were not a physical dust up, I don't think, but a proverbial dust up that you were around for, and then we want to hear about that in detail. Yeah, with that, we're gonna close out this episode, and we're gonna have you guys back and resume our conversation. That sounds alright with y'all? Certainly.
• 37:10
  Absolutely. Thank you, guys. A special thanks to our guests again on this episode, Dale Humberg and Ken Babcock, for their continuing conversation on the history of waterfowl management here in North America with particular emphasis on The United States. As always, we thank our producer, Clay Baird, for his work on podcast. And, of course, to you, our listeners, you're the most important part of this.
• 37:29
  We thank you for your support of the podcast. We thank you for all the feedback that you provide. And most importantly, we thank you for your support, passion, and commitment to wetlands and waterfowl conservation.
• 37:39
  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.
• 38:01
  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.