The Fly Councils have published their reports on breeding conditions and the results range, as expected, from very good to very bad. While breeding conditions are normally the focus of our off-season reports, deliberations on a new harvest strategy for scaup is on the table for the coming season. Various factions within the waterfowl community are up in arms over this decision, and the possibility of a 1-bird scaup limit.
Hello, folks, and as always, welcome to Waterfowler.com.
The significant, long-term decline of scaup has been a topic of concern for nearly a decade in the waterfowl community. The 2007 Breeding Survey recorded the third lowest scaup population on record.
As waterfowl hunters, we rely on the scientific community to provide sound management practices that will increase waterfowl production now, and into the future. Through taxes, license sales, stamp sales and donations to private conservation organizations, we pay for that privilege and entrust that the job will be done and done well.
In the coming weeks, the scientific community will debate over the harvest strategy formula and how it applies to scaup production. The current harvest strategy works when ducks rebound properly like a healthy renewable resource should. When conditions are good, ducks are up and we can shoot more. When breeding conditions are poor and ducks are down, we shoot less. With regards to scaup, they are NOT responding like a healthy natural resource, and continue to decline even when breeding conditions improve.
The chasm between opposing factions of the harvest management strategy for scaup is deep and hard lines have already been drawn in the sand between the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Service Regulations Committee and Delta Waterfowl, the state wildlife agencies in Louisiana, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, as well as the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils and the California Waterfowl Association.
Despite the opposing views of adapting a new harvest management strategy, nearly everyone would agree that:
1) Scaup numbers are down significantly — 3.4 million birds in 2007 compared to 8 million in 1972
2) Scaup are not rebounding in numbers when breeding conditions improve as compared to other waterfowl species (see breeding trends from 1994-1999)
3) Science has not determined exactly why scaup numbers continue to decline
4) There isn’t enough data or research on scaup to accurately address the decline in the breeding trend
5) Waterfowl harvest regulations, as they are currently structured, do not result in a negative impact on population growth when duck production follows historical, positive growth trends
The continued decline of scaup is not a result of harvest, but the species ability to rebound at the rate it once did. To date, science has not provided a solid explanation for the decline but only offered observations of multiple contributing factors.
According to the Journal of Geophysical research, since the 1950s, the total surface area of closed-basin ponds in Alaska’s Boreal region under observation has decreased by 31% to 4%, and the total number of ponds has decreased from 54% to 5%. This is primarily attributed to melting of subsurface permafrost, which has contributed greatly to the disappearance of ponds and marshes within the region.
Due to Global Warming, insect emergence schedules in the region occur earlier than they have in the past and scaup are know to arrive to the breeding grounds later than other species – reducing the abundance and types of aquatic invertebrates available for ducklings to eat.
For lesser scaup in particular, the prolonged drought on the Prairie Parkland and increased predation (according to Delta Waterfowl studies) are also contributing factors.
In addition, zebra mussels are known to contain high concentrations of selenium. Studies have shown that scaup, which feed abundantly on invasive zebra mussels during migration, have accumulated high concentrations of selenium, which could deform or kill developing ducklings.
While the 2008 Breeding Survey results have not been released, conditions on the Parklands are very good this season. For any other species this would be good news, however having optimum breeding conditions is no longer enough to guarantee production increases with scaup.
The argument over the next few weeks will be, “has scaup production declined so much that we can no longer use the current harvest formula for that species.” Some say yes, and some say no.
At the end of the day, the reality remains that scaup have been well below the long-term average for decades. Thus far, science has failed us. After a decade of peripheral studies that have provided no clear solutions, we are now faced with desperate choices because we simply don’t know what else to do.
Clearly, having a 1-bird bluebill limit would be frustrating for waterfowl hunters on many varying levels. Considering the populations of most species that have a 1-bird limit are substantially below the total scaup population, a 1-bird limit seems unjustifiable.
Over the past decade we have already made drastic reductions to scaup harvest and it has not done anything to reverse the current trend. To reduce the bag limit to one bird is merely a further investment in a solution that is already not working — and proven not to work.
The bluebill crisis, is now a state-of emergency. As waterfowl hunters who fund the science, we must send a message to state, federal and private organizations that the “mystery” of the ongoing scaup decline needs to be demystified.
Waterfowler.com encourages our readers to contact their state, federal and private organizations where they make donations and demand that Scaup research becomes a financial and focused priority until answers can be provided and management decisions can be made based on those facts.
The fact that the scaup crisis has degraded into a debate where decisions can be made outside of science because our science is failing is nothing short of a debacle and a waterfowl management failure.
Until next week, let your voice be heard.
