d ducks, habitat conservation, and predators

BLU

E-W

ING

EDT

EAL

BRO

OD

:©

BILL

MA

RC

HEL

.CO

M©

DU

CK

SU

NLI

MIT

ED

DUCKS,HABITAT CONSERVATION,

AND PREDATORS

REPRINTED FROM THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2003DUCKS UNLIMITED MAGAZINE

People often ask why Ducks Unlimited doesnot endorse predator control as a means ofincreasing duck production. After all, predatorcontrol is effective, isn’t it? Haven’t studiesproved that controlling predators such asfoxes, raccoons, and skunks can significantlyincrease waterfowl nest success? If DU isconcerned about the future of waterfowl andwaterfowling, why doesn’t it advocate andpractice predator control on a large scaleacross the ducks’ primary breeding grounds?

The truth is that Ducks Unlimited is notalways against predator control. DU’sbiologists and others have long known thatcontrolling waterfowl predators on relativelysmall, specific problem areas can be effective—and, in fact, have practiced short-termpredator control on small pieces of habitat.

However, working on small pieces can beexpected to yield small results in the bigpicture. DU and other wildlife managementleaders have learned from those experiencesand re-evaluated what they must do to mosteffectively assure the long-term health ofwaterfowl populations across North America(see sidebar: Mississippi Flyway CouncilStatement and Others’ Positions on PredatorRemoval). As a result, we have remainedfocused on DU’s original “Singleness ofPurpose”—that of securing and restoring thehabitat base upon which waterfowl depend.And we have concluded that wide-scalepredator control to increase duck populationsis an ineffective approach that would be harmfulto long-term waterfowl conservation and thehunters who enjoy the sport of waterfowling.

BY CHUCK PETRIE

DUCKS, HABITAT CONSERVATION,

AND PREDATORSA closer look at large-scale predator-control programs

reveals that they are counterproductive to the long-term benefits of waterfowl and waterfowl hunters

RED

HEA

D H

EN: ©

JOH

N R

. FO

RD

2 D U C K S U N L I M I T E D • N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3

DU’s staff and Boards of Directorsin the United States, Canada, andMexico recently looked very criticallyat how to best serve waterfowl for thefuture through a comprehensivestrategic planning initiative that wasled by DU President John Tomke andDU Executive Vice President DonYoung. One outcome of that hugetask was to ensure that all three ofDU’s operations in North Americashared a common mission, whichreaffirms that “Ducks Unlimited con-serves, restores, and manages wet-lands and associated habitats forNorth America’s waterfowl. Thesehabitats also benefit other wildlifeand people.”

Conserving habitat is the para-mount priority that is supported byeverybody—even the most ardentadvocates of predator control—involved in waterfowl conservation(indeed, in all wildlife conservation).President Tomke reflected, “It onlymakes sense that DU came to the con-clusion that it must continue to focuson this mandate. We know this is theright path to assuring that we haveenough places for waterfowl to live inlarge numbers that will provide forthe enjoyment of today’s hunters andother outdoor enthusiasts, as well astheir children and grandchildren.”

n FOWL FACT “Consider a wetland complex of a given size that produces 100 ducklings per year. With intensive annualpredator control, that same complex might produce 150 or even 200 ducklings per year. But if that complex’s potholes aredrained and its grassland plowed under to produce a potato field or parking lot, it will never produce another ducklingagain—ever. That’s why Ducks Unlimited focuses its efforts on habitat conservation, not predator control.”

—DU Regional Biologist Michael Checkett

HABITAT CONSERVATION VS. PREDATOR CONTROL

Predator control cannot result in meaningful increases in duck numbers or birds inthe bag and threatens to undermine the broad coalition of public support on whichmodern waterfowl conservation depends.

Dollars diverted to killing predators are dollars lost to habitat conservation. Inbusiness terminology, this is known as opportunity cost. Doing one thing means notdoing something else. Spending scarce habitat dollars on predator control will assurethat more critical habitat will be lost.

Nearly every dollar spent on habitat for waterfowl is matched by special funds suchas the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF), which is set aside byCongress for habitat work. Many other partners also add to the pot, and it is notunusual to have dollars from DU and other sources matched three or four times to doeven more habitat conservation in the highest priority areas. Dollars diverted topredator control are not matchable, and therefore not eligible to leverage NAWCFfunds or other dollar-matching habitat funds because of the lack of partners who seethe merit in such short-term practices.

On a local scale, predator control can provide immediate benefits to a fewwaterfowl, but it does not contribute to the long-term security of waterfowl habitatand waterfowl abundance on a continental or even regional scale.

Predator control provides no lasting impact on waterfowl numbers because aspredators are removed, those individuals are quickly replaced or other predatorpopulations increase.

Predators must be removed every year, simply to temporarily suppress their numbers,and that is not a practical or sustainable option over large areas or over the long term.

Habitat conservation results in incremental gains each and every year. The core challengeis to improve and sustain the productive capability of the “Duck Factory” over the long term.

During drought years, the breeding effort in the prairie duck factory effectively shutsdown and populations decline because ducks nest very sparingly across vast areas of drylandscape. If few ducks are nesting, even predator control cannot improve duck-breedingsuccess enough to result in meaningful improvements in continental duck populations.Waterfowlers simply have to pull in their belts during those years as they have during all ofthe last century and beyond. What is critical is that the nesting habitat base remains secureso that ducks can flourish again when water returns to the breeding grounds.

Improved agricultural practices that have benefited farmers through improved soil and water conservation and reduced input costs have had an

unintended effect on pintail populations. Vast areas of pintail breeding habitat are now plowed every year just after nesting has started. Pintail

nesting densities are typically very low—such that they will not benefit from predator control or any other intensive management practice.

DUCKS, HABITAT CONSERVATION, AND PREDATORS

NO

RT

HER

N P

INT

AIL

: ©N

EAL

& M

J MIS

HLE

R

N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 • D U C K S U N L I M I T E D 3

DU has been dedicated to habitatconservation for waterfowl through-out its history. The task ahead is dif-ferent, but just as daunting, as it wasin 1937 when DU was founded.Waterfowl habitat is under relentlesssiege everywhere, but probablynowhere more than on the prairiebreeding grounds that produce from50 to 75 percent of North America’shunted duck species.

The threats are mostly driven bythe intensification of farming andchanges in wetlands protection poli-cies. Work on these issues has neverbeen more important than it is rightnow—the future of waterfowl popula-tions and waterfowl hunting hang inthe balance. It is absolutely crucialthat funds that support habitat con-servation work are not siphonedaway to support practices such aslarge-scale predator control that do

not contribute to solving these criti-cal issues. If other parties want tosecure additional, separate funding tocarry out predator control, let themdo so. There’s room for everybodywith a fervent desire to help water-fowl in this world. However, giventhe finite financial resources that canbe directed toward securing waterfowlbreeding habitat in the PrairiePothole Region (PPR) and elsewhere,it is surely, intuitively obvious thatthese precious monetary resourcesmust not be diminished. In fact, justthe opposite is true: They need to begreatly increased. We are losing wet-

lands in the United States (and inCanada) at an alarming rate of morethan 100,000 acres per year, and, ontop of that, upland nesting cover isalso under increasing pressure as the

agricultural sector seeks to maintainfinancial viability in the face of thedifficult realities of world markets.

According to Dr. Alan Wentz, DU’sgroup manager for conservation pro-

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL STATEMENT AND OTHERS’ POSITIONS ON PREDATOR REMOVAL

In March of 2003, the Mississippi Flyway Council (composed of leaders of wildlifeagencies from 14 states—MN, WI, MI, OH, KY, IL, IN, IA, MO, AR, TN, MS, LA, AL—and three provinces—Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario—in the Mississippi Flyway)issued the following position statement regarding predator removal:

“The Mississippi Flyway Council (MFC) does not support the practice of predatorremoval as a viable management practice to improve waterfowl recruitment over thelong term or over large geographic areas. The MFC believes that the highestconservation priorities for improving waterfowl recruitment are the landscape-levelwetland and grassland habitat restoration strategies advocated by the North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Maintaining waterfowl breeding habitat is thehighest priority for the long-term welfare of waterfowl populations in North America.”

As part of the justification for its position statement, the MFC also stated: “Furthermore,in an era of limited resources, expending funds on predator removal necessarily competeswith landscape habitat programs, the emphasis of the NAWMP. While predator removalshould be recognized as one of a suite of management tools available to wildlife managers tobe applied on a localized basis, the Mississippi Flyway Council Technical Section [comprisedof waterfowl biologists and wildlife managers] believes improving waterfowl recruitment isbetter accomplished through the primary strategy of large-scale wetland and grasslandhabitat restoration strategies embraced by the NAWMP.”

Also, in August, the Arkansas Wildlife Federation’s (AWF) Duck Committee (agroup of concerned waterfowl hunters and community leaders) published acomprehensive report on the status of waterfowl hunting in that state. Key conclusionsin the report included: “It all starts with the nest and proper habitat. The AWF DuckCommittee has found that the more productive prairie pothole habitat we have, themore ducks we will have make the fall flight . . . . Predator management may be helpfulin small areas, but it is not believed to be practical on a large scale.”

Significant tracts of superb wetland landscapes still exist in some regions. It is critical

that these be protected for generations of the future.

“THE MOST IMPORTANT

THINGS WE CAN DO

INVOLVE PROTECTING,

MAINTAINING, AND

RESTORING AS MUCH OF

THE EXISTING WATERFOWL

HABITATS AS WE POSSIBLY

CAN WHILE THAT REMAINS

AN OPTION.” —Dr. Bruce Batt

©D

UC

KS

UN

LIM

ITED


grams, “We cannot afford continuedhabitat loss or we will not be able tosustain waterfowl populations overthe long term. We have been fortu-nate that, despite ongoing losses ofhabitat, most prairie waterfowl popu-lations are in better shape than theyhave been since we began surveyingbreeding birds in the 1950s. Withonly a couple of exceptions, NorthAmerica’s ducks and geese are at orabove the goals of the NorthAmerican Waterfowl ManagementPlan. Between 1994 and 1999, ducknumbers increased by 69 percent afterwater returned to core breeding areas.This occurred in the complete absenceof predator control, proving againthat when moisture is plentiful andthere is sufficient wetland and uplandhabitat, duck production overwhelmsduck predation. Some species havenever been more numerous since

breeding records and surveys began in1955. Quite simply, current programsemphasizing habitat are working andmust be continued.”

Dr. Bruce Batt, DU’s chief waterfowlbiologist, adds, “We know the breed-ing ground landscapes can producerecord fall flights without predatorcontrol. We saw this as recently asfour years ago. In 2001 and 2002,

much of the continent’s ‘DuckFactory’ was drier than normal and,consequently, duck numbers declined.When water returned to the prairiesin 2003, duck numbers reboundedsubstantially. The most importantthings we can do involve protecting,maintaining, and restoring as muchof the existing waterfowl habitats aswe possibly can while that remains

HABITAT AND WEATHER CONTROL DUCK NUMBERS

Prairie ducks showed a solid increasein numbers in 2003 after two years ofdecline caused by dry conditions—anidentical pattern to what waterfowlenthusiasts have seen since the firstsettlers arrived on the continent. Mostprairie duck species are near or aboveNorth American WaterfowlManagement Plan goals. This outcomeclearly shows that when the prairies arewet and good nesting habitat is available,ducks respond. And they do so withoutpredator control. Even the promoters ofpredator control agree that whenhabitat conditions are good,reproduction by prairie ducksoverwhelms predation, and we haveexcellent fall flights of ducks.

During periods of drought, DU’sjob is to make sure that when moisturereturns there will be sufficient wetlandand upland habitat for ducks torebound yet again.

CRP has been one of the greatest booms in recent history for waterfowl and other grass-

land wildlife. Critical programs like this are made possible because of the broad-based

support in society for waterfowl conservation but, just as importantly, for the multiple

benefits that such programs provide for soil and water conservation, and water quality.

This gadwall nest is near hatching. Gadwall

populations have reached new highs in

recent years. More than 90 percent of the

surveyed population of this species nests

in the Prairie Pothole Region.


©BI

LLM

AR

CH

EL.C

OM

©D

UC

KS

UN

LIM

ITED


an option. It’s the only way we willavoid a situation where killing preda-tors, closing the hunting season, andsimilar ‘last ditch’ tactics are all wehave left—and, if we ever get to thatpoint, we will have lost.

“The cumulative gains in habitatconservation are really what count,”Batt continues, “and are why duckpopulations are in pretty good shape,in view of all the things that havehappened in their environment thatshould logically have prevented therecent recovery. For example, whenduck stamp funds were first appliedto protecting breeding habitat inNorth Dakota with perpetual-protec-

tion easements a few decades ago,progress was indeed slow in compari-son to the number of wetlands thatbegged for conservation. Now wehave a legacy of 1.5 million acres ofbreeding habitat permanently securedby these U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceeasements, habitat that is fundamen-tal to the future of waterfowl conser-vation in that critical region of theprairie breeding grounds. Fill in thespaces with Waterfowl ProductionAreas, grassland protected by theConservation Reserve Program (CRP)for nesting, and habitat restored andprotected by private landowners, DU,the states, the provinces, the federalgovernment, corporations, and oth-ers and we have the basis for theexcellent waterfowl populationswe’ve enjoyed over the last decade. Ifthose duck stamp dollars would havebeen spent kill ing predators, we

SCAUP, PINTAILS, AND PREDATOR CONTROL

Despite the great duck populations of the last few years, scaup and pintails havecontinued to decline. Could predator control help reverse these problems? The answeris no—simply because low numbers of pintails and scaup are not caused by predation.Biologists have reached a consensus that the pintail decline is mostly caused by changedfarming practices. In the prairies of the U.S. and Canada, farmers have greatly reduced falltillage to reduce soil erosion and fuel costs and to conserve moisture. The stubble that isleft from the previous crop is actually attractive to pintails for nesting the following spring,as it is structurally similar to the short-grass prairie that they favor. Pintails are theearliest-nesting duck species and, in some years, hundreds of thousands of hens establishnests in the stubble only to have farm machinery destroy them when spring plantingbegins. Because they don’t renest as well as other ducks, most of the year’s potentialproduction will be lost in just a few days each spring when farming starts. Predatorcontrol will clearly not solve this problem. But DU is working hard with farmers toincorporate more pintail-friendly farming practices into their crop rotations, such as fall-seeded crops, and to convert marginal cultivated ground back into permanent grassland.

Most scaup nest in the boreal forest of western Canada and Alaska. This is the largestecosystem in the world and covers millions of square miles where scaup are dispersedwidely and where predator control is simply not a feasible alternative. The most recentevidence on a major factor that is controlling scaup numbers comes from the Midwestwhere Mike Anteau and leading waterfowl researcher Dr. Alan Afton, from LouisianaState University, have discovered that scaup are now lighter in weight when they leavethe prairies on their way to the boreal forest to breed. This is likely caused by degradedprairie wetland conditions, caused by a variety of factors, that affect their food supply justwhen they need it most to store fat and other nutrients for nesting. Predation is not amajor factor, but DU is continuing to support research to more clearly identify the issuesthat are actually affecting scaup populations.

“…HABITAT CONSERVATION

COUPLED WITH NORMAL

MOISTURE CONDITIONS

HAVE ENABLED WATERFOWL

POPULATIONS TO ATTAIN

THEIR HIGHEST LEVELS SINCE

THE 1950s—WITHOUT

PREDATOR CONTROL.”

—Dr. Alan Wentz

LESS

ER S

CA

UP:

©BI

LLM

AR

CH

EL.C

OM

©D

UC

KS

UN

LIM

ITED


would not be able to tell one ofthe greatest waterfowl conservationstories in history.”

“DU welcomes all players,” Wentzsays, “and we are especially pleasedthat so many other partners havebecome involved in waterfowl habitatconservation. There are numerous statewaterfowl associations that share ourinterest in habitat conservation forwaterfowl. Other major conservationgroups are interested in other wildlife,and they also recognize the importanceof waterfowl habitat and are workinghard to protect wetlands and otherhabitat that serve their needs and thoseof waterfowl. Today, we also have thegreatest involvement ever by privatelandowners, and state, provincial, andfederal agencies in wetlands conserva-tion. They are supported by good legis-lation such as the North AmericanWetlands Conservation Act andunprecedented international agree-ments such as the North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan. With itsmyriad partners interested in habitatconservation, DU can leverage dollars

multiple times to put even more habi-tat on the ground. The same cannot besaid for predator control.

“The stage is set,” Wentz adds, “andimportant gains are being made, butthe challenges are huge and changingevery day. This is not the time to sacri-fice any of these hard-fought gains bydiverting resources and attention away

HABITAT CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY

Public policy work by DU and other conservation organizations is critical to the futureof waterfowl conservation. Because of past successes in this area, a broad-based cultureof protecting wetlands and other wildlife habitat has developed in North America. Thishas resulted in huge gains for wildlife, especially in the area of beneficial agricultural andwildlife policies that benefit enormous acreages of landscape for waterfowl and otherwildlife. Historically, the amount of wetland loss has been much greater than we seetoday. Between 1950 and 1970, the annual rate of net loss of wetlands in the U.S. was458,000 acres, which dropped to 290,000 acres per year through the 1970s and 1980s.Much of the reduction in losses was due to an increasing public awareness of wetlandvalues that led to public policy changes to protect wetlands.

DU and its multitude of private and public partners are successful today becausewaterfowl hunters and other conservationists tell their elected representatives thatwaterfowl habitat is important and demonstrate their commitment by funding habitatconservation themselves. Other citizens from across a wide spectrum of societysupport waterfowl conservation because of the many additional environmental benefitsprovided by waterfowl habitat.

The most significant contribution of the broad coalition that supports waterfowlhabitat conservation comes from their influence on public policy. Politicians react to theneeds of their constituents, and waterfowl advocates have worked hard to get solidconservation provisions such as CRP and the Wetland Reserve Program into the FarmBill, and to support passage of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, toname just two major acts of Congress. Because DU and its partners have invested theirmoney where their mouths are, they are extremely effective spokespersons thatsupport beneficial policies for waterfowl.

Thus, there is great strength in our collective diversity and numbers, but waterfowlconservation will fail without all of us working in the same direction.

WITH ITS MYRIAD PARTNERS

INTERESTED IN HABITAT

CONSERVATION, DU CAN

LEVERAGE DOLLARS

MULTIPLE TIMES TO PUT

EVEN MORE HABITAT ON

THE GROUND. THE SAME

CANNOT BE SAID FOR

PREDATOR CONTROL.


These four-week-old mallards are hunkered down for the midday, safe from danger in dense

cattail cover. The habitat base that supports mallards is still able to produce populations that

are equivalent to what they were 40 and 50 years ago. Only continued habitat conservation

programs will ensure that this pattern will be repeated in the years ahead.

MA

LLA

RD

S:©

STA

NLE

Y B

UM

AN


from this effort. It took decades of suc-cessful efforts by millions of people toget to this point. Taking resourcesfrom habitat conservation for predatorcontrol threatens to weaken thesefoundations of waterfowl conserva-tion. Remember that habitat conserva-tion coupled with normal moistureconditions have enabled waterfowlpopulations to attain their highest lev-els since the 1950s—without predatorcontrol.”

Also, picture launching all-outpredator control programs againstfoxes, raccoons, and skunks overlarge portions of the Prairie PotholeRegion during the spring and sum-mer, when their pelts are worthlessand their young are helpless andwould starve without their parents.Disturbingly for those of us who loveto hunt, the antihunting, antitrap

ping, and animal-rights groups onsociety’s fringes could have volatilenew fuel for their positions.Furthermore, it would be disastrousto lose the support of the nonhunt-ing (not the antihunting) majority ofthe general public that support mod-ern wildlife conservation programsand who can influence wildlife-friendly legislation.

This is why DU leaders know thatthe most important thing DU can do isto secure existing habitat and increaseit wherever it has the opportunity.Waterfowl habitat is still under relent-less siege. Sea level rise, expansion ofagriculture in critical waterfowl areas,urban sprawl, contamination of thecontinent’s waterways, growth ofextraction industries in previouslyuntouched regions of the continent,

and detrimental public policy are allmajor concerns. And, despite all theprogress made in wetlands conserva-tion programs and policy, includingthe last three administrations’ “no netloss of wetlands” policies, the U.S.alone still loses more than 100,000acres of wetlands each year. New addi-tional threats to the wetland habitatbase include a U.S. Supreme Courtdecision that changes wetland protec-tion measures under Section 404 of theClean Water Act, which may leavecountless numbers of isolated wetlandsimportant to breeding waterfowl opento drainage and filling. Also, unprece-dented conversion of highly produc-tive grassland nesting cover torow-crop production is occurring inthe heart of the Prairie Pothole Region.

There are regions of the breedinggrounds that have good wetland den-sities but very poor upland nesting,and these types of places are wherepredator control seems to make themost sense. However, the trade-offbetween spending limited funds onshort-term gains from predator con-trol and long-term securement of thehabitat base is a non-starter. We mustnot divert funds from securing high-quality habitats that are under threatto efforts supporting predator-controlprograms on habitats of marginalquality: The urgency of securing thehabitat base that has produced thegreatest recovery of waterfowl popu-lations in the 20th century is simplytoo great. This is the legacy that wehave a chance to leave for our chil-dren and grandchildren. There is nolegacy in predator control—especiallygiven that it diverts funds and atten-tion away from the core issue of long-term waterfowl conservation: habitat.

Ducks Unlimited’s conservationvision is for viable wetlands andwaterfowl populations that supporthunting and other uses forever. Thisis a daunting task, and it will only beachieved if our collective energies aresuccessfully directed towards securingthe habitats that will support thebirds everywhere they live.

©D

UC

KS

UN

LIM

ITED



d ducks, habitat conservation, and predators

Documents