The Spring 2004 issue of Delta Waterfowl contains an article by John Devney entitled “Exaggerations, Expectations and Reality: Another Year of Broken Promises.” Mr. Devney describes a familiar recent phenomenon. Certain authoritative spokespersons latch on to a fragment of supposedly propitious news, proclaim that it portends a great flight – and thus create an inverted pyramid of unjustified expectation on a foundation totally unequal to the predictive task.

Addressing conditions prior to the 2003-04 season, Devney states:

“The prairie breeding grounds did receive some timely precipitation last spring, a welcome relief from the drought conditions of the 2002 breeding season. But before the rain and snow melt had a chance a run into sloughs, exultant cries predicting a banner flight of ducks echoed across the continent.”

Devney then summarizes the hard data that should have forewarned hunters to expect an average to below average year.

“In our Status of Prairie Ducks report, Delta expressed concern that some were front-running the data in making unrealistic pledges of a ‘banner’ fall flight. We cautioned that based on the below-average brood and July pond counts, and the fact that the majority of the year’s breeding ducks settled in the highly fragmented Canadian prairies, production would not be as good as some were predicting. Our cautionary view was inspired by the data, not by an overzealous publicist!” (Emphasis added)

The author goes on to describe the consternation caused by the sharp difference between the unrealistic expectations engendered by overzealous publicists and experience in the marsh.

As if to prove that certain bad habits never die, no matter how often they burn us, the April-May issue of California Waterfowl came out shortly thereafter, carrying an authoritative example of precisely the genus of overblown tripe that Mr. Devney decried (with far more diplomacy than comes naturally to this witness). The President’s Report “Perceptions of Duck Hunting,” written by Bob McLandress, the CWA President, begins with the following paragraph:

“The numbers are in, and California’s duck harvest was up this season, as predicted. Refuge hunters enjoyed a 20 percent increase in harvest – and the mallard harvest was up 30 percent! (Exclamation point in original!) Public area data are highly predictive of overall California harvest.1 Perhaps more important than what the harvest data show was the success of the last weekend of the season: decent shooting produced the memories needed to carry enthusiasm, hope and anticipation of good hunting through to next year.” (Emphasis added)2.

Dr. McLandress is a scientist, a Ph.D. in waterfowl biology. He asserts that science should dictate the approach to regulations and other activities germane to waterfowl management. He dismisses all evidence he considers anecdotal and criticizes those who argue from positions that he deems “unscientific.” Thus, it is puzzling that the foregoing paragraph makes no mention of the fact that the 2003-04 season in California contained 100 hunting days as opposed to 76 hunting days for the 2002-03 season -- and that our daily bag limit increased from five to seven birds. It may be “anecdotal” and “coincidental” to point out that those differences almost exactly correspond to the increase in kill cited by Dr. McLandress in his cheerleading opener as evidence of improving conditions.3 It may be uncharitable to suggest that a true comparison, taking into account the difference in season length and bag limit, clearly indicates that the kill, as a measure of hunter success over the season, did not increase at all – and certainly did not reflect an improvement in conditions.4

Nor is that all. The President’s message advances the thesis that the change hunters have observed (i.e. the widespread perception of experienced hunters that our flight has dramatically declined) is due to a genetic selection process that has occurred over a period of the last 100 years. The birds have acclimated to hunting. Those with the genetic tendency for behavior that makes them more elusive survive, propagate and pass those tendencies on to their young. Those with the genetic tendencies for behavior that makes them vulnerable to the gun end up on the strap and do not breed. By this Darwinian process, the birds become a more difficult quarry.

But the dramatic decline in flight of which hunters currently complain did not take place over the last 100 years. It has occurred over the last five years in a steady linear – albeit precipitous – decline, readily observable to any regular participant in our sport who actually leaves an office and visits a marsh on a regular basis -- and not just as an honored guest at a super-prime location. Five years is hardly a sufficient time for the Darwinian trend expounded by Dr. McLandress to have produced such a profound effect – according to what I am told by other Ph.Ds. in waterfowl biology.

Dr. McLandress’ argument is particularly jarring to me on a personal level. When I stated to him in 1999 my belief that electronic spinning wing decoys had the potential to produce the exact Darwinian genetic response in our flights that he now attributes generally to hunting, a response that I thought would destroy our sport along with its ethical basis, he slathered me with buckets of scorn. So now he has co-opted the argument, in aid of a fanciful thesis at odds with the most obvious evidence, to support a story calculated to mislead those who take it seriously.

Perhaps the most telling – and disturbing – aspect of the President’s message is his emphasis on kill. What about breeding populations? What about numbers of birds in the fall flight? It is the very emphasis on kill rather than population that has brought us to the serious crisis in which we find ourselves. And he could have written a factual story addressing that subject, as our winter counts have risen (moderately) and wing surveys show improvement (again moderate) in the age-ratio. Local nesting conditions look promising as well, although it is far too early at this writing to tell for sure whether the promising conditions will pay off in high brood counts.

That is the truth – not fantasy. I assume that it was insufficiently positive, perhaps too tentative and ambiguous to serve the purpose of generating “enthusiasm, hope and anticipation of good hunting through to next year.” And therein lies the problem. For the truth is often ambiguous, unheroic, susceptible to conflicting interpretation, hardly the sort of stuff that stirs the troops to reach into their wallets and shell out big bucks for equipment and other toys in a frenzy of misplaced expectations. And one must keep the advertisers happy, above all else.

Then, on the very day I received my issue of California Waterfowl, The Wall Street Journal published a front page article dealing with motorized and electronic decoys. (“Man Who Built A Better Decoy Sees Dream Shot Down.” The article itself concerns the travails of one Walter Solomon who developed a business building and selling several motorized “motion decoys” with what he thought was adequate patent protection. He was wrong – and lost his thriving enterprise in patent infringement litigation.

Mr. Solomon’s legal travails, tragic as they may be, are not the nub of the issue for purposes of this piece. What catches the eye, however, is the statement in the article that sales of motorized decoys are expected to exceed $15 million this year – that the profits generated by that gross volume have justified the obscenely high cost of continuing patent litigation among those who seek to control this particular commerce. Indeed, the main contest over who shall reap the profits to be derived from SWDs will be determined in a jury trial about to commence in Texas, a true battle of titans in the field of selling man-toys to “sportsmen.”5

Thus, the “enthusiasm, hope and anticipation of good hunting through to next year,” to use Dr. McLandress’ words, is extremely important for burgeoning commercial interests, whether it is good for the birds or bad. These commercial interests buy expensive ads in CWA, DU and other publications. And it is those commercial interests that drive the excesses that will destroy our birds – and our sport along with it. It is those commercial interests that have co-opted some of our associations, turning the organizations that we formed and support for the protection of our resource into shills for the “whack and stack” crowd – that segment of our fraternity that our “leaders” can stir to a frenzy of profligate spending by false predictions of prodigious flights that prove as fictitious as the fables concocted to support the predictions.

Delta and Arkansas Wildlife appear to be notable exceptions to this sorry trend.6 For example, the Delta publication in which the Devney article appears contains several pieces of note, insightful, factual, self-critical, devoid of hype and fairy tales, replete with constructive ideas.7 One distinguishing feature stands out. The Delta articles deal in truth -- as did the AWF Report. They face the facts, good, bad or indifferent. They candidly admit past error where such admission provides insight. After all, don’t we learn from our mistakes, more than from our successes, certainly more than from those we imagine in ceremonies of self-congratulation? Nettlesome burden it may be, but Delta grasps the prickly unpleasant facts along with the other kind, as did the AWF Report.

The essence of leadership is the ability to give bad news the cold respect it deserves and chart a constructive course that the troops can accept. Neither obfuscation nor misrepresentation fills the bill. A mystic faith in one’s powers of persuasion, undimmed by experience or the cynical response of one’s listeners, may be a virtue in certain contexts (door-to-door salesmanship, for example) – but it is not a hallmark of effective leadership. Nor is shameless pandering to commercial interests or the deliberate creation of unjustified expectations.

The truth may be a heavy burden, beyond the capacity of some to carry. It is long past time that we demand it of our leaders. If someone tells you that a day or two of excitement at the end makes up for a season of empty skies, remind him or her of what we saw in ’98, ’99, 2000 and suggest that anything short of policies calculated to restore those skies is not acceptable.

To my mind, this is a mental and moral health issue. If we keep getting suckered into unrealistic expectations by specious garbage, the disappointment will morph into terminal cynicism. And our enthusiasm, our imaginations will be nothing more than limp sacrifices on the altar of a crude reality. In time, we will end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams. What a pity, as in a real sense, the birds depend upon us and our commitment to them -- and our commitment ultimately depends upon the well being of the flight. Are we willing to allow our cherished waterfowl heritage to become a museum piece, with the vision of a sky full of waterfowl preserved solely in fading pictures and the ephemeral stuff of aging memory?

I say demand the truth, brothers. Let’s proclaim zero tolerance for the purveyors of barnyard byproduct and the panderers to those who profit by selling us their toys. At this point, we might as well look to Delta and AWF for leadership – because the commodity is currently as scarce as chicken lips in any other location.

1 As neither CWA nor the California Department of Fish & Game make any effort to check kill logs at duck clubs or on private ground, we have to take this statement on faith. And it is suspect – for the refuges are where the birds are. In lean years, it is reasonable to suppose that public hunting grounds will have a better kill per hunter day than other locations removed from sanctuaries.

2 In short, hunters who experienced an entire season of empty skies will wax enthusiastic in the expectation of good hunting through the next year, based on a decent day or two at the end of the season. It would be difficult to imagine a more patronizing and condescending statement He might as well have said “you are all idiots who will mistake a flash in the pan for a gold brick, so long as the flash occurs at the end of the day rather than the beginning.”

3 You don’t need to take my word for it. The numbers are posted on the California Fish & Game website: www.dfg.ca.gov. Also contrary to Dr. McLandress’ statement, the numbers are not all in. We have not yet heard from the feds, as of this writing.

4 The kill per hunter day rose slightly, according to the DFG numbers. Dr. McLandress states that the refuge numbers are a true reflection of the total, even though only fifteen percent (15%) of the kill supposedly occurs on state refuges.

5 If the devices didn’t work, would there be a demand? If there were no demand, would multi-million dollar combatants fight over the right to control the market? If the profits were not massive and immediate, would such sophisticates strive for control over devices that could be banned? So much for those who claim that SWDs are a temporary aberration that will quickly pass into history, like jumbo decoys.

6 Delta has not taken a strong stance on the spinning wing decoy issue, an issue on which AWF has spoken with great emphasis. If it is to continue to command our respect, Delta must get off the fence and come out against SWDs for the upcoming season, adding its voice to that of AWF.

7 Olson, “Managing Ducks In The 21st Century: It’s Time For A New Direction;” Nelson, “It’s Time To Focus Our Dollars On The Breeding Ground” provide good examples. For contrast, see “A Prairie Homecoming,” in the March/April 2004 issue of Ducks Unlimited where the author shamelessly promotes commercial products of advertisers in what is supposed to be the story of an interesting hunt.