No one likes bad news. Only a special sort of masochist enjoys frustrated expectations. Thus it is that the of late winter and early spring is the season of the waterfowlers’ discontent, this year and for the four prior years. For February and March are the months when the stark reality of the season just concluded remains most fresh in the mind, unclouded by anticipation, unrealistic as it may be, of another season soon to begin or of a summer’s distractions to dull the memory of empty skies.

In this day and time, it has also become customary to assume that someone must be to blame for every disappointment. People who do not realize the satisfaction they expect have been trained to conclude that they have been cheated by the operation of some perverse human element. Meanwhile, the current state of our political system has engendered the practice of rejecting any information we derive from those whose viewpoint differs from our own – a practice that results in disparate clumps of like-minded people talking only amongst themselves and rejecting all facts that are pointed out by some other group, regardless of how brutally factual they may be. The two play off each other as in: we have victimized by them.

A small exercise in net-surfing prompted these musings. If you visit the forums on the various waterfowl sites, you will find that we at Madduck are often vilified – and never more violently than during the February/March period, never in stronger language than this year. From the tenor of these missives, one might conclude that we were responsible for the dearth of birds and the abominable hunting during the 2003-04 season.

True enough, we predicted those conditions. But in doing so, we relied on data available to everyone – the official numbers plus field observations from recent seasons, used as a benchmark to put comparable numbers into the perspective of field reality. (More bluntly, if the Service says it counts X million birds; and over the last four years, X million more or less has translated into empty skies over your blind, what reason do you have to believe that things will be different this year? Unless there’s a damn good reason that goes well beyond fervent hope, conditions are not likely to be different. And as much as you may dislike Madduck or me or Jim Phillips or what we write, you can take that to the bank).

As our circulation has increased, so has the stridency of a few of our critics. I have been reminded of the old joke about traveling in a foreign country. They don’t speak English, you don’t speak their language. So when they don’t understand you, talk louder.

Although some of our critics are yelling, our language – our message – does not require a high volume to transmit, nor is it complex for those who understand plain speak. For those new to these postings and those who would appreciate a refresher, I will summarize:

We have poor hunting because we don’t have enough birds. The age-ratio of the birds we have is inconsistent with a healthy flight and good hunting. Because a large proportion of the flight is “mature,” (meaning we don’t have enough juveniles), the older and wiser “mature” birds tend to raft up on sanctuary ground not accessible to hunters and adopt other practices (such as flying only at night), thus exacerbating the adverse impact of the low numbers on “hunter opportunity.”

We “managed” our way into this mess by killing too many – with seasons too long and limits too high – because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service got sold a bill of goods known as the compensatory kill theory, a theory that poses as science but turns out to be an unprovable hypothesis. High limits and long seasons created their own momentum and resistance to a reduction in response to declining numbers by fostering unrealistic hunter expectations and commercialization. Commercial interests lead the charge against any measures that might reduce season length, bag limits and the perception of greater “hunter opportunity” because the perception of greater “hunter opportunity” translates into more guided hunts, more profitable tourism, more membership and participation in the affairs of waterfowl organizations, more advertising revenue and sponsorship for the activities of those organizations and the purchase of more licenses and equipment. (Some of our most strident and incoherent critics post their bleats of outrage and gusts of vituperative bombast on a website sponsored by one of the largest catalog sellers of waterfowl hunting equipment in the country. What a coincidence.)

And that’s not the worst of it. Because the compensatory kill hypothesis declares that hunters can kill as many ducks as they want without affecting populations, it erodes the sense of stewardship that hunters must have for the birds if we are to preserve our sport. Basically, it preaches that our actions have no consequences – as in “the recovering alcoholic can drink a fifth of whiskey without setting himself back,” or “a dangerously obese man can eat the whole chocolate cake without affecting his weight loss program.” It calls for wholesale suspension of the axiom that when something appears too good to be true, it is false. At the very least, we should view such a siren song with skepticism holding those who peddle the message to a high standard of proof. “Proof” in this instance meaning conclusive facts and not a hypothesis based on limited studies and the advocacy of high volume, self-interested voices.

To my mind, acceptance of the compensatory kill mentality – our kill as hunters has no consequences for the populations -- is the most pernicious trend of the last five years. It is what causes guys to respond to poor hunting by clamoring for opportunities to kill more birds – extending the seasons, opening sanctuaries, etc., as though the answer to the problem of too few birds is to kill more of them. That kind of thinking acknowledges no correlation whatsoever between kill and populations, no responsibility for the welfare of the birds as a matter of any priority, let alone first priority -- because what we do as hunters supposedly has no impact. If the devotees and purveyors of that line of thought had the courage of their convictions, they would be arguing for repeal of all closed seasons, all bag limits, the prohibition against night shooting, all restrictions on methods of take, etc., because we need more hunter opportunity and hunter kill doesn’t affect populations. Right? Maybe they’ll come out of the closet with those arguments after the next miserable season. I hope they do – for that surely will be the end of their standing and that of their pretentious hogwash.

What do we hear that attacks our positions? Before addressing the serious arguments, I dismiss wholesale those who do not challenge any of our points specifically, while they express outraged disagreement laced with pejorative obscenities and adolescent invective. For example, a simple invitation to “kiss my Arkie a$$” does not appear to be an argument that calls for a reasoned reply.

Those who accuse us of being “elitists” stand only slightly higher on the Richter scale of intelligence. What difference does it make who or what we are? If a two headed, six legged, evil smelling android from the local landfill tells you that your pants are on fire, you will end up with third degree butt burns if he is correct, unless you take urgent, preventive measures. Who or what the android may be, where he comes from, whether he’s “one of them or one of us” – none of that has any relevance. Do you have combustion in progress or not? Nothing else matters. It is the message, not the messenger that counts.

As for the real arguments, let’s take them in no particular order:

1. The Service Knows Best. It does not reflect disrespect for the U.S> Fish and Wildlife Service to state that their counts and flight predictions have had little correlation with field experience over the last five seasons. If those counts and flight predictions are supposed to have such correlation, then something has gone wrong with the inputs in the predictive model.

Madduck is not alone in this observation. A number of waterfowl biologists have reached similar conclusions and are testing various explanations – explanations that could fundamentally change the Service’s predictive process. But in the meantime, we contend that caution should be the order of the day. We all want to see more birds over our blinds and marshes. We all want a return to the glory days of the late mid nineties. We all know that the notion of “hunter opportunity” is an empty concept without prolific flights. Almost all of us agree that hunting has gotten steadily worse over the last five years – and that observable populations have declined alarmingly.

We at Madduck simply do not believe that the best way to fulfill our aspirations and deal with the real conditions in the field is to figure out ways to kill more ducks in the short term. We believe that the ducks we have left are the breeders we must depend upon if we are ever to restore our flights. They need protection, not more ingenious and pervasive human predation. Only a duck can make a duck. Dead ducks lay no eggs. Rocket science this is not.

If the Service does not act in the interest of the birds, then the hunters must – in their own self interest.

2. The “Elsewhere” Argument. We have the birds – but they are holding up north, etc. One problem: The guys up north aren’t seeing any birds either. (The California variation on that one was the complaint several years ago, at a time when hunting declined dramatically, that our mallards were being “shortstopped” in the Columbia Bend country of the State of Washington by new reservoirs and changes in local farming practices. Then we discovered through better science that we grew most of our mallards locally. Precious few had ever migrated to us from that far north. Too bad. The excuse was comforting. Deprived of it, we actually had to stop bitching and do some constructive work to nurture our local production capability). .

With a few widely scattered, episodic exceptions, hunting has been generally poor – and getting poorer over the full length of most flyways during the last five years. Even in the hotspots, few hunters report that they saw huge numbers of ducks, reminiscent of the glory days. In short, “up north,” “somewhere on a sanctuary,” etc., is just a form of wishful thinking. When everyone says that the birds are somewhere else, they are nowhere. With too few birds and an age ratio unhealthily skewed toward mature birds, our miseries can only continue until those conditions are rectified.

3. Global Warming: The Season Should End Later Argument. This is just another argument for putting more pressure on the birds we have left by subjecting them to gunning on the eve of the nesting season. It may be true that our winters have gotten warmer and the birds are not pushed south as early as happened in years past. But nesting does not start any later. Indeed, the very same weather trends may cause an earlier advent of the nesting season, thus exacerbating the impact of late January and early February shooting.

I personally believe that we have overblown this issue. When I lived in the Midwest, we had mild winters and the other kind, sometimes in clumps of three or four in a row. Start preaching global warming to the residents of the Northeast after the 2003-04 winter season and be prepared for a bitter laugh – or perhaps an overhand right to the chops. It was twenty below in the Dakotas this last season, and the hunters in Louisiana and Mississippi still reported the “worst year in history.” In short, the global warming thesis in this context is little more than a smokescreen obscuring the real issue, i.e., not enough ducks. Just another variation on the “holding up north” thesis.

If we really cared about the birds and the long-term future of our sport, we would be focused on production rather than a few extra days of easy kills. With that orientation, our first question should be: What will the impact of global warming be on nesting and production? Second question: How should we manage to protect nesting and production, taking maximum advantage of any potential increment we may gain from the weather change? Instead, we are dealing with pleas to make an adjustment to facilitate more killing. Another Madduck thesis: Attitude adjustment sorely required.

When we started this website, we hoped to provide an outlet for sentiments we suspected were widely shared but seldom voiced. We expected to catch flak from various quarters. We also hoped to attract intelligent challenge and criticism that could turn into constructive dialogue. We have succeeded beyond our wildest expectations with a number of visitors that is truly staggering.

Thus, it is that the primal scream chorus of denial from those who can think only of killing more ducks as the immediate goal of every aspect of waterfowl management constitutes an affirmation, albeit unintended. The louder and more vituperative that chorus becomes, the more we know that our note rings out loud and clear.