Aldo Leopold had a name for those things that "remind us of our distinctive national origins and evolution.” He called them “split-rail values.” He stressed their importance in "Wildlife in American Culture," a thought-provoking essay that appeared in A Sand County Almanac. “There is value in any experience that reminds us of our dependency on the soil--plant-animal-man food chain," he wrote, and in "any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called sportsmanship."

Can one separate ethics from hunting without diminishing either? I think not. Yet, actions by waterfowl managers in recent years, as well as introductions of new, high-tech products, place hunters in the position of having to make choices that raise ethical questions. Ironically, this comes at a time when hunters and anglers have shown a willingness to accept less.

For example, many fishermen choose to release most of their catch, even though daily limits are generous. More than a few hunters are content with a bird or two, satisfied to end the day several shy of a limit. They do this for personal and ethical reasons as well as an increasing awareness that, while renewable, all fish and wildlife face dwindling habitat and increasing pressure. Leopold addressed practices such as these when he wrote, "A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers."

Our duck populations are in a more precarious position than almost anything we hunt or fish. Yes, populations increased in the latter half of the 1990s, but did so in response to the best breeding conditions of our lifetimes. But saying the breeding conditions were great misleads, because it fails to note these conditions exist only on a very small portion of the historic duck breeding range. The good things are happening in the Dakotas, where we've experienced the wettest decade in well over 100 years. In addition, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has provided superb nesting habitat. Combined, the Dakotas have produced ducks that have migrated down all four flyways, but especially the Central and Mississippi flyways.

But neither condition is permanent and the vast prairie pothole breeding area that was once known as the "duck factory," especially prairie Canada, has lost most of its critical parts. Drainage has been extensive and intensive farming has left little grass. Yet, waterfowl managers operate as if there were no tomorrow, and more than a few duck biologists favor the liberal, "Adaptive Harvest" philosophy which says, shoot lots in times of plenty and save a few when times are bleak. If the Dakotas go dry or the CRP program fails to get funding at any point in the future, duck hunters everywhere will see the result.

Geese are another story. Most flocks are at record levels, and in many areas there are too many, especially restored giant Canadas and the Mid-Continent snow goose flock. Waterfowl managers have attempted to reduce populations of both flocks by using hunting as their management tool. They've attempted, without a lot of success, to control growing giant Canada goose flocks by staging early September seasons replete with liberal bag limits. It's not been easy to attract hunters because it's hard to think waterfowl hunting when the foliage is green, temperatures warm to hot, and you are swatting mosquitoes. Some early Canada goose reduction seasons call for as many as six-birds daily, and more than a few hunters have suddenly found themselves with a half-dozen, pin-feathered birds.

"Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him. For example, a common denominator of all sporting codes is to not waste good meat." --Aldo Leopold

The snow goose reduction effort has focused on a spring season, with liberal or no limits, the use of unplugged shotguns, and electronic calls. Each flies in the face of waterfowling tradition, and one might say, each is minus "split-rail valu.” Some waterfowl biologists rationalize, spinning it into a "conservation season." There are others who do not defend these seasons or tactics but also keep their views to themselves. Boat rockers have never gone far in the waterfowl management field.

I've hunted snow geese for more than three decades, and can count on one hand the times I could have used more than three shots. Adding a two or three-shell capacity to a waterfowling gun, I believe, encourages long shots more likely to cripple than kill. Learning to become a good caller takes time and effort, a skill that certainly qualifies as “split-rail,” but, in this season, the value is replaced with an electronic call. I understand the need to reduce populations, but at what price? And, what message do these measures send to hunters? I sympathize with managers, understand the problem, but can offer no solutions. They didn't create the snow goose problem. But they are responsible for what's happened with Canada geese in many areas. There are urban goose problems in Denver, Minneapolis, and evidence of crop-depredating birds in many areas across Minnesota and the Dakotas and doubtless other areas where restoration efforts have taken place.

In the beginning, waterfowl managers rushed to start flocks of giant Canada geese. It was easy, and everyone, including the landowners who complain today of depredation, wanted them around. Then, they became too numerous. And, with increased numbers, the birds inevitably lost their status. They invaded golf courses and municipal parks, and in less than two decades, journeyed from trophy to pest status. It's happened with snow geese too. Even some biologists refer to white geese as "tundra maggots," or "sky carp." I worry that such efforts and talk may be doing great harm to the soul of hunting.

Consider liberal limits.

Biologists themselves have never settled the question of whether waterfowl mortality is additive or compensatory, though it is clear that those who believe the latter are in control because Adaptive Harvest Management is what is practiced today. What that means is high bag limits and liberal seasons in anticipated years of good production, and while I offer neither the credentials or data to argue the merits, the precarious nature of waterfowl habitat would suggest a conservative approach might be more prudent. Does it take a five or six-bird limit to interest duck hunters? In South Dakota, where I live, pheasant hunters seem satisfied with three birds. Yet, those who recommend and set seasons apparently believe duck hunters aren’t happy unless we can kill lots of ducks. There's something else that's significant. Most pheasants won't see age two, but MOST ducks live longer. That alone suggests there’s at least some truth to the “additive” mortality argument. It’s like catching a 7-pound walleye or a 5-pound bass. If you release her, she’ll spawn next spring. If you don’t, she won’t. I’m not suggesting that we can stockpile enough ducks to make a noticeable difference, but isn’t there also the possibility that allowing a six-bird daily harvest could eliminate some birds that would otherwise breed next spring?

I suspect many duck hunters agree with the importance of maintaining tradition, for the sport is steeped in it. Yet, just as there is a division among biologists on mortality, so too is there a division among hunters on method. Scan waterfowl hunting Internet site chat rooms, and one of the hottest discussion topics these days is the new spinning wing decoy. This battery-powered decoy is positioned among a traditional spread, and is supposed to emulate a duck that appears to be landing. It may be to decoys what the electronic call is to traditional calling. But, to date, only one Midwestern waterfowl manager, Tim Bremicker of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, has raised questions about its place in duck hunting. But in California, it has drawn a line between both hunters and waterfowl managers and at least one other state, Washington, has banned their use.

In conjunction with the California Waterfowl Association, the University of California, Davis, recently evaluated spinning wing decoys. Their goal was to document hunting success and crippling rates while hunting over conventional decoys while using traditional calls, and make a comparison with the use of just the Moto-Duck. They compared the specie, age, sex ratio and body condition of birds shot, both when using Moto-Duck and when hunting in a conventional manner. Finally, they examined the behavioral response of waterfowl to the spinning wing decoy.

The research was conducted over 37 hunts using traditional decoys and calls and Moto-Duck in 30-minute alternating periods until either limits were filled or six sampling periods (3 hours) were completed. Two volunteer hunters participated in each hunt with a trained observer in a concealed position outside the blind, recording success, behavior. crippling rates and harvest composition.

Even volunteer hunters had strong feelings about the device, with 8.3 percent strongly opposed, another 12.5 percent were opposed, 33.3 percent neutral, 27.8 percent in favor and 18.1 percent, strongly in favor. Ironically, hunters opposed to Moto-Duck, shot more birds with or without it. But, in all cases, all volunteers shot more ducks while using the spinning wing decoy.

While the study indicated the effectiveness of Moto-Duck declined over the season, its use can lead to a significant increase in the number of ducks shot. Defenders of spinning wing decoys maintain they bring birds in closer, and thus eliminate crippling, however the number of birds crippled but not recovered was higher when Moto-Duck was used, though the rate didn't differ significantly. California officials have now banned Moto-Duck for at least part of the season.

Washington officials have taken a more drastic step. Their commission banned the use of these battery-powered decoys.

How long will spinning wing decoys remain effective? Most hunters and waterfowl biologists I've discussed this with believe ducks will become conditioned to them and ultimately be less inclined to decoy to the mechanical duck. I suspect that's true, though I've seen the conditioning evolution become more of a factor with geese.

Evidence? Most hunters believe the super magnum shell decoys are less effective today than they were a decade ago. Flags seemed more effective when there were just a few of us using them. Today, they're commonplace in heavily hunted areas. Have birds become conditioned to recognize super large decoys or flags? Many hunters believe they have.

In the end, it isn't whether Moto-Duck is effective...or will remain effective...as much as it is a question of hunter ethics and values. Flags aren't mechanical. Neither are mouth-blown calls and the use of either depends on the level of skill held by those using them. Mechanical or battery-powered devices do not require the same skill levels.

The questions waterfowlers should be asking is to what extent do we allow technology to invade the sport? Is efficiency more important than method? Is that more important than piling dead birds? Should success depend on a pair of C-cells? When do we say, enough is enough?

Finally, is it more important to maintain “split-rail values?”

There are no easy answers, and pro-technology hunters point to fishing, to the use of sonars and underwater cameras, suggesting their use hasn't harmed fisheries. That the camera is or is not a gimmick is debatable, but sonar has made a difference. Even so, those who deflect attention from spinning wing decoys by shifting the argument toward sophisticated fishing gear, miss a point.

You can release a fish.

Some studies suggest the non-hunting public, a significantly larger slice of the population than either hunters or anti-hunters, can accept hunting as legitimate as long as hunters eat what they kill, and "fair chase" is present.

Electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, seasons outside traditional dates, liberal or no limits all suggest a departure from waterfowling traditions. And it makes this jaded old waterfowler wonder what's fair about this chase?

Leopold addressed technology back in the 1930's when he wrote A Sand County Almanac.

"Then came the gadgeteer, otherwise known as the sporting-goods dealer. He has draped the American outdoorsman with an infinity of contraptions, all offered as aides to self-reliance, hardihood, woodcraft, or marksmanship, but too often functioning as substitutes for them."

He added, "I have the impression the American sportsman is puzzled; he doesn't understand what is happening to him. Bigger and better gadgets are good for industry, so why not for outdoor recreation? It has not dawned on him that outdoor recreations are essentially primitive, atavistic; that their value is a contrast-value; that excessive mechanization’s destroys contrasts by moving the factory to the woods or to the marsh."

Thus, at a time when habitats are more threatened than at any point in modern history; when land use has created a snow goose population explosion; when managers have lost control of goose flocks they started; we are left with this question of “split-rail values.” If Leopold were alive today, I suspect he'd be asking questions in a loud voice. But, in fact, he did.

" Why," he asked, "cannot our concept of sport grow with the same vigor as our list of gadgets?"