What is wrong with waterfowl biology? Consider this website statement by a Ducks Unlimited biologist:

“Most duck hunters are in no position to second-guess AHM and the decisions made (by professionals) each year. They simply do not possess the training and biological understanding needed to make informed decisions regarding AHM.”

The biologist conceded hunters have the “right” to have an opinion about Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM), the model used by waterfowl managers to annually set hunting regulations. But his belief that hunters are biological know-nothings reflects a growing disconnect between waterfowl professionals and hunters that in my opinion underlies much of what is wrong with today’s waterfowl management.

I refuse to accept as truth the mindset that believes duck hunters are incapable of learning. Any reasonably aware person who truly wants to understand AHM and other concepts of waterfowl management can do so. Wildlife management isn’t rocket science.

What does one need to know to be informed? It isn’t necessary to understand the details. Waterfowl management issues usually conform to common sense. They are rarely counter-intuitive. Even the more involved concepts and their implications can be readily understood by a hunter if someone takes the effort to adequately explain them. The DU biologist’s statement scorns the intelligence of those hunters who want and, I believe, need to be more informed about the future of their sport.

The biologist who spoke these words also stated that he supports “the idea of managing waterfowl by the most objective and scientific methods available.” He later extends his support to “continually improv(ing) the science on which (AHM) is based.” He is not unique in this support. I do not know any waterfowl manager who in principle believes differently, much less takes a contrary view. It’s the equivalent of a motherhood statement in the profession.

The key issue involves the implications of managing waterfowl by using “the most objective and scientific methods available.” Waterfowl management is primarily the application of ecological principles, but it is not as precise as, say, engineering science. Many difficult to determine and measure factors influence the dynamics of waterfowl populations. Predicting the outcome of management initiatives is often so elusive that prudent managers speak only in terms of probabilities.

It is a daunting challenge to gather reliable data and analyze it so that it can be used in predictive models that allow managers to confidently set harvest regulations that will not compromise populations. This is where understanding the details matter. But the details can be confounding even for scientists with very good “training and biological understanding.” Quite simply, even the best “scientific methods available” may never be good enough to achieve the needs and goals of a system that tries to manage a fall flight of 100 million ducks of several species across the diverse habitats of the vast North American continent.

AHM, for example, is a useful and encouraging tool for the management of ducks, but it is very much a work in progress and it may never be able to satisfy the precise demands managers place on it. I believe management frequently seeks more information and insights from the biological data than these data can reliably provide.

Given the imprecise nature of the science, caution, especially when it comes to harvest regulations, should always be the guiding principle of waterfowl management. But even if the science is adequate to cautiously manage waterfowl populations, will we, can we, make decisions based only on the most objective scientific methods available?

Wildlife management cannot be based wholly upon objective science - it never was and never will be. If it were, in most years hunter regulations would be quite different than we now have.

The newly minted manager quickly learns that wildlife management is predominantly about managing people - in the case of waterfowl management, the hunter. The history of duck hunting is rife with examples of political interference thwarting management attempts to regulate the harvest solely on the basis of objective science. The best that even the most committed manager can hope to do is try to resist the inevitable pressures that are brought to bear on him by the lobbying of influential people, from within and outside the system, who in their selfishness and greed show little concern for the long-term interests of ducks and duck hunting.

Duck hunting is big business. It is political. To illustrate this, a few years ago AHM allowed a two-step tightening of regulations. Why did U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, after prodding by the flyway councils, suddenly institute only a one-step change? The service did not believe it could win political support for any downward two-step change AHM’s objective science might recommend. Is this objective science? Not a chance.

To be fair, professional managers find themselves in a difficult position. Many experience a crisis of identity. They are trained as scientists -- not as managers. Those who develop managerial skills learn them on the job, usually on their own initiative. Not surprisingly, for most, pursuing a career as a scientist and working with waterfowl is where their interest lies. Some biologists choose the profession because they’re more comfortable working with wildlife than people. Consequently, they are initially dismayed and eventually disillusioned, often to the point of cynicism with the system, when their expectations conflict with reality. Their career aspirations and expectations set them up for frustration.

But in reality, who is the manager managing ducks for? There would be no need for the huge government and private-sector professional bureaucracies that have developed were it not for hunting. There would be no need for 100 million duck fall flights were it not to sustain an annual harvest - there are plenty of ducks for the non-consumptive use of bird watchers and the public in general. Without duck hunting, AHM and most of the other costly and time consuming issues that preoccupy waterfowl managers would be no more than theoretical debates among academics.

Still, while scientists argue about the details, there is no reason why hunters who want to be involved in the process cannot have their say. Why should they be barred from the decision making process?

Many professionals lack the interest – and certainly take no responsibility -- for informing hunters about the workings and realities of waterfowl management, including the limitations of the science that underpins it. And when it comes to interacting with the outdoor media, historically the conduit between the professional and the hunting community, many managers shun any contact. Like it or not, most waterfowl managers are bureaucrats involved only indirectly with actually managing waterfowl.

Putting the profession on a sound scientific footing was always the objective of its pioneers, but they knew from the beginning that wildlife management had to be both an art and a science. It has come a long way as a science. Certainly, the North American system of waterfowl management is by far the most scientifically based in the world and it is widely viewed as the ultimate model. But experience gleaned from working directly with the resource made men of the early service cautious and conservative. They knew theirs was a young and inexact science, and they were careful not to put too much faith in many of its underlying assumptions.

Interestingly, some of these assumptions, though never adequately tested, drive modern waterfowl management. The science is much stronger today, but still there are serious limitations to its application, and many young managers lack the field experience that might inform and temper their decisions. Having too much faith in an inexact science is risky and this has implications to the future of duck hunting.

What have we truly learned in seven decades of management? We know much more about the biology of ducks but do we manage more effectively than when waterfowl management was in its infancy? Are we truly doing a better job of meeting our primary management goals, the protection of duck populations and hence the future of duck hunting?

It is ironic today that many concerned hunters are the ones asking for a more conservative approach to setting hunting regulations. Many wonder why they do not observe the numbers of ducks the data suggests. Are these and many other experienced hunters just uninformed, or should the professionals currently in charge listen to their concerns and heed their warnings that all is not well? Who better than hunters are in a position to evaluate the initiatives of management - after all, they’re out there in large numbers across the continent, looking for the ducks they’re told are there somewhere.

Comments like the one on the DU website smack of professional arrogance and a lack of respect for the intelligence and legitimate interest of the hunter, and perhaps more tellingly of a naiveté about the very nature of waterfowl management.

The future of the waterfowl biologist and manager is inextricably linked to that of the hunter -- a partnership that relies on the hunters cooperation and participation in the management process. Like any partnership, this has to be based on mutual respect and trust, and the hunter has to feel he is a welcome participant whose views, opinions and perspectives are considered.

My experience tells me this partnership is under stress. A change in attitude is essential for the partnership to continue and doing so will require better communication. I believe that the primary responsibility to make this partnership work lies with the professional. It calls for leadership. This is a matter of accountability -- in the case of government agencies, to the hunter and the public and, in Ducks Unlimited’s case, to a still significant component of its membership.