It is human nature to search for a scapegoat to explain why “duck hunting ain’t the way it used to be,” implying that either the overall population numbers are trending downward and/or the ducks are geographically somewhere else. Few members of our hunting fraternity are willing to admit, or accept personal responsibility for, contributing to the phenomenon that “it ain’t like it used to be” despite the excessively long seasons, high bag limits, highly effective electronic decoys, excessive disturbance and hunting into early February with potentially significant deleterious effects on the success of the reproduction season.

For these people the fault lies with the weather, the birds “holding up north,” the excessive acreage of flooded rice fields for straw decomposition or the Private Waterfowl Preserve (PWP), the latter being the latest whipping boy for frustrated duck hunters and devious California waterfowl organization leaders.

What is a PWP, aka Superclub? It is a relatively large, private contiguous block of land with highly productive seasonal wetlands, dedicated sanctuaries, relatively low hunting pressure (i.e. minimal disturbance) with year round management for waterfowl needs. It provides excellent cover, pair water and brood water, an abundant variety and quality of food and most likely, some degree of predator control. The property owner (or owners) is very likely a dedicated, passionate hunter who views waterfowl conservation as equally, if not more important, than the harvesting of ducks. Superclubs tend to hold large concentrations of ducks throughout the season and generally produce more ducks on the property than are harvested.

What is wrong with this? Is this a bad thing? According to the most vocal critics, PWPs interrupt the widespread distribution of ducks. Overall hunter opportunity is diminished because the ducks are not evenly dispersed throughout the hunting area. These critics seem to view private property rights as an anathema to the majority of the hunting community. Little or no credit is given to the PWPs for providing sanctuary, saving ducks from the gun, providing abundant food, and producing a significant number of ducks.

These critics also fail to comprehend some very relevant and recent research by Dr. John Eadie, the Raveling Professor of Waterfowl Biology, and his graduate students at UC Davis that identified two areas of concern for the very large population of waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway that over-winter in the Central Valley of California. First, “…the extent of wetland habitat required to support wintering waterfowl populations could be 37%-50% higher than previously predicted…” [1]. Second, the quality of seasonal wetlands varies. Dr. Eadie’s team found that the quantity of available food in these wetlands can vary from 200 lbs./acre to 2,000 lbs./acre [2]. The higher quantities of food per acre are found on the more intensively and better managed wetlands which more often than not tend to be PWPs. It takes a significant amount of money, equipment and time each year to optimize the productivity of seasonal wetlands. Unfortunately, the Federal and State refuges often have budgetary constraints which constrain refuge managers from optimal management of their marshes. PWPs have become a significant factor in satisfying not only the over-wintering needs of our waterfowl, but the year round requirements for our large resident mallard population.

Another factor which generates concern is the overall decrease in the amount of residue rice seeds found in the roughly 500,000 acres of rice grown annually in California. Before the introduction of the stripper-header harvester, it was generally accepted that an average of 300 pounds of rice per acre was left in the field after harvest. With the new stripper-header harvesters (in 2006 about 40 percent of the rice acreage was harvested this way) less than 100 pounds of rice is left per acre and much of this may not be utilizable by ducks.

It is also instructive to revisit how the federal refuge system was greatly expanded in the 1930s. As the drought worsened in that decade and duck populations plummeted, many landowners fell on hard times. The federal government bought many of the old duck clubs and turned them into refuges. Today, we have the PWPs pioneering the way for a whole new intensive-management paradigm of private management of a public trust. This resource stewardship that is both complementary and supplementary to the governmental refuge system. At a time when federal and state governments are cutting expenditures for acquiring and, worse yet, managing public refuges, PWPs fill the void.

Interestingly, many of the most vocal critics of PWPs are also apologists for the continued use of spinning wing decoys, claiming that they simply redistribute the kill among the hunters and that the “rich guys” are ticked off because the “poor guys” are killing a few of their ducks. They add that until there is proof positive of a real decline in our flocks and/or an increased kill rate, we should not ban SWDs simply because of the “redistribution” phenomenon. Can we not apply this same argument to the PWPs? Since they have not contributed to a decrease in the total population nor increased the harvest rate, why should anybody complain?

Another issue involves “equal access,” the idea that all hunters should have equal access to a public resource like migratory waterfowl, including the right to hunt ducks on private land. This is an underlying philosophy of some hunters, waterfowl bureaucrats and organization leaders. Terry Anderson, the Executive Director of PERC (Property and Environment Research Center) stated the problem clearly when he wrote, “If access is open to everyone for hunting and fishing, yes, we will have equal access, but it will be equal access to something of little value. There are few more vivid examples of the Tragedy of the Commons.”

The even access philosophy renders no preferential advantage to the efforts and/or skills of the hunter, the voluntary restraint of numerous landowners, the property rights of the landowners to manage the land as they see fit, nor the numerous government programs/incentives to create highly productive private wetlands. My personal experience has clearly demonstrated that there are an increasing number of PWP owners who are avid hunters, but who care considerably more about their total experience in the marsh and view the long term health of our flocks more important than the number of birds on their strap. Should we heed those who would have you believe this is a bad thing?

I view PWPs as not only biologically beneficial for waterfowl, but as an example for others to follow, as well as an excellent counter-point against the anti-hunting crowd. One of the primary factors for the success of these properties is that numerous conservation hunting practices are employed. These include many, if not all, of the following:

These practices make private properties more attractive than neighboring properties. Hence, these properties attract and hold more ducks. With relatively less total disturbance, the ducks will tend to stay on these properties throughout the season. Interestingly, they also tend to have a positive spill-over effect on neighboring properties, just as dedicated refuge hunters know that the high concentrations of ducks in the closed zones are what makes the refuges hunt well.

Importantly, many owners of PWPs find great emotional satisfaction in watching large concentrations of birds work their properties.

The PWP category could also include the Organic Rice Growers whose fields are relatively undisturbed and very lightly hunted, if hunted at all. These growers encourage heavy concentrations of ducks in their flooded fields to add nutrients to the soil and aid in decomposition by stomping straw into the soil. This activity also helps break down the clods in fields which facilitates spring ground work. This is purely a matter of economics and personal preference. Yet, the Organic Rice Farmers are not criticized like PWPs despite doing the same thing and holding large numbers of birds.

Some critics invoke class warfare when they have no logical basis to effectively attack the biological benefits of PWPs, arguing only the rich can afford PWPs. In my opinion, any effort to encourage class warfare will prove detrimental to all hunters. PWPs are on private property. What is being done on these lands is legal, and it is actively encouraged by the government and forward thinking waterfowl scientists. In fact, some of the best PWP wetland plans have been created by biologists who work for an organization whose board includes directors critical of PWPs.

If these types of properties bother the “whack and stack” crowd, I say, “Tough.” They should be grateful that private citizens are willing to augment the refuge system to conserve waterfowl so that future generations can enjoy the hunting traditions that we revere.

I contend that the basic wildness of PWPs is what proves so alluring to their owners. With the wildness comes a sense of escape to an earlier time when waterfowl blackened the sky and had little fear of man. I predict there will be an increasing number of PWPs as more and more waterfowl enthusiasts find beauty, serenity, excitement and a sense of satisfaction in giving back to the resource more than is taken.

I am aware that in the short run PWPs may cause a minor disruption of the historical distribution of ducks, but in the long run the PWPs will greatly benefit waterfowl populations and the hunting community at large. Aldo Leopold understood this well when he wrote “that conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public trust.”

1. Miller, Michael R. and John M. Eadie. 2006. The Allometric Relationship Between Resting Metabolic Rate and Body Mass in Wild Waterfowl and an Application to Estimation of Winter habitat Requirements. The Cooper Ornithological Society 2006. The Condor 108:166-177.

2. Naylor, Luke W., John M. Eadie et.al. Evaluating Moist-Soil Seed Abundance in Central Valley Wetlands to Determine Habitat Needs For Waterfowl. UC Davis. 2005. Unpublished.