This year is ideally suited to judge the performance of waterfowl management. Surveys of the North American nesting grounds this spring found bountiful prairie water. Biologists counted an estimated 41.2 million ducks, the fifth highest “total duck” breeding population on record.

H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, celebrated the survey results by noting that “we have five species that are at record or near record highs, including canvasbacks.” Delta Waterfowl declared the results give “duck hunters plenty to cheer about.” Ducks Unlimited pointed out that “the increase in mallards continues to keep them at levels near the North American Waterfowl Management Plan goal.”1

With comments like this circulating amongst the duck-hunting fraternity, one should not be surprised by the hoopla that has ensued. Many hunters have concluded that waterfowl management finally has got it right, and that we can have long seasons and high bag limits and still maintain an abundance of ducks.

The question we need to ask: Does the biological data support this conclusion?

To find the answer, we must first look at wetland conditions and then examine the traditional biological markers – comparing the breeding populations in 2007 to 2006, to the first year of AHM’s ultra-liberal gunning regulations and to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) goals.

The past three years featured an abundance of water on the northern prairies – 5.4 million potholes in 2005, 6.1 million in 2006 and 7.0 million in 2007. This represents three consecutive years of increasing water. The three-year-average of 6.2 million potholes is 27 percent above the long-term average of 4.9 million potholes.2

The average of 6.2 million potholes not only signifies “high water,” but the total represents the fourth largest number of potholes ever recorded over a three-year period. As we all know, breeding populations generally increase during years of rising or high water.

How have ducks fared under these optimum wetland conditions?3

We begin by comparing the 2006 and 2007 breeding populations. Numbers are in thousands.

As you can see, 11 of 12 species posted increases in breeding populations from 2006 to 2007. Three species – shovelers, redheads, canvasbacks – posted record high numbers.

To the uninitiated, this year’s population boost might seem cause for rejoicing, an endorsement of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) and its ultra-liberal gunning regulations. We can test this assertion by comparing this year’s breeding populations to those in 1997, the first year AHM allowed ultra-long seasons and bag limits.

As you can see, the breeding populations of mallards, pintails, gadwall, widgeon and scaup are lower today than in 1997, the year Adaptive Harvest further liberalized the already liberal season lengths and bag limits.

A further test involves the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. It sets forth the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s breeding population goals for each species under average water conditions. How do our populations today (under high water conditions) compare to the NAWMP goals for the traditional survey area?

This tells us that under optimum wetland conditions, and with an abundance of CRP nesting cover, only seven of 11 species this year equaled or exceeded waterfowl management’s population objective – a 64 percent success rate. When I was in school, this low success rate would have earned a “D” grade.

Importantly, the “D” grade represents the good news. Increasing amounts of land are being withdrawn from the CRP program. Precipitation records tell us we soon will face a decline in numbers of potholes. Both of these actions will cause our duck breeding populations to plummet. In 2005, the last year of average water, eight of 11 species were below management population goals.

With fewer ducks today than when ultra-liberal AHM began, with mallards struggling to meet a population goal far below what the habitat can support, with hunters complaining about seeing fewer ducks than the survey numbers suggest, isn’t it time we admit the obvious? Waterfowl management isn’t the solution; it is the problem. AHM should be immediately tossed on the trash heap.

The storm clouds are gathering. Grim days lie ahead if we continue down the same path.