History of Major Projects

High Plains Mallard Management Unit and the Point System

In the mid-1960's, duck populations were low and hunting seasons were very restrictive ranging from 24 to 40 days with daily bag limits ranging from two to four ducks. This prompted a group of biologists in the western portion of the Central Flyway in the U.S. to consider the possibility of managing ducks in an area smaller than an entire flyway based on "stocks" or populations of ducks that use those areas.

The approach included the analysis of existing data and beginning new projects to enhance required data sets. The first reports, generated in 1966 and 1967, demonstrated that mallards east and west of the 100^th longitude in the U.S. exhibited some different characteristics, most notably the area of origin, the area of harvest, and harvest and survival rates. (The 100^th longitude runs north-south about midway through the Flyway.) In 1968, an experimental late-season, mallard drake-only hunting season was held in a portion of the Flyway west of that line. In 1969, a new way of establishing the daily bag limit for ducks, called the Point System, was tested. Historical data and that collected from these experiments culminated in a 1971 report entitled Justification for the Central Flyway High Plains Mallard Management Unit (Funk, H.D. et.al. 1971. Central Flyway Rpt. 48pp). In 1972, use of the Point System was expanded and the High Plains Mallard Management Unit was considered "operational." In addition, the report provided information that justified different hunting regulations between the Central and Mississippi flyways.

Since 1973, there have been between 10 and 23 additional days available to duck hunters in the High Plains than in the Low Plains (or eastern portion) of the Central Flyway. And, until 1987, the Point System was used by all states taking advantage of the High Plains days.

After nearly 20 years of operation, it was jointly determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Central Flyway Council (CFC) that it was appropriate to evaluate the High Plains and determine if it was still justified. A comprehensive evaluation, which, like the original, took several years of work, was completed in 1997. Howard Funk, Waterfowl Technical Committee member from Colorado at the time the evaluation was undertaken, was one of the authors of both the original and updated evaluations. The 1997 evaluation concludes that the analysis "clearly point to an affirmation of the original justifications for establishment of the High Plains Mallard Management Unit." [The Executive Summary of the 1997 evaluation is available for review]

The Point System (PS), a method to set the daily bag limit for ducks, was adopted in all states in the Central Flyway (CF) except North Dakota and in most states of the Mississippi Flyway. It was required to be used in CF states that elected to use the additional days available in the High Plains. In general. the PS was intended to increase hunting opportunity, especially for those hunters who learned to identify ducks in flight, while providing protection to those species and sexes that needed it.

The CFC supported the PS even after the FWS eliminated it in 1988 and the FWS reinstated it in 1989. But the FWS had changed the rules enough that the PS was adopted by only five states in 1989. All states had adopted the Conventional Bag by 1996.

Return to top

Canada Goose Restoration
(Also see Current Issues - Canada Geese)

The Central Flyway Council (CFC) has placed a high priority on Canada goose management since its inception in 1948. While individual states and provinces worked within their jurisdictions to increase the number of breeding Canadas, the CFC provided an important forum for other management decisions such as those involving inventory and hunting regulations. This is consistent with the Goal of the management plans for each of the five populations of Canada geese that occur primarily in the CF, which is: "Maximum recreational opportunity consistent with the welfare of the population, international treaties, habitat constraints and the interests of all Central Flyway provinces and states."

The CFC considers the restoration of Canada geese a resounding success, given the current population size and amount of recreation being provided hunters and non-hunters alike. However, they have found it necessary to address problems being caused by goose populations that have grown too large, creating conflicts with people. In March 2000, the CFC adopted a document to address this issue entitled Large Canada Geese in the Central Flyway: Management of Depredation, Nuisance and Human Health and Safety Issues. The Goal of that plan is: Manage resident Canada geese in the Central Flyway to achieve maximum benefits from these birds while minimizing conflicts between geese and humans. The Executive Summary and Table of Contents can be reviewed here and the entire document is available in PDF (443 KB).

Return to top

Mallard Modeling Project

During the early 1980's, scientists from varied backgrounds joined forces at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) (opens into a new browser window) to devise a computer model of the "production" part of the life cycle of mallards in the Prairie Potholes of North Dakota (ND), South Dakota (SD) and Montana. One component of the model included the amount of various habitats available for mallards and a measure of how successful mallard nests would be in each. In addition, information was included about the use of such intensive management practices as installing nest baskets. The Central Flyway Council provided $10,000 to NPWRC in 1983 to conduct runs of the model that would show the value of implementing certain management techniques. The objective was to learn how to most efficiently spend limited dollars on future management techniques.

The CFC set out the level or intensity of certain management practices to be evaluated (e.g., how many nest baskets would be installed in each state or how many acres of no-till winter wheat might be planted). A portion of the abstract of the resultant publication reads: "The simulations predicted that implementation of the management plan would increase recruits by 24%. Nest baskets were the most effective treatment … No-till winter wheat was the second most effective ..." Other management practices included were delayed cutting of alfalfa, nesting island construction and use of predator-resistant fencing. (See references.)

The modeling effort set the stage for future developments and use of the model. Between 1984 and 1995, the CF spent an additional $166,000 to gather data and making improved model runs about using inverted culverts for mallard nest structures and implementing intensive management strategies on relatively small areas. The result is that the model is a tool that is usable to waterfowl managers across the Prairie Pothole region.

Return to top

Snow Goose Management
(Also see Current Issues - Snow Geese)

The Central Flyway Council (CFC) recognized the value of conducting research on lesser snow geese in 1977 when it first partially funded a banding project that and the following year. Beginning in 1981, they assisted in funding a long-term study at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba. At the time this project was begun, the effort was geared to obtaining basic information (e.g., population size, production rates, habitat use) about birds that used the Central Flyway during migration and in winter. This study, including its current derivative, the Hudson bay Project, has been annually funded by the CFC and others each year since.

The long-term nature of this study was of great value to the Flyway as the population of snow geese grew rapidly in the 1980's and 90's. It was near La Perouse Bay that the first evidence of problems of over-utilized habitat by geese was observed and reported. Scientists were able to compare reproduction rates and other characteristics of individuals and the population to earlier times when there were many fewer geese. This allowed documentation of a population of snow geese that had grown too large to be supported by the habitat base in the Arctic which in turn has lead to management actions. Between 1981 and 2000, the CF has spent $214,000 on snow goose research that included collection of information on some closely related species.

The CFC sees a value in continuing the work at La Perouse Bay and other locations. They have committed to contributing $15,000/year between 2001-05 to the Hudson Bay Project (opens into a new browser window). The current work is documenting ongoing effects of "too many" geese and of geese moving out of the traditional areas. It is also identifying possible remedial actions that might be taken to improve the habitat after the goose population size is lowered.

The CFC has been actively involved in addressing the over-abundant snow goose issue through several avenues. They have strongly supported efforts to increase the harvest of "light" geese at the national and international level and individual states and provinces have taken action to accomplish objectives. In a recognition of the need to understand the effect of these actions, they are assisting in the funding of a large project being managed my the Canadian Wildlife Service. Besides some members providing in-kind services, the CFC will contribute nearly $150,000 before the project ends in 2004.

Return to top

Adaptive Harvest Management
Harvest Strategies for Ducks
(Also see Current Issues - AHM

In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is ultimately responsible for migratory bird management, adopted a process called Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) for regulating duck harvest in the United States. The intent of the FWS was: 1. to apply the best science available to the selection of duck hunting regulations; 2. reduce the contentious nature that had been present in some years; 3. acknowledge that there is uncertainty associated with establishing regulations and incorporate it into the system; and 4. to maximize what can be learned from each annual cycle of setting regulations. AHM relies on an iterative cycle of monitoring, assessment and decision making to help clarify relationships among hunting regulations, harvest and duck populations.

The Central Flyway Council (CFC) has strongly supported the AHM process since it was first adopted while at the same time being an active participant in the development of related computer models and the regulatory alternatives those models include. They recognize that AHM has partially met its objectives and they believe the opportunity to learn is great. AHM should allow the CFC to better achieve the goal specified in many of its management plans: Maximum recreational opportunity consistent with the welfare of the population, international treaties, habitat constraints and the interests of all Central Flyway provinces and states.

The alternative to AHM is a return to days of setting duck hunting regulations in a more contentious atmosphere and one driven less on science than on opinion. It is the view of the CFC that this is not a good alternative and support for AHM remains high.

Return to top
Return to Philosophies, Projects and Issues