Conservation Wildlife Reports

By now many of you may be receiving surveys about the past hunting season. Some consider filling out these reports annoying while others realize the importance of this input. Conservation organizations can not be everywhere. Reports received by the average hunter or angler give them an insight into the current status of a certain species. For example, did you catch bass from a certain lake? What sizes were they?

On the spot creel surveys are just as important. When a biologist discovers a lake is filled with eight-inch bass, then there may be a stunting problem and some may be transferred to a different impoundment. Some areas where you fish may ask you to write exactly what you caught on a form distributed in the parking lot. Fill this out and it will go into an overall report about that lake.

Waterfowl biologists are constantly seeking updated information of different species populations, an endeavor that has been in practice since the dark Market Hunting days of the 1920’s and 1930’s when waterfowl numbers were drastically reduced. Sadly, hunters don’t always cooperate as noted by the 1947 Waterfowl Scorecard Report written by Albert M. Day, Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Duck hunters are pen shy. Only one-tenth of one percent of the 1947 duck stamp buyers could be induced to fill out and mail a simple report. It seems incredible that such a vociferous lot should pass up this golden opportunity to register hits, misses and gripes. But from duck stamp sales amounting to more than one and threequarter million, only 1,962 scorecards were received.

Sporting and conservation magazines, among them, the Conservation Volunteer, did a splendid job, frequently at the sacrifice of paid advertising. To them the Fish and Wildlife Service is sincerely thankful—not only for repeated printing of the scorecard but for the fine editorial comment urging all waterfowlers to make the report for their own good.

But the response was disappointing beyond belief—one out of a thousand. Here was their chance to stand up and be counted; to register protests, make suggestions, and help regulate their sport. To the "corporal's guard" who took pen in hand, the Service expresses its obligation. It is gratifying to get even a little help on a job as big as the management of our migratory waterfowl. Fortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service had inaugurated a check system to furnish supplementary information by personal contact through random telephone calls. In this way, nearly 9,000 stamp purchasers in 32 states were interviewed by service personnel or cooperators.

The 1,962 hunters who sent in scorecards, reported bagging 30,214 birds, and the loss of 4,412 cripples or unretrieved ducks and geese. They had a daily average of 1.8 and a seasonal average of 15.4 birds. About twothirds (1,323) hunted on public areas, 561 shot on private grounds while only 78 patronized the so-called commercial "clubs".

The scorecards received, although showing an average daily bag of 1.8 birds, were apparently sent in chiefly by the more persistent hunters who were in the field enough times to bring in an average seasonal bag of 15.4.

The significance of this is brought out by analysis of the 8,845 personal interviews with duck stamp purchasers. Of these, 1,193 or 13.5 percent did not hunt at all, leaving 7,652 who did.”

These numbers helped paint a picture of ducks harvested that were added to spring waterfowl surveys. Many of these reports were conducted by ground surveys while some of the first airplane-conducted waterfowl surveys actually started in 1947, a practice widely used today, mainly with drones.

Drone images of the ground are taken from multiple vantage points. Through processing these images, a photogrammetry software can then create 3D models, from which it can measure accurate distance, as well as surfaces and volumes of physical objects like waterfowl.

Today Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and state groups like the Missouri Department of Conservation and The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks do a great job of managing waterfowl wetlands. This is important to those that love to watch a flight of pintails or other species. This is even more important for the millions of waterfowl that pass through here and need safe refuge on their southern or northern flights.

Some surveys are by word of mouth from residents. For example, The Missouri Department of Conservation uses sightings of wildlife from several different types of surveys to provide information about the status of wildlife populations throughout the state.

Mr. Day and many others did a magnificent job of bringing back waterfowl numbers in Canada and the United States. But all wildlife and fish need protection. The world population, which is nearing 8 billion, is the highest in history. The need for more building and expanding cities continues at an alarming rate, making the need for conservation and those reports some of you find annoying more important than ever.

Kenneth L. Kieser

The recent summary of the MO Hunting and Trapping Regulations features a picture of a dog on the front cover, perhaps a Brittany or English Setter, I can’t be sure. The pose is classic. Wise eyes. An aged, experienced face. A quail softly clutched in its mouth.

But something was missing. A vital piece of information. I looked everywhere but couldn’t find it anywhere. The dog has no name. No attribution given. No credit present, except for the photographer. I realize this is not uncommon. I just received a magazine and catalogue in the mail full of gorgeous unnamed dog models. But when I thumb through the pages, looking at these provocative canine pictures, something feels wrong. It feels exploitative.

Dogs are not just an accessory to adorn the covers of brochures and magazines. They are not a fashionable prop to be paraded and then kenneled. They are dependents. They are family. They are people. And this is especially true of hunting dogs.