Current Projects and Issues

The Central Flyway Council (CFC) is addressing several current issues through funded projects and constant involvement in formal processes. This work takes place at state/provincial, national and international levels.

• Snow Geese
• Canada Geese
• Duck Banding
• White-front Banding
• Scaup
• Pintails
• Adaptive Harvest Management
• North American Waterfowl Management Plan
• North American Bird Conservation Initiative

Snow Geese

The history of the CFC's involvement with lesser snow goose issues is discussed in the Major Project History section of this site. The issues surrounding the over-abundance problem of snow geese are addressed in several articles by Mike Johnson, a publication entitled Arctic Ecosystems in Peril and other references.

While a number of actions are under way in an attempt to reduce the number of "light" geese, which includes snow, blue and Ross' geese, the focus has been on increasing the kill by hunters. This is being done with liberal hunting regulations during regular hunting seasons and through a Conservation Order (CO) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Conservation Order is an extraordinary move by the FWS that allows, among other things, the take of light geese between 11 March and 31 August, which is outside the normal framework for hunting allowed by the Migratory Bird Treaty.

The CFC supports the Conservation Order and other actions that have the potential to reduce the size of the Mid-continent population of snow geese and similarly situated populations of Ross' geese. The CFC also believes it is important to learn if these actions are being successful. Thus it is partially funding, along with a number of other partners, surveys and banding programs to learn about snow goose distribution and population and harvest rate estimates. The Flyway has contributed nearly $25,000 annually (with the Northwest Territories contributing in-kind services) between 1998 and 2000 and is committed at the same level through 2003.

There is evidence that harvest levels have increased over the last couple of years. Regular season, average annual harvest increased 22% in the Central Flyway to 365,600 between the periods 1994-96 and 1997-99. Harvest increased 85% to 322,100 in the Mississippi Flyway during the same periods. The combined average annual harvest for 1997-99 was 687,600 birds. In the late-winter and spring of 1999, the first year the CO was available to states, over 341,700 additional light geese were taken in the two flyways combined. Over 601,800 light geese were taken under the CO in 2000. In other words, the harvest has nearly doubled. While these numbers are encouraging and are approaching those that population models indicate are necessary, sound statistics about harvest rates, the proportion of the population that is being harvested, remain somewhat elusive.

In addition, the Council has assisted the FWS in production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the Conservation Action. The comment period for the EIS ended in February 2002 and the CFC's official comments are available in pdf. This important document may set the stage for future actions to reduce population size.

Return to top

Canada Geese

The CFC has worked for decades to increase the number of Canada geese in the Flyway, including those that migrate long distances, those with shorter migrations and those that spend their entire lives within a relatively small area (see Canada Goose Restoration). The current major issue is how to control over-abundant local geese while maintaining the overall health of the larger populations. Strategies to accomplish this are included in a document 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 can be reviewed here and the entire document is available in PDF (443 KB).

This document is the Central Flyway's contribution to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the FWS on the control of Resident Canada geese. The EIS was published in early March, 2002 and the Central Flyway provided official comments. The entire EIS is available on the web at the USFWS site.

Return to top

Duck Banding

The first scientific banding of birds in North America was done by Dr. Paul Bartsch, who banded about 100 black-crowned night herons in the District of Columbia in 1902-1903. Between then and 1949, the Austin Ornithological Research Station in Massachusetts and E. A. McIlhenny from Louisiana each placed about 200,000 bands on birds. Many other individuals and scientists were also banding birds in that period. While the banding operations themselves provided information, it was the returns of those bands, mostly by hunters, that provided the most data. Dr. Frederick C. Lincoln is credited with discovering "flyways" or migration routes using banding data.

Since then, millions of leg bands have been placed on birds across North America. Some banding programs have been "operational" or occur every year for decades. But many times, banding operations have been conducted in places where there is a dependable and relatively large supply of ducks. This approach works well for many purposes but in 1995, the CFC recognized that there was a large "hole" in the data - ducks that breed in the west-central portions of the flyway had not been banded in sufficient numbers to derive any conclusions about their migration routes or survival rates. This area of western North Dakota and South Dakota, eastern Montana and northeast Wyoming, while not having the large number of wetlands as in the Prairie Potholes, raises substantial numbers of ducks. Three maps of recoveries for mallards and blue-winged teal are available.

With $24,000 from CF states, biologists conducted a pilot study in 1996 to learn if enough ducks could be caught and banded in the region. Just over 14,000 ducks were banded, including 3,300 mallards and 10,000 blue-winged teal. Other totals are presented in the table below.

Since one objective of the study is to compare ducks from one banding area to another, the CFC wanted to insure that ducks continued to be banded in traditional places and other nearby locations. With that in mind, the FWS reaffirmed their commitment to banding on refuges, Ducks Unlimited funded a separate crew and individuals from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, National Audubon Society and the Lower Brule Indian Reservation provided valuable assistance. In total, nearly 246,000 ducks have been banded across the region between 1996-2001.

The CFC has spent $218,000 during the course of the six-year program that ended after the 2001 field season. The effort will enhance the overall knowledge of the waterfowl management community. The data derived from this study will provide a baseline of data for detecting change and may allow the Flyway to justify changes in future hunting seasons. This banding project has resulted in the establishment of operational stations that are more representative of Central Flyway mallards. More about the project is contained in the Surveys for Management section of this web site.

Return to top

White-fronted Goose Banding

The management of greater white-fronted geese has always been a high priority in CFC. The species is a highly prized game bird and has some unique characteristics. Their breeding range extends from the North Slope of Alaska to Baffin Island in the Arctic and their wintering range extends from Louisiana to Mexico's Highlands. Annual indices of the size of the Mid-continent Population have historically occurred in the Central Flyway and still do today. Between 1990 and 1996, the CFC contributed $85,000 to a project with an objective of banding and neck-collaring white-fronts on the breeding ground. The resultant data lead to a redefinition of the population's range and a more-soundly based management plan.

As a follow-up to that study, the CFC is funding additional banding on the breeding grounds. The project got under way in 1998 and is scheduled to continue until 2003. Over that course of time, the Flyway will have contributed $36,000, including in-kind contributions from the Northwest Territories.

Return to top

Scaup

"The combined breeding population of greater (Aythya marila) and lesser scaup (A. affinis) is larger than that of any other diving duck species and greater than that of most dabbling ducks in North America. Scaup are the most widespread of North American diving ducks (Tribe Aythini), extending from northern tundra in Alaska and Canada in summer to southern Mexico in winter." These sentences are from a report by the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) (opens into a new browser window) based on a workshop held in 1998 to consider the status of scaup. The workshop, in which the Central Flyway participated, was held because "the scaup population has continued a nearly steady decline since the mid-1980's." The population was at a record low in 1998 to 2.94 million lesser and 528,000 greater scaup. The 1999 and 2000 estimates were somewhat higher. The current data indicates that the greater scaup population is stable while that for lesser scaup is declining. The scientists at the workshop examined hypotheses for the decline and outlined needed research to answer related questions.

The primary issues raised by the group are the need to learn about seasonal (summer, migration and winter) survival rates, reproductive rates and ways to manage the two species separately. The roles of hunting, contaminants, human activities such as mining and oil and gas development, climate and drought all need studied. There was a consensus that reduced recruitment is playing an important role. These studies will be difficult and expensive as is indicated in a conclusion about separating the two species: "The only method to assess species composition in the surveyed areas is a ground survey from Hudson Bay to the west coast of Alaska."

The report notes that harvests of both scaup species has declined in Canada (1974-97) and that for greater scaup has declined in the U.S. (1961-97). Harvest of lesser scaup in the U.S. has been "variable but has increased in the most recent 4-5" years, which would be for the years 1993-97. It goes on to say that "Scaup are lightly harvested … suggesting that hunting has not played a significant role in their decline.

The Central Flyway (CF) plays a minor role in terms of harvest and wintering scaup. In recent years, lesser scaup have comprised 3% of the total duck harvest in the CF with greater scaup making up less than 1%. Less than 20% of the total U.S. lesser scaup harvest occurs in the CF while 12% of the greater scaup harvest occurs there. The CF winters 9% of the total counted in the U.S.

The CFC supported a reduction in the scaup daily bag limit in 1999 to three/day in light of increased harvest estimates in recent years even though there is essentially no evidence that harvest caused the decline in population size. The CFC supports ongoing efforts to learn about scaup and ways to improve their status.

Return to top

Pintails

The index to the northern pintail population has been below objective levels since about 1980. It declined in a steady manner through 1993 and has been stable at a slightly higher level since then at 2.9 million (1994-2000 average). This is 33% below the long-term (1955-99) average of 4.3 million.

Pintails push winter as they head north in March and early April. They prefer sparse vegetation as nesting sites leaving them vulnerable to predators and the plow as crop fields are prepared for planting. Most scientists believe that the lack of suitable breeding habitat is responsible for the lack of sustained growth of pintail populations since the drought of the late-1980's-early 1990's ended in a major portion of the breeding range. The Conservation Reserve Program, which provides U.S. farmers with incentives to plant and maintain grasslands, has proved successful in increasing pintail breeding populations in the U.S. to record levels. However, the heart of pintail breeding habitat is in Prairie Canada where no such program exists. One idea considered was the possible effect of increased small grain farming in Canada where stubble in fields would attract nesting pintails. Birds selecting this habitat are highly vulnerable to predation and being killed or displaced by normal farming operations.

In the period 1995-99, an average of 127,000 pintails were harvested annually. This was 22% of the U.S. total. About 60% of the CF harvest occurs in Texas with an additional 24% coming from North and South Dakota combined. The daily bag limit for pintails in the CF has been one in most years since 1988 and is adjusted according to a set of guidelines that the CF helped formulate.

The Central Flyway has been and remains concerned about the status of northern pintails. They are looking forward to the completion of a population model currently under development. In addition, a group of scientists will assemble in the spring of 2001 to review and summarize what is known and what is not known about pintails and will hopefully develop both research and management options.

Return to top

Adaptive Harvest Management for Ducks

This subject is discussed in the History of Major Projects section of this site. Details about what is Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) are also available as is information about the larger process of Adaptive Resource Management. It is important that AHM also be considered under the Current Issues header since AHM for ducks is still in its infancy and much uncertainty about its future remains.

AHM has not been tested in an environment of declining or low mallard populations and that test is surely to come. This will not be so much a biological test as one of resolve by administrators and others (Technical Committee and Council members, FWS personnel and others) to stick with a system for the selection of duck hunting regulations that is different than the one used in the past.

Another issue that remains at least partially unresolved is how to handle populations of mallards other than or smaller than the Mid-continent and Eastern populations. In addition, the process for including other species such as pintails is also not resolved. These issues are highly technical in nature but also have a "political" component. If, for example, the Central Flyway had the knowledge and resources to "separate" the stock of mallards harvested in the Flyway from those harvested elsewhere (if in fact, a separate stock exists), perhaps hunting regulations would be able to be less tied to those other places.

Another unresolved issue is the use of Framework Dates, those "outside" dates within which states can select their hunting season. Specifically, some northern states would like the option of starting their season before the traditional "Saturday nearest 1 October" and some southern states would like to hunt later into January than they are currently permitted to do. Because the Flyway and the FWS has an extremely limited amount of experience of allowing hunting in these periods, the effect of doing so is largely conjecture. In turn, this uncertainty can lead to obtaining different results from the AHM models and a larger portion of the country could be affected by changing hunting regulations.

Without making this discussion of AHM even more complex, suffice it to say that the implementation of AHM will likely remain an important issue in the Central Flyway and elsewhere for years to come.

Return to top

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

During the early 1980's, drought persisted across a broad region of breeding duck habitat and duck populations were in a significant decline. Waterfowl biologists and administrators from across North America (N.A.) seized the opportunity to highlight a problem worse than the drought - the loss of wetland and breeding habitat. Their concern was that when the drought ended, ducks still would not have sufficient habitat. They also recognized that governments, acting alone or in coordination, would not be able to stem the tide of habitat loss. From these insights, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) (opens into a new browser window) was born in 1986 at a signing ceremony of Canadian and U.S. dignitaries. Mexico became a full partner in the Plan with the 1994 update.

The purpose of the Plan is "to achieve waterfowl conservation while maintaining or enhancing associated ecological values in harmony with other human needs." It recognizes that "the perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends on the long-term protection, restoration, and management of habitat on an ecosystem basis." It established population goals for many species of ducks and for species and populations of geese. It set out a set of habitat objectives as well.

These were important steps. But the Plan went beyond that, saying that success "would require an unprecedented partnership of public and private organizations from a wide spectrum of society." The Plan proposed a series of Joint Ventures (JV) across N.A. and established priority areas where they would work. Most of these were Habitat Joint Ventures, but two were "species" JVs dedicated to work on black ducks and Arctic nesting geese.

Joint Ventures are by design, driven locally where "locally" means within the region affected. Five Habitat JV are in the Central Flyway: Prairie Pothole (U.S. portion); Prairie Habitat (Canadian portion); Rainwater Basin; Playa Lakes and Gulf Coast. These JV's have a Management Board comprised of local partners working collectively toward habitat objectives. They developed their own objectives and strategies.

The Joint Venture model has worked very well. The CFC is proud of the role it played in developing the NAWMP and activities and projects that have grown from its existence. The CFC believes that much more work needs to occur to meet NAWMP objectives and is committed to carrying out that work.

Return to top

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

While the successes of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) were being recognized, individuals who had similar concerns about declining populations of other species of birds began working on plans to protect those populations and enhance their status. Examples are Partners in Flight (all these links open into a new browser window), an organization working on neo-tropical migratory birds, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. These efforts have generated some success themselves but were largely working on their own, without much coordination between them.

A group of individuals, mostly administrators, concluded that there was overlapping conservation interests by these various efforts and that having an integrated plan for delivery of bird conservation measures would work better. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) arose from these discussions. The vision of the NABCI is to see "population and habitats of North American birds protected, restored and enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state and local levels, guided by sound science and effective management." They want to broaden partnerships, increase the amount of money available for bird conservation and facilitate "integrated bird conservation." Their Goal is "to deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships."

NABCI is young, having produced a final Vision document in March 2000. The CFC has endorsed the concepts expressed in the document but provided a number of questions and issues for the NABCI Committee to consider. For now, the CFC is operating under its near-term Mission statement which maintains the focus of the Flyway on migratory game birds and the building of partnerships.