Kevin Giberson

Salvatore Garofalo
GNM-2272-001
Dr. Tredick
04/08/2014
North American Waterfowl Conservation Portfolio
Summary:
By: Kevin Giberson & Sal Garofalo

Waterfowl conservation began receiving attention in the early

1900s, as an increase in unexplained waterfowl mortality, and a
decrease in healthy wetland habitat aroused the awareness of
sportsmen, naturalists, and biologists alike (Bolen 2000). It wasnt until
later years that these stakeholders started to recognize populations
were indeed dying amongst the mudflats and marshes mostly due to
human caused events (Bolen 2000). Unregulated harvests, hunting
with toxic lead shot and the conversion of wetland nesting habitat to
agricultural grassland throughout the early 1900s were some of the
major problems that plagued waterfowl and their habitats (Bolen 2000;
Jonson 2014).
To understand and prevent those problems, the necessity for a
solid foundation in species based population surveys, wetland
management/protection plans, and life-history information of waterfowl
emerged (Bolen 2000). This need for information soon produced an
attraction for biologists, public agencies and private non-profit
organizations that were dedicated solely to the study of waterfowl
conservation and management (Bolen 2000). These foundational
stakeholders would soon carve out the base of waterfowl conservation
in North America, with a sole purpose to ensure that waterfowl would
have a fighting chance to fill the skies of the future for many lifetimes.
As a result, a conservation ethic arose in the United States and
the federal government acted in support of stakeholder actions with
the enactment of many conservation based laws and regulations. One
of the earliest examples of a conservation-based law that still is
endorsed today is the Duck Stamp Act of 1934. Predating the Pitman
Robertson Act of 1937, the Duck Stamp Act was the first of its kind and
was set up to offer a 100% return of funds to be used exclusively for
conservation purposes (Jonson 2014). To date, the sale of Duck Stamps
has generated more than $750 million dollars in the United States
(NAWMP 2012). Together, the funds have successfully been used to

help purchase and/or lease approximately 5.3 million acres of

waterfowl habitat to date in order to ensure protection (NAWMP 2012).
Other influential pieces of legislation include; the ban on Lead
Shot by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986 (which directly
reduced mortality of 64% of mallards in the Mississippi Flyway), the
formation of North Americas Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
also in the year 1986 (which established an international conservation
plan with Canada, Mexico and the United States) and the creation of
the North American Wetland Conservation Act in 1989 (which was
established to support the NAWMP and initiated a partnership incentive
program for public organizations, private landowners and the federal
government) (NAWCA 2014, NAWMP 2012, Bolen 2000).
Historically these great conservation practices have been pretty
much spot on with respect to identifying threats and committing to
goals (NAWMP 2012). However, even with these conservation practices
in place, the decline of waterfowl populations has persisted through
the late 1990s and remains as a threat today (Ringleman 2012).
Overall, this decrease is of very high-ranking concern to the status of
waterfowl in North America, and has led conservationists to the
realization that the future of ducks, geese and swans was not yet
secure (NAWMP 2012; Ringleman 2012). As a result, North Americas
Waterfowl Management Plan was revised in 2012 to introduce new
priorities, and assess threats that will be of concern in the future
(Ringleman 2012).
To list the challenges of greatest priority that were identified in
the NAWMP 2012 revisions, as well as what this paper will be
explaining into further detail, are: 1. The ever threatening and
necessarily unpredictable effects of habitat loss as a direct result from
the future predictions of climate change on North American waterfowl,
and 2. The increase in social and demographic pressures, that is
creating generations of citizens who are increasingly disconnected
from the waterfowl and the necessities needed to successfully manage
their populations (Ringleman 2012).
The issue of climate change is of very high importance to the
future of robust North American waterfowl populations. The most
detrimental impacts of climate change that are predicted to affect
North American waterfowl include: the modification of species range,
variations in the timing of migration, and most importantly the
alteration of wetland habitat required for successful breeding and
nesting (Anderson 2014; Browne, Humburg 2010; Erwin 2009).

In addition, humanistic pressures, such as the conversion of

grassland/wetland habitat to a crop/industry-based landscape has
dramatically increased the possible threats facing waterfowl in the
future. To date, losses of wetland/prairie grassland habitat are
continuing today at the rate of over 80,000 acres per year (Dahl 2006).
Furthermore, 70% of the historical extent of grassland habitat across
the North American Great Plains region already been lost (Dahl 2006).
With both of these imminent pressures facing waterfowl, they face a
very stressful future with little to no chance to adapt.
In addition to climate change, there is an equal or possibly
greater significance of social and demographic pressures that will
affect the ability to conserve waterfowl as a resource, cope with global
trends, and ensure that approaches to management are effective and
efficient. Pressures include the growing disconnect between people and
the outdoors, and the ill-associated connections between natural
resources and conservation. Fortunately, management procedures
such as adaptive resource management and the emergence of four
major values/ethics have the potential to successfully sustain
waterfowl populations in the future.

Challenges, Complexities and Importance of Climate Change:

With help from the assessment reports generated by the IPCC

(2013), it is of no surprise to the current citizens of world, that the
Earths climate is undergoing a rapid change in climate. This is a
concept that scientists and citizens alike have grasped and understood
for quite some time now. Nonetheless, even though we have an
extensive knowledge on the predictions for future change, no practical
solution to this problem has yet been formulated (Browne, Dell 2007).
To me, that is one of the biggest problems facing us as wildlife
conservationists in the future. As a nation, as well as a continent, we
owe it to waterfowl and their habitat to apply our knowledge of
conservation biology, and act upon this inexact science before it is
too late.
All aspects of the environment including North American
waterfowl and their respected habitats are vulnerable to the effects of
climate change (Browne, Humburg 2010; IPCC 2013). It is not too early
or too late in this stage of the game to set up a proactive approach in
order to create resilience to direct and indirect effects of climate
change. If we choose to do nothing, these effects will undoubtedly
harm waterfowl. The effects we should regard as the greatest priority
relative to climate change include modification of species range,
variations in the timing of migration, and most importantly the
alteration of the wetland/prairie grassland habitat required for
successful breeding and nesting (Erwin, 2009; Glick 2005).
An example of what we can expect relative to modification of
species range, the timing of migration, and alteration of habitat can be
seen throughout the continent as, annual mean temperatures increase.
As a result, the distance of travel for waterfowl to the south during the
winter seasons, and north during the summer seasons will be largely

reduced. This will be due to the fact that sources of open water and
sustainable food will be located closer distances. Also, the increase in
mean temperatures will shorten winter months and expand summer
months, causing a mist of confusion amongst waterfowl in terms of
when they should migrate. Ultimately what I am trying to reach is that
these migratory birds may stop being migratory, and we will be
directly to blame!
As a consequence, there will be less species variation and
waterfowl abundance in general that reach the southern areas of the
continent. That means, less people will receive the opportunity (that
we receive today) to utilize the resource through sport, revenue or any
other form. Southern wetlands dependent upon waterfowl and
ecological services they provide will also be neglected, and biodiversity
will be at an all-time low. Im not sure how you feel on this topic, but I
am very frightened for the sake of my Grandchildrens grandchildren
who wish to be a duck hunter like I am.
Another future challenge for North American Waterfowl can be
seen in the pressures regarding the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of
North America (Browne, Dell 2007). To date the PPR is the largest
supporter of habitat for North American Waterfowl, and holds up to 5080% of nesting and breeding ducks every year (which led it to earn the
nick-name Americas Duck Factory) (Browne, Humburg 2010; Glick
2005). Although, with an increase in the human population, energy
production, intensive agriculture, and the effects of climate change
combined this precious habitat has the potential to be transformed to a
waterless, dead field of corn or wheat in a matter of a few lifetimes
(Glick 2005). Right now, losses of wetland habitats are continuing
today at the rate of over 80,000 acres per year (Dahl 2006). As a
consequence, 70% of the historical extent of grassland habitat across
the North American great plains region has already been lost (Dahl
2006). This is what we have already let happen.
Fortunately, the realization of the loss of PPR habitat due to
human development has prompted many conservation agencies (such
as Governmental Agencies and NGOs) to act (Browne, Dell 2007).
Luckily for everyones sake, this has begun a serious conservation
overhaul to ensure this region is around for the long run. Included
conservation activities that are underway are: the creation of new
national reserves and refuges through the collaboration of
management organizations, conservation easements from private
owners on native landscapes, and supplementation of incentives for

more sustainable land-use practices (Glick 2005). Together, these

efforts have helped to ensure we can sustain a robust population of
waterfowl.
On the other hand, whether or not these specific conservation
practices or conservational practices for the continent in general will
be successful in the future, depends on whether or not we as a nation
can retain important security for waterfowl habitat under national
policy and legislation. Some of the important policies that waterfowl
depend on today are the Clean Water Act that was passed in 1972 and
the Agriculture Act that was passed in 2014. Also waterfowl are
dependent on, future policies on international standards such as what
was represented in the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 (Browne, Humburg 2010). Future
policy is of very high importance for the potential of migratory
waterfowl and the status of wetlands in general (Glick 2005).
On the specific level, plans such as the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) of 1986 and later revised in
2012 ensure, that the status of waterfowl will not over looked. Overall,
I see this as a pretty good plan, although there seems to be no
authority to it. In my opinion, to make it a successful plan, is to pass
some of its suggestions into legislation. This would be in the best
interest of the continent to ensure, healthy waterfowl populations for
many years to come. I know it might not be as easy, but what are we
waiting for?
To date, there has been no international management plans
established for the protection of wetlands and other waterfowl habitat
from the affects of global climate change (Petrie et al. 2009). However,
there was a mixture of management procedures that were highlighted
in the 2012 revisions of the NAWMP. Unfortunately, these procedures
were only suggested (not actually put in place) to be enacted in order
to conserve wetlands and other waterfowl habitats. Many of these
procedures follow the same guidelines of practices that are used in
conservation to date and include categories such as land acquisition,
habitat restoration, and the creation of buffer zones along vital wetland
regions in order to counter act climate change.
To look into more specific management techniques from another
scientist that has appealed to me, Mike Anderson Ph.D. (2014), (senior
biologist for Ducks Unlimited Canada) has outlined seven important
steps to prepare waterfowl and habitat for climate change. Of those,
two of which really shine in the face of climate change. The technique

that I consider the most important is to employ adaptive management

when conserving waterfowl and habitat. The definition for adaptive
management is - a systematic process for continually improving
management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of
operational programs.
The second step that really appealed to me on preparing
waterfowl and their habitat for climate change that Dr. Anderson
(2014) elaborates on, is to manage for resilience. This means
eliminating outside pressures from humans, so that the animals have
the ability to adapt to one thing at a time. If done successfully, this
management technique will effectively lower the vulnerability of
climate-induced change.
Overall my opinion is that we as a nation should waste no time in
supporting waterfowl species. They are of too much importance to let
uncertain chance determine their fate.

Challenges, Complexities and Importance of Social & Demographic

Pressures:

In addition to climate change, there is an equal or possibly

greater significance of social and demographic pressures that will
affect the ability to conserve waterfowl as a resource, cope with global
trends, and ensure that approaches to management are effective and
efficient (Bolen 2000; Ringleman 2012). With this being said, every
management plan utilized today has to deal with social values,
adaptive management and economics in order to be effective.
Fortunately, the 1986 NAWMP recognized the importance of these
objectives and advocated for stable harvest regulations with minimum
annual adjustments (Browne, Dell 2007). This asserted that such a

system would sufficiently safeguard waterfowl populations, offer

adequate recreational opportunities, and allow more time to be
directed toward such important waterfowl activities as habitat
protection, management, and improvement (NAWMP 2012).
Before implementation of the NAWMP, waterfowl and hunter
numbers were both plummeting, and it was generally assumed that
the loss of habitat was largely responsible for the decline in waterfowl
populations (Bolen 2000). Also, the associated conservative hunting
regulations and reduced bird abundance triggered a loss of waterfowl
hunters (Bolen 2000; NAWMP 2012). The 1986 NAWMP identified these
issues and set goals such as habitat restoration, land acquisition and
harvest regulations in order to offer millions of bird watchers and
hunters a larger source of recreation for the future (Ringleman 2012).
By all measures, this form of adaptive resource management
(ARM) -which was first implemented in 1995-, has been a tremendous
success (Johnson, Runge 2009). Based on the principles of adaptive
resource management, ARM has provided insights into duck population
dynamics and management controllability (Johnson, Runge 2009;
NAWMP 2012). It has also reduced the contentiousness in the
regulation processes, safeguarded duck populations and offered
substantial hunting opportunity to sportsmen (Bolen 2000). Indeed, the
success of the ARM approach has led to an ongoing proliferation of
model based harvest strategies for other species of ducks and, in some
cases, stocks of ducks of the same species (NAWMP 2012). Adaptive
resource management can be described in terms of six components;
assessing the problem, designing a solution, implementing that
solution, monitoring the effectiveness, evaluating and finally adjusting
in order to sustain a population where there is no simple solution.
To date, sportsmen and other recreationalists play a major role in
Adaptive Management; they fill out surveys, call in band numbers and
influence major conservation decisions (Anderson 2014; Johnson,
Runge 2009). Overall, management agencies get a better sense of the
population due to the impact of the associated stakeholders. Officials
believe that they do not think that they would have a population today
if it wasnt for hunters. Waterfowl hunting in North America is managed
better than any other natural resource in any other part of the world
(Johnson, Runge 2009).
Ultimately, the balance point depends heavily on peoples
connection to waterfowl and the natural worlda connection that is
rapidly eroding. This disconnect from the outdoors has been cited as

the greatest challenge facing the conservation community (Glick 2005;

NAWMP 2012). Hunters have always had a close connection with the
outdoors emotionally and have played parts in wetland and waterfowl
conservation for centuries. The problem with our country is the
growing disconnect of society: The biggest single threat to
conservation in America is the growing disconnect of our people with
the outdoors (NAWMP 2012). To put it bluntly, too many people out
there waste their time indoors.
Studies show that a little time outside everyday positively affects
the body, mind, and spirit (NWF 2014). The idea that spending time in
nature can make you feel better is natural. Many of us have narratives
of our own or from friends or family that support that idea. People who
have been suffering from stress or sickness can spend quiet time in
their yards or take go take a hike or walk at a local park or in the
woods to heal. But nature is not just wilderness. The benefits of nature
can also be found in our communities parks and green spaces.
Findings reported in the literature show that people who walk 15 to 30
minutes a day are healthier than people who dontthey have fewer
diseases, are less likely to get cancer, have a lower risk of heart attack
and stroke, and have better bone density (Kruger 2014).
To combat these associated difficulties, there are two major
social values and two major ethical beliefs that we believe, might be a
possible solution to the disconnect of people from the outdoors.
Together those include aesthetic values, intrinsic values, deep ecology
ethics, and land/conservation ethics. Aesthetic values deal with the
belief that we should keep waterfowl around because they are
beautiful (Chirenje 2014). Intrinsic values deal with conserving
waterfowl and their habitat because they are waterfowl, and they are
just as much a part of the natural world as humans (Chirenje 2014).
Deep Ecology ethics refers to the fact that we as humans do not have
the authority to judge the existence of waterfowl as less important as
our own (Chirenje 2014). Land/Conservation Ethics, seek to guide the
human action over the land. To be successful under these ethical guide
lines Aldo Leopold, the father of conservation instructs us to take
responsible stewardship over the land (Chirenje 2014). In his terms,
responsible stewardship of the land means caring for Gods creation
and conserving the land because it will determine the quality of our
future and survival.
If we can raise the acceptance capacity of waterfowl and their
respective habitats through the institution of these beliefs and ideas,

we believe conservation of waterfowl amongst North America will also

increase. Economics associated with these values account more than
$50 billion dollars annually in economic activity alone (Ducks Unlimited
2014). Just imagine how much conservation can be accomplished from
the combination and collaboration of all four beliefs.

Discussion Questions:

By: Kevin Giberson & Sal Garofalo

1.

What is the best way of incorporating aesthetic and intrinsic

values into conservation based management procedures?
How can you support these values effectively in legislation?
Are there any examples of past research that have done
something similar? Is the best way to measure these values
amongst people through random surveys like we saw in classrelated examples?

2.

How will the uncertain predictions of climate change affect

individual species of North American Waterfowl? Will there be
a species that has a better chance of survival? If so, what
characteristics distinguish that species? The ability to adapt
faster? Higher population numbers?

3.

When will the NAWMP stake holding countries (USA, Canada,

Mexico) start to revise the 2012 NAWMP again? Will they
successfully identify and act upon predictions of climate
change, and social pressures (two of the major problems they
identified in 2012)? Maybe even push some of these practices
through legislation?

Suggestions for Additional Research:

By: Kevin Giberson & Sal Garofalo

After reading through the research on the topic of global climate

change, I could barely find any journal articles on individual species,
and how they would be affected separately. I am guessing this is
because waterfowl in general are very connected and share the same
traits, although it would be very interesting to see how certain species
would be affected. Also it would be fascinating to see how waterfowl
would be affected on the local scale, such as here in NJ. Overall,
everything else was pretty thorough.
On the topic of social and demographic pressures, what is the
best way of measuring the associated monetary values of each belief?
After researching the different topics, it was hard to find exact figures,
everything was an estimate. Is this because no-one can really measure
them? This gap in knowledge kind of pushed us to question the
certainty of these estimates. In the future, we would suggest

researching how these topics can be measured effectively. It would be

nice to see the values on a local scale as well.
Resources:

Anderson, Michael. "Ducks in a Changing Climate." Public Policy. Ducks Unlimited, 2014. Web. 12
Apr. 2014.
Bolen, Eric G. "Waterfowl Management: Yesterday and Tomorrow." The Journal of Wildlife
Management 64.2 (2000): 323-35. Print.
Brown, Dawn, and Dale Humburg. Confronting the Challenges of Climate Change for Waterfowl and
Wetlands. Memphis, TN: Ducks Unlimited, 2010. Print.
Brown, Dawn, and R. Dell. Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands Amid Climate Change. Memphis, TN:
Ducks Unlimited, 2007. Print.
Canada, Mexico, United States. North American Waterfowl Management Committee (NAWMC). North
American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 30 Nov.
2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
Chirenje, Tait. Biodiversity. Environmental Issues- Lecture Series. The Richard Stockton College of
NJ, Pomona. 9 April 2014. Lecture.
Erwin, Kevin L. "Wetlands and Global Climate Change: The Role of Wetland Restoration in a Changing
World." Wetlands Ecology and Management 17.1 (2009): 71-84. Print.
"Fish and Wildlife Service | Southeast Region." Fish and Wildlife Service | Southeast Region. Web. 08
Apr. 2014.
Glick, P. 2005. The Waterfowlers Guide to Global Warming. Washington, DC. National Wildlife
Federation.
Griffith, Brad, J. Michael Scott, Robert Adamcik, Daniel Ashe, Brian Czech, Robert Fischman, Patrick
Gonzalez, Joshua Lawler, A. David Mcguire, and Anna Pidgorna. "Climate Change Adaptation for the
US National Wildlife Refuge System." Environmental Management 44.6 (2009): 1043-052. Print.
"Health Benefits - National Wildlife Federation (NWF)." Health Benefits - National Wildlife Federation.
Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Hunters Role in AHM. Perf. Fred Johnson, Mike Runge. US Flyways Council, 20 July 2009.web.
IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S, Qin
D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Avery KB, Tignor M, and Miller HL. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, pp 1996
Jonson, Laurence F. "History of Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act." Department of Natural Resources.
State of Maryland, 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Kruger, Linda. "U.S. Department of Agriculture." Health and Wellness Benefits of (n.d.): 1-2. Web. 12
Apr. 2014.
NAWMP Action Plan. Perf. Jim Ringleman. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan - 2012
Revision. NAWMP, 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.
"North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)." Division of Bird Habitat Conservation. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries and Habitat Conservation. Status and Trends of
Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. By T. E. Dahl: United States, 2006. Print.
United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Science
Support Team. Guidelines for Establishing Joint Venture Waterfowl Population Abundance Objectives.

By Mark Petrie, Michael Brasher, Greg Soulliere, John Tirpak, Duane Pool, and Ryan Reker. Technical
Report No. 2011-01. Washington D.C.: USA, 2009. Print.
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Research Center USGS. By Angela V.
Graziano and Diana H. Cross. United State Department of the Interior, 1993. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Wetlands and Grassland Habitat. Benefits of Wetlands and Grassland Habitat. Ducks Unlimited,
2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.