WATERFOWL Breeding Grounds of Far North Now Poorly Tenanted

While everything possible is being done to restore unwisely drained and cultivated areas in the United States to waterfowl, it must not be forgotten that far to the north there are extensive nurseries to which an adequate breeding stock of the birds must annually be returned.

Investigations conducted by the Bureau of Biological Survey afford many specific instances of excellent breeding grounds that are poorly tenanted, and indicate that this condition prevails over immense areas. The breeding population is relatively sparse over the Canadian and Alaskan ranges of several species of waterfowl that are important by reason of their former abundance and their wide distribution in the United States during their migrating and wintering. Observers of the southward waterfowl flight of 1934 reported the returning flocks from northern nesting grounds as the smallest on record.

Sportsmen and naturalists in the fall of that year were prepared to expect, only meager returns from the few nesting grounds that still remain in the drought-parched areas of our northern plains, both in the United States and the Prairie Provinces; but farther north there are still suitable breeding grounds that afford hope for the future—if an adequate seed stock is maintained.

Beyond the northern boundary of the section most affected by the great drought—a curving line that crosses central Canada between Lake Winnipeg and the Rocky Mountains, an area stretching from Hudson Bay to the Rockies and from the Saskatchewan Valley north to the Arctic Ocean—lies a region aggregating upwards of a million and a half square miles that would seem to have been prepared by Nature especially for a waterfowl nursery. Its inherent productivity is the result of a series of great geologic and climatic processes, the most important of which were exerted by the vast ice fields of the glacial period and the readjustments that followed their disappearance.  Practically the entire area was then ground and scoured, violent shifts of the soil took place, the drainage systems underwent drastic changes, and myriads of new lakes were formed.

After the recession of the ice many thousands of years passed while Nature clothed the bare rocks with lichens and mosses, fertilized the sterile soil with the products of decayed vegetation, and finally covered the terrain with forests and lesser plants. Through the slow process of encroachment by vegetation, thousands of lakes became marshes and eventually solid ground. Other thousands are still in the process of being filled.

The lichens and mosses, which have so effective a role in first clothing a newly born land, still form an important part of the vegetative cover and make much of the area a vast sponge that receives moisture avidly, but dispenses it with reluctance. Other classes of plants, spread by wind and water and encouraged by the almost continuous sunlight of the long summers, have helped through the ages to build up a varied and prolific invertebrate and vertebrate fauna, a teeming biota whose members are mutually interdependent. Of this great aggregation the waterfowl are a part.

Over this vast area of a million and a half square miles, the lakes probably average one to the mile, despite the fact that a few are 200 or 300 miles long. Thus, by a conservative estimate, there are in this region more than a million lakes and marshes virtually unmodified by man’s presence, where drought is unknown, and where the food and shelter for waterfowl are ample. Distribution and migration studies show that a large proportion of the waterfowl species most important to wildfowlers not only of the Mississippi Valley but also of both the Pacific- and Atlantic-coast regions, nest naturally in this great area.

From November to mid-April this region is fast frozen, but with the melting of the snow and ice the eager waterfowl return to their ancestral homes there, the earliest following closely the retreating ice. Among the first are the swans, which subsist largely at this season on the roots of the broadleaved cattail (Typha latifolia). Shortly afterward follow the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), the snow goose (Chen hyperborea), Ross’s goose (C. rossii), and the white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons). All these gather at first in the larger marshes and the deltas, where they rest and feed on the sprouting heads and the roots of Equisetum, locally called goosegrass, a very abundant plant.  Later these geese, as they work their way northward, have recourse to the overwintered berries of a number of trailing upland shrubs, whose fruit is available in spring, when some of the waters are still icebound.

With the geese come ducks of more than a dozen species, and these seek first the larvae, and probably the eggs, of toads and frogs, and the snails of two genera, Limnaea and Planorbis, that develop by myriads in the waters. Insect life is enormously abundant, and the larval forms of those that develop in the water are especially important.  These include May flies (Ephemeridae, both nymphs and adults); dragonflies (nymphs); water bugs and water beetles; and the young of many other smaller insects. Even the thronging larvae of mosquitoes are eaten by the young ducks. As the season progresses the marshes are filled with many plants that furnish food and shelter, including the large reed Phragmites phragmites, sedges (Carex utriculata and C. aquatilis), great bulrush (Scirpus lacustris), common pondweed (Potamogeton natlans), fennel-leaved pondweed (P. pectinatus), white-stemmed pondweed (P. praelongus), clasping-leaved pondweed (P. perfoliatus), and northern pondweed (P. alpinus). Sweet flag (Acorus calamus), yellow pond lily (Nymphaea advena), water persicaria (Polygonum amphibium) and other smartweeds, and the broad-leaved sagittaria (Sagittaria latifolia) also abound in suitable places.

That this great region no longer harbors a reasonable share of the teeming waterfowl population that bred there in the early days is most discouraging to conservationists. Old residents testify to a reduction of 75 percent in the past 20 years. Today, with no change in the physical environment, and with a food supply that would still suffice or the former unparalleled wealth of bird life, these myriad swamps and lakes are occupied by scarcely a tenth of their potential waterfowl population.  We have not yet exterminated any of the thirty-odd species that formerly graced this great waterfowl paradise, but we have allowed several of our most beautiful and useful species to be reduced to a pitiful remnant.

Although about 75 percent of the waterfowl shot in North America are taken in the United States, an overwhelming majority of these birds (about 85 percent) are produced in Canada and Alaska, and if the time ever comes when certain of the species are no longer represented in the flocks that come from the far-northern breeding grounds, we shall know that they are gone forever. We have already lost the Labrador duck and several other North American birds whose tremendous populations seemed to early observers to insure their perpetuation, and it is none too soon to take thought of the danger suggested by the rapid diminution of any species that is subject to special pursuit.

The folly of relying alone on the presence of extensive breeding areas to perpetuate a threatened species is well illustrated by the story of the extermination of the passenger pigeon. In 1860 a legislative committee of Ohio declared:

   The passenger pigeon needs no protection. Wonderfully prolific, having the vast forests of the north as its breeding grounds, traveling hundreds of miles in search of food, it is here today and elsewhere tomorrow and no ordinary destruction can lessen them.

Ten years later this pigeon, which was numbered among the millions in the memory of many people now living, had become scarce. Within 30 years it was practically extinct, and the last known representative of its race died in a zoological park 20 years ago.

It is well, therefore, before it is too late, that we be warned by the rapid diminution of several of our waterfowl species, the numbers of which a generation ago recall today the scoffings of the last century regarding the passenger pigeon. Unless we take care of the stock that is needed to bring back to its maximum productivity the great northern breeding grounds of the wildfowl, our efforts to restore this great resource by other means will bear but small and bitter fruit, for we shall be without the breeding stock to populate these ancestral grounds.

   If, on the other hand, the nature-minded people of North America really wish it, the waterfowl paradise of the North can again welcome to its marshes the hordes that were the wonder of former times. To this end, it is necessary to spare and send back each spring to these fertile nesting grounds a yearly increasing stock of the beautiful species that still carry on there.

WATERFOWL Problems Clarified by Study of Gunning Practices

With the alarming decrease in waterfowl numbers in North America in recent years, sportsmen and conservationists have been faced with a problem of national importance. The Bureau of Biological Survey, charged by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the custodianship of the waterfowl while they are in the United States, has made extensive studies of the factors affecting the birds. Investigators have obtained essential data on breeding conditions, on natural enemies, and on the potential resources of the waterfowl; also they have studied modern gunning practices.

The destructiveness of any modern hunting method is not so serious when considered alone, but when the various devices and practices are used in combination, they are capable of great abuse. The battery, sinkbox, decoy, scull boat, and repeating gun all become much more deadly when used with bait, for instance.

The baiting practice is vigorously condemned by many and highly praised by others, but this divergence of opinion may be somewhat clarified by pointing out that "baiting” refers specifically to the use of artificial food to attract birds to be killed, whereas "feeding” is the provision of artificial food for all other purposes. Baiting was thus not developed through any altruistic spirit to help waterfowl but to facilitate the killing of birds.  The bait (usually grain, such as corn or wheat) is commonly placed within gunshot of blinds, though the methods vary somewhat in different sections of the country. The period of baiting also varies somewhat, but in most areas it covers slightly more than the gunning season and often ceases when the most inclement weather develops—when there is the greatest need for extra food. Only comparatively few of the better clubs continue to feed as long as there are birds left, or until spring migration starts.

Bait probably gives the average gunner a 100-percent advantage, and members of clubs that bait may have fair success in their shooting even though few birds are in the general section. Baiting concentrates the waterfowl in a limited area and quickly tames the birds.

By holding birds in an area where natural conditions would not favor them, baiting, to some extent at least, prevents migration. In an area subject to severe winter freezing this may result in serious losses after the close of the gunning season, when from the standpoint of shooting there is no further occasion for feeding.

In rare cases some advantages accrue from baiting; for instance where a club with large and well-protected holdings reduces the kill that would otherwise occur if the property were open to public shooting. A number of large clubs where baiting is carried on but where only moderate or little gunning is done may serve almost as sanctuaries at private expense. On a few of these, more birds are produced than are killed. It is regrettable that such cases cannot be considered representative of the average club that baits.

Some serious evils of gunning are sometimes brought about through the use of automatic and pump s, which throughout the country appear to be used more commonly than either the double- or single-barreled gun. The objections to the repeating guns are that in the hands of good shots they facilitate slaughter, and in the hands of less experienced shooters they produce a tremendous amount of crippling.  The hunter using a repeating gun is tempted to depend too much upon a barrage of fire in the direction of a flock without taking time to single out his bird. Consequently the standard of accuracy is lowered and the percentage of cripples enormously increased. It rarely happens that one can get more than two shots while the birds are within effective range.

Decoys are used in varying numbers and in many different ways in various parts of the country. Like other methods of gunning their use has greater application as the birds decrease, and there is no question that in most sections they greatly facilitate gunning and increase the kill of birds. Where decoys are used, it is not uncommon to see the ducks alight within a few feet of a blind.

Battery shooting is one of the most criticized methods of gunning.  It is used mainly in taking diving ducks in broad waters where the birds cannot be gotten at from shore. Under favorable conditions battery shooting may be deadly. Under Federal regulation it is permitted only in coastal waters. The battery is usually set out with decoys and is generally placed over a baited area or over a natural feeding ground or in a flight lane. When placed near the shore, the battery generally ruins the shooting for gunners on shore. Like the scull boat, it tends to keep the birds continually stirred up, which prevents their resting or feeding. Because batteries are so easily and quickly moved, it is difficult to regulate their number or position on a body of water.

A marked difference may be noted in gunning methods in various sections of the country. Usually the greatest refinements in technic and methods of gunning are found in sections where the birds are scarcest. Methods of gunning for migrants and winter residents are often vastly different because of the varying nature and habits of the birds under their several conditions. The blinds used are of a wide variety, some being temporary affairs hastily built, while others are elaborate, costly, and permanent.

Often, as would be expected, hunting methods vary, depending upon the species, or in the case of a single species, the type of environment.  Some of the practices involved are highly technical and require great judgment and experience on the part of the gunner, while others require little more than ability to pull the trigger.

WATERFOWL-RESTORATION Program Undertaken by the Government

Early in 1934 the Secretary of Agriculture, by direction of the President, appointed the President’s Committee on Wildlife Restoration to study wildlife problems with particular emphasis upon measures to rehabilitate the rapidly vanishing waterfowl population. This committee—Thomas Beck, chairman, J. N. Darling, and Aldo Leopold—made a thorough canvass of all aspects of the situation, studied a mass of material previously assembled by the Bureau of Biological Survey, and presented a report. Shortly thereafter, under the leadership of Mr. Darling, the Bureau of Biological Survey undertook a national program of waterfowl restoration.

Being in accord with the Administration’s policy for the removal of submarginal agricultural land from crop production, the refuge-acquisition program has been in part financed by a substantial sum allotted from emergency appropriations. The drought-relief measure has also furnished funds with which to acquire in drought areas land that is suitable for wildlife, and an Executive order of May 28, 1934, made directly available to the Biological Survey an additional million dollars with which to carry forward the program. Altogether, funds for the acquisition of land for migratory-bird refuges amount to $6,000,000, supplemented by $2,500,000 for refuge development.  With these resources and the data previously assembled by the Biological Survey regarding desirable refuge sites, the Bureau was able to move immediately toward the fulfillment of the wildlife-restoration program.

Since the main objective of this program is a more abundant waterfowl population, it has obviously geen necessary to consider first the control and improvement of conditions conducive to the production of the various species. Consequently, the Biological Survey concentrated its initial efforts on the breeding areas within the boundaries of the United States, the most important of which extend from the Great Lakes area to eastern Montana, and from the Canadian border southward. Consideration was also early given to several major projects in the Northwest, in the coastal section of North Carolina, and in the White River Bottoms, Ark. Tremendous handicaps surround the purchase of lands of the character desired for refuge purposes, which in about 80 percent of the cases are complicated by earlier drainage operations or by other incumbrances. In spite of these obstacles in the way of prompt and equitable acquisitions, approximately 550,000 acres in 28 units had by March 31 been taken under contracts of purchase, and about 100,000 acres were being taken by judicial proceedings, several million additional acres were in prospect.

The program contemplates ultimately a series of major refuges extending through the four major waterfowl flyways from the Canadian boundary to the southern limits of the United States. Most of these refuges will contain not less than 20,000 acres each, and some will be much more extensive. So far as physical conditions permit, these large refuges will be approximately 300 miles apart, and will be supplemented by less extensive sanctuaries. Because nesting places play a role of vital importance in any well-considered rehabilitation program, there will ]pae a concentration of refuges for that purpose in the northern reaches of the United States. An extensive system of resting and feeding areas also will be provided on the migration routes and on the wintering grounds.

Mere acquisition of the land and water embraced within the areas selected will, however, not suffice to realize the purpose of the restoration program. Many of the waterfowl concentration areas have been destroyed by drought and by drainage operations or have been so reduced as to offer only the most meager attractions to the birds.  A major problem, therefore, is the restoration of an environment that will once more attract them. Such work is being undertaken on every one of the projects selected for this program in the nesting area.  For the most part the improvement will be the removal of drainage devices previously installed and the construction of dikes, dams, and water-control works, to impound and stabilize the waters that normally flow into these areas.