Ducks Unlimited Podcast

Threats of a closed season in the Mississippi Flyway in 1968 led to intense disagreement, restrictive regulations, and amplified the challenges of managing the resource while considering the interests of people. Collectively, these times generated solid foundations for future progress. Dr. Mike Brasher is rejoined by Ken Babcock and Dale Humburg to discuss these topics, while also introducing an elegant alternative regulation system that began in the 1960s– the Point System.
 
SPONSORS:

Purina Pro Plan: The official performance dog food of Ducks Unlimited
Whether you're a seasoned hunter or just getting started, this episode is packed with valuable insights into the world of waterfowl hunting and conservation.

Bird Dog Whiskey and Cocktails:
Whether you’re winding down with your best friend, or celebrating with your favorite crew, Bird Dog brings award-winning flavor to every moment. Enjoy responsibly.

Creators and Guests

Host
Mike Brasher
DUPodcast Science Host

What is Ducks Unlimited Podcast?

Ducks Unlimited Podcast is a constant discussion of all things waterfowl; from in-depth hunting tips and tactics, to waterfowl biology, research, science, and habitat updates. The DU Podcast is the go-to resource for waterfowl hunters and conservationists. Ducks Unlimited is the world's leader in wetlands conservation.

VO:

Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited Podcast RELOADED, where we bring you the best of our past episodes. Whether you're a seasoned waterfowler or curious about conservation, this series is for you. Over the years, we've had incredible guests and discussions about everything from wetland conservation to the latest waterfowl research and hunting strategies and RELOADED

Mike Brasher:

where we're here today with our guests to continue our conversation about waterfowl harvest management during The United States and North America, and we are moving into the late nineteen sixties. We have depressed waterfowl populations in the sixties that have led to all sorts of discussions, and surprise to no one, we began to get into some debates about what waterfowl harvest regulations actually need to be in response to some of these. So, Ken and Dale, thanks again for joining us here in these extended and fascinating conversations.

Ken Babcock:

Glad to be back. See you, Mike.

Mike Brasher:

So, Ken, I want to jump right to you as a reminder to people who've listened to the other episodes, or if you haven't, I would strongly encourage you to go back and listen to these. They're they're a fascinating listen on the history of of waterfowl harvest management in this great country, and we we have now a period where where Ken actually becomes an active participant in these discussions, the late nineteen sixties. So, Ken, I'm gonna kick it right to you and have you talk about that era. When you first came in, I believe you you told us you you began working for for Mississippi, the State Wildlife Agency. Was it was it called Mississippi Department of Wildlife at Fisheries and Parks back then, or was that before the name change?

Ken Babcock:

That was the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission at that time.

Mike Brasher:

Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, and so somebody in that commission saw fit to hire you. We can that's maybe a discussion for another time, but tell us about your first year when you came into the into the Flyway system.

Ken Babcock:

Sure. Be glad to, Mike, and it might be interesting to the people at Ducks Unlimited. The gentleman who hired me into that job was at that time the youngest state wildlife agency director in The United States, Billy Joe Cross.

Mike Brasher:

Thought that might have been the case there.

Ken Babcock:

Yep. Billy Joe Cross ultimately became a regional director and a supervisor over regional directors for Ducks Unlimited and did a great job for DU as well as other aspects of the waterfowl community. And, you know, I came in at a time and I I'll never forget my first flyaway meeting because I walked into the meeting and there were people that I had studied just a few months ago in at LSU, the people like Art Hawkins and Frank Belrose and Larry Young with the Wildlife Management Institute, and I was totally in awe. But it I very quickly learned that the way people in the state of Mississippi or Louisiana or Arkansas where I had grown up looked at waterfowl and waterfowl management and waterfowl harvest regulations entirely differently than than than than the people did where I was used to. I I came in right in the middle of a of a lot of consternation among the states depending on whether they were a breeding area or a migration area or a wintering area or whether they were a state that harvested a lot of waterfowl, a lot of waterfowl hunters who had high annual average harvest to those that were very few waterfowl hunters harvested very few birds and the average success rate was was pretty low.

Ken Babcock:

And all of these differences led to people viewing the way that they were treated in terms of the regulatory process. A lot of a lot of strife among the states. The Flyway Councils worked really hard to try to deal with these things. And I would say again, while there were tough times, it did lead to a strong foundation that I think the waterfowl management profession is built upon today. But one of the things that occurred during this period is within the flyaway councils, many of them had committees they call planning committees to sort of lay out the long term vision of what they wanted for their flyaway councils and they would break this down to individual states.

Ken Babcock:

And within the flyaway council that I was dealing with, obviously, the Mississippi flyaway council, there was a decision made that there would be an objective of maintaining a minimum of 7,000,000 breeding mallards from the breeding population survey done each year in the summer. And if the population went below that level, that the waterfowl hunting seasons, the duck hunting seasons would be closed. And we found ourselves in a situation in the mid to late sixties where breeding populations were declining. They were staying pretty low. The habitat conditions in the breeding areas were not very good and there was great concern and we reached a point in the late sixties where it appeared that the everything that was in place for that breeding population survey.

Ken Babcock:

Now this was was in the winter. This was in February at the winter meeting of the flyaway tech section and ultimately the council. So it was before the breeding population survey had been conducted. But in looking at data from previous years, trends, looking at anticipated harvest, it was all the all the points pointed to the fact that breeding population of mallards from that survey was going to go roll the 7,000,000 number. And so the technical section made a recommendation based upon these estimates that the waterfowl season for the coming year be closed.

Ken Babcock:

The reason this was done in February and before the survey was actually done was that the surveys were done usually in May, put together in June and the flyaway councils met in August and didn't think there would be enough time to to get the word out to hunters if if that occurred that way. So we thought as a technical group, we had a responsibility to bring this up, surface this at that time, and it led to a lot of consternation among the states. Ultimately, a couple of years later, it led to withdrawal of some states from the Flyway Council, from the deliberations with regard to how waterfowl regulations would be set. But that's another story that we can get into when we start talking about the seventies because it it led to a solution to a lot of these problems quite frankly. But that recommendation went to the councils and the council ultimately rejected that recommendation to await and see what the population survey showed for that coming summer survey.

Ken Babcock:

As luck would have it, the survey showed that the population was in fact above 7,000,000. We didn't get into the closure, but it certainly started a debate that I think ultimately while there was some unpleasant times, it led to again an improved coordination and cooperation and a commitment to gain better understanding about harvest dynamics and harvest and populations related to things other than harvest.

Mike Brasher:

Ken, what was the year of that? Was it 1968? The spring?

Ken Babcock:

1968. That's correct.

Mike Brasher:

And so my assuming this number yeah. The Mallard population, breeding population for that year turned out to be 7,089,000, so just by the skin of his teeth now. Just to kinda fast forward a few years, and I guess I will say there have been no years that I'm aware of where we have had a full closure of the waterfowl hunting season. There's certainly been some years where it's closed on certain species, but never a full closure on the entire season. Is that season?

Mike Brasher:

Is that right, guys?

Ken Babcock:

That that's exactly right.

Mike Brasher:

Yeah. And so we can kind of fast forward and look at what what what mallard populations have done since then, and you get into the nineteen eighties and the population fell well below breeding population for mallards fell well below that 7,000,000 mark. So something happens along the way in terms of where we adjust those those criteria, and I'm sure we can talk about that as we get get into it. But but nevertheless yeah. So we had that some discussions early in that spring for a potential closure on the waterfowl season.

Mike Brasher:

Do you know, Ken, if there were other flyways that were considering that as well or was this just a Mississippi flyway discussion at that time?

Ken Babcock:

My recollection was that Mississippi flyway council was the only one that had that guideline and I don't recall any other discussions among other the other flyaway councils with regard to this. And the discussions that came after that recommendation led to the planning committee going back to the drawing board and basically withdrawing that direction for the technical section.

Mike Brasher:

And Dale, you were an active waterfowl hunter at this time, but you were not yet in the profession. Were you aware do you recall your your view of the resource and these harvest regulations? You I mean, knowing you, I can imagine you being the type of person that that sought out as many details as possible on what was happening, but what can you tell me about your recollection as a waterfowl hunter during that that period? Were you aware, keenly keenly aware of some of these regulations and how they may have been at risk?

Dale Humburg:

I wouldn't say keenly aware, but as a waterfowl hunter, every year, mid to late summer, you began to anticipate based on what you heard and based on early indications of numbers and so on, became keenly aware of the upcoming regulations and so on. Not to the degree that Ken described, certainly not the angst that was evident at the Flyway meetings themselves, but certainly the outcome. It was also during this period of time that I began an association, a long term association with the Iowa's waterfowl biologist, Dick Bishop. And as you might imagine, the perspective of of breeding ground states was certainly different than those in the wintering areas and so some of my perspective gained from Dick and and his views and so I was aware from that standpoint, not to the degree or to the detail that Ken describes here. It is good to know and I didn't know until today that a lot of this was Ken's fault.

Ken Babcock:

As long as you give me the credit for correcting it.

Mike Brasher:

That's only fair.

Dale Humburg:

And I think that's that's an important point. The Flyway management system, waterfowl conservation as a whole has been periodically tested. Early sixties, we noted post war, some of the issues that emerged and so on. The strength of waterfowl management is is is in our response to those periodic tests of the biology, our assumptions, our planning, and our application. And so it's important to acknowledge that that the late sixties was just another test that we emerged from stronger than what we were prior to that.

Ken Babcock:

Mike, you know, I I really should point out that even during this time of great disagreement and great consternation among the states, the people who represented those states both at the Flyway Council level and at the Flyway Technical Section level were always professionals. I mean, they they didn't go into great fights. They didn't degrade people. They listened to one another's viewpoints. And again, I think that ultimately led to solutions that might come decades later.

Ken Babcock:

But the the fact of respecting that people as Dale pointed out, people that that set in a a migration area as compared to a wintering area as compared to a production area viewed waterfowl and the waterfowl harvest regulation process entirely differently. But they were willing to try to understand the different perspectives that one another had. And again, I think that provided a very solid foundation upon which the waterfowl profession is built today.

Mike Brasher:

Ken, I'm I'm so glad you went there because that's exactly where I was gonna go. Dale talked about the strength of the waterfowl management enterprise and how built upon our understanding, our science, and our our willingness to confront our our previously held beliefs and have these discussions. And another, as you pointed out, very important part of of our success rests in the people. The people that represent us at every step of the way, whether it be within the states or within the federal government and that are charged with managing this resource. I know I know many, many of these people.

Mike Brasher:

You guys know all these people as well. I know them personally. I know them professionally. They are not in this job because it's gonna pay an exorbitant amount of money. That is certainly not the case.

Mike Brasher:

If you're if you're seeking a position in this profession, that's one of the first conversations that an academic adviser will tell you is that if you're in this for the money, you need to you need to change majors. They're in it because they care about the resource. They they it's more than caring. It's passionate about the resource. Most of most of us are waterfowl hunters.

Mike Brasher:

We're passionate waterfowl hunters. We are just like the people that we that we try to represent the when they get into the state and federal agencies, you can view them as, you know, constituents, legitimate constituents, but also here within Ducks Unlimited, we have our members that we represent and that we respond to and that we depend upon, and so it's is the strength and the passion of the people that help make this as well such a successful endeavor through the years, and it's easy for, you know, being the one that's making these decisions, it's certainly easy to be the one that that catches all the flack, certainly if you're a state or federal agency representative. And, you know, so I'm I'm sure, and this will lead me to my next question, it it's it's kinda it hurts sometimes for me to see that, to see all my friends that I know are really passionate about it, catching all this grief, but I actually know they catch that grief because the people and their constituents care about the resource. We can kinda think about it at the other extreme. If they didn't catch that grief, then that means that nobody cared about the resource, and we would be in a much much worse place if that were the case.

Mike Brasher:

And so, Ken, with that with with that little statement, you know, how being a new person in one of these state waterfowl biologist positions, being a waterfowl hunter yourself, and maybe hear a bit of a personal impression from you, what's that like? As a waterfowl fowl hunter, knowing that you help make the decisions that determine the waterfowl hunting regulations that a lot of your friends and a lot of your fellow hunters are gonna be experiencing during the year? What what's that like?

Ken Babcock:

Well, the the role as a as a as a technical representative in this waterfowl enterprise is to understand the scientific information as best you can and make a recommendation on the basis of what the data tells you with regard to waterfowl regulations, waterfowl management, other waterfowl management aspects. And my my my job was to make the very best technical recommendation to my flyaway council representative who looked at it more from an administrative standpoint than from a technical standpoint. So I fulfilled tried to fulfill that role as absolutely best I can. Having later on in my career gotten involved in the administrative end of things and the Flyway Council part of it, I came to recognize that my job was to listen to that that technical information and wherever possible, utilize that to guide my decision. But also understanding that when you move into the council representative role, you also have to be considerate of what the people want.

Ken Babcock:

You don't wanna see what happened and Dale described this earlier. You don't wanna see the number of waterfowl hunters cut from 2,000,000 in the late fifties to a million in the early sixties. You don't wanna see that occur. And that decline occurred because of of great loss and opportunity. But where my head was during that period of time was to try to learn as much as I could about waterfowl biology, learn as much as I could about the impacts of harvest, make my recommendation based upon those things and then support whatever decision was ultimately made by the administrative end.

Mike Brasher:

Dale, I'm gonna ask a similar version of that question to you being being a person, a state waterfowl biologist and having held other positions as well. And, you know, if we we've said it a lot of times in this people in this in this profession say it often that if it wasn't for the people, this thing would be pretty easy. And but but if it weren't for the people, we wouldn't be doing That's the other aspect of this that we that is lost on none of us. So how hard is it? And and again, just personally from you, how difficult is it trying to balance what we understand about waterfowl populations or any kind of wildlife population with the way we and the need to sustain those, not just not just for the next five years, but in perpetuity and recognizing that there's a bit of a fiduciary responsibility here for for vastly for for future generations.

Mike Brasher:

How challenging and difficult is it to make those decisions while trying to balance all those needs with what we understand about the waterfowl populations or population ecology, and then what the people want and what the people say they want?

Dale Humburg:

Well, there's a challenge there, Mike, for sure. Perhaps first among those is as a a waterfowl biologist. First thing I had to remind myself every time I went to a meeting was that, you know, leave your shotgun at home. You know, the the fact is that that I really like to waterfowl hunt, but my responsibility as a professional is with regard to the long term objectives for waterfowl populations, for waterfowl habitat and for waterfowl constituents, both those that hunt and those that just enjoy seeing waterfowl. And so that balance of responsibilities and as Ken pointed out earlier, the professionalism of the people that are involved is just fundamental to this process.

Dale Humburg:

Ken also pointed out that as a waterfowl biologist, a technical person, I made recommendations. What I found over the years is it's easy to make a recommendation, but it's really hard to make a decision. And so one of the tougher things over time was to acknowledge that there were times that I was gonna make a recommendation that was not agreed to, was not supported by ultimately administration or the Fish and Wildlife Service. And it's that that tug and pull over time that helps us grow as a profession, even though in the near term it may not always be easy.

VO:

Stay tuned to the Ducks Unlimited Podcast sponsored by Purina Pro Plan and Bird Dog Whiskey after these messages.

Mike Brasher:

Dale, I don't recall here if we've already already discussed this, but coming out of that, the potential for a closed season in 1968, there was some more explicit recognition of how these decisions intersect with with the people. So have we talked about that at all? I I know here in our our notes, there were some explicit recognition that, hey. We think a lot about biology, but we also need to be thinking about sociology. Was that was the late nineteen sixties somewhat of a significant turning point in maybe being more thoughtful about that, or has it and and maybe more thoughtful isn't the right way of saying it, but maybe just more explicit in in the important role of sociology in these decisions that we're making?

Dale Humburg:

Yeah, certainly, Mike. I think the difference beginning in the mid to late nineteen sixties was we were much more explicit about the connection between waterfowl hunters and their support and waterfowl populations and waterfowl habitat. It would be very easy as we saw decades prior to that to say, the population's going down so we need to restrict, population's going up so we can relax. But the connection between waterfowl hunters and their support, waterfowl populations and so on was something that emerged as being more explicitly acknowledged. The fact that resource managers responsibility extended into the field of sociology was something that that emerged during this late nineteen sixties period.

Dale Humburg:

It showed up even more so as we got into the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, as the development of that began in the late nineteen seventies and into the mid eighties and certainly even more so today with the revision of that plan in the 2012. So certainly, Mike, the the fact that that waterfowl hunters are an integral part of this process was something that was kinda in the background fifty years ago, emerged as something somewhat more acknowledged during the sixties and today an explicit part of the process.

Ken Babcock:

Mike, I'd add to that that flyaway council meetings for many many years. The general public was was invited to attend, to listen to the deliberations. And there was always a part of each one of those flyaway meetings where the public was could speak, could offer their thoughts, could offer their recommendations. So the waterfowl management community probably has been ahead of the of the wildlife management profession in general in terms of recognizing the role and the importance of of of people in terms of in terms of managing the resource. And and and certainly, Ducks Unlimited has has has been a very important ingredient in terms of making those things occur.

Mike Brasher:

And Ken, those those kinda public speaking opportunities or I don't wanna say they're no longer provided, but that's no longer a common part of the Flyway Council meetings. Right?

Ken Babcock:

I honestly cannot answer that, Mike. I haven't attended a Flyway Council meeting in several years, so I could not answer that. But I I will say that the stability of regulations that waterfowl hunters deal with today, there's probably not the desire, the need. Now if we go through another period of of drought, which I'm sure Dale and I both have if you look back historically about every ten years, you get a major drought in the Prairies and we're probably twenty, twenty five years between now and the last major drought of any significance. But it you know, I I just I just think that there is more openness in terms of explaining what's going on and why it's going on.

Ken Babcock:

And it's been fairly liberal over these last several years and for a good reason. It was things have been in good shape and hopefully, they'll stay that way.

Dale Humburg:

Ken makes a really good point there in that we for nearly twenty five years now really haven't been tested. Now mind you, I think we've learned a fair amount over that period of time and and are better equipped now to acknowledge the social side of this as well as the biological, But I I don't know how it will emerge from the next period of drought, declines in numbers, declines in hunting opportunity, if that would occur. And our hunters, this day and age, will react to that.

Mike Brasher:

Yeah. You would think that if we were gonna have a historic drought, it would have happened in 2020, and so I guess I we can be thankful that did not happen. Yeah. The The other thing I wanted to say, guys, is that although those public the the the opportunity for public input there at the Flyway Council meetings may not may or may not be available right now, what is available across every state that I'm aware of, and I I would imagine most, if not all, is annual opportunities for for the constituents of those states to provide input on all sorts of wildlife hunting regulation through fair through various venues. So there is at least that opportunity for public input in hunting regulations.

Mike Brasher:

So those still exist, and those still receive a fair bit of participation based on on my reading of it. So let's see, as we, you know, kinda close out the the previous discussion here of the the 1968 season, we ultimately ended up, Ken, you may have said this, with a thirty day, three duck season in the Mississippi flyway with one mallard or twenty days with three ducks for a two mallard bag limit, so there were a couple of alternatives offered there. I'm reading here, Dale, it says only Arkansas selected the option with three ducks and a two mallard bag limit. So you could so they actually chose an additional mallard and gave away ten days, so that was interesting. The Atlantic Flyway was given ended up with fifty days and three ducks.

Mike Brasher:

Central Flyway had options for thirty days and three ducks or thirty five days and four ducks, two of which can be mallards. And then the Pacific flyway, again, on the the more liberal end of the regulation spectrum, eighty five days with a five bird bag limits, three of which could be mallards. So there we began to see some species specific regulations coming into play when it comes to bag limits. So also here, of note, this is interesting, a special scot season of ten days in the Central Flyaway, season within a season. Is that the way I'm reading that, Ken?

Mike Brasher:

Is that right? Yep. That would probably be the first would that be the first season within a season?

Ken Babcock:

The first that I recall.

Dale Humburg:

Yeah, those beginning in the late 60s, some of the opportunity for additional SCOP or SCOP season extensions or additional birds in the bag began to be offered. So yeah, that was just one of the first instances where we began to acknowledge differences among species and the like.

Mike Brasher:

Yeah, thanks for that clarification, Dale. If I would have read the rest of the sentence, would have realized that it's a special scoff season of ten days in the Central Flyway, and fourteen days in the Atlantic and Mississippi outside the regular season with a daily bag limit of five. So yeah, we began to get you start to see some additional variations in the way we're we're framing harvest regulations in the '19 late nineteen sixties. And then we get into an era, the '19 the 6869 season where there was a a very important addition, and it's it is a harvest regulation system that a lot of our listeners will will have at least heard about, and I know at least some of them would have participated in. It's something that that I actually remember.

Mike Brasher:

I don't recall if I hunted under this system. I think I did, but I certainly recall my dad talking about it, and it's the point system. And there's a lot that we can talk about here, and, you know, we what we may do is this has been a this was a regulatory system, an alternative that was offered and received a great deal of study, and so what might do is get one of those people that was actually involved in one of those studies to to have a to join us on one of these episodes and talk in more detail about that point system. But perhaps to close out this episode here, Ken, I wanna talk to you about that. Tell us your recollections around the the origination of the point system and kinda how that came about.

Mike Brasher:

I believe it first appeared in '68 or '69.

Ken Babcock:

Yeah. And, you know, it it appeared and I think Dale mentioned earlier that this was first tested in the Santa Lui Valley in Colorado and where it was just basically a way that you reward hunters who can identify waterfowl in flight by giving them letting their bag limit be determined by the point value of the ducks that they that they take. Where birds that you wanna reduce the harvest or keep the harvest low, they have higher point values so there's an incentive not to shoot them. And with the tests were done, and they were reported to all the flyway councils across the country and to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. And ultimately, it moved into an operational offer in at least three of the flyaways.

Ken Babcock:

I'm not sure that the Pacific Flyway ever got involved in that, but they always had pretty liberal bag limits anyway. But one of the other things I think that's important to point out in this period, Mike, is we went from talking about closing the waterfowl hunting season in 1968 in the Mississippi Flyaway to an offer of fifty five days of hunting by 1970, two years later. And again, based upon the fact that habitat conditions had improved, led to increased populations from the breeding side and more liberal regulations. So I think it's important to point that out that we got through that very difficult period of time and found ourselves at a situation where it was kinda launching into a new era of of waterfowl management in the seventies. The point system was one element, but there were also discussion about stabilized regulations that ultimately would be tested and other aspects of trying to provide optimum, if not maximum, hunting opportunity for waterfowl while at the same time ensuring sustainability of long term population health.

Mike Brasher:

One thing that I'll that I'll do here, Ken, is just for those people that that aren't too familiar with the point system as you as you talked about, I'll provide an example, and this is gonna be an example that's that's featured in a forthcoming article in the DU Magazine where we're talking about pintails and how the point system regulations was implemented relative to their populations. This was back at a time when pintail populations were quite a bit higher than they are today. And, for example, in in the Central Flyway, there was one of the years maybe it was 1979 as we used as an example. The total total point allowance was 100, and then each of these species of birds of ducks was assigned a different point value. And so then, you know, based on which as you described, which of these that you're harvesting, you know, that counts towards your 100 your your 100 total pintails back in 1979.

Mike Brasher:

People are not gonna believe this, but it's true. In at least in the Central Flyway, Drake pintails were a 10 bird, dime ducks as I think people referred to them back then. So that would have meant that out of a total allowance of 100 points, you could legally harvest 10 drake pintails. I believe pintail hen pintails were 20 points, but that kinda gives you an idea of how this point system works is that some of the species that you wanted to direct harvest pressure away from were given higher point, and thus meaning you can you could harvest fewer of those. So for those that may not be aware of the point system, that's just a general framework of how it works.

Mike Brasher:

Now there are some issues with that, which is certainly part of worthwhile a of conversation. But anyway, that's just to introduce that, and we'll talk about that in a bit more detail on next episode. So Dale, we're gonna wrap up here. Time flies on these episodes, I tell you.

Ken Babcock:

Before you wrap this up, it should be noted that there one person on this call did shoot 10 Drake Pantails one day and it was not me.

Mike Brasher:

Is that right?

Ken Babcock:

Was a

Mike Brasher:

Do tell.

Dale Humburg:

Pretty neat thing, actually.

Ken Babcock:

The the Arkansas came out in me and I couldn't pass up those great mountains.

Dale Humburg:

It it certainly was an interesting era. And when when the point system was first tried in 1970 in a broader manner, I was hunting in North Iowa. And and as you point out, Mike, drape pintails were worth 10, hand pintails worth 20, that occurred for three years. And it was it was a pretty interesting time and kind of made hunters more cognizant of birds identified in flight as opposed to in hand and so there was some real elegant parts of that point system during those early years. And I did my graduate work on on mallards and in testing the point system, the assumption is that drape mallards aren't important as extra males in the reproduction process and so in my gradual work, we've removed nests and identified whether or not hen mallards who lost their nest went back to their original male or with one of the males that had identified not being with a hen before.

Dale Humburg:

And so throughout that process, we tested some basic assumptions about the point system, that being that extra males aren't important in the population. And so it kind of an interesting era if you talk about the point system, what was intended, and then ultimately down the road, some of the concerns, the criticisms from the enforcement standpoint.

Ken Babcock:

Yeah. It it it it it a system that I think went by the wayside because of of enforcement concerns. The element of being able to reorder your birds in order to achieve the maximum number of birds in the bag was of great concern to conservation officers across the country. But in in my opinion, that was probably no much no more of a problem than than party hunting where, you know, one guy shoots two limits and one guy doesn't shoot any. So it was unfortunate, but at a time when populations declined again and they became concerned about more restrictive regulations into the into the early mid eighties.

Ken Babcock:

The point system demise was inevitable, I guess.

Mike Brasher:

Yeah. To put a finer point on that, Ken, for those people that may not be aware of how that would work, the reordering, let's say, example, we had a 100 total allowance of a 100 points. There were some species, sex combinations where that an individual bird was worth worth a 100 points, and I think hen mallard was was an example of that. Right?

Ken Babcock:

90. As I recall, it was 90. 90 on Hen Mallards.

Mike Brasher:

90. Okay. And so if you so if you had in your bag four Drake pintails each at well, let me go at it this way. If the first bird you shot was a hen mallard, that's 90 points towards your total 100, then, you know, you would only be allowed one additional bird in the 10 category. Whereas if you told law enforcement, hey.

Mike Brasher:

No. I I shot these I shot these four Drake pintails before I shot that hen mallard because that was the one other aspect of it is the final bird that you shot could put you over the limit, and you're still fine. Is that right?

Dale Humburg:

That's correct. The elegance of the point system was that if you satisfy biological concerns and that was whether or not drakes were important to re nesting hens, then it assumed that hunters in fact selected drakes over hens, that they abided by the intent of the regulation and the real elegance of the system was they only had to identify the bird in hand, they didn't have to identify them as they have to today if there's species specific regulations in the air. And so that it was really a pretty elegant system except for the concerns about enforcement.

Mike Brasher:

I'm glad I'm glad Ken, that you shared that nugget of information about Dale having

Ken Babcock:

actually harvested 10 I ks did not call a name.

Mike Brasher:

But was it well, I know it wasn't me. And but so I could just imagine had I not not known that, had we not had this conversation, what Dale would have been thinking whenever he picks up that DU Magazine here in a couple of months and reads that story about this hunter coming out of a marsh carrying 10 Drake pintails over his shoulder. So you might have thought that somebody had done told on you.

Dale Humburg:

It wasn't a common occurrence in Northern states. It wasn't an uncommon occurrence as you move to the latitudes where pintails predominate.

Ken Babcock:

My my brother lived in Beaumont, Texas during that time frame and one of his best friends owned one of the really finest marshes in that area and it was not uncommon at all for them to shoot 10 pintails apiece.

Mike Brasher:

This is an amazing aspect of the conversation because in the article, we we actually the the little vignette that we described at the beginning occurs somewhere on the Texas Coast in 1979, and so we wrote that article before any of these conversations, but that just kinda lent some credence to our thinking that we had it right in the the way the description goes there. So that's pretty cool. So people can look forward to that coming out, I think, in January or February. An article on pintails does reference the some of the harvest regulations that are in place for that species and how they have changed through the years. So it ties in nicely with some of these podcast years, so thanks for that, guys.

Mike Brasher:

We we are gonna continue on on our next episode. We still have other things to discuss, and I think I've even heard reference to somewhere along the ways, the Goose Wars, and I believe that might have been Dale's favorite time in his career. Do I have that right, Dale?

Dale Humburg:

I've tried to forget, but thanks for reminding me, Mike.

Mike Brasher:

Well, thank you guys for continuing with this this interesting discussion, relevant discussion. It's always fun and appropriate to look back on where we have been relative to where we are today, and certainly to pay homage to the people that served important roles all throughout this process. You too are among those, and I thank you for all of the work that you did through the years personally and on behalf of all of our other hunters and members. And so, yeah, thanks to you guys for that, and thanks for sharing all of these important stories and entertaining stories to come on this important topic. So thank you, guys.

Ken Babcock:

Thank you, Mike. You bet, Mike.

Mike Brasher:

A special thanks to our guest on today's episode. Returned guest now for, I think this is episode six, and they're all starting to all run together, Dale Humberg and Ken Babcock. And, as always, we thank our producer, Clay Baird, for the work that he does putting these episodes together and getting them out to you. And, of course, you, the listeners, we thank you for your interest in the podcast. And most importantly, we thank you for your support, passion, and commitment to wetlands and waterfowl conservation.

VO:

Thank you for listening to the DU Podcast sponsored by Purina Pro Plan, the official performance dog food of Ducks Unlimited. Purina Pro Plan, always advancing. Also proudly sponsored by Bird Dog Whiskey and Cocktails. Whether you're winding down with your best friend or celebrating with your favorite crew, Bird Dog brings award winning flavor to every moment. Enjoy responsibly.

VO:

Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe to the show and visit ducks.org/dupodcast. Opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect those of Ducks Unlimited. Until next time, stay tuned to the Ducks.