*SPECIAL* Flying Blind: Waterfowl Science & Management at Risk

Ramsey Russell: Welcome back to MOJO’s Duck Season Somewhere podcast, where today we are flying blind. Listen up folks, this isn’t about politics, it’s certainly not partisan. Myself and I’m sure many of you listeners voted forward the current administration and support much of what he’s doing. You better believe I’m cheering him on with a lot of the activities I see him going through budget. But when it comes to waterfowl conservation, we can’t paint with a broad brush. We can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Today’s discussion doesn’t involve $20 billion spent on teaching Hula Hoop lessons to the natives of some obscure South Pacific Island, it’s about effectively delivering waterfowl management and a continuance of duck hunting as we all know it. No matter what you think about adaptive harvest management, about federal policies, state or federal agencies, about the science, about the methods, about NGOs, no matter what your past season was like, this situation puts every single one of us duck hunters in the same boat, as duck hunters, as conservationists, as moms and dads and human beings. Over the years we’ve interviewed a lot of the various cogs in the wheels, the scientists, the biologists, the policy experts, the agency folks. But today’s topic is going to kind of put it all together and listen up, it is actionable. Right now, millions of hunter generated dollars that are held by NGOs and earmarked specifically for waterfowl conservation through partnerships with US Fish & Wildlife Service. Elements essential to counting, managing and producing waterfowl, everything’s on the chopping block. We are facing drought conditions, low productivity throughout a lot of the continent, and the idea of heading into the upcoming season without knowing the account balance or even if the account exists is unthinkable. Today I’m joined by Dr. Rick Kaminski, Dr. Jim Sedinger, and Brad Bortner, three of the most respected voices in North American waterfowl conservation, to break down what’s really happening, what it means for the future of duck hunting and habitat, and what you and I can do about it. Guys, how the heck are you?

Brad Bortner: Doing great, Ramsey.

Ramsey Russell: Yeah, glad to see you all.

Rick Kaminski: Outstanding, Ramsey. Thank you for the invitation to join the group.

Ramsey Russell: Yes, sir. I’m proud to have you all. Would you all please each introduce yourselves?

Rick Kaminski: Brad, go ahead.

Brad Bortner: Okay. Brad Bortner, I’m a retired former Fish & Wildlife Service waterfowl biologist. I retired as the National Chief of Migratory Birds. I served in that position from 2011 to 2018. Rick?

Rick Kaminski: My name is Rick Kaminski. I’ve been amazed by the Antedate, that’s the family of ducks, geese and swans for about 60 years. I left dental school to discover the profession of waterfall ecology and management. I worked for Ducks Unlimited in Canada for several years, and then I had 2 great careers as the waterfowl and wetland specialist at Mississippi State University and Clemson University. I was privileged to hold the James C. Kennedy Endowed Chair at both institutions. And now my wife and I are retired but still contributing from South Carolina, where we live currently. Dr. Sedinger.

Jim Sedinger: Okay, yeah. Jim Settinger, I’m retired professor of wildlife, most recently University of Nevada in Reno. But I spent 17 years in Alaska. My first job was with the Fish & Wildlife Service, but then I was a professor at the University in Fairbanks for 16 years. I’ve worked mostly in western Alaska. I’ve tallied it up once, and I think I’ve spent 3 years of my life on the Bering Sea coast in western Alaska, first studying cackling geese. But I started a project in 1984 on Black Brant, which is still going on. One of my favorite places in the world, I still try to get – In fact, I’m headed out there in a couple of months, which will be year, what are we looking at? Year 42 of this project now being run by David Coons, he’s a Kennedy Chair at Colorado State University. Like Rick, I changed professions. I was an electrical engineer and decided that I didn’t want to be an engineer. And I had the good fortune of becoming a student of Dr. Dennis Raveling at University of California, who’s prominent waterfowl scientist during his career who died much too young. And I’m also continuing to stay involved in the waterfowl world like Rick.

Ramsey Russell: Very good. Last week, I woke up to some text messages. One with a Field & Stream article featuring Brad Bortner and the other was a heartfelt letter written by Dr. Kaminski and Sedinger. And since then, the social media world and the world in general has been rocked by the news of federal layoffs and survey disruptions. How would each of you describe the magnitude of what is happening right now and why should everyday hunters and conservationists care?

Jim Sedinger: Why don’t you take it first, Brad?

Brad Bortner: Well, I think it’s ironic that today is April 18^th. Today is the last day of service for somewhere between 1400 and 1600 Fish & Wildlife Service employees. I don’t have an exact number and I don’t know all the different positions that or people are vacating, but it runs the gamut from folks in the Migratory Bird Program, refuges and all the other programs. And so what is happening is a generational shift. We’re losing a lot of very experienced folks through early retirements and also from the very youngest early career professionals and between both of those who are losing the institutional knowledge when we’re losing a lot of the horsepower for doing field activities, collecting information, conducting surveys in addition to the folks that administering the programs, doing the analysis, going through the regulations process. So from my standpoint, things are at risk of losing our ability to analyze data, collect data and make informed decisions.

Ramsey Russell: Anybody else got something to weigh in?

Jim Sedinger: Yeah, I’ll jump in. And I’ll take a little more, we’re going to get into some of the practical details, I think for hunters in a bit. But I just want to remind folks that the people that, most federal biologists who work with waterfowl are hunters themselves, 80% or 90% of them. So, for the hunters out there that are listening to this, these are your brethren that are being fired or forced to retire. And they do the work they do because they’re passionate about waterfowl conservation. They love the animals and they’re part of a community that I think, Rick and I have talked about this a lot, it’s unique in my view in the what the wildlife world, where academics, federal and state biologists and scientists, NGOs, landowners and hunters form this community of folks that all, we interact with people, with each other at DU dinners, at conferences in the marsh, I don’t think there’s anything else like it in the wildlife community. And we’re losing a big part of that.

Rick Kaminski: Yeah. Well, as I drive around here in South Carolina, California, where my son and his family lives, he’s a regional biologist in the Grasslands region for Ducks Unlimited, see a lot of homeless people. And some of these executive order directors are going to create homelessness because of decreases in restoration, creation, et cetera, of waterfall habitats. So, maybe we have to think more emotionally, something that would get into the minds of the District of Columbia, who doesn’t mention they don’t rally around conservation of nature. Yeah, we are duck people. I wrote in my memoir recently that not everybody needs ducks, Kaminski needs ducks, but not everybody needs ducks. But certainly the homes of ducks and other wetland wildlife, everybody needs. Ducks Unlimited now is doing just an amazing job of quantifying the ecosystem services that wetlands provide and I’ve said that for decades. We’ve got to broaden out the playing field. It’s just not a whole bunch of ducks hitting the water and the dogs retrieving it. But as Dr. Sedinger mentioned, there is a unique community of people that sometimes we argue with each other, we debate with each other, but regardless of contests between us in conversation, there’s an unbelievable ecological glue that keeps us together. Remember the song by Joni Mitchell, Pave Over Paradise? Man, we’ve seen that happen. 12,000 years ago, half of North America was under ice. There were critters out there and indigenous people, but there was definitely no exploitation of natural resources which were self-sustainable. If we get rid of federal conservation efforts with partnerships with states and NGOs, we’re going to see a lot of homeless wildlife, maybe even extinction in some cases. I’m very concerned about the decrease in waterfowl hunters in the United States. One of my former students, Dr. Mark Bertiska at the University of Nebraska, he and colleagues wrote a paper about 10 years ago that reported about 40% of the duck hunters have drifted away to age, other reasons, lack of opportunity, too much pressure. I’m in the midst right now of looking at hunter numbers for all 50 states and I’m not that good of an excel manager anymore, but I like to hunt Nebraska. Why? Well, there aren’t that many people. And in the last 20 years they’ve lost 50% of their hunters. The regression equation is highly significant and it predicts extinction in 2050. I don’t know how representative Nebraska is. But anyway, we got to send a message somehow to Washington DC to create recognition of the importance of wetlands and wetlands wildlife, maybe it’s got to be emotion. I sent a note out to you all that I was listening to public radio yesterday and dictatorships have been overturned when 3.5% of protesters or people against movements sent letters and got involved, engaged. Well, Brad, I think you said that we’ve got what, 2 or 3 million duck hunters?

Brad Bortner: Migratory bird hunters.

Rick Kaminski: Migratory bird hunters, okay. That’s a little over 100,000 letters. Delta Waterfowl, the duck hunters organization. And we need to have a conversation with Devnee and Jason and get all the Delta as well as the DU members to write a letter. Maybe that sounds crazy, sometimes I feel like I’m crazy. But it’s emotion that really needs to be driven here. I’ll be quiet for a while.

Ramsey Russell: Let me follow up on that with this question to Dr. Kaminski and Sedinger. In you all’s letter, I got a copy of you all’s letter where you referenced the termination of leases, the firing of major federal agencies, the proposed elimination of US Geological Survey. What does that signal to you about how waterfowl science and conservation is being devalued at the federal level? Have you ever seen anything like that? And to whom was that letter intended?

Jim Sedinger: Yeah, I’ll start and let Rick jump in. Our letter was, we focused on the waterfowl community, which we know best. I think this is a broader scale issue for all people with an interest in wildlife, I don’t want to diminish that at all. But we’re talking to duck hunters today, and Rick and I started with the waterfowl community because it’s something we know and we felt like we could have an impact. I think there are really kind of 2 parts. One is, and this is another topic we’re not going to get into too much detail today, Rick and I have been concerned about for a couple of decades now, just the decline of respect for and interest in the waterfowl community within. It’s not just the federal government, its universities, its state agencies, and that’s a topic for another discussion. But it’s been happening and we’ve seen steady decline within USGS, within the Fish & Wildlife Service, within, not every state, but many of the states within the universities. But I think that what that does is it makes our current situation even more of a crisis for the waterfowl and wetlands community. Because while the current administration isn’t targeting just waterfowl and wetlands, they’re targeting all science. I think this happening on top of what we’ve seen going on means that what we lose today or in the next few weeks or months, we’re not likely to get it back. It’s going to be very difficult to recover the programs and the expertise within the agencies, we’re talking about agencies today because of what the trends that have already been in existence. I’m really concerned about, if we’re not able to turn around some of the cuts that are taking place, we may never get that back. And I think there’s a good chance of that.

Rick Kaminski: I agree wholeheartedly. And related to Dr. Sedinger comment is, and what Brad indicated with regard to 1500 staffers maybe taking early retirements or whatever case might be, look at the mentorship that we’re losing within the agency. Sedinger and I can go back to our early days when we were kids and going to symposiums and Brad, you were there too, at Delta and being mentored by federal biologists from Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and the states. I won’t name them all because just don’t have the time for that. But university students have changed. It’s hard to find any nowadays that are really have an understanding from a rural background, more of them, if they come into wildlife, it’s because of maybe their trips to zoos or whatever. So, we’re losing a generation of educators.

Ramsey Russell: Brad, you mentioned previously that –

Brad Bortner: Before we go on, there was a point that I wanted to add to both the previous conversation and I think it builds upon. What we were just talking about is, the waterfowl community, the voices of the community, whether it’s the professional biologists or the hunters out there, has diminished over time. But we have a really rich history of accomplishments. The most recent State of the birds report shows dramatic declines in the number of birds of other types than waterfowl. Waterfowl are still holding their own, have an upward trajectory over the last 75 years, mainly because of the programs that were put in place because of the advocacy of waterfowl hunters, administrators and everything else, whether it’s through Pittman Robertson funds, whether it’s the Duck Stamp funds, whether it’s the North American Waterfowl Management Plan or an increasing science space both in Fish & Wildlife Service, USGS, the commitment of states, the growth of the waterfowl NGOs. So I think what we really need at this time is to galvanize the waterfowl community to continue to speak with one voice. We can make a difference if we all can pull together and speak in a voice and saying that waterfowl and waterfowl habitats are important. Not to diminish the other science things, but I think a lot of people look to the waterfowl community for providing information that is helpful for a lot of wildlife conservation and other science based programs. We’ll talk more about that later, I’m sure.

Ramsey Russell: Well, we can talk about it now. As former Chief of Migratory Birds, you have been at the intersection of federal wildlife management and policy and you mentioned about, today’s the last day for 1500 federal government employees. What are the practical consequences of losing this key personnel and physical infrastructure like the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team and office in Bismarck? What are the practical implications of these losses on waterfowl monitoring and decision making?

Brad Bortner: Well, I was just talking about 1500 Fish & Wildlife Service employees today that includes Fish & Wildlife biologists, administrators, that sort of thing. And the practical part of it is everything I did in the Fish & Wildlife Service was based upon having data, having a good understanding provided by science that was collected either by our partners, the university’s students, professors of USGS, or analyses that were done and we were dependent upon having that information for making good decisions. And the practical implications of some of the things that we’re facing right now is that we are not going to have the data streams for making those decisions. We’re not going to have the crews available. We have highly specialized, highly trained pilot biologists that conduct these surveys. You can imagine flying at 100ft and 100 knots, trying to count ducks, navigate an airplane, stay on transect and everything those folks are unique. They’re not something that you’re going to pull off the shelf somewhere and substitute somebody in. The ability to identify ducks from the air is not a skill that, I think Rick or Jim taught in school, it’s something that you have to pick up. And by having this change, I talked about generational change and since Jim and Rick are both population ecologists, if you lop off the top of the population pyramid and the bottom of the pyramid, you’re stuck without any recruitment in the future. And as Rick pointed out, you’re losing the mentors, the people that are going to teach these skills to the younger folks, and you’re losing some of the younger folks. So we’re not going to have the information being collected. We’re not going to have the crews in the field banding ducks, counting on the air ground surveys, it’s going to lead to making imperfect decisions or less than optimal decisions because you don’t have the information.

Ramsey Russell: What about programs like, for example, duck stamp dollars? 98% of all of our federal duck stamp dollars are earmarked for perpetual easements and conservation purchases and stuff like that. And I mean, who is going to take our duck Stamp dollars and manage and establish those relationships with private landowners in the prairie pothole or to manage those easements, Brad? Who at Fish & Wildlife Service is going to still be around to collaborate with hunter generated dollars coming through channels like Ducks Unlimited and put conservation on the ground right now nationwide? Are those kinds of programs imperiled also?

Brad Bortner: You bet. I was focusing on the science aspect of it in which, even those easements are based upon science products that are produced by the, you mentioned the HAPET office in Bismarck or in Minnesota or the surveys that are done by the Fish & Wildlife Service. But I’m struggling to answer your question, Ramsey, because I’m not clear who is going to be able to do those things.

Ramsey Russell: Right.

Brad Bortner: To put 1500 employees in perspective, that’s 25 of the Fish & Wildlife Service staff out the door today. And that is on refuges, so I can’t answer the question. Who’s going to manipulate the water on the refuge to ensure the moist soil plants are irrigated at the right time? Who’s going to run the tractor? Who’s going to make the decisions? Right now I know a bunch of project leaders are retiring across the refuge system. They’ve been understaffed and everything else anyway, and now you’re going to have a bunch of people just disappear off the landscape. So, I keep on saying I’m struggling to answer the question on, how it’s going to affect because it’s not clear. I’m not sure what the plan is. I’m not sure how we’re going to be able to manage the resources that we have, collect the information, run the refuges, make the decisions, interact with the public, go to the hill and talk to people because the agency is not going to have the personnel at the levels that they’ve had in the past.

Ramsey Russell: Go ahead, please.

Jim Sedinger: I’ll just add a couple things to that. I think you, just thinking about refuges specifically, who’s going to maintain the roads, who’s going to manage hunts for people that hunt on public areas? I think, not that this would be the refuge’s first priority, but it’s likely there’s going to be some reduction of just access to hunting on public areas because they don’t have the people to manage the areas when folks want to come out and hunt. Another, I think that I’ll just make one more point and then I’ll let Rick jump in. But Brad mentioned the difficulty of managing, I know the states are extremely concerned, this is beyond the waterfowl community about their Pittman Robertson funds which are critical to every state agency. And yeah, it is bureaucrats that manage the dispersal of those funds. But if you don’t have the people, how do you get the money out the door to the states? It could cripple many state wildlife agencies. Then that goes way beyond the waterfowl community.

Rick Kaminski: Absolutely. People can’t even represent themselves, that’s why we have senators and representatives. But think about natural resources. How do natural resources represent themselves? They don’t. They have no representation. Conservation only occurs through people. And now these federal staffers are being let go. Who’s going to do the work? You wouldn’t believe the stories that I hear from many of my former students who are retired or currently working for the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the partnerships, the money that’s on the table for partnership grants to do DU projects in California that my son tells me about is, it’s stalled, millions of dollars that might have to be turned back. Does anybody know if Donald Trump hunts?

Ramsey Russell: I don’t think he does. I know Don Jr. does. That’s right. Hope he hears this episode. Dr. Sedinger, you mentioned in you all’s letter that without the 4 square mile survey and similar efforts, we’re essentially flying blind. What would the absence of long term breeding population data affect modeling, harvest regulations and habitat conservation planning?

“I think what we’re going to see if we lose those kinds of data, we’re going to see fewer ducks and we’re going to see more restrictive harvest regulations.”

Jim Sedinger: Yeah. So I think, and there are multiple levels to that answer. Let’s start with the breeding population survey that Brad talked about a few minutes ago. They survey the Fish & Wildlife Service pilots survey the major waterfowl breeding habitats in North America, that’s the US and Canada. And they generate population, their indices, really their estimates for the areas that are surveyed. And those data are the basis for understanding. I mean, that’s the fundamental thing. How many of each species are out there and where are they? And Brad talked about this a bit, but those data are pieces or components of all the models that are used to set harvest regulations. So it’s a fundamental piece of knowing what’s happening in terms of population dynamics. Those surveys, I’ll say they’re not perfect and we’re thinking about ways to make them better, but they’re the best we have. And they’re certainly, a worldwide model for monitoring wildlife populations. Everyone talks about North American waterfowl surveys as like the gold standard of monitoring wildlife. And so, without those data we are flying blind. We don’t know how many mallards there are out there, how many pintails, how many mergansers, we just don’t know. And so it’s critical. If we get down to the 4 square mile survey that you mentioned and Brad also mentioned this, those are data that play multiple roles. They’re collected on the ground, they’re much more detailed, much smaller spatial scale, but they give us a much clearer picture of how ducks are responding to specific aspects of the habitat, wetland composition, how many wetlands there are in a given year in the prairies. But it also allows you to monitor conservation actions. If you’ve done certain kinds of upland habitat manipulations on those 4 square mile plots, you can assess how that’s impacting the use of those plots by ducks. So it’s not necessarily used on an annual basis to set regulations, but it informs conservation, which has a much longer term impact on waterfowl populations in the mid-continent at least. So all of these pieces, some of them are used every year. The breeding population survey is fit into models every single year. And it’s the way the service understands, the Fish & Wildlife Service understands, okay, are ducks doing okay or are there some like pintails that we should be more concerned about? So they play a direct role in setting regulations. The 4 square mile survey data, on the other hand, have a bit of a longer term implications for conservation and management because they help us to understand how the actions we’re taking, or climate change, for example, are impacting ducks in a positive or a negative way. So it’s all important. And I think, and we’ll get to this a bit. I think what we’re going to see if we lose those kinds of data, we’re going to see fewer ducks and we’re going to see more restrictive harvest regulations.

Brad Bortner: Can I add something to what the HAPET office, the 4 square mile survey does is, I’m not sure whether hunters are familiar with but they should be familiar with the thunderstorm maps which are produced by the HAPET offices. And those are basically spatially explicit maps that show duck densities, wetland densities and that sort of thing. And that data not only, not only used by the Fish & Wildlife Service, it helps guide refuge management, refuge and easement acquisition, but it’s also used by Natural Resources Conservation Service to decide where they’re going to put, where the landowners are where they want to do projects. It’s used by Delta Waterfowl on where they want to put their henhouses. It’s more than just some sort of academic exercise and it’s used for a variety of partners for what we euphemistically call strategic habitat conservation. But it really helps prioritize where on the landscape to take management actions. And I think that gets lost a little bit when someone said oh, you’re just out there counting ducks. Well it helping you inform of management and make wise decisions, make efficient use of your dollars.

Rick Kaminski: That it’s in a very simplistic way, those thunderstorm maps that Brad’s talking about is like planting a garden. It tells you where you’re going to put your seeds, where you’re going to generate to yield, get the greatest yield. And the yield there is therein is waterfowl production.

Ramsey Russell: Rick do you foresee a shift towards more conservative bag limits and conservative seasons, which some hunters won’t, despite the best science we’ve got. Do you see that as a default response to some of these data gaps or potential data gaps?

Rick Kaminski: Absolutely. I mean, some of the professionals in our field right now are rallying for more conservative bag limits and shorter seasons. They don’t believe the science that’s being generated by people that have studied under Dr. Sedinger and others – I have the greatest respect for the population ecologists that work in the arena of waterfowl. These are outstanding, brilliant people that can break down the most complex equations and enable people with high school education to understand. People like Jim, another one of his students, Thomas Ricky, Jim Nichols, just unbelievable. So I have tremendous respect for them and the work that they and the results that they generate will guide management and conservation into the future.

Jim Sedinger: But you need data.

Rick Kaminski: You need data, exactly. And like you pointed out, Sedinger, you get those data gaps and it’s like an empty fuel tank. You can’t go another hundred miles without some fuel. You got to keep on putting gas in the tank to get the most contemporary, precise estimates of new directives.

Ramsey Russell: It’s a very cyclical. It’s like one thing begets another with this whole process. Dr. Sedinger mentioned that some of these staff cuts in addition to some of the data gaps, we could lose access. Well, less access, less hunters on the landscape, less conservation funding, which means we come back or we dodge the bullet of this. Well, we’ve still got less hunters, we’ve got less Pittman Robertson, we’ve got less people on the landscape putting time and money into waterfowl. And the implications of what is just so mind blowing to me. I mean, and I’ll ask all of you all this question to weigh in. waterfowl management in North America is cited as one of the most, one of the greatest success stories of science based conservation. And Brad mentioned the Migratory Bird Report, it’s unbelievable how some bird species in North American or North America have lost 70% of their population, waterfowl are doing fine because of our time and money put into these conservation programs. What elements of this science based conservation success story, what elements of that legacy are most in danger right now? And what do you all feel we could lose if the unraveling continues?

Rick Kaminski: I think we’ve identified a lot of these, but if we could coalesce right now, populations don’t sustain themselves, species don’t sustain themselves without habitat. And none of this happens, as I mentioned before, without funded conservation. So if you think about a circle, maybe with 3 slices of pie, you got the population within the populations within the species, habitat and dollars. All that’ll go away, all that’ll go away if we don’t have federal leadership for conservation. And we don’t hear, and I mentioned before, we don’t hear anything about that. I’ve dreamed a lot, I’d love to be president for one day and enact one executive order. And that would be across the board conservation sales tax for every human being buying anything in the United States, just like Missouri does, 1/10^th of 1%. I wish somebody would talk to Trump about that.

Ramsey Russell: Kind of a flat sales tax for everybody. Rick, you and I talked years ago –

Rick Kaminski: Flat sales tax for everybody, yes.

Ramsey Russell: We talked years ago about, it’s a very small minority of North America right now, US duck hunters that are carrying a mighty, we’ve shouldered a big burden to get to the point we are right now. But yes, like you said, Rick Kaminski wants ducks, Ramsay Russell wants ducks, our listeners want ducks. But all of humanity benefits from habitat and vibrant wetlands.

Rick Kaminski: That’s it.

“And now that opportunity, this hunter funded conservation model is being denied us through some of these broad cuts in conservation.”

Ramsey Russell: so why are we the only ones footing the bill right now? And what gets me is, I said in the beginning, I do support this administration’s approach to some topics, but at the same time, paint with a broad brush is just not the solution. We can criticize other segments of society that are all take and no give, but we hunters, we waterfowl hunters specifically, we are that segment of America that in addition to our taxes and our time and all the different requirements of being an American citizen day, we’re going above and beyond and putting our time and our money specifically back into waterfowl. You know what I’m saying? And now that opportunity, this hunter funded conservation model is being denied us through some of these broad cuts in conservation. What do we do? You know what I’m saying? That’s the reason I wanted to get you on here to talk about this kind of stuff right now. It’s alarming to me. We hunters pride ourselves on being the model for conservation. Our time and our money has built the most enviable North American waterfowl conservation program on earth. And now there’s not going to be anybody to help us deliver it. What do we do with our money? I don’t want to learn to play golf guys, I want to go duck hunting, I want my kids to go duck hunting.

Rick Kaminski: Yeah.

Brad Bortner: So Ramsey, I’m going to try to wrap up on, I’ll wrap up a couple of the comments on the last couple of questions you asked Rick about more conservative regulations. And I hate to be the historian, especially with my 2 distinguished colleagues here, but we have a history of 75 years of flyway management based upon discussion of data, population dynamics, what the appropriate regulations are. You asked the question what’s at risk? What’s the greatest danger? Without that information, the whole decision making framework for waterfowl is at risk. The flyways don’t need to exist, if there isn’t data streams, if there isn’t a process for deciding on what the regulations are. You also asked about AHM and feeding data into AHM and I’ve heard people say well 2 years during COVID you didn’t have data, you didn’t fly surveys. What’s the issue there? Well, because we had previous data, we estimated what the populations were. If you stop collecting information or you have a bigger break and you’re not going to be able to make reliable estimates or predictions of what the population are. You also talk to Jim about breaks in the data stream. Jim’s been a big proponent, one of the smartest guys I know doing banding analyses and everything else. Ask him what is zero in the zero bandings in one year would do to doing band analysis. The mathematical models require some banding in every year and some recoveries in every year. If you don’t have that mathematically, you can’t calculate out what we calculate. So there’s got to be continuity and consistency in effort out there collecting this information.

“The banding program is the largest citizen science program on the planet.”

Jim Sedinger: I’ll just jump in to add to what Brad said. One thing we haven’t talked about is banding. And that’s another thing that’s going to be on the chopping block if we don’t have enough people. It takes a lot of people. I don’t know Brad, you would probably know but it’s dozens and dozens of biologists in the field, if not hundreds every summer putting bands out. And you talked Ramsey, you mentioned the waterfowl community and hunters contributions, the banding program is the largest citizen science program on the planet. When you think about the thousands of bands that are returned by thousands of hunters every year, that’s citizen science. We think about it as well, okay, we’ll go get people to observe squirrels in the city park, right? But band recovery data is citizen science and it’s critical to the models that we use to understanding the impacts of harvest regulations and habitat management. And that’s another thing that’s at risk if we don’t have folks to go out and put the bands out. And it’s another piece of this, what we’ve talked about is like the envy of the world management system. We have the best banding data of anybody in the world by far. And it allows us to, manage harvest at a little, we can go a little further than some bureaucrats might like, they’re still more too conservative for my taste in some cases, but without those data, they’re going to be much more conservative because we just don’t have an understanding of what’s happening out there in the population.

Ramsey Russell: We talked about continuity. How would this break in continuity differ from whether it’s banding or surveys? How would it differ from the pandemic interval that we couldn’t go to Canada and do this stuff? We couldn’t go to Canada and band ducks, we couldn’t go to Canada and fly surveys. What were the implications of that 2 year break in continuity versus this?

Jim Sedinger: Well, this one might be permanent.

Brad Bortner: Yeah. I was going to say, if we lose all the pilot biologists, either the experienced ones or the ones up in training, we’re not going to have the people to do that. And you can’t privatize this. It’s not like, you could go out and rent some airplanes and get some pilots, but you’re going to need to have experienced people in there telling them where to fly, where to go, how to count ducks. You’re going to have to put at least 2 observers in the airplane, if not more, to do the function that’s being done right now. So that’s even if the programs continue. But like Jim and Rick, I’m concerned that it might be, these might be permanent. To circle back and let me close the loop on the other thing that Rick said earlier. You asked the question about conservative regulations and this is what I was bringing in the flyway system is, we have a flyway system that works, it’s not broken, we don’t need to fix it. So let’s not break it. But my concern is if that flyaway system goes back or if we don’t have the data to feed AHM, we don’t have the harvest survey information which is another great citizen science program that’s very useful in estimating populations and harvest. We don’t have the banding, then you end up with a system going back a 100 years where the decisions on regulations are made by a few people in a smoke filled room without any data and just opinions. And I don’t think any of us as waterfowl hunters, waterfowl managers, people that are concerned about the system want to go back to closed room decision making with a lack of data and just opinions to set our regulations. Could be more liberal, could be more conservative. It may be based on the last person to talk to the decision maker, like it happened many times way back when, before even Rick was a junior biologist. But we all have heard stories about how decisions were made way back when and how conservative or how crazy some of the seasons could be just based upon someone’s opinion with a lack of any data.

Ramsey Russell: For lack of scale, Brad, I just want to see if you can help put me on a timeline because you mentioned earlier when you were closing loop, so to speak. You mentioned that this could do away with our flyway models and our present system of managing. If that were to happen, where on a timeline would that set waterfowl science back? Would we go all the way back to the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act? Is that what we’re talking about? It’s just a erasing over 100 years of conservation.

Brad Bortner: Well, I mean my point was, is if you don’t have the information, you’re back to, roughly the time of World War II where people were setting regulations, based upon what someone saw in front of their blind or the last person to drive across the Dakotas.

Ramsey Russell: Yeah.

Jim Sedinger: And I think Ramsey, you mentioned earlier asked about the unraveling and we’ve talked about some examples I think we’ve already seen in the prairies. Increased commodity prices have substantially reduced CRP and that’s no question having impact on duck populations. I think the risk is the whole thing unravels and without conservation programs in key areas, the wintering areas that Rick’s worked in the prairies, et cetera, California. You’re not going to have as many birds out there, just not. And they depend on all of these habitats. And so aside from the regulation setting process, unraveling is got huge consequences.

Ramsey Russell: You just mentioned going back to CRP type practices and stuff like that. We spent a lot of time talking specifically about US Fish & Wildlife Service, we have mentioned briefly Natural Resource Conservation Service. So when we start talking about staff cuts at other agencies like NRCS, when it comes to delivering private lands conservation programs, can you all elaborate on how that might disrupt habitat delivery efforts? Rick, Brad, either one of you? Can you talk about where those programs, how they’re instrumental to the North American Waterfowl management plan?

Rick Kaminski: Well, Natural Resources Conservation Service, more recently even the Forest Service, US Fish & Wildlife Service, state foundations, conservation entities, South Carolina Waterfowl, all these are elements for, I’ll say, entanglement, interaction, working together. And if some of them start falling out, the others will fall out too. It has to be intact. The public and the private limbs have to remain onto the trees in order to deliver the conservation.

Ramsey Russell: These are very important programs to waterfowl productivity. That’s the point. And to wintering waterfowl habitat into habitat from the breeding ground to the Gulf Coast. I mean, it’s essential. Rick, one thing I learned in your class all the time is when we’re talking about managing a whitetail deer, we’re talking about managing on a home range of about a square mile, we’re talking about managing waterfowl, we’ve got to manage throughout the entire continent. We’ve got to satisfy aspects of his life cycle requirements from the beginning to the end and back again. And a lot of these conservation programs outside of refuges, whether it’s on private, which NRCS is private land collaborations, different habitat types, it is sustaining this waterfowl. It’s very integral to waterfowl conservation as we know it in America right now.

Brad Bortner: Probably one of the most important waterfowl or wildlife programs out there is the Farm Bill. The conservation titles of the Farm Bill, which are administered by NRCS and Farm Services Administration, affect more habitat on private lands than the collective efforts of many other agencies. And so making sure that we have an effective conservation program in the Farm Bill and those agencies that have the ability to deliver or to partner, as Rick said, with other agencies is critically important. The Farm Bill is all about working land, private lands, and how can we not only produce agricultural crops, but also wildlife benefits at the same time. And we need to be in the waterfowl world, needs to be working with NRCS and many of the other partners. I know that Ducks Unlimited works with the National Association of Conservation Districts and others, NRCs, Pheasants Forever and others also partner with NRCS to get wildlife habitat on the ground. And with the reduction that NRCS is facing, USDA is facing that, there are going to be fewer people out there talk to landowners to develop these programs to put things on the ground. There’s also likely to be fewer dollars available to do some of this conservation work on the ground.

Jim Sedinger: I think I read recently, I might be a little off on this, but the general message is correct. Every county Farm Service administration building is slated to be closed. Every single one. They’re going to consolidate into more regional centers. Now, what impact is that going to have on delivery of conservation programs?

Ramsey Russell: It’s going to be significant. As someone that covered 24 counties within NRCS for a long time, there’s no substitute for putting knowledgeable resource people in direct contact with the landowner. Walk out, put boots on the ground onto the property and say, this equals that. Here’s what we can do to manage your property.

Jim Sedinger: Yeah.

Ramsey Russell: And you’re not going to be able to cover it at a regional level. Zero chance. It’s going to be just doling out programs and hoping for the best, which is not a win-win. One question I’ve got – Go ahead, Rick.

Rick Kaminski: No administration is going to diminish ducks during my lifetime. We will all stand up and fight for the cause, whatever it takes. DOGE Department of Governmental Expediency, I think it’s a great notion and something good is going to come out of it. There’s going to be cuts, there’s going to be savings. I can just hear President Trump in a year or two say, look at how much money we saved here and there. But something’s going to come good out of this. The US Fish & Wildlife Service and the other natural resources agencies, I don’t think are going to disappear. I might be wrong, but if they disappear, boy, are we a bunch of weaklings.

Ramsey Russell: Are a lot of these cuts, do they seem to be cutting from the bottom rung, the boots on the ground, are they equally cutting from the upper echelons and management also?

Jim Sedinger: They’re cutting the boots on the ground. They’re cutting everything. And that’s the problem. I think Brad worked for the federal government. Rick and I have been in universities, which is basically state government, our whole careers. There are a lot of ways you could make these things more efficient. I don’t think any of the 3 of us would disagree with that. And places where you could save money, no doubt about that. But what’s going on now isn’t that.

Rick Kaminski: No, this is a chop block.

Ramsey Russell: Yeah. Just paint with a broad brush. It really, truly is. Dr. Sedinger, you and you and Rick wrote a strong call to action urging support for federal employees and outreach to congressional representatives. In practical terms, what does meaningful advocacy look like from us hunters and waterfowl NGOs right now?

Jim Sedinger: It means contacting your congressional delegation, your representatives and senators, and I think, I’m not being cynical about this, but I think in the climate we’re in, folks that have Republican representatives might be more effective, but everybody should be doing it. And that means you can call them all on the phone. I’ve been calling my representative regularly. I think phone calls, I think vocal or in person communication is the most effective. And if Congress people start getting dozens of phone calls from duck hunters, it’s going to have an effect on how they view the world, and their willingness to speak up. If that’s going on in a good chunk of the congressional districts, there’s a chance it’ll have an effect, and I think, certainly writing letters and emails can help, but I don’t think there’s effective as personal contact. And it takes you 5 minutes.

Ramsey Russell: I think it’s a little unnerving for the average guy, especially the younger generation, to think about calling their congressman. But you’re exactly right, Jim. The few times I’ve called, you’re not going to speak to him, you’re going to speak to probably some college kid, intern wearing a Navy blazer sitting around waiting on the phone to ring. And the first time I ever called, I had a great conversation, I was doing all the talking and he said he would call me back. And when I hung up, my wife goes, you didn’t leave your name and number? I’m like, God, I didn’t leave my name, I didn’t have to, they knew my name and number. They called me back. Mr. Russell, we’re following up to your phone call. His supervisor called. And as a former federal government employee, I know, the power. I mean, a single phone call to any government office from a congressional office makes things happen. And it doesn’t take everybody. It doesn’t take thousands of calls, it takes one phone call. If every single person listening calls, something’s going to happen.

Rick Kaminski: You mentioned that the letter that Sedinger and I penned is a call to action. Why couldn’t that letter be redacted by the Duck Hunters Organization or Ducks Unlimited and sent out to their constituency? I mean, I remember signing these letters received from NGOs in the past, or they could create their own letter. Maybe they’re already doing that. But I haven’t gotten anything in via email or through the postal Service.

Ramsey Russell: But at the same time, now I’ll say this, every single person listening, me, you, you all, everybody is as busy as can be right now, we’re busier than we’ve, it seems like, if nothing else, just distracted. But we’ve all got this cell phone riding in our shirt pocket or our pants pocket, every one of us. And sitting at a red light, you can look up your congressional delegate push call and while you’re driving to McDonald’s, talk to your congressman and say, I’ve got this problem and I’m a duck hunter and I need you all to take a look at it. And if enough people call, it’ll happen. Brad, I’m going to change the subject just a little bit. And I’m asking you because you do have the long background in federal government, but what kind of leadership is needed from both within and outside of government to safeguard the future of this waterfowl science and management program we’re talking about?

Brad Bortner: Well, I’m going to follow up on with what you were just talking about. Those phone calls, duck hunters out there, you shouldn’t be intimidated at all by picking up the phone and calling, your congressmen, your congressional representatives or senators, they have staff that their job is to answer those phones, and they answer them, I think the phone calls, the personal contacts. If you’re out there in a blind, you may be sharing a blind with one of these members. Make sure you talk to them about how important waterfowl are to you and about how important these programs are. As for leadership, I think feel free to call the agencies, too and talk to them. I’m confident that the greater waterfowl community, the NGOs, are quietly behind the scenes trying to establish relationships with this administration and making the case for waterfowl. But hunters should be looking at ways to engage with those organizations, whether it’s a waterfowl specific organization or some other NGO. If you don’t feel like you want to sign up to any of the waterfowl groups that are out there and help them spread the message to the Hill, to the administration that these are important programs. Leadership within is difficult because there is such a sea change going on right now. There’s the director designee did testify was asked by Senator Bozeman during his confirmation hearing about his support for the May breeding waterfowl survey. I’m cautiously optimistic that he’ll support the data programs, but he also wanted to make sure he understood the administration priorities. But I think reaching out to the new administration, to the Department of the Interior, to the Fish & Wildlife Service will all be helpful. There are going to be new leaders. There are new leaders being appointed every single day. As I said, there are a bunch of critical retirements taking place today and we’re not quite sure who the new leader is going to be, but I’m hoping that they’re passionate waterfowlers like the 3 of us or the 4 of us on this call today.

Ramsey Russell: I’m going to ask this one question of each of you or somebody weigh in. I’m going to go back to the previous question about calling our congressman. And what specifically would you all suggest somebody listening say when they make that phone call? Because this may be the first time they’ve ever talked to an elected representative. What specifically should they say? How would you word it to a young 27 to 40 year old listening? That’s never talked to one of these guys they see on television on Fox News. How specifically would you talk to whoever answered the phone?

Rick Kaminski: I don’t focus on ducks. I would ask the question, how important to you do you think wet places are? We call them wetlands. How important are wetlands to you? Is it a puddle that gets in the way of your car and gets it dirty, or does it support life and produce oxygen and clarify water that’s important to all of us?

Ramsey Russell: What would you say, Jim?

Jim Sedinger: I think you can also, I think for many, the majority of waterfowl hunters, I think this is true of hunters in general, there’s a long family tradition of hunting that’s not true of everybody. But certainly they could emphasize their personal relationship to hunting and to wetlands, how important it is to their family. I don’t think it hurts to mention that hunters are invested. They buy a duck stamp, they pay taxes on ammunition and firearms, and they feel like, I don’t know if I’d put it in exactly this term, but the government owes them something, right? I mean, they’ve invested billions of dollars in conservation. And if they think about it for a minute, they’re being abandoned. The government’s giving up on this investment that they’ve made over their lifetimes. And is that fair? I think those are all points that, could be made. And I think that the main point is that they’re concerned and they want to see these places and the animals that use them conserved.

Brad Bortner: I wouldn’t limit them to one phone call first, but I would pick of a very specific topic for each phone call that you make. But I would call and tell them, wow, you understand what the administration is trying to do, that you support wildlife and you support wetlands conservation, you support waterfowl, and it’s important to you. Migratory bird hunting is a multi-billion dollar industry. Think of all the paraphernalia, whether it’s clothing, guns, ammo, decoys, guide fees, motels, gasoline that is spent on a yearly basis and for migratory bird hunting. So having a modest investment in these agencies in producing waterfowl, protecting waterfowl, protecting their habitats, running the refuges, returns on the dollar, greater than any interest rate you and I are going to be able to get out of a bank. So, it’s a wise investment and it’s a good use, it’s an efficient use of tax dollars. I would encourage hunters to make those phone calls, like I said, also look for other organizations and other ways to amplify their voices. Talk to other folks about making those phone calls, too.

Jim Sedinger: Yeah. One thing I thought about personally, we haven’t taken this step, but working through the state waterfowlers associations, bringing this to the membership and letting, that’s a way to amplify. If you’re a member of, South Carolina Duck Hunters or whatever the name is, or Nevada Waterfowl Association that I’m on the board of, get this message out to them. So instead of just you, now you’ve got a hundred guys calling. That’s a way to amplify it for sure.

Ramsey Russell: Yeah.

Rick Kaminski: Well, I heard from one of my former students who’s in a probationary status at the HAPET lab in Bismarck, that the letter that Sedinger and I wrote has gotten all the way through and up the chain and the Flyway Council. So that’s a good launchpad.

Brad Bortner: I’ve a lots of phone calls about my Field & Stream article too.

Jim Sedinger: Well, I sent you guys that email this morning, right? The Wildlife Society picked that up and it’s in their e-Wildlife for the ghost to 11,000 wildlife society members.

Ramsey Russell: I’m going to have the link posted to the caption below this episode of both your letter and this Field & Stream and numbers and links for contacting congressional delegates just to make it easy on people, but I think it’s a lot deeper than this. I hate the word probationary because to the outside, I mean, if you’re on probation and a lot of times you’ve been to jail and it sounds like that. But as a former federal government employee myself, every single federal government hired is in a probationary period his first year and those are the future. Those are the guys that are coming up that are going to replace the guys that are just retiring, normal attrition. These are the future leadership that are being just, whoop, you’re gone. All your new hires are gone. And so to anybody listening that doesn’t understand that probationary just means new hires. And having worked for a couple of federal agencies in the past, it’s not easy to get these jobs. You’ve got to be qualified, you’ve got to be educated, you’ve got to have the right stuff to get the job done before you’re even considered for hire. These guys went through a lot to get these jobs and for the first 365 days you’re a probationary employee.

Jim Sedinger: Just to follow up on that, Ramsey, I’ve been in the field with a lot of these folks, I’ve been to flyaway meetings, this notion that’s kind of been that portrayed them as kind of lazy, sucking on the public tit people is, it’s so wrong. I mean, most of the folks that I know in migratory birds, they put in more than a 40-hour week most weeks and if they’re in the field, it could be an 80-hour week. They work hard and they’re passionate and we went back to this earlier, most of them are duck hunters themselves. But they love these places and they love, they have a love for the animals themselves and they work their butts off for pretty average salaries when you get right down to it, until you get to very senior levels. So yeah, I think that’s important for folks to understand is these are real people, they work hard, they love the resource and they need our support.

Ramsey Russell: This really is to me a canary in the coal mine moment for natural resource policy, that a lot of us duck hunters feel on the outside of. We don’t feel like we’re a part of that policy. Beyond just the scope of what we’re talking about today, how do we rally a broader coalition among just everyday hunters that goes beyond waterfowl community to protect the science, the people, the systems that make conservation possible. And again, I’ll say that the North American waterfowl model works, it works. It is the envy of the world. Good years and bad years, we collectively harvest more ducks in the United States of America than the rest of the world combined because we can, because we can produce it, because we’ve got the science. Forgot to ask you this question, Brad. Speaking of the science and the model, we’ve talked about how these breakdowns in continuity and this loss of staff and funding will interfere with the scientific model. What about hunting itself? How does this science protect hunting itself in the United States of America?

Brad Bortner: Well, I don’t have the most unique insight here, but early in my career I saw litigation on a fairly regular basis on black duck regulations on other species. And whether you like the data, whether you like AHM, and everything else, the reason we put that in place is it’s almost impossible to refute that data. And we have not had any litigation against migratory bird hunting seasons since the putting AHM on the place. The scientific basis behind it is so airtight, so solid, so well respected that of –

Rick Kaminski: And envious and envied of.

Brad Bortner: Oh yes. I mean I’ve talked to Ramsey before about this is when I represented the Fish & Wildlife Service in Moscow and Tokyo and European conferences, everyone was very envious about the management program that we have in North America for collecting data and analyzing and setting our hunting regulations because they set them on a country by country basis in Europe and Asia. But anyway, the science leads to perpetuation of those seasons because it’s defensible. It is something that hasn’t been legally challenged because there aren’t any chinks in the armor. There’s improvements that can be made, there’s the healthy debate that Jim was alluding to and ways to improve of the models and improve the data collection. But no one has been able to poke a hole in it and say that we’re being arbitrary or capricious in the way we’re setting seasons and that we’re sustainably managing the resource.

Ramsey Russell: If due to budgetary and staff cuts, we poke all these holes into science in the North American model, we poke all these holes, we can’t do the count, we can’t justify what we’ve doing because we can’t survey, we can’t count, we can’t do the 4 square mile, we can’t do all this stuff. Is it possible that anti-hunters could litigate hunting into oblivion?

Brad Bortner: Sure. I mean, there’s always that risk. I don’t think, going out too far on a limb saying that there are always people watching and there are always people that do not support hunting. And if we showed that we didn’t have the data to inform decisions and make good decisions that we’d be challenged on that. Going to the budget and everything else, there hasn’t been an increase in the Migratory Bird program’s budget since 2010. So it’s been 15 years. And the budget that I used to administer was about $40 million and it’s still around $40 million. And in 15 years, I imagine that the interest alone has had a considerable impact. I know it has on my family’s budget. And I was forced to during my term to make cuts and there isn’t anything left. There is no nice to haves in, we’ve cut all sorts of data collection and we’re down to literally the 3 major programs that inform decisions and that’s the breeding surveys, the harvest survey and the banding program. And cutting the budget more is going to get to the point where you are going to knock one of the legs off of that stool, it’s pretty much a 3 legged stool at this point. We’re down to having 2 or 3 people who know how to make the calculations to run age. We’re down to, probably 9 or so pilot biologists in the division of Migratory Bird Management. It’s getting to the point where things are on the edge financially. I can pretty much tell you that there is no waste and there’s certainly no fraud or abuse in the migratory bird program. And I would be willing to say that pretty much is true through all of the natural resource programs that we’ve talked about today.

Jim Sedinger: Two points on, follow up on Brad’s comments. One is that the situation is, now USGS, they’re not necessarily directly involved in the regulations process, although it’s been USGS scientists that have done some of the modeling for the Fish & Wildlife Service. If you look at the major centers within USGS that had waterfowl programs, they’re either extremely diminished or they’re gone. Northern Prairie is basically not a waterfowl center anymore. They’ve got a couple waterfowl people there. Patuxent, which is one of the world’s leading wildlife statistical programs is down to a couple people in their statistical shop. Alaska, when I left Alaska, I think they had 8 waterfowl ecologists in the Alaska Science Center, I think they have 2 now. The California station is shrinking. Those are longer term issues because those are the folks that often do the longer term work that gets incorporated into management over a decade or two, right? They’re not setting regulations on an annual basis, but they’re an important piece of this whole matrix we’ve been talking about. What’s that?

Brad Bortner: The bird banding lab is part of the Patuxent station.

“The federal government at the time, if you take away defense, homeland security, and the expense just the number of people that work there was smaller than in 1992 in terms of numbers of employees.”

Jim Sedinger: Yes, that’s true. Yeah, that’s USGS. Thanks for bringing that up, Brad. The other point is, I was having a debate with a neighbor some years ago, so I looked this up and this was a few years ago, but I think it’s probably more dramatic now. The federal government at the time, if you take away defense, homeland security, and the expense just the number of people that work there was smaller than in 1992 in terms of numbers of employees. So over that time period, the country’s grown by 50%, people wise. And we’ve got fewer people actually doing what people view the federal government as, the agency, the people that they interact with. So as Brad said, I mean, in the waterfowl community, I think the shrinkage has been faster than that, actually. So we’re not talking about, huge amounts of waste in the federal government. We’re talking about agencies that can barely function these days because of the declines that they’ve already experienced.

Ramsey Russell: I wonder how we got here. Yeah, I really do. Because when we started off talking about how increasingly at the state and federal and university levels, conservation, well, hunting as conservation is increasingly less mentioned, let’s say. And also as we were talking about the need for people just to follow up and call a congressman. I mean, so many people are apathetic or busy or too busy to call or can’t be bothered to pick up the phone and call. It’s too much easier to look on Instagram than to call a congressman and talk about something important. We actually had a guest one time who had done a little bit of legwork and research that the average hunter today, of all the hunters in North America, 10% of them, even vote. I mean, that’s so no wonder at the state and federal levels, people aren’t responding to hunting and conservation needs because a lot of us hunters aren’t even voting. We’re too busy to go, I got to go check my stats on Instagram to make a phone call. So this question is how do we rally a broader coalition of hunters that goes beyond just the waterfowl community to protect the science, the people and the systems that make North American conservation possible?

Jim Sedinger: I’ve got some ideas internally about the waterfowl program, which I won’t get into right now. But you wonder if, I mean, I think the universities can have a, should have a role there. They interact with thousands of students every year. And I think a lot of universities hunting is, it’s not the main focus necessarily and I think there’s probably some regional variation there. if you’re in California, it’s different than if you’re in Mississippi. But I also wonder about, I think, the NGOs, like in our world, Ducks Unlimited, Delta, etc, I think they believe that, they’re interacting or educating hunters through their magazines, through their media. But I wonder if there needs to be a more active involvement, inviting hunters into like regional seminars or something like that where you’ve got some more personal engagement between the hunting community and professionals. That’s a role that, universities aren’t going to play that kind of role, but it’s something that the NGOs, in the waterfowl world, and certainly we’ve got the same kind of NGOs in the big game world. I don’t know, I hadn’t really thought about that, but it just occurred to me during this conversation that maybe that’s a role that the NGOs can fill or at least help with to sort of tighten that linkage between the hunting community and the rest of us.

Rick Kaminski: I see us waterfowl hunters as a very distant, minute planet out in outer space and for the most part, disconnected from people on planet Earth nowadays. When you think about us, we’re just little flock out there. There’s a lot of people that totally disagree with our passion for the birds and the blind, I don’t know. I’m not into social media, but there’s probably over 90% of the people in the world are into social media now nowadays. Maybe there’s platforms out there where we can get the word out, try to be a duck hunter.

Ramsey Russell: I wonder a lot of times why we duck hunters, who are so passionate and put so much time and money into this thing that we love, why can’t we be like the crazies you see on Fox News, camped out in front of the White House. Well, I mean, seriously, because you can take 25 radical hippies that are protesting something and get on news. There’s a million of us duck hunters that are just too busy going on about our business, making a living and paying bills and saving money to go on duck hunts and to just really get out and put ourselves out there and save this thing of ours. And when I hear, I’ve learned so much scary things in the last hour or so that we’ve talked about the massive scale back. I had no idea that 25% of the workforce, Fish & wildlife, left the office today for the last time. I had no idea that just how bad these programs and this science and these programs, we’re imperiled right now. And if we don’t come together right now to make a phone call or go chain ourselves to a fence at the White House or something, we’re going to lose it, aren’t we?

Brad Bortner: Well, I do think there’s a lot of energy and we can’t afford to be pessimistic. I think we have to look for ways to leverage that energy to build bridges to come together. There’s an old saying, when you’re in the field, there’s no one who hates a duck hunter more than another duck hunter because you don’t want the competition. But we need to find a way to come together to support the programs that we think are vitally important to what we’re all passionate about. I mean, look at us, all of us had careers over 30 years. I’m not like Jim and Rick where, I started in a different profession. My dad always was a navy officer, he always wanted me to go to the Naval Academy. But I decided in high school that I wanted to be a waterfowl manager and I would have been fortunate enough to follow that path. And I’ve followed that path for almost 50 years now. And I think all of us are just as passionate about this resource as we can be. We’re continuing on to do this and to try to raise awareness. But we need help from all the other hunters that are out there. We need to find ways to come together. We need to find ways to reach out to the other organizations that are out there that are trying to defend wild places and wild things.

Rick Kaminski: Absolutely. You said, the key words rally and uniform. I mean, this isn’t just about we and our passion, our greed for ducks and wetlands. Maybe we can lead like we’ve been leading since 1918 through the Migratory Bird Treaty act and subsequently a North American Waterfowl management plan, the grandiose ecosystem management self-sustained project that exists worldwide. We maybe should be the lead force to connect with the Wildlife Society and other professional societies of natural resources. It’s not just ducks, it’s natural resources, ducks being part of it. So I guess we’ll just have to see what’s going to happen with regard to TWS’s moves. I don’t know, has anyone observed what TWS has said about these executive orders?

Jim Sedinger: I don’t know if they’ve responded to the executive Orders these recent ones yet. They’ve been pretty active in social media with their membership. And I don’t know, I also don’t know quite, I’m going to talk to the CEO actually this afternoon, 1 o’ clock, but different issue. But they’ve been doing some speaking up for sure and I don’t know what their plans are.

Rick Kaminski: Now, you’re on the board for the Western Council?

Jim Sedinger: I’m on the TWS Council, representing the Western Section.

Rick Kaminski: Yeah, representing. Okay.

Jim Sedinger: Yeah.

Rick Kaminski: Have you sent your letter through those circles?

Jim Sedinger: I have not yet, no.

Brad Bortner: I do think, as you mentioned, Rick, it’s bigger than just ducks. It’s natural resources. I mean, I’ve heard also today that there’s 130 park supervisors that positions are vacant. There are, I don’t know how many forest supervisors and district ranger positions in the Forest Service that are now vacant. The same is, we mentioned NRCS, I’m on the board of supervisors for my local conservation district and we had our local area working group meeting with NRCS yesterday. And I think in our whole region of the state, we’re down to 2 resource conservationists. And working with the ag community, Department of Agriculture has something like 20,000 people leaving today. We need to reach across the board for all the resources that we’re concerned about, whether it’s NRCS, whether it’s the production agriculture, whether it’s park visitors, and figure out how to best articulate our concern about the future direction of natural resources in the United States. I know there are groups out there like TRCP, backcountry hunters and anglers and others that are trying to do some of that. And I call on all the professionals and all the concerned people to join those efforts and try to make sure that your voices are heard.

Ramsey Russell: Guys, in a single sentence. Let’s wrap this up. What do you want every waterfowl hunter in North America to understand about what’s at stake right now?

Rick Kaminski: Natural resources. Two words. Natural resources.

Ramsey Russell: Brad? Jim?

Jim Sedinger: Go ahead, Brad.

Brad Bortner: Oh, I was waiting for your wise words. I want everyone to understand that their voice matters and that they need to speak up.

Jim Sedinger: I believe our whole relationship to nature is, as Rick said, at risk. And whether you’re a consumptive user or not. And as Brad said, folks need to stand up and let their congressional representatives know that they don’t agree with these cuts.

Ramsey Russell: Thank the 3 of you all for you all’s careers, for your lifetime commitments to waterfowl conservation in North America. Thank you all very much for joining us today and bringing a lot of great points to our attention. Thank you all very much.

Rick Kaminski: Thank you.

Jim Sedinger: Thanks for having us, Ramsey.

Brad Bortner: Thanks, Ramsey.

Ramsey Russell: And folks, thank you all for listening this episode of MOJOs Duck Season Somewhere podcast. This is more than science, it’s more than politics. This is about the future of duck hunting, the health of our wetlands, the legacy that we leave behind. If we don’t stand up now, we may look back and realize we watched the foundation of North America’s greatest conservation success story crumble while we stood silent. And you know what? This isn’t somebody else’s fight. It is mine. It is yours. It is ours. If you’ve ever watched the sun rise over a duck blind, if you’ve ever felt the thunder of wings overhead, if you’ve ever taken a kid hunting or believe in the power of habitat and hunting heritages, then now is the time to speak up. If not you, who? Call your congressional reps. If you want to make things north of Richmond move like shit through a goose call your congressional representative. It’s as simple as pushing the buttons on the phone, you never leave home without and it matters. Not doing it is like driving a nail in the coffin yourself. Share this conversation because silence is complicity. There’s no comeback calls, there’s no second passes, there’s no do overs. If we lose this, it’s gone forever. I’ve got numbers and links below. See you next time.

[End of Audio]

LetsTranscript transcription Services

www.LetsTranscript.com