Illegal Waterfowl HuntingAnd Ways to Reduce It

Abstract

teristics, and both said magazines, Ducks Unlimited, fellow hunters,television specials, and other media were prime sources of infor-mation on waterfowl. These should be used to educate hunters toact within the law.

Most guilty hunters said they broke laws intentionally. Shootinghour violators comprised the smallest portion of accidental lawbreakers, followed by baiting and bag-limit violators. In all states,violators and legal hunters thought mandatory loss of huntingprivileges, large fines, increased law enforcement, and jail termswould be most effective deterrents to illegal hunting. Gray andKaminski concluded that state and federal agencies should imposethese sanctions on serious and/or chronic offenders. However thelong-term solution to illegal hunting of waterfowl and all gameis nurturing ethical behavior and hunting in our youth - thehunters of tomorrow

q f wildlife is an asset to a state -I and of course it is - illegalhunting brings economic and

recreational losses. Two MississippiState University (MSU) researchers inthe Department of Wildlife and Fish-eries surveyed waterfowl hunters afterthe 1989-90 season to garner infor-mation on illegal hunting throughoutthe Mississippi Flyway. The scientistsare Brian T. Gray, then doing researchfor his doctorate, and Richard M.Kaminski, professor of wildlife, MSU.

That ducks and geese are valuableeconomically and recreationally hasbeen widely recognized since theMigratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 waspassed to sustain continental water-fowl populations. Generous numbersof waterfowl were allowed to be har-vested at first; but, when numbers ofducks and geese plummeted in the1930’s, laws were enacted to curtailexploitation of the birds.

Compliance with laws was not asgood as game managers wanted. Manyhunters were apathetic toward suchlaws, and it was necessary to increasestate and federal enforcement activitiesto maintain prudent harvest of water-fowl. Waterfowl population andhabitat management have expandedgreatly since World War II. In fact,Gray and Kaminski say, "...no otherwildlife management program hasinvolved as many people, covered asbroad a geographic area, or cost asmuch as has waterfowl management.”

Waterfowl today gives pleasure tomillions of hunters and bird watchers.But, numbers of some species dropped

to troubling levels during the 1980’s.By the mid-1980’s, 10 common duckspecies were estimated by United Statesand Canadian officials to approximateonly about 28 million breeding birdsin North America. Mallards andnorthern pintails were estimated tobe at their lowest recorded levels atthis time, despite being numerous inthe past. Breeding populations for 10common duck species continued asharp downward trend through 1990.Subsequently, with improved wetlandand nesting habitat conditions, breedingduck numbers have escalated to nearly36 million in 1995.

Loss and degradation of muchwaterfowl habitat in the Prairie Pot-hole Region in the northern UnitedStates and Canada - due primarilyto agricultural conversion of naturalhabitats, long-term drought, wetlanddisappearance, and predation of duckeggs and females ~ have cut intowaterfowl populations. To maintainand increase numbers, a reversal ofhabitat impacts and predation wasa “must.”

Despite declining waterfowl pop-ulations previously, some hunterscontinued to ignore wildlife laws.Estimates from law enforcementofficers have suggested that illegalwaterfowl hunting in Texas and Lou-isiana has in recent years resulted inone to four times the legal kill,although these estimates were notconfirmed by scientific investigation.

There has not been much investiga-tion of illegal duck and goose hunting;most data had been obtained through

Dr. Brian T. Gray and friend

hunter-observation studies before theGray and Kaminski survey. Suchobservations underestimate illegal killand proportion of violations. More-over, they don’t address sociologicalaspects of illegal hunting.

In a society endeavoring to acceptonly ethical hunting, a study to quan-tify illegal hunting, and ways of cor-recting violations, seemed warranted.So, the survey’s first objective was toestimate percentages of hunters whoshot over bait, shot outside legalhunting hours, and/or exceeded dailylegal limits of birds. The researchersalso wanted to determine characteris-tics of hunters who stayed withinthe law and those who didn’t. Theysought to learn hunters’ sources of

information about hunting, and whichorganizations and professionals theysaw as credible sources on waterfowl.Finally. Gray and Kaminski wereeager to get survey respondents’opinions on what would deter law-breakers. Indeed. they wanted torecommend ways to lower incidenceof illegal waterfowl hunting.

The 12-page questionnaire went to8,220 waterfowl-stamp buyers from 12of 14 states in the Mississippi Flyway,and. with cooperation of law enforce-ment agencies, 1,465 known violatorsof waterfowl hunting laws in these12 states.

Response rates were excellent, Grayand Kaminski said. Even for violators.response was 77 percent; for stampholders not previously known to havebroken hunting laws, it was 85 per-cent. A surprising 69 percent of pre-viously identified violators told thetruth about having intentionally orunintentionally stepped over the lineto hunt illegally.

About 26 percent of respondingwaterfowl hunters in the MississippiFlyway admitted one or more ofthe three violations on ducks duringthe 1989-90 season. About 35 per-cent had hunted illegally in one ormore of the ways during the threeprevious hunting seasons. Duck-hunting laws were broken more thanlaws on geese; 10 and 13 percent ofthe respondents reported committingone or more of these violations ongeese during the 1989-90 and 1986-89seasons, respectively. Bag limits andshooting hours were violated mostoften for ducks, and shooting overbait was less frequent. For geese,all violations were committed atsimilar rates.

However, geese hunting over baitedareas was the most prevalent violationon geese; it occurred most frequentlyin the central region of the MississippiFlyway, where many geese spend thewinter. Regarding all three violationson geese, hunters committed themmost in the Central region of the Fly-way, followed by the North andthe South.

In contrast, the Southern regionhad the most duck-law violations inthe Flyway; and Mississippi huntershad the most duck violations ofall states.

Hunters move intoposition. Mallardsare in the air and

the two sportsmenon the right spot

them coming.

Waterfowl in acypress swamp.Ethical hunting

will preservewaterfowlfor future

hunters.

Changes in regulations during thethree-year period couldn't be shownto be a primary reason why huntersdidn‘t follow the law. But, game-lawbreaking did decline somewhat duringthe period, and fine-tuning laws mayhave had some influence, along withmedia publications about illegal water-fowl hunting.

Some studies have indicated thathunters are less likely to commit illegalacts as they age and gain experience.This is possibly due to the “mellowing-out” phenomenon”, wherebyhunters put less emphasis on limiting-out and more on the total huntingexperience - i.e.. enjoying nature,reminiscing, and camaraderie.

Certainty of punishment has beendemonstrated as a better deterrent ofillegal behavior than severity ofpunishment. Surprisingly, mandatoryloss of hunting privileges for one ormore years was perceived by legaland illegal hunters to be the best deter-rent. Nevertheless, increased lawenforcement, large fines, and rnanda-tory jail sentences also were believedby legal and illegal hunters to beeffective deterrents.

Gray and Kaminski found that most

mation on legal, ethical waterfowlhunting.

The survey also suggested that hunt-ers' perceptions of waterfowl popu-lations influenced behavior. It seemedthe method of communicating num-bers of waterfowl to hunters was viralin reducing violations. Thus, the word-ing “increasing but still low popula-tion levels for some species.” seemedpreferable to “best year in a decade.“

Gray and Kaminski said, “Unfortu-nately, there will always be a segmentof the hunter population that must beregulated into lawful behavior.” Theysuggested that flyway-wide sanctions(so violators couldn’t simply commitunlawful behavior in another state)would he effective. Such steps as man-datory license revocation, large fines,and mandatory jail terms seem neces-sary for serious violations (e.g., shoot-ing over bait and overbagging).

Equally important to assessingpenalties would be publicizing them.“Legal sanctions are effective onlywhen they are known by the public,and the public is award of theirenforcement,” said the authors. Again,mass media seems an effective channelfor making waterfowl violations andpunishment of violators known.

During the 1990-91 season, someMississippi Flyway states - Arkansas,

Louisiana, Minnesota, Michigan andWisconsin - put undercover opera-tions into use. Such aggressive andproactive law enforcement was effec-tive and may be a model for futurepractice. Additionally, the State ofMississippi, recognizing the problemof illegal waterfowl hunting withinits boundaries, hired a wildlife con-servation officer in 1994 whoseprimary responsibilities are enforce-ment of waterfowl regulations andeducation regarding ethical water-fowl hunting. During the 1994-95waterfowl hunting season (30 days),this person and another officer wrotetickets for 94 violations. Althoughwaterfowl hunting violations Stilloccur, the Mississippi Departmentof Wildlife, Fisheries and Parksrecognizes the problem and is takingaggressive steps to alleviate it.

In the Gray-Kaminski survey, huntersagreed that being convinced of thedetrimental effects of violating regula-tions on waterfowl populations wouldbe fairly effective in slowing law-breaking. They noted, “Educationalinitiatives to inform hunters of thepotential harm of violating could alsobe an effective way of reducing viola-tion rates." Nevertheless, the authorsbelieve that the long-term solutionto this problem hinges on adults

demonstrating ethical hunting prac-tices to youth. Kaminski recentlyadvised, “Seize opportunities to hea good hunter role-model to children.”

Percentages of hunters admittingshooting-hour violations

on ducks in 1989-90 season

Miss. 54.3 Ind. 14.5La. 31.7 Ill. 14.3Ark. 24.7 MO. 13.9Minn. 20.0 KY. 12.0Mich. 18.3 Wis. 11.8Tenn. 18.2 la. 11.3

duck over-limit violationsin 1989-90 season

Miss. 53.0 Minn. 15.6Ark. 34.6 Ill. 15.6La. 33.4 la. 14.6Tenn. 31.3 MO. 14.0Mich. 18.0 KY. 12.6Ind. 17.0 Wis. 6.4

Percentages of hunters admittinghunting ducks over bait

in 1989-90 season

Miss. 11.9 Minn. 4.7Tenn. 10.5 Ark. 4.1Mich. 7.8 La. 3.4Ill. 9.7 Wis. 3.3Ind. 8.9 la. 2.8KY. 8.4 MO. 4.2

Mississippi State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, or veteran status.