Page 17 - Waterfowl

legislation to establish the Conservation Commission, who signed petitions to place Design for Conservation on the Missouri ballot, or who restored and managed public and private wetlands. The evolution of wetland and waterfowl conservation is chronicled during three relatively distinct periods: 1) Pre-settlement–1930s, 2) 1930s–1970s, and 3) 1970s–Present.
Throughout each of these eras, reliable information from researchers and experienced managers laid the foundation for continued improvement in wetlands and waterfowl conservation. Biologists and pilots have spent thousands of hours in survey planes to provide a long-term record of duck and goose populations and the habitats they occupy. Managers and landowners have recorded harvest and hunter activity to track the impact of their management actions on hunting success. Detailed scientific investigations to enhance basic biological and ecological understanding always have been at the root of Missouri’s wetland and waterfowl agenda. From the beginning, Missouri has been a leader in both the biological and social science arenas. Hunter opinions and attitudes always have been sought and utilized to enhance the success of the constantly evolving Missouri Model.
Each hunter has that special place in the marsh, hole in the timber, or sandbar on the river that identifies him or her as a waterfowler. These spots often are unique to specific regions of Missouri. One section of the book describes unique regional features, such as those that separate waterfowling in the flooded timber of the Bootheel from the riverine marshes of northwest Missouri. The book captures the history of land use changes—both good and bad—and how public and private wetland managers have fought to ensure that waterfowl retained a place on Missouri’s landscape. The role of private duck clubs, federal refuges, managed conservation areas, and other public lands is shown to be dramatically different among the regions.
I can still remember that day in 19__! Each of us can fill in the blank—the iconic Armistice Day storm of 1940, the grand passage in early November 1955, the Halloween storm in 1991, or the Veteran’s Day storm in 1998. The traditions of waterfowling are formed by memories, written accounts, photos, and artwork. Decoys, duck and goose calls, and
boats from the era are constant reminders of a heritage, nearly impossible to explain and certainly not measurable, but so well understood that experienced waterfowlers simply nod in appreciation. Readers will recall their own experiences of getting up well before dawn, setting decoys before shooting time only to move with a change in the wind, and then suffering with a hole in the waders. They will close their eyes and picture the sun rising over the cattails, Mallards settling into the decoys, trained retrievers—and perhaps those not as well trained— returning to the blind with bird to hand, and later, smelling the duck roasting in the oven. Boats, blinds, decoys, calls, and artwork remain tangible products of a Missouri waterfowl heritage that are highlighted in Waterfowl Hunting and Wetland Conservation in Missouri: A Model of Collaboration.
It looks like a flight day tomorrow—could be new birds. If there’s one word that describes waterfowlers, it is optimism. It has been the rule for Missouri conservationists for the better part of the last century. Why else, having lost 90 percent of their wetlands, would citizens and professional waterfowl managers stay dedicated to the course of the Missouri Model? Those who laid the foundation for waterfowl conservation in Missouri were both optimistic and determined. That same positive outlook and can-do attitude is there today and it will be essential in the years ahead. It is the responsibility of today’s devoted waterfowl conservationists and tomorrow’s emerging leaders to prepare for and address the challenges looking forward. Models are only as good as the inputs, and the Missouri Model will improve only through continued focus on collaboration, science, commitment, and really hard work.
Dale D. Humburg Kenneth M. Babcock
Courtesy, Glenn D. Chambers.
Preface 15