Dr. LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator. I am still following the ducks very carefully and shall continue to do it.

I think that Mr. Day has expressed exactly my own opinions. I have examined the many reports that have come in from our field men and I am just recently back from a trip through the Caribbean region. As a matter of fact, I headed the expedition that went to the West Indies and from my own observations, as well as from the reports, I would say that we have a population of ducks that is as good as it was last year, but not too much better. As to what we will have this next year, that is entirely in the lap of the gods, depending on what Old Mother Nature does for us on the breeding grounds. The indications right now are that we should have an increase, but it would be a daring man who would predict the size of the increase, if it occurs at all.

Senator ROBERTSON. Of course, you don't know what the crows are going to do; you don't know whether a drought is coming, but on the assumption that the crows don't do any worse than they have in the past, and we don't have a drought, how many ducks do you think there will be coming out this fall?

Dr. LINCOLN. I wish I could answer that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ROBERTSON. How many do you think went north this past winter?

Dr. Lincoln. During the spring migration?

Senator ROBERTSON. Yes.

Dr. LINCOLN. I would say about the same as last year.

Senator ROBERTSON. How many ducks?

Dr. LINCOLN. Our figure for 1947 was 54,000,000, and it is possible that there were a few million more this year.

Senator ROBERTSON. What is the highest figure reached according to the same method of computation in recent years?

Dr. LINCOLN. The peak of our waterfowl population, using this same method whereby we arrived at a numerical estimate, was 125,000,000 estimated in 1944. That is the largest figure we have had at any time since the January inventories were started.

Senator ROBERTSON. Is it true that you estimate that we should have a minimum of 80,000,000 to have any reasonable good shooting? Dr. LINCOLN. For reasonably good shooting, that would be an absolute minimum with the increased number of hunters that we now have.

Senator ROBERTSON. And until we get up to 80,000,000, you see little prospect for increased bag limit or length of open season. Dr. LINCOLN. That is right.

Senator ROBERTSON. And our goal should be to get them back to 124,000,000. Then we could increase the bag limit and lengthen the

season.

Dr. LINCOLN. Yes, I think the history of the former duck depression will show that that is exactly what was done. When we were down at the bottom, drastic restrictions had to be imposed; but as the number of birds increased, the restrictions were modified.

Senator ROBERTSON. Just one other question. Yesterday afternoon at the memorial exercises at Cape Henry in honor of Capt. John Smith and his little band that landed down there on April 26, 1667, I looked across the ocean there and there was a flock of 18 or 20 geese. What were they doing down there at Cape Henry? They weren't invited to our exercises.

Dr. LINCOLN. The migration of birds is spread over quite a long period. I would assume they were just the tail end of the migration headed north and had delayed their flight for some reason best known to themselves. They probably were quite satisfied with feeding conditions there or their physical conditions had not developed to the point where they would be obsessed with the urge to get on the breeding grounds, and they were just loafing along.

Senator ROBERTSON. Aren't they going to get back now a little late to do any good?

DR. LINCOLN. No. If they reach the breeding grounds by the middle of May, they will still be able to produce.

Senator ROBERTSON. Are there any further questions?

Senator THYE. Mr. Lincoln, how do you account for this terrific drop from the year 1944, when you had 125,350,000, down to the year 1947, when you estimated that you only had 54,000,000? That is a terrific drop.

Dr. LINCOLN. I agree that it is a terrific drop. In my opinion there are two major causes. One of the causes is failure of production and the second one is excessive harvesting.

Senator THYE. The failure of production was brought about by what?

Dr. LINCOLN. Brought about very largely by drought conditions in the major part of the breeding grounds.

Senator THYE. Drought conditions in the extreme north?

Dr. LINCOLN. That is right, Senator. Drought conditions on this recent occasion extended much farther north than they did in the early thirties. This time they extended clear up into the Peace River region in Canada. That region was untouched in the early thirties but it is a very important part of the waterfowl breeding grounds.

Senator ROBERTSON. Thank you very much. (The following material was subsequently submitted in connection with Dr. Lincoln's testimony:)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Washington, July 1, 1947.

MEMORANDUM TO STATE GAME ADMINISTRATORS

STATUS OF WATERFOWL, 1946-47

The attached maps and graphs were originally prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service as slides for use in presenting the facts regarding the waterfowl situation at a series of public forums held in 12 different cities throughout the United States. The slides were prepared in color, 2 by 2 inches. Several sets of these slides have been deposited with each of the five regional offices of the Service, from which they are available on loan to any interested group or individual. It is believed that exhibition of these slides will aid greatly in an understanding of the present critical situation. These are:

To obtain the slides, write to your regional director. John C. Gatlin, Box 1306, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Daniel H. Janzen, 828 Plymouth Building, Minneapolis 2, Minn.

Leo L. Laythe, 600 Weatherly Building, Portland 14, Oreg.

John Pearce, 1105 Blake Building, Boston 11, Mass.

James Silver, 310 Glenn Building, Atlanta 3, Ga.

The slides may be borrowed also from the headquarters of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Merchandise Mart, Chicago 54, Ill., and from the liaison office of the Service, Washington 25, D. C.

ALBERT M. DAY, Director.

INTRODUCTION

The waterfowl population has gone into a tailspin. The midwinter inventory revealed but 54,000,000 birds as compared with 80,000,000 in 1946, 105,500,000 in 1945, and 125,000,000 in 1944. During the years of this precipitous decline in the waterfowl population, there have been three disastrous breeding seasons coupled with a decided increase in the hunting pressure.

The great discrepancy between the available supply and the hunting pressure necessitates marked curtailment in the take of birds. It must be clearly understood that the purpose of regulations is twofold: First (the more important), to manage the resource so that an adequate breeding stock will be maintained; second (of less importance), to distribute the limited available supply as equitably as possible among all citizens.

Many factors have contributed to the decrease in the number of waterfowl. Biological factors have always played a most important part in the welfare of the birds. Among all species, loss in infancy is always high. Studies are needed to effect control of this loss. During the past 3 years there has been poor production in the Prarie Provinces of Canada, the continent's most important breeding ground for waterfowl. Factors of long duration which have brought about a steady reduction in the waterfowl population include drainage, reclamation, and the gradual conversion of major waterfowl areas into agricultuarl lands. Lead poisoning, botulism, and other poisonings and diseases have had a share in the losses. In addition, as the decreased population of waterfowl has been compelled to concentrate on smaller areas, predation by many species has become a more serious factor.

DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

(1) Waterfowl breeding grounds. Some ducks nest over all of North America; a few wood ducks and others breed in all of the Southern States; while some species like the Florida duck and the New Mexican duck, are laregly or chiefly confined to those areas.

It is true, however, that most of the ducks and geese breed in those parts of the continent that are shaded on the map. Nevertheless, even in this vast area there is great variation in the density of the breeding populations. Over the lightly shaded regions, pairs of nesting ducks and geese may be widely scattered. Habitat conditions are frequently unsuited to large populations, and many lakes and marshes do not support a single pair. By far the bulk of the waterfowl are produced in the heavily shaded areas, the largest extending from our own Prarie States, north and west through the Canadian Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, through Mackenzie and Yukon Territory to and including most of Alaska. Other important though much smaller production areas are the ininterior valleys of British Columbia; the valley of the Columbia River, Malheur and Klamath Basins in the Northwestern States; Idaho and western Montana; the Bear River marshes in Utah; the San Luis Valley and marsh areas in easter Colorado; the little known Perry River region in northern Canada; and the Tantramar, St. John, Hampton, and other smaller areas in the Maritime Provinces.

(2) Waterfowl wintering range.—Some ducks and geese may spend the winter in the interior as far north as there is open water, while occasionally along the coasts considerable numbers of birds are found north to Alaska, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Limited numbers, chiefly blue-winged teal, go as far south as nothern South America.

The chief wintering grounds, however, are at locations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Mississippi Valley, the interior valleys of California, the coasts of Mexico, and in a few scattered areas in the interior of the United States. In this greatly restricted region fully 90 percent of the ducks and geese of the North American Continent are concentrated during the winter season.

(3) Scope of waterfowl investigations in 1946.—The pins on this map indicate the headquarters of field personnel of the Fish and Wildlife Service who are engaged in research or management of waterfowl. At present there are 11 research men who are studying the diseases, movements, and management of the waterfowl. Among these men are six flyway biologists who just about "live with the ducks" the year round, spending the summer with them on their nesting grounds and traveling with them to and from their wintering grounds. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service employs 70 game-management agents or lawenforcement officers to protect and watch over the birds in circumscribed territories throughout the United States and Alaska. These men, working closely with State enforcement officials, are in a position to know where the birds are

located and their relative abundance. The Fish and Wildlife Service has some 180 refuges, which comprise approximately 3,500,000 acres that are dedicated primarily to the production of waterfowl. Naturally, part of the task of the refuge managers is to keep close track of the number of birds on these areas. These men submit accurate records of the relative abundance of the birds during different season, and the data for each year may be compared with data obtained during the same periods in preceding years.

Every year during the breeding season a number of research men (usually the flyway biologists), using boats, cars, and planes, make extensive surveys in the nursery areas to the north. The importance of the Prairie Provinces is indicated by the extensive coverage given to that area. In 1947, up to June 1, 6,500 miles in the Prairie Provinces were covered by airplane, and 12,000 miles were covered by car. During the winter of 1946-47 two Service biologists, flying a two-motored amphibian plane, made a careful survey of areas along 16,500 miles of the coasts of Mexico and Central America. Both coasts were covered as far south as the Canal Zone, and several million ducks were found wintering in the comparative safety of those waters. During the 1946 season, in cooperation with the Navy, two Service biologists were able to study conditions in areas in the eastern Arctic areas seldom visited by white men. The map also shows aerial surveys of coastal Alaska.

(4) Percentages of recovery of waterfowl banded in Ontario and the maritime region. This, and the three following maps illustrate the strength of adhesion of the different populations to their respective flyways. The first three have to do with birds banded on their breeding grounds. On them the percentage of recovery in the different States and Provinces is indicated by spots of different sizes. On the first map the largest spot (Massachusetts only), represents 30 percent or more; the next size (New York only) represents 20 to 29 percent; the third size (New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia), represents a recovery of 10 to 19 percent; the fourth size, (scattered over most of the States east of the Mississippi River, but including also Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana) represents a recovery of 1 to 9 percent; while the smallest spots (chiefly in the plains region from Saskatchewan south to Texas) represents recoveries of less than 1 percent. In other words, the breeding grounds of the maritime region and Ontario furnish birds, almost exclusively for the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways.

(5) Percentages of recovery of waterfowl banded in the prairie provinces and the Dakotas. These two almost continuous breeding grounds are, as would be expected, of basic importance to the Mississippi and central flyways. Note, however, that limited percentages (less than 10 percent in every case) do go to both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Most of the ducks involved in these studies are of the shoal-water species (the mallard, pintail, etc.). If a larger number of data were available for diving ducks (redheads, canvasback, and scaups), the percentages going from this region to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, would be larger. (6) Percentages of recovery of waterfowl banded in Alaska and Utah.-The Bear River breeding grounds in Utah are of almost equal importance to the sportsmen of the Central and Pacific Flyways. This is clearly shown by the fact that although California (Pacific Flyway) has the largest single percentage (20 to 29), 11 States and Provinces of the Central Flyway have percentages running from 1 to 20.

The really startling fact shown by this map is the importance to California of the Alaskan breeding grounds. Note that 81 percent of the recoveries from birds banded in Alaska, have been reported from California.

(7) Percentages of recovery during breeding season of ducks banded in South Carolina, Louisiana, and California. On this map the situation is reversed, the percentages of recovery being of birds banded at three important wintering grounds. Summer recovery of these does not necessarily mean violations, as many were retrapped in cage traps and released unharmed, and others (particularly in the north) were taken in steel traps set for muskrats and other fur-bearers. Again the importance of Alaska to the sportsmen of California is graphically illustrated: 55 percent of the recoveries of birds banded in that State were reported from the Territory. More than 30 percent of the recoveries of ducks banded in South Carolina and Louisiana were reported from Manitoba. It will be observed also that smaller percentages from both these wintering grounds were recovered north to Mackenzie and Alaska.

(8) Waterfowl shooting zones, 1946.—It has been suggested that better management of the waterfowl resource would be achieved if the hunting regulations were drawn up to cover flyways rather than latitudinal zones. The idea of managing a resource on the basis of available supply is biologically sound. The States have long followed this principle in the management of upland and resident game species.

Seasons and bag limits on pheasants, grouse, and quail have been dependent upon the availability of the species: one county or part of a county might be open, while another county in the same State might be closed or have a different length of season insofar as the hunting of a particular species was concerned. Last year the Fish and Wildlife Service was compelled to close the season on Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway in order to save breeding stock: at the same time, the season was opened for a restricted take in other sections of the country. Similarly, snow geese on the east coast are on the protected list, while those in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways (excepting in Idaho) are permitted to be hunted. For several years there was no open season on sea brant on the Atlantic coast, although a harvest of these birds was permitted on the Pacific

coast.

The facts at hand indicate that shootable species of waterfowl are much more abundant in the central and Pacific areas than in the States east of the Mississippi River. Consequently, in setting regulations it would appear to be sound management to consider this situation. A slightly longer season may be justified at this time in the Central and Pacific States than elsewhere. If we are to make the most efficient use of the resource an adjustment in length of the season, bag limits and other regulatory measures should be based on the relative status of the populations in different areas of the country.

(9) Atlantic Flyway.-On the four flyway maps, of which this is the first, the broken lines show the approximate boundaries of the biological flyways. For obvious administrative reasons, however, it would be necessary to group the States by management areas.

(10) Mississippi Flyway.

(11) Central Flyway.

(12) Pacific Flyway.

(13) Distribution by flyways of waterfowl, hunting pressure, and kill.—By parallel columns on this map are shown in flyways, the distribution of ducks and geese as determined by the 1947 waterfowl inventory; the hunting pressure as determined by the sale of duck stamps; and last, the estimated kill based upon the "score cards" submitted by sportsmen, the field checks of game-management agents, and the reports from those States that make a serious attempt to obtain this information. It will be noted that although the situation in the Pacific and Central Flyways is in reasonable balance, the Mississippi Flyway is badly out of line as, with only 25 percent of the birds, it has 42 percent of the hunting pressure and accounted for 37 percent of the total kill. Although the Atlantic Flyway has only 14 percent of the hunting pressure, it had only 15 percent of the birds, so its percentage of take (only 9 percent) is not surprising.

(14) Waterfowl population and hunting pressure. This chart presents in graphic form, the story of our ducks and gees for the past 10 years.

In 1937, when the country was working its way out of the last "duck depression," there was an estimated population of 40,000,000 ducks and geese. At that time, the total number of wildfowlers was approximately 600,000. With good breeding seasons and reasonable hunting restrictions, the birds continued to increase in numbers, despite liberalized regulations and a steady increase in the number of hunters up to and including 1942. With the entry of the United States into World War II, many hunters went after larger "game" so that for 2 years the sale of duck stamps fell. Nesting conditions, however, remained generally favorable so that with the reduced take, the continental population continued to climb to its 1944 peak of 125,350,000.

Low production hit the breeding grounds again at a time when, the war over, returning hunters had their numbers greatly augmented by thousands of young men who had been introduced to firearms and the out-of-doors, and had decided that they liked them. The result was an extremely rapid rise in hunting pressure just when the birds were least able to stand it, and in consequence of the combined action of all adverse factors, the population fell to 105,000,000 in 1945, to 80,000,000 in 1946, and to 54,000,000 in 1947. The latest unofficial estimate indicates that the sale of duck stamps for last season may top 2,000,000, more than three times the number a decade ago. The question is: What can be done to preserve the American system of hunting for this growing army? Logical reasoning will make it apparent that even if the waterfowl populations had remained constant over the years, this great increase in the number of hunters alone, would demand a drastic reduction in the number of birds that each individual shooter could be permitted to bag. The problem is one that must be faced squarely by both sportsmen and administrators.