Over the last 30 years we have allowed our US coast to become unfriendly to migratory shorebirds. In fact human use have burgeoned along all migration flyways causing extensive disturbance, habitat loss and fragmentation impacting all migrant birds. The change is so pervasive that one has to worry, can we do any more than dress it up with flashy conservation actions and hope it will sort itself out on it own? Does it have to be this way?
Waterfowl faced a similar fate 76 years ago, although for other reasons, and sport hunters united with state and federal agencies to create a new conservation effort that saved waterfowl populations. Jay “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist of the 1930’s convinced President Roosevelt to pass the Duck Stamp Act, which created the first Duck Stamp in 1934. Ever since waterfowl hunters have had to buy a stamp to hunt ducks and the money created much of what we know today as the National Wildlife Refuge system. They went on to create a consortium of state and federal agencies called Flyway Management Councils in the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific migratory flyways which also persist to this day.
I can’t help wondering why the comparable users – bird watchers for example — don’t help the birds they “use”? Why do they mostly stand aside and take advantage of the wildlife protection system that someone else built? How is it lost to the estimated 70 million birders (nearly 20% of people in the US identify themselves as birders) that it is not the responsibility of sportsmen to protect shorebirds and other non-hunted species. The truth is they are responsible, and even though they spend an enormous about of money, estimated at 36 billion dollars annully, they have failed to protect the species they so desire.
Birders at Ding Darling Refuge in Florida
So what can be done? Ultimately, it comes down to money. Birders and other recreational users that enjoy wildlife need to financially support a new flyway-wide effort to protect migratory birds that builds on the existing agency framework. The money could fund an expansion and refocus of national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas to create more protection (e.g., disturbance from vehicles, people, dogs). This would be good, but 70 million people also creates a potent political force that could demand expanded protection for wildlife areas that are not currently under agency management. They could insist that current flyway management system be meaningfully expanded to include the interest of all migratory birds. Currently, flyway councils only consider regulatory actions and avoid any serious action concerning threats and management solutions for shoreibrds and other nongame migratory birds. A dedicated source of funding, overseen by the people who paid, would transform conservation of migratory birds in the US.
This is how sportsmen influence the system – they pay for it – they buy licenses, duck stamps, they have self-imposed taxes on their equipment, guns, and ammunition, and they are vigilant about the use of that money for the benefit of hunted species and recreational hunting. You cannot expect government agencies to focus on the interests of birders when birders have no interest in funding the system that meets their needs.
Ding Darling political cartoon on waterfowl conservation
