DOCSLIB.ORG

National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018 National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018 A cooperative study completed by: Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Minnesota And The Ohio State University for the National Flyway Council National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018 Prepared by: Kristina Slagle, Ph.D. Research Associate Alia Dietsch, PhD. Assistant Professor School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University Technical Assistance provided by: David C. Fulton, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Assistant Unit Leader & Adj. Professor Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota i Suggested Citation: Slagle, Kristina and Alia Dietsch. 2018. National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Pacific Flyway. Report to the National Flyway Council from the Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota and The Ohio State University. St. Paul, MN 55108 Report Authors This summary document was produced by Dr. Kristina Slagle and Dr. Alia Dietsch at The Ohio State University. Jason Spaeth, Graduate Research Assistant, Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN had lead responsibility for implementing and collecting data. Technical assistance in study design, implementation, and data analysis was provided by David C. Fulton, U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the member states of the National Flyway Council (NFC) and Ducks Unlimited. Leadership and staff at the NFC and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) provided critical support and assistance in contracting between the University of Minnesota and the NFC. We would like to acknowledge the primary direction for study design and implementation provided by the Human Dimensions Working Group of the National Flyway Council, its members, and its executive committee. In addition, extensive technical assistance with study design and study implementation was provided by representatives from all member states of the NFC, the NFC’s Public Engagement Team and its members, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, the AFWA’s North American Bird Conservation Initiative and its members, U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, various team members and committees of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), and D.J. Case and Associates. ii Several key individuals associated with one or more of the organizations above provided significant contributions to and assistance with the design of the study including (in alphabetical order): Barbara Avers, Joe Buchanan, Ashley Dayer, Matt DiBona, Cal DuBrock, Jennie Duberstein, Howie Harshaw, Dale Humburg, Coren Jagnow, Don Kraege, Holly Miller, Mike Peters, Andy Raedeke, Rudy Schuster, Judith Scarl, Dean Smith, Blair Stringham, Mark Vrtiska, and Khristi Wilkins. iii Table of Contents Suggested Citation: ......................................................................................................................ii Report Authors .............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi Section 1. Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 Study Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 1 Study Design and Methods ...................................................................................................... 2 Section 2. Participation ............................................................................................................. 14 Hunting ................................................................................................................................... 14 Recent Trip Characteristics .................................................................................................... 14 Harvest ................................................................................................................................... 16 Section 3. Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 24 Satisfaction with duck hunting .............................................................................................. 24 Requirements for a satisfying trip ......................................................................................... 24 perceptions related to crowding and hunting pressure ........................................................ 24 Section 4. Place ......................................................................................................................... 37 Preferences ............................................................................................................................ 37 Ecosystem services ................................................................................................................ 37 Section 5. Discrete Choice Modeling of Waterfowl Hunting Trips ........................................... 49 Section 6. Policy and Regulatory Preferences ........................................................................... 57 Priorities ................................................................................................................................. 57 Perception of Existing Policy .................................................................................................. 57 Flyway‐Specific Regulatory Preferences ................................................................................ 57 Section 7. Avidity ....................................................................................................................... 67 Section 8. Engagement .............................................................................................................. 73 Participation in Non‐Hunting Activities ................................................................................. 73 Community ............................................................................................................................. 73 Trust ....................................................................................................................................... 74 Support ................................................................................................................................... 74 iv Section 9. Respondent Characteristics ...................................................................................... 94 Section 10. Non‐response Survey Summary .......................................................................... 101 References ............................................................................................................................... 123 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 125 Appendix A. Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 126 Appendix B. Non‐response Survey .......................................................................................... 127 Appendix C. Contact Letters .................................................................................................... 132 Appendix D. Institutional Review Board Determination ......................................................... 138 v List of Tables Table 1.1 Study stratification for sampling ................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.1 Flyway map .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 1.2 Initial sample sizes for states within NSWH study ........................................................ 11 Table 1.3 Unadjusted response rate by state ............................................................................... 12 Table 1.4 Non‐response sample and return rate by state ............................................................ 13 Table 2.1 Age at first waterfowl hunt and general pursuits ......................................................... 17 Table 2.2 Years hunted waterfowl of previous 5 .......................................................................... 18 Table 2.3 Average number of days per year hunting waterfowl .................................................. 18 Table 2.4 Days hunted for waterfowl in 2015 .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA
    CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River & Trempealeau River Refuges
    WEST - 10 UPPER MISSISSIPPI & TREMPEALEAU RIVER WETLAND TYPES John Sullivan Floodplain forest, marsh, shrub carr ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE species of sedges grow here, including tussock sedge, woolly sedge, beaked sedge, bottlebrush sedge, lake sedge, meadow This vast riverine Wetland Gem is a multi-state site sedge and nut sedge. Common shrubs on the refuges include comprising more than 246,000 acres of floodplain in • buttonbush, dogwoods, willows and alder. GRANT COUNTY Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa alongside more VERNON/CRAWFORD/ than 260 miles of the Upper Mississippi River. The corridor’s Hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors PIERCE/PEPIN/BUFFALO/ TREMPEALEAU/LA CROSSE/ TREMPEALEAU/LA complex structure of islands, braided channels, oxbows use these refuges as stopovers and migratory corridors. and sloughs includes more than 51,000 acres of floodplain Waterfowl species include trumpeter swan, tundra swan, forest and 48,000 acres of marsh. Wildlife habitat values snow goose, wood duck, American black duck, blue-winged are what this site is best known for. These refuges protect a teal, northern shoveler, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked significant portion of the Mississippi Flyway, which is used duck, greater and lesser scaup, common goldeneye, hooded during migration by 40% of waterfowl in the U.S. Other merganser and ruddy duck. Reptiles and amphibians found wildlife includes about 300 species of birds, 31 species of at the site include map turtle, painted turtle, spiny softshell reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. Humans also flock to turtle, the state threatened Blanding’s turtle, blue-spotted this natural treasure; more than 3.7 million visitors explore salamander, green frog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog these refuges annually and enjoy recreational offerings like and the state endangered Blanchard’s cricket frog.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: American wigeon, G.D. Chambers, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, ( bottom) greater scaup, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 7: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 8: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 9: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 10: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 12: oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 19: B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 24: male American wigeon, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan This is one of six reports that address initiative plans for the entire North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: the Chenier Plain Initiative, the Laguna Madre (Texas) Initiative, the Texas Mid-Coast Initiative, the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative, the Mobile Bay Initiative, and the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative (southeast Louisiana).
    [Show full text]
  • UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER POOLS 5, 5A, and 6 OVERVIEW Resource Description and General Response Considerations
    UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER POOLS 5, 5a, and 6 OVERVIEW Resource Description and General Response Considerations The Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Geographic Response Plan CD is developed to address the long-standing concerns about spills of oil and hazardous substances onto National Wildlife Refuge System lands along Upper Mississippi River. The Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Overview document provides information on project background, geographic description of Pools 5, 5a, and 6, response considerations and planning tools included in the CD. Background Due to long-standing concerns about spills of oil and hazardous substances affecting National Wildlife Refuge properties and associated sensitive resources on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR), the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota PCA, Minnesota DNR, Wisconsin DNR, US Coast Guard, US Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and private sector interests, with the assistance of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, have developed a set of planning and response tools for UMR Pools 5, 5a, and 6. The goal of this effort has been to foster communications, enhance spill contingency planning and preparedness, and to develop site-specific protection strategies that assist responders in prioritizing tactics and recommending strategies and locations to protect the Refuge and the public from releases of oil or other substances. This overview document provides a description of Pools 5, 5a, and 6 and its sensitive resources. It also provides general considerations for response. For more information, see the Site Specific Response Strategies Maps (link) and the Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Incident Action Plan (link) included on the Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Geographic Response Plan CD.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Hunter Survey, Mississippi Flyway
    North American Waterfowl Hunting Survey Canadian Mississippi Flyway Technical Report November 2018 H.W. Harshaw Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta 2017 North American Waterfowl Hunting Survey: Canadian Mississippi Flyway Technical Report i Suggested Citation: Harshaw, H.W. (2018). North American Waterfowl Hunting Survey: Canadian Mississippi Flyway Technical Report. Edmonton, AB, University of Alberta, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation. 2017 North American Waterfowl Hunting Survey: Canadian Mississippi Flyway Technical Report ii Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by Wildlife Habitat Canada, Environment & Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Government of Ontario, the Government of New Brunswick, Alberta NAWMP, and the University of Alberta. Primary direction for study design and implementation was provided by the Human Dimensions Working Group of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, its members, and its executive committee. In addition, extensive technical assistance with study design and study implementation was provided by representatives from all provinces, the National Flyway Council’s Public Engagement Team and its members, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies’ North American Bird Conservation Initiative and its members, the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, various team members and committees
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Passage” of Waterfowl
    MASSED WATERFOWL FLIGHTS IN THE MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY, 1956 AND 1957 FRANK C. BELLBOSE AND JAMES G. SIEH LMOST every year in the Mississippi Flyway there is one waterfowl flight A that is greater in scope and magnitude than all others. Some refer to it as the “grand passage” of waterfowl. This great movement usually occurs during the first week of November, but it may be earlier or later. In 1957, this spectacular duck migration occurred from October 23-25; in 1956, it occurred from November 6-8; in 1955, it occurred from October 31 to November 3. The 1955 grand passage of waterfowl was discussed in an earlier paper (Bellrose, 1957). The p resent paper largely concerns the grand passage of waterfowl in 1956 and 1957. Although the 1956 and 1957 flights were not so large as the one in 1955, they were still of unusual scope and magnitude in the Mississippi Flyway. They are discussed here not so much because of their size, but primarily because of the unique complementary observations made in Iowa and in Illinois. The 1955 massed waterfowl flight was well documented on its passage from Canada to Louisiana (Bellrose, 1957). Therefore, in discussing the 1956 and 1957 grand passages of waterfowl we have attempted to provide only a sketchy documentation of the over-all flights in favor of more detailed descriptions of the movement through Iowa and Illinois. Studies of waterfowl movements are productive of information on three aspects of migration: (1) the mechanics of migration including routes, speed, altitude, and flock behavior; (2) the problem of navigation; and (3) the weather conditions responsible for initiating migratory movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision
    Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision i Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision JV Waterfowl Committee Members: Greg Soulliere, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Co-chair John Coluccy, Ducks Unlimited, Co-chair Mike Eichholz, Southern Illinois University Bob Gates, Ohio State University Heath Hagy, Illinois Natural History Survey (currently USFWS) Dave Luukkonen, Michigan Department of Natural Resources John Simpson, Winous Point Marsh Conservancy Jake Straub, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Mitch Weegman, University of Missouri Recommended citation: Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, J. M. Coluccy, R. J. Gates, H. M. Hagy, J. W. Simpson, J. N. Straub, R. L. Pierce, M. W. Eichholz, and D. R. Luukkonen. 2017. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. Cover: Wood Duck, photo provided by Ducks Unlimited. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAN SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................. 4 Regional Overview .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS: Chris Mccloud July 30, 2010 (217) 785-0075 Januari Smith (217) 558-1544
    Illinois Department of Natural Resources Pat Quinn, Governor One Natural Resources Way ∙ Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 Marc Miller, Director http://dnr.state.il.us FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS: Chris McCloud July 30, 2010 (217) 785-0075 Januari Smith (217) 558-1544 Governor Pat Quinn Seeks Interior Secretary’s Support for Future Duck Zone Flexibility Illinois seeking approval of fourth duck hunting zone SPRINGFIELD, IL – Governor Pat Quinn is asking the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to consider granting Illinois more flexibility in setting future duck hunting seasons for the 2011-2015 seasons to enhance hunting opportunities and help retain and recruit waterfowl hunters. Federal rules only allow changes in duck hunting zones every five years and 2011 is the next opportunity states will have to change the rules regarding duck zones and split seasons. Governor Quinn sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar outlining the advantages of allowing Illinois to establish a fourth duck hunting zone. Current federal regulations allow states to be split into only three duck hunting zones, or two zones that can be split in two season segments within each zone or one zone that can be split into three season segments in each zone. The elongated geography of Illinois, with 430 miles from north to south, makes timing of waterfowl hunting seasons in the current three-zone configuration more difficult and contentious. “A fourth zone would help alleviate the conflicts that are arising in Illinois when zones are forced to be too large to accommodate the weather conditions and available wetland habitats in all parts of a duck zone,” Governor Quinn wrote.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Waterfowl Harvest Trend
    LOUISIANA WATERFOWL HARVEST TREND M M M Since Louisiana has harvested more waterfowl than neighboring Arkansas, and more than a million more ducks for the last years. *USFWS harvest data through 2013 Over the past years Louisiana has accounted for % of the annual US waterfowl harvest (on average). .M .M L O *USFWS harvest data through 2013 U I S I A LOUSIANA HAS THE N HIGHEST DUCK A HARVEST IN US, AND THE HIGHEST PERHUNTER TAKE. BIRDS PER HUNTER PER SEASON IN …OF THE DUCKS IN THE *USFWS harvest data through 2013 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY WINTER IN LOUISIANA *approximate, based on mid-winter survey data All of this will change if we don’t conserve Louisiana’s vital waterfowl habitat. For more information: http://la.ducks.org NOW IS THE TIME. THIS IS THE PLACE. Saving coastal Louisiana for waterfowl, for everyone LOSS FACT: From , Louisiana lost more than . million acres of coastal marsh = an area about the size of Delaware. (Couvillion et. al. 2011) FACT: Coastal marshes continue to disappear at alarming rates– an area the size of a football field disappears every hour. (Couvillion et. al. 2011) IMPORTANCE FACT: Louisiana is expected to winter ~ MILLION DUCKS and a half-million geese (% of the nation’s waterfowl and about half the Mississippi Flyway population). FACT: Louisiana has lost the capacity to overwinter % of the waterfowl it did as recently as the s. (Gulf Coast Joint Venture unpublished estimate 2010) SOLUTION FACT: DU works to keep rice agriculture on the % landscape, which provides of the available food for winter dabbling ducks on the Gulf Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana 1839 1993 1870 2020
    2020 SPECIAL EDITION - Changes in Waterfowl Migratory Patterns WILDLIFE Louisiana INSIDER 1839 1870 1993 2020 These maps show a history of wetland loss as the marshes convert to open waters (green sections changing to light blue). - Maps courtesy of EPA Duck photos by (left and center) Joy Viola, Northeastern University, forestryimages.org and (right) Shutterstock.com LETTERS FROM THE EDITORS Louisiana, The Sportsman’s Paradise, or is it? An adult female white-fronted goose, whose long, elegant wings beat rhythmi- cally and strong through the air, creating the lift needed to keep her at the optimal Every year we reach out to hunters in an altitude, rides a southerly tail wind at 60 mph to her natal breeding grounds in the effort to determine harvests of game and satis- Arctic, a 3,500-mile migration. She had no emotion when the low- flying, offshore faction of the most recent season, seeking input bound, Bell Ranger helicopter forced her off the rice field in south Louisiana early of those willing to answer these surveys. I want on her last day of rest before her departure for the breeding grounds. She has no you to focus on the word “willing”, as it allows emotion over the industrial development, where she once stopped over in a grain you to voice your desires, concerns and levels of field to refuel, or the drained wetland where she roosted overnight on a previous satisfaction with the management of the wildlife journey. She just keeps flying. The reasons why the changes in the landscape she resources of Louisiana.
    [Show full text]