By Bruce Ross, Executive Director
This article originally appeared in Wisconsin Waterfowl Association’s November Newsletter edition.
With many zone options and issues on the table, waterfowlers will be making their preference known through a WDNR survey coming out in early December. Here’s a preview of coming attractions:
We’ve been talking for about a couple months about the DNR’s opportunity to re-visit the waterfowling zone structure which the US Fish and Wildlife Service affords Wisconsin every five years. Last month we put out a survey to our membership in which well over 280 of you provided input. Thank you for your input and for comments. Here’s what WWA’s survey yielded:
The shorter the bar (i.e., the lower the “ranking score”), the higher the preference. In order, the top 4 preferred options were: #1 and #3 (tied for first), then #2 and #5 (tied for second). There was a significant drop-off of preference after the top four options. Essentially the highest preferred options are two variations on two different options:
- #1 and #2 are the same as the current zone structure, except where the split between North and South is – Highway 10 or Highway 64.
- #3 and #5 are variations of the “u-shaped” zone, which links an extreme southern zone with the Mississippi and Lake Michigan areas. The only difference being, again, the dividing line between zones – Highway 10 or Highway 64.
The intent behind WWA’s survey (and other organization’s surveys) was to shrink the number of alternatives to a more manageable/understandable number of options. The DNR will use these smaller number of options to survey 10,000 waterfowlers early in December.
On Tuesday, WWA took our results to a DNR-sponsored meeting of other waterfowling groups and DNR field reps from the four corners of the state. Our substantial number of respondents meant we had substantial input to the dialogue. Several things came out of this meeting.
- WHAT DO HUNTERS WANT FROM ANY ZONE RESTRUCTURING?: With so many options, and with so many different types of waterfowlers in the state, all with differing opinions, trying to make everyone happy will be impossible. Unless there is some common goal we are striving to achieve, everyone who doesn’t get exactly what they want will damn the process and the players.
- WWA’s perspective: The DNR has several recent waterfowler survey results and should attempt to “segment” the types of waterfowlers in the state (days hunted/season, zone crossers, field vs water, goose vs. duck, etc.) versus what each segment is looking for from a season restructuring effort (more days afield, optimize the migrator opportunities, state-wide opener, etc.). Such information, more so than simply what zone gets the highest number of votes, will be useful in better understanding the desires of all WI Waterfowlers, and then optimizing the structure within the structure limitations imposed by the USF&WS.
- LAKE MICHIGAN ZONE (LMZ): Lake Michigan open water hunting was recognized as a unique hunting opportunity, which has different environmental and migration factors than the rest of the state. So an alternative in the DNR’s survey will include an LMZ option, even though only 5% (maybe) of WIWaterfowlers use this opportunity.
- WWA’s perspective: We applaud the inclusion of an LMZ option in the DNR’s survey. We hope the DNR’s survey design will not pit a desire for a Mississippi zone against the LMZ but are concerned that it will. Both areas have unique characteristics that should be accounted for in the final structure design. But if simple vote counts are the driver, we may lose an opportunity to support a truly unique hunting experience on Lake Michigan.
- MISSISSIPPI ZONE vs. SOUTHERN ZONE: It was clear that as currently managed, there is not a significant difference between the Mississippi Zone and the Southern Zone. This begged the question as to whether they need to be separate zones.
- WWA’s perspective: We received input from both the Southern Zone and Mississippi Zone hunters who wanted the season close extended to allow greater opportunity in December when late season migrators are in the ‘hood. The DNR survey should try to capture this desire concretely. If the zone seasons can be aligned to accommodate these desires, maybe both desires can be met in a single zone. If not, they may be more appropriately managed as separate zones. (NOTE: A historical rationale for the Mississippi Zone has been that if waterfowl season length looks like a return to significantly shorter seasons, the Mississippi Zone may more appropriately be managed as a separate zone. However, DNR/USF&WS scientists view this as extremely unlikely in the period of this proposed re-structuring. But if it did happen, WWA would advocate for managing any unique nature of the Mississippi separately during this 5-year period.)
- A NEW 2-ZONE, 2-SPLIT OPTION: After WWA’s survey was sent out, the Fish and Wildlife Service surprised the state by authorizing a 2-zone, 2-split option. Since our survey did not offer this as an option, it will be included in the DNR’s survey.
- WWA’s perspective: This is an interesting option, but with significant implications. Assuming the zones would be North /South, how would Mississippi and Lake Michigan fare in such an arrangement? What opening/closing dates, for which zones, would be achieved with splits of what duration? If this option is selected by the DNR’s survey respondents, these details will be critical… but they may also offer the opportunity to start the season early and have some splits that allow Mississippi, South and Lake Michigan zones to benefit from late season migrator/open water opportunities.
- NO FOUR-ZONE OPTION: In discussion, it was decided that a four-zone, no-split option is impractical to implement. Rationale: for such a zone structure to offer different opportunities from each other, they would necessarily have to start on different days. So imagine a different opening day across four zones: If they all started on a Saturday, as most hunters seem to desire, the opening days on those four zones would span almost a month – something the majority of meeting attendees did not believe the waterowling public wanted to see, as it would eliminate annual flexibility, reduce teal season value and other practical implementation issues. This was a low preference option on our survey anyway.
Next issue (or maybe sooner): WWA will provide the questions the DNR will be sending out as a part of this survey. Since only one in seven WIWaterfowlers will asked to complete the survey, the rest of us may want to know!