A question I often hear from hunters is, “Why are waterfowl federally managed?“ or, “Why don’t the states manage them like other game species?” If you ask most waterfowlers, they will usually tell you it is because waterfowl were hunted to a near collapse of game markets or because waterfowl are a highly migratory group of species. While these answers are in part true, they are not the only reason behind the federal management of waterfowl.
If we look back at the history of waterfowl hunting in the U.S., the culture originated as a commercial market for not only waterfowl but also migratory birds of all kinds. Cranes, pelicans, swans, and even songbirds were all species in high demand for their meat and for their use in feather hats and clothing that were the height of fashion in the 1800s. During this time, there were few to no regulations on migratory bird harvest. Bag limits, season dates, and species-specific regulations were nonexistent. In a relatively short period, this led to the near-collapse of many populations, as birds could be hunted at any time of day and at any time of year.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Hunters, birders, and the U.S. government noticed the detriment these markets and lack of regulations had, advocated for, and sought out a way to protect and preserve these species. In 1916, the federal government (in conjunction with Canada) passed into law the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This act, later amended in 1918, created protections for a vast array of migratory birds (around 1,093 species today) and officially made it a federal crime to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell any migratory bird or its parts, including eggs, nests, and feathers.”
This act did not outlaw the opportunity to hunt and pursue migratory game birds; rather, it set the foundation for waterfowl management as we know it today. The MBTA recognized that waterfowl are a shared resource between the states and different countries (Canada, Mexico, etc.).
At this point, you still might be wondering, well, why doesn’t the federal government just give the states the authority to manage the waterfowl within their jurisdictions? The reason the states don’t have this authority is that treaties like the MBTA can only be created and administered by the federal government under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the Treaty Clause. This federal power also becomes important when we look at how waterfowl are currently managed.
Current Management Strategies
In 1952, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) adopted the Flyway System of waterfowl management, which is still in use today. This system recognizes that waterfowl have different life stages and events that occur in multiple geographic locations, from the far northern tundras of Canada to the coastal deserts of Mexico. Most waterfowlers are familiar with the four North American flyways (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic), which span the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Canada was the original and integral partner in the MBTA of 1916, whereas Mexico became involved in 1936 and was later followed by Japan and Russia in 1972 and 1976, respectively. These nations together (mainly Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.) collectively form the North American flyways.
Flyway level management by individual states, on the other hand, would not work because, from a legal standpoint, they do not have the authority to coordinate and administer treaties and management with other countries. Additionally, regulations and harvest recommendations that would come from individual states would not take into consideration the multiple life stages and events that occur outside of their borders.
Our current system of federally managed migratory game birds not only has the legal authority to manage these species with other countries but also considers and uses the best available scientific data from the breeding grounds of Canada to the wintering grounds of Mexico through GPS, banding, and aerial surveys to inform and create a regulatory framework that benefits migratory game bird populations and those who pursue them across a vast temporal and geographic scale.
While the management of most game species does fall under the duties of states, and rightfully so, this robust federal framework of regulations and laws has given the hunters of today the waterfowl hunting opportunities and populations that we have come to know and appreciate.