 |
REVIEW OF CAPTIVE-REARED MALLARDS ON SHOOTING PRESERVES |
|
REVIEW OF CAPTIVE-REARED MALLARDS ON SHOOTING PRESERVES |
The following is intended to answer some frequently asked questions about the issue of releasing captive-reared mallards on licensed shooting preserves. In accordance with Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, Section13, shooting preserves are allowed to release captive-reared mallards, provided they are properly marked, and to shoot them in any number, at any time, within the confines of their premises operating under State license or permit. This review does not involve captive-reared mallard use associated with dog training or field trials.
What is the primary issue of concern?
Prior to the mid-1980s, shooting preserves released birds from towers as a general practice and maintained tight control to prevent birds from escaping to the wild and from coming into contact with wild waterfowl. In 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a series of inquiries regarding the interpretation of existing regulations and whether captive-reared mallards could be release in a free-flighted condition. The Service responded by strictly reiterating the content of the regulation. Since then, the regulation in 50 CFR 21.13 has been more broadly interpreted to allow shooting preserves to release free-flighted, captive-reared mallards. As a result, interest in shooting free-flighted, captive-reared mallards on shooting preserves has increased dramatically, particularly in the Atlantic Flyway. While the apparent intent of the regulation in 50 CFR 21.13 was to allow privately-operated shooting preserves unlimited opportunity to shoot captive-reared mallards, provided there is a clear distinction from wild mallards, large scale releases of these birds into areas where they are free to intermingle with wild populations has become more controversial and problematic.
Why is the Service reviewing the issue of captive-reared mallard releases on licensed shooting preserves now?
The four Flyway Councils (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies urged the Service to conduct a review of the potential conflicts of releasing free-flighted, captive-reared mallards and assess their effects on wild waterfowl. With assistance from States and Flyway Councils, the Service initiated this review in 1993 but subsequently suspended it until ongoing field studies designed to investigate key aspects of the release program had been completed and results made available to the public. In 2001, again at the request of the States and Flyway Councils, the Service reinitiated an announcement of its intent to finish the review. The contents and conclusions of the Service’s review of this subject are now available for public comment.
Are captive-reared mallards classified as migratory birds and subject to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)?
“Migratory Birds” are defined in 50 CFR 10.12 as meaning any bird, irrespective of its origin (including raised in captivity), belonging to a species listed in the MBTA. Mallards are among those species listed and therefore, captive-reared mallards are classified as migratory birds.
What are the specific issues of concern regarding the releases of captive-reared mallards?
A number of specific concerns were examined, including the potential for disease transmission, genetic introgression, and possible impacts on important waterfowl management programs, e.g. population and harvest surveys, banding activities, and the enforcement of annual hunting regulations. Without means of containment, releases of tens-of-thousands of free-flighted, captive-reared mallards into areas inhabited by wild ducks may pose a potential threat of disease transmission between captive-reared and wild birds. Pairing and interbreeding of captive-reared mallards with wild mallards, black ducks, and mottled ducks raise questions regarding genetic diversity and integrity. The influx of large numbers of captive-reared mallards into areas managed for wild birds may render population monitoring, banding, harvest assessment, and habitat management activities by Federal, State, and Flyway programs less effective. These potential biases not only influence survey estimates but compromise Flyway harvest management strategies and the promulgation of hunting regulations for wild ducks. Also, there is a potential for increased risk of violations of Federal waterfowl hunting regulations involving live decoys, baiting, over-bagging, and take of wild ducks out of season.
Does the Service’s review address these potential conflicts with the management of wild waterfowl?
Yes. The primary focus is to assess the potential effects of free-flighted, captive-reared mallard releases and subsequent harvest on shooting preserves on the status and management of wild migratory waterfowl. Information pertaining to these potential conflicts is discussed, and options for modifying these regulations are considered. We do not oppose the shooting of captive-reared mallards on shooting preserves to supplement hunting opportunities for the public when precautions are taken to control the distribution of these birds. The Service is obligated to safeguard migratory waterfowl protected under the MBTA.
Does this review address all captive-reared mallard releases?
No. This review does not address the release and harvest of captive-reared
mallards on sites not operated as shooting preserves, although similar conflicts
may arise when large numbers of these birds are released into habitats frequented
by wild waterfowl.
Does this review address the use of captive-reared mallards for dog
training or field trials?
No. This review does not address retriever training or field trials. We fully support the use of captive-reared mallards for these uses.
What possible options does the Service propose to address these potential concerns?
We believe several alternatives are available to alleviate potential conflicts
and resolve management problems associated with captive-reared mallard release
programs without adversely affecting the opportunities and operations on shooting
preserves. Many of these options would require some modification of Federal
regulations (50 CFR parts 20 and 21). We intend to explore these options and
invite public comment on any alternative that may alleviate this problem.
Return to Home Page