No, this isn't a new attempt at waterfowl Big Days. But some of you
may be interested in this interplay between commercial interests and
government agencies. In this case, the USFWS stood its ground in the
interest of both science and waterfowl conservation.

>Subject: Megaduck Challenge- good or bad?
>
>You may have seen the advertisment for the Megaduck Challenge, where a group
>called National Waterfowlers' Registry (http://www.megaduck.com) is offering
>money for certain USFWS band numbers on Mallards. Of course, you have to
>pay an entry fee to be a part of the challenge. Sounds like a good idea to
>raise money for ducks habitat and increase band reporting percentages,
>right? Probably not, read on...
>
>
>New Organization Threatens Very Core of Waterfowl Research
>
>Henry David Thoreau once said, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was
>coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run
>for my life."
>
>A few years back, John Andrews, then Chief of the Office of Migratory Bird
>Management, learned firsthand what Thoreau was getting at when
>Waterfowler.com (WFC) "came to his house" in the form of a phone call. I was
>calling the Chief to discuss a project Waterfowler.com was finalizing that
>would do a whole lot of good for waterfowl research - or so we thought. WFC
>had concocted the idea that we could assist Fish & Wildlife by increasing
>the percentage of duck bands reported annually. To do so, we were going to
>put a bounty, or reward, on ducks baring selected federal bands. In fact,
>Waterfowler.com was willing to offer one million dollars to the individual
>who shot and reported a specific federal duck band that would be selected
>from current USFWS bands. Along with the million-dollar duck would be bands
>of lesser value and additional prizes. I went on to explain to Chief Andrews
>that we were currently negotiating an insurance policy with Lloyd's of
>London and were on the cusp of launching our million-dollar duck program.
>All we needed was the Service?s duck band database. In response, the Chief
>just about, well, he just about began running for his life.
>
>Actually, to paraphrase, he said this:
>
>If you go forward with this program, you could ruin everything we're doing
>in waterfowl research as it relates to banding. And banding is the core of
>what we do.
>
>I couldn't believe what I was hearing. We could do what? I replied. Clearly
>the Chief didn't get it. We wanted to help these guys, not hurt them.
>
>If you really want to help, the Chief continued, you?d drop the idea
>immediately. Either way, the department will not willingly release the
>banding data.
>
>But why? I pleaded. The Chief explained:
>
>Banding is a crucial element of waterfowl research. The data we gather
>through banding is essential in furthering our understanding of specific
>species and the overall health of North America?s waterfowl resource.
>Banding reports figure heavily into Adaptive Harvest models and guide us in
>setting seasons and managing the resource. Waterfowl biologists don't need
>quantity. They need quality. When you're working with banding data, quality
>is best measured in consistency. We have documented a long history of
>established norms in regard to band reporting. What you are proposing could
>dramatically alter those norms and thus skew our studies to the point of
>putting us in the dark.
>
>Feeling a bit embarrassed, I apologized and hung up the phone.
>Waterfowler.com immediately dropped the idea of the Million-Dollar Duck
>Program.
>
>Now fast-forward a few years. Recently a Waterfowler.com member made a
>number of calls to our offices with requests to buy advertising in our
>magazine to promote, you guessed it, a million-dollar duck sweepstakes
>called Megaduck Challenge. We explained that we, too, had had the very same
>brilliant idea a few years back but came to realize (because we were flat
>out told) that such a program could severally damage waterfowl research. We
>explained to him that once he talked to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, he
>would realize this, as well.
>
>To our disbelief, he told us he had already talked to Fish & Wildlife and
>that the Feds had given him "the same story" they had given us. Nonetheless,
>his company was going forward with their program. When we asked how they
>intended to get the banding data if the Service wouldn?t give it to them, he
>told us they had discovered that they could use the Freedom of Information
>Act to get around the Feds. Dismayed, we asked why they would go forward
>with such a program when they've been clearly told that doing so could
>severely hurt waterfowl research and thus waterfowl and waterfowling - the
>very thing they purport to be in support of. His reply was terse and
>telling: "We have too much money invested in it."
>
>Needless to say, Waterfowler.com turned down their advertising, as did
>(we've since discovered) Ducks Unlimited Magazine and the Delta Waterfowl
>Report. Wildfowl, however, accepted and ran their ad.
>
>In a telephone interview with to Tom Fulgham, Editor in Chief of DU?s
>Magazine, Tom stated DU's policy in regard to the acceptance of
>advertising:
>
>"Whenever we run an ad we try and assess what the impact will be. If
>something doesn't feel right, we often submit it to our conservation
>department to get their opinion. In this instance, our conservation
>department took it directly to Fish & Wildlife to get their feelings. Both
>agreed that this program would not be good for the resource and would have a
>negative statistical impact. Furthermore, Dr. Bruce Batt, our science
>editor, has philosophical concerns about whether such a program would be
>good for waterfowling."
>
>When asked if the group had approached DU with offers of donations, Fulgham
>stated that he believed there was talk in that regard. He went on to say
>that DU's conservation people have since told him that they "do not want us
>to go near this group at all," thus he felt that any such offers would be
>turned down.
>
>Delta Waterfowl Foundation confirmed that they were offered an opportunity
>to receive monetary contributions from Megaduck by becoming a conservation
>partner. Delta, however, made it clear that they did not wish to be
>considered. When asked to explain the decision, John Devney (Group Manager
>of Communications, Marketing and Development) stated that "Delta was aware
>of the US Fish & Wildlife Service?s concerns over their ability to maintain
>accurate harvest surveys in light of the Megaduck program and wanted to
>respect the Service's position."
>
>During a telephone interview with Brian Milsap, current Chief of the USFWS
>Office of Migratory Bird Management, Waterfowler.com asked the Chief to
>explain the Service's position in regard to the Megaduck program. "This is
>not something that will help us and could have severe effects on our ability
>to accurately estimate harvest rates," Milsap stated. "We know the current
>percentages as they relate to birds harvested and bands reported. With this
>program in effect, we would have no idea how those percentages were being
>effected." When asked to elaborate, Milsap stated that biologist know that,
>"historically, there is a consistent reporting rate in regard to
>mallards. If the lottery increases band reporting, we would misinterpret the
>data and would wrongfully conclude an increase in mallard harvest. This
>misinterpretation would then be figured into the Adaptive Harvest Management
>(AHM) models and impact regulation setting. Anything that drives up
>reporting rates biases the data," Milsap stressed. "And this doesn't even
>address the actual impact on harvest that so large a reward would have."
>
>When asked what his department intended to do in light of Megaduck, Milsap
>stated that "we're worried about all these things and the damage it could
>do. If and when we receive an official request for the data, we'll take it
>to a higher level in the department and try and identify the possibility of
>illegal activity in an attempt to stop it."
>
>Milsap was then asked if he tried to explain the negative impact the
>Megaduck program could have to the person who contacted him from the
>company. "I did," the Chief replied, "but the man said he had already
>invested too much."
>
>When you consider that American waterfowlers have invested over a billion
>dollars in waterfowl conservation, you have to wonder just how much money is
>"too much" that it's worth placing at risk the decades of dedication and
>commitment duck hunters have invested in the resource.
>
>Posted on the Megaduck website is the following:
>
>The National Waterfowlers' Registry (NWR) is one of the fastest growing
>member-driven waterfowling groups in the U.S. The NWR was established for
>duck hunters by duck hunters to support waterfowling in North America. Band
>reporting data is a crucial portion of the science of waterfowl conservation
>and management. Past efforts to improve band reporting percentages have seen
>varying levels of success. It is our hope that through the combined efforts
>of our members and staff that we may provide valuable additional band
>reporting data thereby enhancing the long term management of waterfowl
>across North America.
>
>How any "waterfowling group" can acknowledge that band data is ?a crucial
>portion of the science of waterfowl conservation and management? and then
>move forward with a program that has been deemed, at best, dangerous to the
>welfare of waterfowl conservation and management is difficult to understand.