2 October 2018

On September 14 and 15, 2018, the Federal Duck Stamp design contest was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the unique and appropriate Springs Preserve.

Eligible species for the contest were the Wood Duck, American Wigeon, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal and Lesser Scaup. This year, artists were required to include “one or more visual elements that reflect the contributions waterfowl hunters make to habitat conservation.”

The winning artwork was selected from 153 eligible entries. Judges for the contest were: Lowell Baier, attorney and environmental policy adviser; Bob Blohm, retired administrator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Migratory Bird Program; Roberta Laine, art educator; Chris Maynard, artist and avid hunter; and Brett James Smith, wildlife artist who works in multiple media.

A beautiful acrylic painting featuring a drake Wood Duck with a weathered decoy in the background on a still, and somewhat misty, pond was the winning piece. The artist of this fine work is Scot Storm of Freeport, Minnesota. Storm also won the stamp design contest in 2003, with his rendition of a pair of Redheads in flight. It was used in the $15-stamp for 2004-2005.

In Storm’s current painting, the waterfowl-hunter element took the form of the duck decoy, a feature chosen by a number of other artist competitors. Other artists included background images of hunters with firearms observing or taking aim at waterfowl, duck blinds, hunting dogs, shotgun shells, boats, duck calls, background refuge signs, and more. There were even a few admirable attempts to portray multi-generational hunters in action. You can see some of these contributions in the second- and third-place pieces, by Frank Mittlestadt of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, taking second place with his perched male Wood Duck accompanied by hunter with dog collecting decoys, and Greg Alexander of Ashland, Wisconsin, taking third place with his flying Lesser Scaup and hunter-and-dog combination in a boat.

Since 1949, the artwork for the federal duck stamp has been chosen in a such a juried competition, originally in Washington, D.C., but now held at a different location each year. This year, the requirement of hunting heritage caused at least some distress or confusion. A few of the originally submitted entries appeared to ignore the new contest requirement, or “didn’t get the message,” and depicted ducks in settings without the hunting element. They were excluded from the judging.

While the three top placement pieces, and other high contenders, were of very high quality, many of the other general submissions seemed to be below par. It’s not only the hunter requirement that may have discouraged entries. In fact, it’s good to remember that there was a creative and very attractive winner a decade ago, in 2008, one which did combine a wonderful decoy, a Long-tailed Duck with accompanying decoy by Joshua Spies of Watertown, South Dakota. While some pundits also pointed to the absence of the three Hautman brothers – Joe, Jim, and Bob – in this year’s contest (each excluded from competition for three years because they won the last three consecutive contests), this doesn’t come close to answering the question of why there were not more quality entries.

>While the new requirement didn’t boost the number of entries, it didn’t really lower the number much. Indeed, the entries have been basically static over the previous five years, averaging 182 entries. (This is in contrast to, say, the 1990s when the average year’s entries were just over 473.)

We at the Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp have felt that there is nothing wrong in requiring art rule changes to draw attention to the importance of the stamp, but at the start of the hunter heritage suggestion last year, we doubted that this specific proposal, viewed alone, would serve to “grow” the stamp, producing greater appreciation and increasing sales. It certainly didn’t grow the number of entries, let alone the general quality of the majority of entries.

Still, we felt that the hunting heritage entry, if made within the context of a larger, meaningful plan to expand appreciation and sales, could be very good. But this idea, proposed alone and dropped into the rules, has represented a missed opportunity. Therefore, we originally suggested not rejecting the idea at all, but rethinking it and using it as a positive start. Our group proposed of at least five potential suggestions worthy of discussion that would emphasize the conservation issues confronting the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, the revised name of the stamp since 1977. Such ideas might include in future stamps:

1. A requirement for one year with background showing vital habitat (no close portraits whatsoever). Reasoning: this could emphasize the importance of wetland and/or grassland habitats to the particular species portrayed.

2. A requirement showing only female ducks at nests or with young. Reasoning: this could emphasize the essential role of the more cryptic females in incubating/raising the young ducks (not necessarily geese, swans, and whistling-ducks, where both males and females play essential roles). Note: Young have only appeared four times, in 1941, 1960, 1961, and 1976; and never has a nest been illustrated. The inclusion of females is also important since the artists historically have tended to focus on painting the more “attractive” males of the species.

3. Restricting the choices for one or more years to the generally sea-bound species of the seaducks. This would focus on the three scoters, four eiders, long-tailed duck, and harlequin duck. Reasoning: These species are among the most at-risk species at one or another level, and more conservation attention should be directed to them. In addition, the three scoters – black, white-winged-and surf – have only appeared once each in entire history of the stamp!

4. A requirement showing food as an added feature in the image. While this may be difficult, perhaps showing the waterfowl – multiple birds? – dabbling, dipping, and upending or perhaps consuming some vegetable or animal matter as food, it would be highly instructive. (Curiously, the stamp has never shown a dabbling/puddle duck tipping up in the background!) This new requirement might be not unlike suggestion #1, the habitat requirement, but more artistically demanding. Reasoning for inclusion: habitat without food is simply meaningless.

5. The requirement of the inclusion of a migratory non-waterfowl in the background, a suggestion we made in 2015. There is some time for this idea; it might be best in for the 2020-2021 stamp, celebrating the centennial of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 1920. Reasoning: Showing a secondary bird species would emphasize that other migratory birds, beyond waterfowl, are important beneficiaries of the conservation effort driven by the waterfowl-dominated stamp.

These five suggestions all contain important on-the-ground conservation lessons, potentially combining an artistic challenge with a serious environmental message.

These five ideas are among those that could still be considered in a longer-range plan for artwork and the stamp, all stressing the conservation functions of the stamp. There are two other creative suggestions that could enter the mix, although neither has an intrinsic conservation/biological message:

1. The recent suggestion on the “waterfowl hunting heritage” might give the hunters and the hunting culture a well-earned position on the stamp itself. This could also be expanded to include all the users covered under the “big six” wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife-watching, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation) covered under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

2. The inclusion of an “old-style black-and-white” version of the stamp for one year, a version which would highlight the wonderful history of the stamp and the role of collectors.

These ideas – seven in total – suggest an approach to the stamp in a new way for multiple years. But none of these should be presented in the absence of an overall plan. It is vital that multiple stakeholders be tapped for their ideas (e.g., artists, waterfowl hunters, wetland conservationists, collectors, Friends, state wildlife agencies, and the birders and wildlife photographers who increasingly visit the NWRs that are the beneficiaries of stamp dollars).

The potential risk – such as a continuing decline in the number of art entries – would have to be identified and addressed. The ultimate goal would be educational and institutional – to grow the appreciation and, ultimately, the sales of the stamp.

8 August 2018

This July 2018, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of one of the first environmental laws of the United States, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Exactly 100 years ago, Congress enacted this legislation, implementing the convention for the protection of migratory birds between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada). The statute makes it unlawful without a waiver to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell birds listed therein as Migratory birds. This act has served as a safety net for migratory birds of North America while allowing necessary development activities.

All other subsequent laws impacting our birds fundamentally rest on the foundation of the MBTA. They start with the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, through the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and beyond. These Acts have been thoughtfully amended by Congress, but never undermined. So, when you seriously tamper with the foundational MBTA, you are potentially destabilizing a lot!

The balance between protection and development in the MBTA has now been upset by a December 2017 Department of the Interior Solicitor’s opinion. With this recent opinion, decades of cooperation that benefit our migratory birds and our societal needs has been seriously upset. With this opinion, any lawful activity that impacts migratory birds or their habitat is considered incidental and does not require actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts to migratory birds. This is a major challenge to the underpinning of bird conservation laws in the U.S.

This recent Solicitor’s opinion essentially eliminates the protections provided by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and hastens the decline of numerous migratory birds throughout North and South America, many of which are being considered for listing as Threatened or Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Does this make any sense? What can be done to change this recent interpretation of a law that has been in place for 100 years, enforcing international treaties that protect migratory birds?

In the last two months, a number of conservation and environmental organizations have filed litigation challenging this fundamental change. Support for this litigation along with letters written to Members of Congress would be the most logical path designed to return to a more appropriate balance between protection and the many needs of society. Such action should raise awareness of the serious stakes involved.

4 April 2018

Refuge Friends, FWS employees, concerned birders, and conservationists of many varieties have been watching developments at Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge for about a year, worried that plans for construction of a huge border wall would destroy habitat and limit access at this premier refuge in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Santa Ana NWR protects 2,088 acres of unique habitat along the banks of the Rio Grande. The refuge was originally created in 1943 to protect migratory birds, and fully 94.9% of its property has been acquired through Stamp/MBCF dollars. The refuge rests on unique land, and it is estimated that only 5% of the Lower Rio Grande Valley’s native landscape still exists in the Valley, a significant proportion of which is at Santa Ana.

Of course, when President Donald Trump signed the $1.3-trillion omnibus spending deal on March 23, it averted another government shutdown. The bill, written largely without debate or discussion and passed without enough time to read its 2,232 pages, did contain a crucial short sentence in reference to the border wall in question. It read: “None of the funds provided in this or any other Act shall be obligated for construction of a border barrier in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.”

The omnibus bill also called for a “consultation of environmental impact” with the Secretary of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency before any walls are built along the Southwest border, while making specific mention of Santa Ana.

In this way, the prolonged struggle over the proposed wall at bird-rich Santa Ana NWR seems to have come to an end. The spending bill does include $1.6 billion for border barriers and technology, with restrictions on the kind of intrusive construction that can be done, but the NWR is essentially exempt. “The bill is very explicit in keeping any new border walls from going up in Santa Ana,” said Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club Borderlands. “I think we were successful in making walling off Santa Ana politically toxic.”

Originally, the Santa Ana border wall appeared to be a pilot project for other sections of the wall, if only because the land was under federal control. (An estimated 95% of the land on the Mexico border across Texas is privately owned.) In addition, the Administration had issued bidding guidelines that drew on elements of eight prototype walls that were about 30 feet high, higher than existing barriers.

But the reprieve could possibly be temporary. “This bill stated that there wasn’t going to be any funding allotted for this year, but that doesn”t mean that, that may not happen next year,” said RGV No Border Wall organizer Melinda Melo.

Moreover, the threats still exist for other Lower Rio Grande Valle wildlife habitat like the National Butterfly Center and Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park. While Santa Ana may be out of the crosshairs, the issue of habitat conservation in The Valley will surely continue. “For now, we’ve been able to save Santa Ana from having any kind of structure built around it, but the battle and the war’s not over on this issue,” said Congressman Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX).

22 December 2017

In late November, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to require art entries in the 2018 Federal Duck Stamp contest to include one or more visual elements that would focus on the theme of "celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage." Simultaneously, the Service also proposed that all selected contest judges must have "an understanding and appreciation of America's waterfowl hunting heritage and be able to recognize scenery or objects related to waterfowl hunting." The public was invited to send in comments, something that our readers, regardless of their view on this particular subject, may wish to consider.

Our group, the Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp, has welcomed the opportunity to make comments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to recognize the contribution of waterfowl hunters on the 2018 stamp.

The proposal clearly indicates that the Service has an interest in making some changes in the program, at least on the part of the artwork for one year, that may draw attention to the wetland – and grassland – conservation achievements of the stamp, achievements made through sales to waterfowl hunters. We can easily imagine that such a requirement involving one or more additional visual elements to "celebrate our waterfowl hunting heritage" might include an image of a hunter or hunters, a hunting blind, hunting dog, and/or camo-covered boat into the background.

While we feel that there is nothing wrong in requiring art changes to draw attention to the importance of the stamp, we doubt that this particular proposal, viewed alone, will serve to "grow" the stamp, producing greater appreciation and increasing sales.

We feel that this proposal, if made within the context of a larger, meaningful plan to expand appreciation and sales, would be very good. But this change, simply proposed alone and dropped into the rules, represents a missed opportunity. Therefore, we suggest not rejection, but rethinking.

Our group could think of at least five potential suggestions worthy of discussion that would emphasize the conservation issues confronting the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, the revised name of the stamp since 1977. Such ideas might include:

1. A requirement for one year with background showing vital habitat (no close portraits). Reasoning: this could emphasize the importance of wetland and/or grassland to the particular species portrayed.
2. A requirement showing only female ducks at nests or with young. Reasoning: this could emphasize the essential role of the more cryptic females in incubating/raising the young ducks (not necessarily geese and swans) and the fact that the artists historically have tended to focus on painting the males of the species.
3. Restricting the choices for one or more years to the more sea-bound species of the seaducks. This would focus on the three scoters, four eiders, long-tailed duck, and harlequin duck. Reasoning: These species have been seen to be among the most at-risk species at one or another level, and more conservation attention should be directed to them. In addition, the three scoters – black, white-winged-and surf – have only appeared once each in history of the stamp.
4. A requirement showing "food" as an added feature in the image. While this may be difficult, perhaps showing the waterfowl – multiple birds? – dabbling, dipping, and up-ending or perhaps consuming some vegetable or animal matter as food, it would be highly instructive. This requirement might be not unlike suggestion #1, the habitat requirement, but more artistically demanding. Reasoning: habitat without food is meaningless.
5. The requirement of the inclusion of a migratory non-waterfowl in the background, a suggestion we previously made. There is some time for this idea; it might be best in 2020, celebrating the centennial of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Reasoning: Showing a secondary bird species would emphasize that other migratory birds, beyond waterfowl, are important beneficiaries of the conservation effort driven by the waterfowl-dominated stamp.

These five suggestions are among those that might be considered in a longer-range plan for artwork and the stamp, all stressing the conservation functions of the stamp.

There are two other creative suggestions that could enter the mix, although neither has an intrinsic conservation/biological message:

1. The current suggestion on the "waterfowl hunting heritage" that might give the hunters and the hunting culture a well-earned position on the stamp itself.
2. The inclusion of an "old-style black-and-white" version of the stamp for one year, a version which would highlight the history of the stamp and the role of collectors.

These ideas – seven in total – are provided to suggest an approach to the stamp in a new way for multiple years. But none of these should be presented in the absence of an overall plan.

It is vital that multiple stakeholders be tapped for their ideas (e.g., artists, waterfowl hunters, wetland conservationists, collectors, Friends, state wildlife agencies, and the birders and wildlife photographers who increasingly visit the NWRs that are the beneficiaries of stamp dollars). The changes – if any – would need serious buy-in, The potential risk – such as a decline in art entries – would have to be identified and addressed. In addition, the wisdom of showcasing other constituencies who buy and benefit from the stamp program may also need addressing (e.g., non-waterfowl hunters, wildlife photographers, bird watchers, and environmental educators).

The ultimate goal would be educational and institutional – to grow the appreciation and the sales of the stamp.

Finally, two further comments are necessary.

First, there have been alternate suggestions that any art changes on the stamp be "recommended" and not "required." If an art change is well-defined, well-thought-out, and well-justified, it should be required. If a change is only "recommended," the waterfowl artists are in a quandary, not knowing whether non-inclusion of the feature will be a disadvantage when the artwork is judged.

Which brings us to our last rule comment, concerning the judges. The new proposed rule that the 2018 judges "must have an understanding and appreciation of America's waterfowl hunting heritage and be able to recognize scenery or objects related to waterfowl hunting" is too restrictive. Historically speaking, the previous judges have been chosen for their knowledge of waterfowl, biology, stamp design, wildlife art, collecting, hunting, and other vital characteristics. The mix has always been difficult, but the chosen judges have consistently represented broad interests. One would think that a "special-requirement contest" as outlined in the seven potential options above would have to include multiple individuals with a serious knowledge of the particular annual requirement. But other interests – especially design and art sensitivity – must be included. The Federal Duck Stamp Office needs only to be given general advice on the selection of a mix of judges, not be limited by restrictive requirements.

In summary, approaching the historic Federal Duck Stamp program with new art, appreciation, and sales priorities is admirable and is supported by the Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp. But such a renewal and re-commitment needs to be an effort that goes beyond one year's rules, one that takes a step back for a broader look at the program, one that includes multiple stakeholders, and one that must be driven by the intent to increase appreciation and the sales of the stamp.

 

The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas is under assault. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors have been taking soil samples, surveying portions of the refuge, and making other preparations in and around the refuge to build a huge and intrusive border wall. Apparently, work has been ongoing on the refuge for several months, but nothing was said to the public, until information leaked earlier this month.

	Photo: USFWS

Santa Ana NWR protects 2,088 acres of unique habitat along the banks of the Rio Grande. The refuge was originally created in 1943 to protect migratory birds, and fully 94.9% of its property has been acquired through Stamp/MBCF dollars. The refuge rests on vital land, and it is estimated only 5% of the native landscape still exists in the LRGV.

Photo:  USFWS

The Administration is also aiming to use the REAL ID Act of 2005 to bypass environmental protections and processes that would normally be applied to a construction project of this nature. Standard environmental and wildlife laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act would be bypassed to expedite construction.

On this map, you can see how some immediate properties upriver from Santa Ana NWR connect with the refuge. Implications for other properties – some  many miles upriver and downriver – are considerable. Any planned wall construction on the levee –  marked as "Elevated" here and at some places a mile or more inside the U.S. –  almost serves to relinquish territory southward between the levee/border wall and the river.

---

A version of this post first appeared in the 27 July 2017 issue of Wingtips.

23 November 2016

by Ed Penny board member, Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp

Many of you have likely heard the news that the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge is in danger of losing most of its lands. The Refuge is located in western Palm Beach County, Florida and is composed of 221 square miles (approximately 144,000 acres) of land owned by the both the federal government (through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) and the State of Florida (through the Southwest Florida Water Management District [District]). For a long time, the USFWS and the District have partnered to manage wildlife habitat and to provide public access at this large refuge. It is the largest intact portion of all that remains of the once vast northern Everglades. The refuge is important to the nation, the state, and local communities – over 300,000 visitors come every year to hike, bike, canoe, kayak, fish, photograph, birdwatch, and learn about and explore the Everglades; thousands of Palm Beach County students have been able to experience the Everglades first-hand on field trips to the refuge.

But now, the refuge could be reduced to only the relatively small portion (ca. 3,000 acres) that was purchased with federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (or "Duck Stamp") funds. How could this happen to such an important land complex? The District is considering terminating its long-term cooperative agreement with USFWS to manage and operate the refuge. The District wants exclusive management control of this land because the spread of invasive exotic plants (primarily melaleuca trees and Old World climbing fern) on the Refuge has gotten out of hand. These invasive plants are a very serious problem because they overtake and replace native plants that provide homes for migratory birds and other wildlife. Their spread beyond the boundary of the refuge is a problem for neighboring landowners as well. (Both Melaleuca quinquenervia and the fern, Lygodium microphyllum, are on Florida's list of noxious weeds, and hence constitute species of particular concern.)

Control of noxious weeds requires a great deal of focused cooperation and financial investment, and termination of the agreement would force the District to foot the entire bill. The Refuge spent almost $3 million to treat invasive species last year, more than half of its entire annual budget, and the state spent a similar amount, but the problem continues. It is estimated that $5 million for 5 years would be required to bring these noxious plants under maintenance control. These costs are in addition to essential management costs like performing prescribed fires, clearing canoe trails, fighting wildfires, and assuming law enforcement responsibility for the entire area. It is also not clear how the state would continue any kind of educational or recreational opportunities for its visitors.

The National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, the Everglades Foundation, the Everglades Coalition, and the Friends of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge are speaking up to bring attention to this issue and to help resolve this problem. For more information and to make your voice heard, visit http://refugeassociation.org/action.

The issue at this refuge and in other communities around the country with refuges or other public lands is not simply a bureaucratic tug of war between government agencies or an argument between big government or small government. The more broadly relevant issue here is the extremely dire need for committed care and stewardship of our public lands, whether they are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System or owned by a state agency.  Our Friends group is very enthusiastic in supporting any land acquisitions made with Duck Stamp dollars, because we understand their importance. We are also quick to react to "action alerts" and to contact our elected officials when important funding vehicles like the Land and Water Conservation Fund are endangered by spending cuts. However, land "conservation" is more than just buying land for the public domain and then simply leaving it alone. You see, once lands are purchased with public dollars like those from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (Duck Stamp Fund), they must be managed and cared for to truly benefit migratory birds and Americans. Public land management requires sustained financial commitment, but public funding for science-based, habitat management has declined over the last several years.

What exactly is meant by habitat management? Habitat is the often referred to as "the place where an animal lives." It may be obvious, but birds live in the wetlands, grasslands, and forests of our public lands throughout the U.S. It may be counterintuitive, but these places cannot simply be "left alone" to be in a "natural state." These lands must be managed. Similar to a farm, these natural places often require intensive care and maintenance to continue providing food, cover, and places to nest for birds and other wildlife. For example, wetlands require periodic manipulation of water levels (draining and re-flooding) and soils (disking) to produce mudflats for shorebirds and natural foods for waterfowl. Grasslands require regular prescribed fire, and sometimes selective herbicides, to reinvigorate nesting cover for birds and to control the pressure from invasive weeds. Forests require selective timber harvests to help sunlight reach the forest floor; sometimes replanting to generate appropriate species is called for.

These management practices, which support bird and other wildlife populations, require significant investment to acquire water supplies, heavy equipment (tractors), materials (tree seedlings), and knowledgeable people (managers) who know how to use them. Professionals in conservation understand that land stewardship is difficult and sometimes expensive, and for this reason, working together through partnerships is often the best way to get things done. Collaboration and cooperation is rarely easy, though, so the District, USFWS, and their respective leaders should be commended and supported for cooperating for so many years to manage habitat and provide public access at Loxahatchee.

Compared to a large and controversial (or even a very popular) land purchase, science-based land management doesn't usually make for attention-grabbing headlines. That is, it doesn't until our failure to properly manage the land leads to a difficult situation like the one at Loxahatchee. But committed stewardship is just as important to migratory birds and our opportunities to enjoy them as land acquisition! A similar situation could occur at any of our treasured national wildlife refuges or state Wildlife Management Areas unless we acknowledge the problem of reduced funding for management.

The decline in funding for public land management is real and must be addressed. For those of us who truly love our migratory birds and public lands, whether we enjoy them in a duck blind or through the lens of a spotting scope, it is time to speak up for a stronger commitment to managing our public lands, regardless of their ownership.

Photo of Loxahatchee at Sunset by Daniel Schwen, CC BY-SA 4.0.

This post first appeared in the 23 November 2016 issue of Wingtips.

13 February 2016

The Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp is in favor of recommended changes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has just made for the rules governing the famous Federal Duck Stamp Contest.

This proposal appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, 11 February. These recommend that the portrayal of the waterfowl on the Duck Stamp (officially known as the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp) should be enhanced by the addition of an appropriate non-waterfowl migratory bird species, beginning with the 2016 contest to be held this fall.

In existence since 1934, the Duck Stamp has generated more than $800 million for the preservation of over 6.5 million acres of wetland and grassland habitat. Since 1958, almost all of the proceeds from the approximately 1.8 million stamps sold annually go to secure this vital habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Stamp, today costing $25, is required of waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and older when they hunt waterfowl. Many other people buy the Stamp, including non-waterfowl hunters, anglers, bird watchers, wildlife photographers, stamp collectors, supportive refuge Friends groups, and environmental educators.

According to the Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp, the latest proposal is real opportunity to:

1. draw positive attention to the centennial of the Migratory Bird Treaty this year;
2. provide new artistic challenges to the participating bird artists in the Duck Stamp Art Contest (and potentially bring in new artists);
3. generate additional enthusiasm among people to support migratory bird conservation (increase people's understanding that it's "not just for ducks"), which may motivate more Americans to buy the Stamp.

The USFWS program for the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation [Duck] Stamp combines great art and design with a proven record of solid conservation that goes back over 80 years, securing vital wetland and grassland habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System and providing important recreational opportunities for all Americans. It's art and conservation, both simple and beautiful.

With the recent increase in the price of the stamp – to $25 – it is important to devise innovative ways to make the Stamp more appealing, especially for those Americans who are not required to buy a Stamp. It is crucial to find out how to sell more Stamps for conservation. Modifying the art rules to include additional and appropriate bird species is an ideal way to raise that possibility.

Many organizations expressed support for this idea, in comments made last year.

According to the Friends, the only disappointing thing about the current USFWS proposal is that it is not specific enough as written. The group maintains that the USFWS should have provided more details in the proposal, so that the public, which includes many talented artists and supporters, could provide better feedback to the USFWS.

The Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp presented just such specific wording suggestions in the past – to the USFWS in 2014 and then distributed to the general public in early February 2015.

Presented correctly, these contest changes will benefit wildlife artists, waterfowl hunters, and other Americans who buy the Stamp; support the Refuge System; and, most importantly, conserve the birds and other wildlife depending on us to secure wetland and grassland habitat for their survival.

Details on the USFWS proposal (including a downloable PDF) and the comment period (through 14 March 2016) can be found in the Federal Register, Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations.  (A shorter, sharable link is https://federalregister.gov/a/2016-02665.) To view other public comments and contribute your own, visit Regulations.gov, docket ID FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161.

You may also send in hard copy comments. Comments will be taken until 14 March 2016.

19 September 2015

On September 9, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) approved nearly $6.5 million from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to conserve 3,274 acres for five National Wildlife Refuges through fee title land acquisitions and easement acquisitions. The $6.5 million from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) was raised in large part through the sale of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (Duck Stamps).

"Hunters, birdwatchers and refuge supporters have once again demonstrated the important role they play in conserving our nation's wildlife," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. "The National Wildlife Refuge System preserves some of our nation's most diverse and valuable wildlife habitat… The money generated through the sale of Duck Stamps is essential in helping maintain and grow this unique network."

The five Commission-approved refuge projects are as follows:

• Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Maryland: Price approval to acquire 758 acres for $2.235 million. The fee-title acquisition consisted of five tracts, consisting of tidal marsh and freshwater creek, areas to be managed for waterfowl and other wildlife. To date, the USFWS has acquired 21,010 acres at the NWR with MBCF dollars.
• Brazoria NWR, Texas: Boundary addition and price approval to acquire a 1,090-acre tract for $1,962,000. The property from one landowner consists mainly of tidal wetlands, providing wintering, migration, and resident habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, neotropical migratory birds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife species. To date, the USFWS has acquired a total of 44,414 acres ar this NWR, the lion's share (42,641 acres) secured by MBCF dollars.
• Klamath Marsh NWR, Oregon: Boundary addition and price approval to acquire 400 acres for $400,000, or $1,000 per acre. The fee-title acquisition should provide habitat for a number of waterfowl (e.g., Northern Pintail, Cinnamon Teal, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, and White-fronted Goose). The NWR is also an important migration and nesting area for Sandhill Cranes and Bald Eagles. The habitat consists primarily of marsh composed of cattail and hardstem bulrush. To date, the USFWS has acquired a total of 41,045 acres at this NWR, including 18,289 acres with MBCF dollars.
• Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area, California: Price approval to acquire approximately 205 easement acres for $580,000. The Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area supports the last remnant of wetlands and associated wildlife habitat in a dramatically altered Tulare Lake watershed. The three tracts in this arrangement are either immediately adjacent to the boundary of Kern National Wildlife Refuge or in close proximity to other lands that the USFWS has acquired with MBCF approval.
• Turnbull NWR, Washington: Price approval to acquire an 821-acre tract for $1,298,000. This NWR benefits waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, neotropical migrants, and other wildlife (including Threatened and Endangered species). The two tracts acquired are currently being used for grazing and hay production and will be restored to wetlands and associated uplands. To date, the USFWS has acquired 14,618 acres here through MBCF dollars.

According to the USFWS, these actions will not only help provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, but they will also increased opportunities for refuge visitors who hunt, watch birds and other wildlife, and photograph wildlife.

If you bought a Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation [Duck] Stamp last year, your purchase went to secure these properties. You may now take a well-deserved bow.

8 May 2015