Great Harlequin article

Ryan Werden

Ryan Werden

Well-known member
While doing some research/reading on Harlequins I came across this article. Thought I would share this for those that may have never read it. It's very well written, and I guess I wasn't surprised when I saw who wrote it - Worth Mathewson. If anyone knows what year this was written, I'd be interested in knowing that. I couldn't find the year anywhere.

Thanks,
Ryan
 
Years ago Worth broke off his business with Wildfowl so I am guessing pre 2004 or older. I remember this one from the hard copy so it might have been published in 2003 or 2004 just before he left.
 
In Alaska the research is focused on recovery in PWS after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. I can't remember why the Harlis were effected harder than the other seaducks.

Most of the declines I am guessing are regional based on reductions in habitat for either nesting (mountain streams) or winter food sources on the coast.
 
indicate no decrease in Washington wintering numbers.....in fact they proved that pressure was lower than thought on them......

The region of Alaska that Prince William Sound is located just rejected a reduction in limit on them for non-residents......I understand they did reduce the daily limit on them for residents but if the information was correct it wasn't based on a further decline in the poplulation rather it was a failure for it to reboud to pre-spill population.....numbers there are definately down from the pre-spill "estimates" but its still a large population.....

Harlequins on the nesting streams and rivers are prone to abandoning nests when they are "disturbed"......since they are ground nester that nest in close proximity to streams, which is right where most hiking trails are located they are less successful as trail useage increases.....hiking is more and more popular, streams are gorgeous areas to hike.....Harlequins don't like us like we like them and abandon those areas....since there aren't "other" streams that don't already have nesting populations the number of successful broods decrease.....

On the wintering grounds they tend to use the areas that are most susceptible to problems with spills......thats not a reason, (at least here and at least up to now), for any decreases but the potential is huge for catastrophic losses if there was a spill in an area that they winter in.....

I'll pass on whats happening in Oregon but I can imagine pressure on the nesting areas is "by far" the biggest threat to them there.....killing birds are "getting places" is one of those very visible and visceral things and is "unfortunate" when it happens but overall the gunning pressure is small and not nearly as damaging as the loss of recruitment of juveniles.....

Steve
 
Steve,

Any idea why Alaska rejected the reduction on bag for non-residents? I'm assuming it's related to the potential tourism $ they may lose as a result? Also, looking at the Alaska waterfowl regs, I don't see any provisions specifically for Harlequin, so I'm assuming that residents can take 10per day as their seaduck limit?

Thanks,
Ryan
 
Steve,

Any idea why Alaska rejected the reduction on bag for non-residents? I'm assuming it's related to the potential tourism $ they may lose as a result? Also, looking at the Alaska waterfowl regs, I don't see any provisions specifically for Harlequin, so I'm assuming that residents can take 10per day as their seaduck limit?

Thanks,
Ryan
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure Alaska limits nonresidents to no more than 4 of any seaduck species annually, with a limit of 20 total.

T
 
already restricted to a total of (4) birds per species there really wasn't much to cut, (you can argue all you want about "after you get the ones that you will mount how many do you need thats another issue). I'm guessing cutting the "resident" limit will have a far greater impact on total birds harvested.

Not sure if they took into consideration the "economic impact" of non-resident hunters not coming....personally I doubt lowering it to (2) would have stopped anyone from going.....Alaska SeaDuck hunting is a TROPHY thing, (be it "bird" or "place")....if you want one you'll go for that bird and not for the number that you can bring home.....

Steve
 
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?t=69339

To view this thread you will have to join up I think.

However, try this link below first and see if it lets you at least view it with out joining. Steve joined up a few years ago I think.

http://outdoorsdirectory.com/

The link to the forums is on the left side and the Kachemak Bay is in the waterfowl forum.

It is a hot button topic for quite a while until last week when the board of game made the recommendation to reduce resident limits in that one bay. A bay that is not part of PWS, but is a large body of water off of Cook Inlet and is an important area for a variety of sea life.

The proposed reductions in limits was claimed by a lot of people to be the NIMBY request of one local non hunting user whose sons are on the Deadlist Catch TV show. The same proposal was submitted last year and was not accepted by the BOG. This year it came back and the gloves came off. Due to the emmotions the local advisory committee in Homer had some tough meetings I was told, but also good meetings because they brought in some bios from the state that had some data. Does not appear to be published though which causes some folks some issues.

In the end the users calmed down and accepted their fate of fewer birds.

However the users want good data now and want some studies done to determine what is actually happening.
 
Ryan, Thanks for the interest in my harlequin article. It appeared in the April/May 2003 issue. I will add that Washington took a very strong step forward in wise management of the harlequin after the article appeared. Actually, I don't think my article had a major role in the bag limit change, as other concerned people were moving forward prior to it. But at any rate, largely due to the efforts of Ben Welton (if you want to single out one single person to give thanks to, it is Ben) the limit was reduced to one per day. Then, even better, that was changed to one per season. It amounts to excellent management of a somewhat fragile species. I am sorry to report that Brad Bales, chief of waterfowl for Oregon, refused to lower the limit. And Oregon has far less harlequins than Washington. The Oregon limit remains at 7 per day. Very sad.
 
One interesting aspect of the comments on reduction of limits, decreasing birds, and the "[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]However the users want good data now and want some studies done to determine what is actually happening" is how ineffective we are at restoring a wildlife/fisheries population after it has declined. A prime example is the salmon fisheries throughout the Pacific Northwest, and specifically the Columbia river drainage and Klamath rivers. Huge amounts of money have been spent, large numbers of people work on the problem, and yet the "science" is murky and fraught with ambiguity (Klamath river), and the political will to make tough choices remains whimpy at times (the removal of 4 lower dams on the Snake system). I make my living working on said river systems and it is frustrating at times. Maybe someday we can stop taking each other to court and get something done... So I hope the end users that requested more info and research see an appropriate application of the research and not more political and selfish gobbly gook.

Matt
[/font]
 
~ Well put Steve. Washington harlequin are in better shape now due to the efforts of a few concerned sea duck guides and hunters. That being said-- during the summer/ breeding season "eco activity" ie-kayaks and rafts on Western rivers has been shown to have alot more impact on harlequin ducks than limited hunting during their wintering months on the saltwater.
 
Last edited:
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] So I hope the end users that requested more info and research see an appropriate application of the research and not more political and selfish gobbly gook.

Matt
[/font]
Click to expand...


Game laws in Alaska can be very political and self serving.

Several years ago the board was stacked with guides and there were proposals to set up guide areas like Canada and limit public access. A clear violation of the state constitution.

Pretty much anyone can sign up to be on the BOG and anyone that shows up to the meeting can vote someone in. With the use of internet communication systems this last election this winter was a big "us vs them" battle when it was leaked that some greenie PETA types were planning a "massive" take over of the BOG so that they could stop the predator program. The counter attack by a gun rights and hunting group filled up the hall with more supporters than the greenies. The greenies whined for days to anyone that would listen.

Federal subsistance rules are a clear violation of the state constitution as well, but we lost that fight in the courts (Katy John). Federal lands equals federal rules even though the animals are clearly state "owned" natural resources.

The users of Kachemak Bay and its many coves hope that enough of an alarm has been raised that the state or feds do something to study the issue.

With the Cook Inlet Beluga whales coming up to be listed as threatened or endangered there should be a push to study all aspects of wildlife in lower Cook Inlet.
 
Ray,

We have the same nonsense here in the lower 48.....Feds usurping states rights...PETA....Courts.....infighting among user groups, fighting among user groups, and the list grows daily...... I just love it when a judge decides what is "best science" after listening to a group of "experts"....... I better stop before my blood boils HAHAHA!!!

Occasionally some ray of light appears on the horizon and management decisions are based upon rational thought and have merit..

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top