​As of 50-hrs prior to the opening of the 2024 duck hunting season, hunting access restrictions are again in force in the Lake Connewarre State Game Reserve (LCSGR) due to the presence of “at least 1 Orange bellied parrot” (www.gma.vic.gov.au). Yup. That’s all it takes. However, duck hunters will still be able to hunt ducks at LCSGR, where most of them hunt-ducks! I’ll take that as a win! (see map below).
I’d like to think that Steve Dimopoulos, Victorian government Minister for Outdoor Recreation and Minister for Environment has been reading my orange-bellied-flops-in-the-duck-pond.htmlWhat the FWC? Blog (dated 6/12/2023) and taken my advice😉. In fact, I’d be happy to think he (and his advisers) just had a long-hard think about how to be good outdoor recreation managers and came up with this idea themselves. Either way, I believe it’s a good outcome for duck hunters and for advocates for the Orange bellied parrot. Realistically, those two groups are probably now mutually exclusive after the fiasco in 2023. Let’s hope they can all become one big group of advocates for wetland birds and their habitat again soon. 

By Paul Brown and ChatGPT

So, there is a lot of current interest in artificial intelligence, or A.I., and its ability to provide information on virtually any topic. A.I. systems such as “ChatGPT” are essentially knowledge-systems that are trained on existing knowledge and provide a conversation-based platform on which to interrogate a vast depth of that knowledge, on almost any subject.
Given FWC’s current engagement in the debate around the future of game bird (i.e. duck and quail) hunting in Victoria and South Australia I thought it would be appropriate to seek the A.I. viewpoint from ChatGPT with two simple questions (in bold below). The following conversation ensued, (here reproduced un-edited and in-full)
“Q1: Can regulated hunting be useful in waterfowl conservation programs?”
“ChatGPT:
Yes, regulated hunting can be useful in waterfowl conservation programs. Hunting of waterfowl, such as ducks and geese, can be managed through well-designed regulations and quotas to ensure sustainable populations while providing recreational opportunities for hunters. Here are some reasons why regulated hunting can be beneficial for waterfowl conservation:
1.            Population Management: Regulated hunting can help manage waterfowl populations at levels that are compatible with the carrying capacity of their habitats. By setting scientifically informed hunting quotas based on population surveys and research, wildlife management authorities can control population size to prevent overpopulation or habitat degradation.
2.            Habitat Conservation: Hunting can provide financial resources for habitat conservation initiatives. Many countries and states fund conservation programs through hunting license fees and excise taxes on hunting equipment, such as firearms and ammunition. These funds are often dedicated to wetland restoration, habitat preservation, and research projects, benefiting not only waterfowl but also a wide range of other species.
3.            Adaptive Harvest Management: Progressive waterfowl conservation programs employ adaptive harvest management strategies. These approaches involve monitoring population dynamics, habitat conditions, and harvest data to make informed decisions on hunting regulations. By adjusting hunting seasons, bag limits, and hunting areas based on population and environmental conditions, authorities can ensure sustainable hunting practices while safeguarding waterfowl populations.
4.            Conservation Partnerships: Regulated hunting often fosters partnerships between wildlife management agencies, hunters, and conservation organizations. Collaborative efforts can lead to shared research, habitat restoration projects, and educational initiatives aimed at promoting responsible hunting practices and raising awareness about waterfowl conservation. Such partnerships enhance conservation efforts and contribute to the long-term sustainability of waterfowl populations.
5.            Species Management: Regulated hunting can target specific waterfowl species for management purposes. For example, if a particular species becomes too abundant or poses a threat to other species or their habitats, hunting regulations can be tailored to control their numbers. This targeted approach helps maintain ecological balance and conserves overall biodiversity.
6.            Data Collection and Research: Hunting seasons provide an opportunity for collecting valuable data on waterfowl populations. Through hunting license requirements and mandatory reporting of harvested birds, wildlife management agencies can gather crucial information on population demographics, migration patterns, and habitat use. These data contribute to research, modeling, and conservation planning efforts.
It's important to note that regulated hunting must be based on sound scientific principles, with close monitoring and adaptive management strategies in place. By carefully balancing hunting opportunities with conservation goals, regulated hunting can contribute to waterfowl population management, habitat conservation, and the sustainable use of wildlife resources.”
 
“Q2: Will banning duck hunting be useful to conserve waterfowl populations?”
“ChatGPT:
The question of whether banning duck hunting would be useful to conserve waterfowl populations is a complex and debated topic. While a complete ban on duck hunting may seem like a straightforward solution to protect waterfowl, the impact of such a ban on conservation efforts requires careful consideration. Here are some points to consider:
1.            Population Management: Well-regulated hunting can be an effective tool for population management. Hunting seasons and bag limits are typically designed to ensure sustainable harvest levels that do not negatively impact waterfowl populations. Banning hunting entirely may remove a management tool that allows for population control, potentially leading to unintended consequences such as overpopulation, increased competition for resources, and habitat degradation.
2.            Conservation Funding: Duck hunting licenses, permits, and associated taxes often contribute to funding conservation programs. These financial resources play a crucial role in habitat conservation and restoration efforts that benefit waterfowl populations. A ban on hunting would eliminate a significant source of revenue that supports habitat protection and management activities.
3.            Stakeholder Engagement: Hunters and hunting organizations often play an active role in waterfowl conservation. They contribute to wetland conservation, support research initiatives, and participate in habitat restoration projects. Banning hunting could potentially diminish the engagement and support of these stakeholders, leading to reduced involvement in conservation efforts.
4.            Cultural and Social Considerations: Hunting traditions and cultural practices related to waterfowl hunting have existed for centuries in various communities. For some individuals, hunting is a deeply ingrained part of their heritage and lifestyle. Banning hunting without considering cultural and social factors could lead to conflicts and a lack of public support for conservation efforts.
5.            Sustainable Harvest and Wildlife Management: Hunting regulations can be designed to ensure sustainable harvest levels that consider waterfowl population dynamics and reproductive potential. By setting appropriate bag limits and hunting seasons, wildlife managers can maintain healthy populations while providing recreational opportunities for hunters. These regulations can be adapted and refined over time based on scientific research and monitoring data.
6.            Alternative Conservation Measures: While hunting is one tool for waterfowl conservation, other measures can also contribute to their protection. Wetland restoration, habitat preservation, predator management, and educational programs can complement hunting regulations to ensure the long-term sustainability of waterfowl populations.
It's worth noting that the impact of a ban on duck hunting would depend on specific regional contexts, including the status of waterfowl populations, hunting practices, and conservation efforts already in place. In some situations, temporary hunting moratoriums or stricter regulations may be more effective than an outright ban.
Ultimately, the decision to ban duck hunting or adopt alternative conservation measures requires a comprehensive evaluation of the ecological, social, and economic factors involved, along with consideration of the long-term sustainability of waterfowl populations and their habitats.”


Editor’s note: It should be noted that ChatGPT is not completely unbiased, and in fact it says about itself, “I don't have beliefs, opinions, or biases of my own. However, I can learn biases from the text that I've been trained on, which may reflect the biases present in the data. I have been trained on a diverse range of internet text, so I may have picked up certain biases present in those sources.”
So, any biases it contains are essentially the collective viewpoint synthesised from all the diverse range of internet text sources from which ChatGPT learned. That specific training material included books, articles, websites, and other publicly available written content available up until September 2021. Exposing the model to a wide array of topics, covering areas such as science, literature, history and technology.
I suggest that, given the subject matter of the above questions it would be almost impossible for any other unbiased group, or decision-making process to come up with less biased answers. I can only hope that the Victorian and South Australian government committees presently considering the future of "game bird hunting" in those states, are as well informed, and unbiased, as Chat GPT.
If you don’t believe me, ask ChatGPT yourself?
https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt

​Duck hunting has never been identified as a threatening process for critically endangered Orange-bellied Parrots. The main threats to this species are from habitat loss (e.g., coastal development and climate change). The recovery plan includes a captive breeding program (DELWP 2016). In Victoria and Tasmania, juveniles are raised and released to join the over-wintering population in Victoria and South Australia feeding and roosting in coastal saltmarsh and chenopod scrublands.

The Connewarre State Game Reserve (CSGR) covers 3193 Ha between Geelong and the mouth of the Barwon River at Barwon Heads in Victoria. CSGR includes several distinct areas, Reedy Lake (550 Ha), Hospital Swamps (345 Ha) and Lake Connewarre (including Salt swamp, Orange-bellied Parrot reserve, Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the lower estuary) (2298 Ha) (Figure 2). On the 19th May 2023 the entire CSGR was closed to duck hunting to “ensure the safe release of captive-bred critically endangered orange-bellied parrots in the area”. The hunting season had already been shortened with a later start and was scheduled to finish several weeks earlier than normal on the 30th May. On the day the decision was announced (16th May), I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, Hon Ingrid Stitt urging her to review the decision, and delay the release of the Orange Bellied Parrots until after the season had closed. Five weeks later, I received a reply containing little more information than was in the original official media release and stating, “Hunting activity close to a known Orange-bellied parrot location has the potential to interrupt important feeding and flocking activities”, and “The release of the captive birds is timed to coincide with returning migratory birds and seasonal food availability”.

Vegetation classes useful for Orange-bellied Parrots (for feeding, roosting and cover), include Chenopod shrublands & saltmarsh (Loyn, Lane, Chandler, & Carr, 1986). These vegetation types do grow in small areas around the extreme margins of Reedy Lake above the normal high-water mark (Figure 3.) Reedy Lake is the largest freshwater lake in central Victoria and is predominantly reed beds, open water and aquatic vegetation with only 9-50 Ha (2-10%) of this saltmarsh herb fields (Billows & Gwyther, 2007; Ecological Associates, 2014)(See Figure 3). Data is sparser on Hospital Swamp, but it would be similar (let’s say 35 Ha, 10%). Whereas Lake Connewarre is predominantly saltmarsh and Chenopod scrub (i.e., Orange-bellied Parrot habitat) as well as open water. Conservatively, 40% of land around Lake Connewarre (east of Tait Point, Figure 2) within the CSGR is composed of Orange-bellied Parrot feeding and roosting habitat (915 Ha).

​Figure 3. Vegetation mapping of Reedy Lake 2012 (above) and 2013 (below) from Ecological Associates (2014). Vegetation type “4.1 Sarcocornia quinqueflora Herbfield” may include Orange-bellied Parrot feeding habitat (Beaded Glasswort).

Duck hunting is normally permitted, within the designated season, everywhere on the CSGR except a section of the southern end of Lake Connewarre and the upper estuary known as the Orange-bellied Parrot reserve. However, virtually all the duck hunting occurs only on Reedy Lake and Hospital Swamp, west of Stacy’s Road (Tait Point). I have personally never heard of anybody hunting ducks east of Tait Point, although it is legal to do so.

This separate-distribution of Orange-bellied Parrot habitat and preferred duck hunting areas means that the chances of Orange-bellied Parrots being close enough to duck hunters at Reedy Lake or Hospital Swamp for disturbance to occur is minimal as they are most likely to be in the high concentrations of Orange-bellied Parrot habitat in Lake Connewarre (Salt swamp, Murtnaghurt Lagoon, Orange-bellied Parrot reserve and the estuary) east of Tait Point.
​
If released birds do stray into the Reedy Lake or Hospital Swamps habitats, they are surely less likely to find and flock with returning migrant, Orange-bellied Parrots than if they are in the larger areas of Orange-bellied Parrot habitat in Lake Connewarre. Hence paradoxically, moderate disturbance to any released birds west of Tait Point may even make them more likely to rendezvous with wild migrants by moving them off to undisturbed habitats east of Tait Point.

The decision in May 2023 to curtail duck hunting on the entire Connewarre SGR was bizarre and unwarranted. A search of the published literature finds nothing to back up the assertion that OBP are particularly susceptible to disturbance. “Hunting” doesn’t get a mention in the National Recovery Plan for the Orange-bellied Parrot although “truck noise” and aircraft and helicopter noise have apparently been investigated (unpublished reports not sighted by author) as threatening processes (DELWP, 2016). [LATE EDIT: In the report “Assessing waterbird susceptibility to disturbance by duck hunters in Victoria”, the author subjectively evaluates the potential susceptibility to disturbance of 39 species as a susceptibility score. They give Orange-bellied Parrot one of the lowest scores (tied at 37th with a score of 0.5), but then go on to elevate the species to the top three because of its Critically Endangered conservation status (Menkhorst, 2019). In other words, based on the perceived risk.]
​
The closure was premature even on conservation-grounds, as published research shows that Orange-bellied Parrot migrants continue to increase in abundance within the Port Phillip Ramsar site remnant overwintering population (Figure 4) up to early August and remain until September (Loyn et al., 1986). Birds released following the scheduled close of duck season 2023 would have had 16 weeks to rendezvous with returning wild migrants, (following a normal full-season year they still would have had 13 weeks).  

​The early closure of CSGR alienated 100s, if-not 1000s, of local and regional residents who are duck hunter, wrongly labelling them as a threat to Orange-bellied Parrot conservation. Curtailing duck hunting on the entire Connewarre SGR to avoid “disturbance” or “interrupting important feeding and flocking activities” was unnecessary when almost all the Orange-bellied Parrot habitat is in parts of the SGR not frequented by duck hunters. Better solutions would have included:

• Alerting duck hunters at the start of the 2023 season, to the potential presence of Orange-bellied Parrots nearby, with an education campaign showing how to identify and report observations of the species.
• Partial closure: If a release of captive birds during the 2023 duck-season was necessary, then a restriction of hunting to Reedy Lake and Hospital Swamps West of Tait Point (because almost all the Orange-bellied Parrot habitat is East of Tait Point) would have effectively separated hunting activity from the majority of Orange-bellied Parrot habitat by at least 2 km.

If minimising disturbance was key to the success of the Orange-bellied Parrot release, why were there not additional measures to remove disturbance? Obvious ones based on prior investigations of threatening factors (DELWP, 2016), would be:

• Banning motorised boating in the waters of Connewarre SGR west of Tait Point and upstream of River Parade Boat ramps. The navigable river channels pass right through the so-called, Orange-bellied Parrot reserve and are frequented by recreational powerboats (just zoom in and check on Google Earth!)

• Restricting helicopter and small aircraft flights, from Barwon Heads and Torquay airstrips, over the Connewarre State Game Reserve. The Barwon Heads airstrip is adjacent to a large area of Orange-bellied Parrot habitat known as Salt Swamp. Several flights a day take off and land over the Orange-bellied Parrot habitat with aircraft often flying directly over CGSR.

The extraordinary action of a total ban of hunting activity across over 3000 Ha of one of Victoria’s most popular State Game Reserve for the last two-weeks of an already shortened season, did nothing to assist with Orange-bellied Parrot recovery. This was simply another turn-of-the-screws on embattled Victorian duck hunters.  What it did do was to weaponize an important threatened species recovery plan, de-valuing the threatened species to a sector of the community and further alienating the good-will of recreational hunters. This wetland-closure turned 1000s of potential supporters of threatened waterbird management into haters of a threatened species. The Orange-bellied Parrot has long had it’s “Friends of…” group, a social media group of supporters of conservation of this species. Well now, thanks to the Andrew’s Government, the poor wee bird has an “Enemies of…” group too.

References Cited
Billows, C., & Gwyther, J. (2007). Ecological study of Lake Connewarre Wetlands Complex. Deakin University.

DELWP. (2016). National Recovery Plan for the Orange-bellied Parrot, Neophema chrysogaster. Prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning with support from the Orange-bellied Parrot National Recovery Team.

Ecological Associates. (2014). Reedy Lake Vegetation Monitoring Final Report to Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
​
Loyn, R. H., Lane, B. A., Chandler, C., & Carr, G. W. (1986). Ecology of orange-bellied parrots neophema chrysogaster at their main remnant wintering site. Emu, 86(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9860195

Menkhorst, P. (2019). Assessing waterbird susceptibility to disturbance by duck hunters in Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute Technical Report Series No. 305.

I grew up in the UK and hunted ducks and geese and other gamebirds as a student to supplement my meagre diet. Emigrating to Australia in 1990, game bird hunting for ducks and quail are a huge part of my way of life still. I currently own two bird dogs, a retriever and a pointer, and have spent 100s of hours training them specifically to help me hunt game birds. My last three dogs were also bird dogs for the same purpose.  My kids have hunted with me, making many happy memories. I own 4 boats of different types and sizes and a 4x4 vehicle. Three of these boats I often used for duck hunting.

Hunting ducks and geese is in my cultural background. It is my family tradition. I have no doubt that my ancestors, although of Saxon/Norse/Norman/Celtic heritage, have hunted ducks, geese and other gamebirds for as many generations as you can count.

I lived in NSW for six years and hunted ducks there until it was banned in 1995. Not being able to hunt ducks in NSW was a key factor in me relocating my family to Victoria in 1997. I have been a licensed recreational duck hunter for 26-years since I moved to Victoria in 1997, each year I have purchased a Game Licence, and every year I have hunted ducks. I have also occasionally purchased licences from the Northern Territory, Tasmania and South Australia and hunted ducks in those jurisdictions. In recent years it has been very difficult to plan holidays around duck-season. The lack of surety of having a season until the “last minute” means that family life is often disrupted, and plans put on hold. Purchases of new equipment for hunting have been delayed or abandoned this year and last year due to this uncertainty.  In the last three State elections I have carefully voted “below the line” for candidates offering support for recreational hunting and refuse to vote for parties or candidates that won’t off that support.

I generally hunt alone. Using a set of duck decoys and calls to lure game ducks into range. I speak ducklish, and can often persuade passing ducks to pay me a visit with a few well chosen “quacks”. My young dog, “Grizz”, is hunting her second season with me this year. She loves to go hunting and sits quietly with me while we wait for ducks. She has proudly and efficiently retrieved at least 20 ducks so far.  My old dog, “Flo” is an expert at finding and pointing Stubble quail. She is a thirteen-year-old canine senior-citizen, yet to see her with quail scent in her nostrils she floats across the paddocks like liquid smoke. She lives for it—like me.

I always have carried out my duck hunting by the rules, despite some of those rules recently being designed seemingly to persecute and frustrate the licensed recreational hunter with little apparent justification. The inconsistent, last-minute, overbearing nature of these regulations seems like a symptom of poor government to me and many others.

Wildlife management should be driven by scientific principles of population management rather than emotional likes-and-dislikes of any sector of society. This includes management of the sustainable use of wildlife such as game ducks and quail, as well as management for control of pest wildlife. Wildlife science and game management have a proven record in managing the population recovery and ongoing management of many animal populations around the world, particularly in N. America Africa and Europe. Australia, including Victoria and South Australia should adopt these same principles. Let’s use the best available science to guide the sustainable use of wild game bird populations, as we do our wild fisheries resources.

I have some experience with game bird hunting in South Australia and Tasmania where I enjoyed the hunting. Both these States offered more generous bag-limits and season durations than Victoria in the years I hunted there. I had also planned a goose and duck hunting holiday in the NT which was cancelled due to covid-19 restrictions in 2021.
I have hunted ducks on the rice crops in NSW under a pest mitigation licence where there were effectively no bag-limits, and hunting could start as early and finish as late as you like (even under spotlights at night where the ducks are blinded and helpless).  I felt however, that this de-valued the ducks. Treating them as “pests” made for lower personal satisfaction with my harvest.

I estimate that I would typically spend $500-$2000 per year on the expenses associated with hunting ducks in Victoria. Perhaps more if interstate travel is involved.  However, in the future I know I could rarely afford to travel overseas to hunt ducks if it was no-longer available in Australia.

During a typical “full season” year I would probably hunt ducks once per week and quail, maybe 2-3 times a season, usually after the duck season finished. In recent years when Victorian duck season has been restricted in length I hunt more frequently.  This year I have hunted three times per week so far, but I am forced to avoid weekends on my local wetland as I am fearful of meeting masked eco-terrorists, who will try to steal my ducks and vandalise my decoys and equipment. It sounds silly when you write that down, but it’s true and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

I have been a Field & Game Australia (FGA) member for many years and have witnessed and been personally involved in conservation efforts by hunters such as revegetation and tree planting, litter collection, citizen science surveys and wildlife research such as duck banding. I am saddened and amazed by the apparent lack of participation in such activities by those who seek to “ban duck hunting”. Are they frightened there will be more ducks?  FGA are passionate about habitat management for waterbirds and their duck nest-box and “hen-house” programs undoubtably contribute thousands of ducklings, as well as baby parrots and other birds each year. All around Victoria there are hundreds of wetlands where I have seen nest boxes stamped with the FGA logo. Its an outstanding effort for conservation.

I have a small group of friends that I occasionally go duck and quail hunting with, or even just swap hunting stories with. Hunting is the only thing we have in common, and I feel that I would lose these social connections if hunting was no longer allowed.  Like most 50+ year-old men, I would struggle to maintain these good friendships and probably become more socially isolated without game bird hunting. As we all know, social isolation has real physical and mental health consequences. Duck and quail hunting are activities that can be done with a moderate fitness level into a reasonable old age. Replacing duck and quail hunting with deer hunting has a limited appeal as I get older and fitness declines. I truly worry for the mental health consequences of 25,000 Victorians if duck and quail hunting is taken away from them.

I wear camouflage when hunting ducks to ensure I can get within range and harvest them cleanly and efficiently. It’s an “honest deception” employed by most predators in the natural world. It seems clear to me that most of anti-duck hunting activists are also wearing camouflage. They wear the camouflage of concern for the welfare of individual “poor baby ducks” when underneath they are simply against any form of killing animals and against guns and maybe against 50+ year-old men. Well, in the real world—in my world; animals are killed in every corner of the planet in every moment of the day so that other animals, including humans, can live. It’s called ecology and this planet runs on it. Gun ownership is quite rightly, highly regulated in Australia, but as a licensed gun owner I am “certified” to be of good character, sane and have a no criminal record which is more than can be said for many.

I hunt ducks and quail because I enjoy every aspect of the hunting. The challenge in finding them, the use of decoys and calls to fool ducks into coming close enough, the thrill of seeing a galloping pointing dog jam on the brakes and freeze in that posture with foot raised and snout stretching out to a quail hiding in the grass, then the marksmanship-skill in killing them, then the satisfaction in preparing them as delicious wild food for my family and friends to enjoy.

At the end of the day, I don’t hunt ducks or quail to kill them, but I must kill them to have hunted them. If you don’t enjoy hunting, then you will never understand – but please don’t let that lack of understanding sour your opinion of the value of game bird hunting to those of us who do it.
Long-live duck hunting everywhere, including Victoria!

 There is presently a highly polarized debate in Australia, or perhaps “slanging match” would be more accurate, about the recreational hunting of ducks. At either end of this spectrum, we have a minority of dedicated, passionate advocates who will continue to plead that their way is the right way forward. As minority politics in its various forms comes to the fore in Australia the balance of power to enact new legislation is often wielded by these minority advocates. In the preliminary debate, like in war, “the truth is often the first casualty”.  To use an appropriate analogy, in my home-state Victoria, the duck-hunting debate is merely a stalking-horse for the mythical parliamentary beast “the guarantee of supply”. (see here for definition and example).

Somewhat bizarrely, the Victorian Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, Lizzie Blandthorn quoted Pope John Paul II as she introduced a Bill (9 March 2023) in the Victorian State Parliament, to form an inquiry into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements, while recently her own Dan Andrew’s (Labour) government ignored the science-based advice commissioned by their own Game Management Authority in declaring the arrangements for the impending 2023 duck hunting season. The select committee inquiry will examine “the operation of annual native bird hunting seasons, arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions, their environmental sustainability and impact on amenity and their social and economic impact”.  Meanwhile, ex-stripper/ topless dancer, and now Animal Justice Party MP, Miss Georgie Purcell has been named as a member of the select committee.  This could indeed be the ultimate in “fox-in-charge-of-the-hen house” situations.

Those opposed to duck hunting call it “barbaric”, “in-humane” amongst other descriptors and urge the undecided to ban duck hunting as an outdated practice that Australia should be ashamed of, etc., etc. As a professional wetland ecologist, and (cards on the table) a passionate duck hunter with long experience on both fronts in Australia and overseas, I’m sure there is merit in taking a step back from the ugly rhetoric around this debate, and rationally examining the practice and demographics of harvesting ducks as a recreation in a worldwide context. Is Australia really so outdated? What sort of countries do-or-don't permit duck hunting? Can duck hunting still be justified in modern society? Who else has banned duck hunting so far, and why? The facts I present below, will form the basis of my own submission to the select committee inquiry.

How do we find out what's "normal"? (To read the results, skip this paragraph)
I conducted a simple internet search for the presence or absence of hunting ‘regulations’ or ‘seasons’ which included species of ducks and geese, indexed for each country of the world (195 individual countries, www.worldometers.info/geography/alphabetical-list-of-countries/). I initially used the primary search term “duck hunting regulations” appended to each country name, with follow-up searches using “duck hunting season 2023”. In some cases, I had to resort to simplifying the search to “hunting regulations” for a country and then followed leads within those search results to try and find evidence of legal duck hunting. E.g., “Bird hunting”, “waterfowl hunting” “Goose hunting”, etc. Countries were then categorized geographically as: Europe, Asia, Middle east, Africa, North America, Central America or South America, with an additional category of small island states. Evidence was gathered simply for the presence or absence of legal hunting of ducks and geese in each country. While some countries like USA, and Australia manage wildlife with State-based legislation. I was able to determine if duck hunting was permitted somewhere within each country. I also determined the year-date for most recent evidence for each country. Most internet sources could be dated within the last 5-years. Hunting regulations of many countries were listed in summaries by Birdlife International (www.datazone.birdlife.org/home) and for European countries summaries were available at The European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (www.Face.eu). I also cross referenced this presence/absence information with population-size (in 2020), land area (km2) and population density (people/km2). In such a politicized debate, I also thought it appropriate to cross referenced with an index of democracy for each nation developed by the University of Wurzberg in Germany (www.democracymatrix.com/ranking). This index summarizes a matrix of core and context measurements of political rights, freedoms and abilities for the citizens of each country. The index ranges from “Hard autocracy” to “Working democracy” in four levels. I was also able to collate internet statistics on other social indices that impinge upon the argument, such as gun-ownership (worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country), the Freedom index— another summary of Civil liberties and Political freedoms (freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world) and the Animal Protection Index (www.worldanimalprotection.org), a composite of several animal welfare metrics. 

What IS the world's view of duck-hunting?
Firstly, of the six countries with the highest “Animal Protection Index” in the world; The United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria, ALL those countries presently permit duck hunting and have a long and strong culture of duck hunting along with hunting for many other endemic and introduced fauna.  It will come as no surprise to most hunters that a country can have a good reputation for “animal rights” and still maintain a sustainable hunting culture for its endemic wildlife.
​
​In fact, at least 52% of the world’s nations allow their citizens to hunt ducks, and only 23% of nations do not. Duck hunting is permitted on 64%, and not-permitted on 22% of the world’s land area. Some 36% of the world’s population live in countries where duck hunting is permitted, and 50% of the population live where duck hunting is no longer allowed. 

In 2023 in Australia, out of eight State or Territory jurisdictions, large-scale duck hunting presently occurs legally in five (63%) of jurisdictions. In South Australia, The Northern Territory, Victoria and Tasmania mainly through an annually regulated recreational hunting season, and in NSW through (arguably) a less well-regulated agricultural pest-control system where ducks are shot by recreational hunters, on private property, under license.  

Cross referencing the democracy index with my internet search of duck hunting shows that in the most strongly democratic nations of the world, duck hunting is still permitted. The average democracy index of Nations permitting duck hunting is 0.6. Whereas countries where duck hunting is not permitted only rate an average democracy index of 0.47. All nations with a democracy index >0.72 permit duck hunting except for three, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica. The two Caribbean nations permit their citizens to hunt endemic pigeons and doves but not ducks, of which there are few. Costa Rica was one of the first nations to ban all hunting to aid the conservation of threatened big cats, duck hunting was included in that ban. On this scale Australia’s democracy index is presently 0.904, putting us firmly amongst nations where citizens have the right to hunt ducks.

100% of nations in North America and Australasia presently allow duck hunting along with 94% of European nations, 64% of Central American and 54% of South American Nations. Evidence could not be determined for 9% and 8% of Central and South American nations, respectively. In other regions of the world, it was more difficult to determine the legal status of duck hunting; however, 45% of African nations, 33% of Middle Eastern nations, 33% of Asian nations and 11% of small island states also permit their citizens to hunt ducks.

Countries have been classified with a composite index of “freedom” of their citizens based upon their political rights and civil liberties. Duck hunting is permitted in all the top-22 countries in the world ranked for their political rights and all of the top-17 countries ranked for their civil liberties. Of the countries classified as “Free”, presently 60% permit duck hunting. The figure is less— 50% for countries classed as “partly free” and reduces to 43% for those classed as “not free”.

Of the countries where duck hunting is forbidden, sometimes internet searching provided reasons why that was so, although such reasons were not sought, or verified beyond my initial search. Interestingly, no nations cited the conservation of endangered ducks or geese as reasons for the ceasing of hunting waterbirds. Reasons were as wide ranging as

• In many of the countries where duck hunting is banned it is illegal for private citizens to own guns and effectively there is no legal hunting of any sort,
• “all hunting was banned to protect big cats” (Costa Rica),
• the virtual absence of any ducks or geese within the fauna listed for the country (various small island states) and hence no “culture” of hunting them,
• in many less developed countries, particularly in Africa, evidence of legal big-game hunting was found, yet there was no mention of the legality of duck hunting. Web resources of the governments of these countries are often poorly developed, so identifying regulated duck hunting by web-search may be difficult, even if it occurs,
• …and there was even, “Moratorium due to volcanic eruption” (small island states - Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines).

While duck hunting is not surprisingly also correlated to the prevalence of gun ownership world-wide; there is nuance, even here. While all nations with over 19.6 guns per 100 people permit duck hunting, many countries where gun ownership is rare or difficult also still permit duck hunting. Nine nations out of fifteen where gun ownership is less than 1 per 100 people also permit duck hunting. FYI: There are approximately 14.5 guns per 100 people in Australia. That’s about half that of countries such as New Zealand, Norway and Austria, where the culture of duck hunting is strong.

Wild duck is a highly valued food source by world standards. A simple “Google” search of the term wild duck recipe produces 23.5 Million hits, almost one-per person for the entire Australian population (26 Million).

Yes, it is plain to see for those who look, all around the world duck hunting is still very much a normal part of the human relationship with nature—even in countries with the highest animal-protection index.  Duck hunters are some of the most passionate advocates for wetlands and waterbirds anywhere in the world, and Australian duck hunters are no exception. Yes, they also harvest a small proportion of the abundant ducks and geese that rely on these habitats, and yes, they clearly enjoy doing that – which isn’t everyone’s “cup of tea”. No doubt their passion and advocacy would soon wither and disappear if they were banned from doing what they love. Who then will take up the cause, to steward and protect water resources and biodiversity around wetlands. Who will pay the cost of the 100,000’s of hours of work that is now freely volunteered for wetland management and species conservation by duck hunters. You can bet that the minority “green” politicians won’t. Their only “sport” is wedge-politics. They will have moved on to the next stalking horse.
​Let’s hope it’s not your lifestyle that’s cancelled next. 

I have always thought of myself as a conservationist. 
​As a kid, I grew up watching Jacques Cousteau, David Bellamy and David Attenborough on TV and I just knew instinctively those guys were “my people”. I related to them and respected their ideals (and I still do). But I would have had a hard-time demonstrating my conservation ethics as a youngster. My first inklings may have been, developing an understanding of why it was important to return those small brown trout, caught with my Dad in the streams and rivers of northern England, and not to take too many. I didn’t realise it at the time, but that was my realisation that sustainable-use was a mighty important part of conservation to me—particularly in a landscape with booming public access.

The importance of that principle of sustainable use has stuck with me throughout my life, both professionally and personally. I went on to be a Fisheries Biologist and an Associate Professor of Wetland Ecology on the other side of the world and in a way that, and now my present work as an ecological consultant, has satisfied my deep need to feel like a conservationist. I am quite comfortable with my professional contribution to the practical knowledge of conserving fish, their fisheries and habitats (there’s that sustainable-use thing again). 
​
​Personally, I have always self-identified as a recreational-fisher, and as a hunter. Wild ducks, rabbits, pigeons and fish helped feed me through my lean University years. I have always derived deep satisfaction from putting wild game and fish on the table for me and my family. It just seems right—and for me, it always will. In that role, as many people do, I have tagged along, and dragged my kids along, to fishing club working-bees on riverbanks and tree-planting weekends in deer habitat restoration projects and have bought numerous raffle-tickets for fish-and-gamey causes. I have always maintained memberships of at least one of the leading hunter advocacy groups in Australia. All those things in my personal life helped satisfy my conservationist-conscience and make me feel good. In my professional and academic life, my public service always hit that mark too.  In broad terms, it felt satisfying to know that I was contributing towards the sustainable use of a public resource. A resource I knew the value of in the currency of memorable-experiences, smiles, and full-bellies for myself, my family and anyone else who cares to try it.

But here’s where it gets hard to explain. A few years ago, I set up in business for myself as Fisheries and Wetland Consulting. Offering natural resource managers independent ecological advice about fish, fisheries and the ecology of wetlands. It’s been going well for me, I’m enjoying it, and self-employment has rekindled my empathy after too-long a time working in the public service and academia. But for myself, working in private practice, it somehow felt less-satisfying to my conservationist-conscience to be charging clients for the advice! Too-commercial if you like. Now that sounds kind-of crazy when I say it aloud. I know it’s good advice that I’m selling and I’m not quite sure I have pinned-down that feeling exactly—but there you have it. I felt the need to give more and was searching for ways to do that.
​
In my experience, feeling-the-need to contribute, and following-through with that, are two different things when I juggle running a small-business, participate in home and family stuff and pursue the outdoor activities I love.  I find it hard to also commit to conservation in practical ways.

That’s why the 2% for Conservation organization works for me. It’s a simple way to hold-me-to-account and to ensure that I really am contributing to the conservation causes that I hold dear. I’d like to think I don’t need it to keep me doing that, but I found otherwise. All it takes is an annual audit (which takes about the same time and effort as drinking a cup of coffee and) to demonstrate that I gave at least 1% of my time and 1% of my gross revenue. As an Australian based business, I keep on contributing to the largely local (Australian or New Zealand) based causes I see as important to me—and it keep my conservation-conscience happy.

In a consulting business such as mine, there is usually no tangible product with packaging that I can label as “conservation-compliant”,  “dolphin-friendly”, etc. However, I am proud to use the 2% for conservation logo in my email signature and on my websites. “Greenwashing” a business is all too common these days.  The Cambridge Dictionary defines greenwash as, “to make people believe that your company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is.” Well, that’s the opposite of what the 2% for conservation organisation is all about. As a certified business I am demonstrating that I AM doing something, at a significant level, to protect the environment and the wildlife resources that I care about.

Am I still a conservationist? You betcha! My conservation-conscience tells me so.

Finally finding (making) time for adding some stuff to the FWC website. And guess what? That means I have to pay for an upgrade! 
It's going to be a progressive upgrade. Meaning, I will incrementally add bits when I can.
Some of those will include

• this blog which I will blare-on about things that seem important to me and my business, maybe feature a few publications, trumpet about new projects etc
• A "Projects"  page with a little information about some of the work that FWC has contributed to.
• A "Partners" page where I can acknowledge the valued working relationships that FWC has developed.
• A list of clients

and probably other stuff too. If there is anything missing from that list that YOU think is a must-have on the FWC website, please comment!