October 25, 2025 • 29 mins
Hosts Dr. Mike Brasher and Chris Jennings are joined by Dr. Mark Lindberg, professor at University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology to discuss the ways hunters play a vital role in citizen-science programs. Banding, HIP, and other various programs are supported by hunters, and are crucial to waterfowl science.
Listen now: www.ducks.org/DUPodcast
Send feedback: DUPodcast@ducks.org
SPONSORS:
Purina Pro Plan: The official performance dog food of Ducks Unlimited
Whether you're a seasoned hunter or just getting started, this episode is packed with valuable insights into the world of waterfowl hunting and conservation.
Bird Dog Whiskey and Cocktails:
Whether you’re winding down with your best friend, or celebrating with your favorite crew, Bird Dog brings award-winning flavor to every moment. Enjoy responsibly.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
VO (01:44):
Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited podcast, Reloaded. We
bring you the best of our pastepisodes. Whether you're a
seasoned waterfowler or curiousabout conservation, this series
is for you. Over the years,we've had incredible guests and
discussions about everythingfrom wetland conservation to the
latest waterfowl research andhunting strategies. In Reloaded,
(02:04):
we're revisiting thoseconversations to keep the
passion alive and the missionstrong.
So sit back, relax, and enjoythis reload.
Mike Brasher (02:16):
Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited podcast. I am
joined here today by my cohost,Chris Jennings. And today we
have another exciting episodefor you. It's gonna be a highly
educational episode. We're gonnapay tribute in some way to the
hunters and the active role theyplay in collecting data that
through the years has providedthe foundation for much of what
(02:37):
we know waterfowl populationecology, and quite frankly, it
continues to fuel many of thedecisions around waterfowl
management and conservation inNorth America.
And so specifically, we're goingto be talking about waterfowl
hunters as citizen scientistsand the important role that we
all play in that regard. To helpus in this discussion, we're
going be welcoming in a specialguest, Doctor Mark Lindberg,
(02:59):
Professor of Wildlife Ecology atthe University of Alaska
Fairbanks Institute of ArcticBiology. Mark, welcome into the
show, and I promise that'll bethe last time I referred to you
as Doctor Lindbergh per ourearlier conversation.
Mark Lindberg (03:11):
I appreciate that.
Mike Brasher (03:12):
Yeah, so thanks for joining us here. We always
want to start off the show whenwe have some special guests by
giving you an opportunity tointroduce yourself, your
personal insights, professionalinterest, and kinda where we
are, where you are today, andhelp us understand a little bit
about where you come from.
Mark Lindberg (03:31):
Yeah, sure. I think it's important, it's very
important when talking tohunters that first establish
that many of us are also hunterstoo, are also biologists. And
sure enough, I started huntingwhen I was 10. I grew up in
Pennsylvania. My dad was a bigtime deer hunter and he
encouraged me and I gotinterested very early in life
(03:53):
and that interest just continuedto grow through my life and my
roots again were deer hunting,but my passion is definitely in
upland bird hunting and do afair amount of waterfowl hunting
as well.
So hopefully hunters appreciateas I'm talking to them that I
could appreciate theirperspective and have a similar
(04:17):
one as they do. That interest inhunting and wildlife and
outdoors grew into a career aswell. I I started with the
Pennsylvania Game Commission in1984 as a technician. It's I I
was working on a project onCanada geese and that led into
(04:41):
some graduate studies. Did mymaster's degree on Canada geese
at Cornell University in the,gosh, late 1980s.
And that led to a PhD in Alaskaon Black Brand. From there I
started down my career path. Iactually had a job at Ducks
(05:03):
Unlimited. And in 02/2001, wereturned to Alaska and I took a
position as you described as afaculty member, professor of
wildlife ecology at theUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks
where I've been ever since.
Mike Brasher (05:17):
I always try to do
Mark Lindberg (05:18):
a little bit
Mike Brasher (05:18):
of research, additional research on the
guests that we're going to have,so I went to your webpage, and
you're an incrediblyaccomplished waterfowl
ecologist. When I read your bio,your research interest, you're
interested in things such aspopulation ecology, banding
analyses, harvest managementdecision analysis, you're one of
(05:39):
those smart people that alwayslook up to you, bring a lot of
quantitative skills to thesediscussions, and that's always
really valuable, sometimesintimidating for me to get in
these conversations, I thinkyou're gonna be a fantastic part
of this show. So happy to haveyou on this and appreciate your
time, because I know you'recertainly a busy person.
Mark Lindberg (06:01):
Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, you're
right about traveling around forthis job. Early in my career
someone pointed out to me, hey,if you study waterfowl, they can
take you to some really neatplaces, and I'd just like to
point out that has definitelybeen the case and one of the
reasons I initially gotinterested.
Mike Brasher (06:20):
Mark, you also have I believe a podcast of your
own that you started hererecently, something I believe
it's called the Hunting SciencePodcast, do I have that right?
Mark Lindberg (06:27):
Yeah, thanks for the plug and I appreciate that.
Yeah, I have been very activeand I guess successful in
science in the form ofcommunicating to other
scientists. But one of thethings I was frustrated with, I
guess, late in my career is thatwe weren't getting the science
(06:49):
to hunters enough at least, inmy opinion. And that was the
motivation behind starting thispodcast, as you said, called
Hunting Science. And our goal isto make hunters aware of the
science of hunting.
And there's quite a bit of it,some we'll talk about today, but
(07:10):
there's other podcasts therethat dive into other topics as
well.
Mike Brasher (07:16):
We talk about that often, Chris, and Clay and I,
when we're mapping out thepotential for this particular
podcast, and there is so muchreally interesting information
that feeds the waterfowlmanagement enterprise. And I
know a lot of our our huntersand conservation supporters will
(07:37):
be interested in that, and Ithink your philosophy on the
hunting podcast the huntingscience podcast of yours is sort
of similar to ours. The morethat we can educate and share
this information with our withour supporters, I think the the
greater appreciation andunderstanding of that resource
they they have. And so that'spretty cool that you've headed
down that that road.
Chris Jennings (07:57):
Yeah. Absolutely, Mark. I'm gonna have
to look into that, into yourpodcast. You know, just when
this topic came up, I thought,you know, kind of the citizen
science is how waterfowl hunterskinda lead the way with this.
You know, one thing to kind ofexpand on even from what Mike
said is I live every day insidethe waterfowl hunting community
working with the magazine,creating content online, social
(08:19):
media.
But every time we do one ofthese podcasts, I manage to pick
up some tidbit of informationfrom the science side of things,
something that I didn't know,something that I know that our
listeners will definitely learnfrom. So I do appreciate you
coming on and and, you know,this is gonna be a great topic,
the citizen scientist.
Mark Lindberg (08:38):
Thanks. Yeah.
Mike Brasher (08:39):
So to that topic, let's get right into it here.
When we use the term citizenscientist, I think that term has
probably come of age in the lastten years, at least that's my
sense of it. Mark, help usunderstand what we're actually
talking about when we use thatterm.
Mark Lindberg (08:58):
Yeah, I think you're right, that term is
relatively new, but the idea ofsomeone collecting information
for us, data, scientific datafor us is rather old. And that
is my definition, someone whovolunteers to collect
information to help us makemanagement decisions,
(09:19):
conservation decisions. And Iguess I would add to that
definition that they may notknow they're doing that, so it's
either knowingly or unknowinglythey're helping us gather
information that we need to makethe best decisions we possibly
can.
Mike Brasher (09:36):
Whenever I was thinking about this this episode
over the past few days, and inmy mind coming up with examples
of citizen scientists, I thinkwe're going to mention that
waterfowl hunters, the huntersin general, are some of the
first citizen scientists thatthat we've ever had. But there's
also another group of citizenscientists out there that I I
(09:57):
don't know how how common or howactive they are anymore, but
when I was growing up, mygrandfather would be a one of
these local weather reporters.The local weather station would
reach out to citizens townsaround broadcast location, and I
got a great kick out of havingmy granddad be the one to call
in and report the weather fromhis little town. And so the fact
(10:20):
that I have a grandfather thatcollected data and reported it
is probably going to come as ashock and surprise to no one
that knows me and the fact thatI'm into data a little bit. So
that was sort of a neat way oflooking back and a personal
example that I thought about.
Mark, what are some otherspecific examples of citizen
science as we might see in theconservation field?
Mark Lindberg (10:41):
Yeah, your point about the weather data is a good
one, I hadn't thought aboutthat. Yeah, But hunters have
been doing this for quite sometime. I guess maybe the most
obvious way to some hunters theydo this is through things like a
bag check station. You stop, youshow who's ever checking what
(11:02):
you may have harvested and theymight look at the age, the sex
of the animal or some othercharacteristics. So that's
citizen scientist data thatyou're providing to help them
make management decisions aboutthose animals.
I know this is the case withmost other places, but in
Alaska, every year after aseason closes, we need to file
(11:24):
hunt reports whether weharvested an animal or not.
Where did we hunt? How many daysdid we hunt? How did we get to
where we hunted? Things likethat.
And it again helps them,agencies, make management
decisions for those species. Andthere's more modern forms
starting to crop up here andthere too. EBird is one app that
(11:49):
you can get on your phone thatallows you to record
observations of birds fromaround the world that's shared
with biologists and scientistsand other birders and hunters
for that matter. So, there'sdefinitely a lot of forms in
which hunters, citizens cancontribute.
VO (12:20):
Stay tuned to the Ducks Unlimited podcast, sponsored by
Purina Pro Plan and Bird DogWhiskey. After these messages.
Chris Jennings (14:18):
You know, I know hunters, you know, maybe someone
forgets their license and theyhave to call in. And I've I've
actually been on the phone, youknow, with people or been near
them when, you know, they'refilling out their license online
and telling, or it's anautomated system and they're
just pressing no no no no no andand I'm like hey man you can't
do that.
VO (14:35):
You know
Chris Jennings (14:36):
and they're like why I'm just trying to get
through it. And I'm like becauseit's an important you know it's
important aspect. It's somethingyou know HIP is something that
every single hunter in The US isparticipating in now and that's
a one great program andsomething for people to keep in
mind when they start getting thequestions about,
VO (14:51):
did you hunt coots, rails, or gallonules?
Chris Jennings (14:53):
That's right. And then, you know, just make
sure you you're following alongwith that, and that's a good
reminder for hunters that theyare participating in this
science.
Mark Lindberg (15:01):
Yeah, definitely. The Harvest Information Program
is very obvious one. About amillion waterfowl hunters a year
are reporting their harvest fromthe previous year. That's a
million data points provided bycitizen scientists. And that
information goes into decisionsabout future harvest
(15:23):
regulations.
So it's important not only toprovide that information but do
it in a reliable manner.
Mike Brasher (15:30):
I would imagine as some people are listening to
this, they're expecting us toget into the details of what the
harvest information program isand how that data is used.
Because there's a tremendousmisunderstanding of how that
data is is used. A lot of peoplethink that it's estimating
harvest for the current year,but that's not true at all. So I
don't want to veer off intothat, otherwise we'll have to be
(15:51):
pulled out of the ditch here onthis particular podcast, but we
will get back to that at somepoint in the future. What are
some other examples, Mark, ofcitizen science, the data
collection responsibilities thatwaterfowl hunters have?
Mark Lindberg (16:06):
Yeah. So some hunters, not all, participate in
what is called, not attractivelythe parts collection survey,
maybe a better name, the wingsurvey. That's been going on for
about forty years. And herehunters send in their wings of
harvested waterfowl andbiologists gather every year
(16:28):
what's called the wing bee. Andat that wing bee they look at
those wings and from thepatterns of feathers and colors
they can tell the age and thesex of the birds.
And by knowing the age and sex,they can determine things like
production rates for that year.So if there's more young birds
(16:52):
in the wing bees than adultbirds, that looks like a good
production year whereas reversemight indicate that it wasn't a
very good production year. Sothat's a neat way to do it and
it's really fun to look at thosewings. One of my first jobs was
to work bag check stationslooking at wings of birds that
(17:14):
hunters had harvested, and it'spretty fascinating that you can
determine that much informationjust from the color patterns in
the wings. The other one thatpeople might be a little more
familiar with is reporting thebands of lake banded birds they
may harvest.
So those who've been around fora while know that the metal lake
(17:36):
bands on waterfowl used to havejust something simple that said,
advise Washington DC, and notmany people knew what to do with
those bans. In fact, about 35%of the people recorded those
bans when that informationexisted. But in more recent
(17:57):
decades we've moved to a phonereporting system with 800
numbers, and also now we'reusing websites that allow
hunters to report information onthe they've harvested, banded
birds they've harvested. Andthat results in about a 100,000
reports per year, and about 75%of the hunters that get a band
(18:22):
now report that information. Sowe've increased the volume of
data.
Chris Jennings (18:26):
I'm just curious, did the, when when the
submitting process went onlineand did did you guys see like a
slight jump in the percentage ofbirds reported? I mean, just the
convenience of, especially, youknow, this day and age, you
know, even when you're hunting,you're not without your phone.
Did did did you see any increasein that go up just because it
(18:50):
makes it so easy?
Mark Lindberg (18:51):
Yeah. It was almost immediate increase. In
fact, shortly after theyimplemented the +1 800 number
that doesn't exist anymore, butwhen they implemented it, I so
happened to be at Bird BanningLab in Washington DC and they
had a bank of phones there thatwere people were answering. And
(19:13):
while I was there during thehunting season, people were
calling in from their buying,hey. I just shot this pintail
with this number.
And and it was an immediateinput of information and then
they got immediate feedback onthat bird as well. Expenses of
having people answer thosephones were probably the most
(19:36):
important reason why theydecided to just go to a more
passive approach of havingpeople enter on the website. But
nonetheless, the it's still asystem that encourages people to
hunt it or report, I should say.And, again, reporting rates back
in the day when this goes backto nineteen twenties, by the
way, when we just had advisedWashington DC, about 35% of the
(20:01):
people actually reported it andnow about 75% do. So that's been
a huge improvement in theinformation we get from those
and is consistent I guess withsort of my philosophy is we
should empower hunters withknowledge and make them better
citizen scientists.
And I think that case study is agood example of where we see
(20:26):
those improvements in theinformation. Just another
statistic that I like to throwout, but since 1960 hunters have
reported almost 4,000,000 bans.
Chris Jennings (20:37):
Wow, that's impressive. Now you mentioned
that 20 so so in in that thatdataset, it's assumed that
twenty five percent of thepeople who shoot a banded bird
do not report it.
Mike Brasher (20:50):
Is that right?
Mark Lindberg (20:51):
Yeah. And that's determined through things like
reward band studies. I don'tknow if anybody has had been
fortunate enough to shoot a birdthat has a monetary value on its
band, but the idea there is thatoccasionally we put those type
of bands out and the assumptionis that at some dollar value,
(21:12):
whatever that is, everyone thatshoots it, a bird with that
dollar value will report it. Andfrom there, we can estimate how
many report it when there is nodollar value. And so that's
that's how we've determined howreporting rates, which they're
called, have changed throughtime.
But yeah, there's still some 25%of the people that choose not to
(21:36):
report those bans based theinformation we have.
Mike Brasher (21:40):
Are those reporting rates calculated every
year?
Mark Lindberg (21:44):
No, it's not done every year, It's done
occasionally as needed is how Iwould say it. I don't think
anything's been done for a fewyears now.
Mike Brasher (21:53):
But certainly when there's a change in reporting
method, that's when it becomesreally important.
Mark Lindberg (21:58):
Oh, definitely. Yeah. And you know, I think
we're just starting to go downthis path, if you will, of
empowering hunters with thistype of knowledge. I'm kind of
curious if we get the word outvia podcasts or other ways, I
wonder if reporting rates willincrease. You know, people,
(22:18):
again, my guess is that some ofthat 25% of the people that
don't report just don'tunderstand the value of that
information.
And that if we can tell them
Mike Brasher (22:29):
They don't understand how it's right.
Mark Lindberg (22:30):
Yeah, yeah, so I mean it just leads to better
decisions. It's more reliableinformation. The more
information we have the morereliable it is. So not reporting
that information createsuncertainty in the decisions we
make. And again, I think I'm ofthe opinion that if hunters
(22:52):
understood that, more of themwould report their bands.
Because I think almost everyonewants us to have reliable
information.
Mike Brasher (23:00):
I wanna go back just a little bit. You mentioned
something about the one-eight100 bands. I know those bands
are no longer used, but ifsomeone recovers a bird that has
one-eight 100 BAND on it, isthat number still functional?
Mark Lindberg (23:12):
The number I believe just gets you to a
recording that tells you toreport via the website. I'm
pretty sure that's where it goesnow. So it's not functional in
the sense you can't report yourinformation via that route, but
it tells you how to do it.
Mike Brasher (23:27):
But you can still report those one-eight 100 bands
online.
Mark Lindberg (23:31):
Yeah, you can still do that online for sure.
Have you shot one?
Mike Brasher (23:35):
You know, it's been a while, I think I did. I
think I shot one of the earlyones. That would have been back
when the the number wasfunctional. Yeah. So I shot a
band one
Chris Jennings (23:46):
time in Indiana when I was younger and got
excited, picked it up. I waslike, yeah, my first band. I was
probably 16, 17 years old. Andand looked at the band and it
had some guy's name. He's got Iwon't mention his name just in
case he's still around, but hadhis name carved in it very
loosely with a phone number andI called it, and I'm sure he was
some knucklehead in Brazil,Indiana that was banding birds
(24:07):
Yeah.
Probably illegally without apermit.
Mark Lindberg (24:09):
That was
Chris Jennings (24:09):
the it's the only band duck band I've ever
killed, so
Mike Brasher (24:11):
We'll have to get into our banding stories
Absolutely. And the birds we'veshot with banded birds. I
actually have a couple ofinteresting stories on that. I
hope we've shared with ourlisteners their role in
collecting this information. Ithink we're gonna have you back
and talk a little bit more abouthow some of this data is used
(24:32):
and speak a little bit moredeliberately about the
importance of reporting the datareliably and collecting that
data reliably, and we want folksto realize that they play a
critical role.
They have for decades, and theywill continue to play a role, a
critical role in the data thatis collected and used to manage
(24:52):
our waterfowl harvest on anannual basis. And we want to
share this information withpeople. We want them to
understand how that informationis used. We want them to
understand the importance of it.And we appreciate you coming on
and helping us tell this story.
And so, yeah, I think Chris, anyany final words here? Everyone
out there listening, report yourbans. Report your bans.
(25:15):
Absolutely.
Chris Jennings (25:15):
It's important.
Mike Brasher (25:16):
Mark, any final words on this on on this
particular episode?
Mark Lindberg (25:20):
Just Just this thought I guess, the way I try
to present this to hunters, ifyou were the decision maker, if
the hunter was the personsetting the harvest regulations,
what information would you liketo have to do that? And, you
know, I think everyone would saythe most and the most reliable
information I can get. And Ithink if you view it from that
(25:43):
perspective then that willreally motivate you to want to
provide this information in areliable manner. So hopefully
people will think that way aboutit. It's not like we're trying
to use this information againstyou.
It's everyone involved wants tomake the best decisions
(26:04):
possible, and that's onlypossible with the lack of data.
Mike Brasher (26:08):
That's right. Mark, we thank you for your
time. Thank you for joining usall the way from Fairbanks, and
thank my cohost Chris Jenningsfor joining us here. I wanna
also thank at this time ourproducer, Clay Baird, who's
gonna make us all sound soundgreat, and thanks to each of
you, each of our listeners for avery important part of this
(26:30):
entire enterprise. Thank you foryour contribution to the
science.
Thank you for your commitment towetlands and waterfowl
conservation, and we'll catchyou on the next episode.
VO (26:53):
Thank you for listening to the DU podcast, sponsored by
Purina Pro Plan, the officialperformance dog food of Ducks
Unlimited. Purina Pro Plan,always advancing. Also proudly
sponsored by Bird Dog Whiskeyand Cocktails. Whether you're
winding down with your bestfriend or celebrating with your
favorite crew, Bird Dog bringsaward winning flavor to every
moment. Enjoy responsibly.
(27:15):
Be sure to rate, review, andsubscribe to the show and visit
ducks.org/dupodcast. Opinionsexpressed by guests do not
necessarily reflect those ofDucks Unlimited. Until next
time, stay tuned to the Ducks.
Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited podcast, Reloaded. We
bring you the best of our pastepisodes. Whether you're a
seasoned waterfowler or curiousabout conservation, this series
is for you. Over the years,we've had incredible guests and
discussions about everythingfrom wetland conservation to the
latest waterfowl research andhunting strategies. In Reloaded,
(02:04):
we're revisiting thoseconversations to keep the
passion alive and the missionstrong.
So sit back, relax, and enjoythis reload.
Mike Brasher (02:16):
Welcome to the Ducks Unlimited podcast. I am
joined here today by my cohost,Chris Jennings. And today we
have another exciting episodefor you. It's gonna be a highly
educational episode. We're gonnapay tribute in some way to the
hunters and the active role theyplay in collecting data that
through the years has providedthe foundation for much of what
(02:37):
we know waterfowl populationecology, and quite frankly, it
continues to fuel many of thedecisions around waterfowl
management and conservation inNorth America.
And so specifically, we're goingto be talking about waterfowl
hunters as citizen scientistsand the important role that we
all play in that regard. To helpus in this discussion, we're
going be welcoming in a specialguest, Doctor Mark Lindberg,
(02:59):
Professor of Wildlife Ecology atthe University of Alaska
Fairbanks Institute of ArcticBiology. Mark, welcome into the
show, and I promise that'll bethe last time I referred to you
as Doctor Lindbergh per ourearlier conversation.
Mark Lindberg (03:11):
I appreciate that.
Mike Brasher (03:12):
Yeah, so thanks for joining us here. We always
want to start off the show whenwe have some special guests by
giving you an opportunity tointroduce yourself, your
personal insights, professionalinterest, and kinda where we
are, where you are today, andhelp us understand a little bit
about where you come from.
Mark Lindberg (03:31):
Yeah, sure. I think it's important, it's very
important when talking tohunters that first establish
that many of us are also hunterstoo, are also biologists. And
sure enough, I started huntingwhen I was 10. I grew up in
Pennsylvania. My dad was a bigtime deer hunter and he
encouraged me and I gotinterested very early in life
(03:53):
and that interest just continuedto grow through my life and my
roots again were deer hunting,but my passion is definitely in
upland bird hunting and do afair amount of waterfowl hunting
as well.
So hopefully hunters appreciateas I'm talking to them that I
could appreciate theirperspective and have a similar
(04:17):
one as they do. That interest inhunting and wildlife and
outdoors grew into a career aswell. I I started with the
Pennsylvania Game Commission in1984 as a technician. It's I I
was working on a project onCanada geese and that led into
(04:41):
some graduate studies. Did mymaster's degree on Canada geese
at Cornell University in the,gosh, late 1980s.
And that led to a PhD in Alaskaon Black Brand. From there I
started down my career path. Iactually had a job at Ducks
(05:03):
Unlimited. And in 02/2001, wereturned to Alaska and I took a
position as you described as afaculty member, professor of
wildlife ecology at theUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks
where I've been ever since.
Mike Brasher (05:17):
I always try to do
Mark Lindberg (05:18):
a little bit
Mike Brasher (05:18):
of research, additional research on the
guests that we're going to have,so I went to your webpage, and
you're an incrediblyaccomplished waterfowl
ecologist. When I read your bio,your research interest, you're
interested in things such aspopulation ecology, banding
analyses, harvest managementdecision analysis, you're one of
(05:39):
those smart people that alwayslook up to you, bring a lot of
quantitative skills to thesediscussions, and that's always
really valuable, sometimesintimidating for me to get in
these conversations, I thinkyou're gonna be a fantastic part
of this show. So happy to haveyou on this and appreciate your
time, because I know you'recertainly a busy person.
Mark Lindberg (06:01):
Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, you're
right about traveling around forthis job. Early in my career
someone pointed out to me, hey,if you study waterfowl, they can
take you to some really neatplaces, and I'd just like to
point out that has definitelybeen the case and one of the
reasons I initially gotinterested.
Mike Brasher (06:20):
Mark, you also have I believe a podcast of your
own that you started hererecently, something I believe
it's called the Hunting SciencePodcast, do I have that right?
Mark Lindberg (06:27):
Yeah, thanks for the plug and I appreciate that.
Yeah, I have been very activeand I guess successful in
science in the form ofcommunicating to other
scientists. But one of thethings I was frustrated with, I
guess, late in my career is thatwe weren't getting the science
(06:49):
to hunters enough at least, inmy opinion. And that was the
motivation behind starting thispodcast, as you said, called
Hunting Science. And our goal isto make hunters aware of the
science of hunting.
And there's quite a bit of it,some we'll talk about today, but
(07:10):
there's other podcasts therethat dive into other topics as
well.
Mike Brasher (07:16):
We talk about that often, Chris, and Clay and I,
when we're mapping out thepotential for this particular
podcast, and there is so muchreally interesting information
that feeds the waterfowlmanagement enterprise. And I
know a lot of our our huntersand conservation supporters will
(07:37):
be interested in that, and Ithink your philosophy on the
hunting podcast the huntingscience podcast of yours is sort
of similar to ours. The morethat we can educate and share
this information with our withour supporters, I think the the
greater appreciation andunderstanding of that resource
they they have. And so that'spretty cool that you've headed
down that that road.
Chris Jennings (07:57):
Yeah. Absolutely, Mark. I'm gonna have
to look into that, into yourpodcast. You know, just when
this topic came up, I thought,you know, kind of the citizen
science is how waterfowl hunterskinda lead the way with this.
You know, one thing to kind ofexpand on even from what Mike
said is I live every day insidethe waterfowl hunting community
working with the magazine,creating content online, social
(08:19):
media.
But every time we do one ofthese podcasts, I manage to pick
up some tidbit of informationfrom the science side of things,
something that I didn't know,something that I know that our
listeners will definitely learnfrom. So I do appreciate you
coming on and and, you know,this is gonna be a great topic,
the citizen scientist.
Mark Lindberg (08:38):
Thanks. Yeah.
Mike Brasher (08:39):
So to that topic, let's get right into it here.
When we use the term citizenscientist, I think that term has
probably come of age in the lastten years, at least that's my
sense of it. Mark, help usunderstand what we're actually
talking about when we use thatterm.
Mark Lindberg (08:58):
Yeah, I think you're right, that term is
relatively new, but the idea ofsomeone collecting information
for us, data, scientific datafor us is rather old. And that
is my definition, someone whovolunteers to collect
information to help us makemanagement decisions,
(09:19):
conservation decisions. And Iguess I would add to that
definition that they may notknow they're doing that, so it's
either knowingly or unknowinglythey're helping us gather
information that we need to makethe best decisions we possibly
can.
Mike Brasher (09:36):
Whenever I was thinking about this this episode
over the past few days, and inmy mind coming up with examples
of citizen scientists, I thinkwe're going to mention that
waterfowl hunters, the huntersin general, are some of the
first citizen scientists thatthat we've ever had. But there's
also another group of citizenscientists out there that I I
(09:57):
don't know how how common or howactive they are anymore, but
when I was growing up, mygrandfather would be a one of
these local weather reporters.The local weather station would
reach out to citizens townsaround broadcast location, and I
got a great kick out of havingmy granddad be the one to call
in and report the weather fromhis little town. And so the fact
(10:20):
that I have a grandfather thatcollected data and reported it
is probably going to come as ashock and surprise to no one
that knows me and the fact thatI'm into data a little bit. So
that was sort of a neat way oflooking back and a personal
example that I thought about.
Mark, what are some otherspecific examples of citizen
science as we might see in theconservation field?
Mark Lindberg (10:41):
Yeah, your point about the weather data is a good
one, I hadn't thought aboutthat. Yeah, But hunters have
been doing this for quite sometime. I guess maybe the most
obvious way to some hunters theydo this is through things like a
bag check station. You stop, youshow who's ever checking what
(11:02):
you may have harvested and theymight look at the age, the sex
of the animal or some othercharacteristics. So that's
citizen scientist data thatyou're providing to help them
make management decisions aboutthose animals.
I know this is the case withmost other places, but in
Alaska, every year after aseason closes, we need to file
(11:24):
hunt reports whether weharvested an animal or not.
Where did we hunt? How many daysdid we hunt? How did we get to
where we hunted? Things likethat.
And it again helps them,agencies, make management
decisions for those species. Andthere's more modern forms
starting to crop up here andthere too. EBird is one app that
(11:49):
you can get on your phone thatallows you to record
observations of birds fromaround the world that's shared
with biologists and scientistsand other birders and hunters
for that matter. So, there'sdefinitely a lot of forms in
which hunters, citizens cancontribute.
VO (12:20):
Stay tuned to the Ducks Unlimited podcast, sponsored by
Purina Pro Plan and Bird DogWhiskey. After these messages.
Chris Jennings (14:18):
You know, I know hunters, you know, maybe someone
forgets their license and theyhave to call in. And I've I've
actually been on the phone, youknow, with people or been near
them when, you know, they'refilling out their license online
and telling, or it's anautomated system and they're
just pressing no no no no no andand I'm like hey man you can't
do that.
VO (14:35):
You know
Chris Jennings (14:36):
and they're like why I'm just trying to get
through it. And I'm like becauseit's an important you know it's
important aspect. It's somethingyou know HIP is something that
every single hunter in The US isparticipating in now and that's
a one great program andsomething for people to keep in
mind when they start getting thequestions about,
VO (14:51):
did you hunt coots, rails, or gallonules?
Chris Jennings (14:53):
That's right. And then, you know, just make
sure you you're following alongwith that, and that's a good
reminder for hunters that theyare participating in this
science.
Mark Lindberg (15:01):
Yeah, definitely. The Harvest Information Program
is very obvious one. About amillion waterfowl hunters a year
are reporting their harvest fromthe previous year. That's a
million data points provided bycitizen scientists. And that
information goes into decisionsabout future harvest
(15:23):
regulations.
So it's important not only toprovide that information but do
it in a reliable manner.
Mike Brasher (15:30):
I would imagine as some people are listening to
this, they're expecting us toget into the details of what the
harvest information program isand how that data is used.
Because there's a tremendousmisunderstanding of how that
data is is used. A lot of peoplethink that it's estimating
harvest for the current year,but that's not true at all. So I
don't want to veer off intothat, otherwise we'll have to be
(15:51):
pulled out of the ditch here onthis particular podcast, but we
will get back to that at somepoint in the future. What are
some other examples, Mark, ofcitizen science, the data
collection responsibilities thatwaterfowl hunters have?
Mark Lindberg (16:06):
Yeah. So some hunters, not all, participate in
what is called, not attractivelythe parts collection survey,
maybe a better name, the wingsurvey. That's been going on for
about forty years. And herehunters send in their wings of
harvested waterfowl andbiologists gather every year
(16:28):
what's called the wing bee. Andat that wing bee they look at
those wings and from thepatterns of feathers and colors
they can tell the age and thesex of the birds.
And by knowing the age and sex,they can determine things like
production rates for that year.So if there's more young birds
(16:52):
in the wing bees than adultbirds, that looks like a good
production year whereas reversemight indicate that it wasn't a
very good production year. Sothat's a neat way to do it and
it's really fun to look at thosewings. One of my first jobs was
to work bag check stationslooking at wings of birds that
(17:14):
hunters had harvested, and it'spretty fascinating that you can
determine that much informationjust from the color patterns in
the wings. The other one thatpeople might be a little more
familiar with is reporting thebands of lake banded birds they
may harvest.
So those who've been around fora while know that the metal lake
(17:36):
bands on waterfowl used to havejust something simple that said,
advise Washington DC, and notmany people knew what to do with
those bans. In fact, about 35%of the people recorded those
bans when that informationexisted. But in more recent
(17:57):
decades we've moved to a phonereporting system with 800
numbers, and also now we'reusing websites that allow
hunters to report information onthe they've harvested, banded
birds they've harvested. Andthat results in about a 100,000
reports per year, and about 75%of the hunters that get a band
(18:22):
now report that information. Sowe've increased the volume of
data.
Chris Jennings (18:26):
I'm just curious, did the, when when the
submitting process went onlineand did did you guys see like a
slight jump in the percentage ofbirds reported? I mean, just the
convenience of, especially, youknow, this day and age, you
know, even when you're hunting,you're not without your phone.
Did did did you see any increasein that go up just because it
(18:50):
makes it so easy?
Mark Lindberg (18:51):
Yeah. It was almost immediate increase. In
fact, shortly after theyimplemented the +1 800 number
that doesn't exist anymore, butwhen they implemented it, I so
happened to be at Bird BanningLab in Washington DC and they
had a bank of phones there thatwere people were answering. And
(19:13):
while I was there during thehunting season, people were
calling in from their buying,hey. I just shot this pintail
with this number.
And and it was an immediateinput of information and then
they got immediate feedback onthat bird as well. Expenses of
having people answer thosephones were probably the most
(19:36):
important reason why theydecided to just go to a more
passive approach of havingpeople enter on the website. But
nonetheless, the it's still asystem that encourages people to
hunt it or report, I should say.And, again, reporting rates back
in the day when this goes backto nineteen twenties, by the
way, when we just had advisedWashington DC, about 35% of the
(20:01):
people actually reported it andnow about 75% do. So that's been
a huge improvement in theinformation we get from those
and is consistent I guess withsort of my philosophy is we
should empower hunters withknowledge and make them better
citizen scientists.
And I think that case study is agood example of where we see
(20:26):
those improvements in theinformation. Just another
statistic that I like to throwout, but since 1960 hunters have
reported almost 4,000,000 bans.
Chris Jennings (20:37):
Wow, that's impressive. Now you mentioned
that 20 so so in in that thatdataset, it's assumed that
twenty five percent of thepeople who shoot a banded bird
do not report it.
Mike Brasher (20:50):
Is that right?
Mark Lindberg (20:51):
Yeah. And that's determined through things like
reward band studies. I don'tknow if anybody has had been
fortunate enough to shoot a birdthat has a monetary value on its
band, but the idea there is thatoccasionally we put those type
of bands out and the assumptionis that at some dollar value,
(21:12):
whatever that is, everyone thatshoots it, a bird with that
dollar value will report it. Andfrom there, we can estimate how
many report it when there is nodollar value. And so that's
that's how we've determined howreporting rates, which they're
called, have changed throughtime.
But yeah, there's still some 25%of the people that choose not to
(21:36):
report those bans based theinformation we have.
Mike Brasher (21:40):
Are those reporting rates calculated every
year?
Mark Lindberg (21:44):
No, it's not done every year, It's done
occasionally as needed is how Iwould say it. I don't think
anything's been done for a fewyears now.
Mike Brasher (21:53):
But certainly when there's a change in reporting
method, that's when it becomesreally important.
Mark Lindberg (21:58):
Oh, definitely. Yeah. And you know, I think
we're just starting to go downthis path, if you will, of
empowering hunters with thistype of knowledge. I'm kind of
curious if we get the word outvia podcasts or other ways, I
wonder if reporting rates willincrease. You know, people,
(22:18):
again, my guess is that some ofthat 25% of the people that
don't report just don'tunderstand the value of that
information.
And that if we can tell them
Mike Brasher (22:29):
They don't understand how it's right.
Mark Lindberg (22:30):
Yeah, yeah, so I mean it just leads to better
decisions. It's more reliableinformation. The more
information we have the morereliable it is. So not reporting
that information createsuncertainty in the decisions we
make. And again, I think I'm ofthe opinion that if hunters
(22:52):
understood that, more of themwould report their bands.
Because I think almost everyonewants us to have reliable
information.
Mike Brasher (23:00):
I wanna go back just a little bit. You mentioned
something about the one-eight100 bands. I know those bands
are no longer used, but ifsomeone recovers a bird that has
one-eight 100 BAND on it, isthat number still functional?
Mark Lindberg (23:12):
The number I believe just gets you to a
recording that tells you toreport via the website. I'm
pretty sure that's where it goesnow. So it's not functional in
the sense you can't report yourinformation via that route, but
it tells you how to do it.
Mike Brasher (23:27):
But you can still report those one-eight 100 bands
online.
Mark Lindberg (23:31):
Yeah, you can still do that online for sure.
Have you shot one?
Mike Brasher (23:35):
You know, it's been a while, I think I did. I
think I shot one of the earlyones. That would have been back
when the the number wasfunctional. Yeah. So I shot a
band one
Chris Jennings (23:46):
time in Indiana when I was younger and got
excited, picked it up. I waslike, yeah, my first band. I was
probably 16, 17 years old. Andand looked at the band and it
had some guy's name. He's got Iwon't mention his name just in
case he's still around, but hadhis name carved in it very
loosely with a phone number andI called it, and I'm sure he was
some knucklehead in Brazil,Indiana that was banding birds
(24:07):
Yeah.
Probably illegally without apermit.
Mark Lindberg (24:09):
That was
Chris Jennings (24:09):
the it's the only band duck band I've ever
killed, so
Mike Brasher (24:11):
We'll have to get into our banding stories
Absolutely. And the birds we'veshot with banded birds. I
actually have a couple ofinteresting stories on that. I
hope we've shared with ourlisteners their role in
collecting this information. Ithink we're gonna have you back
and talk a little bit more abouthow some of this data is used
(24:32):
and speak a little bit moredeliberately about the
importance of reporting the datareliably and collecting that
data reliably, and we want folksto realize that they play a
critical role.
They have for decades, and theywill continue to play a role, a
critical role in the data thatis collected and used to manage
(24:52):
our waterfowl harvest on anannual basis. And we want to
share this information withpeople. We want them to
understand how that informationis used. We want them to
understand the importance of it.And we appreciate you coming on
and helping us tell this story.
And so, yeah, I think Chris, anyany final words here? Everyone
out there listening, report yourbans. Report your bans.
(25:15):
Absolutely.
Chris Jennings (25:15):
It's important.
Mike Brasher (25:16):
Mark, any final words on this on on this
particular episode?
Mark Lindberg (25:20):
Just Just this thought I guess, the way I try
to present this to hunters, ifyou were the decision maker, if
the hunter was the personsetting the harvest regulations,
what information would you liketo have to do that? And, you
know, I think everyone would saythe most and the most reliable
information I can get. And Ithink if you view it from that
(25:43):
perspective then that willreally motivate you to want to
provide this information in areliable manner. So hopefully
people will think that way aboutit. It's not like we're trying
to use this information againstyou.
It's everyone involved wants tomake the best decisions
(26:04):
possible, and that's onlypossible with the lack of data.
Mike Brasher (26:08):
That's right. Mark, we thank you for your
time. Thank you for joining usall the way from Fairbanks, and
thank my cohost Chris Jenningsfor joining us here. I wanna
also thank at this time ourproducer, Clay Baird, who's
gonna make us all sound soundgreat, and thanks to each of
you, each of our listeners for avery important part of this
(26:30):
entire enterprise. Thank you foryour contribution to the
science.
Thank you for your commitment towetlands and waterfowl
conservation, and we'll catchyou on the next episode.
VO (26:53):
Thank you for listening to the DU podcast, sponsored by
Purina Pro Plan, the officialperformance dog food of Ducks
Unlimited. Purina Pro Plan,always advancing. Also proudly
sponsored by Bird Dog Whiskeyand Cocktails. Whether you're
winding down with your bestfriend or celebrating with your
favorite crew, Bird Dog bringsaward winning flavor to every
moment. Enjoy responsibly.
(27:15):
Be sure to rate, review, andsubscribe to the show and visit
ducks.org/dupodcast. Opinionsexpressed by guests do not
necessarily reflect those ofDucks Unlimited. Until next
time, stay tuned to the Ducks.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.