1,732,453 research outputs found
Smith (David) — Human longevity
No full textSéguy Isabelle. Smith (David) — Human longevity. In: Population, 50ᵉ année, n°2, 1995. pp. 529-531
LeLai d'Aristotede Saint-Omer
No full textSmith David P. LeLai d'Aristotede Saint-Omer. In: Romania, tome 98 n°392, 1977. pp. 550-559
Elridge Hunt
No full textElridge Smith oral history interview as conducted by David Smith.
Elridge Hunt spent his whole professional career working for the California Department of Fish and Game, where he spent a lot of time working on the Pacific Flyway. This interview focuses on his role with the Pacific Flyway and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Name: Elridge Hunt
Keywords: History, Hunting, Habitat conservation, Waterfowl, Pacific Flyway, California Department of Fish and Game, North American Waterfowl Management Plan1
Oral History Cover Sheet
Name: Eldridge Hunt
Date of Interview: January 10, 2006
Interviewer: David Smith
Offices and Field Stations Worked: California Department of Fish and Game
Positions Held: Chief of the Wildlife Management Division
Most Important Projects: North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Pacific Flyway, population management, habitat management,
Colleagues and Mentors: Jack Grieb
2
National Heritage Team of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oral History Program
Narrator/USFW Retiree: Eldridge "Red" Hunt
Date: January 10, 2001
Interviewed by: David Smith
David Smith: We're here to talk for a few minutes about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. You've been involved in it from day one, so we want to pick your brain about that. Could you just tell us a little bit about your professional career?
Eldridge Hunt: Yes. My whole professional career was with the California Department of Fish and Game. During the time that I was involved with the North American Waterfowl Plan, I was Chief of the Wildlife Management Division for the California Department of Fish and Game. In that position, I spent a lot of time working with the Pacific Flyway, and that was my entry into the program, through the flyway, representing the Pacific Flyway.
David Smith: Do you remember the first time you touched or heard about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan?
Eldridge Hunt: I sure do. It was at a flyway meeting and Jack Grieb, who was involved with the Pacific Flyway and in the writing of the plan, came to the flyway and talked about it. There wasn't complete acceptance on the part of the flyway at that time. They were concerned that the plan, in some way, would get involved in harvest or population management and the flyway figured that that was their piece of the cake and they didn't want anybody interfering. So, they made it very clear to Grieb that they wanted protection. When I was first appointed that was the direction they gave me, was to not let this group get involved in population management. So, that was the way we started out.
David Smith: To follow up on that, how has that played out over the years with the flyway council initially very concerned about population, regulation, and harvest? What focus did the waterfowl plan take if it wasn't population?
Eldridge Hunt: Right. Well, it was basically a habitat plan, and kind of separate it from population, but the objectives of the habitat plan was measured in population. So, there certainly is a connection between the two.
Over the years, I think the flyway, particularly Pacific Flyway, has mellowed and recognized the need for the plan to get at least somewhat involved in population management. That's played out with the participation of the flyways on the SSD [Special Service District] teams and so forth, they are much more cooperative then they were at the beginning. And I think that's one of the reasons for their success, that the flyways are more comfortable with the program now they see the great benefits. I think they feel that 3
that's probably the best way to get the management of resource accomplished, in terms of habitat, is through this international program.
David Smith: That's a good point. People now, almost 20 years later, sometimes look at the waterfowl plan as a tremendous success and don't realize there was pain in giving birth to this plan. It's an interesting perspective.
Any other areas of controversy, difficulty that you recall from when then this plan became established?
Eldridge Hunt: Well, the thing that I remember first of controversy is the first update and I think that there was a general feeling among the members that there was a need to go all bird or all wildlife at that time. So, I think that probably resulted in a meeting in Washington D.C., where all of the folks that were interested in the plan being called together to find out whether they thought that that change should be made at that point in time. Due to the testimony, found out that it was pretty well on track the way it was originally written. So that's the way it came out in the first update.
David Smith: Let me ask you this, Red, can you point to any particularly significant accomplishments, events that led to the development of the waterfowl plan --- the period before it was signed and since it was signed? Are there key milestones that you can point to?
Eldridge Hunt: I think in my mind the most significant, harking back to involvement with the flyway, and I was particularly involved in harvest management and so forth, and quite aware of the need for habitat management, and we saw this as the great step of getting work done particularly in the prairies of Canada. California had been involved in supporting Canadian projects for some time, and we were very impressed with the accomplishments primarily the DU [Ducks Unlimited] was making up there. We saw this just as a great opportunity to further develop habitat in the prairies in Canada, so that was our original focus. It was quite narrow at that time and, of course, has broadened since then.
David Smith: That's key. You mentioned the first update, which I believe was in 1994, as a key point. Since then, there have been several other updates?
Eldridge Hunt: Two.
David Smith: Have they... What impact has that process of periodic updating had on the plan, if any, would you say?
Eldridge Hunt: I think it had major [impact]. I think that the fact, there's two couple of factors that speak to this. I know of no other wildlife plan that has been effective over that period of time. Usually a plan is developed and it works for four or five years and then it is discarded, so to speak. But there's been so much effort in updating and revising the plan, that it stays current. To me, that's one of the major reasons for success, is that it is updated on a five year increment and a great deal of effort 4
goes into getting input from the constituencies. It takes a lot of time to do that, but I think it's well worthwhile, that everybody that's interested gets a chance to comment and make the plan current. And I think that has been very significant in its success.
David Smith: That's a good point. If the updating, periodic updating, five year updates have been influential, can you point to anything else that has made --- and you mentioned that the waterfowl plan has lasted longer than any other...
Eldridge Hunt: As far as that, yes.
David Smith: You mentioned the updating process, can you point to any other key characteristics or components of the waterfowl plan that have enabled it to survive 25 years, apparently in good condition and still going strong?
Eldridge Hunt: I think the joint venture of partnership concept has got to be key in that. This was kind of new in the wildlife field, and I think it's been followed by many other wildlife initiatives as the way to go. The other thing that comes to my mind is the way the relationship of the planning committee and the service to the joint ventures, and letting each one be individual in terms of their procedures, and settle on what works best for them as opposed to all going with the same process and procedure. The freedom for the joint ventures to do what fits in best with them, I think, is very important.
David Smith: You've participated in a number of joint ventures, personally in management awards and [visiting] at various capacities. In a nutshell, for people that don't know exactly what a joint venture is, how would you describe what a waterfowl plan joint venture is?
Eldridge Hunt: Well, I don't know, we can go back originally to the 32... There were areas that were identified as important waterfowl areas in Canada and the U.S. I believe there were 32 or 32. And there was originally five of those areas that were selected for the original joint ventures. That has been expanded, and I'm not sure the number now, what is it 13 now or 11? Something like that, but it's almost doubled, and the door is not shut now, if there's need for additional joint ventures I'm sure they will come onboard.
In our flyway we have four joint ventures, and they're all different as night and day and they all, I feel, do well for their location and for their management boards. I think one of the things that we've done over a period of time from your office in the planning committee is meet with those joint ventures and get from them their needs and also offer information about how best to proceed. I think that's greatly appreciated and should be continued.
David Smith: Let me follow up, you were talking about one of the keys here in the joint venture partnership concept and that the whole organization, the planning committee and the Fish and Wildlife Service had given joint ventures the freedom to be individual to get the job done. To some people that would seem as not highly controlled, 5
not highly structured --- how in the world can something that's a loose structure be so successful?
Eldridge Hunt: We didn't have strong direction or control.
David Smith: Is that a paradox or is that a truth?
Eldridge Hunt: Well, I think that most people would believe that it would fail. But I think, and I don't why it hasn't, but the partnerships are so strong, I think, that they have prevailed. Despite the lack of strong authority at the top and strong direction, they have done well for what they needed to do. I think the reason for that is that the needs are so different in the different joint ventures, that to apply the procedure of one, and I know speaking of our flyway, one procedure of one joint venture to the others would be harmful.
David Smith: Thank you. Let me ask you this, we've talked about the early days and through joint ventures and through the updates, is there anything else you would like to add from your experience with the plan, with the planning committee, with joint ventures, or...?
Eldridge Hunt: I think that one of the things that we haven't talked at all about is the inclusion of the other initiatives in the joint ventures. Most of the joint ventures are all bird now, and the way that has transpired, with basically the only funding for the waterfowl element, and yet the joint ventures have gone ahead and brought funding in for projects for the other initiatives where the money was available, and this has been done without a great deal of bickering. Originally, when our thinking was real narrow, I know I didn't think that this was going to be possible, I thought there was always going to be conflict between waterfowl and the others, and this has proven not to be the case in the joint ventures that I've had experience with. And that was a great revelation.
David Smith: You've cited several examples where people didn't think it could be done, from the waterfowl plan itself, to joint ventures themselves, to being able to get money to flow to Canada, to joint ventures being able to embrace birds beyond waterfowl and make it all work. So, a lot of doubting seems to have turned into a lot of accomplishment.
Eldridge Hunt: Yeah, you wonder why that happened! Whether it was just luck or...
David Smith: That's very impressive.
Eldridge Hunt: Yeah, it is very. It is the most, in my career, which, well, I'll be off the plan committee this spring, but in my career that expanded almost 60 years, involvement in the North American [Waterfowl Plan] is by far the most interesting and significant thing that I had known. It kind of climaxed here, this has been great coming here to this session and seeing what you have to offer here.
6
David Smith: Well, I congratulate you on that time and thank you for all of your contributions, really. That's very, very significant.
Eldridge Hunt: I'll just add one thing, that I was the, the other thing I should have brought out, that I was fortunate to be able to be involved in both the planning committee and the council staff, and been the only one. It was great to know what the concepts were in the plan, and to see how they were actually implemented through the council. I would strongly recommend, that wherever possible, that representation on both parts of the plan involve the same state, the same flyway, same individual. It's been helpful.
David Smith: Well thank you Red, that really is an incredible accomplishment that you have done.
Eldridge Hunt: Well it's been fun, this has really been enjoyable. I don't know what it would have all been without it.
Key Words (Please highlight or circle those described in the interview):
refuges
fisheries
law enforcement
ecological serv.
personnel
realty
director
public affairs
game
contaminants
animal damage
river basins
Regions 1-9__
Patuxent
Federal Aid
international
CITES habitat
ESA
wilderness
fishing hunting
birding
boats
aviation
surveys flyways waterfowl
potholes
migration
eagles
condors
cranes
pesticides
pelicans
Olaus Murie
Ding Darling
Ira Gabrielson
J. Clark Salyer
Al Day
Rachel Carson
H. Zahniser
Dan Jantzen
J. Gottschalk
J. Gottschalk
Spencer Smith
L. Greenwalt
Bob Jantzen
Frank Dunkle
John Turner
M. Beattie
Aldo Leopold
Stuart Udall
James Watt
Bruce Babbitt
inventions
research
ecosystems
invasive species
reintroductions
red wolves
gray wolves
Mexican wolf
condors
spotted ow
Dr. George Finney
No full textDr. George Finney oral history interview as conducted by David Smith.
Dr. George Finney started out with the Federal Service in Canada in 1977 as a senior biologist looking at native harvest and eventually moved his way into management as a a regional director of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Atlanta Canada where he remained for 20 yrs until his next assignment. During his time with the Canadian Wildlife Service he worked on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan with the United States, various Joint Ventures, and other projects dealing with wildlife habitat.
Name: George Finney
Keywords: Biography, Management, Habitat conservation, Wildlife managementSubject/USFW Retiree: Dr. George Finney
January 10, 2006
Interviewed by: David Smith
David:
Good morning, it's good to see you. I would like to go over a few questions here about your involvement in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Would you start out with where you are now? I understand you have retired from you career with Canadian Wildlife Service.
Dr. Finney:
I'm actually moving towards retirement from the federal government, but I'm on Executive Exchanges presently for Bird Studies Canada down on the north shore of Lake Erie.
David:
What were some of your past experience with the Federal Service?
Dr. Finney:
I joined the Federal Service in 1977 as a senior biologist looking at native harvest, ended up as a lands claim negotiator, which is a good place to burn yourself out as a professional, even at a young age. Then I gradually transitioned into management, first in Ottawa, and then in the mid-80s I took a position as regional director of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Atlanta Canada, where I was for about 20 years, until my current assignment.
David:
What is your first recollection of your contact with the North American Waterfowl Plan?
Dr. Finney:
Well, my first contact was being called into the office of Hugh Boyd, who was then the Director of Migratory Birds in Ottawa, and being told that I needed to get a plane and head out to Saskatoon in order to meet with Jim Patterson, because he and I had been assigned to develop the Canadian position for negotiations of a North American Waterfowl Management Plan. So that would have been in December of 1979. My first trip out to sit down with Jim was in January of 1980, and I've been involved with the North American plan ever since, I'm still a counselor in the Sea Duck Joint Venture, so it's been a continuous involvement since 1979.
David:
So if you answer my question I was asking, what was your professional involvement with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan?
Dr. Finney:
For 7 years Jim Patterson and I worked at developing a Canadian position, which lead to 7 months of negotiation. So dealing with the Americans was a lot easier than dealing with our Canadian constituents. During that time we set up Wildlife Habitat Canada as an implementing agency, which was a side light but an important light. While I was on the planning committee negotiating team along with Jim I then moved to the region in Atlanta, Canada. I would say my next major involvement is that I lead development at the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, which we got signed in 1989. I was on the Black Duck Joint Venture Board and all sorts of various counsels. I think the last piece, the most important piece, was picking up a loose end of the 1984 negotiations, which was establishment of the Sea Duck Joint Venture, which ultimately happened in 1999. But it was even noted in 1985 in our public consultations that we hadn't handled sea ducks very well, and it was noted again in the 1994 update, and the 1998 update, but we finally got that piece right.
David:
Progress! George, what would you say if you would reflect back to some of the more significant accomplishments with (unclear)? I wouldn't say milestones, the drivers that made the North American Waterfowl Management Plan what it is? Throughout that time you worked before it came into existence, the negotiations. What are some key things that made it what it is?
Dr. Finney:
I think the one of the key things was would come under the category of vision I think, and that was when North American Plan was actually envisioned back in 1976-1977, I think it was approved by the Program Review Committee in 1977, and approved as an initiative by MAFWA (The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) at their 1979 meetings, which were in Toronto. I think it was viewed as being a consolidation of population approach to planning, there were just so many different plans around, that it was hard to keep track of it. But when we launched into preparation of the Canadian position, and I believe the Americans were by that stage on the same page, we had concluded that fooling around with population plans was missing the mark, that we had to be brave enough to try to deal with habitat destruction issues, which until that point the wildlife community had considered to be just way too big to tackle. So I think that that would be the very first one. The second thing would be in the vision category was finding a way to deal with stabilizing regulations, but not having the plan get mixed up with the regulation setting process, which was a threat to a number of the parties. As I said before, when we actually got to sit down with the U.S. team in Remington Farms in August of 1984, we found that we had a tremendous amount in common. The processes which had been largely running on independent tracks, or quasi-independent tracks, had actually taken us to more or less the same place, but then there was the question of how to do it. I think the obviously next big step is when we actually signed the plan, it was known as the "No Wampum Plan" wildly because there was no firm way, no firm strategy about how to get money to it. Following the signature of the plan in May of 1986, some of the plan negotiators including Jim and myself went down to the 1986 IAFWA (International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies) Meetings to explain what we had, and at that meeting there were a number of state-side people that came forward and said, "We really like what we see, and we think we can help," and that lead to the First Step Projects. The First Projects were tremendously important in terms of just proving concept, and the proving concept then lead to the federal cabinet submissions and allocations in both Canada and The United States.
David:
Let me just interrupt here. What, in a nutshell, what is the First Step Project?
Dr. Finney:
The First Step Project is we identified some high-profile projects in Canada, and we adjusted the ratio and the plan for funding. Habitat projects were deemed to be 75/25, whereas the First Step Project would change that to 50/50. We basically sought ways of implementing important projects in Canada on a 50/50 basis.
David:
The 50/50 meaning....?
Dr. Finney:
Meaning 50% Canadian funds and 50% American funds, and there were three or four of them in Canada in my region, Grand Lakes Meadows was one of them, I believe (unclear) Marsh area was another, and then I think Bass Mountain Lake was another. In that business a number of states came forward, lead by Gary Myers, who was then in 1986 the President of IAFWA. He was definitely a cheerleader for this right from the beginning. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was a key implementer in terms of providing a vehicle to transfer money. So I think those were key steps, and then there was just a lot of hard work and a lot of good decisions by a lot of folks in order to get it implementing. But I'm sure I missed something important.
David:
Well, I interrupted your train of thought, but thanks for explaining the First Step Projects. Is there anything you would want to point to for all these steps up through the late 80s and 90s? You already mentioned the Sea Duck Joint Venture fairly recently as tying up loose ends, is there anything in the 90s or even the first four or five years of this century that stand out?
Dr. Finney:
Well, for me personally I ended up by virtue of a number of changes in personnel in the Canadian side, as being the chairman of the Canadian portion of North American Planning Committee through the negotiations over the most recent update, and I found that to be a very interesting exercise, which I think we have achieved some level of renewal and some additional focus on science, which is important to me. We also began to introduce, thought not without some difficulty, some of the modern challenges facing waterfowl, such as climate change, which is not everybody's most prominent list as being of something in importance, but from the Canadian viewpoint, extremely important to waterfowl and looking into the future in terms of taking a look at what the models are telling us in terms of water availability, particularly on the prairies and what's happening to the Canadian Arctic. So, if the plan is going to be successful, it has to deal not with just the issues of the 1970s, not just with the crop damages and the lead shots and the other things that were very prominent as we were going into the 80s and through negotiations, but we have to be very mindful of what are facing waterfowl populations in the current time as well.
David:
Thank you. Let me ask to look ahead and the challenges ahead, can you point to a factor or several factors that has made North American Waterfowl Management Plan different from other conservation initiatives, and successful in your 20 years of implementation?
Dr. Finney:
Well, I think the vision was the correct vision, and there were many, many doubters during the early 1980s about that being the right vision. They had to all be convinced one by one that it was in their best interest. Surprisingly, in checking my notes for example I found that Ducks Unlimited, Inc., was one of the main doubters of the plan, and it took special meetings and people flying down to Louisiana to talk to some of the main parties down there and convincing them that this was not only in the interest of waterfowl, but it was in the interest of Ducks Unlimited Canada or Ducks Unlimited States, and clearly Ducks Unlimited involvement in this whole business has been critical.
David:
Well let me ask you a follow up to that, it's really important is as contemporary conservation people look at the Waterfowl Plan and what they see as a twenty year absolute success, and many of those people don't have any idea of how it got started and some of obstacles and controversy, so could you elaborate a little bit more on as it was coming together the doubters, what were they doubting, some of those difficulties, because that is not apparent today.
Dr. Finney:
Well, there were a lot of folks that were really concerned that we were going to be meddling with the regulatory setting process, and that their focus was principally on allocation of harvest and what was fair allocation, and what was fair between Canada and The United States, and real concern that a North American plan was going to lead to American's interfering with the Canadian regulatory setting process or vice-versa. That was one of them. In Canada on the prairies there were people that felt that the benefits that the Americans were getting meant that they needed to pay a whole lot more than we ended up settling on. We were going into a period too of drought in the '80s, and so the duck years weren't very good. One of the things that came along that surprised us was that there was a feeling held by a constituency on the prairies that ducks were flying rats, that they were principally pests eating crops, and that if we were going to encourage pestilence on the prairies, that what we needed to do was to build into the plan compensation mechanisms for the farmers in order to help them endure the plague that we were bringing upon them. It was a stronger movement from a segment on Canadian Prairies, lead my some provincial agricultural departments, that the plan had to include crop damage compensation, which of course we knew was never going to fly in a continental context. So we had to work our way around that substantially. Then there was the question of simply how would you imagine, even if you could imagine the money, which was huge by waterfowl manager standards, how could you manage a delivery mechanism that did not get us so entangled in legalistic problems that we would never get out of it, and that was the concept of the joint venture. As my recollection of the concept of the joint venture, which being non-legal entities, but with still binding relationships through joint venture structure, it came up, I think, through the negotiations themselves because I believe that both Canada and United States negotiators went into the meeting wondering how in the world, even if we could get to agreeing on the objectives and a huge money target, how would we do this without getting ourselves tied up in legalese?
David:
Let me ask you George is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven't covered as far as your reflections on your involvement and contributions to the Waterfowl Plan?
Dr. Finney:
Well, looking back on my career, there is a few things that I can look back and say, "You did good." This is one of them, for sure.
David:
Super.
KEY WORDS: Dr. George Finney, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Canadian Wildlife Service, Executive Exchanges for Bird Studies Canada, senior biologist, lands claim negotiator, regional director of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Atlanta Canada, Hugh Boyd, Director of Migratory Birds in Ottawa, Saskatoon, Jim Patterson, Sea Duck Joint Venture, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, Black Duck Joint Venture Board, MAFWA (The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies), Remington Farms, "No Wampum Plan," IAFWA (International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies), First Step Projects, Grand Lakes Meadows, Bass Mountain Lake, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Ducks Unlimited State
- …
