How Diving Ducks Impact the Billion-Dollar Baitfish Industry
When bitter winter winds sweep across Arkansas, they bring more than just falling temperatures to the nation's largest baitfish-producing region. They also deliver hundreds of thousands of migratory ducks known as lesser scaup—unassuming visitors that secretly wreak millions of dollars in damage on aquaculture farms.
For years, fish farmers noticed mysterious declines in their fish stocks, initially attributing them to disease, poor water quality, or perhaps more recognizable predators like herons and cormorants. The true culprit surprised everyone: a duck not widely known for eating fish.
Research has since revealed the substantial economic impact of this feathery predator. During peak winter months, as many as 225 scaup can descend on a single pond, with up to 66% of all ponds in Arkansas's major baitfish farming region hosting these opportunistic feeders 3 .
Maximum scaup per pond
Ponds affected by scaup
Fish eaten daily per scaup
The consequences are staggering: individual scaup can consume approximately 0.5 pounds of fish daily—equivalent to 300 individual golden shiners—making them an expensive nuisance for aquaculture operators 3 . This article delves into the fascinating science behind this unusual predator-prey relationship and reveals why this conflict matters not just to fish farmers but potentially to fishing enthusiasts and consumers across the United States.
The lesser scaup, a medium-sized diving duck, isn't typically classified by biologists as a dedicated fish-eater. Under normal circumstances, these birds primarily feast on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and vegetation. Their sudden shift to consuming high-value baitfish and sportfish represents a fascinating case of adaptive foraging behavior 4 .
Research conducted between 2016 and 2018 revealed that scaup increasingly exploit fish during colder winters, likely due to a combination of increased energy demands, prey availability, and possibly the ease of capturing farmed fish compared to wild prey 4 .
The scaup's arrival follows a predictable pattern that fish farmers have come to dread each year. The birds typically appear in central Arkansas in November and remain through March, coinciding with the most economically vulnerable periods for fish production 3 .
During the unusually warm winter of 2016-2017, researchers found few scaup and minimal fish consumption. The following winter (2017-2018), however, was much colder, bringing more scaup that consumed dramatically more fish 3 .
This temperature-dependent predation pattern helps explain why economic impacts can vary so significantly from year to year.
During peak consumption periods in the colder winter, researchers found that as many as 51% of scaup sampled contained fish in their digestive systems, confirming that many of the observed birds were actively feeding on the farms' valuable fish stocks 3 .
This shift toward piscivorous behavior during cold weather explains why farmers observe much greater damage during harsh winters.
To quantify the true economic impact of scaup predation, researchers implemented a comprehensive two-year study (2016-2018) focusing on Arkansas baitfish and sportfish farms 2 3 4 . The investigation combined multiple scientific approaches to gather both biological and economic data:
Scientists collected 529 lesser scaup and 19 greater scaup foraging on various production ponds. Through careful dissection and analysis of digestive contents, they determined exactly what the birds were eating and in what proportions 4 .
Regular bird counts documented scaup numbers, distribution patterns, and feeding behaviors across different farms and pond types.
Researchers surveyed baitfish and sportfish farms to gather detailed data on the costs of protecting fish crops from scaup and other avian predators.
This multi-faceted approach allowed scientists to connect the biological behavior of the ducks directly to economic outcomes—providing a complete picture of the predation problem.
The dietary findings revealed fascinating patterns. While Chironomidae (aquatic insects) remained the most common prey item for lesser scaup during both winters, fish consumption varied dramatically between years 4 .
In the warmer winter of 2016-2017, only traces of fish appeared in scaup diets. During the colder 2017-2018 winter, however, fish comprised a substantial 18% of the overall diet of lesser scaup by weight 4 .
This shift toward piscivorous behavior during cold weather explains why farmers observe much greater damage during harsh winters. The greater scaup, while less numerous, showed similar patterns—with fish composing about 13% of their overall diet 4 .
The economic impact of scaup predation comes from two main sources: direct fish losses and bird management expenses. Research documented that losses varied significantly by fish species and winter conditions, but consistently reached economically damaging levels 2 3 .
| Fish Type | Economic Losses (per hectare) |
|---|---|
| Golden Shiner | $683 |
| Fathead Minnow | $695 |
| Sportfish | $663 |
| Goldfish | $673 |
Source: Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 2021 2
For the entire Arkansas baitfish industry, fish losses to scaup alone averaged $1.06 million per year, with a dramatic difference between the warm year ($0.09 million) and the cold year ($2.03 million) 2 .
Fish farmers don't take this predation lying down. They invest significant resources in bird-scaring activities, which themselves represent a substantial cost. Researchers documented that total annual costs to scare birds from baitfish and sportfish farms averaged $622 ± 742 per hectare 2 .
Source: Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 2021 2
The chart reveals how labor-intensive bird management remains, with manpower comprising more than half of all expenses. The need for constant vigilance and active harassment strategies demonstrates the persistent challenge scaup present throughout their winter residence.
When combined, fish losses and bird-scaring costs create a substantial dent in farm profitability. For golden shiner farms—the most common baitfish species—the combined economic effect decreased overall profit margins by $251/acre in years with few birds to $300/acre in colder years with high bird pressure 3 .
Considering the median size of golden shiner farms (800 acres), this represents staggering economic losses ranging from $200,800 per farm in years with few birds to $240,000 per farm in years with high bird pressure 3 . These figures explain why aquaculture operators view scaup management as essential to their economic survival.
The economic impact of scaup predation extends beyond individual farms to affect the broader baitfish and sportfish industry. Arkansas produces a high percentage of U.S. farmed baitfish, meaning reductions in supply potentially affect fishing enthusiasts nationwide through higher prices and reduced availability of live bait 3 .
Total direct negative economic effects on the Arkansas baitfish industry were estimated to average $5.5 million per year ($4.6 million in Year 1 and $6.3 million in Year 2) when considering all associated economic activity 2 6 . This significant financial impact occurs despite intensive efforts by farmers to protect their aquatic crops.
The table below shows key research methods used to measure scaup impact and their applications:
| Research Method | Purpose | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Dietary Analysis | Determine scaup feeding habits | Fish comprised 18% of diet in cold winter |
| Bird Population Surveys | Document scaup numbers and distribution | Up to 225 scaup on single ponds |
| Economic Cost Surveys | Quantify protection costs and fish losses | Bird-scaring costs averaged $622/ha |
| Farm Production Records | Correlate predation with fish yields | Losses ranged 8-59% of fish crop |
The story of scaup predation on baitfish farms represents a classic human-wildlife conflict with no simple solutions. The ducks are protected migratory species simply following their natural instincts, while fish farmers are trying to protect their livelihoods and maintain production of a legitimate agricultural commodity.
What makes this scenario particularly challenging is its weather-dependent variability. The dramatic difference between warm and cold winters means the severity of the problem changes annually, making consistent management planning difficult 3 4 . Furthermore, the significant costs already invested in bird-scaring activities ($622/hectare) suggest that simply increasing current management efforts may not be economically feasible 2 .
The research reveals the delicate balance between agricultural production and wildlife conservation in an increasingly human-modified landscape. As climate patterns shift and aquaculture expands, understanding these complex interactions becomes ever more critical for developing sustainable management strategies that support both agricultural interests and healthy wildlife populations.
Average annual fish losses
Per hectare protection costs
Total economic impact
For now, each winter continues to bring the same seasonal challenge to Arkansas fish farms—a quiet invasion that slips beneath the water's surface, consuming profits one fish at a time. The economic figures tell a stark story: an individual scaup may consume just half a pound of fish daily, but collectively, they consume millions of dollars from an industry vital to the national fishing economy 2 3 6 .