WOW! Did you know this about DU?

Discussion in 'Arkansas Flyway Forum' started by Waxed Canvas, Dec 22, 2003.

  1. Mike DU

    Mike DU Moderator<br>Ducks Unlimited Forum

    Messages:
    2,251
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Folks the fact of the matter is that the majority of the land is in private ownership so to improve things, whether it is on the wintering grounds or breeding grounds, we have to work with private landowners. All program projects are available to everyone equally, are scored and ranked on their benefit to ducks and approved as funds allow.


    - Madduckdog your statement is inaccurate.

    DU owns very little land in the US (<20,000 acres). All of it is on the breeding grounds and all is open to hunting.

    An example, in August of 2000, Ducks Unlimited purchased the Goebel Ranch. The property encompasses 8,732 acres in north central South Dakota and represents one of the largest contiguous tracts of grasslands and wetlands remaining in the Missouri Coteau. The entire property is open to hunting.

    DU Canada owns substantial acreage of breeding habitat projects (grasslands and prarie potholes)and all are open to public hunting.

    PUBLIC LANDS - We have provided assistance or have purchased and deeded over to the AGFC large tracts of land. Almost all of which are open to public hunting.

    To list a few projects on public areas………
    Rainey Brake WMA
    Simmons field - Big Lake WMA
    Brookings moist-soil unit /Black river WMAA
    Snowden field/St.Francis Sunken lands WMA
    Hatchie Coon Bottoms /St.Francis Sunken Lands WMA
    Payneway/St. FrancislLee LeBlanc - Black Swamp WMA
    Dyer Lake
    Galla Creek WMA
    Overflow NWR
    Bayou Meto WMA
    Bois D' Arc WMA
    Palarm Creek
    Lake Pickthorn
    Fort Chaffee WMA
    Horsehead Creek Dardannelle WMA
    Holla Bend NWR
    Bob Young/ Carbon City Rest Area
    Johnson county Rest Area
    Hartman Bottoms Dardannelle WMA
    McKennon Bottoms Dardannelle WMA
    Seven Devils WMA
    Petit Jean WMA

    Most recently the Raft Creek WMA was purchased by DU with the assistance of the AGFC and federal dollars and deeded over to the AGFC. And currently we our in negotiations to acquire and 800 acre tract off the Arkansas River in NW Arkansas that will be managed and open to duck hunting.

    Several public lands projects are scheduled for work in 2003. Included are restoration work on Simmons Field, located at Big Lake WMA, and Lee Leblanc Moist Soil Units at Black Swamp WMA. Additional work is scheduled for several moist soil units in western Arkansas (Arkansas River Valley), Black River WMA (pump repairs), and continuation of work at Raft Creek/Steve N. Wilson WMA. Phase II of this project is scheduled for completion this summer – providing additional public waterfowl hunting opportunities.

    Bottom line, whether private or public, these projects provide habitat for ducks, attract ducks to Arkansas and improve opportunity for duck hunters. See http://ar.ducks.org/ME2/Sites/dirmo...re Pages&gid=74A75A9963DE40059BD0B70F6415E6BC for a Arkansas Conservation Program Update.



    Hope this makes sense to ya’ll
     
  2. Waxed Canvas

    Waxed Canvas Banned

    Messages:
    4,756
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Location:
    Highly Mobile
    Thanks Mike:

    I think you are the real deal for what it is worth. I question some of the things that Marc says on camera. I enjoy the show and I will continue to support DU. I was just amused by Marc's comments re: restroing the MS delta Alluvial area.

    I will say this and I believe this accounts for much of the frustration you experience here. I believe bith DU and Delta try to make accurate forecasts but in reality, duck numbers are only a wild guess at best. Heck most of us here are just talking for that matter.

    It is clear we are in the middle of some major changes climate and duck-wise in the MS flyway. It is in God's hands and sometimes a man just has to be patient and bide his time.
     
  3. Mike DU

    Mike DU Moderator<br>Ducks Unlimited Forum

    Messages:
    2,251
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    madduckdog - We do not target duck hunters we are duck hunters! DU is its membership. It has no life of its own!

    How can we not be pro hunting when our membership is made up of duck hunters (661,890) and everything we do is designed to support our mission of producing more ducks? In 1937 Ducks Unlimited, originated with a small group of duck huntersd concerned about the future of waterfowl. Today, because of their vision, and the continued vision of our members over 11 million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved and waterfowl and waterfowl hunting is better off than if without.

    You do realize that no matter who gives the money to DU, a hunter or as you state a "treehuggin baby killer", the money is used to meet the mission of DU.

    Mission Statement
    Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores and manages wetlands and associated habitat for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people.

    Everything we do benefits ducks and in turn duck hunters. While we can never guarantee that we will put more ducks in front of your blind, we can guarantee that we will put habitat on the ground. And efficiently....80 cents on the dollar goes toward our conservation mission. Further proof is in my previous post.

    Habitat =ducks=hunter opportunity............ and hopefully hunter success.
     
  4. Mike DU

    Mike DU Moderator<br>Ducks Unlimited Forum

    Messages:
    2,251
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Thanks Waxed

    You have to remember that DU and Delta are just reporting the figures derived from the USFWS and the management surveys. ANd trying to relate those figures to upcoming season opportunity and success. At best its a bit like predicting the weather! The surveys are a good barometer for population monitoring and the best thing that waterfowl managers have to utilize. I think folks need to have a bit of faith in the numbers understanding there limitations as well as what they are intended for...indications of trends, i.e. the population is up this year but still down from the rcord in 1999. I have no doubt there is a pretty good fall flight this year. Unfortunately they are stacked in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois at this time.

    The weather is killing us. I just returned from visiting family in Missouri and Illinois over the Christmas holiday. Both states are covered up with ducks and geese and the temps were in the 60s no ice in site! To add to our problems after tommorrow only the southern zones of both states will be open. Hunted in Illinois yesterday. For a minute I thought I was in Arkansas with all the mallards, pintail, snow geese and specks...yes I said specks. Although there were lots of ducks we had to work hard to kill our limits. Which included two wigeon (another indicator of the warm weather).

    I agree with you regarding the climate. Lets hope the warm cycle ends and we return to normal winters!

    Appreciate alls comments. The concern shows the dedication for the resource and duck hunting. Will try and keep the information coming when I can.

    Good hunting.
     
  5. feathhd

    feathhd Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,695
    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Location:
    North West IA
    :eek: Everything we do is designed to support our mission of producing more ducks? Now Mike watch what you say. I pointed out a few things from some DU comments that don't sit well with me the waterfowl hunter.
    This other use junk, don't get it unless you aim's to please others than Duck hunters. Does anyone have the Original DU Mission statement from 1930"S?
    I like to also point out to you Mike, what happened to your DU organization is Australia? They flip the script?

    Now I may be wrong but I don't think I am but DU has changed and a lot of waterfowlers see it. On page two DU Mike has some problems in my opinion but hey, you be the Judge!:eek:
     
  6. feathhd

    feathhd Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,695
    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Location:
    North West IA
    review subject 1#The wildlife management community at large agrees. For example, the Mississippi Flyway Council (composed of leaders of wildlife agencies from all states and provinces within the Mississippi Flyway) recently issued a statement against the practice of predator removal. In part, the statement read:

    (FHD)Let me see they are against removing non native species is that right? I then would call to question the wildlife management community on the subject of Inovassive species and what they are doing to remove such species that have plagued our waterways, wetlands and woods. Why is it OK to advocate control of one and not the other? They are spending big dollars to control inovassive species or plants that are effecting native species. Why all of sudden do they not support predator removal from the prairie pot hole region when in fact Raccoons and skunks are inovassive species in that region itself? It appears to be logical in one respect to protect native species but somehow it is not logical to protect waterfowl from the very same situations. Why is that? It also appears to me that many are in contradiction of enhancing the things they say they are set to protect and they are willing to tie their own hands behind their back in the process)

    “The Mississippi Flyway Council (MFC) does not support the practice of predator removal as a viable management practice to improve waterfowl recruitment over the long term or over large geographic areas. The MFC believes that the highest conservation priorities for improving waterfowl recruitment are the landscape-scale wetland and grassland habitat restoration strategies advocated by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Maintaining waterfowl breeding habitat is the highest priority for the long-term welfare of populations in North America.”

    (fhd)The MFC does not support the practice and that is fine but it is not they who are contributing members. It is the waterfowler who foot the bills or who pays the way.)

    In August of 2003, the Arkansas Wildlife Federations Duck Committee (a group of concerned duck hunters and community leaders) published a report called: Improving the quality of duck hunting in Arkansas. One of the committees conclusions: “It all starts with the nest and proper habitat._ The AWF Duck Committee has found that the more productive prairie pothole habitat we have, the more ducks we will have make the fall flight. _ Predator management may be helpful in small areas but is not believed to be practical on a large scale.”

    (FHD) I have to ask what state is it again that contributes to the DW henhouse and predator programs? There are two La and Ark.) It is also know that PD removal is not needed in areas where habitat meets the habitat threshold and that is a no brainer. Then you have the words believed , now that is a good one don't you think? Didn't some believe the world was flat and if you sailed to the end you would fall off the earth? Rationality proves to us that if you increase nest success on a small scale area that even that could be duplicated on other such small areas that fall short of the habitat threshold. That being fact it would also force us to conclude that if such nest success was to accure on other such areas that overal recruitment would see an increase as well.)
     
  7. feathhd

    feathhd Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,695
    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Location:
    North West IA
    Q: Is Ducks Unlimited concerned about how the non-hunting public might view predator control?

    (FHD) I would have to ask since when do we start letting the non hunting public or the OTHER dictate what wild life management policy is unnecessary or wrong?)

    A: Any wildlife management plan needs to consider how public opinion might affect its success.

    (FHD) I thought we where talking about how the Others view Ducks Unlimited here in this subject not a management plan? )

    The majority of North Americans would seriously question the ethics of broad-scale predator control as a means to better hunting.

    (FHD) Broad scale PD management isn't necessary so why the monkey wrench statement? Since when do waterfowlers care about what the general public perception may be and in regard to waterfowl management?) Ethics what is the ethics question here on removal of non native species? non native is the same as Inovassive and I hear no big up roar about that but then again the only ones who would complain about the issue are those who are against hunting or the harvesting of any animal in my opinion and I am sure many opinion) I also recall PD management as a management tool to increase duck production and success so that waterfowl can reach or maintain the 16 plus percentage needed to sustain healthy waterfowl populations. Hunting would be secondary to the subject and not the focus of PD management. Dahhhhhh)

    Predator control kills fur-bearing animals during the spring and summer, when their pelts have no value and when the young furbearers are still dependent on their parents for survival.

    ( FHD) Sounds like to me we have a few more folks out there who tend to fall back on playing the emotional trump card in conservation management. That to in itself can be seen in the California wild fire disasters, after all they where just trying to protect the trees right? )

    As a result, trapped adults are discarded and wasted and the young are abandoned to starve.
    (FHD) Sounds like a damn PETA or HUS commercial if you ask me, then again that is just my opinion!)

    Thus predator control for the purpose of raising more ducks is, unambiguously, an activity that plays directly into the hands of those who are anti-trapping or anti-hunting, and it could be used by anti-hunters to turn more people against hunting

    (FHD)Sounds to me that we have already been infiltrated and some statements are doing the very same thing some claim to want to avoid don't you think?
     
  8. feathhd

    feathhd Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,695
    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Location:
    North West IA
    Q: The issue of predator control seems to be creating a divide within the waterfowl hunting and conservation community.
    (FHD) It appears to me someone has created that divide and it isn't the waterfowling community in my opinion.)

    This cant be good for duck hunters or waterfowl.
    (FHD) I guess that depends on who is making the statement don't you think?)

    A: That’s right. Over the past decade, a broad-based culture of conserving wetlands and other wildlife habitat has matured in North America, especially among sportsmen.

    (FHD) The last time I looked a waterfowler is a waterfowler and I have no clue as to this Broad base they speak of do you unless we start talking about other forms of contributors)

    This has resulted in huge gains for wildlife. DU and its multitude of private and public partners are successful today because waterfowl hunters and other conservationists work together for the good of the resource. Other citizens from across a wide spectrum of society support waterfowl conservation because of the many additional benefits provided by waterfowl habitat.

    (FHD) Ok now we are getting some place, lol. That is all fine and dandy that the other citizens and the wide spectrum of society contribute to the future of protecting wetlands and waterfowl but for me personally I depart from the idea that they should be allowed to manipulate or be in consideration as to what they might think of or how we manage waterfowl populations. Meaning as a waterfowler I couldn't care less as to what they might think is appropriate or inappropriate tactics into managing waterfowl populations, period! Sportsmen will always be at odds with others who see harvesting of animals as wrong and there for I do not care nor will I ever be driven to except there IDEOLOGIES of what and how wild life is to be managed.)

    There is great strength in our diversity and collective numbers, but waterfowl conservation will fail without all of us pulling in the same direction. Unfortunately, the promotion of lethal predator control is harming the future of waterfowl conservation by diverting resources away from habitat conservation, which is critical for sustaining waterfowl populations in the future.
    (FHD) Strength is with those who have carried you and who have supported you throughout the years and from the beginning. Aleinate that and that will be the cause of such failure. Stand to divide and your house shall crumble is what I say!)

    Ducks Unlimited’s conservation vision is for viable waterfowl populations that support hunting and other uses forever. This is a daunting task, and it will only be achieved if all of our collective energies are successfully directed towards securing the habitats that will support the birds everywhere they live.

    (FHD) Good analogy but as a waterfowler I don't care to support others as outlined in the statement. As a waterfowler I contribute to save and protect wetlands so that ducks and duck numbers can see a sustained future. This is done in the hopes that the future of duck hunting can be preserved and passed on to the next generation of duck hunters. Again I have to point out this other crap. In our states alone sportsmen's dollars have and are experiencing a similar problem. Being all things to all people, our conservation dollars are going towards more and more general public demands leaving many states anorexic to address real conservation issues. Fact is we cannot be all things to all people and in doing so in my opinion jeopardizes the very future of hunting period and the things we say we are to protect!








    :mad:
     
  9. feathhd

    feathhd Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,695
    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Location:
    North West IA
    All this talk about DU being about and for duck hunters. What, havent you seen the transformation yet or has the word Others and Conservation Community FALLEN ON BLIND EYES AND EARS?

    Q: Why doesn’t DU use predator control in addition to habitat conservation?

    A: Predator control is not a responsible use of our supporters’ contributions.
    (FHD) Now I could live with that as long as we are not trying to appease all others in the process or there Ideologies as to what is right and wrong in conservation management.)

    The best scientific research shows that killing predators cannot result in meaningful increases in duck numbers or birds in the bag.

    (FHD) Why not use the word Harvest instead of Killing? Sounds to me like the beating of ANTI drums to me in my opinion that is.) and again here we go with the Emotional management antics, Meaningful it appears to me to be a matter of ones Opinion. I don't think PD management is or put into use so that you yourself can harvest more ducks. I think the facts could be found to prove that PD management is designed to remove Non native species or in other words inovassive species so that duck production efforts can be reached on a standard that in itself sustains and perpetuates healthy populations of ducks.


    It also threatens to undermine the broad coalition of public support on which modern waterfowl conservation depends.

    (FHD) I again would like to point out that waterfowlers have been the main supporters of wetlands and waterfowl conservation funding and have carried that tittle with pride. They did not and do not depend on any other source nor is there future dependent on this broad base coalition that is spoke of. They started waterfowl conservation and wetland conservation from the dust bowl days and maybe in today's terms they need to do a little house cleaning to put the Ideologies of such back in Order!)


    Dollars diverted into killing predators are dollars lost to habitat conservation. And, nearly every dollar spent on habitat for waterfowl is matched from special funds, such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which is set aside for habitat work. Funds from other sources in the U.S. and Canada are also often available, resulting in many projects being able to leverage at least 3 or 4 dollars for every DU dollar. Dollars diverted to killing predators are not matched.

    (FHD) could it not be said that by acting on PD management would complement and enhance those fragmented habitat projects or sites? Could it not be said that PD management would prove to benefit waterfowl production efforts in areas or on projects that are and have been prone to less than marginal nest success rates? I also think a great Reminder must go out on behalf of all duck hunters that it is not DU dollars it is duck hunter dollars and in most cases of matched funds you will find duck hunters who have contributed to said monies or funds. Again not saying the word killing is distasteful but the way it is used throughout the statement is in not so many ways an outright smack in the face to all hunting sportsmen in my opinion.


    :mad:
     
  10. Ark_Hammerdawg

    Ark_Hammerdawg Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    111
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    SW Arkansas
    bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla :sp :nutz
     

Share This Page