California Flyway Forum Sponsors

Science lost today............ Thanks CWA.

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by Dan Mallia, Apr 2, 2021.

  1. marsh-mello

    marsh-mello Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,319
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Ca
    Mr. Merlo,

    If I might offer a few observations to your comments. If CWA committees and board members are meeting with employees and discussing matters and they are discussing issues not necessarily reflective of CWA positions, then I would say "Houston we have a problem".

    I would think that before any issues would be discussed that there would be a need for a clear and decisive direction either from the committee in oversight or through some kind of consensus. It should be IMPERITIVE to inform the membership of CWA and the general hunting community of these activities. Or at the very least submit to the R&T committee/membership a position statement providing the reasoning and process the board utilized to come to a vote and have it documented for review by anyone requesting such information. That would require a record of meetings and written documentation. I am curious if there is one?

    Currently as you have alluded if the Board is not necessarily representing the views of CWA. If not CWA, then they need to at the very least represent the views of the hunters who they are professing to represent, CWA members or not. I feel the outreach needs to be broadened to provide more comprehensive inclusion and to receive a valid sampling of this constituency. CWA's website only has limited reach and there was no notification in the proposed agenda published in the magazine. There should be additional collaboration with the managing entities to utilize everyone's resources to obtain better feedback although it appears the feedback garnered was simply ignored. DFG's hunting license or application data base as a collaborative example. I was just provided with a fishing survey through DFG utilizing this very process. Representation through stakeholder groups should be at the forefront of the CWA's mission to see instituted. By stakeholders I mean ALL hunters who hunt public and private, not folks that are just members of CWA. Nothing wrong with throwing stuff at a wall...trouble is sometimes when you operate in a vacuum and are supported by your own confirmation biases you are prone to overlook the opinions and sound advice of others. IN addition you could just be plain old WRONG. This is where you go to see if "you the emperor" is actually wearing any clothes. Attempting to maintain a monopoly of the manner in which input is gathered interpreted and then shared is NOT the best "representative" strategy. Especially when the input and reasoning is taken from such a small segment of the CWA community as to at times render it anecdotal and for all practical purposes useless? USELESS BECAUSE THE FACT IS REDUCING THE LIMIT TO 5 ACCOMPLISHES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ACHEIEVE YOUR ENDS. Let that sink in.......you may have identified a problem we ironically ALL acknowledge, but IMHO and a few others you are wrong headed in your attempts to address the issue on several fronts.

    I am sure that everyone had hopes for the CWA to function as its ideals intended. Unfortunately the "strong personalities" who have apparently grasped the leadership roles and provided the direction for CWA and the board IMHO used CWA's good name attached to it as well to run roughshod applying their own personal views and direction of how the hunting limits should be set. VERY DANAGEROUS. There has also been good work by CWA providing resources in support of the hunting community, I want to make that point clear. In reality there is a real need for such a collective voice to be offered and input provided to assure proposals and changes reflect not only the goals of CWA but the needs and desires where appropriate of the majority stakeholders (hunters).

    IMHO damage is being done to CWA's reputation by this blunder...so continue at your own risk and peril for something you feel passionate about or reflect on what perhaps really is the best course of action to obtain your ultimate goal which we ironically all support!.

    I say either start over again and see if this perhaps is correct direction to have started in the first place. Perhaps HABITAT is the answer and not limits? My comments are meant to be constructive and helpful, I hope you find them so.

    Hopefully the leadership, the leadership of CWA and board will read the discussions and input provided on these pages and sees a real need to improve the process and address problems. If not then perhaps new leadership might be in order.

    No curse words were used in the expression of my own passionate "feelings" on this matter.

    PS....Thanks for not returning my call the other day!
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2021
  2. Dan Yparraguirre

    Dan Yparraguirre Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    339
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Location:
    Woodland CA
    Change the weather for 5 years? just kidding, well, mostly. Many have hit the critical and obvious: habitat. Nesting habitat (see the CWA wheat program - can/should it be bigger?) brood habitat? and then molting habitat (Klamath), then maybe wintering habitat... gosh there is still a lot to do, isn't there!? and that's just kind of thinking about local mallards. then there's politics and those that don't "get it".

    Pet peeve - so many times articles cite the historic loss of wetlands (90%) in California, but NAWMP was created in the mid 1980s, functioning JV's shortly after that - so what, they have been working for 30+ years and haven't accomplished anything? of course they have!!!! Someday it might be a good thing for someone knowledgeable in this arena in CA to weigh in or folks could peruse at least the Central Valley JV's website https://www.centralvalleyjointventure.org/
     
  3. blackdog58

    blackdog58 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,320
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Calif
    Those are all valid points, and issues. A big issue that isn't listed, is CWA's failure to take the pulse of the membership. To know whats really going on within the membership. If the reaction being viewed is a surprise, thats a problem. If it isn't a surprise, thats a problem as well.

    People are not getting twisted over 2 birds. Its the process. Its a viewed back room deal with money. It's a lack of reaching out and discussing with the membership, or at least putting it out there. Its giving those same people we battle with at the state capitol on hunting and heritage, another tool and avenue to continue the erosion of our outdoors. And I'm certainly not gonna look for any help from Chucky B.

    I'm sure you realize, that anyone 35 years old and younger do not remember the days of shortened seasons.....bag reductions.....split seasons. So its hard to understand going against the science thats been used since those 90's and AHM. Its hard to understand about Klamath due to the longevity of the situation. Its hard to understand taking a couple birds out of the bag when that doesn't address the real issues....and we know what they are. Its hard to understand when the biggest issue for most.....is access and opportunity. With the water this year, only gets worse. Older generation has some other items...such as if you're gonna tell me what is best, better have solid reasons.

    We may need to change the way we think about things, how we look at things, and how to address them. I'd agree. I have my own personal thoughts on this. But this move, and to the way it was handled, was a big swing and a miss.
     
  4. Brottboss

    Brottboss Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Location:
    Meadow Vista, CA
    ^^^this
     
  5. CalBaer

    CalBaer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,736
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    Roq,

    You never answered my original question at the beginning of my post. What is the BPOP and habitat threshold in CA needed to get us back to 7/2?

    1. This site has been here since 2000 and now you come on to gather hunters feelings? You could have gauged hunters feelings a long time ago. But came to this site after making a controversial decision. Come to Gray Lodge and talk to hunters. Come to the camp fire at Trailagio if you want to understand hunters feelings and opinions on limits, the mallard issue, Klamath, CWA, etc.


    I think you are out of touch with the vast majority of duck hunters on this issue. It isn’t just Steve and myself. Probably more like 70-80% of CWA’s membership and all of the biologists disagree with you.

    2. We are upset in the way it was handled. There was no Regs and Traditions meeting agenda sent out. No advanced notice of the possible change to solicit hunter feedback. All members on the call were allowed a vote which was new. You stacked the meeting with private land owners who agreed with your position that you solicited before the vote. I have been on Regs for almost 15 years or so. I think the meeting was handled poorly. I have always respected R&T as it gives the average income public lands hunter a voice just as well as any deep pocket member of Wild Goose, Greenhead, or Saddleback. Waterfowl are a public resource. If private clubs want to restrict themselves, by all means, have at it.
    3. It is scary that your are referring to the Westen Mallard Model as flawed. Yet you don’t have any alternative harvest data to prove that 5/1 will help the mallard population rebound in CA. Rather, you “feel” it’s the right thing to do. You are throwing out the science that we have spent a lot of money on and instead are basing your decision on your opinion and feelings.
    For years (before your time) Dr. McLandress and CWA were advocating the Feds at the Flyway level to come up with a Western Mallard model. They knew then that the vast majority of our birds did not originate from the boom and bust cycle of the PPR. And we finally got it. And now you are throwing it all away.

    4. Many of us on this site have been sounding the CA mallard alarm for years. Those that know me know I have been sounding the Klamath Basin (particularly LK) alarm on this site for years. CWA finally showed up a year or so ago. Thank you for doing so under your leadership. Without you pushing the envelope, that would not have happened. Again, I thank you.

    5. You recognize we need lots of money to reverse the current habitat conditions in CA. Yet by going against the Pacific Flyway/Western Mallard Mallard Model, are you willing to take millions of potential dollars out of habitat to develop your own CA Mallard Model?

    CWA has lost credibility with this decision and the manner in which it was conducted. Regs & Traditions has lost credibility. For that I am pretty upset.

    I strongly recommend that as Chair you pull back your recommendation. Solicit hunter input next season. Let’s get the state BPOP numbers after the May counts. Let’s see the harvest data from this past season. Stick with the science to setting regulations we do have until an alternative has been developed.

    Thanks for reading.
     
  6. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,554
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    California
    That’s assuming that his “ends” is only to help our mallard population... Mr. Merlo, et al. have a significant financial interest at stake here as well. 5/1 and 100 days doesn’t significantly impact that but 3/1 and 60 days does. 5/1 and 100 days says, “I care about mallards, but not as much as I care about my bank balance.”
     
    Nvhunter, letmwurk, Huntsprig and 2 others like this.
  7. tule

    tule Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,187
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2000
    Location:
    Livermore, CA
    Be careful of what you wish for, plenty of people out of state already hate the fact that Californians are leaving this state in droves, wait till the hunters start "migrating" to areas you hunt for "nothing but mallards", then we will see who is bitching!
     
    Nvhunter, Silver Wings and Flyfisher like this.
  8. Dan Mallia

    Dan Mallia Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    18,609
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Location:
    Jefferson
    It's already happening..........
     
    enzinn, Nvhunter, tule and 2 others like this.
  9. CalBaer

    CalBaer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,736
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    Great point. I think we all know the reason = revenue streams to continue to fund habitat.

    If any one flies over the Central Valley I think they can see the work on the ground. I sure do flying in and out of Sac.
     
    Dan Mallia likes this.
  10. toulon

    toulon Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Location:
    Nevada
    One of the most constructive threads I can remember happening in a long time. Some of the most knowledgeable people commenting and making some great points. This is why this forum was made. Keep this going guys. This is how change can be made.
     

Share This Page