what has Ducks Unlimited done for you?

[Special T]

Here are a couple of article that talk about the great gains in Canadian Geese that have NOTHING to do with DU. Both talk about how ponds and mowed laws have have had a huge impact on the increased numbers and lack of migration.
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Canada_Goose/lifehistory
http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_canada_goose_wildlife/

[DR. DUX]

just curious, another thread got me thinking. besides a pretty blah magazine, stickers, and raffle opportunities at banquets - what has DU done for you?

Good question. DU does a horrible job of telling folks what it does and a suffers a ton from a lot of misinformation (like the Skagit Headquarters, DU had no hand in that what so ever....that was completely the WDFW).

WADU the funraising side generates about a million in funds raised. The conservation side of things however spends between $3 million and $9 million annually in WA. So I would say WA gets a pretty good return on investment if that's what it is you are looking for out of DU (although many are just looking to give back to the resource they took something out of.....or at least that's how hunter's used to be).

85% of the duck stamp projects done in WA are DU projects. ALL of those are public. Of the 438 DU projects done in WA 349 of those were done on public land. WA hunters have received a benefit to the tune of $44 million in land work on public land.

DU does a terrible job of tooting its horn and project recognition is a major debate. The debate is to place decent signage on all the public DU projects in WA would cost $300 K. is that $300 K better served tooting DU's horn or using that $300 K to go back into projects? Though for some at the highest levels of the volunteer leadership having $300 K in signs all over the place proclaiming what DU has done would do a lot to quiet the nay sayers, many more at that level feel signs don't help ducks and put that money back into the ground.

There are all sorts of goofy stuff you'll hear and read. I saw one comment about DU having a highend hunting club in WA.....that is completely untrue and against policy. If that happened a lot of folks would lose their job.

To the work on private land you have to understand that of the available and protectable and res torable wetlands only 2% of that is on public land. The reality of wetlands restoration is if DU didn't do projects on private land the impact would be populations to small to allow duck hunting (Afton/Humburg 06 Wildlife Management). In the case of WA no event money goes to private projects. The private landholder or manager provides all the funds necessary for a project (or secure government land grants). To boot this money is used for match on local public projects (NRCS, NAWCA). The public land hunter receives direct and indirect benefit from these projects. Unfortunately we now live in a society that doesn't appreciate and strive for success but instead loathes it and this greatly impacts preception of DU's work. The good news is this administration thinks that's progress.......I don't but it is what it is.

[Special T]

Some good info there, but why do they claim the skagit headquarters on thier web site if they had no hand in it?

[DR. DUX]

Numerous DU projects were done on the Skagit Headquarters. Heck that dates back to when the Skagit was a USFW property (which was later traded with the state for what is now the Columbia Basin Wildlife refuge). Numerous projects that appear on the DU project map have numerous projects on each site going back decades.

The infamous estuary conversion however was all WDFW.

DU has done others however. Some of them very successful, some not so successful, some to early to judge (actually other than the Merrietta project most are still to early to judge but most look promising.....except for one which is a nightmare.....not everything goes as planned....for anyone).

[Ned]

just curious, another thread got me thinking. besides a pretty blah magazine, stickers, and raffle opportunities at banquets - what has DU done for you?

Good question. DU does a horrible job of telling folks what it does and a suffers a ton from a lot of misinformation (like the Skagit Headquarters, DU had no hand in that what so ever....that was completely the WDFW).

WADU the funraising side generates about a million in funds raised. The conservation side of things however spends between $3 million and $9 million annually in WA. So I would say WA gets a pretty good return on investment if that's what it is you are looking for out of DU (although many are just looking to give back to the resource they took something out of.....or at least that's how hunter's used to be).

85% of the duck stamp projects done in WA are DU projects. ALL of those are public. Of the 438 DU projects done in WA 349 of those were done on public land. WA hunters have received a benefit to the tune of $44 million in land work on public land.

DU does a terrible job of tooting its horn and project recognition is a major debate. The debate is to place decent signage on all the public DU projects in WA would cost $300 K. is that $300 K better served tooting DU's horn or using that $300 K to go back into projects? Though for some at the highest levels of the volunteer leadership having $300 K in signs all over the place proclaiming what DU has done would do a lot to quiet the nay sayers, many more at that level feel signs don't help ducks and put that money back into the ground.

There are all sorts of goofy stuff you'll hear and read. I saw one comment about DU having a highend hunting club in WA.....that is completely untrue and against policy. If that happened a lot of folks would lose their job.

To the work on private land you have to understand that of the available and protectable and res torable wetlands only 2% of that is on public land. The reality of wetlands restoration is if DU didn't do projects on private land the impact would be populations to small to allow duck hunting (Afton/Humburg 06 Wildlife Management). In the case of WA no event money goes to private projects. The private landholder or manager provides all the funds necessary for a project (or secure government land grants). To boot this money is used for match on local public projects (NRCS, NAWCA). The public land hunter receives direct and indirect benefit from these projects. Unfortunately we now live in a society that doesn't appreciate and strive for success but instead loathes it and this greatly impacts preception of DU's work. The good news is this administration thinks that's progress.......I don't but it is what it is.

Thank you. I was hoping you would show up.

.

[JJD]

I live on the far east side of the state, What has WWA done for me?

Seems to be what much of the thread is about, what has so and so organization done for me? 
How has it improved or messed up my personal hunting.

I started hunting waterfowl in 1966 with my father, there is only one thing in the game I am certain of, the only constant is change.
Get used to it and learn to use it to your advantage, If ya don't, ya won't last long in waterfowling.

[DR. DUX]

Personally I'm not sure DU has an image issue nearly as much as it is suffering from the same disease our society is facing. If you haven't noticed our country is falling apart in many areas and aspects. Honor and integrity has been replaced with "what's in it for me?".

Case in point, when I first got involved with DU me and all folks I was involved with in DU got involved to give something back to the resource we had taken something out of. There really isn't a whole lot of debate on whether DU is the best avenue to return something back to the resource for which you've taken something from. It wasn't about what I personally got back as much as giving back to that resource.

Fast forward to now and what do we have, 5 pages of what's in it for me and I hate rich people.

This isn't something exclusive to waterfowling but in every aspect of our society folks just have become very selfish, have unrealistic expectations, and unwilling to take much (any) personal responsibility. But even worse there is guilt and that guilt manifests itself in justification for not being charitable (ie. I don't give because.......).

Back to WA and DU there is a lot of benefit waterfowlers get from DU and see much more coming back to them than what they put in, but they should really be a secondary and not a primairy focus in my opinion. I think we were a lot better people when we were concerned about giving back to the resource than being concerned how much we got back.

And please understand this wasn't directed to or at anyone so please don't take it personally. This is just a general opinion based on years of observation. I also think its time for people of honor and integrity to step-up and explain their motivations and hopefully chip a little away at the attitudes infesting our society today.

[duckmen1]

Well every year that I would buy things that had a subscription to du for six months to a years I sent in the info and never received one magazine. 6 times that happened.
Wasn't happy about that.
They haven't done much in my area. Nothing that benefited me, but then again not sure how much land there is around here to do much with.

[DR. DUX]

What did you buy that had a subscription attached? Was it off the DU web site? If so unfortunately that wouldn't surprise me. Again a regular debate is do we spend money on infrastructure or put that money into the ground. The ground always wins out and the infrastructure (IT inparticular) is a bit on the weak side (that's an understatement). They have had numerous staff and administration changes there and it still isn't very good. But like I said, the powers that be want max return to the resource so it kind of is what it is. On the DU board there are a few rather high level computer folks and to say they have some strong opinions about DU's IT is an understatement. From what I've heard they are trying to address this continuing issue.

[duckmen1]

It didn't happen this year, it happened for a few years prior. I bought several boxes of decoys that came with the subscription and I believe a pair of waders. Can't remember the other things that came with the subscription. It was a postcard style info paper to fill out and send in with postage.

[Odell]

The average joe asks "what's in it for me" for two reasons:

They see DU partnering with the state on what appears to be projects that directly hurt their hunting.

They see DU partnering with clubs that directly hurt their hunting.

Neither of those things seem to be great benefit to the ducks and a detriment to the average joe.

[duckmen1]

I could care less if their projects benefit me or not as long as the projects help ducks and other waterfowl. That is just what the question asked so I answered. But as a business standpoint I expect them to send a magazine subscription when I pay more for a product to get the subscription with it. But hey if they save that money from those magazines they didn't send me and helped benefit waterfowl I'm fine with that.

[Stilly bay]

first off, please don't take the tone of this post as anything other than frank. arguments are bad, debate is good.

Fast forward to now and what do we have, 5 pages of what's in it for me and I hate rich people.

I don't know why you are complaining since you registered to HUNT WA just to contribute to these five pages. and like it or not were talking about it and now you have your chance to clear the air and set the record straight, a thing you claim ducks unlimited is so poor at.
never mind the fact that you have skirted the heart of this post which questions if DU is for the duck or the duck hunter, and how they can trade well used public hunting areas for marginal habitat restoration with sportsmen's dollars in good conscience.

Good question. DU does a horrible job of telling folks what it does and a suffers a ton from a lot of misinformation (like the Skagit Headquarters, DU had no hand in that what so ever....that was completely the WDFW).

So you are agreeing that DU misrepresents itself? or just does nothing to correct the wrong impression hunters have of DU? it would seem that an organization fed by donations would want portray the best image of itself as possible... or do people just assume since its DU it must be all well and good as they reach for their pocket books.

then why does WDFW not want to claim the skagit estuary restoration as their own?  are  you talking about the flooding of the headquarters? leque? both or none of the above?could you please provide some information or a link to back up that claim?

 I saw one comment about DU having a highend hunting club in WA.....that is completely untrue and against policy. If that happened a lot of folks would lose their job.

this issue has been brought up numerous times in this thread and countless times abroad. so everyone is wrong? or just misinformed? I understand DU lets people run away with their impressions and imagination but this seems like something they would want to nip in the bud.

To the work on private land you have to understand that of the available and protectable and res torable wetlands only 2% of that is on public land. The reality of wetlands restoration is if DU didn't do projects on private land the impact would be populations to small to allow duck hunting (Afton/Humburg 06 Wildlife Management). In the case of WA no event money goes to private projects. The private landholder or manager provides all the funds necessary for a project (or secure government land grants). To boot this money is used for match on local public projects (NRCS, NAWCA). The public land hunter receives direct and indirect benefit from these projects. Unfortunately we now live in a society that doesn't appreciate and strive for success but instead loathes it and this greatly impacts preception of DU's work. The good news is this administration thinks that's progress.......I don't but it is what it is.

I wouldn't call losing a prime piece of public land and displacing hundreds of duck hunters much of a success. it seems DU would benefit much more from saving and creating public opportunities rather than stomping them out in the name of wetland restoration and salmon habitat for one.

The infamous estuary conversion however was all WDFW.

wow this really goes against everything I have read/heard/ seen - could you give us a link or some info that would back this up? I have seen DU mentioned quite frequently in regards to the estuary conversion.
when I contacted wdfw they said they had little to do with it.

.except for one which is a nightmare.....not everything goes as planned....for anyone).

which one is this?

And please understand this wasn't directed to or at anyone so please don't take it personally. This is just a general opinion based on years of observation. I also think its time for people of honor and integrity to step-up and explain their motivations and hopefully chip a little away at the attitudes infesting our society today.

kind of hard buy that since this that last post of yours seems to read as a completely passive aggressive attack not only on myself, but those who would question DU's motives. on this forum, as a DU representative you have just stepped on the integrity of people you have not met and potential DU members for being dubious of an organizations that you admit is flawed ,while skirting around the main point of the argument on how DU saves ducks by taking away duck hunting opportunities from the people that support them. I suspect sooner or later DU might go the way of quail unlimited in the 80's, but DU is just better at the game that quail unlimited ever was and knows to keep people happy with X amount of projects and good publicity to keep the money rolling.
to just blindly follow any organization as large and money orientated as DU without question would be the acme of foolishness, or are we at the point where we just take what we can get and accept the bad for the good and be grateful little sheople?
for you to have such an  inflammatory post - albeit passive aggressive -in the face of such an honest and frank question of "what has DU done for you"  really leaves me more dubious of the organization than before.

Dr. Dux, aside from your last post, I appreciate you stepping in and talking about DU, it was very informative. I have mentioned numerous times that there is no denying DU's contributions to waterfowl and wetlands. all potential arguing and bickering aside I just want to know why DU would be involved in a project that would eliminate public hunting opportunities in the name of salmon habitat. there is little information on this debacle, and I truly feel that the bulk of the people who use this public area have no idea they are about to lose it or that DU is /was involved even though they support this organization. sell it to me straight  and  will I renew my membership to DU and convince others to do so as well.

[johnsc6]

just curious, another thread got me thinking. besides a pretty blah magazine, stickers, and raffle opportunities at banquets - what has DU done for you?

Good question. DU does a horrible job of telling folks what it does and a suffers a ton from a lot of misinformation (like the Skagit Headquarters, DU had no hand in that what so ever....that was completely the WDFW).

WADU the funraising side generates about a million in funds raised. The conservation side of things however spends between $3 million and $9 million annually in WA. So I would say WA gets a pretty good return on investment if that's what it is you are looking for out of DU (although many are just looking to give back to the resource they took something out of.....or at least that's how hunter's used to be).

85% of the duck stamp projects done in WA are DU projects. ALL of those are public. Of the 438 DU projects done in WA 349 of those were done on public land. WA hunters have received a benefit to the tune of $44 million in land work on public land.

DU does a terrible job of tooting its horn and project recognition is a major debate. The debate is to place decent signage on all the public DU projects in WA would cost $300 K. is that $300 K better served tooting DU's horn or using that $300 K to go back into projects? Though for some at the highest levels of the volunteer leadership having $300 K in signs all over the place proclaiming what DU has done would do a lot to quiet the nay sayers, many more at that level feel signs don't help ducks and put that money back into the ground.

There are all sorts of goofy stuff you'll hear and read. I saw one comment about DU having a highend hunting club in WA.....that is completely untrue and against policy. If that happened a lot of folks would lose their job.

To the work on private land you have to understand that of the available and protectable and res torable wetlands only 2% of that is on public land. The reality of wetlands restoration is if DU didn't do projects on private land the impact would be populations to small to allow duck hunting (Afton/Humburg 06 Wildlife Management). In the case of WA no event money goes to private projects. The private landholder or manager provides all the funds necessary for a project (or secure government land grants). To boot this money is used for match on local public projects (NRCS, NAWCA). The public land hunter receives direct and indirect benefit from these projects. Unfortunately we now live in a society that doesn't appreciate and strive for success but instead loathes it and this greatly impacts preception of DU's work. The good news is this administration thinks that's progress.......I don't but it is what it is.

[DR. DUX]

first off, please don't take the tone of this post as anything other than frank. arguments are bad, debate is good.

Good question. DU does a horrible job of telling folks what it does and a suffers a ton from a lot of misinformation (like the Skagit Headquarters, DU had no hand in that what so ever....that was completely the WDFW).

So you are agreeing that DU misrepresents itself? or just does nothing to correct the wrong impression hunters have of DU? it would seem that an organization fed by donations would want portray the best image of itself as possible... or do people just assume since its DU it must be all well and good as they reach for their pocket books.

then why does WDFW not want to claim the skagit estuary restoration as their own?  are  you talking about the flooding of the headquarters? leque? both or none of the above?could you please provide some information or a link to back up that claim?

I love to debate and discuss issues no offense taken in the least.

In no way shape or form did I say DU misrepresented itself. I said DU does a horrible job of promoting all that it does. Big difference

Why doesn't DU address the nay sayers. Another good question, by policy that has been actively avoided. Again by policy the only people who can speak publicly and officially on behalf of DU is the National President and the CEO. This prevents a lot of misrepresentations and misunderstandings happening. Reality is there some folks very emotionally invested into hating DU. No amount of fact or reality is going to change someone emotionally invested in that, so why even respond. Heck the only reason I'm engaging in this is because I'm just a pee-on volunteer with slightly better than average access to facts.

Here is another DU fact, DU doesn't own or manage any and in WA. Everything it does it does at the behest of the land owner or manager. This is what the WDFW, USFW, DNR, BLM, BR, or private holder wants done and if it can be done to the benefit of ducks DU can engage in it. Now before we start jumping to conclusions about motivations land good for ducks is typically good for duck hunting (maybe not in the way it was done 20 years ago however).

Another thing of significance is a lot of these diked properties where diked for agricultural activities. When the farmers had them they were intensively managed properties and that sort of effort is awesome for ducks. When the state got these properties they had the money to continue to intensively manage these properties with heavy weed control and planting food plots. But over the past 2 decades budgets have been cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut and cut 15 more times after that. There is no money to to manage the properties and unmanaged fields of reed canary grass aren't good for ducks.....or anything. Thus alternative low maintenance and overhead options which maximize food sources are the direction public entities are being forced. Functional estuaries are an amazing food source for ducks and great hunting option. It beats the heck out of hunting a field of reed canary grass. Unfortunately it takes a few years (3-8) for the right types of native plants to take hold in an estuary conversion to maximize its effect but once it does its perpetual in spite of policy or funding changes.

This is what many public entities see as their only option to maintain huntable duck numbers and opportunities in Western WA. DU isn't telling them to do this. They are asking DU to help them convert these properties to save hunting opportunities for perpetuity. But again this ain't DU's call, its the WDFW and USFW who are doing this on their lands because they have no other option.