what has Ducks Unlimited done for you?

[Stilly bay]

It is up to you to locate an area for hunting.  It's not that difficult if your willing to work a little bit.  I hunt entirely on public ground on the west side.  Yes there are days where I made the wrong choice and don't get a limit, but the opportunity is there if you look for it.

what is your point? are you saying we should just shut up when it comes to losing public ground and look for a new place? where do we go when its all gone? have you talked to any whidbey island duck hunters lately?

or are you saying im in the wrong for wanting to keep one of my local areas? because Im sure anyone else would be singing the same song.

Dr DUX, once again thanks for the info.

About trying to support from the non-hunter....no. 92% of the donations (this includes cooperate) come from folks who identify themselves as hunter or have hunted waterfowl in the past. Why would DU risk alienating 92% of its donors placating the 8%

surely DU cares about what the non hunting and even anti hunting public thinks of them and while 92% of the donations come from hunters, I am sure they won't pass up the opportunity to garner donations from the other 8% so what is to stop them from placating the other side to tap in to that wealth spring? there aren't nearly the numbers of duck hunters as in the past and there will be fewer in the future, this has nothing to do with the amount of ducks there are in the skies either, duck hunting and hunting in general is a shrinking demographic. I highly believe DU is looking for support outside of its sportsmen and to do that benign projects such as wetland restoration puts a feather in their cap every time... but then I trust our government either.

Second, Barley for Birds, the USFW program that was designed to fund the planting of cereal crops to prevent erosion and increase water quality, as a side benefit it was hoped the farmers might see benefit to waterfowl and recognize new income opportunities and engage in those after the program ended. To make a long story short....it failed. Once the funding ended none of the farmers recognized enough value to do it on their own. Since it failed and with the numerous budget cuts and those yet to come I doubt you will ever see a program like it.

Which brings us to estuary conversion. So the state has lots of food plot fields which they don't have the funding to plant and no farmer is interested to sharecrop. So what should they do with them. Leave them as a mound of dirt or field of reed canary grass or convert them to something that is functional and provide food sources and waterowling opportunities in perpetuity no matter what happens to funding. There are a ton of other issues influencing this but waterfowl funding in the future is in real jeopardy and it ain't going to get better for decades with the way things are going. With that being the case what is the WDFW and USFW real options?

was Barley for birds funded only by donations?

its a shame barley for birds didn't work, since it seemed like such a no brainer. although I am aware of a few farmers that abused it by turing in those food plots into their own private hunting areas - perhaps that is where the rumor started.

 isn't barley for birds one of the main contributing factors behind the skagit area being one the the premier north american duck hunting destinations in the mid 90's?

we all know that Western Wa estuaries are not the duck factories that can be found up north. the majority of birds that use them are durning the migration for rest and to a lesser degree for food while passing through. you would think pushing for the reinstatement or reconfiguring of a program like barley for birds would be much more beneficial to migrating waterfowl than an estuary which in the way of food leaves  "barely" for birds.
for instance when Leque "spontaneously" flooded a few years ago ( more or less an estuary) it was a wasteland for ducks. besides a small population of local birds migrating  geese and ducks would use it when passing through, but besides a few flocks of buffleheads it was pretty desolate. birds would come off the bay pass over without a second thought unless a storm front was on its way.
FFWD to the present since the dike has been repaired and just one field has been replanted,  the place is swarming with birds! it also has a good deal of hunter foot traffic. now I know leque is a different situation, but you can use that as a prime example of estuary restoration VS Hunting area management. it benefits the birds and the sportsmen to a much greater extent than just flooding it and returning it to nature - which can never be done in any capacity since nature has been permanently altered.

im sure the financial issues and legalities aside, every wet land restoration situation is different, but leque smith/ farm needs to be held up as a prime example to why restorations are not necessarily the best option for the bird or the hunter. I have seen it with my own two eyes and so has every other hunter that has used leque in the last few years.  when I hear of other wetland conversions all I can think of is they could have been used as a great hunting area and a great bird holding / attracting area and it truly boggles my mind why DU wouldn't be pushing for more programs like barley for birds instead of wetland reclamation, unless -going back to the beginning- they have lost sight of the hunters that supports them in trade for the recognition of restoring the environment.
take nisqually for instance. if all those fields had been opened to water fowlers and planted to attract and hold birds rather than being flooded, think of the duck hunting  mecca it would be and the money it would bring to nearby towns. but now its flooded and doesn't hold nearly the amount of birds it could. it seems like a lose for the ducks, and a lose for the duck hunters.

I have a few personal opinions and ideas I'd love to toss around about how to help our waterfowling future in WA.

and those would be?

[Goldeneye]

All I'm saying is there is still public land to hunt.  It may not be obvious to you.  I do not know where your local area is but you may need to be a little flexable and try a new location.  I do not believe that Ducks unlimited is taking away your hunting spot.  WDFW may be, but not Ducks Unlimited.  Yes, I do know guys that hunt Whidbey.  I hunted off the island on the Friday before the end of the season.  It took most of the day, but I did get a limit.

[Stilly bay]

All I'm saying is there is still public land to hunt.  It may not be obvious to you.  I do not know where your local area is but you may need to be a little flexable and try a new location.  I do not believe that Ducks unlimited is taking away your hunting spot.  WDFW may be, but not Ducks Unlimited.  Yes, I do know guys that hunt Whidbey.  I hunted off the island on the Friday before the end of the season.  It took most of the day, but I did get a limit.

of course there are other spots to hunt, and my flexibility to hunt new locations really has nothing to do with this discussion.

anytime we face the possibility of losing public land or access, all hunters need to step up and take action and at the very least find out why. there is only so much public land, its a finite resource and we lose more and more of it every day. you don't wait to take action on something once its completely gone. thats what our forefathers did to get us where we are today.


nor do I believe that DU is completely responsible for taking away my hunting spot as you put it. I speculated that they had a hand in its down fall or did not have everyones best interests (especially hunters)  in mind when they were involved. go back through and reread.

as for whidbey, I am glad you got to hunt one of the few remaining public hunting areas there before its gone. they are losing duck hunting areas on whidbey by leaps and bounds, and I don't have to talk to a whidbey islander to know they are none too happy about it.

[Goldeneye]

All I'm saying is there is still public land to hunt.  It may not be obvious to you.  I do not know where your local area is but you may need to be a little flexable and try a new location.  I do not believe that Ducks unlimited is taking away your hunting spot.  WDFW may be, but not Ducks Unlimited.  Yes, I do know guys that hunt Whidbey.  I hunted off the island on the Friday before the end of the season.  It took most of the day, but I did get a limit.

of course there are other spots to hunt, and my flexibility to hunt new locations really has nothing to do with this discussion.

anytime we face the possibility of losing public land or access, all hunters need to step up and take action and at the very least find out why. there is only so much public land, its a finite resource and we lose more and more of it every day. you don't wait to take action on something once its completely gone. thats what our forefathers did to get us where we are today.


nor do I believe that DU is completely responsible for taking away my hunting spot as you put it. I speculated that they had a hand in its down fall or did not have everyones best interests (especially hunters)  in mind when they were involved. go back through and reread.

as for whidbey, I am glad you got to hunt one of the few remaining public hunting areas there before its gone. they are losing duck hunting areas on whidbey by leaps and bounds, and I don't have to talk to a whidbey islander to know they are none too happy about it.

Thanks for clarifying.  I think we closer to agreement than I first thought.  Mainly about the public access.         

  The last weekend i hunted with a different friend each day.  I hunted Whidbey, near Stanwood, and off Ebey the last 3 days of the season.  Al public land and all produced.     

[bear hunter]

  I don't like what they did the head quarters and Spencer island. They dug most of the dike out so you can't walk around and on Spencer island dug two chucks out of the dike so you can't hunt the other side. I wish head quarters had a spot to launch small boats in the field by the parking lot. I could toss my little boat over the dike but no guns or dog allowed in that field until your out of the safety zone. I think the should have a 20ft slit by the dike so little boats can paddle out. That would help because it to dangerous for me to head out in the river and go all around to enter the fields. 

[DR. DUX]

As was stated earlier headquarters was competely WDFW when it comes to the estuary. I would highly recommend you contact the Regional office with that concern and see if the WDFW can do something to help.

[DR. DUX]

Second, Barley for Birds, the USFW program that was designed to fund the planting of cereal crops to prevent erosion and increase water quality, as a side benefit it was hoped the farmers might see benefit to waterfowl and recognize new income opportunities and engage in those after the program ended. To make a long story short....it failed. Once the funding ended none of the farmers recognized enough value to do it on their own. Since it failed and with the numerous budget cuts and those yet to come I doubt you will ever see a program like it.

Which brings us to estuary conversion. So the state has lots of food plot fields which they don't have the funding to plant and no farmer is interested to sharecrop. So what should they do with them. Leave them as a mound of dirt or field of reed canary grass or convert them to something that is functional and provide food sources and waterowling opportunities in perpetuity no matter what happens to funding. There are a ton of other issues influencing this but waterfowl funding in the future is in real jeopardy and it ain't going to get better for decades with the way things are going. With that being the case what is the WDFW and USFW real options?

was Barley for birds funded only by donations?

its a shame barley for birds didn't work, since it seemed like such a no brainer. although I am aware of a few farmers that abused it by turing in those food plots into their own private hunting areas - perhaps that is where the rumor started.

 isn't barley for birds one of the main contributing factors behind the skagit area being one the the premier north american duck hunting destinations in the mid 90's?

Barley For Birds was funded by the USFW. DU was a partner in it and the program has the distinction to be the only program DU has ever been part of that included planting of ffod plots (yep so when someo say DU did that flooded corn project.....it didn't). Of course the USFW got that funding from the federal government.

[DR. DUX]

im sure the financial issues and legalities aside, every wet land restoration situation is different, but leque smith/ farm needs to be held up as a prime example to why restorations are not necessarily the best option for the bird or the hunter. I have seen it with my own two eyes and so has every other hunter that has used leque in the last few years.  when I hear of other wetland conversions all I can think of is they could have been used as a great hunting area and a great bird holding / attracting area and it truly boggles my mind why DU wouldn't be pushing for more programs like barley for birds instead of wetland reclamation, unless -going back to the beginning- they have lost sight of the hunters that supports them in trade for the recognition of restoring the environment.
take nisqually for instance. if all those fields had been opened to water fowlers and planted to attract and hold birds rather than being flooded, think of the duck hunting  mecca it would be and the money it would bring to nearby towns. but now its flooded and doesn't hold nearly the amount of birds it could. it seems like a lose for the ducks, and a lose for the duck hunters.

Leque, Nisqually and areas were great areas when they heavily funded and managed to the T. Without heavy funding and management  they quickly become over run by invasive and worthless vegetation. The fed is in dire straights for funding and the state is even worse. Nobody now or for decades to come will have the funds necessary to manage these once highly managed and planted properties. So what do you do? Allow public areas to become completely inundated with reed canary grass and unusable for generations or do you make the conversion to a functional estuary which though it may not be what the highly managed property was (but close), will provide hunting opportunity without cost for perpetuity?

That's the question the WDFW and USFW managers have had to face and why they have done what they done and went to DU who has experience making this the best duck potential possible.

[DR. DUX]

I have a few personal opinions and ideas I'd love to toss around about how to help our waterfowling future in WA.

and those would be?

Subject for other threads in the future.

[branter]

Was told by a friend who worked for DU that the barley for the birds program was holding all the ducks here and they wern't going on down to Califorina and they stsrted to complain,so it was ended.

[DR. DUX]

Another rumor(lots of folks work in lots of capacities for DU, some would have knowledge of this and some wouldn't). That's not what happened in the least. Barley For Birds was a USFW progam. They had a duration of time the program was going to run and the program reached the end of that time. The hope was farmers would see and recognize a value themselves and continue it without the funding. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

[Special T]

im sure the financial issues and legalities aside, every wet land restoration situation is different, but leque smith/ farm needs to be held up as a prime example to why restorations are not necessarily the best option for the bird or the hunter. I have seen it with my own two eyes and so has every other hunter that has used leque in the last few years.  when I hear of other wetland conversions all I can think of is they could have been used as a great hunting area and a great bird holding / attracting area and it truly boggles my mind why DU wouldn't be pushing for more programs like barley for birds instead of wetland reclamation, unless -going back to the beginning- they have lost sight of the hunters that supports them in trade for the recognition of restoring the environment.
take nisqually for instance. if all those fields had been opened to water fowlers and planted to attract and hold birds rather than being flooded, think of the duck hunting  mecca it would be and the money it would bring to nearby towns. but now its flooded and doesn't hold nearly the amount of birds it could. it seems like a lose for the ducks, and a lose for the duck hunters.

Leque, Nisqually and areas were great areas when they heavily funded and managed to the T. Without heavy funding and management  they quickly become over run by invasive and worthless vegetation. The fed is in dire straights for funding and the state is even worse. Nobody now or for decades to come will have the funds necessary to manage these once highly managed and planted properties. So what do you do? Allow public areas to become completely inundated with reed canary grass and unusable for generations or do you make the conversion to a functional estuary which though it may not be what the highly managed property was (but close), will provide hunting opportunity without cost for perpetuity?

That's the question the WDFW and USFW managers have had to face and why they have done what they done and went to DU who has experience making this the best duck potential possible.

Not sure i follow you... Hevily invest in... $$$??? Didn't they do a crop share program like they used to do  in Carnation, and still do in E wa where a farmer did all the work payed little to no rent, and then left some % of crop as payment and for the birds?

I have a friend on the WAG, and the WDFW has let the Carnation/Stillwater degrade. They gave some Cock and Bull story about "special permitts" being necessary to continue that program and it would cost the WDFW a $100k a year to do that since there is a limited number of "permitted" farmers that can farm there. 
I grow tired of hearing about how our resources are dwindling because off poor mgt. Crop prices are at an all time high, we should be getting maximium return on "new" ground for people to farm. 

[DR. DUX]

To share crop on USFW lands you have to leave 25% of the crop for a food plot (and your're right on the irrigated lands in E WA this program is easy to get folks to sign up for but I hear its a different ball game in W WA). I'm not sure what the WDFW program is but I would guess similar. I do know that they haven't been able to find someone to share crop on the state lands and a lot of the subsidies they used to be able to offer for those that would share crop with them have been cut.

So whether mismanagement (policy failures), or budget cuts are the cause it really doesn't matter. Reality is there is nobody willing to farm the W WA state lands and considering the prices folks are getting on crops now and they can't get anyone to do it, they aren't going to find anyone. So again the managers are faced with let the lands to become infested by invasive plants making them unusable for generations or convert the lands to a functional wetlands.

And if mismanagement sounds like an easy fix give it a shot. I mean changing policy is just finding a sympathetic legilator who will champion the cause. It has been my experience however that once you dig into the policy what seems to be simple mismanagment is actually a very complex issue and not quite what you thought it was.

Trust me I have tried this.

[Special T]

Oh i didn't say it was easy to change policy, but if they can't get the job done then what the hell do we need them for?
I call BS on not being able to find some one to share crop land that now stands fallow. ANY dairy farmer would be happy to take a 75% cut to use land for crops since thier options are import it, or grow thier own. and in most cases they do grow their own just not nearly enough...  Now maybe there are all kinds of extra strings attached here on the west side that make it less viable, but that is the manages fault not a farmers...

[DR. DUX]

Hey that's what we are being told on this and it comes from multiple sources. If the state and the Feds say they got no one interested on the Westside I believe them. Especially when they do share crop a ton on the Eastside of the state. There where you are dealing with a very predictable growing season and irrigation you got guys lined up on the Eastside of the state. Things are different for both the state and the Feds on the Westside.

I'd buy into mismanagement if it was happening all over the state but that's not the case.