Hunting Washington Forum
Other Hunting => Waterfowl => Topic started by: Stilly bay on January 30, 2013, 01:09:09 PM
-
just curious, another thread got me thinking. besides a pretty blah magazine, stickers, and raffle opportunities at banquets - what has DU done for you?
I know they have created habitat for birds and saved habitat that was being threatened so therefor they have created more ducks and more hunting opportunities... no one can deny that. but what have they done for the duck hunter, not just the duck? are there DU only properties and blinds? DU only guides? what benefits are there for the public land duck hunter?
I know of a few negative impacts-
DU had a hand in flooding the skagit headquarters, eliminating a pheasant release site and an area for walk in duck hunters, thereby putting a strain on other pheasant release site and walk in opportunities.
DU is also involved in the potential flooding of leque island, another pheasant release site and area that is well used by boatless public land duck hunters.
both the above are right in my own back yard, I wonder what other areas they are trying to ruin in the name of salmon habitat and the GLORY of habitat restoration. these areas would get used by thousands of people hunting, birdwatching, and enjoying the outdoors - they want to convert them to an salmon nursery that will attract more mergansers than ducks.
do they have your best interests in mind or would your dollars be better used somewhere else?
-
Personally i think headquarters is better duck hunt now than it was than.
-
Here is a place I wouldn't count as negative.
I don't hunt there but one I know about is the Welts property up in the Samish. That was built with funds and input from DU. I think there are over 20 ponds on the property. So the walk in public can use the site. I know it can be crowded, but given the way things are today easy access places will be.
-
I know of a few negative impacts-
DU had a hand in flooding the skagit headquarters, eliminating a pheasant release site and an area for walk in duck hunters, thereby putting a strain on other pheasant release site and walk in opportunities.
DU is also involved in the potential flooding of leque island, another pheasant release site and area that is well used by boatless public land duck hunters.
both the above are right in my own back yard, I wonder what other areas they are trying to ruin in the name of salmon habitat and the GLORY of habitat restoration. these areas would get used by thousands of people hunting, birdwatching, and enjoying the outdoors - they want to convert them to an salmon nursery that will attract more mergansers than ducks.
do they have your best interests in mind or would dollars your be better used somewhere else?
The skagit is not native pheasant habitat! I know they are cool birds and all but they were never meant to live there. That is waterfowl habitat if I ever saw it. I know they are one of the best tangible ways to prove that outdoors man do more than just kill. They put their money where their mouth is.
-
Built with DU funds and dont they release pheasant there?
-
Personally i think headquarters is better duck hunt now than it was than.
You should of seen it before it was flooded! Acres upon acres of planted barley planted annually which brought in massive amounts of waterfowl each year. Now it is just another saltwater estuary with limited access and no pheasant release. Grain crops and cover is what creates the finest waterfowl and pheasant hunting.
-
I know of a few negative impacts-
DU had a hand in flooding the skagit headquarters, eliminating a pheasant release site and an area for walk in duck hunters, thereby putting a strain on other pheasant release site and walk in opportunities.
DU is also involved in the potential flooding of leque island, another pheasant release site and area that is well used by boatless public land duck hunters.
both the above are right in my own back yard, I wonder what other areas they are trying to ruin in the name of salmon habitat and the GLORY of habitat restoration. these areas would get used by thousands of people hunting, birdwatching, and enjoying the outdoors - they want to convert them to an salmon nursery that will attract more mergansers than ducks.
do they have your best interests in mind or would dollars your be better used somewhere else?
The skagit is not native pheasant habitat! I know they are cool birds and all but they were never meant to live there. That is waterfowl habitat if I ever saw it. I know they are one of the best tangible ways to prove that outdoors man do more than just kill. They put their money where their mouth is.
thats great and all, the whole pheasant vs duck hunter debate thing, but how is a duck hunter without a boat supposed access this public land once its flooded? hundreds if not thousands of duck hunters come to this spot yearly because its public land and they can walk in.
Personally i think headquarters is better duck hunt now than it was than.
You should of seen it before it was flooded! Acres upon acres of planted barley planted annually which brought in massive amounts of waterfowl each year. Now it is just another saltwater estuary with limited access and no pheasant release. Grain crops and cover is what creates the finest waterfowl and pheasant hunting.
thats right! about fifteen years ago the skagit area was rated number 10 in the lower 48 for duck hunting by field and stream.
-
Here is a place I wouldn't count as negative.
I don't hunt there but one I know about is the Welts property up in the Samish. That was built with funds and input from DU. I think there are over 20 ponds on the property. So the walk in public can use the site. I know it can be crowded, but given the way things are today easy access places will be.
thanks goldeneye, I forgot about this place. good example.
the purpose of this thread is not to bash DU, I honestly want to know what they have done just for the duck hunter.
-
After seeing the last DU projects I am no longer a member. I see a lot of their projects running things to their natural state, which sucks for duck hunters.
-
The skagit is not native pheasant habitat!
[/quote]
Aren't pheasant non native anyway to the US??
Personally i think headquarters is better duck hunt now than it was than.
The duck hunting was way better before it became a salmon estuary. Lots of birds and if the weather was stormy it provided some of the best evening shoots as the birds would dump in. Many times 4-8 of us would limit out in 30-60 minutes. Not even close to the same shoot.
-
170+ views so far and only one person has been able to remark on a positive thing that DU does specifically for hunters. :dunno: I wonder how many people who opened this thread have DU stickers on their truck or memberships and they can't even answer.
After seeing the last DU projects I am no longer a member. I see a lot of their projects running things to their natural state, which sucks for duck hunters.
could you please list some examples. so far I am only aware of the two I stated. both small tracts of land that would benefit sportsmen and the game they pursue far better if they were just left alone and not meddled with.
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season. Not going to happen. The average duck hunter will throw up his arms and get mad at DU because they see a million dollars of "their" money go into a habitat project at a wealthy duck club. A club that they can't hunt. "DU is for the rich man!" "All DU is is a bunch of rich guys" "Why should I donate to DU- all they do is improve habitat on some rich guys property!" Ever heard these things before? Hard to disagree until you stop and think- maybe come springtime these lands will support a couple of dozen breeding pairs of mallards? Mallards that wouldn't have had the chance to breed there until the habitat was improved. Ducks need marshes to breed- not barley fields. DU is not in the business of planting crops so guys can shoot released pheasants, or only have to drive 20 minutes from home to crank off most of a case of 3 1/2" dead coyote loads at 120yd high spoonies. It sucks to lose hunting spots, I know. It would suck more to not have something to hunt.
-
I have been a member of DU since 1979, but in the last 10 years have really seen them go in a direction I no longer agree with. They using matching funds and seem to help develop many private clubs. You need deep pockets or to be in the in group to hunt these locations. I understand DU is in it for the ducks and not necessarily in it for the hunter. I guess they choose the 18 hours of rest these private clubs may get per day or the select shooting days vs. Hi pressure public areas. I would be more supportive if they could buy large tracks of wetlands and at least let hunter shoot it every other day or select hours to provide additional resources to those that help support them. This may be the last year I support DU.
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season.
Bingo :tup:
the image problem is what I am getting at. I don't think half of the every day joes supporting DU realize that they are supporting an organization that is responsible for the loss of well loved public hunting areas of which there are precious few to begin with in this part of the state for instance. DU needs to support the duck hunters that have supported them all these years.
if every potential member/donator was made aware that DU could be the reason why you lose a well loved hunting spot some day, I wonder how many would still write the check?
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season.
Bingo :tup:
the image problem is what I am getting at. I don't think half of the every day joes supporting DU realize that they are supporting an organization that is responsible for the loss of well loved public hunting areas of which there are precious few to begin with in this part of the state for instance. DU needs to support the duck hunters that have supported them all these years.
if every potential member/donator was made aware that DU could be the reason why you lose a well loved hunting spot some day, I wonder how many would still write the check?
Maybe the only guys to write that check are the guys who want a duck to shoot at? That is my point- Get over the thought that DU is a hunting club. They are in the habitat business. Got a problem with whats happened at the Skagit- call the State up. I think their number is 1-800-328-7448 (check out the letters on your phone) They are the ones who spearheaded your loss of hunting spots.
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season.
Bingo :tup:
the image problem is what I am getting at. I don't think half of the every day joes supporting DU realize that they are supporting an organization that is responsible for the loss of well loved public hunting areas of which there are precious few to begin with in this part of the state for instance. DU needs to support the duck hunters that have supported them all these years.
if every potential member/donator was made aware that DU could be the reason why you lose a well loved hunting spot some day, I wonder how many would still write the check?
Maybe the only guys to write that check are the guys who want a duck to shoot at? That is my point- Get over the thought that DU is a hunting club. They are in the habitat business. Got a problem with whats happened at the Skagit- call the State up. I think their number is 1-800-328-7448 (check out the letters on your phone) They are the ones who spearheaded your loss of hunting spots.
contact skagit? what an incredibly original and novel idea. I wish I had thought of that.
I never considered DU as a hunt club, but they sure as hell promote themselves as one; with all the DU merch and gear they sling around leaving alot of people to believe that its about ducks and duck hunting. not a lot of bird watchers attending those banquets where duck guns are raffled off either. :dunno: their magazine is predominantly focused on hunting with some conservation news thrown in, if they really aren't about ducking hunting then why do they make it look like they are?
I feel there has been some misrepresentation on DU's behalf.
-
A few years back, maybe more, I decided to continue my annual membership to DU. But only the membership. I discovered Delta Waterfowl and their philosophy of managing waterfowl. They conducted several studies that revealed the importance of predator management and the resulting benefit of that management on the production of waterfowl. It has been awhile since I read those studies, but if I recall correctly, it was something like a 85% increase in successful nests.
Obviously, you need ground for those nests, hence my support for DU. I used to see the most positive, at least in my uninformed mind, results of DU's work in the prairie states when I was hunting / living in the Dakotas and Minnesota. There used to be section after section of crp / wetlands that had signs up touting the work of DU.
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season.
Bingo :tup:
the image problem is what I am getting at. I don't think half of the every day joes supporting DU realize that they are supporting an organization that is responsible for the loss of well loved public hunting areas of which there are precious few to begin with in this part of the state for instance. DU needs to support the duck hunters that have supported them all these years.
if every potential member/donator was made aware that DU could be the reason why you lose a well loved hunting spot some day, I wonder how many would still write the check?
Maybe the only guys to write that check are the guys who want a duck to shoot at? That is my point- Get over the thought that DU is a hunting club. They are in the habitat business. Got a problem with whats happened at the Skagit- call the State up. I think their number is 1-800-328-7448 (check out the letters on your phone) They are the ones who spearheaded your loss of hunting spots.
contact skagit? what an incredibly original and novel idea. I wish I had thought of that.
I never considered DU as a hunt club, but they sure as hell promote themselves as one; with all the DU merch and gear they sling around leaving alot of people to believe that its about ducks and duck hunting. not a lot of bird watchers attending those banquets where duck guns are raffled off either. :dunno: their magazine is predominantly focused on hunting with some conservation news thrown in, if they really aren't about ducking hunting then why do they make it look like they are?
I feel there has been some misrepresentation on DU's behalf.
I didn't say to contact Skagit- I said contact the State. As in Olympia- where the head of WDFW is. Well, I think we all know that their head is actually somewhere else...
And again- DU has an image problem. Most people think they are buying into a hunting club. But- they are in the duck business. A business supported mostly by duck hunters. Why should they not market and merchandise towards duck hunters and duck hunting. Who mostly wants to have more ducks? Should DU hold potlucks at the local elementary school and host bake sales in front of the library? Or should they host dinner parties and raffle off duck hunting gear to duck hunters? I don't know why I am arguing on DU's behalf- as I said before I am not a huge supporter. I do see the benefit that they provide though.
-
Just a quick Google search turned up all these projects in Washington that DU is working on:
The Nisqually Estuary Restoration
With the help of Ducks Unlimited, the Nisqually Estuary is restored after more than 100 years of man-made dikes separated this unique wetland from flourishing in its natural state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney Wetlands Project
Ducks Unlimited recently completed the restoration of wetlands on 238 acres owned by the Inland Northwest Land Trust in the channeled scablands region near Cheney, Washington. This parcel of land contains a large, wet meadow that was drained several decades ago to improve forage for livestock surrounded by Ponderosa pines forest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's Eastern Wetland Habitats
Much of Washington east of the Cascades is technically a desert, yet this region supports many important waterfowl areas. Wetlands in this region are tied to local precipitation, naturally occurring streams and those areas created within the Yakima and Columbia Basin irrigation projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's Western and Coastal Wetlands
Ducks Unlimited’s Western Washington Wetlands Initiative spans a large and diverse geographic area, including coastal Washington and the entirety of Puget Sound. These areas provide habitat for a host of fish and wildlife species, including waterfowl, sensitive salmon species, shorebirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge Projects
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge is located in the heart of the channeled scablands of eastern Washington—an area so named because of the pre-historic floods that scoured the soil away down to the bedrock and left the area with an abundance of swales and depressional wetlands. The 27 square miles within the Refuge is largely rugged scabrock, pine and aspen forests and grasslands that are interspersed with numerous small lakes and wetlands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area - Cherry Creek Restoration Project
Ducks Unlimited is working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to restore and enhance wetland habitat on the Cherry Valley Unit of the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area, located approximately 20 miles east of Seattle, Washington. As part of this project, DU will construct a levee, install a water control structure/fish ladder, and complete several other tasks that will significantly improve the quality of waterfowl habitat on the site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Padilla Bay Projects
Ducks Unlimited is working with a private landowner to restore significant wetland habitat on the south side of Padilla Bay, just west of Mt. Vernon, Washington. The specific project site is located on the south side of Highway 20 adjacent to the Swinomish Channel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearsons Eddy - Snohomish River Projects
Ducks Unlimited is currently working on several projects along the Snohomish River just outside of Seattle, Washington. The Pearsons Eddy project is an ambitious effort to protect and restore over 600 acres of freshwater wetlands adjacent to this expansive urban environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Terrell Wildlife Area Projects
Wetland restoration has commenced on over 600 acres of new additions to the Lake Terrell Wildlife Area in Whatcom County, Washington. The project partners include: Ducks Unlimited, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, and the Lummi Nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willapa Bay National Wildlife Refuge Projects
Willapa Bay is one of the most important staging and wintering areas for migratory birds on the West Coast. Habitat types include estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands, estuarine mudflats, freshwater emergent wetlands, forested wetlands, sand dunes, sand beaches and grasslands. These habitats have historically supported large numbers of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, anadromous fish and many other species of fish and wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skagit Wildlife Area Projects
Ducks Unlimited hosted a dedication on June 28, 2003 to celebrate the 270-acre wetland restoration project on the Skagit Wildlife Area. Greg and Carol James (owners of Topics Entertainment, a software publishing firm in Renton, WA) provided a substantial gift to DU to help with the project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakama Indian Nation Projects
Ducks Unlimited (DU) and the Yakama Indian Nation (YN) have forged a strong partnership to restore important wetland habitats in eastern Washington. This partnership is based on the philosophy that restored or enhanced wetlands must provide for the habitat needs of all wetland wildlife including steelhead, an endangered species in eastern Washington, and culturally important species for Yakama tribal members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Conservation Projects
Ducks Unlimited habitat conservation projects in Washington. These projects benefit waterfowl, other wildlife and people. View sample projects, project map and more.
http://www.ducks.org/related/washington-projects (http://www.ducks.org/related/washington-projects)
-
i know out in my neck of the woods where i hunt there paying farmers alot for land and charging everyone a arm and litterally leg to hunt it or buy 1 or 10 memberships to hunt it.... used to be a great farm to hunt... now i dont even know, ohwell tho eyy
-
I think half of them are more harm then good, as far as hunting.
I used to hunt a great spot, ducks would feed on the bay the come to a flooded field that was surrounded by a dike. They blew the dike. Without the fresh water the birds are gone. We see very few birds there now. Nisqually used to be a great spot, now? Let's face it because of the dikes, flooded fields, grain crops, etc, there are less birds in those public areas.
-
Just a quick Google search turned up all these projects in Washington that DU is working on:
The Nisqually Estuary Restoration
With the help of Ducks Unlimited, the Nisqually Estuary is restored after more than 100 years of man-made dikes separated this unique wetland from flourishing in its natural state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney Wetlands Project
Ducks Unlimited recently completed the restoration of wetlands on 238 acres owned by the Inland Northwest Land Trust in the channeled scablands region near Cheney, Washington. This parcel of land contains a large, wet meadow that was drained several decades ago to improve forage for livestock surrounded by Ponderosa pines forest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's Eastern Wetland Habitats
Much of Washington east of the Cascades is technically a desert, yet this region supports many important waterfowl areas. Wetlands in this region are tied to local precipitation, naturally occurring streams and those areas created within the Yakima and Columbia Basin irrigation projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's Western and Coastal Wetlands
Ducks Unlimited’s Western Washington Wetlands Initiative spans a large and diverse geographic area, including coastal Washington and the entirety of Puget Sound. These areas provide habitat for a host of fish and wildlife species, including waterfowl, sensitive salmon species, shorebirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge Projects
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge is located in the heart of the channeled scablands of eastern Washington—an area so named because of the pre-historic floods that scoured the soil away down to the bedrock and left the area with an abundance of swales and depressional wetlands. The 27 square miles within the Refuge is largely rugged scabrock, pine and aspen forests and grasslands that are interspersed with numerous small lakes and wetlands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area - Cherry Creek Restoration Project
Ducks Unlimited is working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to restore and enhance wetland habitat on the Cherry Valley Unit of the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area, located approximately 20 miles east of Seattle, Washington. As part of this project, DU will construct a levee, install a water control structure/fish ladder, and complete several other tasks that will significantly improve the quality of waterfowl habitat on the site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Padilla Bay Projects
Ducks Unlimited is working with a private landowner to restore significant wetland habitat on the south side of Padilla Bay, just west of Mt. Vernon, Washington. The specific project site is located on the south side of Highway 20 adjacent to the Swinomish Channel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearsons Eddy - Snohomish River Projects
Ducks Unlimited is currently working on several projects along the Snohomish River just outside of Seattle, Washington. The Pearsons Eddy project is an ambitious effort to protect and restore over 600 acres of freshwater wetlands adjacent to this expansive urban environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Terrell Wildlife Area Projects
Wetland restoration has commenced on over 600 acres of new additions to the Lake Terrell Wildlife Area in Whatcom County, Washington. The project partners include: Ducks Unlimited, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, and the Lummi Nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willapa Bay National Wildlife Refuge Projects
Willapa Bay is one of the most important staging and wintering areas for migratory birds on the West Coast. Habitat types include estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands, estuarine mudflats, freshwater emergent wetlands, forested wetlands, sand dunes, sand beaches and grasslands. These habitats have historically supported large numbers of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, anadromous fish and many other species of fish and wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skagit Wildlife Area Projects
Ducks Unlimited hosted a dedication on June 28, 2003 to celebrate the 270-acre wetland restoration project on the Skagit Wildlife Area. Greg and Carol James (owners of Topics Entertainment, a software publishing firm in Renton, WA) provided a substantial gift to DU to help with the project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakama Indian Nation Projects
Ducks Unlimited (DU) and the Yakama Indian Nation (YN) have forged a strong partnership to restore important wetland habitats in eastern Washington. This partnership is based on the philosophy that restored or enhanced wetlands must provide for the habitat needs of all wetland wildlife including steelhead, an endangered species in eastern Washington, and culturally important species for Yakama tribal members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Conservation Projects
Ducks Unlimited habitat conservation projects in Washington. These projects benefit waterfowl, other wildlife and people. View sample projects, project map and more.
http://www.ducks.org/related/washington-projects (http://www.ducks.org/related/washington-projects)
I know atleast two of those listed massively decrease the amount of access hunters have to these areas, are there any listed that not only improve the wetlands but provide hunting opportunities where there were none before?
if everyone one of those spots took away access from public land hunters; is DU a cause we as hunter should support?
-
just curious, another thread got me thinking - what has DU done for you?
DU gave me some opportunities with my photography business when I was just starting out several years ago. By being willing to work with a new photographer, they used my images in ways that provided some much needed exposure, as well as some income.
DU also protects wetlands from development. There are thousands of acres of wetland habitat that are forever "locked up" in conservation due to the efforts of DU. These are areas that will never legally be able to be developed - many of which would have surely been drained and ruined by man's persistent efforts to encroach on the land.
As for the habitat vs. hunting debate:
I'd much rather have lots and lots of ducks, with few opportunities to hunt them, than lots and lots of places to hunt, with very few ducks.
-
As for the habitat vs. hunting debate:
I'd much rather have lots and lots of ducks, with few opportunities to hunt them, than lots and lots of places to hunt, with very few ducks.
Nobody said it had to be this starkly contrasted. There should be a mix. Some of both. From what I hear, local guys are not liking their loss of opportunity.
-
:yeah: And loss of opportunity = over crowding and less enjoyable conditions on the lands that are still open.
I find it kind of ironic that both the Skagit Headquarters and the Leque site that Stilly has mentioned were both under controversy for years by environmentalists and anti-hunter groups prior to being flooded with saltwater. I think in cases like this our donations to DU are being used to help the tribes and their efforts to bring back the Chinook salmon and to cater to and please environmental groups.
If environmentalists are happy about these examples and hunters are not something is wrong.
And last time I checked ducks need fresh water to nest and be prolific not salt water :twocents:
-
The Nisqually Estuary Restoration
With the help of Ducks Unlimited, the Nisqually Estuary is restored after more than 100 years of man-made dikes separated this unique wetland from flourishing in its natural state.
This restoration acctuall opened more land for hunting. And as far as I can tell the hunting has gotten better. :twocents:
-
The Nisqually Estuary Restoration
With the help of Ducks Unlimited, the Nisqually Estuary is restored after more than 100 years of man-made dikes separated this unique wetland from flourishing in its natural state.
This restoration acctuall opened more land for hunting. And as far as I can tell the hunting has gotten better. :twocents:
I don't know if what happened at nisqually is something you could call an improvement, at least not from the hunters standpoint. before it was restored there was little to no foot access, but the fields attracted tens of thousands of ducks and geese that fed and then returned to the flats where you could hunt them. what is there to attract them now in the numbers there used to be?
-
In the last two years I have started to learn how hunt using high dollar hunt clubs as a benefit. No I'm not shelling out green and can have good success in public areas near them but it is a waiting game and understanding when and how they hunt. For instance around Christmas time they don't seem to get the business which means less pressure and holds birds. Thanksgiving time seems to be lots of clients to chase birds. Clubs also seem to be the only areas to have food to keep the birds in the area at least and use the weather changes.
Anyways about DU helping out clubs and that is just common sense answer. LAND. Who else is going to set land aside for waterfowl habitat? Also habitat for ducks is going to win over pheasants any day of the week because ducks are native and pheasants are introduced.
-
Also habitat for ducks is going to win over pheasants any day of the week because ducks are native and pheasants are introduced.
ducks vs pheasants is not the issue here, its public land access and lack there. of the TWO pheasant release sites i mentioned both are / were used more by land bound duck hunters through out the season than by pheasant hunters.
there is lots of private land that is not useable by the general public that DU can "save" or "restore" there is a lot of public land that is out of reach by the general public without boats to save or restore, they have my blessings to mess with those all they like, but to take a small chunk of public land that is used by duck hunters, pheasant hunters, bird watchers, dog walkers, and nature lovers and make it unusable in the name of salmon habitat is neither saving or restoring and they are doing a monumental disservice to the sportsmen that support them especially in this day in age of dwindling public opportunities.
-
I won 2 shotguns back to back years. Thanks DU! I haven't duck hunted in a few years so I can't comment on the good or bad in land upgrades or fails.
-
With salmon in the mix causes a real mess. Commercial fisheries have lots of power and even the dams on the snake are in jeopardy that produce power and irrigation to provide our basic needs. Sportsman or DU wouldn't even be a fly on the wall in that room. In southern Oregon farmers are in a bind because of salmon.
-
Negative: They supported returning the Nisqually Delta to what it was over 125 yrs ago. It's been a fantastic waterfowl area for 25 of the 28 years I've been hunting it. Since the "remodel", it's not half of what it was.
After all the letter writing I did to them a few years ago, their main project person(name withheld)knew hardly anything at all about what was really happening out there including that 'Pier'(boardwalk)the refuge built.
-
Negative: They supported returning the Nisqually Delta to what it was over 125 yrs ago. It's been a fantastic waterfowl area for 25 of the 28 years I've been hunting it. Since the "remodel", it's not half of what it was.
After all the letter writing I did to them a few years ago, their main project person(name withheld)knew hardly anything at all about what was really happening out there including that 'Pier'(boardwalk)the refuge built.
Anybody else see a problem here? Sounds like WWA should get OUR money.
-
To answer the original question: I think DU has done a lot for the Duck Hunter. I am not a strong supporter of DU- I am a member, they get my $35 and that is as far as it goes. I think that DU has a huge image problem. Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive. The average duck hunter thinks that they can donate to DU and then sit back and reap the rewards of some sweet well manicured duck pond that will hold a hundred thousand mallards throughout a 107 day hunting season. Not going to happen. The average duck hunter will throw up his arms and get mad at DU because they see a million dollars of "their" money go into a habitat project at a wealthy duck club. A club that they can't hunt. "DU is for the rich man!" "All DU is is a bunch of rich guys" "Why should I donate to DU- all they do is improve habitat on some rich guys property!" Ever heard these things before? Hard to disagree until you stop and think- maybe come springtime these lands will support a couple of dozen breeding pairs of mallards? Mallards that wouldn't have had the chance to breed there until the habitat was improved. Ducks need marshes to breed- not barley fields. DU is not in the business of planting crops so guys can shoot released pheasants, or only have to drive 20 minutes from home to crank off most of a case of 3 1/2" dead coyote loads at 120yd high spoonies. It sucks to lose hunting spots, I know. It would suck more to not have something to hunt.
:yeah:DU is for ducks not hunters, we as hunters have always been the stewarts of conservation, thats why they target us for the donations. They get my $35 bucks and sometimes more if I have to many whirrly pops at the banquet !
-
Although I now live in far Eastern WA; previously, I hunted the Skagit Wildlife Area for over 20 years. DU's support of WDFW's "Project Salmon...Use WDFW Lands To Keep The Tribes From Sue-ing Us..." caused me to cancel my over 30 year membership. In their arrogance, DU refused to listen to anyone that actually hunted the area and ignored the plight of the urban, walk-in water fowler. I was at one time one of those "urban, walk-in water fowlers"; so I found the DU support of WDFW mis-guided destruction of much of the former walk-in access to be an act of betrayal to the boat-less, duck hunter. When questioned, I found several supporters in DU of the Skagit destruction had never hunted it; let alone in a walk-in fashion and even when confronted answered with, "Oh...Just buy a boat." I remember my Seattle apartment living days; great, elitist answer. :rolleyes:
-
Negative: They supported returning the Nisqually Delta to what it was over 125 yrs ago. It's been a fantastic waterfowl area for 25 of the 28 years I've been hunting it. Since the "remodel", it's not half of what it was.
After all the letter writing I did to them a few years ago, their main project person(name withheld)knew hardly anything at all about what was really happening out there including that 'Pier'(boardwalk)the refuge built.
Anybody else see a problem here? Sounds like WWA should get OUR money.
definitely the lesser of two evils and personally I would rather see donations go to WWA. However, I have heard a lot of complaints about WWA from local guys, but thats a whole other thread.
IMO we should be raising awareness that duck hunters might just be shooting themselves in the foot if they support DU instead of WWA or other organizations. Like I said earlier, out of all the people that have opened this thread, how many have DU memberships but don't have a clue as to what they are supporting? go to any public hunting parking area during duck season and you can't throw a dead bufflehead without hitting a truck that has a DU sticker on it. there are lots of sheeple out there that just do what ever the other guy is doing.
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
-
I stopped supporting DU a few years ago after a 20+ year run of support. I'm all for supporting conservation. BUT when I saw them help take hunting opportunity away in the same year I truely saw them flaunting the rich clubs they helped. No more, the rich clubs would improve their land to hold ducks with or without DU dollars. The way I see it, DU is in the business of robbery of raised funds, supporting their own highest paying members which is a direct violation of their tax exempt status.
Surveys claim the number one issue with hunters is lack of access, which I would have to agree with. When DU supported projects taking duck hunter opportunity away they lost my support. I have also seen other projects in Montana where DU money helped take former open huntable lands and close public access.
I now make sure that my support goes to other organizations that conserve lands and improve access, or at least concentrate on projects for openly accessible land without changing public access.
-
I know of another private club that will be working with DU this summer. They are going to make ponds and impove the waterfowl habitat on about 80+ acres. Only problem is only a select few can hunt it. It will make there hunting way better, so DU will help these guys limit each outting. The other DU project that is close to this one was done 3-4 years ago. And because of DU's matching fund the individual is able to hunt his private spot almost daily with success.
I support conservation, but not interested in funding an organization that spends our money sprucing up private clubs. All the birds start sitting in these locations once the hunters limit out.
-
I know of another private club that will be working with DU this summer. They are going to make ponds and impove the waterfowl habitat on about 80+ acres. Only problem is only a select few can hunt it. It will make there hunting way better, so DU will help these guys limit each outting. The other DU project that is close to this one was done 3-4 years ago. And because of DU's matching fund the individual is able to hunt his private spot almost daily with success.
I support conservation, but not interested in funding an organization that spends our money sprucing up private clubs. All the birds start sitting in these locations once the hunters limit out.
Again it comes down to who provides the land for habitat. History shows hunters are about the only group who do this.
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
That is all well, but when DU orchestrates flooding two popular WDFW walk in duck and pheasant spots with salt water all in the name of more salmon for the indians to sell we got a problem. There are now few ducks, less hunters, and no ducks nesting. The average Joe public land hunter is screwed all in the name of politics. This is what this thread is about :twocents:
WWA fought them hand,tooth,and claw to keep those areas open to walk in hunting but lost only becuase they didn't have enough funds or support I suppose.
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
That is all well, but when DU orchestrates flooding two popular WDFW walk in duck and pheasant spots with salt water all in the name of more salmon for the indians to sell we got a problem. There are now few ducks, less hunters, and no ducks nesting. The average Joe public land hunter is screwed all in the name of politics. This is what this thread is about :twocents:
And again- the phone call you need to make about that is to Olympia. DU didn't just decide to go change that property. They were brought in. YOUR DFW wanted the change.
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
That is all well, but when DU orchestrates flooding two popular WDFW walk in duck and pheasant spots with salt water all in the name of more salmon for the indians to sell we got a problem. There are now few ducks, less hunters, and no ducks nesting. The average Joe public land hunter is screwed all in the name of politics. This is what this thread is about :twocents:
And again- the phone call you need to make about that is to Olympia. DU didn't just decide to go change that property. They were brought in. YOUR DFW wanted the change.
Many of us did call, and every DFW personel including the managers of the area were against it.
It's all about the salmon anymore which IMO is just a complete waste of time and money on top of hunting loss. They want more salmon but continue stretch gill nets across the mouth of the river :rolleyes:
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
That is all well, but when DU orchestrates flooding two popular WDFW walk in duck and pheasant spots with salt water all in the name of more salmon for the indians to sell we got a problem. There are now few ducks, less hunters, and no ducks nesting. The average Joe public land hunter is screwed all in the name of politics. This is what this thread is about :twocents:
Tom, full choke - right from the beginning of this thread I said that DU was about conservation, no denying that. but the problem is misrepresentation and awareness. With their merchandise, banquets and magazine they paint the picture that they are about duck hunting and conservation, when in reality they are just about conservation and could care less about the duck hunter - besides his money. and if more duck hunters were aware of this would they donate or become members. it all boils down to a bait and switch.
And again- the phone call you need to make about that is to Olympia. DU didn't just decide to go change that property. They were brought in. YOUR DFW wanted the change.
numerous calls and emails have been made to Oly as well as anyone else that could help. WWA is locked in a legal battle right now trying to turn the tide but they have limited funds unlike DU.
the problem is its also about highway 532 and the state needing to spend all of the AARA money so they don't gets fined for having too much left over in their account so they just picked a spot to spend it. DU stepped in to reap the glory along with another benefactor in the Indians who want more salmon for their nets and poof now you have a salmon restoration project, and everyone loves baby salmon so its good PR for everyone. it was a pretty easy setup for them, but I believe it backfired and now everything is up in air for a while. atleast that is how I understand it.
-
170+ views so far and only one person has been able to remark on a positive thing that DU does specifically for hunters. :dunno: I wonder how many people who opened this thread have DU stickers on their truck or memberships and they can't even answer.
After seeing the last DU projects I am no longer a member. I see a lot of their projects running things to their natural state, which sucks for duck hunters.
could you please list some examples. so far I am only aware of the two I stated. both small tracts of land that would benefit sportsmen and the game they pursue far better if they were just left alone and not meddled with.
I got a free duck call with my membership. Other than that I have no idea though. :dunno:
-
Most people seem to think that they are a HUNTING organization. They are not. What DU is, is a CONSERVATION organization. They are not in the business of making hunting spots. They are in the business of making ducks. Period. That is their focus. They secure and grow habitat so that ducks can survive.
Full Choke, this insight of yours is exactly right.
It seems that those who have a problem with DU are judging the organization according to how their own personal hunting opportunities have been affected by DU projects and activities.
I am not primarily interested in what DU does for me - rather, I am interested in what DU does for duck populations across North America. It is not about us and what we want for ourselves - it's about habitat conservation and the ducks.
Ducks need nesting habitat even more than they need staging areas along their migratory routes. It is the staging areas that people (mostly) hunt. But springtime nesting habitat is the primary limiting factor to overall duck populations. Therefore, it is better for the ducks if DU puts their resources into managing habitat for spring nesting, and not the fall staging areas that produce hunting opportunities.
That is all well, but when DU orchestrates flooding two popular WDFW walk in duck and pheasant spots with salt water all in the name of more salmon for the indians to sell we got a problem. There are now few ducks, less hunters, and no ducks nesting. The average Joe public land hunter is screwed all in the name of politics. This is what this thread is about :twocents:
And again- the phone call you need to make about that is to Olympia. DU didn't just decide to go change that property. They were brought in. YOUR DFW wanted the change.
Many of us did call, and every DFW personel including the managers of the area were against it.
It's all about the salmon anymore which IMO is just a complete waste of time and money on top of hunting loss. They want more salmon but continue stretch gill nets across the mouth of the river :rolleyes:
I made many a phone call and sent many emails and letters to our WDFW concerning the Nisqually project only to be told 'they had no real involvement'.
-
so now its been over a thousand views and this is the best representation for DU on this forum. one person who works for DU and one person who is doesn't support them that strongly and one person with a free duck call. It would seem there have to be many more DU members out there to put me in my place and set me straight, where is everyone?
when its time to renew your DU membership, write your checks to WWA.
-
Nothing, not even sure what it is though :)
-
Nothing, not even sure what it is though :)
they are one of the largest suppliers of stickers and decals to the duck hunting community... they also do some work in conservation I hear.
-
Nothing, not even sure what it is though :)
they are one of the largest suppliers of stickers and decals to the duck hunting community... they also do some work in conservation I hear.
I don't care if you are for or against DU, but that was funny :chuckle:
-
Nothing, not even sure what it is though :)
they are one of the largest suppliers of stickers and decals to the duck hunting community... they also do some work in conservation I hear.
Made me snort...... :chuckle:
-
Nothing, not even sure what it is though :)
they are one of the largest suppliers of stickers and decals to the duck hunting community... they also do some work in conservation I hear.
Yeah if that don't just say it all! too frickin funny right there Stilly :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
-
when its time to renew your DU membership, write your checks to WWA.
WWA is GREAT for local projects and areas to hunt.
The projects DU do up north (Boreal forrest, northern canada) provide birds that MIGRATE to our state and winter in the areas WWA provide.
Do yourself a favor and support both :twocents:
That way DU can provide birds to migrate to your WWA hunting places so you can shoot a few.
From Reading all your reasons to not like DU it seems your biggest problem with them is they eliminated a few areas for you to shoot pen raised, release site ditch chickens.
Remember, they are DU not PU.
-
From Reading all your reasons to not like DU it seems your biggest problem with them is they eliminated a few areas for you to shoot pen raised, release site ditch chickens.
Remember, they are DU not PU.
I think the main complaint here is the elimination of wdfw public walk in areas for duck hunters and phez hunters on the wet side. In these cases DU seems to be more for the salmon than the duck. Ducks need fresh water to prolificate not saltwater. The only critter here that wins is the salmon and I seriously don't think bringing back more estuaries should be first in line for saving the salmon :twocents:
-
There is NO perfect "national" "international" organization. :twocents: You have a few things at odds with an organization like DU. Like many Nonprofits they like to "partner" with other organizations so that their amount of acreage is increased, making them seem more effective. Like a few here have pointed out Most of their WW work has been in conjunction with salmon efforts, and private owners, not really helping hunters.
Non profits actually NEED to pull in some big bucks, and they make a great amount of cash in doing so. I would argue that other nonprofits hope and pray for some issue to pop up and rally the troops so that they have a fundraiser opportunity. Sound like any other Wildlife Nonprofit? Sounds like the RMEF to me, on the wolf issue...
I think when you keep your membership local you have more control of the QUALITY of the work, and with a National organization you get QUANITY. :twocents:
I was once a DU member and then quit national after the headquarters unit getting destroyed. I no longer give money to National Organizations they don't seem to represent me.
-
Look to the sky to see what ducks unlimited has done,more targets to shoot at,in the mid 70's it was a rarity to see honkers either greater or lessers,now they are so thick they have to be "Relocated" or ran off with dogs from local lakes.The conservation takes place on the breeding grounds,local projects give them a draw to layover,feed and rest before they press on the rest of the way south for winter,saltwater works for that,improving salmon habitat is not a bad thing as a second result,if the second result was improving habitat for pheasants there wouldn't be as much sniveling would there,projects in the prarie region benefit upland game as bycatch,Fact of the matter is that those chicken release sites never held native birds to start with,in whatcom county the release sites did at one time harbor a native population of upland birds,pheasants and grouse.
The only problem I have is when DU money gets granted to enhance a very wealthy persons private property for the sake of a private hunting club and it's justified as "habitat" enhancement.I beleive you skagit county fellas know what I'm referring too.
-
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
once again, no denying the conservation standpoint and the fact that they have helped the duck population. this has nothing to do with pheasants or release sites, it has everything to do with public land duck hunters losing public land to hunt and that it seems like many DU supporters have no idea DU is taking away their hunting areas and putting extra stress other area. more ducks are fantastic but people need a place to hunt them.
maybe I shouldn't have mentioned pheasant release sites in my OP, since many are getting so hung up on it. :bash: if you quit your pissing and moaning about pheasant hunters and totally remove them from the equation, then you still have duck hunters losing public hunting opportunities.
it all boils down to this: if a DU rep solicited you to join their cause and said " we are all about ducks and conservation, not so much about duck hunting or duck hunters even though our banquets, merchandise and magazine really make us look like we are about the hunter. the hunters we do cater to are those with large bank accounts or private duck clubs. we also alter or restore public lands which many times has a very negative effect on the hunting or eliminates it all together"
would you sign up? would you hesitate? or would you start asking questions and look elsewhere?
-
water retention ponds in urban areas with no hunting is a HUGE reason for the comeback of honkers. Sorry wildweeds but i can't give that credit to DU... just troll thought the auburn valley or fife and see all the honkers grazing like cattle in protected areas that allow no hunting. I have a buddy that killed a 20+ lb honker last year becasue he found a place to hunt in this "urban" area... DU had nothing to do with it... :twocents:
-
water retention ponds in urban areas with no hunting is a HUGE reason for the comeback of honkers. Sorry wildweeds but i can't give that credit to DU... just troll thought the auburn valley or fife and see all the honkers grazing like cattle in protected areas that allow no hunting. I have a buddy that killed a 20+ lb honker last year becasue he found a place to hunt in this "urban" area... DU had nothing to do with it... :twocents:
Please tell us how these no hunting areas "Produce" the honkers you see feeding like cattle???
Also, what percentage of the geese you see in these fields are actually "Honkers"?
Very few migratory honkers in washington, most are Tavs, cacklers and lessors with a few duskies, aleutians and vancouvers in the mix.
If you are going to claim "I cant give that to DU" please use facts not your personal opinions and expect us to buy it..................some of us actually know the facts and the fact is "DU helps produce birds for you to shoot"
They are a habitat/conservation org that produce birds by means of nesting/breeding, resting and feeding areas.
If you want to help support a local place to hunt, support WWA.
Like I said in a earlier post................support BOTH, it will help you in the long run.
-
water retention ponds in urban areas with no hunting is a HUGE reason for the comeback of honkers. Sorry wildweeds but i can't give that credit to DU... just troll thought the auburn valley or fife and see all the honkers grazing like cattle in protected areas that allow no hunting. I have a buddy that killed a 20+ lb honker last year becasue he found a place to hunt in this "urban" area... DU had nothing to do with it... :twocents:
Had me until you mentioned the mythical 20 pounder.
-
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://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Canada_Goose/lifehistory)
http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_canada_goose_wildlife/ (http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_canada_goose_wildlife/)
-
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.
-
Some good info there, but why do they claim the skagit headquarters on thier web site if they had no hand in it?
-
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).
-
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.
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:yeah: :tup: :tup: :tup:
-
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.
-
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.
Stilly just because people say it on the internet doesn't make it true. And this one is flat out untrue. Mainly its untrue because DU doesn't own or manage any land in WA. How could it have a highend super members only club in WA without owning or managing any land. That alone should make it impossible. But again this goes against DU's policy and any staff or volunteer who engaged in something like this would be fired.
Why doesn't DU publicly nip it in the bud? Maybe because the suggestion is viewed as so ludicrous that none is seen as necessary. As I said for who and what DU can respond to publicly is pretty limited.
-
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.
Stilly, first if you took my comment as passive aggressive I apologize. That wasn't my intent in the least.
But don't I have a right to my own opinion. In my opinion I do question the heart, honor, and integrity of the modern waterfowler (and this goes way beyond DU opinions). I don't think we are being motivated by the virtues of the past and feel that is a real bad direction for us to go, and we seem to go farther and farther from that past.
Hey you have the right to tell me I'm full of it......and I respect that. I'd respect it even more if you gave me some facts to show me my opinion is wrong, but I have seen so much change over the years it has soured me a bit. I'm just disappointed and would love for someone to show me otherwise. I want that opinion to be wrong.
Anyway good debate and thanks for challenging me on this stuff.
OH yeah, and I should include I'm not a DU rep in anyway shape or form. If I was I couldn't talk publicly about this stuff....unless I was the Pres....which I'm not. As I said I'm just a volunteer who has managed to attend the right meetings and asked the right questions to get some pretty good facts. I am envolved with a fair number of other waterfowl related endeavuers which has added to that knowledge but I don't represent anything but my own knowledge and experience.
-
Use to be a big supporter. Lost and got sour grapes at a banquet. Every aution item seemed to go to the commitee members. Then I was bidding on a red ryder DU :twocents: :twocents:bb gun. Silent auction and this guy kept up n me a couple bucks. I finnaly confronted him and told him we were both interested and lets quit this cat and mouse game. What will you pay! I went 150 and he said to rich for his blood. Went back to the table and when they called last call he ran up and one up d me for 2 dollars.
I know this has nothing to do with the organization at a whole. But that charter has not got my money since. I do miss the magazine pictures tho. my
-
Finally, which one is the nightmare.....Leque. What a mess.
That one sucks because the dikes were failing and nobody had the money to fix them (as required by the federal government....which made this a mess to start with). So its the WDFW and they approach DU about an estuary conversion due to the circumstance. Again at one time you have planted fields out their that would flood and the place was highly managed but budget cuts descimated that so an estuary conversion would be an improvement over just letting the dikes fail. To boot DU secured a pretty significant commitment from a very well known company and a couple majo donors to do a fresh water project inaddition to the estuary which would be a moistsoil project and provide walk in and handicap opportunities.
Anyway to make a long story short signifcant public pressure caused the major donors to pull funding for the freshwter restoration, the dikes failed, nobody now has money to do much of anything and the whole thing is a mess. It was intended to be much better and I think the hope was DU could be brought in to try to make lemonade out of that lemon........that didn't happen.
Its still a friggin mess.
-
Use to be a big supporter. Lost and got sour grapes at a banquet. Every aution item seemed to go to the commitee members. Then I was bidding on a red ryder DU :twocents: :twocents:bb gun. Silent auction and this guy kept up n me a couple bucks. I finnaly confronted him and told him we were both interested and lets quit this cat and mouse game. What will you pay! I went 150 and he said to rich for his blood. Went back to the table and when they called last call he ran up and one up d me for 2 dollars.
I know this has nothing to do with the organization at a whole. But that charter has not got my money since. I do miss the magazine pictures tho. my
Wish I could say I never heard that complaint before but I have heard it...lots. When I do I always remind that person that WA has 88 dinner events. There is a ton of variation event to event. Some are big dress up affairs while some are simple 25 person events. If you are unhappy with a particular chapter (and trust me I have attended enough events to find a few I didn't like either) go to a different one. Ask around and see what others in the area think of it. Here's actually a good place to use the internet. Just to give you an example. The Leavenworth event. Oh man is that one a good one to attend. Not many attendees so stuff goes on the cheaper side and if you do buy something the committee is so dang happy you came there they make you feel great. Plus if you don't live near by you can stay in Leavenworth. Being a beer and sausage guy this is as close to heaven as I ever will get.
-
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.
OH GEEZ, those were even worse than the IT folks. Keep in mind that those programs were actually put into place by the company sponsoring the item. In a lot of cases they had a limited time for redemption or only underwrote a certain number of memberships and once that number was met they didn't honor additional requests. Worse yet a lot of times those cards went back to the decoy company and they were supposed to forward those to Memphis. Lets just say for most of those companies forwarding those on wasn't the highest priority.
-
They were sent during the right date and to the right address. But I really don't care about it now but when I was younger I loved different outdoor magazines to read.
-
Well I for one support DU,I see what they do in the sky,I go to the banquets and have won some loot,I've gone to their sporting clays shoots and won some loot at them also,Fact is at the sequim shoot I've never come home without winning an item that was worth at least the cost of admission not to mention blowing up some targets and having a great time.The funniest part of it all, I don't make it a point to hunt waterfowl,I hunted geese this year one day and ducks one morning.This was the first waterfowl hunting I've done in 20 years.
IMHO people should not see DU as a source for a field to hunt in,DU should be viewed as the producer of targets to shoot at as they migrate.
-
IMHO people should not see DU as a source for a field to hunt in,DU should be viewed as the producer of targets to shoot at as they migrate.
:yeah:
That is exactly what I have been trying to say.........thank you for understanding what most here seem to miss.
-
IMHO people should not see DU as a source for a field to hunt in,DU should be viewed as the producer of targets to shoot at as they migrate.
:yeah:
That is exactly what I have been trying to say.........thank you for understanding what most here seem to miss.
I said that in my rant as well.
There really isn't a whole lot of debate about the fact that DU is by far the best way to give back to the resource that we as hunters have taken something out of.
And the stuff going on in the Boreal Forest right now in partnership with PEW has such a dramatic impact on the ducks and geese that come to WA not only now but in perpetuity. Folks should really know a lot more about that but unfortunately you got to go to a State or Nation Convention or aLeadership meeting to be exposed to it and even then it doesn't get the credit and attention it deserves.
-
I know of another private club that will be working with DU this summer. They are going to make ponds and impove the waterfowl habitat on about 80+ acres. Only problem is only a select few can hunt it. It will make there hunting way better, so DU will help these guys limit each outting. The other DU project that is close to this one was done 3-4 years ago. And because of DU's matching fund the individual is able to hunt his private spot almost daily with success.
I support conservation, but not interested in funding an organization that spends our money sprucing up private clubs. All the birds start sitting in these locations once the hunters limit out.
No event money or membership money goes to private projects in WA. So no YOUR money isn't going to it. That is a fact. In WA all the private money put up for private projects is put up by the private land holder. Typically DU makes money on this too which it turns around and puts back in the ground in breeding areas.
Is there match sometimes...yep, but that usually comes from the government in the form of programs trying to promote and protect wetlands from being devloped in to appartment complexes and strip malls. If you don't agree with that policy take it up with YOUR elected officials. Keep in mind though urban sprawl has ruined a many great hunting area and closed nearby public areas. When the govenrment gives someone money to improve their hunting land they put an easment on that property in return and prevent it from being devloped for a very long time. The other thing you may not appreciate is these grants are very targeted and just aren't given out to whoever asks. They are very targeted in who gets them and often are granted to those who provide a buffer to public land or part of larger public/private complexes. Are you really sure this is something you want gotten rid of? Go ask folks on the westside how many public properties have been closed to hunting due to urban sprawl and the lack of a buffer. Just sayin'
One other thing all of that work done on private land can be used for match for major grants like NAWCA which in the case of WA have all been done on major public hunting areas.
The little picture is seeing work done on private property but there is a much bigger picture.
-
DR. DUX thanks for registering to HuntWa and responding to this thread. while I am far from ready to renew my DU membership, I found what you had to say very informative and some of it help to shed a more positive light on DU for me.
there were a handful of things in your posts I disagreed with, but really can't take too far beyond he said/she said and Im not sure that any productive answer could arise because of it.
a few things I would like to address:
Finally, which one is the nightmare.....Leque. What a mess.
That one sucks because the dikes were failing and nobody had the money to fix them (as required by the federal government....which made this a mess to start with). So its the WDFW and they approach DU about an estuary conversion due to the circumstance. Again at one time you have planted fields out their that would flood and the place was highly managed but budget cuts descimated that so an estuary conversion would be an improvement over just letting the dikes fail. To boot DU secured a pretty significant commitment from a very well known company and a couple majo donors to do a fresh water project inaddition to the estuary which would be a moistsoil project and provide walk in and handicap opportunities.
Anyway to make a long story short signifcant public pressure caused the major donors to pull funding for the freshwter restoration, the dikes failed, nobody now has money to do much of anything and the whole thing is a mess. It was intended to be much better and I think the hope was DU could be brought in to try to make lemonade out of that lemon........that didn't happen.
Its still a friggin mess.
Leque spawned the idea of this thread. its in my backyard and I have hunted it most of my life. while I doubt we will ever know the whole truth behind what I agree has become a nightmare at worse or a mess at best, I was aware of DU's involvement.
what I would like to know is if DU tried in any way shape or form to get the state to use its federal funding for the highway 532 foritification on dike repairs? from my understanding that money wasn't ear marked for any project in particular and had to used within such a time or there were going to massive fines from the feds. it completely escapes me why they didn't choose ( or DU didn't try and influence them) to spend that money on dike repair rather than building up the highway? it would have killed two birds with one stone since that money would have easily taken care of the dike repairs AND close to ahundred years of dike maintenance NOT TO MENTION alleviate the need for the highway to be fortified? and to top it all off leque could continue to be used by thousands of duck hunter, bird watchers and pheasant hunters
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.
It would seem like a program similar to a barley for birds would benefit the ducks more in these situations. when you convert a field with a food source to an estuary it will only attract a fraction of the birds it did. not only that you shut it off to the hunters who cannot afford boats or who chose not to use boats.
and here is where I remain suspicious of DU's motives. if you restore a field to an estuary, you have the support of many groups and individuals that do not hunt or may not even approve of hunting, not to mention the duck hunters who already support you. and support means money.
if you save a field just for hunters to use to kill ducks you lose the support and potential support from investors that do not approve of hunting. the former seems like a winning choice for DU over the latter. not to mention they get the publicity of restoring a wetland over improving a killing field.
granted this is one of those "he said she said" things that I doubt could ever get settled in this forum, but I thought I would get it out there.
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.
Stilly just because people say it on the internet doesn't make it true. And this one is flat out untrue.
I figured this out a while ago, but like I have said I have heard this not only on the net but while making small talk with other duck hunters. do I believe it as gospel? no. But when member as well informed and serious about duck hunting as H20fowler brings it up, we should sit up and take notice. there has to be a ring of truth there somewhere. at worst I would take his word over yours with all do respect. maybe he will chime in an elaborate if he hasn't totally lost interest in this thread... not enough fighting to keep folks attention, duck hunting forums are like NASCAR that way.
-
Again those are all really good questions.
First Leque, understand that everyone wanted the dikes maintained at Leque. But the problem was the cost it would take to maintin those to what is the minimal federal standard was ridiculously and nobody had that money. Next ridiculous issue, yes it was brought up about the cost for highway infrastructure improvements but this is the joy of our bureaucracy. Highway funds could only be used on highways and the dike fortification was deemed to be beyond the scope of that funding. It get an exemption it would take action and an act of congress through federal appropriations to change this. A snowball has a better chance in hell than this would. There was no political support for this so Leque was stuck. What there was available was SRF money and federal highway funding to cover this. Was this the best option...no but unfortunately the only option and to boot an attempt was made to not only make a functional estuary but a freshwater low maintenance option but that fell apart.
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%? That's just one of those internet rumors that seems to get a lot of traction but when you consider the facts really doesn't make a lot of sense. Now to say there are initiatives within public policy that impact DU's ability do projects and access federal and state money is very true. For example in WA state duck stamp money can only be used to increase public hunting opportunities in WA. Therefore for DU to do a project with duck stamp funds it has to increase public hunting opportunities.
Public policy has dramatic impacts in how habitat resoration is done. We as hunters need to become more educated on have a stronger voice in this area. Afterall the chairman of Natural Resources (Doc Hastings) is in WA. I have held and host fundraising events for Doc's campaign specifically to raise awareness of how concerned waterfowlers are with the public policy which seems to not consider us and the total economic impact and economy waterfowling has on this state and in particular his district.
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?
Again great questions and don't be afraid to ask. I have a few personal opinions and ideas I'd love to toss around about how to help our waterfowling future in WA. I have come to the conclusion that there aren't any easy answers and this or the next generation will face some tough questions which may make or break waterfowling...particularly in W WA in the future. I hope we have the ability and desire to face it.
-
I've been pretty quiet on the subject so far. I will offer a little perspective from my knothole. One thing that I see DU as is a organization that is doing what it can to ensure there are birds available for future generations. DU is a conservation organization first and foremost. Yes, some things that take place don't necessarily provide you land to hunt on or don't work out as planned. No one person or organization is perfect. They work to provide habitat for the birds for future generations to enjoy.
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.
Here is a picture of a plaque at one restoration project that I helped fund . This refuge will be around for future generations to enjoy and the good that it provides to the birds is secure.
-
DUX, You seem to be very well informed on things, glad you joined :tup:, this thread has been very educational and enlightening
-
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. :dunno:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
:dunno: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :bash:
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
Well i was also "told" that it is a lat easier to "manage" an estuary than actually figure out to how to make a pice of ground productive.
At least i'm not point the finger at DU! :chuckle:
-
I know a few Westside Farmers and they are always looking for land to use, more land to work equals more money for them. perhaps these opportunities are not being made readily available or perhaps they aren't be advertised properly to those would make use of them.
-
Well i was also "told" that it is a lat easier to "manage" an estuary than actually figure out to how to make a pice of ground productive.
At least i'm not point the finger at DU! :chuckle:
That's pretty funny. I like that one.
-
. perhaps these opportunities are not being made readily available or perhaps they aren't be advertised properly to those would make use of them.
Now we are starting to get somewhere :tup:
-
My buddy on the WAG (Waterfowl Advisory Group)has pushed this issue with the WDFW as to why Stillwater and others are not being planted like in the past, but his inqueries have been blown off.
Part of my personal hostility with the WDFW and DU (oops got to point that finger again :chuckle:) is that in our state all ESA related activity trumps any common sence, and any other kind of game. Unfortunalty DU does not see the large local differnce a food source in say the Carnation valley playes vers a resting spot, when there are plenty of those near by.
-
T, I'm on the WAG and been so since the group started(even chaired). The issue you are talking about has been explained and reviewed multiple times. Not sure if your buddy is new or have been there from the beginning but that would impact his perception of things.
After making the same presentation with the same explanation 7 years in a row I will tell you the WDFW folks do become a tad more abrupt over time. That issue has been well explained and the issue is the state doesn't have the money by a mile to do it nor have they found anyone willing to share crop it with them.
About the ESA driving stuff, well that's a bit of a nobrainer. The ESA issue is where all the money is. If the only option you have to trying to manage your waterfowl property is to make your property salmon friendly, that's what you are going to do.
Easy way to fix this, drive the narrative through public policy changes but very very few are active in this area. A few more voices would go a long way. Unfortunately the guys I see doing this are the same guys most waterfowlers demonize for having private clubs. Now how willing do you think those guys are to champion the group which regularly toss them under the bus? Actually a lot more than you'd believe.
-
Since you know about this permitting/share crop issue with the WDFW and why it costs so much I would love to hear your take on it. Especially since you have seen/ heard the whole story.
-
I don't think the cost is the issue the harvest date and the length of the growing season is. To share crop with the state you have to harvest your fields by a particular date or leave it. As I understand it it's way to small a window for most folks to risk. To boot your required to wait for the Spring migration to finish before you start working the land. This makes that window even smaller.
Also the problem with it is things are a lot more predictable on the Eastside of the state (where there is a waiting list) vs WWa where they can't get anyone.
-
"your required to wait for the Spring migration to finish before you start working the land. This makes that window even smaller."
This is the kind of example where i just :bash:. Which is better? letting a feild turn to canadian thissle and blackberry brambles (Stillwater) or making an excemption to a rule that may work some places but sure as hell not in W WA? This kind of one rule covers all makes no logical sence.... Does this share cropping cost the state any $? If not.... wouldn't it be better to have corn, and stubble for only the fall than not at all?
-
Wow, now see that's a great question. Even more shocking, I have an answer. About 5 years ago a study was done W WA carrying capacity. The time when nutritional needs are at there highest and actually below the amount needed vs number of birds is Spring. The #1 food source in the Spring is protein (bug larva in shallow wetlands). This is a huge problem. Most of the private farms are drained and the ground is heavily worked at the time of greatest need. So those flooded public projects and estuaries are beyond critical at that time. To boot we are really the last stop before the breeding grounds so the condition ducks return there will determine how many come through next fall. It's a big deal.
The other thing I have learned about obstructive rules. They usually are put into place because someone heavily abused the program. We all usually pay for the actions of a misguided fee.
-
BTW i appreciate you answereing questions on this forum I think more good has been done by you at others "in the know" on issue by answering basic info. That has alwasy been a huge criticism of mine for the WDFW and most nonprofits.
Excellent point about spring and bugs... I still fail to see the logic for this location, and likely many others, since there is less farm ground and more standing water... I'm not sure where you are located, however many of the birds here on the west sidehave LOTS of small standign water availabe to them in the spring. Mostly in the form of water retention ponds. I see this all the time up and down the HWY 167From tacoma to Renton. It once was farm ground but is now concrete jungles with water retention ponds EVERYWHERE! Your example may n\be important ofr E wa but does not fit the bill of what makes sence for this area In the spring time LOTS of land floods in the carnation valley. Even still water unit has LOTS of low land that is not farmed that floods in small shallow areas... I know i harp on stillwater unit but it is a common thread and i know the area well.
I realize that some of things necessary require REAL time and MGT and that time is at a premium right now. But when the WDFW or anyone else that does things that defy common sence it REALLY bothers me and other hunters. I am not a bio or a Game Mgr but when i have a hard time understanding the logic and don't get good straight answers it really bothers me.
Not that long ago many in the WDFW were more than hunters, they wer sturats that were in love with waterfowl, elk, deer etc. they instinctlvy KNEW what was needed because they LIVED it... Dedicated waterfowlers can learn a bunch from the sudies but the local knowledge of what is needed seems to be glossed over.
-
Now lets take this the next step. Lets ignor what we agree and disagree with and just do this as an educational exercise and assume budget cuts have decimated land management and there really isn't any current fund sources or organizations that can come in and provide funds for land management. How and what can be done?
Lets also ignor estuary creation since that's the route chosen by the current powers that be. I'm just looking for something new I've never considered.
-
You may nned to give me some kind of idea of what your talking about its a lttle vauge... Do you mean as far as land Mgt goes?
Well the first part is something is better than nothing. And while they may have been some rules put in place in the past because of problems, having a less than ideal outcome is better than no benefit...
I would say that a "no cost" benifit to waterfowl in our area is the creation of storm water retention ponds all through out urban areas. It is nothing new but creates the kind of spring bug production you ask for... It is also an alternative to estuaries...
Obviously the share crop can work even with some limitations here on the est side, however that means that broad cover all rules are not approperate if you need to maximise gains and min $$$ spent.
-
How about finding ways to increase waterfowl funding?
Do you think the waterfowl community would accept higher fees or taxes if it was guaranteed to be spent completely on public hunting opportunities?
How about a percentage of the gas tax going to a dedicated fund?
Might there be another type of fund waterfowlers could advocate for?
How about some new type of funding I hadn't considered?
-
NO! and here is why. We have been down this road before in this state. Take the ORV fund, or the Lic plate fees "dedicated" to WDFW... Look at the Discover pass and how they stroke sportmen to support something else. TRUST is a key issue in this state.... My old man has a saying that "trust is earned not given", so what has aany agency in the state done for sportmen? We are sacrificed at the alter everytime DNR or the state has a run in with the tribes. Sportsmen fund the WDFW to take care or wildlife related problems for those who hate sportsmen.
Accountability for the Pitman Roberts funds MAY bring wome credibiity back to an angency that failes us.... Its hard to try and get some where positive with an agency that seems uninterested in developing a positive relationship except how to bilk us for more $$$
-
What about state and federal duck stamps. That program has oversight and has been very effective?
-
Explain those 2 if they have been so sucessful, because I have no idea what they do, and likely many others don't either...
-
Free address labels for envelopes. :IBCOOL:
-
Explain those 2 if they have been so sucessful, because I have no idea what they do, and likely many others don't either...
DR..will do a great job explaining the stamp program, what it does and how it works and the accountability for the funds and how DU maximizes your dollars through the stamp program.
DR,,you have way more patience explaining this stuff...Good job.
-
all DU has ever done for me is harass me about going to $100 a plate dinners. :bdid:
-
Explain those 2 if they have been so sucessful, because I have no idea what they do, and likely many others don't either...
Sorry it took so long and I don't have a ton of time right now but real quickly both funds are dedicated funds with a very narrow definition of use. In the case of the WA duck stamp those funds can only be used to create or improve public waterfowling opportunities. The expenditures are split between capital and opperating expenditures. Capital are funds used to acquire or increase hunting oppertunities and opperating are improvements (ie rebuilding, rehabing, food plots, studies......) to existing public hunting lands.
These funds are overseen by the Waterfowl Advisory Group (WAG). It is a 25 member citizens group which was put together to oversee the duck stamp expenditures, provide input on waterfowl related issues, and be a liaison between the dept and the public. I know quite a bit about the WAG as not only am I an original member I also wrote the WAG's mission statement.
Sorry I took so long to respond but I'm in DC advocating waterfowl issue. So if I'm a bit late please understand I'm a little tied up.
-
Found the site this morning, got approved to post and then immediately read the "Waterfowl" forum...this post actually! I read through all 9 pages (http://:chuckle:) and wanted to actually answer the very first post...
DU has given me cool duck head stickers, a free membership (one year...long story, but a nice one!), a nice magazine I look forward to getting, and as a walk-in hunter at Skagit Headquaters...before and after renovation...I actually like it better now! (Although now I'm confused...did DU help or not?? ) I hunted there probably a dozen times this year.
So...I'm getting what I want out of DU. And if my yearly subscription helps keep ducks out there somewhere to hunt...count me in!
-
"Capital are funds used to acquire or increase hunting opportunities and operating are improvements (ie rebuilding, rehabing, food plots, studies......) to existing public hunting lands." Dr DUX
Thats good to know because we have seen a huge decrease in the planting of food plots here.
-
It's good to know there is an opperating budget but it might be bad to know that even though its half the annual fund the cost of planting has grown so much that it accomplishes very little in that area.
To me a very interesting discussion would be is how much would we as duck hunters be willing to pay for a duck stamp if it garunteed the food plot planting and dike maintenance so many want? In the dept's opinion much more than the public is willing to pay but I'm not sure of that.
-
To me a very interesting discussion would be is how much would we as duck hunters be willing to pay for a duck stamp if it garunteed the food plot planting and dike maintenance so many want? In the dept's opinion much more than the public is willing to pay but I'm not sure of that.
if were talking an iron clad guarantee I would pay $100 bucks without thinking twice. $100 is a pittance compared to getting to what we once had ten-fifteen years ago.
West side pheasant hunters pay $90 ish for their brief two month long pheasant season? but they see a return in the money ( investment if you will) every weekend they hunt. if WDFW can promise massive improvements on water fowling AND deliver, I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility for most duck hunters to pony up the equivalent funds to a night on the town, a tank of gas for their 4x4, or an evening at a DU banquet.
but would it also cover the loss of all the other duck hunters who already have a hard time justifying the money spent on stamps? How many guys or kids that only go out once or twice a season would just not go at all and not buy any stamps because the price was out of their league? I imagine that loss would be huge.
-
"We need more funds" cry falls on deaf ears for me. Trust is a key element for funds and the WDFW does not have it. Especially because the answers given fall back in line with more $$$. In poor economic times we hear there is a shortage of funds, and in the good economic times we are told costs have risen so much we need more $$$! Several of your points my be relevant where you live and hunt, and i'm guessing its the East side of the Mts. If we are to get somewhere we must think outside of the box not whine and complain about how little funds we have. Perhaps Washington water fowlers should find some one with a tractor and some one to donate the use of the planing equipment to plant a few rows of corn on all these "abandoned" pieces of property by the WDFW because it requires too much management. Perhaps Millet should be planted or some other crop if corn takes too long to grow on our side of the mts... If the WDFW does not want to eliminate BS rules preventing good mgt because they can no longer share crop then WWA should find some people do do the heavy lifting for the WDFW surely the WDFW could spare the $$$ for seed and fuel if that was the only cost for planting. I won't support an increase in any funding until the state PROVES how they are spending the money we currently are giving them.
-
T I just explained how there is oversight for the duck stamp spending. The WWA is heavily represented on the WAG. You yourself said you had a good buddy on the WAG. Yet that's not enough?
Stilly, I agree, I think kids, seniors, military, new hunters, and some other groups might need an exception and I'm not advocating anything, just looking for ideas.
-
"We need more funds" cry falls on deaf ears for me. Trust is a key element for funds and the WDFW does not have it. Especially because the answers given fall back in line with more $$$. In poor economic times we hear there is a shortage of funds, and in the good economic times we are told costs have risen so much we need more $$$! Several of your points my be relevant where you live and hunt, and i'm guessing its the East side of the Mts. If we are to get somewhere we must think outside of the box not whine and complain about how little funds we have. Perhaps Washington water fowlers should find some one with a tractor and some one to donate the use of the planing equipment to plant a few rows of corn on all these "abandoned" pieces of property by the WDFW because it requires too much management. Perhaps Millet should be planted or some other crop if corn takes too long to grow on our side of the mts... If the WDFW does not want to eliminate BS rules preventing good mgt because they can no longer share crop then WWA OR DU should find some people do do the heavy lifting for the WDFW surely the WDFW could spare the $$$ for seed and fuel if that was the only cost for planting. I won't support an increase in any funding until the state PROVES how they are spending the money we currently are giving them.
My change is in red, and that is how i should have written it.
-
West side pheasant hunters pay $90 ish for their brief two month long pheasant season? .
Isnt that $90 cost to help cover the cost of pen raised, grain fed, realeased pets they get to shoot???
The state doesnt "Raise & release" ducks.
.
-
I actually went to the Lake Terrell headquarters and volunteered to sit in the cab of the john deere to do some field work that is sorely needed in a reseed program that has went by the wayside since the old manager Tom Reed(a big time waterfowl supporter/sportsman)retired,he was always all over reseeding the food plots as waterfowl was one of his passions along with archery hunting for elk.As has been mentioned those with a passion go farther than their "JOB" in their job.I was told thank you but fuel and seed were not in the budget.I'm a farm raised kid so it wasn't because I don't know how to giter done.I think the fields could benefit from a strip management replanting myself if the funds aren't available for a complete redo.Heck ol Tom was instrumental in the waterfowl habitat improvement on the Intalco area that flooded many acres of land that never held water and he also used to plant feed strips over there as well that were pretty good pheasant hunting opportunities that supplied the dumb chickens with something to eat.Tom played a big role in the marietta project as well if I remember right.Great steward for waterfowl he was.
"We need more funds" cry falls on deaf ears for me. Trust is a key element for funds and the WDFW does not have it. Especially because the answers given fall back in line with more $$$. In poor economic times we hear there is a shortage of funds, and in the good economic times we are told costs have risen so much we need more $$$! Several of your points my be relevant where you live and hunt, and i'm guessing its the East side of the Mts. If we are to get somewhere we must think outside of the box not whine and complain about how little funds we have. Perhaps Washington water fowlers should find some one with a tractor and some one to donate the use of the planing equipment to plant a few rows of corn on all these "abandoned" pieces of property by the WDFW because it requires too much management. Perhaps Millet should be planted or some other crop if corn takes too long to grow on our side of the mts... If the WDFW does not want to eliminate BS rules preventing good mgt because they can no longer share crop then WWA OR DU[/color ]should find some people do do the heavy lifting for the WDFW surely the WDFW could spare the $$$ for seed and fuel if that was the only cost for planting. I won't support an increase in any funding until the state PROVES how they are spending the money we currently are giving them.
My change is in red, and that is how i should have written it.
-
West side pheasant hunters pay $90 ish for their brief two month long pheasant season? .
Isnt that $90 cost to help cover the cost of pen raised, grain fed, realeased pets they get to shoot???
The state doesnt "Raise & release" ducks.
NOOOOOOO Ned, the point I was trying to get across is that West side pheasant hunters pay a ridiculously priced fee for a license because they see it pay off every weekend when they shoot pheasants.
if duck hunters could be promised a huge improvement in duck hunting opportunities (public access, food plots, ect) I am sure they would be more willing to support a massive increase in licensing.
no where did i suggest put n take duck hunting, that would be hell.
-
West side pheasant hunters pay $90 ish for their brief two month long pheasant season? .
Isnt that $90 cost to help cover the cost of pen raised, grain fed, realeased pets they get to shoot???
The state doesnt "Raise & release" ducks.
NOOOOOOO Ned, the point I was trying to get across is that West side pheasant hunters pay a ridiculously priced fee for a license because they see it pay off every weekend when they shoot pheasants.
if duck hunters could be promised a huge improvement in duck hunting opportunities (public access, food plots, ect) I am sure they would be more willing to support a massive increase in licensing.
no where did i suggest put n take duck hunting, that would be hell.
The high price for the chicken punchcard was to cover the cost of pen raised, released to shoot/catch birds....................not abouit improving the hunt.
If a higher priced duck stamp helped provide better hunting spots for duck hunters but please dont try and compare to the chicken permit prices, its apples to oranges.
-
I actually went to the Lake Terrell headquarters and volunteered to sit in the cab of the john deere to do some field work that is sorely needed in a reseed program that has went by the wayside since the old manager Tom Reed(a big time waterfowl supporter/sportsman)retired,he was always all over reseeding the food plots as waterfowl was one of his passions along with archery hunting for elk.As has been mentioned those with a passion go farther than their "JOB" in their job.I was told thank you but fuel and seed were not in the budget.I'm a farm raised kid so it wasn't because I don't know how to giter done.I think the fields could benefit from a strip management replanting myself if the funds aren't available for a complete redo.Heck ol Tom was instrumental in the waterfowl habitat improvement on the Intalco area that flooded many acres of land that never held water and he also used to plant feed strips over there as well that were pretty good pheasant hunting opportunities that supplied the dumb chickens with something to eat.Tom played a big role in the marietta project as well if I remember right.Great steward for waterfowl he was.
The waterfowlers of this state definetely lost a great resource when Tom Reed retired! I only met the man one time, but it was a great experience. He was extremely helpful. Terrell was a great place to hunt back then.
-
West side pheasant hunters pay $90 ish for their brief two month long pheasant season? .
Isnt that $90 cost to help cover the cost of pen raised, grain fed, realeased pets they get to shoot???
The state doesnt "Raise & release" ducks.
NOOOOOOO Ned, the point I was trying to get across is that West side pheasant hunters pay a ridiculously priced fee for a license because they see it pay off every weekend when they shoot pheasants.
if duck hunters could be promised a huge improvement in duck hunting opportunities (public access, food plots, ect) I am sure they would be more willing to support a massive increase in licensing.
no where did i suggest put n take duck hunting, that would be hell.
The high price for the chicken punchcard was to cover the cost of pen raised, released to shoot/catch birds....................not abouit improving the hunt.
If a higher priced duck stamp helped provide better hunting spots for duck hunters but please dont try and compare to the chicken permit prices, its apples to oranges.
once again you miss my point, if you want to take this into PM I will explain it to you, but please quit unraveling this thread, there has been a lot of good info so far and little squabbling.
-
Slightly off topic but I feel it needs to be mentioned that the 90 fee for chicken ticket is the same as it ever was,a small game license is not required for wetside chickens.It used to be required with the 42 dollar 8 bird punchcard and that equaled close to 90 bucks when both were purchased.
-
Ask many of the clubs around Moses Lake what they think of DU. They do help the clubs and I strongly disagree with many of their practices.
-
Which clubs and how did they help? Did DU pay for it or did the club owner?I'm interested in this as I know most the club owners around Moses Lake down to the Tri-Cities and up through Yakima. I'm also pretty familiar with a lot of the DU, inter mountain joint venture, NRCS, and NC projects done in WA.
So which clubs?
-
I can't understand the selfishness of a hunter who thinks that doing things to improve the habitat and numbers of their prey isn't a direct enough benefit to them. I support DU for that reason alone. Habitat protection is everything.
-
A littl elate to the party but....
In my neck of the woods the blinds out at Belfair were built with DU dollarsand volunteers.
NOT WDFW dollars and volunteers.
Plus, they are like the NRA in that they silently have a huge say in Washington D.C. to help fight for out hunting rights and conservation.
and... well, I could go off all day on this subject, BUT....
I get your initial point. Its not allways evident to the individual how impactful they have been.
oh... maybe I could point out that they practically single handidly brought duck numbers up from hunting limit of 4 a day in washington back in the 90's to 7 a day in washington now.
THAT should be enough that you notice.