Hi gang,

Just curious. I don't know much about DW, and what they do, but have heard casually from some folks that they believe DW is more...down to earth, maybe? I dunno'. I'm a DU member and am casually involved in the organization as a volunteer, on the committee for the Boston DU chapter for several years, and feel it's a good organization that benefits the birds in many ways. Anyway, to the point: in my capacity as beggar I have at times heard from people I'm hitting up for donations for banquets or whatever that they used to donate to DU, but for some reason soured on it. No definitive explanations were ever really offered, but a few said that they give instead to DW. What gives? Any insight welcome.

Cheers,

KG

P.S. Is it almost duck season yet?

By DW do you mean Delta Wildlife?

DW is Delta Waterfowl. I dont think that either one is the better organization. IMO they both are good organizations that do a lot for waterfowl.

Both are good organizations and have done a lot for "awareness" of wetlands and how important they are to waterfowl in general.

In reality, neither have near the impact they think they do as compared a "wet" year on the Canadian prairie pothole areas. Rain and farming practices which leave a green belt around potholes and marshes impact duck populations more than anything. Limited bags in the US are not much help when south of the border there are no bag limits on the same ducks.

One of the best things about DW is their efforts to educate the public on wetlands and how we can each help.

I am not opposed to either group and have donated to both, but realize that your donations may not go as far as you would like to think.

DW also promotes varmit hunting. Varmit's account for several million eggs, ducklings and adults each year and they are growing unchecked. Much of the natural cover gets plowed under or burned off for crops. Ducks need hiding places. Support one or both but support...please.
LDK

Delta Waterfowl is a much leaner organization that DU which spends way too much on overhead, offices, etc as far as I'm concerned. In addition, I think DUs opposition to predator control, mostly, I think, because DW came out so strongly for it is just plain stupid.

I support both groups but my bigger donations, by far, go to Delta Waterfowl.

dogcat you are absolutely correct. No rain in the prarie pothole region means no ducks. Both organizations do alot to protect these breeding grounds and any other stance by the org. to me is simply political mudslinging

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Both are good organizations and have done a lot for "awareness" of wetlands and how important they are to waterfowl in general.

In reality, neither have near the impact they think they do as compared a "wet" year on the Canadian prairie pothole areas. Rain and farming practices which leave a green belt around potholes and marshes impact duck populations more than anything. Limited bags in the US are not much help when south of the border there are no bag limits on the same ducks.

One of the best things about DW is their efforts to educate the public on wetlands and how we can each help.

I am not opposed to either group and have donated to both, but realize that your donations may not go as far as you would like to think.

You and the last poster seem to miss the mission of both organizations. Obviously neither they nor any of us (skipping the Global Warming debate) can control precipitation levels in the Canadian and Northern US plains, but having enough suitable habitat for the ducks to take maximum advantage of whatever conditions exist is something they can and do help with. BTW unlike what you said, the MAIN source of water in Canada and most of the Northern zones is not rain but snow.

Both DU and DW are working hard to help establish private and government supported efforts to pay the farmers to keep potholes in good shape. Believe me, if its dry they plow up to an through them which basically destroys their usefulness for nesting for at least a couple of years.

Finally, the amount of ducks shot South of the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the US/Canadian kill, that's just an excuse for some to say, "What the hell, they're doing it down there, we'll shoot a few more up here too." Bullshit.

Duck hunting is a grand sport, but all who practice it ain't grand. I'm way too familiar with a bunch of DU prima donnas who think because they've donated serious money to DU that gives them a "pass" on the rules and laws which apply to the rest of us. It probably happens in DW too, I just haven't been around some of their heavy supporters.

Gatogordo, good post.

If you can support both.

I give to both, but do support DU more. I do have issues with both organizations. DU DOES have too much overhead, says that they are not per se' a pro-hunting organization, and can be elitist... DW, I believe focuses too much on predator control which I believe is flawed logic (I believe it is a factor but not to the level that it is focused on) and splits unity and funds. I wish that the good points of both organizations could be combined... All that being said I gladly donate to both because they both support the sport I love.

As far as DU prima donnas, I have witnessed far more "non-affliated" ignoramus's who had to be outlawing than DU folks. Of course the DU folks should know better.

Both are great organizations, I've been a sponsor member of both at the same time; reminds me I need to join Delta again.

DU main focus seems to be habitat, DW main focus is on research, especially predator control.

quote:

Posted 17 April 2008 18:43 Hide Post
Delta Waterfowl is a much leaner organization that DU which spends way too much on overhead, offices, etc as far as I'm concerned. In addition, I think DUs opposition

Plus Delta supports hunting DU does not.

I'm not looking for a fight here, but speaking on behalf of my local DU chapter WRT your comment: that's a bunch of misinformed bullshit.

Cheers,

KG

As long as DU has their incredibly STUPID policy of not controlling predation on DU habitat and promoting it everywhere, mostly I believe, because the concept was really researched and promulgated by DW (a variation of the NIH, not invented here syndrome), the ratio of my donations to DU Vs DW will remain about where it was last year when I joined DW as a life member, about 10 to 1 in favor of DW.

KG:

I don't seem to be able to solve how to send a "private message" to you. If you will be so kind as to show me how, I'll be glad to send a small check to DU or as you direct. (You will have to keep this top secret or I may have trouble at Yankee Stadium!) Regards.

KG, why don't you give details and answers specifically to what you don't agree with... you might also want to consider just speaking for yourself... I've never been a member of a DU chapter, or any other organization where I felt I could speak on behalf of, agree with totally, or convey anyone else's opinion...

Give your facts, or state your opinions in a well thought out manner.....

I belong to both organizations, and believe each suits a purpose.... I also feel that DU could be a lot leaner organization, and communicate better with members... and DW gets a little more of my money and volunteering..

Do your own research, and ask questions from your regional and local reps... don't be a silent majority...

quote:

Originally posted by 470CapstickA2:
KG, why don't you give details and answers specifically to what you don't agree with... you might also want to consider just speaking for yourself... I've never been a member of a DU chapter, or any other organization where I felt I could speak on behalf of, agree with totally, or convey anyone else's opinion...

Give your facts, or state your opinions in a well thought out manner.....

I belong to both organizations, and believe each suits a purpose.... I also feel that DU could be a lot leaner organization, and communicate better with members... and DW gets a little more of my money and volunteering..

Do your own research, and ask questions from your regional and local reps... don't be a silent majority...

Thanks for the response, and while I guess I'm just not in the mood to rehash, this is the statement I took issue with: "Plus Delta supports hunting DU does not".

As far as your suggestions on research and finding out for myself, I guess you missed that too, but I've been on the DU Boston committee for a number of years now. We usually raise about $50K a year through our dinner. I am active in volunteer efforts via DU, and do a good bit of other work on the side to promote conservation and hunting in general. While I do appreciate the post, I don't appreciate your condescending, patronizing tone. 'Do my research' and 'speak for myself'? I always speak for myself, chum, unless I can give an accurate statement about a group I am part of. Since I am actively involved with local DU chapters, and have hunted hard with the past 6 DU Boston committee chairmen, as well as about every member on our team, and have direct knowledge of our goals, I think maybe you might reconsider your trying to school me here. Silent majority? Sheeit.

KG -

I'm guessing you realize, through your board-level involvement, that it's the political wheel-greasing that's where the most bang-for-buck is achieved for hunting.

Haven't heard anything about the political (fighting the anti's) angle on this thread, but I'd guess that's where a "GOOD" percentage of DU funds go.

Kudos.

quote:

Originally posted by 1 Shot Hunter:
KG -

I'm guessing you realize, through your board-level involvement, that it's the political wheel-greasing that's where the most bang-for-buck is achieved for hunting.

Haven't heard anything about the political (fighting the anti's) angle on this thread, but I'd guess that's where a "GOOD" percentage of DU funds go.

Kudos.

Your guess is wrong.

quote:

Your guess is wrong.

He doesn't realize...? Or you think that "feeding ducks" is the most critical hunting issue...?

Ok, I wasn't very clear... my last line was geared towards post readers... not you in particular

So I was not being condescending, or patronizing..

Your post started that you were "casually" involved
in DU activities... but it seems your quite the
activist, and were looking for answers why some
people were turning from DU and apparently
leaning towards DW.

It seems you got some opinionated answers, and instead
of trying to "educate", you threw gas on a fire.

I commend you and your chapter on your work, but
perhaps not all chapters are as "ideal" as yours
may be.

As times and money, donations, and man power become
rarer commodities, all conservation groups will
need to work cooperatively to achieve our goals.
Petty rivalries will continue to keep us divided
against a foe that already has numbers and money
in place....

Keep posting and educating, and I think you will
find the answers and outcomes you are looking for.

Peace...

Al

quote:

Originally posted by 1 Shot Hunter:

quote:

Your guess is wrong.

He doesn't realize...? Or you think that "feeding ducks" is the most critical hunting issue...?

I'm not sure of the point of your post, if there is one. Ducks Unlimited is/was set up by duck hunters BUT it's stated goal has nothing to do with promoting hunting....specifically "The stated mission of the organization is “wetlands sufficient to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow, and forever.†I'm not suggesting in any way that DU is not pro-hunting, which it is, but rather that it's goals are not the promotion of hunting but rather increasing and maintaining duck populations.

Delta Waterfowl has a more hunter oriented mission.....specifically,

"Mission:

Delta provides knowledge, leaders and science-based solutions that efficiently conserve waterfowl and secure the future for waterfowl hunting.

Strategic Objectives:

Conduct high-quality research


Train students


Communicate results


Evaluate new scientific techniques


Influence public policy


Preserve and promote hunting as an integral part of waterfowl management."

I'm not posting this to promote one organization over the other but in both organizations, promotion of hunting is not the prime issue but rather they both believe in continuing the grand tradition of American waterfowling by maintaining and hopefully, increasing duck and goose numbers, they just use somewhat different methods to attempt to achieve the same ultimate goal. Honestly, I think DUs "goal" just took waterfowl hunting as a given. Who'd have thought 75 years or so ago that there would actually be a serious anti-hunting movement?

I would not choose one over the other on the basis of this superficial analysise, they are both good organizations, personally I prefer DWs approach as a bit more helpful to waterfowling BUT DU has more money and has over the years produced a much larger footprint on the issue. As I said earlier, I support both gladly, but lean towards DW myself. YMMV.

Excellent post Gator..

From Delta Waterfowl,



The Vanishing Hunter, Part II

How the ‘King’s Deer’ became the ‘People’s Deer’

Hunters like Teddy Roosevelt saved hunting from extinction a hundred years ago.

But with hunter numbers in decline, who’ll save hunting in the 21st century?

Why the North American Conservation Model is so important.

By Jim Posewitz


For several years residents near Loch Coille-Bharr in Scotland have debated the possible release of the largest mammal to be legally reintroduced in Britain. The project failed in 2005 as critics called it a menace and landowners vigorously opposed the project. Scottish conservationist Simon Jones describes the beast as “a relatively big animal…a large tubby squirrel with short legs and big teeth. The beast is the beaver, it has been extinct in Britain for 250 years, and conservationists are trying to bring it back, welcome to the European Model of wildlife conservation.

Most of us were born into a place and time that included an abundance of wildlife. It is difficult to imagine the landscapes we know without beaver, deer, elk, wild geese and the wily coyote. The truth is, however, the lower forty-eight states of North America were once virtually stripped of all the animals that had a market value.

In 1885 Theodore Roosevelt described the commercial carnage with a story of a northern plains cowboy who had just ridden a thousand miles, and then told TR that he “was never out of sight of a dead buffalo and never in sight of a live one.â€

Our hunting heritage sat on the brink of oblivion. The buffalo, elk, bison and other animals were indeed in peril and could have passed to extinction here, just as the aurochs, boar, bear, wolf, reindeer and beaver did in Britain. Our American wildlife legacy might have ended late in the 19th Century were it not for the emergence of a new deal for wildlife—and for people. In time, that deal would be described as the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation.

Simply put, the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation (the Model) is how our society found a way to value, restore, conserve and share the wild resources of a continent. The Model is rooted in our legal system, our political system, and our cultural will.

Since none of our nation’s founding documents addressed fish and wildlife, it was left to the courts to define our relationship with the wild. In a long series of decisions dating back to 1842, fish and wildlife have been defined as public resources held in trust by the states, for all the people. In that first case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that by virtue of the Declaration of Independence the people in our democracy were the sovereign. What that meant in short was, the king’s deer became the people’s game.

Learning to live with this new reality was difficult, and America went through a very dark time when commercial interests slaughtered wildlife for the market, and by 1885 game populations were near collapse.

In 1887, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Gifford Pinchot and others formed a club for the restoration of wildlife to America. When TR became our president he used the ‘bully pulpit’ to embed a conservation ethic in our culture, setting aside roughly 84,000 acres a day for every day he held the White House.

When wildlife restoration faltered, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the first North American Wildlife Conference in 1936. He called upon the people to unite in the fish and wildlife conservation effort. The people responded by creating a national affiliation of sportsmen’s clubs, and within a year won landmark federal legislation to fund the recovery. Back in their communities these hunters and anglers went to work on the restoration of habitat and the protection of wildlife, while enriching the conservation ethic in the people.

By the time the 20th Century came to a close, three generations of those sovereign people had successfully restored wildlife across the country: When Theodore Roosevelt entered the White House, there were about half a million deer in the nation; today there are more than 30 million whitetails alone. In 1907 the nation’s elk population stood near 40,000, there are now at least a million. When Franklin Roosevelt called the hunters together, there may have been a million Canada geese on our continent. By 2003 the annual goose harvest was climbing toward 3 million.

This massive restoration of wildlife was probably the greatest environmental achievement in human history.

In England, where ‘the king’s deer’ passed to private property, the aurochs, boar, bear, beaver, wolf and reindeer went extinct. In America, where wildlife became the ‘people’s game’ we have deer in our suburbs, bears in our orchards and goose dung on every golf shoe in America. None of this happened by accident.

Finding our way to a conservation ethic that would work wasn’t easy, we had to hunt for it. In the process, we learned that if we were to hunt at all, we all had to conserve and share. That is how—and why—it worked.

In 2001 three wildlife biologists described the Model in a professional paper titled: Why Hunting Has Defined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In 2002 the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies endorsed the Model and its seven basic principles:

Wildlife as Public-Trust Resources
Elimination of Markets for Wildlife
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Wildlife Can Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy
Democracy of Hunting
It is, however, still up to the people in our democratic form of governance to embrace and protect these fundamental principles that brought wildlife to our time.

History teaches that those who would privatize and commercialize the people’s game, or dredge up an aristocracy of hunting, are not new. They were around in Theodore Roosevelt’s time and he left us some guidance. The following passages are his:

“The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the… conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.â€


“We do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many. Our aim is to preserve our natural resource for the public as a whole, for the average man and the average woman who make up the body of the American people.â€


“Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is… in our power… to preserve game…and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means.â€


“There have been aristocracies which have played a great and beneficent part at stages in the growth of mankind; but we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy, and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.â€
For three generations, conservationists addressed habitat challenges, biological puzzles and law enforcement issues to bring the people’s game into a new century. As we entered the 21st Century, we noted with alarm that the component of our culture responsible for this wildlife renaissance, the hunter, was in decline.

How could an activity so profoundly linked to our lifestyle for a century find itself fading from our culture? Since this unique North American Model and the abundance it has restored are worth keeping, we need to examine the various social influences impacting hunter numbers.

The impact commercialized hunting is having on opportunity and recruitment has received precious little attention.

Commerce, or some form of exchange involving dead wildlife, has been a constant in our human evolution. At times our commercial companions have been fundamental to the success of fish and wildlife restoration. The best example of their positive potential remains the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment that are returned to state wildlife agencies.

However, to see the dark side of commerce, simply check the advertisements for exclusive hunting experiences found in most sporting journals. None of these advertisements include the words: the public is welcome to share the abundance. A new plutocracy of the hunt seems to be emerging, and like the aristocracy of previous times, it is not likely to honor that democracy of the hunt principle basic to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Historian Daniel Justin Herman wrote an article titled Hunting Democracy in which he stated, “American citizens, not those who governed them, were sovereign. In the U.S., moreover, every adult … enjoyed another right that only kings and aristocrats had held in earlier centuries: the right to hunt … The right to hunt and the right to make political choices (vote) emerged simultaneously in the U.S.â€

Herman went on to observe: “At one moment, hunting has operated in American culture as a rite of democracy and at the next, as a rite of aristocracy. That pendulum swing continues today.â€

As that pendulum swings toward aristocracy, it knocks more hunters out of field than the anti-hunters could ever have hoped to. The problem with many forms of commercialized hunting opportunity is not that they seek some compensation for the landowner or for services provided. The problem is their own belief that they must exclude every common or aspiring hunter unable or unwilling to pay the toll.

The North American Model worked because we the people willed it, and then made it happen. Let us aspire to sustain the model and the seven principles that make it work. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to have paying clients and free hunters hunting the same marsh, both taking time to learn and appreciate why the other is there.

Perhaps we could choose to not confront an aspiring hunter with a sign declaring hunting as private. As never before, we need to protect the two special pillars of the North American Model that made the whole process work: wildlife as a public trust and the democracy of the hunt.

In 1883, on his first trip to hunt buffalo on the vanishing American frontier, a 24-year-old Theodore Roosevelt spent several nights in Gregor Lang’s cabin on North Dakota’s Cannonball Creek. They held spirited discussions on topics important to our young nation. Gregor’s son Lincoln listened from his bunk as the men talked late into the night.

Years later Lincoln would write: “It was listening to those talks after supper in the old shack on the Cannonball that I first came to understand that the Lord made the earth for all of us and not for a chosen few.â€

Now, 115 years later, that is a perspective worth hanging on to and taking to the field, forest and marsh. The future of hunting in America may depend on it.

The list of reasons for the decline may be long, with some being obvious and others simply superficial distractions. For example, much has been said about the many influences competing for the attention of our youth. This issue is among the obvious and many hunting organizations have launched excellent youth programs. These programs are necessary, and we all need to pitch in and help make them work.

Since the word superficial was used to define the other end of the spectrum, let me suggest that anti-hunting groups and their campaigns occupy more of our time and attention than they deserve. They have been around for a century, and while they raise a lot of money and live well, they have not damaged hunting. Hunting is still clearly okay with most Americans. Even those aspiring to be our nation’s president continue to create photo-ops with dog and gun.

Regardless of where anyone stands WRT allegiance to DU, DW or Big Bird's Sesame Street Consortium, I am proud to continue to embrace the tradition that has been practiced, and indeed, cemented in law in the state of Massachusetts better than 350 years ago, specifically in the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-1647, which state:

"Every Inhabitant that is an howse holder shall have free fishing and fowling in any great ponds and Bayes, Coves and Rivers, so farre as the sea ebbes and flowes within the presincts of the towne where they dwell, unlesse the free men of the same Towne or the General Court have otherwise appropriated them, provided that this shall not be extended to give leave to any man to come upon others proprietie without there leave."

I tip my hat to those wise old guys who see to it to this very day that my rights are secured.

KG