# Duck Issue Hot In Canada



## DeltaBoy (Mar 4, 2004)

Dennis Anderson: Duck issue hot in Canada
Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune

Minnesota has duck problems. But it's not alone. And given that some 70 percent of ducks killed in the state originate their flights elsewhere -- primarily in Canada -- perhaps our duck problems aren't all of our own making.

Such would be one interpretation of a conflict in prairie Canada that has boiled over in recent weeks.

Delta Waterfowl Foundation, a venerable, albeit relatively small, group with roots that extend deep into Minnesota soil, announced in recent days it has been kicked off, essentially, the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (PHJV) in western Canada.

PHJV is one of various joint ventures that make up the North American Waterfowl Management Plan -- a program developed in the late 1980s to attempt to reverse d! eclining duck populations.

Minnesota, for example, with the Dakotas, Iowa and Montana, form one such consortium, the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.

But the duck-production action traditionally has been on the Canadian prairies. It's there where, during most of the past century, more than half of the continent's ducks have been produced.

It's there also where PHJV has operated.

Now indications flare up that a lot of money -- some $600 million, perhaps -- has been spent in Canada, ostensibly to benefit ducks, but without much to show for it.

Much of that money has come from American taxpayers in the form of grants under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA).

With Ducks Unlimited-Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Canadian version of The Nature Conservancy, as well as provincial and other representatives, Delta Waterfowl Foundation has been a board member of PHJV.

But not a happy one -- at! least not in recent years.

In its magazine, Delta ha! s questi oned the efficiency of duck-habitat and duck-production efforts of PHJV and, by its own admission, has been a bit of a thorn in the side of other board members.

"We want to be a partner in Canada," said Rob Olson, president of the Delta foundation. "But we have some issues that really need to be discussed, such as, what have we accomplished for $650 million?"

Delta is also a member of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, with Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Iowa, Ducks Unlimited and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olson said significant differences exist between that joint venture and PHJV, primarily that an accounting of habitat and other work done on the U.S. side is readily available.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can tell you where the joint venture has done what, and what's worked and what hasn't," Olson said.

It's no secret that Ducks Unlimited-Canada, which is the major player in the Canadian joint venture, and Delta have s! crapped in recent years over a variety of issues.

One need only look at the new Cabela's Waterfowl catalog, the first two pages of which are dedicated to Delta, to gain a sense of the tension .

"Predators are the major factor inhibiting duck production," Delta proclaims, and, "Securing general habitat alone is not enough to increase duck production rates."

Ducks Unlimited might not completely disagree with that, but the group wouldn't advocate those statements, either -- at least not as the top issues facing ducks, which is Delta's position.

(Top DU officials in the United States and Canada were unavailable for comment Thursday.)

Late last year, the Canadian joint venture board developed a "charter" it asked each member to sign. Delta refused, saying it was an effort to keep the group quiet and might also prohibit it in some instances from soliciting contributions.

Additionally, Olson said, Delta believed if it signed th! e charter it would be endorsing the joint venture's efforts, w! hich it can't do until a full accounting of monies spent on Canadian conservation is made.

Dave Ankney, a retired waterfowl ecology professor at the University of Western Ontario, said he believes only about 350,000 acres have been purchased or secured through easements under PHJV, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent.

All of which is important to U.S. waterfowlers because Ducks Unlimited members here send a lot of money north each year to Ducks Unlimited-Canada. And NAWCA funds, contributed by American taxpayers, also go to Canada.

Delta is particularly affected by the conflict because it no longer has a seat on the PHJV board and because the board also has said Delta isn't eligible to receive NAWCA funds (Delta disagrees).

Bottom line: Regardless of who is at fault, if anyone, this matter had better get straightened out quickly. Historically, American waterfowlers have been a generous bunch, contributing to conservation their time a! nd millions of dollars.

But of late they've grown embittered by a lack of ducks, and if they get even a hint their efforts are being wasted, their contributions to Canada -- and everyone involved -- will dry up faster than Saskatchewan's prairie potholes did this last hot summer.


----------



## Capt. Kevin (Mar 1, 2004)

this all happens for a reason. even how pro-delta everyone here is i just think that delta cannot become a legitimate player in conservation until they steer their focus to habitat. delta trapping predators will produce a few more ducks for this year but DU making a nesting island will produce many more ducks for many more years. buy some habitat, maybe move alittle dirt design a wetlands for opitimum duck production. In my eyes delta traps afew skunks....? builds a few nesting boxes then abandons them( like along highway 2 but their still on their map?) and slings mud at DU (which since they moved to bis is all ihear about) I agree trapping predators is good as are building duck boxes... but it wont fix any problems in the long term. maybe use some revenue to get CRP back or build something so my kids and their kids can see ducks.

maybe im a dumb college kid but thats how ive seen it. let me know if im wrong. i dont mean to step on any toes here. it seems if ya'll are delta through and through. but take a look from outside your little box.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

DeltaBoy said:


> Dennis Anderson: Duck issue hot in Canada
> Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
> 
> But of late they've grown embittered by a lack of ducks, and if they get even a hint their efforts are being wasted, their contributions to Canada -- and everyone involved -- will dry up faster than Saskatchewan's prairie potholes did this last hot summer.


YA THINK!! 650 mil and nothing to hang their hat on. $2000 an acre for nice looking habitat that does not produce ducks, looks like maybe it isn't all about the habitat. HHHMMMM?

DU needs to get their heads out of their a$$es and knock the chip off their shoulder.


----------



## ND_duckman (Feb 17, 2006)

I will start off by saying both organizations do good things in the waterfowl world.

That being said, good point Capt. Kevin... Only so much habitat can be secured. Once all the habitat is secured then we can look at controlling the predators.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bashing DU or Delta is counter productive if you hunt waterfowl. They do compliment each other. Each organization has its strong points and IMO no one organization can or should be an all encompassing waterfowl beneficiary, both organizations are doing what they can with what they have received, Stretching themselves to thin would not benefit anything.

Second guess all you want but until you join one or both organizations and get involved in more than just paying dues neither will attain the lofty goals they have set for their organizations. I belong to Delta I can assure you that Delta Waterfowl is more than just a predator control organization, Just as DU is more than just a habitat/easement organization.

I challenge you to join one or both of these organizations and to get involved. If you hunt waterfowl they have both done a lot to help sustain waterfowl populations and habitat.

Bob Kellam
Co-Chairman 
Delta Waterfowl Agassiz 4 Curls Chapter 
(South Eastern ND and Western MN)


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bob Kellam said:


> Bashing DU or Delta is counter productive if you hunt waterfowl. They do compliment each other.


No they don't. The behind the scene back-biting from DU will never gain an ounce of ground for the betterment of both Orgs. You want to talk about counter-productive, where do they stand with ALUS. They are losing for a lack of better term "market share" to a fast growing Delta because folks can actually see what they are getting for the $$. Blown funds from a huge member/supporter coffer does not sit well with folks as well as slamming the door on what could be a brother org. for the whole waterfowl community trying to support the ducks as they see fit.

Whether its as simple as a membership or helping at a banquet or boots on the ground, support is support and one should not diminish either.

Been a supporter of Delta for quite some time and DU for helluva alot longer, but their assanine politics is really starting to rub my fur the wrong way, it's time for them to reach out with the right hand and start working with Delta, not against. 
Done.


----------



## Dunk221999 (Sep 11, 2002)

Delta Is For The Ducks.......

DU seems to be more worried about corporate success than what is best for the ducks.

Delta has shown that Habitat is a very critical factor to increasing duck production, but there are other factors that go into it. Predator control, man made nesting structures ect. Yet after all the research and $$ Delta has spent to back up their hypothesis, DU still won't totally accept that as fact.

I hope the pressure gets put on DU. They are a great organization and have done many wonderful things for ducks over its history, but i think they have lost site of their true mission and vision which is DUCKS UNLIMITED.


----------



## ND_duckman (Feb 17, 2006)

DU AND DELTA are both for the ducks&#8230;&#8230;



> DU seems to be more worried about corporate success than what is best for the ducks.


I am confused as to why you say DU is more worried about corporate success than what is best for the ducks. Can you explain to me how DU is doing that, just so I can see where you are comming from.



> Delta has shown that Habitat is a very critical factor to increasing duck production, but there are other factors that go into it. Predator control, man made nesting structures ect. Yet after all the research and $$ Delta has spent to back up their hypothesis, DU still won't totally accept that as fact.


Actually DU totally stands behind the fact that habitat is very critical factor in waterfowl production.

"Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people." http://www.ducks.org/Aboutdu/default.aspx



> I hope the pressure gets put on DU. They are a great organization and have done many wonderful things for ducks over its history, but i think they have lost site of their true mission and vision which is DUCKS UNLIMITED.


The vision of Ducks Unlimited is to have sufficient wetlands to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever. DU accomplished this in 2005 by putting 87 cents on the dollar towards waterfowl/wetlands conservation and education.


----------



## lngbw (Sep 26, 2006)

I think that Habitat is the key to success. Predators are always going to be problem. You think there is a lot of costs associated with purchasing, protecting, or bettering habitat? The cost of predator control is three fold for the isame increase in duck production.

If you ask me I think that Delta is sick and tired of DU's crap!!

There is way to much money spent on DU's corporate side.

If there is a lesson to be learned I think they should look at what Pheasants Forever has done to keep dollars local and doing real grass roots restoration.

If PF chapters had 600 million to spend I can guarantee it would be done more efficiiently than either Delta or DU.

Don't get me wrong both groups have done a lot for all wildlife but to much money spent on adminstration and other things instead of going right back into the ground.

Vagabond
Biologist Pheasants Forever


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

As I said previously Delta is more than just predator control.

Here is another aspect of Delta Waterfowl, Notice some of the names in the article.
************************************************************
*History of Delta's Research Program *

By Wanda Gorsuch, Research Program Coordinator

Delta Waterfowl Research Station

When people hear that Delta Waterfowl has a student Research Program, probably the first thing that springs to mind is a bunch of college freshmen sweeping up duck droppings or writing 500-word theme papers on why they like ducks. In reality Delta's 65 plus year-old research program has nurtured some of the brightest minds and produced some of the most meaningful research in the history of waterfowl management. 
Shortly after the program was launched in the 1930's, Aldo Leopold (the father of wildlife management) wrote,

It is certain that the Delta setup is rich in possibilities for work on important problems not yet visualized by other organizations.

Not surprisingly, Leopold's words proved prophetic.

In the Beginning&#8230;

*James Ford Bell*

"Duck Hunters Owe a Big Debt to James Ford Bell"

James Ford Bell, the founder of General Mills (think Cheerios), was unhappy with declining waterfowling conditions at his local hunting grounds in Minnesota and started to look around for better sport. In the end, the large fall flights of canvasbacks at Manitoba's Delta Marsh attracted Bell. By the 1920's Bell had purchased 50,000 acres of the Delta Marsh. 
Bell, his family and guests became regular visitors to the area, somewhat to the annoyance of local hunters who worried about sportsmen from the United States further depleting a declining population of waterfowl stressed by drought conditions. However, Bell took great pride in being an ethical hunter and conservationist and did not take these criticisms lightly. He decided to demonstrate his commitment to waterfowl and in 1929 built a hatchery with the intention of releasing two ducks for every bird he and his guests shot.

Bell's philosophy is reflected in this quote from Flyways - Pioneering Waterfowl Management in North America:

When I first went to Delta there were no limits except those that were self-imposed. Despite this freedom, we did set limits, both as to amount and to the number of shells to be used in getting that limit.

Still, it troubled me to think that we were destroying without making some effort at replenishment. It occurred to me that it would be possible by artificial means to put back into the air as many or more birds as were killed.

Between 1932 and 1937 Bell was well on his way to fulfilling his objective with the release of 9,798 hand-reared birds that included mallards, pintails, shovelers, blue-wing teal, redheads, canvasbacks and lesser scaup, to the wild.

But this wasn't enough for Bell. He and his estate keeper/hatchery manager, Edward Ward, came to realize,

&#8230;we must go much deeper into the matter to have an understanding of the various phases of their lives.

Bell decided that no one was better qualified to head up a waterfowl research program at the Delta Marsh than the renowned naturalist Aldo Leopold. But when he approached Leopold he was turned down.

Leopold was under the impression that all Bell was interested in was the artificial production of canvasbacks. Leopold felt too little was known about canvasbacks in the wild to commit funding and manpower to such a project.

But Bell was not a man to readily accept rejection and he continued to pursue scientists to help secure his vision. He convinced Dr. Miles D. Pirnie from Michigan State University to visit Delta. Pirnie was so amazed by the facilities and the opportunities for waterfowl research he managed to convince Leopold to give Bell another chance.

This second meeting between the two men in April of 1938 was more productive than the first. Leopold discovered that Bell was more interested in offering his plant and his property for any research useful to waterfowl conservation rather than just raising ducks.

After the meeting Leopold made a presentation in support of Bell's plan to the technical committee of the American Wildlife Institute. He was successful. The Committee agreed to provide $1,000 in support of a graduate student to work at Delta.

Enter Al Hochbaum

Aldo Leopold and Albert Hochbaum 
H. Albert Hochbaum, a graduate student of Leopold's from the University of Wisconsin, was appointed to spend June through November at Delta Marsh conducting research at facilities provided by James Ford Bell. Peter Ward, Edward Ward's son, became his research assistant. 
According to an excerpt from Sporting Classics, Hochbaum exclaimed on his arrival at Delta

&#8230;this is the place I have always dreamed of!

With the arrival of Hochbaum, the Delta Research Station and Program were born. After completing a project on canvasbacks, Hochbaum became Scientific Director at Delta, a position he held until 1970. You can read about Al Hochbaums work on canvasbacks in his book The Canvasback on a Prairie Marsh.

When Hochbaum retired in 1970 he was replaced by Dr. Bob Jones. Only a few years later Peter Ward took over as station director. Assisted by Dr. Bruce Batt and numerous other notable scientists, Peter Ward continued to provide Delta with scientific wisdom and guidance.

During the 1980s a team of scientists supported by Delta launched what was to be one of the largest and most in-depth study of wetland ecology ever conducted - The Marsh Ecology Research project (MERP). This project alone contributed 93 scientific publications and 16 graduate theses and dissertations. This project is summarized in the book Prairie Wetland Ecology, The Contribution of the Marsh Ecology Research Program.

Currently the program is as strong as ever with over 20 graduate students working across North America every year. The latest accomplishments of Delta-funded students includes insights into the effectiveness of predator management via intensive trapping as a tool to produce ducks, the effectiveness of botulism clean-up on survival of molting birds, and the nesting ecology of pintails in the heavily farmed prairies of Canada. Equally ground-breaking studies in the past were investigation into mechanisms of spacing by breeding ducks, philopatry (homing to breeding areas), techniques for sexing and aging waterfowl, and the importance of small ponds and potholes for breeding ducks.

A Who's Who in Waterfowl Management

But Delta produces more than research. Delta's alumnus includes some of the biggest names in the waterfowl world. Delta students can be found scattered throughout key positions in universities, government agencies and private waterfowl organizations.

Current examples include Dr. Frank Rohwer, Associate Professor at Louisiana State University and Delta's Scientific Director; Dr. Rick Kaminski, Professor at Mississippi State University; Mr. Dale Caswell, Chief, Waterfowl Management Division of Environment Canada; Dr. Robert Blohm, Acting Chief, Office of Research Coordination United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Dr. Jane Austen, Research Wildlife Biologist at Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center; Dr. Bruce Batt, Chief Biologist of Ducks Unlimited; Dr. Mike Anderson, Chief Scientist for Ducks Unlimited- Canada; Norman Seymour, professor of wildlife science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia; and Mr. David Wielicki, Executive Director of the South Carolina Waterfowl Association.

From yesterday to today

Since 1938 over 340 students representing 75 colleges have written more than750 research papers on waterfowl under Delta's support and guidance. Delta's Research Program has grown from supporting students working only at the Delta Marsh to supporting crucial waterfowl research across the continent.

Each year Delta-funded students travel to conferences across North America to share their work with academics and waterfowl managers. At the Second North American Duck Symposium in 2000, Delta-funded students captured the top presentation awards. Delta-funded students also regularly present their work at conferences such as the Annual Conference of the Wildlife Society, the Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union and the North American Sea Duck Conference.

And We're Still Going Strong

Looking at the history of the student program it's easy to see that the legacy started by James F. Bell, Aldo Leopold and H. Albert Hochbaum has only grown stronger with time. Between 1938 and 1959 about 43 students had passed through Delta. Now it is not unusual to have 20 or more students conducting research every year.

Delta continues to offer scholarships and awards for students who are the future teachers, managers and researchers who will affect waterfowl populations into the years to come.

Hugh Boyd, director of the Migratory Bird Branch of Canadian Wildlife Service, said in the late 1970s,

At the age of 40 the Research Station promises to have a future brighter than its distinguished past-and who of us can claim as much? As a center for sustained excitement about research on waterfowl and wetlands and as an independent source of advice and wisdom, it has no equals in North America.


----------



## lngbw (Sep 26, 2006)

Again I am not saying that either orginization has not done great great things. They have!!!! They have been the key to the success of our duck populations and other wildlife populations as we know it.

All I am saying is that their money could be spent more efficiently and could get better results if it was done in that manner.

Education is a great thing. I was one of those students at one time doing reasearch and writing thesis. They are a great tools.

However at some point you have to put the rubber to the road and get somthing done!! I AM NOT SINGALING OUT ANY ORGANIZATION I AM REFFERING TO MOST OF THE WILDLIFE ORGANIZATIONS.

You need planning and research, it is driving force of education and understanding the resource.

But you need to get somthing done and like most (not all) of the county, state, and federal agencies, our wildlife organizations are dropping the ball and putting more emphasis on other things that are NOT unimportant but do not need the attention that they are getting.


----------



## AvianQuest (Dec 22, 2004)

I think any conjecture on this issue needs to start with a complete understanding of what the Charter states....

This is the agreement that all the members (except Delta) of the PHJV signed on to...

*Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Partnership Charter*

Final Approval: September, 2005

b]The Prairie Habitat Joint Venture[/b]

The Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (PHJV) is the largest Canadian program under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 1986 by Canada and the United States. Participating Canadian public and private agencies make up the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Advisory Board, which coordinates the regional activities of the PHJV partners. (Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, Prairie Habitat: A Prospectus 1989)

*Vision, Mission*

PHJV Vision: Healthy prairie, parkland and boreal landscapes that support sustainable bird populations and provide ecological and economic benefits for society. (PHJV Strategic Plan, 2005-2009)

PHJV Mission: The mission of the PHJV is to provide leadership to achieve healthy and diverse waterfowl and other bird populations through conservation partnerships. These partnerships strive for sustainable and responsible management of the landscape taking into account social, economic and environmental factors. (PHJV Strategic Plan, 2005-2009)

*PHJV Mandate*

The mandate of the PHJV is to:

-Provide strategic direction and set policy in all aspects of NAWMP in the Canadian prairie, parkland, and the western boreal forest;

-Establish and coordinate the regional program, strategic priorities and evaluations;

-Facilitate and promote the integration of NAWMP and other bird habitat conservation initiatives.

-Coordinate programs delivered by partners under the NAWMP umbrella;
-Facilitate sharing of information between partners;

-Determine provincial funding allocations (e.g. for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) funding);

-Review and endorse PHJV/Boreal NAWCA proposal submissions;

-Ensure that requirements of the International NAWMP Plan Committee, North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and North American Wetlands Conservation Council (NAWCC) Canada Councils, and the United States NAWCC Council are met.

*Values and Guiding Principles*

-An effective Prairie Habitat Joint Venture partnership is fundamental to achieving the PHJV Vision and Mission.

-All partners recognize that the "whole" of the PHJV partnership is greater than the "sum of its parts" in achieving the PHJV Vision and Mission.

-All partners bring value to the PHJV. Each partner's role in the PHJV is defined (PHJV Strategic Plan, 2005-2009, Draft and PHJV Organizational Structure, below) and those roles are respected by the whole partnership.

-All partners have a responsibility to represent the common interests of the partnership and collectively support the PHJV approach to achieving the Vision, Mission and common goals.

-All partners agree to work towards the common goals of the PHJV, and take ownership of these common goals. (PHJV Strategic Plan, 2005-2009)

-The PHJV represents a wide variety of organizations, some of whom are in competition. It finds and advances the common points of view, but it does not seek to homogenize an organization's operations or limit their activities outside of the areas of common cause.

-As a member of this partnership, each member is expected to behave, at all times, with professionalism and respect towards all partners and the NAWMP program.

-All partners recognize and respect that individual partners also conduct activities outside the geographic and programmatic boundaries of the PHJV partnership and which may not align with the vision or mission of the PHJV. A clear distinction and understanding of these activities occurs within the partnership and in communication with others.

-All partner arrangements are transparent and partners are treated equally with regard to decision-making within the PHJV.

-PHJV partner communications, messages and reports concerning PHJV initiatives, research projects and other PHJV activities, should be consistent with the positions of the PHJV as agreed to and respected by all partners.

-All partners are respectful of each other when soliciting and competing for funding in support of PHJV programs.

*Operational Protocols*

Open and effective communication and collaboration amongst partners regarding all PHJV programs (such as PHJV strategic direction, program delivery, policy, evaluations, studies, results, etc.) is key to the success of the PHJV. Communications and collaboration are conducted on an ongoing basis, through a variety of means including: PHJV Advisory Board meetings, Working Group meetings, Committee meetings, science and policy forums, strategic planning sessions, etc.
The PHJV encourages debate and discussion of different approaches, recognizing that these approaches will not necessarily be resolved into common points of view. The PHJV recognizes that we all improve by trying different approaches, debating and learning, which cannot always be molded into a common approach. Some partners have statutory mandates that define their mission; others bring a range of constituencies with different values to the table.

PHJV processes and results are open, however sensitive issues should be addressed internally to develop a common approach/solution before communications occur outside the partnership.

New initiatives, programs and activities will be reviewed and endorsed by the PHJV (through the appropriate committees) prior to launching.

Reviews are conducted as appropriate through the PHJV Waterfowl, Shorebird, Landbird and Waterbird Working Groups, PHJV Policy Committee, PHJV Communications Committee, and endorsed by the PHJV Advisory Board.

*Governance*

Members are added to the PHJV Advisory Board by consensus of the existing PHJV Advisory Board partners and identified in the PHJV Agreement 2005-2019.

Decisions of the PHJV Advisory Board are made through discussion and consensus, or where necessary, by majority vote. Voting members are identified in the PHJV Agreement 2005-2019.

It is recognized that some of the PHJV Advisory Board partners are affiliated to varying degrees with international partners and they are expected to make 'best efforts' to have those partners respect the principles of this Charter relative to PHJV activities.

Disagreements amongst partners are addressed in a variety of ways, including through: communications via the PHJV Chair and/or Coordinator; informal discussions amongst relevant partners; discussions at the PHJV Advisory Board, Working Groups or Committees. It is the obligation of the PHJV to render a decision and recommendation respecting all disagreements or grievances between members.

In the event of a breach of the PHJV Charter, resolution will occur at the PHJV Advisory Board. Unresolved issues and/or appeal of decisions may be raised at (NAWCC) Canada Council or (NABCI) Canada Council.

The PHJV Charter will be reviewed and amended as necessary concurrent with the updates to the PHJV Strategic Plan (generally every five years), or earlier as directed by the PHJV Advisory Board.

*NAWMP-PHJV Provincial Steering Committees*

Alberta NAWMP	
Saskatchewan Watershed Authority 
Manitoba Habitat Partnership (Saskatchewan NAWMP Committee) Heritage Corporation


----------

