# I can' t believe this ??? DU sells their lands back to ???



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

DU aquires lands - then does something to them * (???)* to make them duckier & then sells them ??? To fat cats who get a prime wetlands & turn into a legally baited shooters slaughter stop ??? Has this happened here yet ??? At the Fuge they all sound like this is normal :roll: http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... did=120253 They already act like they have all this land in ND & now they can sell it to the highest bidder ??? I think that stinks :eyeroll:

==============================================

Want Your Own Hunting Spot?...Check out the DU Land Sale 
When eminent development pressure or habitat conversion threatens the integrity of critical landscapes, Ducks Unlimited works with willing landowners to buy land so conservation values are saved. Other circumstances arise when landowners actively seek Ducks Unlimited to sell or gift their land knowing DU will ensure the land will remain intact for all generations to come.

After Ducks Unlimited acquires a property, any needed grassland or wetland restorations are performed and the land is protected in perpetuity with conservation easements. Ducks Unlimited attempts to find suitable conservation buyers to purchase the land once habitat restorations are complete and protection is in place. Property has been sold to state conservation agencies, the USFWS Refuge System, and private citizens. In all cases, conservation easements are in place prior to selling the land so that the aesthetic and wildlife values of the land are permanently protected. Dollars raised from selling land are returned to an endowment where the money remains until other junctures arise where critical habitat is threatened.

The Conservation Land Directory is an innovative approach to selling land to private conservation buyers interested in owning landscapes dedicated to wildlife conservation. Using an internet-based auction format, anyone can bid on property DU has up for sale. The process is straightforward:

1. Register as a Conservation Buyer

2. Sign and mail to DU a completed Conservation Buyer Contract

3. Read the Property Information Packet detailing each property

4. Submit a bid on the property

Once the auction ends, the conservation buyer who has submitted the highest bid buys the land. The property is returned to private ownership, fully protected into perpetutity, and assured to provide habitat producing ducks for all to enjoy in this generation and all generations to come.

The buyer maintains all hunting rights on the property. As the new owner, you can hunt it, open it up for public hunting, or not hunt it at all, if that's your choice.

Current Land Sale...

Situated in South Dakota's Missouri Coteau, the Ipswich Grasslands is 680 acres of some of North America's most important waterfowl breeding habitat. Seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands are scattered across the property attracting a rich diversity of wildlife.

Ducks Unlimited has restored the preserve back to grassland creating excellent nesting habitat for mallards, pintail, and teal. Pheasants, white-tailed deer, and a wide variety of songbirds and shorebirds have been observed on the property.

Ducks Unlimited is seeking potential buyers to become stewards of this unique prairie landscape. Ducks Unlimited has protected in perpetuity the waterfowl values of the Ipswich Grasslands with grassland and wetland conservation easements. 40 acres of cropland have been set aside, providing opportunities for wildlife food plots or crop incomes.

A 10-acre parcel, located on the south end of the tract, is available for the establishment of a hunting retreat or cabin.


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

"Dollars raised from selling land are returned to an endowment where the money remains until other junctures arise where critical habitat is threatened."

It's hard to fault their protection of threatened habitat, but once this land is auctioned off to the highest bidder, the possibility of access to the property would be difficult considering the buyer will have invested a big chunk of change into it.

How much money, habitat & effort does DU create or protect that's open to public hunting? Not sure if they cost share WPA's, WMA's etc. in various states?


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Fetch,

Do you bother doing any research at all or do you just go off half-cocked all the time?

What slaughter stop are you talking about?

The lands are open for hunting. They sold one PRIME piece to the SDGFP which is open to hunting. Once they sell it to the highest bidder, the owner can justifiably do whatever he wants with that property (duh).

So before you go around spreading hate and discontent like you have been doing, why don't you call the Bismarck DU office and ask some questions? (701-355-3500). You might actually learn something.

You don't get this upset at the PETA freaks that hang out here.

TM, contrary to what others on this and the ND Forum have suggested, there is a fair amount of WPA's that DU has done projects on. They mostly run the length of the Coteau and consist of islands, peninsula cut-offs, water control structures, etc. Mainentance on the projects is the responsability of the USFWS.

f


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I just see the potential for abuse

I see lands being bought by guides & outfitters & wealthy hunters - even corporations that use the property to provide hunts for their clients. Eventually taking away most of the best Natural wetlands. Cause it's Nature that makes them (Not DU) sure they can tinker with them - But in all honesty they should turn them all over to Delta & put their $$$ into real potential maintenance. Let them (Delta ) really maintain them, for producing ducks - Not to be legally baited - places where Fat cats go & shoot ducks. Like alot of the properties in the South - where commercial hunting has ruined the sport.

But I feel Better knowing ND is not part of such a scheme  - SD & anything south of there, is marginal at best, as part of the Duck Factory. I just hope we (ND) never opens the door to anything like this. (Or Canada)


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Fetch.

I know Ipswich pretty well. This area at one time was off-the beaten-path as far as SD hunting goes. I suppose that has changed now too.

The country side in this area looks and feels just like North Dakota. Duck populations and reproduction through this area is excellent - when the wet cycle is on.

The duck factory does recognize ecosystems, it does not recognize geographic boundries drawn by governments.

The only difference between this part of the Dakotas and say Rugby is the winters are less severe. Thus more pheasants.

Too bad the people of SD could not have this 640 acres for public hunting.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The DU Mission Statement is:

Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people.

I think hunters are in the group of people that benefit. I suspect they do their television shows and put hunting in their magazine because they know that the hunter is their bread and butter for fundraisers.

They do a good job at what they do. However, no one can deny that the CRP and moisture of the 90's did more for the ducks than anything DU will or can do. What DU does becomes more important as more land is drained or drought occurs.

Membership is inexpensive and the magazine alone is woth the price of the membership. No waterfowler hunter should be without a membership in Ducks Unlimited or for that matter Delta Waterfowl, The Izzac Walton League, and the NRA.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... ost1004082

I read somewhere that ND & Nebraska does not allow this kind of Transaction - there must be a good reason why ???

Here it is 


> They said that they would concentratte ion SOuth FDakota first, simply because that state's property laws allowed for perpetual conservation easements, while Nebraska and North Dakota laws did not.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I agree 100% with Fetch. I couldn't believe it when I opened the latest DU magazine and read about this. Fetch is absolutely right, I've talked to DU guys off the record and they say you better hunt hard for the next 10 years because open-range hunting will be over by then. They get calls all the time from fat cats wanting to buy a spread, I guess this is DU's way to help them out. According to the magazine, they want to do this with 2,000,000 acres.

I've been a member of DU for as long as I can remember, but each year it gets a little harder to support it. I mean, come on, DU doesn't support the average freelancer. One thing that always burns me is when I drive by a DU project with the big fancy sign and then see its posted. DU just took my money (and yours) and built someone else his private honey hole.

And one more thing. You know there's something wrong with a "conservation" organization that's ever had anyone named Coors as its president.

I guess when my membership expires, I'll donate my money to a group that actually supports the little guy, like the Izaak Walton league or something. But it won't be DU.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree tb...But only freelance hunters from the Dakotas will agree with us.Everyone else sees this as a great way to raise ducks.They don't care if it's owned by a private club as they mostly get their hunting on those anyway.Plus the more birds that migrate,the better for them.Just go to the refuge forums and read about how good a deal this is.No one disagrees except the guys from the Dakota's.
I also have decided to let my DU membership expire.I was going to send my usual $25 membership,but have decided to increase my Delta money by that $25.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Ken W:

Yeah, I know you're right, ND's the only free-range hunting left anyway. 99% of the DU members can't relate to actually going out and figuring out how to hunt an area, they just do the same thing everyday and once in a while they get a shot or 2. They couldn't hunt their way out of a paper bag. I had a friend who hunted a big goose operation down in Texas a few years back. He said it wasn't hunting, it was just killing. They shot quite a few canadas, specks and whites. He thought it sucked. He said all the birds were basically starving and feeding in all the same fields all the time. He'd never go back.

I guess I'll probably do the same and get back into Delta. Maybe I can adopt a few central ND potholes with the stip that the farmer won't post them.

I knew that when DU built its Taj Mahal in Bismarck I could smell a rat.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Fetch, doesn't deal in facts only innuendo and hollow criticisms. His hatred of DU is beyond pathetic and is indeed sad. The guy clearly has nothing better to do with is time. He reminds me of the Iraqi Info Minister "Baghdad Bob" spouting off his lunacy.

Trying to educate a guy who doesn't want to be educated but only wants to throw rocks at things that aren't there is also a waste of my time. I can respect anyone's opinion as long as they have taken the time to research it.

Fetch, have you ever once called DU to ask questions? Ken, tb, have you? Why not? I'd like a response.

Its also sad that Fetch wants to rip apart sportsmen. Thats really what he's doing when he repeatedly bashes DU. Now that he has decided not to give DU his $25 we won't have to hear him falsely accuse DU of whatever conspiracy theory pops into his mind. Its almost a relief.

The fact is that the land sold in SD so far has been to the SDGF, the USFWS and to a private rancher. All of it preserved forever and the land sold to the two agencys is open to hunting. Sounds really fishy doesn't it...

The lands purchased have been bought at auctions, or the landowner approached DU and said I want MY land preserved for wildlife. So the seller has indictated what he wants done with his land.

Some of you ND sportsmen (fetch and others) feel that any land bought by DU, or a ("wealthy" NR-which in ND is anyone making over $30,000 a year) was land that was alreay open to hunting, i.e. not posted. However, you have no idea what the property's hunting history was. You just know what you don't like; not that the potential for conserving a premium piece of waterfowl habitat is a good thing.

DU is not perfect and certainly makes plenty of mistakes but the good far outweighs the negatives. If you don't like them fine; but quit *****ing and move on.

In analyzing the RL program it comes down to one thing: Do you want to see some of the last stretches of native prairie grasslands preserved or would you rather see it plowed up for soybeans or round-up ready wheat? Its really that simple.

f


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This is a response I recieved conserning questions on a variety of issue from some that has access and knowledge of DU he has walked the walk. I do not agree with all that Du is doing nor will my extra money go to this organization as it has in the past. I will still send in my memebership.

The land sale issue aside my fear is that DU has chosen a path that doesn't put more ducks on the nest and will not protect the critical area's because the size and scope of this type of projects induvidually are not large enough to capture or excite those that do not understand what is needed to build or sustain population levels.

WP Sullivan has served at the upper levels of DU and I have found very straight foward on his views and information. I have a lot of respect for his information and even if bias he still questions things and seeks the truth.
R_G:

"I spoke to DU President John Tompke recently about the new land-sales gambit. Frankly, I asked him if it's a good idea for DU to get into the real estate business! I said "DU has lost enough credibility without selling used cars, vacuum cleaners or swampland!"

He acknowledged that DU had to do something new and radical to save those acres from 'private interests' who had motives that were not "duck-friendly" (I don't know the specifics.) The parcels were on the market and up for sale faster than the State of SD could acquire the land thru the legislative budget process.

As I understand it, the State of SD didn't have a budget sufficient to pay its share of the usual process of fee-simple acquisition, or to manage them later. So, DU went ahead and bought them, placed perpetual conservation easements on them, and will re-sell them to recoup the money it committed in the origional sale. The parcels will be now sold at audited public auction to ensure everything is aboveboard.

The conservation easements on the parcels restrict their useage to ensure perpetual alignment with the USF&W and DU conservation goals written for that project, for that region and for that flyway. The theory is that the only buyers would be parties with a now-vested interest in making the parcel as "ducky" as possible, since they cannot build on it, drain it, etc., and making it ducky-er will be the only way for the new owner to make a profit selling wetland in SD!

Second, I also raised the message you echo (re: "eggs on the nest" ) that I read in these boards. As you know, DU has always focused on habitat conservation and enhancement, not waterfowl management. Period. The underlying theory is/remains that the work to place "eggs in the nest" became the responsibility of the habitat's subsequent land-owner. The cost of managing the habitat effectively would be humongeous for DU. The paid staff (about 500, being cut slightly due to the economy) and volunteer leaders are exhausted just doing the "wetlands conservation" mission without taking on the "waterfowl propagation" responsibility.

It would be fiscally stupid for DU to compete "for the sake of competing" with states and US Fish & Wildlife agencies, Delta, etc. DU conserves/enhances the wet stuff, the others are supposed to make more ducks on the conserved habitat. This has been a symbiotic relationship that has been called "partners in conservation" since the 1970's.

Prez John indicated that in ten years, DU and others have worked to slow the hemmorhage of wetlands from 400,000 acres lost a year to just about 150,000 per year. He told me that when wetlands annual loss drops to Net+1 acre per year, then there's room to shift the organizational mission.

I'll save the "semi-official predator control" answer I received from DU for another post. This one is too long already. "

W.P. Sullivan 
Colorado Springs, CO

Do not boycott DU but think about where your other money can best be used. DU has and will continue to save wetlands, but with other options now make sure that money spent is going to the area's that you want.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron,

Thank you for an EXCELLANT post.

If I could comment on your below paragraph.

"The land sale issue aside my fear is that DU has chosen a path that doesn't put more ducks on the nest and will not protect the critical area's because the size and scope of this type of projects induvidually are not large enough to capture or excite those that do not understand what is needed to build or sustain population levels."

From DUs website:

"Just a few miles north of the Goebel Ranch, the Nature Conservancy owns the 8,000 acre Ordway Prairie Preserve and between these two properties, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns a 3,300 acre Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). In combination, these three properties encompass over 20,000 acres of prime waterfowl breeding habitat."

Its been studied and proven that large parcels of land set aside for waterfowl will produce bigtime ducks. In wet years the production on this block is damn impressive.

Thanks again for a great post.

f


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dakota
The critical habitat that is beening lost in ND is the 3 acre and under parcels these have been demonstrated over and over to be the most important wetland to putting ducks on nest. Large area's of grass land and deep water do produce ducks but not in the same numbers that smaller blocks of 6 to 10 acre area's do. This information is avaliable at the USFW from Delta and and other conservation organizations.

From spending many years watching the weather and water conditions in my area I tend to agree with these studies. Retaining any type of wetland is good and DU has and is doing so, but I think other conservation organizations have focused on the area of most importance to me.

Image and concept make or break many business and organizations DU does not give me that fuzzy warm feeling it once did. I see to much division of direction from the upper to middle ranks down to the foot soldier in the field in DU currently. I know and have had access to many different people in this organization. Direction change is needed or a clearer view of the direction that DU is headed so that all understand where and to what these funds are used for.

One fundraiser I attended in WIS. the State Pres. stood up and told those present that with money raised at these events you will no longer need to travel to ND to have great hunting. We will produce and raise our own ducks. This is not nor has been in DU mission statement, nor has it ever been. The tactics to raise funds in this manner would leave most not informed to think otherwise. That is why I asked the quwstion of Mr. Sullivan and others from DU. I can site many other times also if needed.

If they are promoting raising ducks to raise money I feel it only fair that they do so. Otherwise this message should never be promoted at fundraisers. I know where and how they use our donations, I just feel that DU should be accountable for actions taken on it's behalf.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I stand by (IMO) everything I have ever said about DU

Some of their more insecure, or arrogant, or obnoxious, Brings out the worst in me & many others 

But that along with all the SPIN & how they go after money makes me want to uke:

They have outgrown & their usefulness & have even become questionable as to where they stand on issues (they pick & choose) & mislead the faithful that were raised on the magazine :roll:

It's a visious circle because the ones in the know won't stand up & be heard - for fear of losing some of their powerful $$$ funding - The potential for croneyism & abuse is there.

They are a Big Part of the Commercial Problems trying to take over hunting.

One more personal attack out of you sunflower seed boy & I may not be able to moderate myself eace:



> In analyzing the RL program it comes down to one thing: Do you want to see some of the last stretches of native prairie grasslands preserved or would you rather see it plowed up for soybeans or round-up ready wheat? Its really that simple.


You will go along ways :roll: with an attitude like that up here. & Yes I'd take farmers making a living over a scheme that won't change anything, or raise ducks & potentially could aid commercial shooting.

I do believe it's illegal here & should stay that way 



> If you don't like them fine; but quit b*tching and move on.


If brain washed folks like you, never brought them up - I could care less ??? but to constantly be Spining their crapola & to come here & b*itch about me is laughable - there is only so much BS a guy can take without telling the rest of the story. :eyeroll: .... :lol:


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

Ron,

You previously stated: "It would be fiscally stupid for DU to compete "for the sake of competing" with states and US Fish & Wildlife agencies, Delta, etc. DU conserves/enhances the wet stuff, the others are supposed to make more ducks on the conserved habitat. This has been a symbiotic relationship that has been called "partners in conservation" since the 1970's."

Your off base when you say that the other organizations job is to take over after the wetlands have been conserved/restored.

Here is the Mission Statment from the DU web site: "Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores, *and manages wetlands and associated habitats *for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people."

DU's goals don't just stop after conserving and restoring, they also include managing wetlands and associated habitats. I think the big thing is that sportsman want them to do a better job of evaluating the results of these restorations, and use all the latest proven methods to increase production on the wetlands they protect.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Fetch,

Hey this thread was started by you!!!! Not me. Just part of your typical, "anti-DU" spin.

I knew you would never call up DU. Your to damn scared you might learn something. I guess if you like being ignorant, and obviously good at it, why should you change your ways and learn something?



> You will go along ways with an attitude like that up here. & Yes I'd take farmers making a living over a scheme that won't change anything, or raise ducks & potentially could aid commercial shooting.


So protecting it is second to possible commerical ownership? How selfish is that? If I can't hunt it, than by-golly Farmer Brown go-ahead and plow it and plant $2 wheat? It sounds to me like your all about the shooting and nothing about protecting the habitat that provides that activity. With that kind of mentality, your waterfowl season is history.

Hey, this sunflower eater is from there and farming is a no-win for the little guy. Your preaching to the choir there. Much of that land is generally stuff that is poor land for farming and should never be broken up. Alot of old farmers sitting around the nursing home will tell you that.

f


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I find it strange how if you question, or say anything negative about DU - How some folks get all upset & start throwing insults (DU Basher) & treat that person as if they are unpatriotic or evil - (Like at the Fuge)

These people seem to either have a financial interest, or relatives that either work for, or work for someone who receives funds from the money machine :roll: :huh:

I admidt I love to yank the chains of these kinds of people oke:

But look at how they are so arrogant & condecending & end up being really poor ambassadors for the Org. ??? (they really act like they know it all) & no one should question anyhting DU says or does ??? This plus all the BS & SPIN the PR & advertising & sales crapola they put out - Makes you wonder - Also they have this I'm better & smarter than you & I make more money than you & I'm in a better class than you uke:

This has always not set well with me - plus how they would do or sell anything & promote anything - IF - it has potential to make them money :eyeroll:

I bet 1/2 or more of their members - believe they are really alot more important than they really are (It does seem cultish to me) ???

Plus they are guilty, of bringing in people to the commercial aspects of Hunting - (I call shooters) cause they really don't know real hunting - It is Sad that this is how the majority think & act  Seems everyone wants to be something their not (or want to pretend) they are better & more knowledgable than they are ??? DU seems full of this type :lost:

Oh well - I know I cannot solve problems for people who do not want their problems solved


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

tmorrie 
Those where not my words they where a response to questions I asked of WP Sullivan. My position has not changed but I am willing to ask questions of people that are involed currently and in the past. DU has never in it's mission statement said that they are trying to put more ducks on nest as a goal. My issue is that many from this organization in order to raise more donations state or imply that is there goal.

The choice of projects that they do are not on small scale induvidual parcels as a rule, with the exception of the Adopt a pothole program. That is why my donations and and efforts will be directed to organizations with these types of goals in mind as more ducks on nest will help keep the population from plumeting like it did in the 80's.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

DU doesn't have an Adopt-a-Pothole program do they?That's Delta.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken thank you for reading my mistake. I was intending to list there new Grassland Program and compare it to Delta. To long a day should have proofed it and realized I did not paste in what I thought.

This is from the DU web page. I think that it is the first time they address the nesting habitat issue at all, but still strikes a tone of large tract development not pot hole retention. This was my intent on the first post

From: the DU Home Page

Excellent waterfowl habitat is disappearing in pothole country. As wetlands and grasslands are drained and plowed, prospects for waterfowl become even more tenuous. Grasslands for Tomorrow, an initiative developed by DU as one of its premier conservation initiatives, seeks to protect some of the last strongholds for breeding waterfowl. Land acquisition is an important part of this initiative. Through this program, DU purchases properties that:

(1) have the potential to be critical nesting habitat, but are in need of habitat restoration, or ..

(2) provide excellent habitat, but are threatened by cultivation or other conversions.

Often, situations arise where landowners actively seek DU to sell or gift their land, knowing that the land will be well-managed as quality waterfowl habitat for future generations. By employing a strategy of revolving capital through sequential land purchases and sales, DU is able to improve the efficiency of every dollar gifted.

When landowners do not wish to sell permanent easements on their land and choose to liquidate a land holding, DU takes a very scientific approach to deciding on our involvement.

If the land has substantial waterfowl habitat and it would likely be lost to cultivation under new ownership, DU can save substantial future costs by acquiring, protecting and re-selling the land with minimal restoration.

This approach to conservation is far more cost-effective than allowing the loss of habitat and incurring much greater costs in restoring similar habitat elsewhere. DU focuses on the identification of threatened habitat, through a strong science program, while seeking to minimize the cost of maintaining productive waterfowl habitat

After Ducks Unlimited acquires a property, any needed grassland or wetland restorations are performed and the land is protected in perpetuity with conservation easements. Ducks Unlimited attempts to find suitable conservation buyers to purchase the land once habitat restorations are complete and easements are in place. To-date, restored land has been sold to state conservation agencies, the USFWS Refuge System, and private citizens.

The Grasslands for Tomorrow initiative has targeted the acquisition, restoration and sale of about 72,000 acres over the next 15 years, and is part of a larger plan to permanently protect more than two million acres in the U.S. prairies of the 'best of the best' remaining breeding habitat for waterfowl on the continent.

--- end text --


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

Ron,

I appreciate and respect all the work you and DU perform.

Still confused as to how the mission of "manage wetlands and associated habitats" and the name 'Ducks Unlimited' doesn't equate to a goal of also maximizing waterfowl and wildlife production on the DU projects?

Maybe a name change to "Wetlands Unilimited" would better describe the organization, although the DU name is so recognizable that I'm sure that's not possible a this point.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

I'll throw out a main idea why I believe DU is into the large tract scenario (although I believe economy of scale must also play a role). The idea is based on one of the main tenets of the theory of island biogeography which is that larger island (or in this case a tract of land) will have a higher diversity of plants and animals and a higher biomass than small less isolated islands. Another rule of thumb in terms of land area is that every time you increase a land area by 10 you will double the number of species. For example, if you have a 1 acre pond and it supports 10 species, then a 10 acre pond will support 20 species.

While the parallel is not direct, I believe that you can roughly translate this into duck production also. While I agree wholeheartedly with you Ron about the small wetlands being more productive, a large contiguous tract of grassland that has a myriad of various wetlands will be the most productive.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Bioman,
You being the world's greatest biologist and all, then let me ask you this:
If your theory is to hold true, then with Devils Lake, expanding 3x is size from the early 1990's then there should be three times the VARIETY of species in Devils Lake.
But last I checked there were still only walleye, pike, yellow perch, white bass, crappie, tiger muskie, and the occasional sucker. The same species and variety that the lake had in 1990. By your theory Devils Lake should have 21 species of fish now.

Also if your theory is true, how come there is more of a variety of species of living things in a drop of pond water under a microscope than there are visible species in an entire ecosystem.

I agree size matters when it comes to dating, but not in nature, how else do you explain the outburst of giant canadas in fargo, gf, and especially minneapolis-st. Paul.
Are you going by ND observation or California observation, Just checking.

cootkiller


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Cooties:

The theory holds for speciation and I was making a speculative generalization on the rule of thumb for a land area and duck production. Fragmented habitats are usually compared to the theory with respect to their size and ability to support species. The point I was trying to make is that a larger tract of land will have more biomass and thus able to support more species. Without much more detail, it is called the species-area curve, go and check it out. As for the fish species, I believe the NDGF stocked all of those species and none are endemic to the area. However, with a 3 x expansion, new niches have been created and the species within the system will be able to expand their range. So more fish for you to catch, however, if you are still fishing in three million years, speciation will have occurred within the Lake and you will be fishing for those 21 species :wink: .

As to your pond analogy, the pond actually is its own ecosystem and I believe the biodiversity you are speaking of is the number of invertebrate species?. Answer this, what has more species your pond or the ocean??? A larger ecosystem will always have more species both visible and non-visible.

If you need any pointers on speciation, ecology, or biogeography, please feel free to ask. Class dismissed


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

So by your california mumbo jumbo, diddlypoo, I am going to have to wait 3 million years for any new species of ducks in the lake region. Dam*, that is a long time to wait.

Also, just to correct your mistakes, the drop of water could be considered it's own ecosystem whereas there are literally thousands of ecosystems contained withing the world's ocean, didn't they teach you that in Biology 115.

Don't expect any teacher of the year nominations anytime too soon.

(No, I am not confused I am just putting Bioman's theory to work. If the species of fish will diversify then so should hold true to the duck population also, right)

cootkiller


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I hope you are not a math teacher Coot. If you read what he said, and understand it, what he wrote said if area expands by ten, species number will double. This was illustrated by the following example.

Another rule of thumb in terms of land area is that every time you increase a land area by 10 you will double the number of species. For example, if you have a 1 acre pond and it supports 10 species, then a 10 acre pond will support 20 species.

So since Devils Lake has expanded in area by three times, not ten, your response was not accurate. By his example Devils Lake would need to go from a beginning size of 30000 acres to a new size of 300000 acres to get to 14 species, not 21. I realize these numbers are not accurate acreages, but this being an example, not real life, they will suffice.

Not trying to be a nitpicker, but you being a teacher and all I thought you would appreciate accuracy in your work.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bioman
Old school theroy for duck production, of which I am focusing. Species other than ducks can and will use these properties hence the greater number of phesants raised verses ducks on most DU proerty in the lower 48 states. The point that I am making is for duck production as this is the inent of the direction for my donations. The USFWS and Delta have proven that more ducks are raised in small wetland setting than big water settings because of the greater amount of food sources that inhabit the shallow ponds. This is my beef on the size of DU projects and why in ND and SD and the Canada pothole region you find that more ducks are raised per acre on private lands than on WPA's DU sites etc. This is why the PLOTS program will not only provide hunting access but also nesting and rearing area's also.

tmorrie

Until they introduced the GRassland program DU has focused on wetland retention only, leaving the habitat and nesting ground to others to manage. The new program show promise but if it is large tract projects only, we will lose more ducks to small wetland loss than ever will be gained by large tract devlopment.

More later


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Cooties:

I will indulge myself one more time and correct you.



> Also, just to correct your mistakes, the drop of water could be considered it's own ecosystem whereas there are literally thousands of ecosystems contained withing the world's ocean, didn't they teach you that in Biology 115.


If I follow your logic, than a piece of wax from your ear could be also considered its own ecosystem  .



> Don't expect any teacher of the year nominations anytime too soon.


I would venture a guess that I have as many nominations as you do :thumb: .



> (No, I am not confused I am just putting Bioman's theory to work. If the species of fish will diversify then so should hold true to the duck population also, right)


If North and South America were to somehow increase their land size by 10 times than in a few million years you might be able to expect to see twice as many duck species :wink: . But since we are on the other end of the spectrum and losing land and wetlands through urbanization, we are seeing just the opposite, as witnessed by several duck species being significantly below their target numbers.

Tsodak:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Just a thought??? but maybe we should try not to use the pet names & sarcasim - after awhile. I personally don't mind & can do it forever & it does not rile or phase me.  (giving or recieving)

In fact overall we have been very civil to each other here. Most sites don't even have a Hot Topics page (for fear what it will bring out in folks) & things still turn Hot all the time.

I still say the use of the smilies can be helpful to tell if a person is serious or not - being sarcastic or not. Some sarcasim & ribbing can be fun. But to many - well, they cannot handle it ??? I think it is better to have them get used to it - & learn to deal with it. Rather than try to stop it completely ???

Plus when is it time to lock a thread ??? How stupid does it have to get ??? At the same time can alot of that be ignored - so the topic can continue ??? I think a forum that is all considerate & straight forward & all professional, all the time , would be boring & I could not - would not participate for long.

I would think just as many coming to a site like that, would be intimidated to jump in & participate, as those that come & lurk at a site with sarcasim & a degree of real world honesty ???

But I could be wrong :-? - :******: Just don't tell me that without a smilie............... eace: ............ :justanangel:

The Key is Moderation - & adults should know something about that --- & over all I think we have been - It works both ways you know -> moderation. :-? & you will just about always get what you give - what is amazing about that is, many of the more sensitive ones, try to give but can't take ??? If you don't get it, or can take it, stay away from that stuff. --- But many can & will not change for just you.

I now return you to regular programing.......


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Sorry Fletching :lol:

Bioman,
I see that I have stumped you and since today is my birthday and all I will leave you alone and let you lick your wounds, heck you aren't even sure of your own theory now, gosh darn it I'm good.

tsodak,
Do you carry bioman's shorts around for him too. :lol: :roll:   :beer: uke: 8)

Why am I even wasting the time to mince words with a Cally nut anyway.  :lol:   :roll:

cootkiller


----------

