# DU vs Delta



## Dak

Folks,

I haven't hunted waterfowl much in the past 25 years (wife is an upland hunter). I was cruising through one of the threads and got the idea that Delta and DU were not exactly happily coexisting. I know nothing about Delta. What is the difference between the two?


----------



## DeltaBoy

Very simple:

Look at the mission statements...

*Delta: *

*Mission:*

Delta will provide knowledge, future leaders, solutions and its passion for waterfowl to scientists, resource managers, waterfowlers, conservationists and the public to enhance waterfowl populations while securing the future of waterfowling.

*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.

*Ducks Unlimited: *

*Mission:*

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

Don't turn this forum into a bashing! Both Org. are doing good things and everyone is open to belong to one or both conservation groups.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Delta boy:

I think were DU gets a little bad press was in the past when only (I am not sure of exact numbers) about $0.50 of every dollar earned went towards wetlands and projects. They have now restructed and more of the money goes towards project and so forth (not sure of amount).

I am a member of both and both do good things. I don't want to bash either organization. Both are for the good of the ducks. But that is where I think the so called "beef" was with each organization.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Support them both, but support Delta more. I'd like Deltaboy to pay for a little more scoutin' gas!! 

Also, buy an extra duck stamp or two every fall. That money goes directly to purchasing and upkeep of wetlands without having to pay excessive expenses. :wink:


----------



## DeltaBoy

4CurlRedleg said:


> I'd like Deltaboy to pay for a little more scoutin' gas!!


What... I pay my fare share of gas money! 8)


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

I was hoping for part of my share. dd:


----------



## Harley2003

while delta is shell out gas money...I got a 24 hour drive next season..
You want to goin in half :beer:


----------



## Field Hunter

As to the difference of Delta and DU, I'd like to invite all DU members to the upcoming Delta Banquet on April 26th at the Courtyard by Marriot in Moorhead MN. 7:00.

Many of the Delta Membership are also DU members and we would welcome all DU members to help support Delta as well.

Remember both organizations are here to support increased duck product in the end.

For those of you that don't support either organization....get on board with either DU or Delta...help support the sport that you enjoy.


----------



## djleye

Doors open earlier than 7:00 though. We will be open at 5:30 right??? :huh:


----------



## Dak

Gents,

Thanks for the info. Not sure which or both I'll end up joining but will do that soon. Have to keep supporting conservation organizations. Certainly wasn't trying to start any bashing and glad this didn't turn into any bashing.


----------



## jhegg

Dan,
You are correct. Social hour starts at 5:30 pm. The buffet diner starts at 7:00 pm.


----------



## djleye

That would make it a social hour-and-a-half!!!!! :lol:


----------



## gooseboy

Correct me if im wrong but from what i know Delta's main focus is on the duck populations themselves while DU focuses mostly on the habitat and the wetlands.


----------



## DeltaBoy

gooseboy said:


> Correct me if im wrong but from what i know Delta's main focus is on the duck populations themselves while DU focuses mostly on the habitat and the wetlands.


Your right...

Delta's core is research/Policy and expands into Duck Production Programs...

DU is all about habitat...


----------



## cranebuster

I know you guys didn't want to get into bashing on this thread, but I do have to state an opinion that requires a little harsh reality. DU has really lost touch with it's roots and its mission, they've built up such a huge infrastructure that is so costly to maitain that it has started to cut into their functionability. If you don't believe me check out they're regional office in Bismarck. Then take a look at Delta's office, you'll quickly see where a whole lot of duck dollars are ending up. DU is quickly losing backing from thousands of big players that are sick and tired of putting up with their buearacracy, and switching over to Delta were there money is going to extremely good use. Delta has backed predator control for years, DU won't risk losing their non hunting backing by following Delta's lead. Studies show that predator control is not only necessary to sustain ecosystems, it is phenomenoly successful in raising ducks. If DU's goal was to make ducks they should follow the lead. Join Delta, help make ducks; and if you've got extra money laying around and want to help heat that big fancy building along the river in Bismarck, go ahead and join DU too. I for one will buy a few extra duck stamps with that money, or spend it on gas for checking my skunk traps!!! Read this little attachment, Delta's been saying this same thing for years, people are finally listening.
http://www.madduck.org/pdf/melancholy.baby.pdf
http://www.madduck.org/pdf/habitat.pdf


----------



## Field Hunter

SOOOOOO........our organizations should get along well......DU does the habitat and Delta controls the predators and puts up nesting boxes...sounds like the best of both worlds.


----------



## roostbuster

i couldn't agree more... BUT you talk about losing DU's "non hunters" that makes up approx. 1 % of their membership, and everyone knows who DU is working for, so i doubt it would be a problem... and i have disagree with du not trying to produce ducks, they are more into the land accusition (sp?) end of things, rather than the intensivem hands on control that delta is famous for.

to me it seems like this,
Delta's goal is the most ducks for next season, with what land we have now. while DU's goal is to ensure good populations for the next generations through purchasing and maintaining land... they both need to get on board and work togther.


----------



## djleye

I guess I don't think that Delta is quite that shortsighted. I know that they have long term plans and they include trying toi restore habitat in prairie canada. That to me does not sound like only living for next years duck brood, that would help for centuries to come. Delta definately has longer range plans than for only next season.


----------



## cranebuster

Roostbuster, you really should read the link I put on above. All that I'm saying is that DU is not being managed efficiently, Delta is, I'm gonna put my hard earned money were it is going to do the most good, with Delta. DU has spent litterally millions of dollars on private interest hunting clubs over the last decades flooding fields in the wintering grounds and securing large bodies of water, all of which to absolutely no good for the ducks let alone the average Joe who wants to shoot them. I know a fellow from Texas who used to be a member of a hunt club down there that got an impoundment built by DU that ran unsuspecting DU members all over the U.S. nearly $150,000 bucks. I really don't want to pay for a few rich guys' milo field do you?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Cranebuster.....I belive that is in the past now. They have a new leaders and are getting away from that...for my understanding. But yes they did not manage there money correctly.....like I mentioned above....about $0.50 of every dollar earned went towards habitat....now it is closer to $0.80 of every dollar. But yes what you mentioned was happening quite frequently and now with the new leadership has stopped.


----------



## Mike DU

Guys it's our right as Americans to support who we want and to speak freely. There is however, no good in bashing one organization over another (your playing right into the antis hands). As hunters we need to stand together. DU has its reasons for doing business&#8230;Delta has theirs. Support one or both&#8230;.but to bash either without good facts and knowledge of what you discuss is irresponsible and foolish. I would encourage you all to seek accurate information, it is out their and I would ask that you consider the source before you make judgements.

We have a tremendous amount of information available on our website; I encourage you to visit www.ducks.org and I welcome you to contact me directly or visit the DU Forum at http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/foru ... forumid=84 I am available to ask questions and am glad to try an answer to the best of my abilities. I am sure our respected staff in Bismarck would also be willing discuss your concerns. The have provided some excellent info at: http://prairie.ducks.org/

Before anyone tries to call me out for sticking my nose in this thread I will have to point out that I have often followed the Nodakoutdoors site to stay on top of issues in a state that I have great reverence for, I am a avid North Dakota waterfowl and upland bird hunter, taking a 10 day vacation each October to hunt (for the last 7 yrs), recharge my batteries and visit my many friends and colleagues in North Dakota. I am also fortunate that my occupation allows me to be able to spend a week or two each year during the summer assisting with our programs and research efforts in the PPR.


----------



## Dak

Mike,

Thanks for the links!


----------



## DeltaBoy

Mike DU said:


> Guys it's our right as Americans to support who we want and to speak freely. There is however, no good in bashing one organization over another. As hunters we need to stand together. DU has its reasons for doing business&#8230;Delta has theirs. Support one or both&#8230;.but to bash either without good facts and knowledge of what you discuss is irresponsible and foolish.


Mike,

Welcome to the site! I agree with you, no bashing is needed and it's an individuals right to pick what wave(s) he/she wants to follow...


----------



## Mike DU

Per some of the concerns expressed....here is a bit of factual information:

"lost touch with it's roots and its mission". DU mission is habitat&#8230;..No other waterfowl conservation organization conserve more waterfowl habitat than DU. Its roots are hunters and its membership continues to be just that hunters.

Huge infrastructure costly to maintain?? See our annual report >80 cents on the dollar goes toward habitat conservation (this year 87 cents!). http://www.ducks.org/annualreport/

DU is quickly losing backing from thousands of big players&#8230;Just this week DU signed a partnership with Mossy Oak http://www.ducks.org/News/MossyOakRelease.asp , a new Grasslands for Tomorrow partnership with Federal Ammunition, we are annually supported by MBNA Bank, Realtree/Advantage Camo, ECHO Inc, Tyson Foods, CropLife America, Shell Oil, Yamaha Motor Co., Caterpillar Inc, Bass Pro Shops to name a few. Last year we raised more money for conservation than in any year previous! Again see our independent audit and Annual report. http://www.ducks.org/annualreport/

•	Last year, DU raised $196 million for habitat conservation. 
•	DU conserved more than 220,000 acres across the United States

DU is not afraid of losing any non-hunting backing by promoting predator control. We do not back it because the science tells us that predator control is not the best use of our members dollars and it is outside of our intended mission. See http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... c_2003.asp and http://southern.ducks.org/prairie_ducks.php

Why take a cheap shot about buildings? As was the building in Memphis, the Bismarck Office was built using dedicated funds raised for the intended purpose, there were also donations in land and equipment and a finanical analyisis that showed that owning a building was more efficient than renting (as was doen prior). Yes we are fortunate to have a nice facility, which I might add is open to the public and often used by the public for meetings and other events. The office in Bismarck also houses some of the most talented and respected waterfowl biologists in North America and an award winning GIS staff. It takes equipment and infrastructure to get things done. We work in all 50 states, all provinces and territories in Canada and in Mexico. We conserve habitat wherever it is important to the life history of waterfowl and where threatened to loss. This is no small undertaking and takes a tremendous amount of effort and dedication.

Yes...The duck stamp program continues to be an excellent way to put habitat on the ground. Second only to the duck stamp program is the USFWS/DU conservation easement program. Another way the ducks, framers and hunters all win!!!

I might mention our revolving lands program is also another efficent way to utilize limited conservation dollars in protecting wetalnd and grassland habitat. http://prairie.ducks.org/index.cfm?&pag ... ction.html

Thank for your support of the ducks!


----------



## Mike DU

Cranebuster - I am not going to tell you were to send your money but I can help inform you of what is really going on.

I can also understand your concern about private lands work but I have to disagree.

First the majority of land is in private ownership so to have a landscape impact (what is needed to have a measurable impact) we must work on private lands and gladly do. In your example Texas, I believe 98% is in private ownership.

Second. Most of the dollars spent on private land programs in the mid-latitude and southern states come from state and federal coffers - NOT DU membership/fundraised money. Most of DU's cost in these efforts are engineering and biologist staff time (in-kind services). These in-kind services actually qualify us for and are used to obtain more federal matching dollars to do additional private and public land projects. The partners generally provide the cash funding state agencies, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Third: The landowner pays a cost-share percentage. In the Texas example about 38% on average.

Fourth: While these landowners often benefit from the projects they provide far more than they take.

Fifth: Many get the WRP program and DU private land programs confused. WRP is a federal program administered by the NRCS. DU is contracted to do the biological and engineering design and construction. DU is reimbursed all money expended during development of WRP projects by the NRCS.

Bottom-line: If wetlands are to be restored on a landscape level to benefit the waterfowl resource it will have to be done on private lands. Habitat on private lands may not benefit you directly but if those projects were not there the birds would not be either. These wetlands although only hunted by a few will provide resources for many more waterfowl and attract birds to your area, providing hunting opportunity for all.


----------



## Mike DU

The TEXAS example you brought up.

DU banquet proceeds or membership donations DO NOT GO TOWARDS THESE PROJECTS. This staet/federal/DU partnership utilizes NAWCA grants and state nonfederal match to cover costs!

It's all spelled out on our website: http://southern.ducks.org/Txprairiewetlands.php

The Texas Prairie Wetlands Project (TPWP) provides cost-share assistance to landowners for levee construction and installation of water control structures. In addition to cost-share assistance, the landowner is provided technical assistance (i.e., biological and engineering) at no cost. This assistance, coupled with the cost-share is the cornerstone of the TPWP; it not only helps the landowner better manage his/her prairie wetland project, but also any other wetlands that occur on the property.

Bottom Line: Well over 90% of the land in Texas is in private ownership. If wetlands are to be restored on a landscape level in Texas to benefit the waterfowl resource it will have to be done on private lands. These wetlands although only hunted by a few will provide resources for many more waterfowl and attract birds to your area, providing hunting opportunity for all.

Hope this helps make sense.

DU = hunters, wetlands, ducks!


----------



## ND_duckman

Wow...I don't know where to start...I will just put a *little* down for now.

In reference to cranebuster: First off the office in Bismarck, I may be wrong, but I believe there were donors who specifically donated money for a nice regional office for DU to have, therefore it was not conservation dollars spent on the office. Secondly DU has not lost tough with its grass roots mission; DU has kept its focus. I'm not sure where all of the info was gathered from on your links, but 86% of the money that DU raises goes to waterfowl/wetland conservation, 11% goes to fundraising and development, and 3% goes to administration and human resources.

Now I will touch on my area of knowledge, the biological end of things.

You go on to said that "people are going to Delta where their money is going to extremely good use. Delta has backed predator control for years DU won't risk losing their non hunting backing by following Delta's lead. Studies show that predator control is not only necessary to sustain ecosystems, it is phenomenoly successful in raising ducks."

Well I don't know how you can consider this use of Delta's money an "extremely good use"? Predators always have and will always be an integral part of the ecosystem in the ppr. Acquisition of habitat is the scientifically/economically sound way to produce more ducks. I will ask this&#8230;have the Delta studies looked at what happens to all of the other animals in the landscape when the predators (raccoons, skunks&#8230;ect) are removed? Well when the easy to catch ducks are not nesting on the prairie, those predators mainly feed on small mammals (mice, voles&#8230;ect), thus keeping the small mammal populations in check. When raccoons and skunks are gone the mice and vole populations will dramatically shoot up. When this happens something will need to feed on the over abundant population of mice and voles&#8230;.The thing that will keep the mice and voles in check will be the avian predators (which no one seems to consider)&#8230;the avian predators like to eat those nice little hens sitting on the nest just as much as those raccoons and skunks, plus the avian predators are also able to nab those little ducklings from wetlands too, and when the avian predator populations soar to new heights we can't just trap them or shoot them like the mammal predators, the avian predators are federally protected&#8230;

In the long run we can only conserve so much land, some day far off in the future, when that happens, then we can focus on more intensely managing the habitat we have, until we reach that point we need to keep on investing more in the acquisition of habitat, not trying to take all the predators out township by township.


----------



## jhegg

JR,

You make some damning statements about Delta.



> Well I don't know how you can consider this use of Delta's money an "extremely good use"? Predators always have and will always be an integral part of the ecosystem in the ppr. Spending boat loads of money trapping predators in the ppr is a gross miss-management of donated money. Acquisition of habitat is the scientifically/economically sound way to produce more ducks.


Sure, predators will always be here. However, it has been shown that predator management is very successful in improving recruitment.

It is nice to acquire habitat, but you can not "acquire" enough habitat to insure a healthy waterfowl population. Furthermore, if, because of predation, your habitat does not produce enough ducks to replace annual losses - where are you now?

I think both Delta and DU are working to improve waterfowl population. Why don't we just each do what we do best and leave the sniping out of it?

Jim Heggeness


----------



## djleye

Totally agree Jim. JR, guys that are obviously reps from both have not sniped at either, why would you choose to do so???? :eyeroll:

Both orgs have their place and do good things!!! :beer:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Knowing many people from Delta and DU and there points of view, you would think that some common ground could be met.
For some reason DU has a "hard on" that they cannot get past, Delta has reached out on several points and offered their hand. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think one was on ALUS.
Could you imagine what kind of force they would be if both orgs. would lobby together and put their efforts in some of the same baskets??


----------



## buckseye

I would like to see DU's scientific facts how getting rid of predators is bad, and along side I would like Deltas scientific facts how getting rid of predators is good.

Last year I read some decent info on Deltas test areas for predator management, now need to see DU test area facts.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

buckseye said:


> I would like to see DU's scientific facts how getting rid of predators is bad, and along side I would like Deltas scientific facts how getting rid of predators is good.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when you remove predators in the nesting areas of any kind of birds that the production will jump dramatically.


----------



## buckseye

> I will ask this&#8230;have the Delta studies looked at what happens to all of the other animals in the landscape when the predators (raccoons, skunks&#8230;ect) are removed? Well when the easy to catch ducks are not nesting on the prairie, those predators mainly feed on small mammals (mice, voles&#8230;ect), thus keeping the small mammal populations in check. When raccoons and skunks are gone the mice and vole populations will dramatically shoot up. When this happens something will need to feed on the over abundant population of mice and voles&#8230;.


4curl...Production of what?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Frogs. :lost:


----------



## buckseye

I didn't think you would know. :withstupid:


----------



## Mike DU

If you want to discuss the merits of Predator management I would be glad to, HOWEVER, be it known this is not a DU vs Delta thing. DU is not against Delta and Delta is not just predator control.

Too often folks have wrongly pitted DU vs DW when in fact we are debating the management practice-predator control not battling each other (in science debate is a healthy part of the system). The reality is amongst the biological community the debate is pretty much over. We have known since the 1950's that if you remove predators you will increase nest success. That's kinda a no brainer&#8230;remove nest predators and there will certainly be some kind of improvement in nest success!!! What remains to be shown is if this increase in nest success can be applied on a scale large enough to influence population levels or hunting success. And increasingly evidence is indicating it is not needed.

DU and other wildlife management leaders have learned from past experiences and from the large body or research regarding predator control and impacts to continental waterfowl populations. From this wealth of information we have chosen the appropriate path to what we must do to effectively assure the long-term health of waterfowl populations across North America. That path is HABITAT CONSERVATION. We are not alone in this belief. It is widely supported and practiced by the conservation community throughout the world (organizations such as Pheasants Forever, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Mississippi Flyway Council, NAWCA Council, and NAWMP etc.) that predator control is not a key element in ensuring waterfowl and other game bird populations prosper. Likewise, our scientific staff, board, volunteers and members recognize and agree that predator control is not a responsible use of our supporters' contributions as well as is in opposition of our stated mission and our efforts to improve the long-term health of waterfowl populations across North America. Further, even the most ardent advocates of predator control believe that habitat conservation is the paramount priority.

As I mentioned above I would again ask you to look at the articles I mentioned in previous posts. See http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... c_2003.asp This is really the definitive piece regarding DU and predator control as a landscape management tool.

I will quote a sentence from that article that really says it all plainly and to the fact.

_"We (DU) have concluded that wide-scale predator control to increase ducks populations (continentally) is an ineffective approach that would be harmful to long-term waterfowl conservation and the hunters who enjoy the sport of waterfowling". _

You might want to look at http://southern.ducks.org/prairie_ducks.php as well.

If you just have to see data to help make up your mind here is a bit.

Look at: Reynolds et al. 2001. The Impact of CRP on Duck Recruitment in the US PPR. Journal of Wildlife Management

Look at: Mark Drever et al. 2004 Decline Of Duck Nesting Success Revisited: Relationships With Predators And Wetlands In Dynamic Prairie Environments, AUK
This is the latest review paper on the subject which appeared in the Auk and is the best overview of this topic. Findings -Average nest success for dabbling ducks at unmanaged sites in the Prairie Pothole Region has fluctuated over time, rather than experienced a monotonic decline as previously thought (Beauchamp et al. 1996a,b). If you trust the 3 studies done in the 30's, that have an average of 40%, most of this 'decline' would have already taken place by the 1950's. Drever et al. showed that nest success has fluctuated over time with an average of 20%.

Look at nest success of trapped vs. nontrapped areas. Just this year Deltas research showed that the difference in nest success between PC (47.68%) and nontrapped areas (32.4%) was only 15%. The nontrapped areas averaged over twice that needed to maintain populations (15%)!!!!! When habitat is there nest success is more than adequate. I would assert this alone is more than proof that what needs to be done now is to protect existing habitat before it is lost. One thing is for sure&#8230;..lost habitat will produce no ducks!

Look at DU's recent nesting research at: http://prairie.ducks.org/index.cfm?&pag ... uccess.cfm

As you will find nest success is highly variable among years, within year and among habitat types. There are a lot of variables that influence whether a individual nest will hatch or whether a specific field or region will produce ducks.

I would also direct you to take a look at the current Summer 2005 Delta Waterfowl magazine article on pages 28 and 29 "Prime Breeding Habitat Plowed Under - 'Old Growth Prairie' Vanishing in the Dust". There may be a time someday that all the options we are left with is predator control. We are not there yet. We must protect the existing habitat and restore what we can now before its gone. We must work with Agricultural interests to promote wildlife friendly sustainable farming practices like managed grazing and winter wheat. If we spend money on predator control while nesting grounds are being plowed under we are really doing a disservice to ourselves, future hunters and the future of waterfowl populations.

What can we do?

I would encourage you all to read the rest of the DU Special Report (4 part Series) "Prairies Under Siege" 
Part 2 http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... b_2004.asp
Part 3 http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... r_2004.asp
Part 4 http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... e_2004.asp

I have always looked at it this way:

Consider a wetland complex of a given size that produces 100 ducklings per year. With intensive annual predator control, that same complex may produce 150 or even 200 ducklings per year. But, if that complex's potholes are drained and its grasslands plowed under to produce soybeans or a parking lot, it will never produce another duckling again - EVER. That's why Ducks Unlimited focuses efforts on habitat conservation, not predator control.

BOTTOMLINE: What ducks need is habitat protection programs like USFWS/DU Grassland conservation easements, support of re-enrollment and signup of new CRP acreage in the PPR, Federal programs in Canada like GreenCover (http://www.ducks.org/News/DU_DucksPrair ... ograms.asp)

Hope this all make some sense&#8230;without incensing those of you who favor predator control as that was not my intention.


----------



## CDK

Here's my two cents, granted both are non-profit orgs. they are basically businesses and I think the compitition is good for both of them. It keeps them both on there toes. I feel they are both great organizations.


----------



## cranebuster

I really don't understand why DU has to beat around the bush on predator management, you stated several times that it is a viable means of increasing nest success, yet regressed to saying that it is not yet need!! 
I believe the thousands of southern duck hunters who've hung up their shotguns over the past few seasons would disagree with you. You stated that increasing DU evidence has indicated that it is not needed!!! Would that be the 2-3% nest success returns you guys are getting off of your habitat blocks all across prairie canada? Sounds to me like someone doesn't know how to interpret the data. The fact of the matter is, it raises ducks and it does it in a direct, fast returning way that keeps duck hunters in ducks, that is who DU is out to please isn't it? You guys are an organization created by duck hunters to help ducks, so do it. And don't tell me that DU is not pitted against Delta, any dollar going to one organization is a dollar that won't make it to the other, and as far as I can see the juggernaut DU has created over the past 50 years needs every dollar it can get its hands on.


----------



## buckseye

Thank you MikeDU, I do enjoy a good scientific debate, as long as I'm not in it of course  I have to agree in many ways with what you have wrote here, without habitat there will be no ducks. When I was young there was some kind of program we would fence off 2/3 of the stock water ponds for the wildlife. The fence was provided and I remember many ducks being hatched there. I shot my first duck in that stock water pond, a blue wing teal.

I'm glad we have both organizations however they compliment each other. I do think we need to control the predators too. Maybe a bounty on nest predators caught during nesting period then taken off for the rest of the year. Not much prettier than a batch of ducklings out in the wild blue yonder just quacking away.... :lol:


----------



## honkbuster3

You should support both of the great organizations. There both are good for waterfowl


----------



## jhegg

Mike DU

You stated:



> But, if that complex's potholes are drained and its grasslands plowed under to produce soybeans or a parking lot, it will never produce another duckling again - EVER. That's why Ducks Unlimited focuses efforts on habitat conservation, not predator control.


That's a good point, but answer me this:

How many ducks will those 900,000 hens that are killed by predators every year produce? - NONE - EVER.

Delta does not bash DU about your management practices, in fact we agree that habitat protection is vital. However, DU itself will never be able to protect enough waterfowl habitat to insure the future of waterfowl. The only way to protect that magnitude of land is through goverment programs (such as CRP in the states and ALUS in Canada) that provide income to the private landowner for protecting prime habitat.

In the meantime Delta is doing what it thinks is best for the waterfowl resource and for the waterfowl hunting public. The following link http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/ddp/ddp.php will explain what Delta is doing in areas where the nesting habitat is not adequate to sustain waterfowl populations through recruitment.

So, both Delta and DU are working to insure the long term health of waterfowl populations. Let's just do that instead of knocking each other's programs.


----------



## R y a n

Mike DU said:


> Cranebuster - I am not going to tell you were to send your money but I can help inform you of what is really going on.
> 
> I can also understand your concern about private lands work but I have to disagree.
> 
> First the majority of land is in private ownership so to have a landscape impact (what is needed to have a measurable impact) we must work on private lands and gladly do. In your example Texas, I believe 98% is in private ownership.
> 
> Fourth: While these landowners often benefit from the projects they provide far more than they take.
> 
> Bottom-line: If wetlands are to be restored on a landscape level to benefit the waterfowl resource it will have to be done on private lands. Habitat on private lands may not benefit you directly but if those projects were not there the birds would not be either. These wetlands although only hunted by a few will provide resources for many more waterfowl and attract birds to your area, providing hunting opportunity for all.


Hi Mike

Allow me to inform you and the rest of the NoDak members of exactly what is going on.....

Let me give you an example of how DU has negatively impacted North Dakota. I'm certain you can likely exactly relate. You mention you started coming out to ND for the past few years. I'm going to take a wild guess on where you have been coming out to hunt. You see .... around 10 years ago land north of the Dawson area started being purchased by a wealthy Doctor from Bismarck. Folks in the area started not so affectionately calling him Dr. Duck. We'll call him Tom for the sake of this discussion. 

Now please bear with this long story. It is to provide accurate background to my point.

To continue...Prior to these land purchases, the surrounding area had been a major attractant for local waterfowl hunters. The land wasn't posted, hunting was great for everyone and there were few problems with access. Along comes Dr. Duck. He buys up all of the land along both sides of the major road. All of a sudden everywhere you see are bright metallic orange signs of how the land is posted. Soon after, an older farmyard is purchased and it becomes this man's personal entertainment hunting shack for his (now) many friends, including some big important Ducks Unlimited staff. Also during this time the Game and Fish starts getting reports of hunters being harrassed along land adjacent to this man's land, by what later is found to be this man's property caretaker. It seems that hunters who were laying along the ditch (legally) were being threatened and intimidated by this caretaker, and having geese that were coming their way flared away by his vehicle as they were trying to legally hunt. (Did I also mention that noone is ever granted access to hunt any of this property now? Ohh...except when he want some good PR to let some select Bismarck youth hunt a day every year... I've asked somewhere around 3 dozen times in the past 10 years)

Anyways...shortly thereafter, Ducks Unlimited created a "DU Project" on this man's land and created a nice big sign "dedicating" the area in his name...(big $$$ must be nice and influential).. although this man only recently came into possession of the area, he gets a nice big DU sign paid with my DU dollars.

So my point of this little (true) story Mike is that every story has 2 sides. I'm sure DU likes to point out this little piece of property with pride boasting of another success story that "private" land has helped increase DU mission of increasing duck production through working with private landowners. However the flipside of this little success story, is that Dr. Duck has taken away _*MANY*_ sections of prime hunting opportunity from the local resident hunters, MANY of which USED to be DU members. Many people used to hunt along Buffalo, Dead Buffalo, and Lake Ashley, including my grandfather for over 60 years until Dr. Duck came along.

The reason I point all of this out to you sir, is that I believe this may be the very land you come to hunt on each fall. You see, Dr. Duck is also a "big wig" in the National DU scene. It is also well known that Dr. Duck primarily uses his property to host major DU sponsors and staff each fall. The residents of Kidder, Stutsman, and Burleigh counties used to hunt that land. Not anymore. Now residents of Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina come to play. Is that the progress the residents of ND should expect to see with their DU dollars?

So while you come on this board proclaiming the good of Ducks Unlimited, remember that there are 2 sides to any story, things aren't always what they appear.....

Ducks Unlimited is NOT about increasing hunting opportunities for hunters. It is for increasing habitat through the projects you earlier espoused. That increasing duck population then flies down to the big private duck hunting operations for the winter, for the pleasure of the wealthy who have expensive memberships in duck hunting clubs.

So tell me Mike. Why should the good citizens of North Dakota have a membership in DU? Why should we continue to fund habitat for ducks that we won't have the opportunity to hunt soon unless we have the clout to get invited to wealthy landowners properties? It almost seems like this is the true DU dirty little secret. Con the ND hunting public and landowners to assist in providing habitat for duck production, without providing a "return on investment" for their membership $$$.

You see, it would seem to me that MANY DU members believe the benefit they are getting by joining is additional ducks to hunt. But you see that is the big fallacy. Their $$ goes to fund "pet projects" of DU in a given area to provide habitat enhancement assistance without the guarantee of hunting access. It would seem that you prefer that we become bird watchers in ND to save the birds for the rest of the flyway to be able to hunt further south....

My opinion folks: Put your $$ into Delta. Until DU changes their mission statement to increase access and opportunity for the average hunter, Ducks Unlimited is a rich man's organization. Period.

Ryan


----------



## buckseye

Ryan wrote



> Ducks Unlimited is NOT about increasing hunting opportunities for hunters. It is for increasing habitat through the projects you earlier espoused. That increasing duck population then flies down to the big private duck hunting operations for the winter, for the pleasure of the wealthy who have expensive memberships in duck hunting clubs


.

I agree Ryan. I've been saying that for years, not very popular at times either.


----------



## GooseBuster3

WOW, some of you guys are fighting over NOTHING!

I support both, and choose to because its a win, win situation.


----------



## g/o

This again has turned into nothing but a class envy thread again. I can't believe it because some doctor who through his hard work in life. Is able to afford to buy property and now is chastised for it. DU has many projects going on private land. Just go to the NRCS and ask about cross fencing or putting in a dam. I know many in my area who have done these projects and DU paid for them and these areas are open to public hunting if you ask. Delta does much more than trap skunks if not they would have very little support. This theorey some of you have that killing the predators is this answer is the same the oufitter from Bowman was using when shooting eagles. Delta is spending a ton of money on research and thats why we should support them,along with DU


----------



## buckseye

I don't think anyone is fighting, just trying to point out the differences I hope. It seems there are some differences to point out too. I suppose both org have failed projects, I think foolish habitat projects are the easiest to see is why DU seems to catch the most hell. Not saying all habitat projects are foolish either, I do know of a couple pretty goofy ones though.

Here's one that does very little good, DU has a pond project inside the boundaries of the JCS NWR where no one can hunt. The refuge has a lot of problems with botulism so very few ducks are raised there either. It's also along a well traveled road so a lot of people get to see and wonder who the heck would waste money like that, well they don't have to wonder there is a big sign boasting the millions of dollars spent on a botulism and cattail filled river valley as being a successful project of DU.


----------



## Mike DU

Ryan

As you stated Ryan, "there are 2 sides to any story, things aren't always what they appear....."

1.	Sorry, I do not hunt on this property&#8230;like you never have been invited. I stay on a Farm 6 miles east of McClusky. While I have made many friends and contacts over the years and hunt on some private lands (mostly for pheasant) I mainly hunt on public lands when waterfowl hunting (WPA's mostly). I like to diver hunt on bigger water out of a layout boat when in North Dakota (I get plenty of mallard shooting in Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee).

2.	You might find it interesting that Bismarck doctor "Tom" besides a strong supporter of DU is a recent/former President of Delta Waterfowl. I have met him and he happens to be a pretty nice guy and a strong conservationist. His property in Kidder County (3,173) has been protected by a donated conservation easement. As far as I am aware there were no DU dollars spent on this outside of the sign. Landowners who donate or sell easements to DU customarily pay for the associated on-going costs (such as monitoring) by establishing and donating an endowment to DU. Check out http://www.ducks.org/conservation/FactS ... tSheet.pdf for information on conservation easements. Sorry no "pet project" here. No secret here either!

Ryan asked: "So tell me Mike. Why should the good citizens of North Dakota have a membership in DU?"

Visit the Great Plains Regional Office website lots of reasons there! I'll make it even easier:

Progress Report on Fundraising and Conservation Goals: Grasslands For Tomorrow

Grasslands for Tomorrow (GFT) is a multi-faceted initiative that targets the best-of-the-best remaining duck breeding habitat in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region, then implements a suite of restoration, management, and land protection programs -- together with effective public policies -- to address the breeding habitat requirements of waterfowl. Purchased grassland and wetland easements, donated conservation easements, and fee title acquisitions financed through a revolving fund are the largest and most important elements of GFT. However, our ability to influence public policy decisions, particularly Farm Bill programs, is also critically important. Wetland and upland restoration, promotion of winter wheat as a crop that benefits nesting ducks, and improved management of private, public, and DU-owned lands round out the main elements of GFT . In addition, research, monitoring, and communications compliment on-the-ground delivery by increasing our program effectiveness, visibility, and support.

Under GFT, we propose to protect 2 million acres by the year 2019. Conceived as a 20-year initiative, current projections are that it will require $117.3 million in Ducks Unlimited funds to achieve our goal. The next six years afford some unique opportunities to retain and protect habitat before it disappears. During that timeframe, it will require $63.5 million to fully implement GFT. The majority of these funds would be directed towards the purchase of perpetual grassland easements and fee title acquisitions.

In FY05, DU perpetually protected 39,302 acres through a combination of easements and fee title acquisitions. In addition, 6,114 acres were restored (consisting mostly of wetlands), and technical assistance on management was provided on 88,831 acres.

Purchased Grassland Easements Our most ambitious objective under Grasslands for Tomorrow is to secure 1.85 million acres of purchased grassland and wetland easements. To that end, we continue to deliver our easement program in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). By combining our resources and leveraging our complimentary expertise with that of the FWS, we are able to efficiently protect habitat in perpetuity. Moreover, the FWS assumes monitoring and enforcement costs, leaving more DU funds available to acquire new easements. Ducks Unlimited continues to be involved at all levels of the grassland easement program, from field biologists who contact landowners, to realty staff who value easements and develop the easement documents, to our strategic planners and directors who leverage private and public funds and decide where to focus our collective efforts. We are proud that the DU-FWS grassland easement collaboration continues to be recognized as one of the most productive and innovative partnerships in conservation today. Recently, the easement program was selected from a pool of hundreds of "conservation partnerships", and consequently afforded the opportunity to present our collaborative approach to attendees at the prestigious "White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation", which will occur in August 2005.

In FY05, Ducks Unlimited purchased 5,678 acres of wetland easements and 37,674 acres of grassland easements in the Missouri Coteau landscape of North and South Dakota. This involved working with 88 farm and ranch families who share our vision of protecting wetlands and native prairie for future generations. Since the start of Grasslands for Tomorrow in 1998, DU and the FWS have protected over 570,000 acres with perpetual easements in North and South Dakota. Combined with easement acquisitions by the FWS that occurred prior to the start of GFT, there are now 910,000 acres of grassland and wetland easements in DU's GFT initiative area.

We are making good progress towards our 1.85 million acre goal, but there are significant challenges ahead. During the last 18 months, the cost of easements has doubled as a result of rapidly appreciating land values and higher easement payments resulting from the expedited process for valuing easements. In addition, new, genetically-modified crops -- particularly soybeans -- are accelerating the conversion of grassland to cropland. This conversion is most rapid in central South Dakota, the location of the best remaining Northern Pintail breeding habitat remaining in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Some extremely poor, rocky soils, previously deemed unfarmable, are being broken to accommodate new soybean acres. Unwittingly, the system of price supports and emergency payments afforded by the U.S. Farm Bill provides a financial safety net to producers undertaking this conversion.

The urgency - and opportunity - has never been greater. In places, we are losing native prairie at the annual rate approaching 2.5%. While on the surface this does not seem to be a particularly rapid rate of conversion, the "compounding effects" of such a loss means that 30% of the existing native prairie will be lost in 14 years, and 40% will be gone in 20 years. Because duck nesting success is dependent on the amount of grassland in the landscape, losses of this magnitude would seriously erode the duck production capability of the Prairie Pothole Region. Fortunately, many private landowners are interested in participating in the easement program. Currently, in North and South Dakota, there are 582 landowners on a waiting list for easement evaluation. These landowners represent a total of 288,814 potential, new easement acres, but purchasing easements on this number of acres will require $47,353,200! If these landowners are not offered easements within the next 18-24 months, there is concern that many of them will sell their land to individuals interested in converting the grassland to cropland.

Not to mention what we are doing in Canada: http://www.ducks.ca/


----------



## Mike DU

As I mentioned before debating predator control is not bashing Delta. I was asked (buckseye) why DU does not conduct or promote predator control? I provided an answer.

As far as 900,000 hens&#8230; think about scale. What it takes to influence continental populations (i.e. 26-42 million breeding birds)

You are correct about the need for government programs in Canada. We have been working on this for many years as some of the most important breeding grounds for waterfowl, including the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) and Boreal Forest, lie within Canada. Because the majority of the birds harvested by U.S. hunters originate in Canada, conserving waterfowl habitat there is one of the most critical issues to the future of ducks, and duck hunting in the United States.

Since 1985, the burden of waterfowl conservation in Canada has mainly fallen to the partners of North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and its programs on public and private lands. Despite NAWMP's success and conservation of over 5.6 million acres, including work on over 10,000 Canadian farms, wetland habitats continue to be lost across Canada.

Similar to the leadership its sister organization, Ducks Unlimited Inc., has shown in the delivery and success of conservation provisions (such as CRP, WRP) in the United States, Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) has been the lead conservation organization promoting agricultural conservation in Canada. DUC has worked closely with farmers and the Canadian governments' Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the development of Ecological Goods & Service (EG&S) provisions as part of the 2002 Agricultural Policy Frameworks (APF).

Ecological Goods & Services are benefits people derive from healthy ecosystems. Under APF, Canada version of our farmbill, Canadian landowners will have opportunities to be financially rewarded for EG&S, including conserving critical waterfowl habitat. DUC has been working with the AAFC and the provincial agricultural departments to develop beneficial management practices (BMPs) that will benefit waterfowl.

"Ducks Unlimited Canada's involvement and support for the development of this framework is critical to its success" said Hon. Wayne Easter, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of AAFC with special emphasis on Rural Development. DUC, through seconded staff, was the only conservation partner to work with the federal government in the development of the EG&S approach and the driving force in the establishment of conservation provisions in the APF.

According to Henry Murkin, Director of Conservation Programs for DUC, the time is right for agriculture and conservation to work together.

"DUC has supported the APF and sees compensation and support for the delivery of BMPs as the logical delivery mechanism for rewarding landowners for the delivery of EG&S they provide for all Canadians." Murkin said. The benefits provided by EG&S are critical to DUs mission of restoring waterfowl habitat in the Canadian PPR.

"Beginning with DUC's Conservation Cover Incentive Program proposal in 2001, we have promoted the concept of society compensating private landowners for the EG&S benefits Canadians receive from their lands," said Murkin. This concept became reality with the development and financial support of AAFC's Greencover Canada in 2003, which incorporated DUC's recommendations for landowner incentives to convert marginal croplands to permanent cover.

Now in its second year, Greencover Canada, is a five-year, $110-million federal agricultural initiative that pays for the conversion of cropland to perennial grassland, and provides financial and technical assistance for specific management practices that benefit the environment. Greencover Canada is currently funded for 700,000 acres.

"Greencover Canada is a positive first step, and is improving habitat conditions on acres, similar to, although on a smaller scale, how CRP has benefited waterfowl in the United States" said Murkin. "Greencover is on the verge of developing into a substantial program with the potential to be millions of acres."

Compensating landowners for conservation practices is nothing new to DUC. Since 1938, DUC has been providing financial incentives to Canadian landowners, conserving over 6.3 million acres of critical waterfowl habitats. DUC is working with over 7,000 farmers to implement agricultural practices that are environmentally and economically sustainable, and that balance agricultural production with conservation outcomes.

These early efforts opened doors for future EG&S pilot programs (such as the recently announced Keystone Agricultural Producers pilot project) that can positively impact farmers, waterfowl and the environment. DUC continues to work with federal and provincial representatives and other stakeholders to develop the EG&S policy framework and the upcoming on EG&S.

As Canadian agricultural policy and EG&S programs move forward, the critical waterfowl habitat they will conserve will help maximize the potential of the Canadian Duck Factory. This potential was confirmed again this year when breeding ducks responded extensively (increasing by 31 percent from the previous year) to the improved habitat conditions on the Canadian prairies, providing the evidence that when we work together to protect the habitat, when the rains return so will the ducks.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Mike

Question: GFT what will the net gain in Duck numbers be? Not intended to bash anyone here just wondering what DU has for numbers on return on investment?

Bob


----------



## R y a n

Hi Mike

I appreciate the reply. I took the time to review your postings on RefugeForums, and understand the perspective you are coming from. Unfortunately, you did not address several of the points I've raised in response to my concerns about what DU does with it's dollars. Please see inline below my thoughts as I read through your response....



Mike DU said:


> Ryan
> 
> As you stated Ryan, "there are 2 sides to any story, things aren't always what they appear....."
> 
> 2.	You might find it interesting that Bismarck doctor "Tom" besides a strong supporter of DU is a recent/former President of Delta Waterfowl. I have met him and he happens to be a pretty nice guy and a strong conservationist. His property in Kidder County (3,173) has been protected by a donated conservation easement. As far as I am aware there were no DU dollars spent on this outside of the sign. Landowners who donate or sell easements to DU customarily pay for the associated on-going costs (such as monitoring) by establishing and donating an endowment to DU. Check out http://www.ducks.org/conservation/FactS ... tSheet.pdf for information on conservation easements. Sorry no "pet project" here. No secret here either!


# 1. Yes I did know he was a former chairman of Delta. I too have met him several times, including once while he was in the field hunting as he was checked by a warden. He is a heckuva nice guy provided you do not want access to his property. He has a vested interest in waterfowl conservation. That cannot be denied. The problem that concerns me is that if someone such as him is a major officer of both DU and Delta, why isn't he more involved in the cause of hunter access? That is a whole different point for another day. But it does beg the question about some of those that we as members put in charge of our little nest egg membership dollars. Whose interest is someone like that putting forward? He seems not so interested in providing hunters with increased opportunities but rather increasing duck populations for his property so that he may continue to use his exclusive access for himself/friends and/or to increase his credentials on his resume.

Also why doesn't he visit NodakOutdoors and push the causes of these 2 organizations he represents? You'd think this would be the perfect forum for the local ND leader(s) of both DU and Delta to further their agenda? Makes you wonder??????

But I digress...



Mike DU said:


> Ryan asked: "So tell me Mike. Why should the good citizens of North Dakota have a membership in DU?"
> 
> Visit the Great Plains Regional Office website lots of reasons there! I'll make it even easier:
> 
> During that timeframe, it will require $63.5 million to fully implement GFT. The majority of these funds would be directed towards the purchase of perpetual grassland easements and fee title acquisitions.
> 
> In FY05, DU perpetually protected 39,302 acres through a combination of easements and fee title acquisitions. In addition, 6,114 acres were restored (consisting mostly of wetlands), and technical assistance on management was provided on 88,831 acres.
> 
> Purchased Grassland Easements Our most ambitious objective under Grasslands for Tomorrow is to secure 1.85 million acres of purchased grassland and wetland easements. To that end, we continue to deliver our easement program in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). By combining our resources and leveraging our complimentary expertise with that of the FWS, we are able to efficiently protect habitat in perpetuity. Moreover, the FWS assumes monitoring and enforcement costs, leaving more DU funds available to acquire new easements. Ducks Unlimited continues to be involved at all levels of the grassland easement program, from field biologists who contact landowners, to realty staff who value easements and develop the easement documents, to our strategic planners and directors who leverage private and public funds and decide where to focus our collective efforts. We are proud that the DU-FWS grassland easement collaboration continues to be recognized as one of the most productive and innovative partnerships in conservation today.
> 
> ...In FY05, Ducks Unlimited purchased 5,678 acres of wetland easements and 37,674 acres of grassland easements in the Missouri Coteau landscape of North and South Dakota. This involved working with 88 farm and ranch families who share our vision of protecting wetlands and native prairie for future generations. Since the start of Grasslands for Tomorrow in 1998, DU and the FWS have protected over 570,000 acres with perpetual easements in North and South Dakota. Combined with easement acquisitions by the FWS that occurred prior to the start of GFT, there are now 910,000 acres of grassland and wetland easements in DU's GFT initiative area.
> 
> ...We are making good progress towards our 1.85 million acre goal, but there are significant challenges ahead. During the last 18 months, the cost of easements has doubled as a result of rapidly appreciating land values and higher easement payments resulting from the expedited process for valuing easements.


# 2. This sounds great on paper. But what does it mean to the average ND Duck hunter? Do these "easements" guarantee any kind of continuous hunting access? Or are they simply land use guarantees to ensure continued production of ducks for others to hunt further down the flyway? E.g., if a landowner signs up for an easement, do the retain hunting rights and/or are they allowed to post their land?



Mike DU said:


> The urgency - and opportunity - has never been greater. In places, we are losing native prairie at the annual rate approaching 2.5%. While on the surface this does not seem to be a particularly rapid rate of conversion, the "compounding effects" of such a loss means that 30% of the existing native prairie will be lost in 14 years, and 40% will be gone in 20 years. Because duck nesting success is dependent on the amount of grassland in the landscape, losses of this magnitude would seriously erode the duck production capability of the Prairie Pothole Region. Fortunately, many private landowners are interested in participating in the easement program. Currently, in North and South Dakota, there are 582 landowners on a waiting list for easement evaluation. These landowners represent a total of 288,814 potential, new easement acres, but purchasing easements on this number of acres will require $47,353,200! If these landowners are not offered easements within the next 18-24 months, there is concern that many of them will sell their land to individuals interested in converting the grassland to cropland.


# 3. So let me try to understand this correctly. Assuming from #2 that they are not required to provide hunting access rights... But they get to reap the benefit of my membership dollar to utilize improving their habitat on their land. This is exactly the problem I have with the process. Wealthy men get to buy land for their hunting paradise. They then get involved with DU to provide them with "easements" to put the land into some shape that provides excellent habitat for the breeding of ducks. They reap the rewards of more ducks, DU providing funding to improve their paradise, and sometimes if they are lucky and powerful, they get a great big sign with their name on it lauding their paradise. This almost sounds like a perfect way for someone to be able to afford a bigger paradise knowing that much of it can be written off, reinvested into Farm programs(CRP) or DU easements. They can own their paradise, while having others increase it's huntability and still be allowed to deny access to the average guy.

What exactly do I get out of the deal?

Thanks in advance for the response.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## bgoldhunter

Hmmm...well, you also reap the benefits of a permanent wetlands and more ducks to go with them. Wow, terrible thing!

DU puts about 85% of what it makes back into the ground. That is damn good for any not-for profit agency. That means more places for ducks and the net benefit of more ducks to go to them. Sounds to me you are only concerned about what you get out of one particular place. Why not think about what else is done across the US, Canada and Mexico for the good of us all, including yourself. A project done in the Pacific flyway does not have any difference in my hunting in the Mississipi flyway, but I know it's there and I'm glad to raise money to do it.


----------



## R y a n

bgoldhunter said:


> Hmmm...well, you also reap the benefits of a permanent wetlands and more ducks to go with them. Wow, terrible thing!
> 
> DU puts about 85% of what it makes back into the ground. That is damn good for any not-for profit agency. That means more places for ducks and the net benefit of more ducks to go to them. Sounds to me you are only concerned about what you get out of one particular place. Why not think about what else is done across the US, Canada and Mexico for the good of us all, including yourself. A project done in the Pacific flyway does not have any difference in my hunting in the Mississipi flyway, but I know it's there and I'm glad to raise money to do it.


That is your choice. In that case DU should also be marketing itself to the legions of birdwatchers in the United States. More habitat and more ducks without access to hunt them does not do much for someone interested in hunting them too .... does it?

Let's face it. Without the Dakotas and Canada you wouldn't have any ducks to hunt at all. DU is going after the breeding grounds of ducks to ensure that big $$$ established hunting clubs down south and the wintering grounds have a continuous supply of birds to pursue relentlessly throughout the winter. Without ND you'd be at a serious disadvantage in having a sufficient quantity of birds to hunt your entire season. ND doesn't get an entire season of hunting. Either the birds come late or leave early. Most years North Dakotan's get around 4 weeks of really good hunting with high bird numbers. Further down the flyway you get 2 or 3 times that many quality days...

Yep I should just keep contributing to an organization that wants to produce lots of birds the majority of which I'll never see or be able to hunt... sounds like a great deal.


----------



## gooseboy

Hmmm theres alot of mixed responses on this one so im gonna stay out of it.


----------



## R y a n

Ben Elli said:


> Hi Mike
> 
> I appreciate the reply. I took the time to review your postings on RefugeForums, and understand the perspective you are coming from. Unfortunately, you did not address several of the points I've raised in response to my concerns about what DU does with it's dollars. Please see inline below my thoughts as I read through your response....
> 
> 
> 
> Mike DU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan
> 
> As you stated Ryan, "there are 2 sides to any story, things aren't always what they appear....."
> 
> 2.	You might find it interesting that Bismarck doctor "Tom" besides a strong supporter of DU is a recent/former President of Delta Waterfowl. I have met him and he happens to be a pretty nice guy and a strong conservationist. His property in Kidder County (3,173) has been protected by a donated conservation easement. As far as I am aware there were no DU dollars spent on this outside of the sign. Landowners who donate or sell easements to DU customarily pay for the associated on-going costs (such as monitoring) by establishing and donating an endowment to DU. Check out http://www.ducks.org/conservation/FactS ... tSheet.pdf for information on conservation easements. Sorry no "pet project" here. No secret here either!
> 
> 
> 
> # 1. Yes I did know he was a former chairman of Delta. I too have met him several times, including once while he was in the field hunting as he was checked by a warden. He is a heckuva nice guy provided you do not want access to his property. He has a vested interest in waterfowl conservation. That cannot be denied. The problem that concerns me is that if someone such as him is a major officer of both DU and Delta, why isn't he more involved in the cause of hunter access? That is a whole different point for another day. But it does beg the question about some of those that we as members put in charge of our little nest egg membership dollars. Whose interest is someone like that putting forward? He seems not so interested in providing hunters with increased opportunities but rather increasing duck populations for his property so that he may continue to use his exclusive access for himself/friends and/or to increase his credentials on his resume.
> 
> Also why doesn't he visit NodakOutdoors and push the causes of these 2 organizations he represents? You'd think this would be the perfect forum for the local ND leader(s) of both DU and Delta to further their agenda? Makes you wonder??????
> 
> But I digress...
> 
> 
> 
> Mike DU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan asked: "So tell me Mike. Why should the good citizens of North Dakota have a membership in DU?"
> 
> Visit the Great Plains Regional Office website lots of reasons there! I'll make it even easier:
> 
> During that timeframe, it will require $63.5 million to fully implement GFT. The majority of these funds would be directed towards the purchase of perpetual grassland easements and fee title acquisitions.
> 
> In FY05, DU perpetually protected 39,302 acres through a combination of easements and fee title acquisitions. In addition, 6,114 acres were restored (consisting mostly of wetlands), and technical assistance on management was provided on 88,831 acres.
> 
> Purchased Grassland Easements Our most ambitious objective under Grasslands for Tomorrow is to secure 1.85 million acres of purchased grassland and wetland easements. To that end, we continue to deliver our easement program in close coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). By combining our resources and leveraging our complimentary expertise with that of the FWS, we are able to efficiently protect habitat in perpetuity. Moreover, the FWS assumes monitoring and enforcement costs, leaving more DU funds available to acquire new easements. Ducks Unlimited continues to be involved at all levels of the grassland easement program, from field biologists who contact landowners, to realty staff who value easements and develop the easement documents, to our strategic planners and directors who leverage private and public funds and decide where to focus our collective efforts. We are proud that the DU-FWS grassland easement collaboration continues to be recognized as one of the most productive and innovative partnerships in conservation today.
> 
> ...In FY05, Ducks Unlimited purchased 5,678 acres of wetland easements and 37,674 acres of grassland easements in the Missouri Coteau landscape of North and South Dakota. This involved working with 88 farm and ranch families who share our vision of protecting wetlands and native prairie for future generations. Since the start of Grasslands for Tomorrow in 1998, DU and the FWS have protected over 570,000 acres with perpetual easements in North and South Dakota. Combined with easement acquisitions by the FWS that occurred prior to the start of GFT, there are now 910,000 acres of grassland and wetland easements in DU's GFT initiative area.
> 
> ...We are making good progress towards our 1.85 million acre goal, but there are significant challenges ahead. During the last 18 months, the cost of easements has doubled as a result of rapidly appreciating land values and higher easement payments resulting from the expedited process for valuing easements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> # 2. This sounds great on paper. But what does it mean to the average ND Duck hunter? Do these "easements" guarantee any kind of continuous hunting access? Or are they simply land use guarantees to ensure continued production of ducks for others to hunt further down the flyway? E.g., if a landowner signs up for an easement, do the retain hunting rights and/or are they allowed to post their land?
> 
> 
> 
> Mike DU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The urgency - and opportunity - has never been greater. In places, we are losing native prairie at the annual rate approaching 2.5%. While on the surface this does not seem to be a particularly rapid rate of conversion, the "compounding effects" of such a loss means that 30% of the existing native prairie will be lost in 14 years, and 40% will be gone in 20 years. Because duck nesting success is dependent on the amount of grassland in the landscape, losses of this magnitude would seriously erode the duck production capability of the Prairie Pothole Region. Fortunately, many private landowners are interested in participating in the easement program. Currently, in North and South Dakota, there are 582 landowners on a waiting list for easement evaluation. These landowners represent a total of 288,814 potential, new easement acres, but purchasing easements on this number of acres will require $47,353,200! If these landowners are not offered easements within the next 18-24 months, there is concern that many of them will sell their land to individuals interested in converting the grassland to cropland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> # 3. So let me try to understand this correctly. Assuming from #2 that they are not required to provide hunting access rights... But they get to reap the benefit of my membership dollar to utilize improving their habitat on their land. This is exactly the problem I have with the process. Wealthy men get to buy land for their hunting paradise. They then get involved with DU to provide them with "easements" to put the land into some shape that provides excellent habitat for the breeding of ducks. They reap the rewards of more ducks, DU providing funding to improve their paradise, and sometimes if they are lucky and powerful, they get a great big sign with their name on it lauding their paradise. This almost sounds like a perfect way for someone to be able to afford a bigger paradise knowing that much of it can be written off, reinvested into Farm programs(CRP) or DU easements. They can own their paradise, while having others increase it's huntability and still be allowed to deny access to the average guy.
> 
> What exactly do I get out of the deal?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the response.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

Mike DU are you still out there?


----------



## Vtgunner

This has been a really interesting thread, I think someone in the past has said it best, North Dakota raises ducks, DU don't.

Ryan I respect the fact you had the guts to come on here and point out some great views from AVERAGE hunter prospectives. I see it the way you do. Its all big money and big wigs. Nodak outdoors is the only place where I see average hunters standing up for themselves against big money. That makes me feel good. :beer:


----------



## greenheadfallon

Alright guys ive been reading this thread and from what i have been hearing is DU=conservation of wetlands,Delta=Duck population.
So in my opinion both are needed to help ducks Period. No one is better, just they have different ideas but both have the right goal...DUCKS. If you say delta is better you say we need less wetlands conservation. If you say DU You say we need less duck population conservation. None of these will be succesful without the other.


----------



## buckseye

greenheadfallon... I have came to the same conclusion you have, we need to support both the way they complement each other. I love them little quackers! 

Thanks for all the discussion on this, I always have a lot to learn. Don't stop now lets hear of some duck related projects, good or bad.


----------



## Mike DU

I can certainly sympathize with your desire for more hunting land/access but do not see how you can fault DU. DU's mission is to protect the resources needed to maintain populations. We also have a responsibility to our members to do so in the most cost-effective manner. The reality is the majority of the land is in private ownership and will always be, which necessitates we develop effective programs that will benefit birds on private lands and be attractive to private landowners so they will enroll in the programs. To have a landscape impact we must work on private lands. Conservation easements whether donated or purchased remain one of the most cost-effective conservation securement programs.

I have to say as an outsider North Dakota Game and Fish as well as the USFWS has done an outstanding job of providing hunting opportunity in North Dakota. The Plots program, WPA's, other state and federal lands provide hundreds of thousands of acres of hunting opportunity that you do not have to draw for, wait in line or arm wrestle with other hunters! Try leaving your state sometime and see what others must endure to hunt ducks. Be thankful for what you have. North Dakota is blessed!

You asked:

1. Do these "easements" guarantee any kind of continuous hunting access? *Answer NO*. Landowners retain rights to hunting access and management stipulated by the agreement. Often limits to morning only hunting and no commercial hunting are written into these agreements. Membership in DU has no impact on whether your property qualifies for any programs.

2. Or are they simply land use guarantees to ensure continued production of ducks? *Answer YES!!!*
Sounds like your grip is more with the landowners not with DU. Be mindful that if these landowners had not purchase this land and conserved the land likely would be producing soybeans next year not ducks! I am more of the mind to thank them for their conservation efforts.

3. What exactly do I get out of the deal?
*Answer* You get to hunt ducks&#8230;.Members of DU have the satisfaction that they have helped protect habitat that will sustain duck populations and our opportunity to hunt ducks into the future. Sharing the benefits of migratory birds comes with a responsibility of sharing for their care. I would venture to guess that many of the landowners who have participated in conservation easements and other programs in North Dakota allow hunting with permission, much as most landowners in ND. If you want more than that I suggest you go out and buy your own land?? Myself I cannot afford to buy land at this time, would not want to restrict myself to one spot anyway and rarely have had problems knocking on doors and gaining access to some exceptional hunting in North Dakota.


----------



## bgoldhunter

Thanks, Mike! Very well stated!


----------



## chris lillehoff

DeltaBoy said:


> Your right...
> 
> Delta's core is research/Policy and expands into Duck Production Programs...
> 
> DU is all about habitat...


habitat...like where they hunt them.

ill be blunt....DU is into hunting land. Delta is production.

Question: What was the last project that the Cass county area chapter completed and where?


----------



## Mike DU

Conservation of wetland and grassland habitat IS Duck production!


----------



## Bob Kellam

I want to post a short note to those of you who are posting on this thread.

First I would like to say that if you have some beef with Delta or DU and you are a waterfowl hunter IMO you need to re-examine your priorities.

Both organizations are doing good things for waterfowl, you can not deny that. It is a FACT.

Getting into whizzing matches as to which is a better organization is counter productive because both organizations complement each other.

Don't get me wrong I can see why someone would be pro DU or Delta but if this thread wants to be a discussion tool for the betterment of waterfowl, positive and constructive ideas and understanding of the surrounding issues need to be discussed, every conservation organization when looked at on a case by case basis will have some bumps in the road, the goal should be to smooth out the bumps and focus on the end game and that is simply waterfowl production and conservation of habitat.

*We should be asking what projects can we get involved with that will benefit waterfowl instead of what have you done for me lately.*

I hope the discussion on this thread continues. habitat and ducks need our help we owe it to them for the waterfowl hunting heritage they have provided for us.

Bob


----------



## DeltaBoy

Bob, good post and very true...

I encourage all of you to get out this spring and visit your favorite honey hole, farmer, etc. Pick up some litter around a WPA, WMA, DU project, etc... You can see some amazing things when your outside helping the resource!


----------



## goosebusters2

I like both organizations, they both help to put more ducks in the air and then into my hand. I don't see any reason for the anamosity both organizations have the same goal.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Well said Bob. Support them both and buy extra duck stamps. It's all good.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

I just skimmed through this discussion and thought I should say something. I dont know if any one else said this but the the biggest difference between the to companies is-

Delta- is for ducks and duck hunters. They are willing to do what it takes 
for hunters to have there best oppurtunity to harvest ducks. 
(Bottom Line)

DU - is for ducks and conservation. They will mention stuff about hunters 
but some of there biggest sponsors are animal rights groups. If DU 
was to say it would be a good idea to kill of some preditors they 
would lose there funding from animal right groups. But DU does 
put up some preditor fences for safe nesting. but I dont think that 
the fences are that important the predators will just find another 
nest to rob. If they were dead they couldnt rob any nest.

I am a member of both and I will be for life. But if your a hunter and have to choose one to go with Delta all the way. They invest there money with the hunter in mind and the hunter only.


----------



## Mike DU

First FlasBoomSplash I would like to point you back to Bob's comments.

I am glad to discuss even debate the merits of programs and activities but to get on here and make comments with no basis in fact is counterproductive and a waste of time to all. 
While those may be your opinions (and I respect your right to one), I do not think there is much fact behind some the comments you present. Sounded more like your trying to bash DU. Again I would point you back to Bobs comments.

First: Who exactly are these big sponsor animal rights groups????

As I mentioned before: some of our corporate sponsors are: MBNA Bank, Budweiser, Realtree/Advantage Camo, ECHO Inc, Tyson Foods, CropLife America, Shell Oil, Yamaha Motor Co., Caterpillar Inc, Hancor, Bass Pro Shops to name a few. I do not see any animal rights groups there! Have you ever read our magazine?? Does it shy away from hunting???!!!!
DU is for the hunter as we are hunters!!!!. To say otherwise is ludicrous!
In surveys of our membership 96% has hunted and 90% hunted last year. 
See: http://www.ducks.org/waterfowling/du_and_hunting.asp

FYI Fencing: At one time fencing was a part of NAWMP until the science/evaluations showed that it was not a cost effective way to improve waterfowl production and was dropped (an important part of NAWMP is science and evaluation). We have not worked on fence or similar projects for several years. Some of these projects that NAWMP partners did some years ago (10 yrs +) are still operating. They are on NWRs and currently managed, to varying degrees, by the FWS. I am not aware of any currently active in Canada.

PC: As I stated before on this thread: "DU is not afraid of losing any non-hunting backing by promoting predator control. We do not back it because the science tells us that predator control is not the best use of our members dollars and it is outside of our intended mission. See http://www.ducks.org/media/magazine/sto ... c_2003.asp and http://southern.ducks.org/prairie_ducks.php
If it was a "good idea" DU would support predator control programs. In some localized cases we do support trapping (as a management tool). But the idea that trapping will have a landscape or long-term effect just is not backed by science. We are not the only ones who believe/understand this (PF, NWTF, and the majority of all biologists including Aldo Leopold "The only effective predator control is food and cover" - 1938). Besides science, the main reason we're steering away from these type management practices at this time is because of the ongoing loss rates of the key habitats that are producing ducks at high rates. Until those are locked up, we're fiddling while Rome burns!

An example what is impacting continental waterfowl populations on a landscape scale: Over 70% of the wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region have been drained or severely degraded, and the destruction continues. Wetland communities are less diverse and fewer in number, reducing the capacity of the land to sustain species' populations. Grasslands crucial to waterfowl populations have been decimated-less than one-fourth remains and the prairies continue to be converted to cropland at an alarming rate. These losses have had dire effects on waterfowl and all prairie-dependent species. Northern pintail and lesser scaup populations are undergoing a long-term decline. And the habitat base continues to be lost.

Threats to the prairies are many and impending. In the United States; wheat, corn, and soybeans are subsidized by tax-payer dollars-subsidies paid to growers based on acres planted and guaranteed prices. Perversely, subsidies designed to prop up prices because of grain overproduction prompt speculators to purchase native prairie and convert them crop ground. The current subsidy system designed to bolster low commodity prices caused by over-supply, simply exacerbates the problem by encouraging more land to be converted to cropland, thus dumping more and more grain into the already bloated system. Waterfowl, godwits, and grasshopper sparrows are left out in the cold.

Thanks you all for your support of the ducks!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Mike DU

I would never ever bash DU. I have been a member since I can rember. Started as a greenwinger. I love DU I have volunteered my time Donated more money than I have. I would give my blood for DU if they needed it. On the other hand I also have worked with Delta waterfowl. And from my personal experience with both I see more of money making an impact through Delta.

P.S. I read every DU Mag. from front to back.


----------

