Extended season

Anatidae · Postby **Anatidae** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 10:53 am

What goes around, comes around.......when Dr. Sam Polles and the other folks dedicated to representing the 'interests' of the sportsmen of Miss. submitted proposals (every year for 20 years), regarding the effect of late season harvest on waterfowl.....they recieved recommendations from Jamie Somebody (then director of the agency that assesses all the biological studies, data, etc. for the migratory branch of the USF&WS) and those recommendations were pursued (by MDWF&P and others) to insure that there would NOT be a detremental effect on the waterfowl population or breeding.

It was only after 'Jamie Somebody' agreed to AND accepted the legitimacy of Polles' proposal and then subsequently rejected it (went back on his word), that our elected officials went to 'bat' on our behalf. Don't tell me there wasn't some political considerations that prompted 'Jamie' to reverse his/her position to accept Polles' proposal. That was the fall-out from all the whining from representatives of 'the Northern Alliance' that did that!

Now, I'm (by no means) advocating that 'politics' SHOULD play a role in something that I feel ought to be STRICTLY based on scientific research and conclusive analysis......but I suspect it DOES.....like it, or not! Nor am I advocating that we retalliate' with the same under-handed tactics that were used on us.....but hey, you want a fight......you got one!

If you want to know who's side I'm on in all this......THE DUCKS! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Somebody fill in the blanks, before I loose what's left of my mind [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img].....Jamie Who?

Gee, I had NO idea GH22 was so well-connected (politically) [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] 'say yo brother dated Cliff Finch's granddaughter? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Anatidae ]

Postby **Greenhead22** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 12:49 pm

No, I don't have the political pull, but I do know who has it. Just like a buddy of mine who is using Ducks Unlimited like no other, getting paid $40K for installing a culvert, also got paid a substantial amount of money for DU to come in and build him 3 potholes and duck blinds to boot in his rice field. It's just all about who you know!!!

JP · Postby JP » Mon Oct 22, 2001 7:32 pm

GH22..DU is doing this coast-to-coast..border-to-border (am aware of these in Oklahoma, Texas & California) for private individuals/organizations..while (in many cases) there is NO WAY the average waterfowler will ever have access to said projects, my understanding is it's DU's official position that "habitat takes precedence over access"..nevermind these "projects" are partially funded with average Joe's $$'s, raised at DU functions every year..in many circles it's called urination upon my shoes while you're telling me it's raining! [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]

Postby **Greenhead22** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 7:50 pm

I could honestly get my buddy to call DU and have them do some work on our lease, but I don't want to turn my lease into a duck hunter's paradise. What I am saying is that the hunters that really need DU's help do not get it. My buddy doesn't need DU's help to have ducks, but he's making more money by letting DU do all the work. Plus they will be guiding full time next year, $250/gun. And knowing him he'll probably ask me to help guide some so he can bring more money in. DU also paid him $550/acre to plant trees on part of their lease. And the culvert that DU paid him to flood a field for ducks is useless cuz I've never seen a duck in their flooded field, just wasted membership money. I'd say if you want to see something done with your membership money, join your local chapter instead of the national chapter.

peewee · Postby **peewee** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:34 pm

I want to post on the comment about there should be no politics in wildlife regulations. You better wake up man, if hunters don't start fighting for their rights they will be taking away. Do you have any idea of how many anti-hunters work for or with the USF&W. It would surprise you. Hey thats what we vote for, if hunters (who are the greatest conservationists) dont speak up believe me another group will. And then we will be saying damn why didn't my politician speak up for me. I for one am happy that the majority of MS poticians are sportsman (it would be scary to me to live in a state where Hilary was a senator.)

Delta Duck · Postby **Delta Duck** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:49 pm

GH22, Check your #s on $550 an acre to plant trees. I will be making a call, If DU is paying that then I will raise hell. That would be a complete waste of funds.

Postby **Greenhead22** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:56 pm

Yep, DU and another Wetlands Foundation paid him $550/acre, but my buddy will end up loosing control over that land because of the money DU spent on it. He still owns it, but DU will decide what transpires on the land while their trees are there, so I may lose one of my whitetail hotspots.

Postby **Micah** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 9:14 pm

Sounds like WRP to me GH22? They have several programs that sound like what you mentioned. While DU does participate in some of these projects, the majority of the funding comes from the pockets of our federal government.

DU participates on a limited scale as a development consultant, and they put their name on the project. Might want to do a little research on the programs before you go spouting off like you're an expert on the subject.

If you tell all about all your buddies' business, you might find yourself mighty lonesome one day. Only takes one good "screwin'" to make some serious enemies.

Just my $.02.

Micah

dos gris · Postby **dos gris** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 6:45 am

I agree Micah, sounds like WRP or CRP. I worked for DU on the WRP project and thats about what landowners were getting for entering into the program. However, the money doesn't come from DU. Its a GOVERNMENT program so the money comes from the federal government. It may be thru the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). DU is like a contractor that comes in and plants the trees per NRCS standards. More importantly DU can then put their name on the project and add the acerage to their wetland restoration tally.
In return for the money the land is entered into a conservation easment (usually 30 years).

dos gris · Postby **dos gris** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 6:50 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peewee:
<STRONG>I want to post on the comment about there should be no politics in wildlife regulations. </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote...."I believe that in no way should politics govern the process by which bag limits or season frameworks are set"....

There is a difference, I'm speaking specifically of the Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) model. It may help if you learn what it is.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: dos gris ]

Anatidae · Postby **Anatidae** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 9:22 am

Peewee, I understand your concern. I too, am thankful that our Senators and Representatives are 'sportsmen'.....but only to the point that they are informed and can relate with AND adequately voice our concerns regarding our hunting heritage......but I firmly believe that's as far as it needs to go. I must take exception to the notion of giving politicians domain over the scientific 'process' of doing what's in the best interest of the resource (the ducks), provided there is no corruption in ANY of the agencies, responsible for guarding that resource. After all, you wouldn't hire a carpenter to perform a hip replacement, would you? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]Hell NO! [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

In a few instances, we haven't been able to rely on certain institutions and agencies to 'mind their own business' and stick to the agenda without outside influences dictating some other agenda (political). Politics is just a part of most processes in America. What we don't understand, we tend to be skeptical of (politics). [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] There are certain rules and I'm like you......thankful that we have folks in the right places that understand those rules and know how to 'play' by them.

I have no reason to suspect any corruption in this process, and trust that the USF&WS sticks pretty much to their purpose, erring on the side of caution.....even though, at times, it may seem like an unwillingness (on their part) to 'play by the rules'. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img] Sometimes (and from a duck hunter/conservationist's perspective), that may be a good thing. I think the USF&WS folks, like most of us, are just trying to do what they think is the 'right thing'. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

In answer to your question, though.....I don't have any idea how many anti-hunters work for or with the USF&WS. Can you give me some numbers? Thanks in advance. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Who is online