Question about DU

[rpl]

Torch,

Are you talking about WRP or CRP in MS? If so, you don't have to worry about it holding all the ducks. It has done more harm than good in MS, IMO. That is not a popular thought or statement in the wildlife field that I work in. That was first put in my head in the Fall of '98. I had been in the South Delta long enough before this and since then to see how the duck have changed from using this area due to WRP. I have thought about it a lot since then. I'm talking specifically about Sharkey and Issaquena Counties. They were the first to max out their acreage.

The land that goes in to WRP is generally heavy ground that was used to grow rice or soybeans. It was always the first to flood from natural events. It might have been a wet fall and the farmer could only get part of his crops out. The ducks didn't mind. Now it is a grass field. What do the ducks like more, rice and soybeans or coffee weed, ballon vine or trumpet creeper? They have quit using these areas and started using the areas that they prefer.

Every hunter needs to stop and think about the feeding opportunities a duck has when he is flying south. It is one big buffet to a duck. Where you see him feeding is where he wants to be. It bet your gonna see more ducks in the soybean and rice fields day in and day out than WRP.

The WRP fans will tell you about the 30 percent of the area that is in moist soil management. Did Arkansas get its reputation from its WRP moist soil areas? Moist soil is good, don't get me wrong. But, where do the ducks want to be? How many WRP areas in MS have good moist soil units? Slim to none of them. That is no ones fault but the land owner. Some times I think the landowners are mislead about moist soil management, so maybe the problem isn't always 100% that of the land owners.

Duck prefernce for moist soil VS grain crops is a whole nother topic, so I won't take up your time here with that one.

Good day.

sb,

isn't the whole point of wrp to return marginal cropland back to its original state (being bottomland hardwoods)? well, maybe the program's goals are moreso long term as opposed to being short term. think 50 years down the road. land that was cleared for soybeans in the early 80's, subsequently enrolled in wrp in the late 90's, will again be prime bottomland hardwood habitat in, say 2050. plus, with the moist soil management of a portion of the wrp enrolled property, you can continue to hunt ducks. win-win situation if you ask me.

rpl

[SB]

rpl,

I have had this WRP discussion with several people ranging from my past boss to other waterfowl biologist that work with both government agencies and non-profits. My past boss thought I was backwards with this thought process. He talked about what it was "probably" like before the soybean craze, ducks just everywhere. There is no proof to what it was like before the bottomland hardwoods were cleared. There were no formal waterfowl surveys done in MS during this early period.

I do know that there are four components to the "Complete Waterfowl Habitat Complex", bottomland hardwoods, grain crops, moist soil and refuge. There is no scientific research that says what percentage of each is needed. I have seen in print, not a peered reviewed paper though, that says these components must be in a 10-12 mile area of each other. Find some hunters that have hunted Sunflower WMA and Panther Swamp NWR for 15+ years and ask them what the hunting was like 15 years ago compared to what it is like now. I bet it was better 15 years ago than it now, because the areas surrounding Panther and Sunflower wintered more ducks(more grain production in those areas then than now). Ducks would feed in the fields and come back to the timber on the blue bird days

What will the waterfowling be like in 2050 on these WRP tracts? Who knows? Your outlook is brighter than mine. Duck concentrations build on a area due to years of imprinting. The older generation brings the younger generation to the good areas. This process continues over time building waterfowl numbers as long as the conditions and/or habitat remains favorable. Where did the large concentrations of ducks go that once used these WRP areas prior to them being converted? To the areas with better habitat. Ducks are highly mobile.

Two nights ago me and two other waterfowl biologist sat around the table discussing these very concerns about WRP. Some of the discussion centered around WRP's intent and current management. Was WRP meant to be a land restoration program or a land retirement program? It was meant to be a land restoration program, but it appears to be acting more like a retirement program. The current concern on these WRP tracts is the lack of management in the impoundments. They are not being properly managed by the landowners. That is the landowner's prerogative. Some of them are deer hunters and don't care one bit about ducks or other birds that use these shallow water impoundments. The ones that do want to manage either don't know or don't have the time. It is hard to manage moist soil. It is probably easier and just as cheap to plant a crop in these impoundments as it is do moist soil management, but the NRCS will not let one plant a crop in these impoundments other than Japanese millet.

I admit I have a narrow field of view when it comes to these WRP tracts, because I focus so much on waterfowl. One must step back and look at the whole picture. WRP is real good right now for deer, cotton rats, wild hogs and birds that use grassland habitat types (sparrows). It is helping connect large blocks of timber for black bear corridors. When the trees are more mature they will benefit turkeys, squirrels, forest interior birds, etc.. Quail have made a comeback around these WRP areas. It has been by accident rather than design though. The habitat will only be usable for quail for just a short time period (approximately the first 15 years) before the trees start shading out everything below them. I would like to see landowners able to manage for these birds, but the NRCS will not allow the needed management practices (i.e., strip disking) to be performed. It is too sad that we can't take advantage of this short window of opportunity to help a species whose population is steeply declining.

This really doesn't fit under the topic and is know way associated with DU. It should be under its on topic. I could go into more detail, but I will you the pain of reading it. I just can't help but to think what the program could be. After all, this is our tax money at work.

[duck head]

S.B. you hit the nail on the head concerning WRP tracts. I personally own one. I will give you my perspective on the situation. I believe that most WRP tracts eventually end up in the hands of sportsmen, very few of which have the time, equipment or expertise to properly manage for waterfoul. Also, with the total lack of income on existing WRP tracts, and taxes continuing to rise into the ozone, it really gets to be a matter of just how much you are willing to spend to get it right. The lack of ducks we have experienced due to all of the factors involved in that equation, not the least being the huge influx of hunters the last 3 years, has added to the problem. I can tell you from personal experience that it dosen't take a WRP tract long to get away from you as far as what you are able to do to really manage it aggresively. And you are totally right. The NRCS has us handcuffed as to when it may be plowed, planted, seeded, etc. I have had fairly good results working with NRCS, but their overall policies concerning WRP are off base. Like I said, I do currently own a fairly large WRP tract, but would not purchase another one if it were nearly free. WRP was great for the farmers that initially enrolled their land in the program and had the govt pay double or triple what they actually had invested in the property, but is really isn't worth nearly as much as it currently commands on the open market for the average sportsman.