DuckSouth.com

CONSERVATION NEWS

Caterpillar Inc. Donates $120,000 to Ducks Unlimited
Donation Earmarked for Wetland Restoration Work Within the Illinois River
Watershed

Peoria, IL‹February 1, 2005--Caterpillar recently donated $120,000 for
Ducks Unlimited's (DU) Illinois River wetland partnership initiative. The
gift will help support DU¹s wetland conservation work in the Illinois River
Watershed over the next three years.

"Its exciting to see what happens when the world's largest heavy equipment
manufacturer teams up with the world's largest wetland conservation
organization,² says DU President, John Tomke. ³We are very appreciative of
the Caterpillar Foundation's generous gift and congratulate the entire
Caterpillar Corporation and its employees on their overall commitment to
the environment."

The Illinois River is a principle migratory corridor for waterfowl in the
Mississippi flyway. DU habitat conservation work along the Illinois River
is extensive, with projects located in every county from Starved Rock to
Alton. Several of the acquisition and restoration projects in the Peoria
region include: Weis Lake, Duck Ranch, Spring Lake Bottoms and most
recently the acquisition of the Wightman Lake.

"The Caterpillar Foundation is proud to be a supporter of Ducks Unlimited's
wetland conservation work in the Illinois River basin,² says Henry Holling,
Social Responsibility Initiatives Manager. ³ We look forward to working
with DU on future projects that benefit both wildlife and people in our
community."

Since 2000, DU and partners have invested more than $7 million in wetland
conservation work within the Illinois River watershed. DU identified
another $1.8 million of immediate wetland conservation needs in the
Illinois River valley. Last year, Ducks Unlimited and Caterpillar were
awarded the Wildlife Management Institute's prestigious Touchstone Award in
recognition of their past collaborative effort to restore Illinois River
wetland habitat.

For more information, please contact Kelli Alfano at DU¹s Great Lakes
Atlantic/Regional Office @ 734-623-2000.

With more than one million supporters, Ducks Unlimited is the world¹s
largest wetland and waterfowl conservation organization. Since it¹s
founding in 1937, DU has conserved more than 11 million acres of critical
wildlife habitat across North America. Wetlands are nature¹s most
productive ecosystems, but the United States has lost more than half of its
original wetlands and continues to lose more than 100,000 wetland acres
every year.


Source: Ducks Unlimited http://www.ducks.org

We folks like you post dumbazz stuff like this it makes me want to puke. What kind of selfrighteous, self centered outdoorsman bitches about restoring good habitat?

Im willing to be if this was a Delta Project then you'd be bragging.

Who's bitching? All I see is a post about a donation to restore habitat.

Chuckle12 wrote:Who's bitching? All I see is a post about a donation to restore habitat.

Well, the only thing that Ground Swiper managed to type in on his own was the title, and it doesn't sound very positive to me. But you're right, there's no official bitchin' going on here as of yet. Though I'd wager that based on the title alone, GS doesn't approve of this project in Illinois.

As far as I'm concerned, if Illinois wants DU to become involved on these types of projects in their state. That's OK with me. I personally would rather see DU focusing their efforts in Canada and on the US breeding grounds, but I don't think this project is a bad thing either.

Im with you on that BOB!

Certainly DU's involvement in wetland restoration projects as described above is a good thing, not a bad thing. BUT, due to DU's proclaimed critical need to preserve habitat in the breeding grounds, and absolute refusal to consider diverting any resources or money to predator management in those breeding grounds under the premise that any money spent on predator managment is less $ that could be spent preserving breeding ground habitat, I would have to question the logic behind DU continuing to place any emphasis on improving wintering habitat until all the breeding ground habitat goals are reached. It seems that the ducks already have plenty of wintering habitat. Lets work to solve the breeding habitat crisis and focus most of the effort there.

IF a donor to DU wants to specifially designate such donation to be used in a wintering habitat project, so be it ---it is their right. But, I would question DU matching any of that contribution with DU general funds or otherwise using DU general funds for such a project ---after all, that is just less money than could have been spent to preserve breeding habitat in the PPR and Canada. IMO, there is nothing particularly wrong with DU's logic in opposing utilization of DU funds for predator management, but lets be consistent in our logic behind all projects.

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. I am not a waterfowl biologist, nor do I claim to have any expertise in this area. As a long time supporter and member of DU, I have a right to voice my opinion on any DU related matter and to work within DU to improve the organization.

Lets look at it another way.

Some supporters of DU are from IL no doubt. IL does in fact have a breeding population of mallards and is a significant fall migration state. IL has suffered significant wetlands loss. SO? Well would it not be reasonable for IL Du supporters to see some DU money spent in their state?

I think we all need to remember that it was US, southern duck hunters, who put big pressure on DU back in teh 70's and 80's to start spending some money on migration corridore habitat, specificaly wintering habitat in the south. I know this as a fact because the men of my late father's generation were some of the leaders of southern waterfowling, serving on advisory pannels on the flyway council, state reps for DU and such. There was a huge outcry from southerners for DU to recognize the importance of wintering habitat and the roll it played in the health of waterfowl for the return migration.

Every state that has and is suffering waterfowl habitat loss should seek help fom DU and other orgonizations to resote wetlands, but as waterfowlers we all also need to urge our orgonizations to focus on the most critical areas of waterfowl habitat, the breeding grounds. That must be done however without walking away from the responsibility we have to protect wetlands all down each and every flyway.

Just some thoughts,

Tupe

Tupe, I don't disagree with with your perspective.

My real point is that DU's primary excuse or explanation as to why it will not support predator management has finally dwindled to: we cannot afford to spend any dollars toward anything but preserving breeding habitat until we have preserved or saved all the breeding habitat we possibly can. Well, if that is the logic, then why spend dollars and resources on wintering habitat? The lack of adequate wintering habitat is a former problem that appears to have been resolved to a large extent. Certainly, preserving and restoring wintering habitat does not hurt anything, and helps the ducks on their journey southward each year, but is that really the critical need right now? The real problem is now the steady and rapid decline of breeding habitat. Both DU and DW have said so. Check out pretty much every issue last year of both the DU and DW magazines. So, I say to DU, put your money where your mouth is and lets get to it ----save the breeding habitat and increase the duck numbers in the fall flight. Tell us how much habitat remains to be preserved, where precisely it is located, how we can preserve it, and how much it is going to cost to do so. Then, lets start raising money toward that specific goal and stay focused on the goal until it is reached. I think hunters could really get behind a very targeted plan with defined goals, followed up by feedback in the form of periodic status reports to let us know how we are doing toward reaching those goals. Right now, all we seem to be getting are statements concerning identification of the problems and haphazard, scattered attempts to fix the problems.

Now, if it is true that the real solution to increasing the duck population is a multiple approach which includes factors other than just preserving breeding habitat, such as continued restoring and increasing wintering habitat, then why shouldn't predator management be a part of that equation as well? Doesn't predator management improve the efficiency of existing preserved breeding habitat and produce more successful nests?

It just seems ironic to me the we keep hearing about all of the projects DU is working on outside the PPR and Canada, when the critical breeding habitat preservation needs are the stated reasons for DU not wanting to divert resources and funds to predator management.

I understand that but look at who donated the money, CAT is an IL based company. When a compant wants to do good things within its community where does it spend the money? So if CAt approached DU and said, "hey we want to help with one of your programs here in IL?" should DU have said "Sorry, we only want money for the PPR?"

If by taking this money from CAT they can then use other dollars that might have been slated for the Il project and now have that money free for other projects one the PPR like the GRASSLANDS program that is helping to secure DNC ( dense nesting cover) GREAT. DNC is recognized by both DU and Delta as the other key factor, besides water, in helping increase duck production. One problem though, it is a lot easier to get into the emotions fo america with wetland photos, a field of grass being plowed under does not send people scrambling for their wallets, hell they cut their own grass, mow fields, whats the big deal right? WRONG! Prairie grasslands CAN NOT JUST BE REPLANTED. The native prairie is an ecosystem that takes eons to coem back, sure CRP helps, but it does not hold a candle to the duck breeding capability of native prairie.

Guys and gals, I believe PM is a good program, but of al things I value, wild places are on the top of my list. WE MUST fight with every fiber of our beings to save as many wildlands as we can and restore what we can in any way. When wilderness is gone, be it grassland swamp or bayou and the only way to raise ducks is on managed ponds in boxes behind trap lines behind fences who will feel the same about hunting the true wild migrations? I know I won't. I want to hunt WILD ducks, born of WILD places who travel from the far north along winding natural stream into forgotten cypress sloughs, not manufactured targets that I can track from one manged feeding and watering hole to my own little mirco controlled waterfowl habitat simulation.

Sorry boys and girls but I hunt to be a part of an unnameable instinct that goes back beyond recorded history with the wild animals in whos genes run the knowledge of migration and survival. It conects me, it is how I know that I am part of a creation that is so much grander than myself and is not run by the hands of man.

OK, out of the pulpit and off my soap box.

Back to my cave,

Tupe

Tupe, the way I read the above article, it appeared to me that DU was providing the lion's share of the money for the Illinios wetland restoration projects. Cat donated 120k. Per the article, over 7 million has been spent since 2000. That sounds like DU general fund money to me that could have been better spent in the US PPR or Canada to preserve breeding grounds.

You are right, those destroyed breeding grounds cannot be easily reversed. So, if the destruction of the breeding grounds is the number one problem, then I would respectfully submit that preservation of those breeding grounds should be the number one priority of DU and such should get most of the general fund dollars until the problem is fixed. Like I said, a specific goal and lots of feedback would go a long way toward fixing the problem.

I simply disagree with your overly dramatic take on predator management. Trapping a few predators in the breeding grounds is not going to destroy the "wildness" of the ducks. We will never get all the predators, and there are other obstacles to duck survival that the ducks would have to overcome. Reducing the disproportionate number of predators in key areas of the breeding grounds overrun with them would just give the ducks a fighting chance. If the eco system were not so unbalanced, there would not be so many duck predators in much of the breeding grounds. Maybe we could introduce more animals that would eat the duck predators ----eg wolves ---a little natural predator management, as opposed to human trappers. Would that be "wild" enough?

For that matter, I think Billie Ray, Chad, and the rest of the DU gang should be armed with rifles and sent to the PPR to protect the breeding grounds from the predators during the spring.

Like I said before, I agree with PM, but I more strongly believe that habitat has to be the numberone priority.

Let me explain it this way. The more DNC we loose the more dense preditor populations will become. Diverting major portions of conservation funding to predator management will only multiply the problem, sounds crazy but here is why.

1) Matching funds are availble in many breeding ground states for habitat conservation so $1 = $2 or more when spent on Conservation of land. To my knowledge there is no matching funds avaiable for PM.

2) Outside of matching funds, DU has the size capable of making any dollar go further, lower admin cost % lower budget % spent on basic opperational costs.

3) Programs aimed at buying permanent easments are one time pay outs, PM must be done annualy to be effective. Why? Predators move back into areas trapped and because of continued urban growth, more predators will continue to be pushed into smaller areas.

PM works, but it is greatly misunderstood. Some of the worst predators on the PPR are raptors (hawks and such) These too are new arrivials, at least the most destructive types. They are perching hunters who have moved onto the prairie as more woody structure has becoem available as man moved onto the region. People are going to plant trees, and we can not shoot, trap or harrass raptors.

BUT, by and large, the greatest predator on the prairie is the plow. Killing predators is attacking a symptom of the illness, not the illness itself.

I have spent several weeks in the heart of the PPR over the last two years, hunting and just getting tho know and understand just what makes the duck factory work. I have walked, driven, paddled and flown over countless miles of this incrediable land. Guess how many foxes, skunks, and yotes I saw? Not ONE! But in the hand full of trips I have made there I could not begin to tell you how many acres of newly plowed ground I have seen. I am not talking about old fields being replanted. I am taking about grasslands I had hunted, potholes where I had shot ducks, stripped down to bare earth.

WE, humans, and our counrties mechanized drive to controll land, bend it to our use, WE are the greatest threat to our waterfowl population THE PLOW IS THE LARGEST, AND MOST EFFECTIVE PREDATOR ON THE PRAIRIE!

DU should, spend the lions share of its monies on the PPR and other duck breeding areas, IL by the way has a reasonable size waterfowl breeding population. But they MUST also protect other wetlands that are vital to the entire life cycle of waterfowl, not just at teh hatch and kill points. From high mountain beaver ponds and run off streams in the boreal forests to coastal LA wetlands are all interconected and at risk.

But the picture is even larger than that and is being addressed by programs like Grasslands for Tomorrow. This project not only protects the DNC but it also helps slow sedimentation into potholes that are drying up at an alarming rate as more and more land is cleared and more soil is washing into these crutial breeding ponds.

THE PPR was made into a duck breeding factory by glaciers, and it does not look like we can count on them comming back any time soon to build a few more.

Over the years, biologists have learned that natural ponds and potholes vastly outproduce man made structures designed to imitate the native pothole. Delta's Adopt a Pothole Program is fantastic, adn I wish they would put it back to the forefront of their mission.

DU has come a long way in teh understanding that it is more important to protect small, seasonal wetland and DNC than it is to just build ponds and flood large areas.

Predators are a fact and factor, but they can in no way shape or form compete with the annaul loss of waterfol breeding potential of lost wetlands and grasslands.

Sure, if I owned a piece of ground in the PPR, I would do my best to balance the predator population, by lethal and nonlethal means, but lets look at it this way.

Say I DO live there, and I own 100 acres of prime duck breeding land. Now Ihave a set amont of money to spend and my goal is to help make sure that duck populations are around and strong for as long as man walks this earth. Would I be better of just hunkering down on my dirt, spending money on traps, spotlightsm predator calls and such to kill skunks or investing that money so that I can buy the ten acres next to mine that also has a few pothole on it? Heck, I am buying land. It is a wise investment for the future. yeah, it might have some skunks on it too, but how about if I buy the bare land next to it that was a farm field, say 20 acres and sell some conservation org a permanent conservation easment? Now there is more land going back into duck production more land for dispersal of small predators. I am still winning and still moving close to my goal of making sure ducks are around for the long haul, not just for next duck season.

I think maybe that is the big problem I have with alot of the push for PM I hear. It is a feeling that it is all about, " I want skunks shot this spring so I can kill more ducks next season." Well come on folks lets look past our own gun barrels for a second. Lets look at the LONG TERM GOOD. Lets do what is right for our children and grandchildrena and great, great ,great grandchildren.

I am not saying this is how you feel, heck I don't know you, but the clamour I hear from most folks who rant that PM is all the rage, is that THEY want to kill more ducks, NOW! It is short term thinking when we are dealing with a long term problem. Like I said, it is attacking the symptoms of what is wrong with duck production, not the illness itself.

So thats my peace for tonight,

Tupe

Why, why, why do people keep harping on the idea that DU should get into predator management? Isn't that Delta Waterfowl's bandwagon? Would predator management be somehow validated if DU supported it?

Hambone wrote:Why, why, why do people keep harping on the idea that DU should get into predator management? Isn't that Delta Waterfowl's bandwagon? Would predator management be somehow validated if DU supported it?

DU should get into predator management because it gets results.

Tupe, those are all very fine points ---most of which I agree with.

My point. If the problem with the breeding grounds is so dire that we cannot afford to divert one nickel to PM, then I don't think we can afford to be spending millions to preserve wintering habitat either. Wintering habitat preservation is being done largely by private individuals and state governments out of self-interest -----more hunting land. Also, it would seem that large amounts of money should not be spent preserving marginal breeding grounds either. Lets make an all-out focused assault on preserving breeding grounds in the PPR and Canada. DU should be the one to lead this charge. A very targeted, focused plan to acquire and preserve the most critical beeding grounds, an estimate of the cost, and a specific fund-raising drive to get it done, with periodic feedback in the form of reports showing specifically what has been preserved and what is left to do. I think hunters would get behind such an endeavor. IT would give new meaning and life to DU banquets and other fund-raising endeavors.

So, I say to DU: put your money where your mouth is and lets get on with it. I don't want DU's highlights to continue to be primarily local projects in wintering grounds that have nothing to do with preserving critical breeding grounds, whether in MS or elsewhere ---I'm not picking on Illinois, just using this article as an example. IF some private individuals, companies, or state agencies want to donate specific use funds to DU for such wintering ground projects, that is fine. But, lets use the general fund money for the breeding grounds. Stop the plow. Stop the insanity.

Now, I'm off my stump too.

Great Thread Folks. Nothing like putting positive vibes and good suggestions out there.