Don,
First of all the comparison between bear baiting and Duck Decoying is
that both lure the animal into range where it is little beyond target
practice. I'm not against Duck Hunting but let the hunters actually
"hunt" the ducks. Even conceeding the point that HUnters bought some
of the refuges originally they are now owned and operated by the
Government which is everybody (I don't see any hunting clubs being
hired as refuge managers). When I said that they bought the refuges
for preservation of ducks they only wanted to keep the preservation
of their hunted species. If all of the ducks and geese suddenly never
returned to Nisqually, Finley, Savie Island, or Fern Ridge how many
hunters would visit or how many hunter dollars would go to the
refuges. And on the money aspect there is still not a majority of
"hunter only dollars" that go into the refuge system, and that means
the majority still comes from General Tax dollars. Second you
mentioned that birders hollar when
the thought of exice tax on binos, I don't know how much of a true
birder they are if their not willing to pay an extra 40-50 dollars on
their binos to support the refuges.
Yes, the birds do have to do their part on appearing but when we
asked a coupleof questions on passerine abundance at Turnbull the
staff quickly diverted the question back to Waterfowl. There needs to
be equal emphasis "placed" on passerines, Waterfowl, game birds etc..
Plans on paper are wonderful but they need to put into practice.
This is why some passserine species are being neglected it my opinion,
the staffs on some refuges are only monoriting habitat carefully for
certain species. Some refuges are great in fact Turnbull was one of
the few where I saw a direct emphasis or prejudice towards the
"hunted" species.
Yes, teeming with wildlife, the Wash. initiative are all good plans
and exise tax on bonocs and bird products to protect refuges and
santuaries is another good idea.
-Scott Downes