Subject: Ducks Unlimited
Date: Aug 2 13:09:20 1999
From: Don Baccus - dhogaza at pacifier.com


At 12:59 PM 8/2/99 -0700, David Chelimer wrote:
>
>----------
>From: "David Chelimer" <chelimer at earthlink.net>
>To: Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>Subject: Ducks Unlimited
>Date: Mon, Aug 2, 1999, 12:55 PM
>
>
>A few years ago I succumbed to a hard sell and joined Ducks Unlimited,
>buying the argument that my money was helping to acquire wetlands for
>waterfowl habitat.

....

>Is there any consensus among birders about Ducks Unlimited? Am I doing the
>"right" thing the "wrong" way by sending them my money? Should I look at my
>next mallard with pride or with shame?

They do exactly what they advertise - help acquire wetland habitat
for game species.

As such, they are actively helping conservation causes.

Some birders get upset at hunter conservation organizations. Personally,
I look at results, and DU gets results. If you're interested conservation
rather than opposed to hunting, DU's not a bad place to put money.

If you're really upset up hunting, you can give to The Nature Conservancy,
which also helps buy land.

Not to mention the wide variety of other national organizations that tend
to focus on public lands management issues. With a largely anti-conservation
House and Senate in Washington DC at present (though they're a bit scared
by the depth of public support for conservation on public lands), and the
fact that it appears that Bush The Younger will be our next President, I'd
say that these organizations will have a great near-term impact on practical
conservation issues. This is especially true in the West, where the Feds
own so much land.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net