Dear Tweeters,

I've read with some interest the thread of generally favorable,
but occasionally critical, comments on the work of Ducks Unlimited
(DU)as it relates to birds other than waterfowl. The work of Ducks
Unlimited assumes special importance in Canada, where hundreds if not
thousands of wetlands would have disappeared over the last 40+ years
if not for the intervention of DU. As many of you in the U.S. may not
be aware of the appalling state of wetland conservation in Canada, I
feel compelled to speak out strongly in favor of DU's excellent work
in this country.
My first acquaintance with DU came in 1970, when I visited a major
DU project called the Louisiana Lakes, near Brooks, Alberta. This
large wetland complex was teeming, not only with waterfowl, but with
American Coots, Marsh Wrens, Yellow-headed Blackbirds. American
Avocets, Wilson's Phalaropes, Muskrats, and many other animal species
that depend on marshes and marsh edges. I was impressed then, and I am
still impressed now, to think that this and many similar projects in
Canada, which benefitted not just waterfowl but the whole ecosystem
that waterfowl depend on, were funded mainly by American hunters.
Americans are used to-- and sometimes take for granted-- their
magnificent system of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). Canada has a
similar system called National Wildlife Areas (NWAs), operated by the
Canadian Wildlife Service. However, NWAs are much fewer and farther
between than their U.S. equivalents. Most of them are without staff
onsite, have less public access, and are smaller than the average NWR.
There are several reasons for this. The NWA program in Canada started
much later than the NWR system in the U.S. Canada is a huge country,
bigger than the U.S., but with only 10% of the U.S. population, hence
at best, only 10% of the money available for refuge acquisition and
development. Furthermore, nearly all public land in the provinces is
owned by the provincial governments, not the federal government. Thus,
unlike the U.S., where land already owned by the federal government
could fairly easily become a wildlife refuge, most suitable areas in
Canada had to be purchased, or acquired by gift, because there is a
reluctance by the federal government to purchase provincial lands, and
thereby appear to be infringing on provincial rights.
In general, Canadian provincial governments have also placed a
lower priority on wildlife conservation than American state
governments. For example, the number of provincial Wildlife Areas in
British Columbia is only a small fraction of that in Washington, as is
the number of acres protected. So, Canada has, relative to the size of
the country, far fewer refuges at both the federal and
provincial/state levels than most parts of the U.S.
The founders of DU realized that private enterprise would have to
do what Canadian governments were unable, or unwilling, to do. They
made their dollars stretch a long way by not purchasing land outright,
in most cases, but by signing agreements with private landowners.
These agreements usually involved building dams or other water-control
structures which provided more water for ducks, and at the same time,
more irrigation or stock-watering water for the landowner--a win-win
situation, when outright purchase might have meant a win for the ducks
but a loss for farmers and ranchers.
As noted by others, DU programs in Canada concentrated first on
the areas of greatest need-- southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and
Manitoba-- but later moved into areas such as B.C. and the Atlantic
provinces, and into wintering areas, as well as breeding areas, for
waterfowl. DU has also been involved more and more in recent years in
cooperative projects with federal and provincial agencies, Indian
bands, etc. They have often provided funding on public land for
projects that the wildlife agencies wanted to do, but could not get
enough funding to do without DU assistance.
Jack Bowling notes one case in B.C. where a DU project improved
habitat for waterfowl but ruined it for Black Terns. Maybe so, but
more DU projects in B.C. have benefitted Black Terns than harmed them.
An example: Guichon Flats-- also called Beaver Ranch Flats-- a large
wetland halfway between Kamloops and Merritt. This area, on private
land owned by a local ranching family, used to flood seasonally, but
would dry up by late spring or early summer, with no waterfowl
production in most years (and no Black Terns). It is now home to the
largest Black Tern colony in the area. It is also, to the best of my
knowledge, the most productive wetland for ducks, American Coots,
Eared Grebes, and Yellow-headed Blackbirds for almost 100 miles in any
direction.
Jack, you should know better than to condemn DU (at least by
implication) because of a single instance where waterfowl may have
benefitted at the expense of non-game birds (Black Terns). I agree
with you that this is not a desirable outcome. I am not necessarily in
support of the objectives or outcome of EVERY one of the hundreds of
DU projects, just as I could probably find fault with some of the
refuge management priorities of the National Audubon Society. However,
for every instance like this, there are probably a dozen or more where
waterfowl and non-game birds have both benefitted. Ducks Unlimited
(read waterfowl hunters) deserves the thanks and support of all
birders, especially in Canada, where in some parts of the country, it
has done more for wetland conservation than all levels of government
combined.
No, I do not and never have worked for DU, but I have worked in
cooperation with some of their staff in B.C., and I continue to be
amazed at the amount of good, cost-effective work they do for wetland
conservation and enhancement.

Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, B.C. V2C 6E4
Phone: (604) 377-8865
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bowling <jbowling at direct.ca>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 9:21 AM
Subject: Re. Ducks Unlimited


>Gene K. wrote -
>
><<<Don Baccus is right about Ducks Unlimited. A lot of
>areas they bought principally for ducks, provided excellent habitat
for
>other birds, mainly waterbirds and shorebirds. I assume some
twitchers
>are of aware of that effort. Also Don recommended Nature Conservancy,
>another good organization. Birds need habitat. All requires money.>>>
>snip
>
>True. DU has good intentions. But everyone of us knows that what is
>good for ducks is not necessarily good for everything. Case in point,
>there is a small lake near Prince George here in central BC at which
DU
>installed a weir and adjusted the water level up about a foot, built
up
>nesting islands, etc. Great for the ducks, geese and loons but not to
>the liking of the Black Terns which promptly disappeared. Given that
>there is several orders of magnitude better waterfowl than tern
>habitat around, I find this a misplaced effort.
>
>--
>Jack Bowling
>jbowling at direct.ca
>