Dear Tweeters,

I wanted to share with you this thoughtful response to my posting
of a few days ago in defence of Ducks Unlimited, posted by Rick Howie
to BCINTBIRD, but not to TWEETERS. Rick points out correctly that the
effects of ecosystem alteration on the majority of species is unknown,
and that our opinion of such alterations as a DU wetland project
depends very much on the values we place on different species. Well
said, Rick, and good food for thought.

Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops, B.C.
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Howie <rhowie at mail.ocis.net>
To: bcintbird at egroups.com <bcintbird at egroups.com>
Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 1:09 AM
Subject: [bcintbird] Re: Ducks Unlimited: a Canadian Perspective


>While I generally agree with you Wayne, and have seen much of the
good work
>that DU has achieved, I would only point out that the balance sheet
that we
>use to measure costs/benefits for any ecosystem alteration is, at
best, an
>incomplete one. While we often feel good about an increase in certain
>species of macroinvertebrates for example, we probably cannot
quantify the
>species of invertebrates, plants or other species that may have been
flooded
>out by a particular project, or some species of vole or snake that
may have
>had its habitat reduced. In other cases, we may lose shrub habitat in
order
>to increase aquatics that benefit ducks.
>It is easy to be a critic and say that we do not know what we have
lost when
>we brag about what we have gained. To do so often means that the
>alternative is to do nothing , lest we risk impacting the unknown.
>My real point here, is that we are always in the game of assigning
values to
>some species over others, based upon human assessment of worth. It is
hard
>to escape this process, as we have do not have a non anthropocentric
>viewpoint to balance our decisions against.
>
>Yes, we may have to balance off the loss of one Black tern colony
against
>the creation of more elsewhere, but how do we account for those
organisms
>that we either know nothing about, or have assigned to a lower
position on
>the ranking scale ? Not an easy question to answer, and one which
people
>often say is not worth answering. We do not have the resources to
>understand the impacts of everyting that we do.
>Perhaps the trick is to know enough to question potential changes, in
an
>attempt to preserve or increase the biodiversity of our country. I
know
>that DU have expanded their mandate to include non-game beneficiaries
of
>their initiatives, and I applaud this vision.
>
>Where feasible, we should try to ensure that our measures of benefits
>include more than just the organisms that are appealing to a
particular
>group in a particular era.
>
>Cheers Rick
>----- Original Message -----
>From: WAYNE WEBER <WAYNE_WEBER at bc.sympatico.ca>
>To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>; <jbowling at direct.ca>
>Cc: BCINTBIRD <bcintbird at egroups.com>
>Sent: August 04, 1999 11:31 PM
>Subject: [bcintbird] Ducks Unlimited: a Canadian Perspective
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>