King, not so much with ducks but any refuge of any sort I see in the fall is thick and by that I mean in the 1000's and 10's of 1000's with Canadas. And they know the difference to a T. This field they are in, that one they are not.
But that's really beside the point. What I support is science based retention of wetlands, few to none waterfowl "refuges" (I'm separating out from that places like national parks you can't hunt anything in) and bag limits that represent a harvest-able total.
I'm making no comment on the OP....I don't know enough about mallard populations along the East Coast. What I'm really on about is the classic government overreach. And the public servants unshakeable belief that they know better than everyone else. Refuges are a way to discourage hunting, the way governments use them today.
And George, those little DU projects you appreciate so much in Saskatchewan.....odds are most were completed decades ago....when DU still had the hunters' backs. I see the same signs in Manitoba. I don't see many new ones.
The one project I've been involved with lately (as the land owner) was what turned out to be a $3.5 million project that was a joint venture between Delta, DU, Manitoba and a bit of involvement by the feds....and me. The reality is I sacrificed the beauty and isolation of my 250 acres (along with having to agree to weekly access across my property) for the betterment of the whole marsh. And I was, by the nature of the problem in the marsh they were/are trying to solve, the only landowner involved. Despite assurances they wouldn't, they utterly destroyed the ambience of my place. The government coughed up most of the dough, DU took the management lead, Delta provided the science, the ducks win, I got screwed.
Last edited by canvasback; 01/13/19 12:52 AM.
