Saw this a few months back on the hunt quietly IG account....

A while back I read this story about Grits Gresham so I will do my best to paraphrase. Anyways he once related how in the early 1900's the wood duck was nearly extinct. Today it ranks as one of the most abundant. In my home state of Minnesota, it is probably second place in terms of harvest. About that same time period the ivory billed woodpecker was also imperiled. Well, you guessed it, today the ivory billed woodpecker is extinct.
The only difference between these two birds was grass roots organizations founded and supported by hunters such as DU. Sure these organizations are not perfect; there were elitists then as there are now. The best way to change something you don't like within an organization is to take an active role. The rational that DU is against hunters because they are a conservation organization is absurd. Their mission is wetland conservation and always has been. Ducks Unlimited was founded by waterfowl hunters during the dust bowl. Perhaps fault lies with our generation for becoming complacent.
RM
 
Last edited:
For those who don't / won't support Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever or NWTF and actively hunt waterfowl, who do you support?

Who do you support with your money to conserve habitat, lobby in DC for CRP, Farm Bill, WRP, to preserve the prairie pothole region, help fund coastal erosion projects, rebuild levees, restore sediment diversions to build land and habitat, replace water control structures on State and Federal managed marsh? Do you build wood duck boxes, hen nesting tubes? I'm just curious.

I've hunted fragile coastal marsh in S. Louisiana. I've hunted "DU cut" a nickname for a project that was completed 10-15 years ago that created sediment diversion and built land creating a thriving marsh. I wish I'd kept a journal of the number of waterfowl my buddies and I have harvested just off that cut, between early teal season and big duck, I'd have to guess it's in the 1000's.

I feel obligated to support whoever supports putting ducks back on the landscape. I support DU and volunteer on a local committee. Just this week I wanted to give something for a kids youth duck hunt, the DU regional director hooked me up with gear for the kids. I've asked for help with supplies for wood duck boxes and had DU sponsors donate 4 x 4 treated lumber for installing duck boxes.

Who do you support to help waterfowl? Is there another conservation organization I should be supporting better than DU or Delta?
 
My .02. The role of any non profit CEO is to solicit donations and raise money for the organization. To put it into perspective, the CEO of the Smithsonian American Art makes around $745K in 2026 and the CEO of the American Red Cross made $873,211 in 2023. If you want corporate donations and working with politicians at the national level you need to hire people who can fulfill that role. That costs money.
 
I hadn't heard of HuntQuietly before. Looked them up, like any organization I think 75% of their thoughts are right on, but 25% misguided or I just disagree.

Tod, I'd question that misleading graphic. Salary.com reports that the average 503(c) non-profit CEO for large organizations makes $800,000 year.

I have no connection to any of these organizations but think you'd want a CEO who can raise money, speak authoritatively, has a high profile, and thus, likely well compensated.
 
I am a DU member and I generally don’t enjoy going to their events. That being said, I don’t mind paying $35/year to get their magazine and hopefully support wetlands conservation somewhere in the country. I agree with the previous few posts, a good CEO costs good money.
As for Matt Rinella (Hunt Quietly), I was introduced to him on an old episode of the Meateater podcast where he just argued with Steve the entire time. It was painful to listen to and he struck me as a pompous grump. I won’t be supporting his organization.
 
Brad Bortner said:
Tod, I'd question that misleading graphic. Salary.com reports that the average 503(c) non-profit CEO for large organizations makes $800,000 year.
Click to expand...

I didn't have any problem with his graphic, he clearly states where his number comes from (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and I made sure to include that part in the screen capture. You would think he would know how to make a proper graphic given that he is a federal research scientist and those are the folks that we entrust to manage our resources. I'm not so hung up on relative compensation anyway, more so surprised by just the absolute number.
 
William Mink said:
I am a DU member and I generally don’t enjoy going to their events. That being said, I don’t mind paying $35/year to get their magazine and hopefully support wetlands conservation somewhere in the country. I agree with the previous few posts, a good CEO costs good money.
As for Matt Rinella (Hunt Quietly), I was introduced to him on an old episode of the Meateater podcast where he just argued with Steve the entire time. It was painful to listen to and he struck me as a pompous grump. I won’t be supporting his organization.
Click to expand...

He is an abrasive fuck, that is for sure.
 
Good discussion here, I'm enjoying seeing the diverse perspectives.

Paul Taylor said:
For those who don't / won't support Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever or NWTF and actively hunt waterfowl, who do you support?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I support our state and federal wildlife managers, the folks that are tasked with managing our resources.
 
Eric Patterson said:
I had to look up who Steve Rinella is. Are they at odds with each other?
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said Steven Rinellla of Meateater, surely you are aware of what is probably the broadest reaching outdoor media outlet of our times. Maybe not so much in waterfowl hunting (but they have entered that market), but across big game, fishing, small game surely.

I have read that they no longer get along.
 
Tod

I've heard of the show but that's as far as it goes. I have never seen the show nor come across it on social media. Keep in mind I watch almost no television. I'm sure the show has a lot of social media following but for whatever reason I don't ever remember seeing it appear in any feed. But if it did I probably ignored it. Hunting outside of waterfowl isn't something that interests me.
 
Eric Patterson said:
Tod

I've heard of the show but that's as far as it goes. I have never seen the show nor come across it on social media. Keep in mind I watch almost no television. I'm sure the show has a lot of social media following but for whatever reason I don't ever remember seeing it appear in any feed. But if it did I probably ignored it. Hunting outside of waterfowl isn't something that interests me.
Click to expand...

To have a good understanding where hunting is requires some understanding of where it is going. I don't have a particular interest in the Meateater brand or their collection of celebrities or their books, podcasts, videos, films, social media, etc..., but understanding their influence in driving current hunting trends and their likely impacts on us as a whole is relevant. The hunt quietly movement is a push back by someone who has seen the damage of those practices.
 
I have had no issues with Delta, they do many things for youth in recruitment as hunters and provide resources for such. I have not done anything with them in years as my waterfowling has gone down over the years and turned more to big game hunting so have been more involved with RMEF.

The local DU banquets turned me off too, nothing but the locally rich people getting together to get drunk and look at the young girls serving drinks and blowing money on everything so normal people don't have a chance. Let alone that the then president of our chapter was baiting ducks and being a complete jerk to those of us not in the click really showed me what kind of people make up the majority of that local organization.

Personally, at a local level they have done nothing that I have seen has benefited me, while yes I understand their work in the prairie pothole region for nesting birds and stuff greatly benefits me, it benefits everyone but that's as far as it goes. They don't actively support me as a hunter or helped open up access for me to hunt. Whereas RMEF and NWTF do those things. Conserve to make better habitat and to make it accessible for the public to hunt, not just the major donors or in the click.

As for Delta I don't know if they do that as I have not looked into them that closely, seems pheasants forever, quail forever, and trout forever are closer to helping hunters, their base supporters, in habitat and access. But these are smaller organizations that I feel are closer to their roots where DU has strayed away. Just because I support what they used to do doesn't mean I should support what they have now become, they have become pompous and I'm just not for the entirety of what they are anymore.

It be like supporting Audubon or PETA, some things I might agree with them on and what they do and support but there are things I strongly don't agree with so therefore they don't get my money because I can't decide what they use it for.

One thing that is different now than it used to be when ducks were on the brink of extinction is that there are a ton of private people/organizations that create duck refuges and habitat that benefit ducks and their survival. Not saying there are enough to equate to what DU has done in the nesting region but it does help overall, that didn't used to exist.

That became long winded quickly.
 
Eric Patterson said:
@tod osier

I'll take a few minutes and look into hunt quietly. I'm interested in what they have to say and see if it lines up with the things I see as detrimental to waterfowling.
Click to expand...
Eric, I'm sure there are things you'll agree with and some you won't. I think he is right that the persona portrayed by social media hunt influencers has been detrimental to the hunting community as a whole.

These "celebrities" will go beyond the law to get the content they need for a photo shoot so they can tag all their sponsors. On a different forum I'm on they post up all the influencers that are taken to court for poaching and other violations.

Even seen some videos where the people make terrible shot choices because they "had" to try and get that animal in a blood thirst that is not a good look for hunters. This makes the followers feel like they need to do the same and just produces more jerks to ruin hunts for others.

Wasn't it you that posted a video of dudes flying into a WMA at night? Believe it was a ton of boats just waiting for the go time to leave out to hunt the timber?
That's what matt is against but in all arenas of hunting. It's worse with big game where you have to be a macho man that keeps hammering and you have to embrace the suck to be a real hunter and if you don't kill the biggest while undergoing a self inflicted struggle then you are a subpar hunter.
 
Paul Taylor said:
For those who don't / won't support Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever or NWTF and actively hunt waterfowl, who do you support?


Who do you support to help waterfowl? Is there another conservation organization I should be supporting better than DU or Delta?
Click to expand...
Coming back to this, I guess I would rather support the state at this point than any organization. Its really hard for me to give to any of these organizations. Realize though, I live in a state that is very low regulated for waterfowl. Ive been checked by game wardens, that when I handed them my shells and my O/U they were dumbfounded when they couldnt figure out where the rod went to ensure a plug was present. Theres no real training around waterfowl. I watched a guy walk out of a WMA with 6 pintail on his strap and they let him on by one morning. Not saying this doesnt go on in other places and I know waterfowl is very very low on the totem pole for priority for my state. When you have big horn ram governor tags go for 1.2 million and 1 million the last two years, you know where the primary focus is. Big game will always be the focus of our state. It brings in WAY more revenue than waterfowl ever will.

With all that said, they make sure the roads in and out of WMA's are maintained. They are in those wmas every year in the summer making sure overgrowth doesnt jeopardize the ponds they flood every fall. They ensure there will be water and feed for the migration along the valleys for the land they own. They have done MAJOR reconstruction, new blinds, and new irrigation into youth areas for waterfowl hunting. They have brought in other outside work to dredge silt build up and ensure marshes are healthy on some of our lakes. The money the state has put into the lakes, refuges, and WMA's shows over time. Then I see this section of DU that isnt even hardly a marsh anymore because of overgrowth and the only water it gets is from the old irrigation canals that once ran through it from when it was state funded. Kind of ruined my donations to anywhere.

Ill be the first to admit though, I dont do enough hw at this point to look at other organizations and see what they are all about. I just figure they're all money hungry and someone is living high on the hog with all these donations, thinking you are supporting habitat when in reality, theres shananigans always going on.
 
benp said:
Personally, at a local level they have done nothing that I have seen has benefited me, while yes I understand their work in the prairie pothole region for nesting birds and stuff greatly benefits me, it benefits everyone but that's as far as it goes. They don't actively support me as a hunter or helped open up access for me to hunt.
Click to expand...
When my wife Heather was a young girl, my father in law would take her with on his annual duck and goose hunts. To this day she tells stories about how the sun would almost be shut out from the sheer number of birds and how the sound was deafening. I personally have never witnessed this but wouldn't it be cool if future generations could get a glimpse of this beautiful creation?
I perceive that we live in a very selfish age. It gets old having to defend perhaps the most successful conservation group in history to duck hunters! I've been on waterfowl hunts where the equipment alone cost over a hundred thousand dollars yet when asked why they didn't belong to DU, it was the same lame excuses. We are talking a minimum donation of $35!
My father raised me to be a sportsman and, I have always considered hunting and conservation to be synonymous. The prevailing aditude among many hunters I meet today is, "What's in it for me". How long would duckboats.net survive if we didn't give back? My father always said that there are two types of people in this world: givers and takers. I am persuaded that duck hunters on this forum are better than this.
RM
 
Last edited:
RM Anderson said:
When my wife Heather was a young girl, my father in law would take her with on his annual duck and goose hunts. To this day she tells stories about how the sun would almost be shut out from the sheer number of birds and how the sound was deafening. I personally have never witnessed this but wouldn't it be cool if future generations could get a glimpse of this beautiful creation?
I perceive that we live in a very selfish age. It gets old having to defend perhaps the most successful conservation group in history to duck hunters! I've been on waterfowl hunts where the equipment alone cost over a hundred thousand dollars yet when asked why they didn't belong to DU, it was the same lame excuses. We are talking a minimum donation of $35!
My father raised me to be a sportsman and, I have always considered hunting and conservation to be synonymous. The prevailing aditude among many hunters I meet today is, "What's in it for me". How long would duckboats.net survive if we didn't give back? My father always said that there are two types of people in this world: givers and takers. I am persuaded that duck hunters on this forum are better than this.
RM
Click to expand...
Agreed... except the takers in this case are the ceo's of these organizations and seeing the lack of efforts in areas. Again, i only speak for what ive seen DU do in my area. I may start looking at other organizations but if they are going to dumb things and hoard dollars for themselves, then why give to them? In a perfect world, you are right and your logic is correct, but we live a world of greed. People see dollars and they take for themselves and lose sight for what the money is supposed to go towards.
 
benp said:
Eric, I'm sure there are things you'll agree with and some you won't. I think he is right that the persona portrayed by social media hunt influencers has been detrimental to the hunting community as a whole.

These "celebrities" will go beyond the law to get the content they need for a photo shoot so they can tag all their sponsors. On a different forum I'm on they post up all the influencers that are taken to court for poaching and other violations.

Even seen some videos where the people make terrible shot choices because they "had" to try and get that animal in a blood thirst that is not a good look for hunters. This makes the followers feel like they need to do the same and just produces more jerks to ruin hunts for others.

Wasn't it you that posted a video of dudes flying into a WMA at night? Believe it was a ton of boats just waiting for the go time to leave out to hunt the timber?
That's what matt is against but in all arenas of hunting. It's worse with big game where you have to be a macho man that keeps hammering and you have to embrace the suck to be a real hunter and if you don't kill the biggest while undergoing a self inflicted struggle then you are a subpar hunter.
Click to expand...

It was me that posted that video. In that instance I was discussing how the drama and adrenaline of the race is what is attracting participation, not hunting.

I think posting who is breaking the law on their quest for income via sponsorship is a wonderful idea for the simple reason waterfowl are a public resource we feel strongly about. There should be community deterrents to abusing the resource. Although some will cry the game wardens are corrupt or somehow rationalize things. I have never understood the type of hunter that looks up to the outlaw hunter, but trust me, they are out there. Out them, especially the ones profiting.

This past season we were hunting and one of my partners youngest sister was with us in the blind. She's a high school senior, an athlete, and beautiful. I mentioned if we took some pictures of her and she started an IG account of herself hunting she'd have 50k followers in no time. You know I'm right. The number of women IG "influencers" (I hate that term) that get adulation from men hunters for no real reason other than the simple fact they are pretty is both amazing and pathetic.

Social media has some pluses but when I look at it as a whole I think it is a detriment to our sport and across the board to society. But it's not going away.
 
William Reinicke said:
Agreed... except the takers in this case are the ceo's of these organizations...
Click to expand...

Yes and they support the companies that pay the pro-staffers and influencers that blow up our spots in the name of content with the goal to sell more product. Everyone wins:- the "conservation" orgs, the hunting industry, the influencers the game and fish departments - everyone EXCEPT us - we lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top