Mid Summer North Alabama WMA Report

[BamaBill]

We can argue Guntersville Lake and the TN River and grass and hunter #s all night, but TVA has always had control of the shoreline, and mis-management, greed, lack of foresight, or whatever in the upper levels of that organization are why it is what it is with the shoreline. In the last ten years, the hunter numbers have exploded on the TN River as a whole. As Dave summed up, duckhunting became cool. We have minions of duckhunters that are the authority on everything related to hunting Guntersville or ducks in general now. The increased #s are good for the sport as a whole. GA/OOS hunters are not and really haven't been any sort of numbers issue on G'ville, IMO. Yes, nearby OOS hunters have increased, but the increase has been just as big or bigger with in-state hunters. I've seen MUCH more impact in the last ten years from in-state hunters travelling to G'ville once duckhunting became cool and they figured out they could hunt Guntersville from other cities and areas of the state and be a part of the 'yada, yada, I killed more ducks than you' club or the 'I know a special, super secret, never hunted spot' club. They've all been hunted. It's been public water with ducks and duckhunters for over 70 years. Guntersville became the getaway place from Birmingham, Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, etc....in far greater numbers than out of state folks. I know out of staters that have been hunting Guntersville for 20 or more years that gripe about all the city boys from Alabama they see at the ramp......it's all perspective, and it's all relative. I will say that for decades, many of the areas on the TN River that are now off-limits to hunting were hunted regularly by a few and without incident. Only in the last ten years have issues arisen, and more houses aren't the sole root of it. A lack of common sense from hunters has played a large part, too.

I don't know why the WMAs didn't give up on row crops and go to barnyard grass years ago, either....it'll grow in just about anything.

 

[JD Odell]

The definition of a "DWELLING" should be outlined within the State Statutes. I would not think a boathouse constitutes a dwelling, but without researching the statutes I can't say for sure. I agree with you, and I would think a "dwelling" would be comprised of some permanent or semi-permanent structure (as in the case of a mobile home) that is habitable (i.e., has a bathroom, sleeping area, etc.). A boathouse (versus a floating house on the water) in the general sense is not "habitable". I would also think a dwelling can be defined through some taxable definition....but again, I don't know how Alabama sets up their property tax regarding boat houses or if TVA regulates boathouse construction (as do some locations where the Corps of Engineers control the waterways and boathouse construction). I would simply go with the State Statute regarding the definition of a dwelling. If there is not a Statute defining what a dwelling is, then there is your answer on vague and inconstant responses from Conservation Enforcement Officers. But to tell you the truth, I can't think of many places I hunt where I'm within 100 yards of a boathouses or dwelling.

If you want to see some restrictive hunting regulations in regards to blinds, boat blinds, and distances from each, check out the Virginia waterfowl regulations in the Northern Virginia area along the Potomac River. Now those are some restrictive regulations! It is enough to make you stop waterfowl hunting, or move!

Cheers!

 

[J.Russell]

I attended a number of these meetings prior to the law. It came about because of hunters hunting too close to houses boat house, etc. It was their complaining and hunter greed that got it going. Same as with the barge yard. Hunters not hunting smart. We discussed the dwelling issue in length. One of the issue was how a person who owned a large area of land may want to hunt on their own prperty. This could be dove,ducks, whatever. The 100 yard law became very undesirable. The person who owns the ajoining land can set up a "dwelling" on their edge of property closest to yours. Now if your honey hole is within 100 yards, and your neighbor does not like it, then they can call the police,Game and Fish,etc. and you are no longer hunting your property. There have always been laws for rifles, but not the case with shot guns. Dwelling became a concern. The discussion came when it was brought up that anyone can set up something with four walls and a roof and call it a dwelling. The homeless call a refrigerator box home. The lake homeowners were pushing for as much as 500 yards distance. Thankfully Game and Fish pushed for the 100 yard law. There are rivers and lakes that we hunt that may not be much more than 100 yards wide in spots. 20 years from now or less we may not be able to hunt these spots. Problem here is encroachment. Homeowners view us as encroaching on their property rights etc. We see them as encroaching on our fun. 99% of the 100 yard law stemmed from 1 goose hunters here hunting too close to houses and chasing cripples under boat house. Piers and boat house got shoy even a window or two went out. Home owners got mad went to the hunters. Hunters can be stupidly hot headed and took it as a challenge to stand their ground. Nearly got 10 miles of water shut off to hunting. talking sloughs,creeks,and all. G'Ville's problem was stemmed from the barge yard and hunters tied up to boat houses and piers. They are still getting tied up. One home owner may say no problem, but the neighbors do not like it. The two lakes Homeowners societies keep in close contact, news letters, phone calls, etc. They have several meetings, organize some with game and fish, and now we are worried about what is consdered a dwelling. I was in the meetings. Just because it sounds unrealistic for an area to get shut down, doesn't mean that it will not happen. Big thanks to Game and Fish for keeping a section of river open for us. They shut down one section, it will be a gateway for another section to be gone.

 

[Carl]

If I as an individual land owner have the resources to dig a well down into one of the largest underground aquifers in the Southern Region and flood a 15 acre shallow pond planted w/a food source and create an attractive habitat for waterfowl, then the Alabama DNR ought to be able to do one hell of a job with the resources available to them (monetary and personnel) to create and sustain an ecosystem for waterfowl. If the Alabama DNR can’t accomplish this, then it is because of limitations imposed upon them by a bureaucratic process and incompetence on their part.

As an employee of DNR, I can tell you we don't have an abundance of monetary or personnel resources, especially in Fish & Game, which is funded by license sales and matching federal grant only. After 10 years with no license increased and decreasing sales, F&G s budget was stretched as far as it could be. They got this last license cost increase passed but that only makes up for years of shortfalls and increases in costs. So don't for a minute think we're rolling in the cash to do anything.
As far as competence, competition for our jobs is tough and we strive to get the best and brightest biologist out there. Sure there's a few slackers, there are in every business, both govt & private. But to imply that there is large scale incompetence in our Dept. is a personal insult we don't deserve. You think you can do better with a shoe string budget and limited personel, go get your wildlife science degree, get on board and run one of these WMAs. Then you can make commments about the value of our employees.

 

[JD Odell]

Well, Mr. Ferraro, if you care to reread my comments from the 17th, I address (question) funds distribution, and BMPs (Best Management Practices) regarding ecosystem management within the Guntersville Lake Waterway System (and WMAs contained within). I also provided input regarding how I (as a licensed resident hunter from Jackson County) believe funds can (or should) be distributed, as well as how Guntersville Lake Waterway System WMAs can be managed more effectively for waterfowl. I stand by my initial statement of “Alabama DNR ought to be able to do one hell of a job with the resources available to them (monetary and personnel) to create and sustain an ecosystem for waterfowl.” I make this statement based on an assumption generated funds (WMA permits) are redistributed per respective WMA. I also provided additional thoughts on generating funds from the State Waterfowl Stamp via purchase location of said Stamp. You Sir explained limited Game and Fish funds by answering “I can tell you we don't have an abundance of monetary or personnel resources, especially in Fish & Game, which is funded by license sales and matching federal grant only.” If this is the only source of funding for Alabama Fish and Game, where is the money going that I pay for the State Waterfowl Stamp and the WMA permit(s)? Both of these fall under the management of Alabama Fish and Game, do they not? If WMA funds are not redistributed to the respective WMAs generating the funds through sales of WMA permits, then how is the money redistributed within Alabama DNR? Is it redistributed on an equal basis to WMAs? I don’t see how equal redistribution of funds generated through the sale of WMA permits is legitimate. Why would WMA permit funding generated within the Guntersville Lake Waterway System be distributed, let’s say, to a WMA in Mobile? If I travel to Mobile to hunt a WMA there, I am required to purchase a WMA permit for those respective WMAs, am I not? That would be analogous to Mobile sharing money generated from tourism with Scottsboro. This is where the second part of my statement comes into play, “If the Alabama DNR can’t accomplish this, then it is because of limitations imposed upon them by a bureaucratic process and incompetence on their part.” I was not implying the Alabama DNR as a whole is incompetent. I can say with extreme confidence, however, after being in upper management for the last 10 years, I would have to disagree with your assessment of “You think you can do better with a shoe string budget and limited personel (sic), go get your wildlife science degree, get on board and run one of these WMAs. Then you can make commments (sic) about the value of our employees.” One does not need a “wildlife science degree” to manage a WMA, or for that matter, to manage Alabama Game and Fish or the Alabama Department of Natural Resources. Effective managers determine and set objectives and goals by “managing” people and resources. Effective managers allow subordinates to accomplish objectives and goals without interference. Effective managers do not need to know how to make the widget. Effective managers need to know how to facilitate the process enabling their employees the ability to make the widget. I can say with extreme confidence bureaucracy and incompetence is at every level of management in every governmental organization (Local, State, and Federal). It is only through the extreme dedication of employees the “machine” does not come to a grinding halt. Lastly, without getting into my personal life, I do have several academic accomplishments in the “wildlife science” field, but unfortunately, I have been engaged with other matters since 9-11-01.
Mr. Ferraro, I’m not poking you in the eye. I’m simply questioning how the money I spend through the purchase of the State Duck Stamp and WMA permits is utilized. The funds generated by WMA permit sales in the Guntersville Lake Waterway System alone must be in the tens-of-thousands of dollars, and much more for sales of the State Duck Stamp. I’m also questioning the management of the Guntersville Lake Waterway System WMA ecosystems due to the statements made by the “area Biologist” in regards to ecosystem management as well as what I have personally witnessed over the last 30+ years. I just don’t see a return reflected in the Guntersville Lake Waterway System WMAs from ecosystem management and money generated from sales of State Duck Stamps and WMA permits.

Cheers!

 

[Carl]

"make this statement based on an assumption generated funds (WMA permits) are redistributed per respective WMA."

This assumption is false. When you purchase a WMA permit it can be used at all the WMAs in the state, not just the one closest to where you live. There is no way for F&G to know which WMA you are going to hunt, so there is no way to allocate funds to a certain WMA based on where it is purchased. The WMA permit funds are put into a fund for managing all WMAs. I do not have knowledge of the exact way in which F&G allocates these funds, but based my expereicne with budgeting, I believe it would be based on staffing requirements, acreage, maintenance needs, etc.. I am also not familiar with the allocation of state waterfowl stamp funds.

You Sir explained limited Game and Fish funds by answering “I can tell you we don't have an abundance of monetary or personnel resources, especially in Fish & Game, which is funded by license sales and matching federal grant only.” If this is the only source of funding for Alabama Fish and Game, where is the money going that I pay for the State Waterfowl Stamp and the WMA permit(s)? Both of these fall under the management of Alabama Fish and Game, do they not?

All of these, licenses, stamps & WMA permits, are considered "license sales", sorry if I did not make that clear. I can tell you that these funds, even with the recent license fee increases, are barely able to keep up with increasing costs of personnel, fuel, equipment, etc.. F&G is definately not swimming in cash, they are doing the best they can with the limited resources that license sales and the matching federal funds give them.

Think about it this way: Say that all the guys who hunt the WMA & the Lake in your area eac buy a WMA permit, state duck stamps and hunting licenses. This equals $46.00 each. Say there are 2,000 guys who hunt around the lake (probably an over estimate but lets go with that). Thats $92,000.00/year. That won't even cover one biologist (salary & fringe), his vehicle, and fuel for his equipment. Even if there are 4,000 guys, that still only covers two biologists. No labors, no equipment purchases, no seed, etc..

Sorry if I got overly animated in my reply without adding more details. I tend to get excited when people assume that we have all the funds and resources we really need to "properly" manage all our WMAs and other resources. And blanket statements about the competency of state employees realllllyyyy ticks me off. I think it is a testament to the quality of our managers & biologist that they manage to even keep things working over the years with the limited resources they have at hand.