Rick Kyte--question on the Comprehensive Conservation plan

W

wis boz

Well-known member
Rick:
What is Don Hultman's point in pushing his refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan? Who is he appeasing and is it a done deal now? He is the manager of the Upper Mississippi National River Refuge but as a Federal or State agent? We just don't seem to get the facts here in southern Wisconsin or I've missed them.
Hope you have a great turn out June 30.
wis boz
 
Wis Boz,

The USFWS gave Don Hultman the 2006 Refuge Manager of the Year award. They cited his leadership of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and in particular the fact that he held 46 public meetings attended by 4,600 people. They didn't mention in the award announcement that 4,578 of those people were calling for his head.

In Wisconsin many of the conservation groups have been asking the WDNR to challenge the comprehensive plan on the basis of the Public Trust Doctrine--article IX of the state constitution that protects the public's right to hunt and fish on public lands and waters. However, the WDNR has decided not to challenge the USFWS authority, so it looks like the plan is going to go through.

On Monday the Wisconsin Conservation Congress held meetings in all 72 counties of the state at which, among other issues, the proposed changes to the closed areas on the refuge were voted on. I don't know the outcome of the vote statewide, but among the items was a proposal to end all open water hunting on Pool 11.

The short answer to your question regarding Hultman and the USFWS management is this: they are reviled locally but praised nationally. Since they are a federal agency, you can guess which side they are listening to.

Rick
 
Conservation plan in my neck of the river-

In our area guys they have eliminated the Permanate wooden blinds over the 3 year period.

2006 pool 12 last year for use
2007 pool 14 last year for use
2008 pool 13 last year for use

The blinds I really dont care for them for hunting sakes, I like my boat blind but I did gun a perm blind for many years. Get rid of them will open more area to use.

BUT here is my issue that we as a committee are now going to try and work out with the USFW in our area.

The blinds every year are NESTING STRUCTURE for Geese and other waterfowl. Almost every blind you roll up on in your boat this time of year has a canada goose nest with eggs on it. SAFELY out of the flooding waters of the river. Almost all of our islands are now under water and any natural nesting is GONE. Flooded out and birds are lost.

Elmination of these artifical structures on the pools is going to DECREASE the population of sucessful nesting on the river by a whole bunch. We build goose floating tubs (our group Waterfowl USA Mississippi Flyway Chapter) we try and build 40 per season and get them out to local marshes and ponds for local nesting that is SAFE for the goose or mallards. The floats are sturdy and we normaly pick them up out of th epond in the summer to store them for the winter.

We are going to try and get other groups - DU, Pheasants,Delta ect in our area to band together to try and get the feds to allow temporary nesting floats on the pools for the 3 month stretch of nesting so when the blinds are gone we dont start to loose our local nesting canadas. We are going to try and organize a meeting with them this summer of our local USFW guys and see if they will allow it or not. They have a problem with artifical structures on Fed property and I think we will meet a wall of objection.

Just something to think about, And I am sorry to hear about your loss of public grounds up there and the possible end of oepn water gunning, if you were just a fisherman or canoeist you would be happy as clams...... For somereason the hunters that have paid possibly the most of the expenses over the years are not getting a fair cut.

Dave
 
Rick:
Just what is Hultmans point in this? What are the feds trying to accomplish with this?
wis boz
 
Wis Boz,

That's a good question. If you look at the overall plan, you can see that they are making the Upper Miss Refuge more like the other national refuges: wildlife sanctuary + designated places for observing wildlife. In this case we are getting larger closed areas, more bird watching platforms, more canoe/kayak routes, etc. As the number of hunters/fishers continues to dwindle, we can expect more of this.

The other consideration is that most people making decisions at the federal level are urban dwellers, and they just don't get the importance of actually participating in nature the way that many rural folks do. Their only experience of wildlife is of watching it, and so they think that by increasing the opportunity for people to watch wildlife they are providing a service to the public as a whole.

In short, I think the feds--and Hultman included--are trying to make the refuge more "user-friendly." And they think that the duck hunters who are voicing opposition to the plan are just being selfish, by trying to have the dominant voice in how the refuge is managed.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top