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

I stopped giving DU money years ago when they bought up a huge section of marsh that was once public grounds and made it a no hunting area. It blew my mind when they did this. Figured out they let special hunts go on in there after so much time. So if my money was going to go towards locking up public grounds and only letting their people hunt, they could find dollars elsewhere. They're all corrupt.
 
Lots of non profits lose sight of thier original mission once they get too big. Sad but true. Inexcusable but true.
I would like to see CEO salary of comparable size non profits vs just a US CEO average. And income spent for on the ground conservation vs salaries and overhead.
 
While it is primarily hunters who give to orgs like DU, DUs mission isn't to provide hunters with more places to hunt. It's to conserve resources that benefit waterfowl. Most of those orgs don't care a thing about hunters or hunting, except on the surface, because they know who their target demographics are.

Just like the NRA a while back, these orgs have lost sight of their mission, and sit around board rooms wondering how to get more profits (out of their non-profit).
 
Steven Alexander said:
While it is primarily hunters who give to orgs like DU, DUs mission isn't to provide hunters with more places to hunt. It's to conserve resources that benefit waterfowl. Most of those orgs don't care a thing about hunters or hunting, except on the surface, because they know who their target demographics are.

Just like the NRA a while back, these orgs have lost sight of their mission, and sit around board rooms wondering how to get more profits (out of their non-profit).
Click to expand...
Yes I understand this. But we already have many refuges near where they bought up this land. They literally just took a section of marsh that was hunted for years, put up fences around that area and said no hunting, DU project. Made literally 0 sense. Theres the main refuge 40 miles south, another refuge 15 miles north, and another refuge 60 miles north. There was already TONS of places for birds to find safe haven and those refuges are actually managed with crops grown and water flooded into them every year. This marsh they fenced, is only flooded when the state floods the surrounding marshes we get to hunt as hunters, and they have done nothing to manage it. Its over grown, no real way of getting into the once marshed areas and not managed in the slightest. Kind of a black eye for DU imo.

They could of easily found grounds elsewhere, actually managed it, and created a true refuge for birds. Instead they just bought a section of area that was once managed by the state, in between a WMA and called it theirs and done absolutely nothing with it.
 
DU generates over 300M in annual revenue. So 600K isn't a big percentage, but it sounds like a lot for a supposed "non profit". If I recall correctly, they claim total expenses in salaries and income generation of about 18%. That's a big number. I think they do a lot of good work for waterfowl, but am aggravated by stuff like setting aside property for their favorite people (AKA big donors). When I donate, it's a donation and I don't expect special treatment.
 
It didn’t affect me directly - not anywhere near where I live, but there was a lake out around central NC that was closed to hunting a few years back. When the local municipality held hearings regarding the matter, DU came out on the side of the antis and made it clear they have nothing to do with supporting hunters and were in favor of closure of the lake to hunting.

While that’s true to a sense that conservation is their mission, it also completely misses the point that it’s an organization that revolves around waterfowl hunting. I won’t ever give them a dime. Don’t know if Delta is any different, but at least they haven’t actively supported anti-hunting that I know of.
 
Taylor Smith said:
It didn’t affect me directly - not anywhere near where I live, but there was a lake out around central NC that was closed to hunting a few years back. When the local municipality held hearings regarding the matter, DU came out on the side of the antis and made it clear they have nothing to do with supporting hunters and were in favor of closure of the lake to hunting.

While that’s true to a sense that conservation is their mission, it also completely misses the point that it’s an organization that revolves around waterfowl hunting. I won’t ever give them a dime. Don’t know if Delta is any different, but at least they haven’t actively supported anti-hunting that I know of.
Click to expand...
This is what made me stop supporting them too. There was a different incident in east NC where they told the hunters they were a conservation organization not a hunting organization and would do nothing to help them.

At least RMEF and NWTF claim that they are for both, and that hunting is conservation and save the hunt, save the habitat. While I find it ridiculous that the CEOs are paid that much I can at least support their efforts they have done for both hunters and conservation.
 
My wife and I currently support Pheasants Forever, NWTF and DU. Minnesota now has a healthy population of wild turkey that didn't exist previously. Pheasants are on the rebound big time after years of serious decline. Our duck hunting still is not that great but I think it's improving. I agree with Tod that CEO salaries are out of line everywhere, not just charities. At the same time I disagree with the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" approach. Our dollars are our vote and without them I think we would be in a very sorry place as far as hunting is concerned. Now that federal dollars are lacking, it is more important than ever to stay the course. I would also add that the National and State Conventions are a blast!
RM
 
Last edited:
Eric Patterson said:
I had to look up who Steve Rinella is. Are they at odds with each other?
Click to expand...
I know his brother occasionally appeared on episodes of Meat Eater, so not sure they’re actively at odds with each other. I did get the impression that they have distinctly different views on the importance of recruiting more hunters and otherwise publicizing the sport.
 
Matt Rinella wrote an excellent essay about monetorizing hunting and posting on social media. Here is an excerpt:

When it comes to hunting, we should take our lead from the Ju/’hoansi people of the Kalahari Desert, a hunter-gatherer tribe that the anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee studied in the 1960s and 1970s. Ju/’hoansi customs strongly encouraged humility, as quotes from a tribesman illustrate:

“Say that a man has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggart, ‘I have killed a big one in the bush!’ He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks, ‘What did you see today?’ He replies quietly, ‘Ah, I’m no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all…maybe just a tiny one.’ Then I smile to myself because I know he has killed something big.”

The contrast between Ju/’hoansi hunters and social media hunters couldn’t be sharper. These humble tribesmen were reluctant to tell their closest friends and neighbors they had killed something. Conversely, social media hunters tell the whole world. The Ju/’hoansi had the right idea. The proper attitude for the hunter is one of understatement and humility. Hunting is about seeing without being seen. Hunting is best done quietly.
 
Last edited:
Taylor Smith said:
it also completely misses the point that it’s an organization that revolves around waterfowl hunting.
Click to expand...
DU IS NOT an org that revolves around waterfowl hunting. They are a waterfowl conservation org. Yes, they may hold banquets where shotguns are raffled, and they may "talk shop" about hunting, but yours or my hunting success IS NOT their priority. It is wetlands and waterfowl conservation.
 
RM Anderson said:
Matt Rinella wrote an excellent essay about monetorizing hunting and posting on social media. Here is an excerpt:

When it comes to hunting, we should take our lead from the Ju/’hoansi people of the Kalahari Desert, a hunter-gatherer tribe that the anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee studied in the 1960s and 1970s. Ju/’hoansi customs strongly encouraged humility, as quotes from a tribesman illustrate:

“Say that a man has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggart, ‘I have killed a big one in the bush!’ He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks, ‘What did you see today?’ He replies quietly, ‘Ah, I’m no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all…maybe just a tiny one.’ Then I smile to myself because I know he has killed something big.”

The contrast between Ju/’hoansi hunters and social media hunters couldn’t be sharper. These humble tribesmen were reluctant to tell their closest friends and neighbors they had killed something. Conversely, social media hunters tell the whole world. The Ju/’hoansi had the right idea. The proper attitude for the hunter is one of understatement and humility. Hunting is about seeing without being seen. Hunting is best done quietly.
Click to expand...
Good post. If they have to brag however, write about it. No hero shots, after all, a picture is worth a thousand words.
 
Steven Alexander said:
DU IS NOT an org that revolves around waterfowl hunting. They are a waterfowl conservation org. Yes, they may hold banquets where shotguns are raffled, and they may "talk shop" about hunting, but yours or my hunting success IS NOT their priority. It is wetlands and waterfowl conservation.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good until they start actively advocating against hunting, when hunters make up their funding base. It would have been a different story if they stayed clear of the matter all together, since they had no obligation to become involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top