NWRs

Talk about various Louisiana duck hunting tactics with others and explore issues related to duck hunting in the heart of Cajun duck hunting country.

Moderators: The Cat Island Drake, La. Hunter, Smackaduck

NWRs

Postby Jayhawker » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:30 pm

Heading out for some scouting on Fed land this weekend. I bet they don't find me. We sportsman have already purchased this land. We don't need a guide to hold our hand as we make use of it. If you ask me, they waste a ton money on these properties anyway. Shut down makes me realize they could take a 20% across the board cut, no problem. Actually, let the state buy them. Their workers are cheaper.
You gonna eat that?
User avatar
Jayhawker
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:38 pm
Location: T-towne


Re: NWRs

Postby Toledo » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:22 am

Fork em! Make use of our land and speak your mind if it comes down to it. To hell with the kang and his goons.
Toledo
hunter
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: NWRs

Postby Toledo » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:44 pm

Toledo
hunter
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: NWRs

Postby Jayhawker » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:30 pm

This is the best reason to resist all federal land grabs/purchases/and outright seizures. If we have to rely on them to GRANT us permission to step foot on our PUBLIC land then they've got us by the short and curlies when they "own" much more. I'm not kidding, the individual states should seize these federal lands and run them as state property. They actually have to balance a budget at the end of the year. Take a look at the entrance signs at a WMA vs. NWR, the handicapped parking areas, the multi million dollar roads, docks, interpretive centers, equipment etc. Some is necessary for work, the other is spent just so they can justify asking for just as much or more the next year. There's no such thing as the federal government saving money.
Good luck to the rest of you that venture onto "our" lands this winter. Based on what the Park service has been doing, we might find out why they needed all that hollow point ammo.
You gonna eat that?
User avatar
Jayhawker
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:38 pm
Location: T-towne

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:04 am

Jayhawker wrote: I'm not kidding, the individual states should seize these federal lands and run them as state property. They actually have to balance a budget at the end of the year.


You actually are kidding, right?

The state has done such a good job of managing the WMAs in Louisiana, and the state is in such great financial shape, that you actually think they should take over management of the all the NWRs?

Yeah right ......... just as soon as hunters come asking for an increase in license fees. :rolleyes:
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Jayhawker » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:58 am

I'm acutually not kidding.

1. If the state had the budget that the LA NWRs had. Would we not get better results for our money per acre?
2. Is the state not more accountable for their work product and responsive to the user groups than the federal government?
3. Are you saying that you actually trust the federal government? How much time do you think, Landrieu, Vitter, Alexander, Boustany etc. have spent in LA in the past year. "Just keep sending that money to D.C. We'll put it to good use." :yes:
Oh, you're out of money.... We'll just borrow some from China and put it on your kid's tab.
What happens when Commies want their money back. You're a slave to your debtor. No more hunting.. Those are "the peoples" ducks not yours.

4. It's wild land, forest, swamp, marsh. I'm saying that we don't need to sink so much money into it. Somehow private individuals manage habitat without unlimited spending power. Yes many get federal help, but they must stay on budget, no?

*5*. Maybe the state could manage land better if they got their personnel off internet chat forums during work hours :fingerpt:


Speaking of money, Remember when the Fed's came riding to the rescue after oil spill. They saw the money and sent every intern, equip. operator, secretary, and (even better) high dollar administrators so they could charge big money. Most of these people were way out of their element from what I've heard.
I believe even you downtalked the shortstopping money dump plan.
You gonna eat that?
User avatar
Jayhawker
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:38 pm
Location: T-towne

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:52 am

Jayhawker wrote:I'm acutually not kidding.


Then you must live in a world that doesn't exist.

Jayhawker wrote:1. If the state had the budget that the LA NWRs had.


Yep ...... a different world. We don't have that budget, and thus considerations based on that are fantasy.

Jayhawker wrote:2. Is the state not more accountable for their work product and responsive to the user groups than the federal government?


Yes, and our "responsiveness" to particular user groups is one reason why our management on many areas is NOT optimal for wildlife, hunter success, habitat maintenance, etc.

Jayhawker wrote:3. Are you saying that you actually trust the federal government? How much time do you think, Landrieu, Vitter, Alexander, Boustany etc. have spent in LA in the past year. "Just keep sending that money to D.C. We'll put it to good use." :yes:
Oh, you're out of money.... We'll just borrow some from China and put it on your kid's tab.
What happens when Commies want their money back. You're a slave to your debtor. No more hunting.. Those are "the peoples" ducks not yours.


My response to the state taking over NWRs had nothing to do with trust of the Feds. And if money is the issue, then the Feds are better off selling NWRs to the highest bidder.

Jayhawker wrote:4. It's wild land, forest, swamp, marsh. I'm saying that we don't need to sink so much money into it. Somehow private individuals manage habitat without unlimited spending power. Yes many get federal help, but they must stay on budget, no?


Ask private landowners how much money it takes to maintain marsh, swamp, and forest in good huntable condition, and ask them how much it costs for them to be "responsive" to their user groups. LDWF WMAs are already under-funded, so it doesn't matter how much less $$ we would have to spend than the Feds if we acquired NWRs ....... that funding doesn't exist.

Jayhawker wrote:*5*. Maybe the state could manage land better if they got their personnel off internet chat forums during work hours :fingerpt:


I'm at home with visiting in-laws having already logged more than 80 hours working in this 2-week pay-period. Tomorrow, I will be in the office working for free on Catahoula Lake document search/review. Feel free to call and check on both.


Jayhawker wrote:Speaking of money, Remember when the Fed's came riding to the rescue after oil spill. They saw the money and sent every intern, equip. operator, secretary, and (even better) high dollar administrators so they could charge big money. Most of these people were way out of their element from what I've heard.


That was paid for by BP; that probably saved the Feds $$ having an additional revenue stream to pay those people.

Jayhawker wrote:I believe even you downtalked the shortstopping money dump plan.


I didn't downtalk the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative except as an oil-remediation tactic. It was good conservation policy and utilized existing funding through existing Farm Bill programs (WRP, WHIP, and EQIP). However, the NRCS used the oil-spill as the catalyst to re-direct that existing funding so it would be used prior to negotiating future-year's budgets, AND the program had little chance of succeeding as oil-spill remediation. I made that point in initial meetings with NRCS leadership in Washington, and I made it again 1-year after the oil-spill when asked about how the MBHI worked to keep birds out of the oil.

But as a partner in migratory bird management, I participated in the program because it put good-quality habitat on the ground during a drought year by providing cost-share to private landowners. It was a conservation activity that had long been advocated in all Gulf Coast bird conservation initiatives.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:04 am

Here's an interesting real-life example of the differences between NWRs and WMAs in Louisiana.

In 2009, the USFWS called a meeting of the Tri-Party agreement (USFWS, LDWF, and Corp of Engineers) for the purpose of quitting participation in the agreement. They were overloaded, had suffered manpower reductions and could NOT continue to operate the structure at the Diversion Canal. During the heated discussion, the Manager of the Central Louisiana NWR Complex said:

"We have 60,000 acres and only 8 full-time employees to manage it".

That meeting was being held at Dewey Wills WMA, which is 62,000 acres and is managed by 2.33 full-time employees.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Jayhawker » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:06 am

Thanks for making my point. :clapping:
You gonna eat that?
User avatar
Jayhawker
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:38 pm
Location: T-towne

Re: NWRs

Postby Jayhawker » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:44 am

Lreynolds wrote:
Then you must live in a world that doesn't exist.


No kidding. It doesn't exist yet. If we sit down and shut up and take what's good for us, then it never will.
Yep ...... a different world. We don't have that budget, and thus considerations based on that are fantasy.


Notice. This is a chat forum, fantasy abounds.

Yes, and our "responsiveness" to particular user groups is one reason why our management on many areas is NOT optimal for wildlife, hunter success, habitat maintenance, etc.
You'd make a good fed. "We're taking your money and we'll make all the decisions. You little peons get what we give you." I've no problem with qualified individuals managing land. They know what they're doing. But as years go by they have to remember whose money they're spending and the reason they were hired in the first place.
Responsiveness and openness are the reasons states have more trust of their people than the feds. And sportsmen support the ldwf for the most part.

My response to the state taking over NWRs had nothing to do with trust of the Feds. And if money is the issue, then the Feds are better off selling NWRs to the highest bidder.
That's also fantasy land. We all know the political insiders would get that land at dirt cheap prices. Remember Poverty Point fiasco. Also I didn't say buy that land I said seize it. How can the govt. sell OUR land to an individual? When we're out of money and can borrow no more, they may have to sell land to China. Remember how we acquired the Louisiana purchase!


Ask private landowners how much money it takes to maintain marsh, swamp, and forest in good huntable condition, and ask them how much it costs for them to be "responsive" to their user groups. LDWF WMAs are already under-funded, so it doesn't matter how much less $$ we would have to spend than the Feds if we acquired NWRs ....... that funding doesn't exist.
Forest and swamp are peanuts. That's why the state plants trees instead of maintaining those wetlands. Huntable condition in my book doesn't mean stands, shooting lanes, food plots, feeders, and gravel trails. Woods are woods, just hunt.
My point, albeit fantasy, was that all other things equal, the state could manage this land far cheaper than the feds do. Deny that. You just gave the example of Dewey Wils vs. central LA NWRs. This land would be open right now also.


That was paid for by BP; that probably saved the Feds $$ having an additional revenue stream to pay those people.

They showed up em masse to rape BP for all they could. That's a fact. Many of them had no business being here and served no purpose but to be put on an invoice. I've heard this from feds themselves that didn't really support what was going on.
You gonna eat that?
User avatar
Jayhawker
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:38 pm
Location: T-towne

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:44 am

Jayhawker wrote: I've no problem with qualified individuals managing land. They know what they're doing. But as years go by they have to remember whose money they're spending and the reason they were hired in the first place.
Responsiveness and openness are the reasons states have more trust of their people than the feds. And sportsmen support the ldwf for the most part.


Amen! And if you are referring to responsiveness to ALL sportsmen, you are absolutely right. The problems arise in responsiveness to localized or minority groups of sportsmen, or other uses of state habitats, such as endangered species, non-game wildlife, etc.

Jayhawker wrote: Also I didn't say buy that land I said seize it. How can the govt. sell OUR land to an individual?


I've been privy to a number of federal land sales out west where I hunt pronghorns. With federal websites shut down, this old info was what I found quickly: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatt ... c-Land.htm

Jayhawker wrote:My point, albeit fantasy, was that all other things equal, the state could manage this land far cheaper than the feds do. Deny that. You just gave the example of Dewey Wils vs. central LA NWRs. This land would be open right now also.


I don't know what you mean by "all other things equal" ....... but if the state had the NWRs, we WOULD manage it cheaper than the Feds currently do because we don't have the money and couldn't do the same level of management. Wetland habitats on Central LA NWRs are better-managed than those on central LA WMAs.

My response in this thread remains that state WMAs are under-staffed, under-funded and thus not managed anywhere near as well as they can be, and subsequently, it is NOT a good idea for the state to take over NWRs without additional resources.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Ducaholic » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:37 am

Larry all of the inland lakes on Lake Ophelia NWR are inundated with various species of inviasive aquatics and virtually inaceessible until January when mother nature finally opens up a few areas.

While the Cental La. WMA's have similar issues LDWF has spray crews that make attempts at keeping what we have open useable.

That's not the case on the NWR's!
Ducaholic
hunter
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Toledo » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:00 am

Forest and swamp are peanuts. That's why the state plants trees instead of maintaining those wetlands. Huntable condition in my book doesn't mean stands, shooting lanes, food plots, feeders, and gravel trails. Woods are woods, just hunt.


I completely agree. Of me and all the foks I hunt with we hunt public about 90% of the time. Of that, we hunt on completely unmanaged land about 90% of the time; the states public rivers and lakes. We do quite well without big brother spending money on it for wildlife management.

How much of the "management" is actually needed on the NWRs and WMAs? Most people dont care about fancy launches, mowed shooting lanes, pretty maps, sheltered check in stations, parking areas, nice gated roads, etc. Most of the management things perpetuate their own need. Give people legal access to the land itself and they will find productive ways to use it as is being done right now on millions of acres across the country.
Toledo
hunter
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: NWRs

Postby Mr.L » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:23 am

I just wish they would allow Catahoula Lake hunters to pass through the Catahoula Wildlife Refuge so we can bush hog the cockleburs and weeds around our blinds. The refuge was going to allow hunters through on Oct 1, but the funding lapse shut them down. I am afraid we will get a big rain and not be able to work on our blinds if this government shutdown takes place.
Mr.L
hunter
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:22 am
Location: Whitehall, Louisiana

Re: NWRs

Postby Toledo » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:38 am

Mr.L wrote:I am afraid we will get a big rain and not be able to work on our blinds if this government shutdown takes place.


Very possible. 10 day forecast is showing 20%-60% for every day.
Toledo
hunter
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: NWRs

Postby Ducaholic » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:44 am

Toledo wrote:
Forest and swamp are peanuts. That's why the state plants trees instead of maintaining those wetlands. Huntable condition in my book doesn't mean stands, shooting lanes, food plots, feeders, and gravel trails. Woods are woods, just hunt.


I completely agree. Of me and all the foks I hunt with we hunt public about 90% of the time. Of that, we hunt on completely unmanaged land about 90% of the time; the states public rivers and lakes. We do quite well without big brother spending money on it for wildlife management.

How much of the "management" is actually needed on the NWRs and WMAs? Most people dont care about fancy launches, mowed shooting lanes, pretty maps, sheltered check in stations, parking areas, nice gated roads, etc. Most of the management things perpetuate their own need. Give people legal access to the land itself and they will find productive ways to use it as is being done right now on millions of acres across the country.




By in large I agree with most everything you say in terms of infrastructure. But we do need both the Feds and LDWF to keep these areas as close to how they were 50 years ago as possible.

Man made intervention has unfortunately changed many of the natural processes that kept our lakes full of fish and our waters pure. We need them to manage these processes and mimic them whenever possible but to do so that takes effort, money, and understanding of how these formal natural processes worked.

Man's intervention has put Mother Nature to the test. She can no longer do it on her own. That's where smart and timely management comes in.
Ducaholic
hunter
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:39 pm

Toledo wrote:
Forest and swamp are peanuts. That's why the state plants trees instead of maintaining those wetlands. Huntable condition in my book doesn't mean stands, shooting lanes, food plots, feeders, and gravel trails. Woods are woods, just hunt.


How much of the "management" is actually needed on the NWRs and WMAs? Most people dont care about fancy launches, mowed shooting lanes, pretty maps, sheltered check in stations, parking areas, nice gated roads, etc. Most of the management things perpetuate their own need. Give people legal access to the land itself and they will find productive ways to use it as is being done right now on millions of acres across the country.


I wish you guys could spend 1 week in my office or the office of the WMA Program Manager, and I don't think you'd make such statements.

With the exception of "mowed shooting lanes" (because I'm the duck guy and people don't call me about that), you have just listed things I hear about "needing" nearly every week. More roads, better roads, bigger/better boat launches, more ATV access, more self-clearing kiosks, better maps, interactive maps, more water, less water, weirs, pumps, etc. We don't do these things because nobody wants them, or a few people request them. People call Commission members and demand them. With all due respect, people DO care about those things. Sometimes I think they care more about those things than they care about quality habitat.

For example, the NAWMP Coordinator took a butt-chewing 2 weeks ago because he hadn't made any progress on new boat ramps for Wham Brake. Why? Because I told him (not like I had to) to spend his time on projects at Ouachita, Buckhorn, and Sherburne that are going to put actual wetland habitat on the ground if we can get them operational. People have been launching boats into Wham Brake for years without bigger/better boat ramps; so, why was that such a priority? Because people care about it and make those concerns known. The majority? A few squeaky wheels? Old men that want to take their grandkids hunting? Yuppies that don't want to work at it? I don't know ....... they all buy licenses.

And wetlands ........ Jayhawker is right. Our administration has reforested a number of wetland-management units because it takes fewer resources (manpower, time, and $$) to maintain, AND there is $$ available from people looking for places to take care of mitigation requirements.
Last edited by Lreynolds on Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:02 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Lreynolds » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:55 pm

Ducaholic wrote:Man made intervention has unfortunately changed many of the natural processes that kept our lakes full of fish and our waters pure. We need them to manage these processes and mimic them whenever possible but to do so that takes effort, money, and understanding of how these formal natural processes worked.


Well said. As the National Park Service learned long ago with their "no management" preservation policies, things change (plant succession primarily) to something other than what you wanted to maintain. That is especially true of impounded wetlands. Often, we don't get it right because we only have partial understanding (or controllability) of the natural processes were are trying to copy.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: NWRs

Postby Park Duck » Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:11 am

Flock a damn yuppie and their stupid ass face paint. These pussies are destroying duck hunting public land.
User avatar
Park Duck
hunter
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am
Location: Natchez Ms


Return to Louisiana Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests