DU ENCOURAGES WATERFOWL ENTHUSIASTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 19, 2011) – Ducks Unlimited is asking duck hunters and other waterfowl enthusiasts to "double up for the ducks" by purchasing two federal duck stamps this year.

"The federal duck stamp has been an important tool in waterfowl habitat conservation for 77 years, but its ability to purchase and conserve important waterfowl habitat has been greatly diminished by inflation and rising land prices," DU CEO Dale Hall said. "The purpose of the 'Double Up for the Ducks' campaign is to show that hunters support the program and are willing to pay more for the duck stamp in order to conserve waterfowl habitat. We view the duck stamp as an investment in conservation, not as a tax on hunters."

This effort is part of a larger campaign currently being led by Ducks Unlimited to increase the price of the federal duck stamp. Since 1934, the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, commonly known as the federal duck stamp, has added more than 5.3 million acres of waterfowl habitat in all 50 states to the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The program is a highly efficient way for waterfowl hunters to invest in the future of their sport by conserving habitat; 98 cents out of every dollar is spent to acquire land and protect waterfowl habitat. Additionally, acquiring land under the National Wildlife Refuge System not only expands habitat protection, but also expands hunting opportunities and access.

While the federal duck stamp has proved a valuable conservation tool, its buying power has not kept pace with inflation. The cost of the stamp has not increased since 1991, marking the longest period in the program's history without a price increase. Simply put, $15 is not what it used to be: Based on the Consumer Price Index, the stamp would need to cost $24.26 today to have the same buying power that $15 had in 1991.

The total buying power of the duck stamp has decreased by 64 percent since 1991.

In 1991, revenue from the duck stamp enabled the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to acquire 89,000 acres of habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System at an average cost of $306 per acre. In 2010, the USFWS was able to acquire only 32,000 acres because land values had tripled to an average of $1,091 per acre.
 

Ducks Unlimited supports efforts to ensure that the investment waterfowl hunters have made to protect waterfowl habitat over the last 77 years is sustained into the future. And it is up to duck hunters and all who enjoy wetlands and waterfowl to continue the conservation legacy of the federal duck stamp. For these reasons, Ducks Unlimited supports legislation that would immediately increase the price of the stamp from $15 to $25, which would allow the program's revenues to keep pace with inflation.
 

"Increasing the price of the duck stamp will take an act of Congress," DU Chief Conservation Officer Paul Schmidt said. "To get Congress to act, waterfowl hunters must show their elected officials that their constituents care about conservation issues. The increased sales that will occur when hunters 'double up' on duck stamps will help conserve more habitat and also show Congress that hunters are serious about this issue."

Do I want more $$ put into refuges??

Seems like back in the day they were necessary (few ducks, lots of hunters). Now with all the hunting pressure we can muster, including wacky spring seasons with no plugs and electronic calls, etc. and we can't put a dent in them. Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but how do more refuges = more hunting?

I've been doing this for years.

guywhofishes, its not just about hunting access or safe loafing areas for waterfowl during hunting season.

refuges = habitat  and more habitat  = more animals (not just waterfowl)

All animals benefit from waterfowl habitat.   If  we continue to keep losing habitat at the rate we currently are,  we are in big trouble.  1 million more acres of CRP are expected to be lost by 2012 in ND alone.
Combine that with massive loss of native prairie and you have yourself a heck of a mess. If you are a duck or goose hunter you are lucky to be experiencing such a wet cycle as it is overshadowing a dismal habitat forecast. 
When it dries up (and it will) we will see firsthand the very real problems we are facing.

 

guywhofishes Said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but how do more refuges = more hunting?

Think outside of your box.

supercub Said:
 

guywhofishes Said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but how do more refuges = more hunting?

Think outside of your box.

It was this section of the article that had me asking.

"Additionally, acquiring land under the National Wildlife Refuge System not only expands habitat protection, but also expands hunting opportunities and access."

That statement seems like double-talk to me. How does a refuge expand hunting opportunities exactly?

I thought I WAS thinking outside the box by having a discussion and mentioning some thoughts that others might have as well and asking nicely for insights from others. Guess I should just get in line and hand over my money because somebody smarter than me says it's good for me and what I value.

Maybe we should also hand Sierra club etc. lots of money too so they can set aside lots of land I can't hunt... since more habitat simply equates to more hunting, no ifs ands or buts about it according to those smarter than me.

I think I'm happy in my box actually - so bugger off.

 The only creatures that you cannot hunt on most refuges are waterfowl. Refuges have great deer and upland hunting. 

If we do not conserve habitat now, we will pay when it dries up!

 a few things...

- one point was that DU is more or less stepping forward and saying that all hunters should pay more to conserve land. I ask that before that occurs shouldn't we evaluate where our resources are being spent now? Then set a strategic plan forth with specific goals... not just say that more money is the answer. Rationalize the increase in spending... flat out. 

- second point, when land is bought for a refuge it is taken out of production and taxes are not assessed to the counties. These moneys are so important as local government in rural areas is and will continue to be challenged by high repair and maintainence costs. I really don't think people understand the impact that this has over a longer period of time.