|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Apr 13, 2008 9:05:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fishfarmer on Apr 14, 2008 21:09:41 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmm.......My gear is definetly NOT for sale. Does it almost seem like he is trying to talk people out of waterfowling?
|
|
|
|
Post by uglyduckling on Apr 15, 2008 0:11:45 GMT -5
You just had to get me started  . First of all the nesting habitat has not been destroyed it's just under water. It happens to some extent every year. Our two major nesting species of ducks will be o.k. I'm sure the woodies will be able to find a hole in a tree well above the waterline. As far as mallards go There is enough set aside fields that are not under water. Plus it's still early for hen mallards to actually be on the nest. I live on a river in northern In and from my expierence if the water comes up and destroys a nest she will usually nest again. As far as farmers abandoning the crp money that will be short lived. The only way ethanol will be economically feasible is if someone starts producing equipment that runs on it. Ethanol will never be the answer if all the machines neccessary to produce it run on fossil fuels. The other problem I have with the article is this, has Mr Potter forgotten about organizations like Delta and DU? As far as his statement about the "duck drought" of the sixties I only have this comment. Hardcore waterfowlers will participate no matter what the bag limit or season length because it is what we LOVE. Kevin |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 17, 2008 13:01:38 GMT -5
It amazes me that every thing that seems to go wrong in the environment is blamed on the farmer. I almost can't even blame urban sprawl. With all the ponds that come with subdivisions the ducks seem to have an endless supply of nesting areas. We just need to have laws preventing those subdivisions from pushing the waterfowl out and fines for people who's cats are caught loose in those areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Apr 18, 2008 18:58:57 GMT -5
It We just need to have laws preventing those subdivisions from pushing the waterfowl out ... I disagree with that statement. The ponds (retention ponds) were designed to keep the rain runoff from entering the local streams or sewer systems. They were not designed for wildlife. So you are suggesting that the subdivisions should now be required to be wildlife preserves? For what reason? Obviously ducks are not endangered, so what to increase the duck population so duck hunters can have more ducks to shoot? |
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Apr 19, 2008 5:50:15 GMT -5
Not Really!
The purpose of a retention pond is to collect the silt and solids from storm water. Normally street drains run to the local retention pond, the pond has an incoming line and an out going line.
The water enters the retention pond and any sand and silt that may be mixed with it settles in the pond, as the water level in the pond rises, the pond water will exit thru the outgoing line and run to a river, creek or a bigger storm drain.
Collecting the silt at the retention pond will eliminate the silt building up in the downflow stream and causing an obstruction to the flow.
After many years the retention pond may have to be dredged to get rid of the silt build up.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 19, 2008 10:23:42 GMT -5
You both are right. Silt = nutrients that are run off by storm water events. It is an attempt to increase water quality due to the run-off. Sub divisions increase the run-off by increasing impervious surfaces such as roof tops and parking lots.
They are trying to replace the function of a natural wetland. And FirstWd farmers did destroy most of those =)
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 29, 2008 11:34:17 GMT -5
And subdivisions are destroying most of the farm land now......
|
|
. First of all the nesting habitat has not been destroyed it's just under water. It happens to some extent every year. Our two major nesting species of ducks will be o.k. I'm sure the woodies will be able to find a hole in a tree well above the waterline. As far as mallards go There is enough set aside fields that are not under water. Plus it's still early for hen mallards to actually be on the nest. I live on a river in northern In and from my expierence if the water comes up and destroys a nest she will usually nest again. As far as farmers abandoning the crp money that will be short lived. The only way ethanol will be economically feasible is if someone starts producing equipment that runs on it. Ethanol will never be the answer if all the machines neccessary to produce it run on fossil fuels. The other problem I have with the article is this, has Mr Potter forgotten about organizations like Delta and DU? As far as his statement about the "duck drought" of the sixties I only have this comment. Hardcore waterfowlers will participate no matter what the bag limit or season length because it is what we LOVE. 
