Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Chance to elevate waterfowl management within the SCDNR – support requested

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    13,222

    Default Chance to elevate waterfowl management within the SCDNR – support requested

    Without much question or need for debate, waterfowl hunting in SC is getting noticeably worse with each passing season. The debate starts, though, with the question “how do we fix it?” Even when we agreed on solutions, the implementation of such solutions remained elusive because waterfowling interests take a back seat when forced for legislative funding and/or to compete for DNR’s finite resources.

    Finally, though, there is an idea that I believe streamlines this process by making one person responsible for improving waterfowl hunting in the state.

    The Idea…
    1) Create a State Waterfowl Manager position within the SCDNR whose singular job responsibility is to quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting in South Carolina,
    2) Move waterfowl management up within the reporting structure of the DNR organization to a division level where it would be a peer to Law Enforcement, Marine Resources and Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries, and
    3) Add public accountability and oversight with access to properties, plans, projects and employees.

    The Request…
    1) Support (or don’t actively oppose) an increase in the price of the state duck stamp to $15.50/season enacted through legislation with a 6 year sunset clause, and
    2) Stay active in the sport for the next 6 years.

    Some Details…
    1) The accountability and oversight would come from a 6-person Advisory Committee, one each nominated by 1) the governor’s office, 2) the DNR, 3) House Ag Committee, 4) Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee, 5) House Ways and Means Committee and 6) Senate Finance Committee, and
    2) During years 1 through 3, 10% of the new state duck stamp revenues go to breeding grounds that specifically produce waterfowl that winter in SC. This is increases to 20% for years 4 through 6 then returns to zero with the sunset of the enabling legislation.

    I was involved with the DNR from 2006 through 2020 serving on the Waterfowl Advisory Committee for 8 years and the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee for 6 years. From everything I’ve seen there is nothing corrupt, incompetent or nefarious going on with waterfowl management. It just doesn’t get the attention it needs because 1) there is no single employee who is empowered and solely responsible for improving waterfowl hunting across the state and 2) there it too much competition from all the other interests, like deer or, increasingly, non-consumptive activities, that fall under the very broad umbrella of “Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries”.

    The proposed legislation fixes these two major issues by elevating waterfowl management to its own division and by providing a 100% dedicated employee that is held accountable for demonstrable improvements in waterfowl hunting. Kudos to whoever put this idea together and thanks to Duke Tape for being willing to spend political capital make it a legislative reality.

    This is honestly the first time in 14 years of messing with this stuff that I was 100% in agreement with a proposed solution to our waterfowling problem. Getting public support for the 6 year initial term is critical to getting the right person hired as the State Waterfowl Manager.

    Thoughts?
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    40,572

    Default

    Sounds like a great plan. Thank you guys for taking it on. Keep us informed and let us know how we can help...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    1,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Sounds like a great plan. Thank you guys for taking it on. Keep us informed and let us know how we can help...
    I like it, I am admittedly not an expert on this stuff but I would push for 100% of the funds to be used in state initially. Once we get the infrastructure in good shape, then push some money to the breeding grounds. I think the up front cost will be higher versus maintaining whatever comes of this on an ongoing basis. I also think 1 person is not enough to manage the whole state but I get the whole baby steps thing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    TR/Sumter/TR
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    I like the plan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Blackstock, SC
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Would it be possible for the Guberment to just spend the money they already collect on increasing the waterfowl situation?
    Kill big, kill often

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,462

    Default

    Forgive me as I'm especially slow today. Will you be the Manager? If so then HECK YEAH! If not than how will this position be filled?
    "Think A Guy Like Me Worries About Percentages?" Tin Cup

    "Some get spiritual cause they see the light, and some cause they feel the heat" Ray Wylie Hubbard

    "P.S. I love turkeys. Mostly just hate those who hunt em." Glenn

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Too many lawmakers on the proposed committee

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    13,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArrowSlinger View Post
    Would it be possible for the Guberment to just spend the money they already collect on increasing the waterfowl situation?
    That's good question but, it's like anything in the budget, once it's there there is little chance of "repurposing" it. The best and maybe only way of moving this forward is create and fund the new position with new money.

    Quote Originally Posted by JBK View Post
    Forgive me as I'm especially slow today. Will you be the Manager? If so then HECK YEAH! If not than how will this position be filled?
    That's flattering but no. I don't have the academic background or on the ground experience needed to do this right. There are people who would do an exceptional job at this. None of the ones that come to my mind are currently employed within the DNR. The big tent of WFF (Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries) has created too many generalist.


    Quote Originally Posted by formerly bohica View Post
    Too many lawmakers on the proposed committee
    It's not lawmakers on the committee - it's their appointees. The committee chairs interests and personalities are disparate enough that I'm not too worried about a "majority coup" selecting folks that will turn this into a political mess. I'm actually encouraged that the professional waterfowl associations (DU, SCWA and Delta) don't automatically get a seat at the table.
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,986

    Default

    I’d hate to be the poor sob that gets thrown into that fire
    .
    80-20 Genaration

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,114

    Default

    I agree with Jay. I would encourage the funds to be spent in-state first. Then, following the success that would bring, expand into the nesting habitat financial support. Primary focus, in my opinion, would be to imprint wintering birds in South Carolina. Otherwise, you are paying for somebody up north to kill birds that may or may not have ever thought about coming to SC to winter-or are flying past SC. Take that 10 or 20% you proposed and revitalize the SCDNR wood duck box program, and instead of just giving away boxes, include funds for wood duck box maintenance.

    Overall, I am very much in support of this plan. Bring accountability to a single entity/committee/manager for the success or failure of waterfowl management. The lack of accountability is where I feel like SCDNR is mishandling the subject. Government loves "bean counting" until they are held accountable for it. Increase transparency! Itemized list of where your duck stamp/hunting license money is going. We the sportsman want to see positive and measurable results in our CAT1 and CAT2 waterfowl areas, as well as across the state.
    "Luck is where opportunity and preparation meet."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    3,421

    Default

    I absolutely love anything that might potentially increase waterfowling opportunity in SC even if I pay a bit more to support it (I rarely hunt here but I continue to financially support it through duck stamp purchase) but:

    "Create a State Waterfowl Manager position within the SCDNR whose singular job responsibility is to quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting in South Carolina"

    My kneejerk reaction is to have a host of concerns as to the who might be hired for this position as nepotism runs deep in all organizations, secondly, what is definition of "quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting"? I've seen a CAT 1 managers desire to increase Ringneck use and harvest for example, by doing so, would this quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting? Or is this a measurement of the number of shots fired? The number of birds killed? The number of days of "hunter opportunity"? Would the State Waterfowl Manager seek to improve only CAT 1 and CAT 2 WMA's or dig in and attempt to improve all public waters on our behalf?

    I am behind you 100% Stephen as always, sorry in advance for having a tendency to play the devil's advocate. Just looking for clarification.
    Listen to your elders. Not because they are always right but because they have more experiences of being wrong.

    "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give" Sir Winston Churchill

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    13,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunwannabe View Post
    I absolutely love anything that might potentially increase waterfowling opportunity in SC even if I pay a bit more to support it (I rarely hunt here but I continue to financially support it through duck stamp purchase) but:

    "Create a State Waterfowl Manager position within the SCDNR whose singular job responsibility is to quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting in South Carolina"

    My kneejerk reaction is to have a host of concerns as to the who might be hired for this position as nepotism runs deep in all organizations, secondly, what is definition of "quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting"? I've seen a CAT 1 managers desire to increase Ringneck use and harvest for example, by doing so, would this quantifiably improve waterfowl hunting? Or is this a measurement of the number of shots fired? The number of birds killed? The number of days of "hunter opportunity"? Would the State Waterfowl Manager seek to improve only CAT 1 and CAT 2 WMA's or dig in and attempt to improve all public waters on our behalf?

    I am behind you 100% Stephen as always, sorry in advance for having a tendency to play the devil's advocate. Just looking for clarification.
    Good questions - I hope asking them helps guide the process.

    I do know this too, quantifiably improving waterfowling in SC is not a one or two dimensional equation. Chasing one-dimensional solutions is not working.
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Hampton Co., SC
    Posts
    9,176

    Default

    Following....
    \"I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. A small bird will drop dead frozen from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.\" <br />D.H. LAWRENCE

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Upstate, SC
    Posts
    1,687

    Default Chance to elevate waterfowl management within the SCDNR – support requested

    Sounds like a pretty big step in right direction! The biggest challenge is going to find the right person for the job. I don’t see it being very appealing to those that are actually qualified without a hefty salary. That would be the only negative I can see. But who knows...I think the first step needs to be making our larger bodies of water more accommodating to waterfowl as they have the most drawing power based on size. Grass in lakes improves more than just waterfowl habitat!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by TXFowler; 03-02-2021 at 07:11 PM.
    Beretta A400 Xtreme

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    13,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TXFowler View Post
    Sounds like a pretty big step in right direction! The biggest challenge is going to find the right person for the job.
    Yep - that and getting the legislation right without a lot of tweaks.
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    I love the idea of an overall manager. I would add that it might not be a bad idea to have area managers much like Achi is the Upper Coastal Waterfowl Project manager...make the Upper Coastal Project include more that just Coastal Cat 1s. An Area manager for the midlands to include the Santee lakes and then one for the upstate as well. I see it potentially like the Bobwhite Initiative is with area managers/advisers


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men. -Gifford Pinchot

    The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. -Thomas Jefferson


    The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballard's Landing
    Posts
    14,276

    Default

    This position has potential to turn South Carolina’s (public) waterfowling 180 degrees and back in the right direction.
    Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    7,888

    Default

    I can tell you one person involved with DNR that shouldn't be a part of this.
    "I'm just a victim of a circumstance"

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    19,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tman View Post
    Primary focus, in my opinion, would be to imprint wintering birds in South Carolina.
    Need lots of food for that to occur, en mass... I mean, more than just some scattered corn. We can't seem to keep any beneficial vegetation from being mowed down by a steady stream of new carp every season.

    Talk about heresy and wasted dollars.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by willyworm; 03-03-2021 at 11:09 PM.

    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    19,796

    Default

    What TXF said!

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •