From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Ducks Unlimited
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:19:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

>in Article: 3688 of talk.politics.animals
>jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:

>When I said that there had not been an independent environmental
>review, I knew exactly what I was talking about. Ducks Unlimited
>hired their own consulting firm to perform a preliminary
>assessment of the project.  The preliminary project found
>exactly 153 serious problems with the project, but DU decided
>to build anyway. The summary you are going to receive is exactly
>that--an abridged, glossed over "assessment" prepared by DU's PR
>department, with all the really nasty bits edited out.

>What I mean by "independent" environmental review is a full
>assessment performed according to the Federal Government's
>Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) Guidelines.
>After the EIA process is completed, a project that is "dubious"
>or which elicits substantial public concern, as the DU office
>complex surely has, MUST proceed to a full PUBLIC PANEL REVIEW,
>whose recommendations are BINDING. This was never done.

Oh, you must mean an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)! An EIS is a
preliminary document done before an EIA. If the government finds an
EIS acceptable then a full blown EIA is unnecessary.  Jeez, this is
even better than I thought. Your 153 "serious problems" are actually
insignificant from the government's point of view. As I said before, I
look forward to receiving their info package.

>DU has always been in the business of shooting ducks, and of
>ensuring that there are enough ducks around to shoot at. This is
>substantially and tragically different from being "in the
>business of creating...  habitat." 

No, their mandate IS wildlife habitat creation, reclamation, and
maintainence. It's the mandate of private individuals like me to
shoot the ducks.  And, as the owners of the resource, it's the
mandate of government fish and wildlife agencies like Manitoba
Natural Resources and Environment Canada to ensure there's enough
around to be shot.

>Many of the "wetland restoration projects" that DU has been
>involved with have been absolute catastrophes in terms of species
>diversity--when they tinker with a marsh, they invariably try to
>optimize water levels and circulation for duck breeding, which
>very often has disastrous effects on the hundreds of other bird
>species, and the thousands of plant species, which may be sharing
>the marsh habitat.

Pure b.s. You are giving DU far too much credit. The fact is that
modern marsh management techniques are far too crude to be that
species specific. In fact, the opposite is true.  Their projects
are so poorly managed (from a duck production point of view) they
benefit hundreds of other species including many rare and
endangered ones.

>Lastly, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO NEWS ADMINISTRATORS WHO USE THEIR ADMIN
>IDS TO POST ANONYMOUS ATTACKS ON OTHER USERS. It is a cowardly,
>offensive, and reprehensible way to "participate" in a discussion,
>and an unethical abuse of position.

Excuse me, does this apply to me? I'm not a "news administrator".
I just happen to work for a campus computing dept. and subscribe
to talk.politics.animals. And support DU. And shoot ducks.