Seems to be a good bit of bashing on some of the conservation organizations and lots of that seems to be from misinformation. I work for a conservation organization and I think several others on this site work and/or volunteer for some as well. And they are probably pulling out their hair also when reading some of these comments
Some like to say 'drinking the koolaid, but I call it being informed
This is likely not going to go over well, but if it changes one person's mind maybe it is a good thing
Funding
First off, remember that these are non-profit organizations and you are bound by the almighty $. You are limited to what you can do by the amount of $ you have. (It would be nice if DU or Delta could just buy up all the land in the Prairie Pothole region and conserve the ducks there, but thats a little expensive.) These organizations are not selling a product but rather their services. Yes, you can sell magazines and bumper stickers and hats, etc. but that little bit of money just pays for the electricity bill essentially. You have to get funding from donations or grants.
Board Members
In our case, we have a panel of board members who are appointed (much like LWF Commission). These are not scientists or biologists but many are just successful individuals and know how to run a business (after all its a business in a sense). At a board meeting, you present them with all your ideas that you want to implement on the ground and they (looking at it from a whole different perspective) look at these projects and give their insights on which ones to implement. They are looking at what is the best return on investment, whether or not its feasible, and the risks associated with the projects, etc. All they have is the information at hand, and they decide upon them.
Similarly LWF Commission works the same way, they are appointed and they are not biologists or scientists (if you handed Ronnie Graham a tripletail he would probably say 'dang thats a huge white perch'
), they know about policy however and their decisions are based on what information they are presented.
When a project is proposed, we have to dot all our i's and cross all the t's to make sure that no board member or family member will benefit or get special treatment from the project UNLESS there is no other alternative. The very first thing that happens when you enter a contract agreement is to make sure of this.Remember the sihtstorm **** Cheney got in when Halliburton was awarded the contract for Iraq/Afghanistan operations? Even though no other company but them had the capacity to run that operation? No one wants that but sometimes its the only way. For instance see below the DU portion
Easements
Owning land is very expensive - fact. You have to pay for its upkeep and that can sometimes require hiring more people to accomplish that. One of the best things to do in order to further your conservation goals is to purchase an easement on property. For pennies on the dollar you just bought the rights to manage that property the way you see fit without the headaches of land ownership.
Ducks Unlimited
These guys are the poster child for misinformation and misdirected hatred
I can't speak for them but only about what I know and this is what I know:
Private lands constitute the majority of land in this country, so it would make sense that private lands get more attention when it comes to $ spent on waterfowl conservation right?
When an organization gets money to fund a project in a conservation area, the first thing they will do is look on a map and see where these important waterfowl conservation areas are disregarding private vs public ownership. Waterfowl do not know if they are on public or pirvate property
All they know is that there is habitat there for them.
The tired arguments
"DU spent all this $$$ on farmer Browns private property and he can shoot ducks on it"
Farmer Brown's property fell within this important conservation area so he signed up and got DU to help him conserve waterfowl. He CAN hunt it absolutely, but he can only hunt 60 days a year for ducks, and can only shoot so many ducks from the place. There are far far more ducks benefitting from that property than are getting shot. There are 300 other days that are NOT duck season on this property
DU also spend a great portion of money on public grounds
"All our state duck stamp money goes to DU"
Absolutely true statement. Every bit of your $ from state waterfowl stamps goes to Ducks Unlimited for implementation in Saskatchewan (which is where the majority of Louisiana's ducks come from). The state could have very well spent that money on acquiring more land for public hunting but that costs money to manage it propertly. They could have spent it on a couple of new pumps at Sherburne WMA or any WMA, but then the private landowners that pay for ducks stamps aren't really happy. So its another 'damned if you do' scenario. So in order to get the best bang for the buck, the money went to our duck factory which is in fact Saskatchewan and who the heck else is going to get this done besides DU? This benefits the majority of the waterfowl hunters in Louisiana on both public and private grounds. If you spend it on public grounds, the private hunters are pizzed because they don't hunt there or the public that hunts elsewhere would gripe that it shoulda been spent on 'their' WMA, etc.
"Why doesn't DU just use their $ to buy up ground"
See the easements section above. If DU spent every single dollar they have to buy land, they would have several thousands of acres of land and thats it. They would have to have employees working on that property full time and nothing else would get accomplished. With an easement they get the full benefits without the setbacks of land ownership. The same benefit for waterfowl is there whether its owned or leased and its much cheaper and much much more land can be conserved with easements than buying the land. Win win right? Yes, but people constantly complain about this for reasons unknown