Open Letter to Ducks Unlimited

We NEED to replace their seat...they somehow get to get represent ALL of us while as an "expert" and they do NOT support us at all as well as not supporting hunting, guns and so on...and they WILL do and say what they are told to keep their $40,000,000+ they get a year!!!
 
As a waterfowl hunter primarily and casual bow hunter, there are only 2 sides to this issue at this point in time vs previous. Team gun or team no gun. There is no longer a trap vs pheasant vs ipsc vs 3gun vs causal hunter vs serious extreme hunter vs PRS vs sportsman vs big game hunting vs waterfowl hunting etc. That's gone now. 1995 ( 3 years after I was born BTW)maybe you agreed because most didn't think it would effect many people. That's done now. Its now going to effect everyone now whether they believe it or not.Whatever you identity as above doesn't exist anymore. There's only 2 sides now. If you think I should loose my semi's as a former casual black rifle shooter, CRPS competitor and serious waterfowl hunter and now member of team gun because it doesn't effect you. Turn In your guns now. Call the Queen's cowboys right now and surrender them if you truly believe that, because that's what's going to happen eventually. You no longer deserve the enjoyment of a crisp fall morning chasing the quarry of your choice. If your idea of " its not going to effect me" your not on team gun anymore your on team no gun. Turn in all those fine bolt guns and goose guns maybe that single shot cooey you have had forever as a family heirloom, surrender your PAL and leave the community. Your the one dividing the community right now. Not the ones trying to save it
 
I'm wondering if James E. Couch is on the government committee formally as a representative of Ducks Unlimited, or independently as 'Joe Citizen'. I certainly believe that Ducks Unlimited should be standing with firearms owners to stand fast with Canadian firearms owners against any further onerous firearms laws and the 'divide & conquer' tactics of the gun control zealots, but I question if Couch's participation is anything within their control or authorization. I can either jump on the bandwagon & turn my pitchfork into a torch or hold off when the answer to this question is clarified.

We certainly have to stand together or we'll all fall separately.
 
Last edited:
CaberTosser said:
I'm wondering if James E. Couch is on the government committee formally as a representative of Ducks Unlimited, or independently as 'Joe Citizen'. I certainly believe that Ducks Unlimited should be standing with firearms owners to stand fast with Canadian firearms owners against any further onerous firearms laws and the 'divide & conquer' tactics of the gun control zealots, but I question if Couch's participation is anything within their control or authorization. I can either jump on the bandwagon & turn my pitchfork into a torch or hold off when the answer to this question is clarified.

We certainly have to stand together or we'll all fall separately.
Click to expand...

When given the seat he was the top guy at ducks unlimited. He is acting as the fake consultation of hunters, using the Ducks unlimited brand recognition to give credence to the positions being put forth by this government. And like others have pointed out, the organizations gladly has taken millions of dollars in government money in the last few years.
 
As seen on Facebook 21 hours ago

DUC said:
The current firearms issue is a milestone in the ongoing debate about Canada’s relationship with firearms. We trust Canadians will exercise their individual rights as they see fit. For our part, we’ll continue to be guided by our mission: to ensure the habitats that support waterfowl, wildlife and people, are here for future generations.

Thank you to all who support conservation in Canada. We invite you to contact us with your questions by emailing communications@ducks.ca.
Click to expand...

As seen on Facebook 19 hours ago

DUC said:
Canadians are currently engaged in a new round of proposed firearm legislation. It is a controversial debate; at times divisive. Many are asking where DUC stands on this issue: http://bit.ly/2S2iqCH
Click to expand...

Ducks Unlimited Canada’s position on proposed firearm legislation

Canadians are currently engaged in a new round of proposed firearm legislation. It is a controversial debate; at times divisive. A parliamentary e-petition opposing the firearm legislation is circulating, and many are asking where Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) stands on this issue.

Does Ducks Unlimited support E-Petition 2341 in Canada?

Ducks Unlimited Canada only takes positions on policy actions that directly relate to our habitat conservation mission. Remaining neutral on the firearms legislation is based on a long-standing decision to focus our policy efforts solely on the conservation of wetlands and associated habitat.

The current firearms issue is an important milestone in the ongoing debate about this country’s relationship with firearms. We entrust Canadians to exercise their individual rights as they see fit, knowing that DUC’s role, as it has always been, is to focus on the conservation of Canada’s iconic wildlife and natural spaces.

Where does Ducks Unlimited stand on hunting in Canada?

DUC has an important, ongoing relationship with Canada’s waterfowl hunting community.

DUC has deep roots in the waterfowling community, and we are extremely proud of this heritage. In 1938, a small group of waterfowl hunters rolled up their sleeves and began the tough job of bringing water back to a parched prairie landscape.
These early conservationists gave wings to DUC. We have celebrated this, in one form or another, every day since. It remains a cornerstone of our conservation culture.

It’s important to know that DUC’s primary goal is to conserve and restore wetlands. We take care of the habitat that supports hunters—and indeed all Canadians who share our passion for wildlife and wild places. Our mission is to ensure waterfowl, and the habitat that supports them, are here for future generations. This is a role we have enthusiastically embraced for more than 80 years.

Learn more

Questions about DUC’s mission and position on this issue are welcomed. Please contact us at communications@ducks.ca.
Click to expand...

As seen on Facebook 32 minutes ago

DUC said:
Let’s be clear: DUC was founded by hunters. Waterfowl numbers were plummeting, and they organized around a clear goal: to conserve and restore Canadian habitat, where much of North America’s waterfowl breed.

Our focus and commitment is the same today. We’re proud of our role—to conserve the habitat that waterfowl and wildlife need to thrive. Our conservation success is our contribution to the hunting community and can’t be overstated. No other organization comes close to conserving as much Canadian wetland habitat as DUC. And today, waterfowl populations are strong.
Click to expand...
 
^ Who ever wrote that is contradicting themselves. "DUC founded by hunters, support hunters. Conserve habitat for future generations. Important and on-going relationship with the waterfowl hunting community." Well if you support hunters, then you must support firearms rights. They go hand in hand. You can not have one without the other, unless they want us using archery for Mallards. If they go after rifles like the Mini14 and SKS, why wouldn't they come for semi shotguns? Unless Trudeau has taken them off his hitlist in return for DUC's non-compliance or participation in this issue, paid for by a $40,000,000 of the taxpayers money..
 
Ok, so reading the bit about who can and can't be on the Advisory council, sure I guess they can't advocate for or against guns if they are on there. That is kinda weird though as you would think if that's what the advisory council is advising about, you'd want it to be full of experts on guns and gun issues and be able to advise and comment about them!!!??

Whatever, that is screwed up right from the get go I guess. The thing that really burns me, is that they were put there solely to LOOK like there was a gun advocate at the table, when they really aren't and, if you read the rules I mentioned above, can't be! Then why are they really there? I think it's just all about optics for the government to make the memebership look balanced and fair and have gun "types" on there.

What should really be in the rules, and enforced vehemently, would be that no one on the council should be getting and money in any way, shape or form directly, or indirectly from the government!!!! Talk about conflict of interest!!! That's also why DUC is at the table and won't leave as they get $40M from the Feds and don't want to rock the boat! It's all just a giant crock!

Everyone on the council should also be an actual expert on guns, gun issues, gun laws, etc so that they can provide the government with factual information before they try and go ahead with their stupid schemes that won't do anything to further public safety!

Yeah, I know, that's what it should be like and that it isn't because of the whole disarmament agenda etc...

They still won't be getting a dime from me ever again! Will be looking into supporting Delta Waterfowl from now on!
 
Smitsauce said:
Ok, so reading the bit about who can and can't be on the Advisory council, sure I guess they can't advocate for or against guns if they are on there. That is kinda weird though as you would think if that's what the advisory council is advising about, you'd want it to be full of experts on guns and gun issues and be able to advise and comment about them!!!??

Whatever, that is screwed up right from the get go I guess. The thing that really burns me, is that they were put there solely to LOOK like there was a gun advocate at the table, when they really aren't and, if you read the rules I mentioned above, can't be! Then why are they really there? I think it's just all about optics for the government to make the memebership look balanced and fair and have gun "types" on there.

What should really be in the rules, and enforced vehemently, would be that no one on the council should be getting and money in any way, shape or form directly, or indirectly from the government!!!! Talk about conflict of interest!!! That's also why DUC is at the table and won't leave as they get $40M from the Feds and don't want to rock the boat! It's all just a giant crock!

Everyone on the council should also be an actual expert on guns, gun issues, gun laws, etc so that they can provide the government with factual information before they try and go ahead with their stupid schemes that won't do anything to further public safety!

Yeah, I know, that's what it should be like and that it isn't because of the whole disarmament agenda etc...

They still won't be getting a dime from me ever again! Will be looking into supporting Delta Waterfowl from now on!
Click to expand...


They are on the panel because they were bribed by the government. Just like the whole panel, none of them experts, no CFSC training, no PAL/RPAL holders, just a group of opinions on firearms. That accepted money for there causes.

Thank you for your support of the FA community.
 
Sent another email to DU, I also attached the list of firearms they accepted for their calendar giveaway. Next stop for me "Stoeger Canada"


Good day DUC, I am contacting you to today remind you that no matter what spin you put on your stance in the debate on gun control as you seem to think you can play both sides by taking millions from the government, and on the other side of your face you accept money from hunters, while sitting on the RCMP/FCP as so called experts. Yet state you don't have anything to do with firearms. What a conflict of intrest. Keep digging.

I as a firearm owner will petition Stoeger Canada to stop supporting you.

You don't have a position on firearms but will gladly use them to further your cause, through your calendar giveaway. Hypocrites.
 
Firearms advocacy is not Ducks Unlimited core business so I can see how they’re trying to thread the needle here. However, I completely disagree with their stance. I would disagree with them not publicly advocating against the proposed confiscations which will only harm lawful firearms owners, but their unwillingness to even share information about this petition with their supporters, many of whom will be affected is completely self-serving and hypocritical.

Good news is I just freed up a little cash to spend at Wolverine!
 
700-223 said:
Firearms advocacy is not Ducks Unlimited core business so I can see how they’re trying to thread the needle here. However, I completely disagree with their stance. I would disagree with them not publicly advocating against the proposed confiscations which will only harm lawful firearms owners, but their unwillingness to even share information about this petition with their supporters, many of whom will be affected is completely self-serving and hypocritical.

Good news is I just freed up a little cash to spend at Wolverine!
Click to expand...

That's certainly deserved at Wolverine supply.
 
I will spread word to the hunters I know.
I cannot wait for someone to try and sell me a ticket to the local DU event this year.
 
So far as I am concerned, Ducks Unlimited has made their decision and now must live with the consequences. As members of the firearms community, from all walks of it, it is our job to make sure there are consequences.

There is no room for neutrality in this fight.
 
I think we need to craft some way for them to come into the fold and save face. Rather than have them not supporting either side, I would not like them to begin advocating against us.
 
It occurs to me that DUC may have their hands tied. In their words:

"Canadians are currently engaged in a new round of proposed firearm legislation. It is a controversial debate; at times divisive. Many are asking where DUC stands on this issue: http://bit.ly/2S2iqCH"

Of course, this may also be a convenient scapegoat. A bit of reading is required.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...c-policy-dialogue-development-activities.html

"As a registered charity, DUC are bound by the Income Tax Act. The charity’s resources must be devoted to charitable activities carried on by the charity itself. Charitable activities include public policy dialogue and development activities (PPDDAs) that further a charitable purpose. PPDDAs generally involve seeking to influence the laws, policies, or decision of a government, whether in Canada or a foreign country--as long as a charity’s PPDDAs are carried on in furtherance of its stated charitable purpose(s)."

Mind you, I suspect there are ways to work around such restrictions. Simply creating awareness of an issue that affects a great number of donors and supporters of the charity may do the trick. I'd have to look into this further.

As registered lobbyists, DUC are bound to other rules as well, but that's for another day.

That said, I want to make it clear that I appreciate the work DUC and their volunteers put in. It's admirable and they're obviously successful. But this whole this brought to light (to me) the $1.3 billion in funding that they are receiving from the federal government. When considering this, I'm still of the opinion that they don't need money from me. They're already getting taxpayer funds.

This may seem petty to some, but I'm still unsettled by the fact that DUC essentially exploits and takes advantage of hunters' generosity, but can't find a way to show support. I'm sure there's a way. There always is.
 
Last edited:
Harper legislation. Sorry but true. While your at it, go up to the first post in this entire thread. Then look up the word “shill”. Then go look in the mirror.
 
awndray said:
It occurs to me that DUC may have their hands tied. In their words:

"Canadians are currently engaged in a new round of proposed firearm legislation. It is a controversial debate; at times divisive. Many are asking where DUC stands on this issue: http://bit.ly/2S2iqCH"

Of course, this may also be a convenient scapegoat. A bit of reading is required.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...c-policy-dialogue-development-activities.html

"As a registered charity, DUC are bound by the Income Tax Act. The charity’s resources must be devoted to charitable activities carried on by the charity itself. Charitable activities include public policy dialogue and development activities (PPDDAs) that further a charitable purpose. PPDDAs generally involve seeking to influence the laws, policies, or decision of a government, whether in Canada or a foreign country--as long as a charity’s PPDDAs are carried on in furtherance of its stated charitable purpose(s)."

Mind you, I suspect there are ways to work around such restrictions. Simply creating awareness of an issue that affects a great number of donors and supporters of the charity may do the trick. I'd have to look into this further.

As registered lobbyists, DUC are bound to other rules as well, but that's for another day.

That said, I want to make it clear that I appreciate the work DUC and their volunteers put in. It's admirable and they're obviously successful. But this whole this brought to light (to me) the $1.3 billion in funding that they are receiving from the federal government. When considering this, I'm still of the opinion that they don't need money from me. They're already getting taxpayer funds.

This may seem petty to some, but I'm still unsettled by the fact that DUC essentially exploits and takes advantage of hunters' generosity, but can't find a way to show support. I'm sure there's a way. There always is.
Click to expand...

I would think having the preservation of hunting and legal firearm ownership as a stated purpose would solve that...

Now... as to how much they would want to do that is another story...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom