I just can't believe that such a stand-up group like the MWA could be capable of something like this to push their own agenda!
As a local Chapter of the Minnesota waterfowl Association we partner with chapters throughout Minnesota to undertake projects to big for any one chapter to undertake. The has allowed the Minnesota Waterfowl Association to undertake larger projects such as the Swan Lake draw down, the Lake Maria Wetland enhancement project, and the restoration of Lake Christina
http://www.prairiepotholeday.com/habitat.htm
Swan Lake draw down---seemingly entirely done by the DNR. I couldn't find any sort of contribution by any other group. The DNR appears to be 100% responsible for this project from everything I saw; strategy, labor, costs, project coordination, were all internal to the DNR. The closest thing I saw to help from outside the department was Teri-John Aviation, the company they hired to fly the two helicopters administering the rotenone. I searched for help given through volunteer hours by a group, if anyone had chipped in a few bucks for the rotenone or chopper rental just so they could stamp their name on this, nothing. Going off my research I can't see how anyone besides the DNR could claim any responsibility for the draw down on Swan.
Lake Maria---Primarily a DU project in coordination with the DNR and a handful of local partners. A few years after DU completed the bulk of the project by installing an electric fish barrier and a pump to control water levels, MWA did receive a grant for just under $40K to enhance/restore a 30 acre wetland on the existing WMA. Since all things are relative I suppose you could argue that for MWA this was 'undertaking a large project.' Due to the prevalence of "Lake Marias" maybe it's possible it's an entirely different project I couldn't find for some reason.
Lake Christina---The DNR has been the primary but alongside them many groups have put effort into reviving Christina during the past sixty years. Most notable are application of toxaphene in 1966 and rotenone treatments in 1987 and 2003. I recall the MWA being behind one of those efforts but I was unable to verify that. It's a moot point since those expensive methods to kill fish were followed by short periods of success before the lake reverted back to it's declined state.
Until DU stepped in with their Living Lakes Initiative and fixed Christina on their first try. DU's biologists didn't earn this victory, it was their visionary engineers and construction managers who developed an adjustable water level control structure with pumps able to rapidly remove water during short periods of high precipitation and to periodically draw down the entire basin. The previous efforts were treating a symptom (rough fish) instead of the disease (high water levels). The DNR and everyone else knew this but were unable to find a way to lower the lake levels until DU stepped in.
Unless you're DU or the DNR I think claiming the restoration of Lake Christina as 'your project' at this point in time would be extremely and intentionally misleading.
Click on the links and read the press releases from DU and the the MWA....
http://www.ducks.org/minnesota/minnesot ... cess-story
http://www.mnwaterfowl.com/page/show/34 ... -christina
Is there any other take on those than my initial thought of, "How disgustingly tacky?" Is there any possible explanation for how they're worded that could be innocent?
