Saw this on CWA’s Instagram:
Wanted to share.
Wanted to share.
CWA working on W11 and Y15
- Thread starter Duckfan
- Start date
W11a&c have been a real mess for many years, it's great to see this being reworked, CWA is a first class organization, always a pleasure to donate to them, money well spent.
I may be mistaken, but I think they're working on W12 this summer as well....Now, if we (DFW) can maintain them....Salt cedar sucks!........... 
Between the salt cedar and giant reeds, it seems to be a losing battle in many of the areas, its too bad we don't have any work parties anymore, it sure seems some extra manpower could make a difference
Friends of Wister cut and manicured a lot blinds...Sometimes you need to take a step back and say f*ck it...Manage the salt cedar where the hunting sites are...The dikes need path ways and access to ponds/hunting sites...Just cut and remove salt cedar as needed.
As much as the thought is good, salt cedar & tules aren't going to be controlled by work parties. Maybe some trimming like Steve mentioned but when left unmanaged, it's eventually a lot of tractor work to deal with it. The way Wister is staffed & managed, they will always be in the red when it comes to controlling salt cedar & tules.
There was a work party on the 4th. I could make it. Hopefully there will be more.
CWA has done a lot of work there over the years. I'm glad to see it continue. Hopefully though they will stop making blind sites on islands. Islands are a good option to have but not for the actual blind site.
Matt,
You're right on the money...The heavy lifting must be done by DFW/CWA...
I would like to see some work done this summer by DFW on 413...The field went from totally bitchin' to unhuntable...And, I don't mean moonscaping it again...100 yd radius around each blind site, mowed, disced, and maintained...Leave the rest or mow...There needs to be a plan of attack on the huntable fields and get the most bang for our buck from the few employees that Wister has.
You're right on the money...The heavy lifting must be done by DFW/CWA...
I would like to see some work done this summer by DFW on 413...The field went from totally bitchin' to unhuntable...And, I don't mean moonscaping it again...100 yd radius around each blind site, mowed, disced, and maintained...Leave the rest or mow...There needs to be a plan of attack on the huntable fields and get the most bang for our buck from the few employees that Wister has.
Last edited:
Thank you Matt for saying what I’ve been moaning about when it has become apparent that island blinds are completely taking over . As an older, long time Wister hunter with mobility issues island blinds cut me out . I would hope whoever is making the decisions would take us into consideration when reworking blind locations . Oldquack 49
I imagine it’s a local staff decision on blind placement ?
Each refuge is supposed to review their habitat yearly I believe and update pond by pond changes. What they want to do and what work will be done that year.
Maybe ask staff to see their pond management plans and ask about blind placement. Seems they would want - and should ask - hunters for input on that. Especially as you say, for mobility issues.
Rick , I like the current staff under Chris but it’s my opinion that input from those who use Wister has been not sought nor open communication both ways implemented . The point Matt and I are making is that EVERY blind when reconstructed has been an island . After Y15A and B ponds were worked ALL blinds became island sites . I’m grateful for all the badly needed work CWA and DU have done . Oldquack 49
Definitely agree the island blinds are taking over. They Definitely make it more difficult to access and hunt. My older hunting partner can't physically do them any longer, which really leaves us out of more areas as time goes by .
How many sites have been converted to islands?
You can hunt within 100 yards from a blind, so can’t those wanting to hunt the dike still be able to do that?
It would seem to me, at first glance, that islands might ge a good choice?
I honestly am trying to understand this issue more to determine what, if any, steps should be taken.
Thanks
Rick
You can hunt within 100 yards from a blind, so can’t those wanting to hunt the dike still be able to do that?
It would seem to me, at first glance, that islands might ge a good choice?
I honestly am trying to understand this issue more to determine what, if any, steps should be taken.
Thanks
Rick
I appreciate your perspective as one who hunted Wister for years and now hunts the North . When the Y15A and B panels were worked all 9 blinds became island sites . And yes the 100 yard rule applies unless there are 5 blinds then it’s 50yds. I guess the point is the reverse is true also and why change ALL designated sites when they have worked so well ? I have heard that it wasn’t the Wister staff that decided to implement this . I am only passing this along as hearsay but believable . If there was better communication between Wister staff and the hunters in the planning stages we would all be on the same end of the rope . Just my opinion, Oldquack 49
S20,S22,Y15A&B have been converted to island blinds. The staff has made the tags on the board for those and the blinds that were always islands red so it's easy to tell. From a duck killing stand point they are superior to hunting from dikes the width a 4 lane highway and 300 yards from the next dike. Birds learn to avoid that more than the layout of a dike every 100 yards (or even less in the old days). The reasoning is that it's less work for the staff (less boards to pull) and less water waste. The down side is it's tough getting to them in that mud if you're elderly or unfit. Putting a large goose spread out would also be infinitely more difficult with all the sled trips needed.
I'm just guessing, but I bet the W-12A fields ends up island blinds as well.........
ps...At 75, I'm not complaining yet about the island blinds....
ps...At 75, I'm not complaining yet about the island blinds....
Rick,
As Mud Pigeon said, areas being reworked are eliminating dikes as part of improved water management. It's an unfortunate (& continued) sign of the times to manage our State W.A.'s with limited staff. I'd rather have that than no place at all though.
As I agree with Jeff (Mud Pigeon) that island blinds can be better places to hunt from, I still think the placement of the blind site post is critical to the availability of movement (whether it be 100 yards or 50 yards) & to accomodate a variety of hunters.
First let's talk about mobility. If the blind site post, which the 100 or 50 yard radius is measured from, is placed on an island, then you will more than likely (considering the areas recently changed & noted by Mud Pigeon) only have 2 options to set your blind, on the island or the nearest dike assuming it's withing the allowable radius. If the blind site post is put on the dike & an island is put in the ponds on both sides of the dike within the allowable radius, then you can hunt either island or move up or down the dike therefore allowing at least 4 -5 options instead of 1 or 2. As you may recall many Wister ponds were less than 100 yards wide. When the dikes got removed the ponds became larger therefore eliminating our east/west movement options unless there were islands within the allowable radius. By putting the blind site marker on an island we are now losing our north/south movement options (unless there's a tule patch nearby). Most people rather be on dry ground than on a tule seat all day especially in Wister mud.
Speaking of Wister mud, it is a problem for guys getting up in years & for youth hunters as well. I'm not saying they have to cater to everyone's special needs but it needs to be understood that a decision to make islands the blind site, will alienate a fair amount of people who may find it difficult to navigate Wister Mud. It's a unique place & should not be designed like or compared to other refuges in the state that don't have the mud issue.
I'd like to know the reasoning for why they chose to go this route. I don't see this as an improvement. Restricted movement & limiting certain users is unnecessarily taking away options from the hunter...which is the opposite of what CWA should be doing if it was their decision.
As Mud Pigeon said, areas being reworked are eliminating dikes as part of improved water management. It's an unfortunate (& continued) sign of the times to manage our State W.A.'s with limited staff. I'd rather have that than no place at all though.
As I agree with Jeff (Mud Pigeon) that island blinds can be better places to hunt from, I still think the placement of the blind site post is critical to the availability of movement (whether it be 100 yards or 50 yards) & to accomodate a variety of hunters.
First let's talk about mobility. If the blind site post, which the 100 or 50 yard radius is measured from, is placed on an island, then you will more than likely (considering the areas recently changed & noted by Mud Pigeon) only have 2 options to set your blind, on the island or the nearest dike assuming it's withing the allowable radius. If the blind site post is put on the dike & an island is put in the ponds on both sides of the dike within the allowable radius, then you can hunt either island or move up or down the dike therefore allowing at least 4 -5 options instead of 1 or 2. As you may recall many Wister ponds were less than 100 yards wide. When the dikes got removed the ponds became larger therefore eliminating our east/west movement options unless there were islands within the allowable radius. By putting the blind site marker on an island we are now losing our north/south movement options (unless there's a tule patch nearby). Most people rather be on dry ground than on a tule seat all day especially in Wister mud.
Speaking of Wister mud, it is a problem for guys getting up in years & for youth hunters as well. I'm not saying they have to cater to everyone's special needs but it needs to be understood that a decision to make islands the blind site, will alienate a fair amount of people who may find it difficult to navigate Wister Mud. It's a unique place & should not be designed like or compared to other refuges in the state that don't have the mud issue.
I'd like to know the reasoning for why they chose to go this route. I don't see this as an improvement. Restricted movement & limiting certain users is unnecessarily taking away options from the hunter...which is the opposite of what CWA should be doing if it was their decision.
Mud Pigeon, you’re right . I’m not only partially lame but my math skills have diminished . Trig you may be old but you are the exception to us old farts . Oldquack 49