I will start with a thanks for the article. This is a far reaching issue that needs much exposure. However, I must take exception to most of the content. The very foundation of your argument is flawed because you create an environment of "Us vs. Them" that does not exist in an attempt to "push" your opinion that waterfowling is additive,not compensatory. You foolishly dismiss issues such as hunter access, keeping and recruiting waterfowlers, and a USFWS that is out of touch with hunters. With comments like "Leave the statistics and scientific mumbo-jumbo aside" and "nobody can say hunting is not contributing" are only vain attempts to legitimize ancedotal evidence. Lastly, citing A. Hochbaum is questionable because there are new challenges in 2008 that were not available for his consideration in the 1960s. You accuse waterfowlers of having an unquenchable bloodthirst then in the next breath you ask them to be "guided by common sense". Who's common sense? Yours or theirs?Delta's recent growth and popularity certainly does not make them excempt from criticism, but maybe a little credit is due for giving waterfowling advocacy a try.