Note from Tony Dean: I wrote this piece for Dakota Country several years ago. It generated a lot of response, mostly positive, with the negative comments coming from conservation organization leaders. In fact, one, a good friend for many years, holds a grudge against me to this day. But those conservation groups mentioned did little to stop a political effort to drain South Dakota wetlands. One that finally stepped forward was the National Wildlife Federation.
By Tony Dean
Nearly a month after the US Supreme Court removed protection from wetlands, not a single state or federal agency, conservation or environmental organization has addressed the matter. Maybe somewhere, someplace, some have, but not in any of the magazines or newspapers I read, the television shows I watch or the radio shows I tune in.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service, the lead federal agency assigned the task of managing migratory birds, would, in most minds, be the logical choice to tell America’s waterfowl hunters and bird watchers what’s at stake.
They’ve been silent. Course, we’ve grown accustomed to that. That duck that employees wear on their sleeve has become little more than a symbol, a reminder of what they once thought important. When’s the last time you heard anything about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan?
State agencies that manage resident species also employ waterfowl biologists, and within federal guidelines, set seasons on migratory birds. You’d think they would alert us.
But, not a peep. Most have been so beaten down by the politicians they’ve abandoned the idea that they should speak out. Talking out loud often results in transfers to remote counties. Going public as state conservation agencies once did sometimes sends those who talk to the unemployment line. There’s no room for whistleblowers in today’s governments.
What about Ducks Unlimited, the world leader in wetland conservation? Delta Waterfowl? The Izaak Walton League, National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, Sierra Club or any others?
How is it that one of the most compelling conservation issues of our time can pass without so much as a whimper?
Call it failure by America’s outdoor communicators, for few will write about conservation or the environment in outdoor tabloids, magazines, radio or television shows. The ballistics of the new cartridge and the new “can’t miss” fishing lure are more important. Besides, some say, no one wants to read about conservation anyway. It’s dull, boring stuff. Writing about it just makes enemies.
Call it failure on the part of government agencies we’ve entrusted with the care of our natural resources.
Call it the failure of conservation and environmental organizations we contribute to so they’ll become our voices in the legislative and Congressional halls. By hiring them, we don’t have to do these things ourselves. Send our check and now it’s their problem.
We’ve been “dumbed down.”
Ducks Unlimited will probably see opportunity. They’ll tell us that they’re all that stands between wetlands and drainage. Want to see wetlands? Give us your money and we’ll work on preserving them like we’ve done in Canada all these years.
Delta Waterfowl will call for more predator management. They’ll urge you to “Adopt a Pothole” though for everyone that’s adopted; dozens of others will have already seen the dragline.
Trust me.
It’s happening right now in South Dakota.
The Sierra Club will call for an end to timber cutting.
The Audubon Society will be more concerned about neo-tropical birds.
The National Wildlife Federation and the Izaak Walton League will pass resolutions at their upcoming annual conventions attesting to the value of wetlands and how we must save them.
PETA will call for an end to sport hunting.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition will call for “unlocking” public lands.
The American Land Rights group and the American Farm Bureau will at least be honest. They’ve already hailed the Supreme Court for their decision in favor of “property rights.” Everything they say suggests that draining wetlands to put more land into production is, somehow, well, “American.” And that view will suit the whole agri-business crowd just fine. Lord knows that what America needs is more wheat, corn, barley and soybeans. And if we’re really going to feed a hungry world, when the hell are we going to start? Food as a weapon? We don’t even give it to our friends.
And a thought occurs to me.
Some questions, too.
In spite of the fact that we’ve already drained a significant portion of America’s wetlands, ostensibly to benefit farming, why do farms continue to disappear and why is there a farm crisis every year? Will farming only become profitable when we drain the wetlands that are still out there? Does anyone believe that the presence of wetlands in North and South Dakota is why corn or soybean production lags far behind Iowa or Illinois? Cold it be that the soil, rainfall and longer growing seasons have something to do with it? And why is it that companies who sell chemicals and stuff that’s supposed to make crops grow better, spend so much of their advertising dollars explaining how “green” they are…when the groups that represent the farmers spend so much of their time pushing wetland drainage?
Want to see proof that some of the organizations that represent agriculture will put on a full court press to get rid of the wetlands that remain? Watch them over the next year or so in their efforts to rid the US farm programs of Swampbuster. It’ll be a feeding frenzy. As of today, Swampbuster is the only protection standing between prairie wetlands and drainage. And contrary to what you’ve heard, it’s not regulatory. All Swampbuster does is prevent those who drain wetlands from receiving Farm Bill benefits. They’ll talk about “property rights”but never mention property responsibility.
The US Supreme Court has tossed the ball to the states, telling them the job of regulating wetlands is theirs, that it does not belong to the federal government. And if you view it from a Dakota perspective, you take a hard look at the occupational make-up of our legislatures, and you know it isn’t likely that there will be any meaningful wetland protection coming from the prairie statehouses. You’ve grown up believing that our ducks come from Canada.
Preserve wetlands there, we say. Always, preserve them somewhere else. Less messy. Less conflict. Out of sight, out of mind.
Well, your ducks once did come from Canada, at least mostly from Canada. Today, they come mostly from the Dakotas. And if you doubt that, drive to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in May and count the wetlands you see. Then take in the acres of grass. You won’t find much of either. That’s why your ducks don’t come from Canada anymore…and that’s why saving wetlands on the Dakota prairies is more important than it once was.
Don’t know about you, but…
I’ve a hard time accepting mornings without marshes. Skies without high flying V’s. Decoys without a place to float. Dogs like labs, goldens and chessies that will have to satisfy themselves with make-believe dummies. Winchester Model 12’s, Remington 870’s and Browning A5’s weren’t made for quail, you know.
There was a time it was standard practice for miners to cart a canary down dark mine shafts. The belief was, if there was a lack of oxygen or anything else down there that was bad for you, the canary would die first and the miner got the hell out of there.
There are, on this continent, several dozen different species of ducks. Each has unique requirements, certain things that must be present if their kind is to do well. Today, at least two, scaup and pintails, aren’t. Their numbers drop at a time of 34 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program grass and the best prairie water conditions this generation has seen.
Maybe these scaup…these pintails…are canaries.
Perhaps we’ll find that we don’t ultimately do very well on a monoculture of grains with no grass, no wetlands. Some of us believe that in such an ecosystem, our souls suffer more than our bodies. Maybe we’re wrong.
Come fall, we can set our decoy spread and wait for the northern flight that never arrives. For if you view this decision while peering between the cattails, it’s not hard to imagine a waterfowling future of skies filled with…emptiness.
The Supremes did this on a 5-4 vote. A conservative/liberal split. That bothers me because I’m a conservative and always thought we, well, conserved things.
We may well lose our wetlands and, of course, if we do, we will surely lose our ducks.
