Editor's Note: I wrote this piece several years ago and it raised the ire of the heads of various conservation organizations, some of whom are notoriously thin-skinned. One, even though we've been friends for years, didn't talk to me for more than two years. Sadly, I was on target with most of this piece.)
Ridding Ourselves of Non-Residents By Tony Dean
Based on what I’ve been hearing across both Dakotas, the biggest issue facing fishing and hunting is how to rid our states of non-residents. We Dakotans know how to zero in on the big ones, don’t we? Fact is, we have a history of tilting with all the wrong windmills, and some day, it’s going to come back to haunt us. If you’ve sensed I think there are bigger issues out there, you’re right.
There’s one in front of us, and I can’t understand why our state and federal agencies, conservation groups or even those most affected by it, duck hunters, aren’t talking about it.
We could lose most of our prairie potholes. Not overnight but as it always has happened, one at a time and I’ll make a prediction. In 2002, draglines and drain tile will be common sights across pothole country.
Some consider drainage a “property right.” And we’d have lost many more potholes in recent years if not for “Swampbuster,” which has been a deterrent. Under Swampbuster, if you drain a wetland, you forfeit farm bill benefits, which includes a whole rash of taxpayer-supported programs that help many farmers stay afloat. There probably are many landowners who’d just as soon not have potholes on their property but as much as they may dislike them, they like the farm bill benefits more. However, Swampbuster expires in 2002 and you can bet there will be a fight over it when farm program deliberations begin.
But Swampbuster isn’t the real problem here. What is, is a US Supreme Court decision that was made back in January. A narrowly divided court (5-4) issued a ruling on a sand pit pond near Chicago that has also removed protection from our prairie potholes. The decision pitted the “conservatives” on the court against the “liberals” and the conservatives won. That worries me, as it should all Republican sportsmen who have allowed a fringe element in the party to redefine conservatism. The upshot is they have done their best to paint anyone who favors conservation as a “liberal.” It’s reached a point where even many news commentators are referring to conservation as a “liberal” cause.
Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave.
If you can’t see the clear connection between clean water and good fishing…or the connection between wetlands and good waterfowl hunting…or the tie between wetlands and good water quality that also means good fishing, you need help.
Anyway, the Supreme Court decision on wetlands and how it plays out will depend heavily on how the Bush Administration views it, how the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency interprets it and how willing the courts will be to accept those interpretations. And at least one group, the Association of State Wetland Managers, doesn’t seem optimistic. They suggest that 30% to 79% of America’s total wetland acres could be affected compared with the 15% to 20% estimates of previous years. They noted in a report, “If it results in only a one percent loss of America’s wetlands, the decision could cause more wetlands to be destroyed then were lost in the past decade.”
More ominously, they added, “State and local wetland regulations will partially fill in the gap in federal wetland regulation for isolated wetlands in fourteen states. Little protection will be provided in the rest.” They report those states with some of the largest isolated wetland acreages and no protection include: Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, the Carolinas, Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas and Mississippi.”
Golly, there are three prairie pothole states in there along with the one other state that raises significant numbers of ducks, Alaska. You could make a strong case that most ducks raised on the continent, call one of these three states home.
The only Midwestern states with wetland regulations on the books are Minnesota and Michigan. That’s too little, too late. Minnesota’s already lost most of their potholes. Nebraska and Wisconsin currently have pro-wetland legislation pending in their legislatures, but as Joe Herrod of Omaha, Legislative Chairman of the Nebraska Council of Sportsman’s Clubs said, it won’t be easy.
“I expect that the Farm Bureau, Farmer’s Union, Cattleman’s Beef Association, Nebraskan’s First, a Wise Use group, the Homebuilders Association and probably the sand and gravel people will all attack it,” he wrote.
And, I suspect, if we were to develop legislation to protect Dakota wetlands, we’d face similar opponents. Know what? With over a couple hundred thousand avid fishermen and about 150,000 hunters in the Dakotas, we should be able to roll right over them.
But, we won’t. Because we think non-resident fishing and hunting or road hunting are the big issues.
Ever wonder why so many folks from Iowa, Minnesota and other states to the east and south want to come to the Dakotas to fish and hunt? The answer should be obvious. It’s better here. And wetlands are one of the reasons our hunting…and fishing…is so good. Drive into southern Minnesota or northern Iowa where they’ve drained their marshes and ask yourself if you’d like to visit that area to hunt or fish?
Still, I suspect some lawmaker in both states will introduce legislation aimed at doing what the federal government will no longer do…protect wetlands. And the farm and ranch organizations will show up and say that if it passes, they’ll go broke. They’ll tell you we need to feed a hungry world, that protecting wetlands will make it difficult for young people to get into farming. Some will tell you this is a “property rights” issue or that it’s a “takings” to tell them they can’t use their land the way they want to. They’ll say we need to put this land into production. The homebuilders will suggest everyone has a right to live where they want to live and protecting wetlands denies them that choice.
Horse Manure!
Stored grain sits in bins and not in hungry stomachs and much of it goes to livestock. It’s high capitalization requirements and a low chance of success that keeps young people out of farming, and the last thing farmers need is more corn, soybeans, wheat or barley production. We’ve been draining wetlands for the better part of a century and we have fewer farms and an annual farm crisis to show for all of that progress.
Chambers of Commerce will be quiet because even though fishing and hunting generate a pile of money for Dakota communities, they will fear retaliation from some farmers who will threaten to shop elsewhere. But, where? Mayors in flood-prone communities like Fargo, Huron and others will be quiet because like fishermen who can’t see the connection between clean water and good fishing, they’ll fail to see the connection between wetland water storage and water in their backyards. Duck hunters will be silent because they think their ducks come from the north.
Some of the protestors of the idea of protecting wetlands will insist on “local control,” probably by county commissions. Can you imagine a county commission in a rural Dakota county standing up for wetlands? I can’t remember it happening, can you?
The truth is, local control on natural resources is often ineffective because we think today and not tomorrow. Vested interests have long known how to get to local leaders. They contribute to all candidates, especially the one most likely to get elected. That buys access. Then, they threaten, cajole, pound on desks and scream until they get what they want.
They do it because…it works.
And that’s something sportsmen and conservationists have never learned.
Yet, in this whole thing, there have been breakdowns. In spite of the fact the Supreme Court decision took place in January, you haven’t heard from state or federal agencies that deal with natural resources. It’s bad news for ducks, so why hasn’t Ducks Unlimited or Delta Waterfowl kept you informed? Or the National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, Sierra Club or Izaak Walton League?
Why haven’t you read about it in Field & Stream, Outdoor Life or Sports Afield? Fact is, Dakota Country is a rarity among outdoor publications in that we regularly cover conservation issues. It’s this lack of meaningful communication about key conservation issues that prompted naturalist, Shane Mahoney, the keynote speaker at the Outdoor Writers Association of America convention in Sioux Falls a year ago, to severely spank outdoor writers.
“If all you write about is the ballistics of the newest bullet or the new whiz-bang fishing lure,” he said, “that’s what your readers will think is important.”
And that’s exactly what most do, so I’m not too surprised that few sportsmen know wetlands are threatened. Those you depend on to keep you informed, haven’t. Shame on them.
An examination seems in order.
Most outdoor writers are poorly informed on conservation issues. Thus it’s impossible for their readers to be informed. That happens for a variety of reasons, but in the case of national magazines, most editors who determine magazine content, live among skyscrapers. Their outdoor experiences are shaped primarily by guided trips to slam-dunk places. Most know so little about fishing and hunting that it’s understandable why conservation issues mean nothing to them. And since the big magazines are funded by advertising sales, groups that are offended by hard-hitting conservation articles know how to make sure there won’t be anymore of them. They threaten the magazine’s advertisers. Most advertisers don’t react to that kind of pressure but it only takes one for a big city publisher who sees sales declining because the fishing and hunting ad revenues have dropped so much in recent years. Thus, there isn’t much of a market for conservation writers like Ted Kerasote, George Reiger, Ted Williams, Michael Furtman and a handful of others.
Some conservation groups are so wrapped up in fund raising that they don’t want to alienate anyone that they might squeeze for a buck. Some have lost touch with the real fishing and hunting world. Pheasants Forever certainly should have a stake in wetlands; after all, few cover types offer better winter habitat than cattail marshes. I don’t expect the National Wild Turkey Federation or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to get involved in the wetland issues but you’d certainly think Ducks Unlimited or Delta Waterfowl would dive in head first. To their credit, the Izaak Walton League, one of the smallest of the conservation organizations, and the National Wildlife Federation, one of the largest, do get involved in conservation battles, though they’ve both been quiet on this one. And where’s the Sierra Club and Audubon Society?
State and federal agencies?
Let’s begin with the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Most waterfowlers believe their major task is managing waterfowl, but the Congress has heaped so many other duties on them (without providing funding) over the past couple of decades, that other than a few dedicated folks out in the field, the duck emblem on their shoulder patch does little more than remind one of their past. Heard anything about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan lately? Moreover, Bruce Babbitt, the last Secretary of Interior, in a bonehead move, cut off their research arm and stuck it on the US Geological Survey. That’s like gutting a deer and thinking it will walk away. There are still many dedicated folks within the agency but since Mollie Beattie died, there’s been no leadership. If President George W. Bush wants to do something for this agency, he can begin by appointing a competent Director. John Turner who served in that capacity under Bush’s father, would be a great choice but he’s already been shot down by the conservative right wingers and Wise-Users who think he’s too friendly to wildlife and habitat. The President could also instruct Secretary of Interior Gale Norton to put research back into the agency. I can’t imagine that happening though. I’d expect her to try abolishing it. Her Wise Use crowd refers to the type of stuff wildlife scientists do as “bad science.” State agencies? They’ve been beaten down so much by politicians that they rarely get out on a limb. And, both types of agencies have themselves to blame. For years, they’ve had a paternalistic relationship with their fishing and hunting constituencies. Sort of a “give us your license money and we’ll take care of the fish and wildlife.” In most cases, they’ve done an excellent job. However, they’ve always resisted input from sportsmen who want to be a part of it…unless they agree completely with the status quo. They’ve been such poor communicators that they’ve never done a very good job of explaining those basics alluded to earlier…understanding connections. In many cases, they’ve become so detached from their constituency that when they need them, the constituency can’t hear them, or if they do, won’t heed the call for help.
Just the other evening, I was visiting with John Cooper, Secretary of the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department. “Coop,” one of the best wildlife administrators in the game, was lamenting the fact so few sportsmen show up for important hearings on legislation that affects fishing and hunting.
I didn’t find that strange. Legislative hearings are held on weekdays when most sportsmen are working at their jobs. It’s difficult for sportsmen who live in Bismarck or Pierre to be at those hearings much less outdoorsmen from Grand Forks or Watertown. Yet, the Farm Bureau has no difficulty in bringing in irate farmers, though most of them are regulars who seem opposed to everything that might benefit sportsmen or that smacks of conservation. In January and February, farmers can get to Pierre or Bismarck.
Yet, we can’t lay all the blame on agencies that don’t communicate, on organizations that don’t show up or outdoor writers who fail to inform. What about the responsibility of being a sportsmen? It’d be nice if more showed some. It’d be even nicer if they did enough research to realize that there are one helluva lot of bigger issues facing the future of fishing or hunting than how many non-residents are coming to their state.
But, If you insist that’s a big issue, here’s how to get rid of them.
Drain Dakota wetlands.
That’s a sure way to eliminate visiting hunters who come for the ducks and geese they help provide. Course, you’ll also get rid of the ducks and geese and knock down pheasant and deer numbers. And in high water years, you’ll eliminate a lot of good perch fisheries. The people who hate what Devils Lake or Waubay Lake has become, might have a hard time realizing that a Wisconsin or Minnesota fisherman takes one look at either and says, “Wow!”
