Can anyone remember when Dakota sportsmen, farmers and ranchers all came together on an issue? I remember it happening once in South Dakota. That was the battle back in the 1970s to reinstate dove hunting after voters killed it a year earlier. It took a shrewd, behind-the-scenes campaign that was developed by a young Aberdeen, SD attorney, Thom Klinkel. Tom came from a political family. His mother, Norma, was a South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner and his then brother-in-law, Tom Daschle, would later become one of America's most powerful elected officials.
Tom’s ability to mastermind the effort to reinstate dove hunting in South Dakota was the stuff political campaign legends are constructed from, for it involved grass roots strategy, identifying likely voters, fashioning unlikely partnerships, and image-making at its best.
Though national groups such as the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA, now the United Sportsmen of America) would later claim credit for the win, those of us who were close to the campaign know better. It may seem strange today when most sportsmen vote Republican, mostly because of the gun issue, the man who led one of the most important pro-hunting campaigns in American history, was in fact, a liberal Democrat. And while the late Lee Atwood is remembered for his “big tent” approach in reconstructing the Republican Party, a liberal Democrat, Thom Klinkel knew better than anyone, how to motivate hunters. Let's explain how he went about the business of changing minds and winning an election.
The anti-dove hunting campaign began when a nice lady, Maggie Warren, who ranched near Hermosa in southwestern South Dakota, passed out petitions and managed to gather enough signatures to place the question of whether or not to hunt doves, on the ballot. The season had been legalized two years earlier by the SD Legislature, and though that was a difficult battle, few hunters believed, especially after getting legislative approval to hunt mourning doves, that anyone in a pro-hunting state would think of taking a hunting season back.
As the first election neared, the thinking among most hunters was that in South Dakota, nearly everyone hunted. Thus, they reasoned, dove hunting was safe and they became apathetic. In fact, the evidence suggests many sportsmen didn't even cast a vote.
By early evening on Election Day, they learned their first lesson in democracy. Never take it for granted. When the votes were counted, South Dakota voters turned back dove hunting by a 70-30 margin, a difference so overwhelming that any thoughts of hunting doves in South Dakota would be as likely as winning the Powerball lottery.
I remember getting a call from Klinkel within that year. I knew Thom, but not well, and when we met for lunch at the old Falcon Restaurant in Pierre, I listened as he outlined his strategy to win back the privilege of dove hunting. And though Thom could be a very convincing fellow, I gave him just a couple of chances in this effort; slim and none.
In a nutshell, here's what he outlined:
* Farmers and ranchers were critical to any effort to get the season back. Problem was, many of them opposed dove hunting as "another season," they didn't want. They seemed unlikely allies. What I hadn’t realized was that farmers make up the biggest single demographic group of hunting license buyers.
* Dove hunting could not be the issue. Instead, it would be the anti-hunting, animal rights crowd. Tom believed that by casting them as the villains, hunters, farmers and ranchers could unite as an unlikely, but powerful triumvirate.
* Pro-dove hunting needed a figurehead, someone that represented South Dakota to all of its citizens. Someone they could trust. Someone they'd believe. He had a good idea as to who that person should be.
* It would take money to develop a viable campaign. Lots of it. He had a plan to raise it.
* It would be necessary to deal with the "doves are songbirds" belief, and that they were much too small to interest hunters who had so many other choices. He believed we’d have to ignore the first problem and concentrate on the second one.
To interest farmers and ranchers, Klinkel believed it necessary to set up a committee within every county, and that each would consist of at least five people with the leadership comprised mostly of farmers or ranchers. But how could you convince landowners, many of whom had spoken in opposition to dove hunting prior to the previous election, that it was in their best interests to support it? Klinkel had ideas on how to accomplish that, too.
He traveled to every county, identified potential leaders, and convinced them that it was a winnable battle. His strategy was simple: those who opposed dove hunting were the same people who were trying to tell farmers and ranchers how to run their operations, and that they were opposed to rodeos, farming, ranching, etc. In short, he made sure that for most of the leaders; the issue wasn't hunting doves, but one of protecting their livelihood and way of life. He believed it necessary to demonize anti-hunters and animal-rightists to those who had the most to lose. And in response to many landowners who felt that serious hunters weren't hunting doves, that it was mostly youngsters who shot holes in road signs and shot the birds off electrical lines, he offered a caveat. Kids hunting doves would have to be accompanied by adults and dove hunting within 50-yards of a road would be made illegal.
A figurehead?
South Dakota voters would likely react kindly to the rugged, no-nonsense, straight-talking approach of a man who'd won a Congressional Medal of Honor, shot down dozens of Japanese warplanes, led a fledgling professional football league, all after having served as a popular Governor of their state.
Klinkel was convinced that South Dakotans trusted Joe Foss.
So, this liberal Democrat met with the conservative Republican, Foss, and both understood that no matter how disparate their political philosophies might be, their views on hunting doves were identical. Politics was shelved and Foss agreed.
I can't tell you how Klinkel raised the money. I know he understood politics, had been involved in a number of campaigns for Democratic officeholders, and probably learned a lot about strategy from Sen. George McGovern, who continued to get elected in spite of the big edge South Dakota Republicans always held among registered voters. I do recall him meeting with the newly formed WLFA and returning home with a hefty check, but most of the money came in the form of small contributions from farmers, ranchers and hunters. I'm also sure Foss, who knew everyone in hunting following his hosting one of the first television hunting shows, put the arm on many within the industry. Very early in the game, Klinkel showed the rest of us that money would not be a problem. And he also knew that anti-dove hunters, bolstered by the overwhelming vote against dove hunting, would be over-confident and suffering from their own bouts with apathy.
He reasoned that it made little sense to get embroiled in the songbird battle, and went on his own offensive. While Foss's rugged good looks and war-hero image was seen nightly on South Dakota television stations, his voice boomed across the prairie airwaves day after day with the same message. The same people who are telling you we shouldn't hunt doves are the same people who want to ban rodeos and tell you how to raise your cattle. The rest of us worked locally, within our own communities and counties, and with the help of the Foss commercials on radio and television and Klinkel's ability to turn the campaign into an anti-hunting, animal rights battle, we were convincing our hunting buddies that their vote would count. With Foss commercials pounding away, Klinkel traveled from town to town, meeting with newspaper editors. He was carrying the same message plus a nifty one he'd always manage to work into the conversation.
"The opponents of dove hunting will try to tell you this bird weighs only a quarter-pound, and that it's too small to interest anyone," he say. "Try explaining that to the people at McDonald's."
While Foss convinced farmers, ranchers and previously apathetic sportsmen, Klinkel convinced most of the newspaper editors that it would be smart to do pro-dove hunting editorials prior to the election. He was one helluva person-to-person salesman, a trait that made him a successful attorney. He knew how to ignore the negatives and sell the emotional positives. Between he and Foss, they managed to convince a lot of South Dakotans that this wasn't about dove hunting. It was about whether or not the anti-hunters would succeed...and if they did...we'd all lose.
He was also right about the over-confidence of the anti-dove crowd. They ran almost no commercials, figuring the people had already spoken on the issue and that since nothing had really changed, why worry?
They were wrong.
Klinkel, Foss and the local committees changed minds.
Lots of them.
Two years after South Dakota voters turned down dove hunting by a 70-30 margin; they reinstated it by the same margin. South Dakota has had a dove season since and there have been no problems. And while dove hunting is enjoyed by the smallest constituency of hunters, the battle became one of the most important in America, serving as a textbook case that’s been followed in other hunting campaigns in numerous states.
That shows you what can happen when hunters; Republicans and Democrats, farmers and city folks, work together.
But today, we're divided and each of us is to blame.
As I drove toward Bismarck on a business trip in late December, I was listening to Eddie Schultz on KFYR. I like Eddie, and while I don't always agree with everything he says, I respect him because he's smart, has guts and opinions, and thinks on his feet, much like the fine quarterback he was back in his college days at Moorhead State. If you have these traits, you’ll make your share of enemies. Ed is a hunter and fisherman and knows that aside from the value these recreational pastimes have for each of us, they're damned important to our economy.
On this day, the issue on his show was hunting.
First, there was the landowner that called to say the North Dakota Game and Fish Department ought to be eliminated. His reasoning was fuzzy and he sounded angry though he couldn't really articulate why or exactly whom it was he was mad at. Eddie politely told him that he didn't agree with him, that he ought to get over it...and then he moved on to another caller.
This one ranted about guides and outfitters. He talked about the outfitter south of Bismarck and the one near Gackle that had "60,000 acres leased up," and how the deer weren't getting harvested on that land. Fact is, I had earlier contacted that landowner and while he has land under lease, it’s far less than 60,000 acres. He emailed me saying that he's never refused permission to any North Dakota resident who's asked permission to hunt. I take him at face value on that. Would he have a right to turn someone down? Of course he would...but he says he hasn't.
Then after a series of callers spent their time ranting about non-residents and how they're crowding out residents, another joined in.
"Anyone who says they can't find a place to hunt in North Dakota, hasn't done their homework," he said. Finally, I thought, someone who realizes that North Dakota leads the nation in being hunter-friendly, a view I’ve long held. In fact, in over three decades of hunting North Dakota as a non-resident, I've been refused permission...when I asked...four times. North Dakota farmers are the friendliest in America.
Now if you listen to the militant attitude of some of the farm group leaders (they frequently do not speak for the rank and file), whether you're in North or South Dakota, it's easy to believe that most landowners don’t like sportsmen and usually say no.
The truth?
Most are nice folks who more often say yes if your request is reasonable and polite. But even among them, you'll frequently hear a "no" if you lead a caravan of three or four vehicles into their yard; if you have beer on your breath or look like you haven't shaved in days. I've a friend who farms near Devils Lake who posts his land mostly because his son hunts and so do his grandkids and he figures they should get the first consideration. Who can argue with that? But will he grant permission to those who ask? Of course, he told me. But during the past season at a time when Internet chat lines were laden with tales of how crowded it was in the Devils Lake area, no one asked him permission to hunt. That’s in spite of the fact he has many great wetlands on his property and always, lots of ducks.
So, Eddie gets another caller. A landowner that wants a trespass law just like South Dakota has. He says that if North Dakota passes a trespass law, then landowners will feel appreciated, relationships will improve and everyone will be better off. I grit my teeth. I was one of the guys who lobbied for the trespass law in South Dakota. So did the Department of Game, Fish & Parks under the leadership of Jack Merwin. We bought into the belief that passage of a trespass law would improve relationships. We were sold that bill of goods by the leaders of ag organizations who told us it would work. A few years later, I began to realize that some farm organization leaders have a vested interest in keeping relationships tenuous.
Finally, the caller says CRP is killing the small towns. Eddie agrees. I nearly run off the road. I want to pick up my cell phone and scream at Eddie. I want to ask, don't you suppose that the fact that we've gone from 77,000 farms and ranches to barely over 20,000 each in both Dakotas in the last century had a little something to do with small towns dying? C'mon, they're not dying because of CRP. They're dying because they're running out of customers. But, I can't get very mad at Eddie. Nor can I expect him to agree with everything I believe. However, I do want to tell him that without CRP, our duck population will fall faster than the Vikings did this past season and that CRP has little to do with the decline of small towns.
What we really need in the Dakotas these days is an issue that will again reunite landowners and sportsmen. And, I think we have one.
The Farm Bill.
There is nothing more important to farmers and their survival. There’s nothing more important to the well being of wildlife…and fish…than a farm bill that provides habitat.
However, to work together, we all need to get something out of it. A farm bill that only subsidizes farmers, especially the biggest ones, doesn’t work for fish and wildlife. A farm bill that ignores the real financial needs of small, medium and large farmers, won’t keep people on the land. Perhaps the most controversial website in the short history of the Internet is the one maintained by the Environmental Working Group, (www.ewg.org) in which they show exactly how much money each producer received over the past four years. Some argue that it doesn’t tell the whole story. But it does tell the story the EWG wants to tell; that most of the money goes to the largest producers, those who ostensibly need it the least. I suspect big producers need money too, but it we should be able to figure out ways to make it more equitable.
And in spite of what you’ll hear from some agricultural groups, we need Swampbuster, a provision that saves some producers from themselves. Since the infamous SWANCC decision issued by the US Supreme Court, Swampbuster is the only protection that remains for prairie wetlands, and as I’ve written so often in the past, draining wetlands in the Dakotas won’t bring us farm prosperity. It never has. Farms and ranches have gone from about 77,000 in each of the Dakotas in 1914, to slightly more than 20,000 in 2000. All Swampbuster does is condition farm bill benefits by denying them to producers who drain wetlands. Commodity prices are far more important to farmers who are getting the same or less for their corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, rye, etc. today than they were two and three decades ago. Costs have obviously increased many times what they were then. Draining sloughs didn’t have a thing to do with farm economics then…and it doesn’t today. Who’s responsible for low commodity prices? It isn’t hunters, conservationists, environmentalists or farmers. Just ask yourself, who gains when commodity prices remain low? Yet, those farm organization leaders who continue to blame environmentalists for all that’s wrong in farming, make the Music Man’s Professor Hill seem like a rank amatuer.
And put this in the back of your mind. Draining sloughs in the Dakotas might make us look more like southern Minnesota, Iowa or Illinois, but it won’t raise our farm economy to the same economic level. What we will become in that scenario is little more than a poor cousin because we don’t have soil that’s as fertile and we don’t get as much rain. And we will have about as much wildlife as they have…which is little or none?
Do you want to live in a state with poor fishing and almost no wildlife? If so, move to southern Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois or Indiana. You might make a bit more money but you’ll give up the reasons we live in the Dakotas. So, drain the sloughs, plow the grass and ruin the fishing and hunting…and all we’ll have to keep us in the Dakotas is the climate. That’s a joke, of course. And if you talk like this, the farm leaders try to tell their constituents that you’re anti-farmer. But remember, they have a stake in dividing, not uniting.
The Farm Bill also needs CRP and more of it. CRP isn’t draining our small towns. The lack of customers is what’s done it. CRP is important because it does more than produce wildlife habitat. It helps reduce crop production, and that’s a plus. But it also restores grass to the prairie, which maintains water quality, and while it may not help the implement dealer or seed store, it helps the hardware store, restaurant, convenience store and motel. We see a lot of people moving from farms and small towns to larger cities simply because that’s where the jobs are, but they don’t return to the farms and rural areas out of nostalgia.
They do it for recreation.
Besides, there’s an old soil conservation axiom you can’t argue with. Good grass stands produce nearly zero runoff. Overgraze the same land, runoff doubles. Plow it, and it quadruples. Thus, every bit of grass that can be restored to the prairies doesn’t hurt small towns; it helps them because it’s like putting money in a savings account.
Think of our beloved Dakotas as a business. The dumbest thing we can do is rob it of its assets. Soil can be nurtured, but not mined and grass is the glue that holds it together. If we continue current trends, all we’ll see is land abused and a society populated by fewer “haves” and a lot more “have-nots.”
A good Farm Bill can change that. And a good farm bill will address real problems. We won’t solve them with a farm bill that does nothing but send subsidy checks to individual farmers. Instead, we need a Farm Bill that restores rural economies and takes care of our most valuable assets, our land and water.
It’s exactly the kind of issue that should unite us.
Now all we need is another Thom Klinkel and Joe Foss.
