Selected Articles from the LAND Newsletter
President's Report
A guest editorial by Past President Wes Tossett
Much has been written, suggested and inferred that North Dakota's future lies in eco-tourism, hunting, bird watching and particularly wetland appreciation. In 1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife "Service" gave this state their word, that, if non-profits, state and federal agencies were allowed to purchase the rest of Chase Lake and the surrounding grasslands, instead of the neighboring ranchers that, they, the USFWS would build and donate to the citizens of ND a $3.5 million "Wetland Interpretive Center" located along I-94, near the Medina interchange.
This Chase Lake Prairie Project was purported to add $60 million in business activity and 720 jobs to south central ND. The wetland center alone would generate $15 million in business activity and 215 jobs yearly! As we all realize now, these promises, along with the ownership of any of our natural resources by non-profits and governments is only a cruel mirage that in the long run will drag down local economies.
Lately, we have just begun to witness the campaign that private ownership and its accompanying development by the farmers and ranchers who own the land, that the ring necked pheasants thrive on, is some how bad. Why don't these same "red-necked" hunters exercise their right to harvest their wildlife bounty on Chase Lake or any of the other 63 federal wildlife refuges in this state?
The more hunting pressure there is in the prime areas, the more posting of land there will be. One is the result of the other. Most posting is not to exclude all hunting, but only as a means for the landowners to know who is out there and to regulate numbers at peak times. In a state that is more than 90% private property, the state game and fish can have all kinds of access programs like PLOTS and Coverlocks, but isn't this just another form of paid hunting?
More and more land in the prime, deer, water fowl and upland bird areas is being controlled by non-local interests. What will these hunters do when more prime areas are owned by fellow hunters, who will obviously save "their" hunting for themselves? Outside interests can purchase land, reserve hunting rights and then resell the land to neighboring eastern or out of state interests. Don't laugh, there are a lot of farmers who have bought land only to learn the hard way that there is a USFWS "conservation easement" encumbering its title and management.
It appears to me that the "red necks" had better support and encourage commercial hunting ventures in order to insure that they will have a place to hunt, in prime areas, in the future. Most urban hunters really rebel at any form of paid hunting (rural recreation) and yet when we economically and culturally disadvantaged rural residents, go to town for recreation, we don't think twice about paying green fees, zoo admissions, tennis fees or any of the other paid attractions they have. If I was so obsessed (cheap) that I had to golf at their municipal golf course for free, I would at least get to know the manager beforehand, so that we could find out if there were some slack times when I could be accommodated, rather than at peak times on weekends or holidays. What is the difference between paying for urban recreation and rural recreation? Some will say that the landowners don't own the wildlife and that is true to some extent, but then who owns the sun, breezes and water hazards (wetlands) on your golf courses?
A few years ago I hired a crop consulting service to monitor my sunflower fields. One day they drove in the yard all excited that I had at least 12% deer depredation on one of my fields. This didn't surprise me much, as this field has shelterbelts on both sides and butts up against an ungrazed coulee on the far end and there is always a lot of "deer sign." I have a friend who has a couple of pivot irrigation circles and one year he had a "learning experience" when 4-5 moose moved in. These moose never went near the edges, so he wasn't aware that they had wiped out the center of each quarter until he started combining. Now he monitors his fields by air all summer and fall. Most ranchers west of the Missouri can't plant corn for winter grazing for their cows, as the elk can smell corn for miles and it is impossible to keep them out. A lot of farmers have problems with grazing geese in the early summer and feeding ducks in the fall. The next time you see 10-30 pretty deer in some farmer’s alfalfa field, contemplate their cost. Notice how none of these events take place in native grasslands or in our valuable wetlands.
The costs of raising bountiful wildlife is extensive and those farmers should not have to bear the total costs. The most equitable way to spread the cost is to charge what the traffic will bear, just like in town.
The arrogant and self-righteous majority can pass all the restrictive laws they want to, but the landowner who has clear title will always have the ace of trump (or the last word).
