Back to some issues from the Governors Wetlands Working Group. It was at the July 7th meeting when our state Game and Fish Commissioner proposed that a farmer might be allowed to drain a wetland IF he would agree to replace and enhance at a ratio of four to one. (One acre drained to four acres new - 75% of that to be upland.) He called it a “win-win” situation. I would say we were here once before and it didn’t work nor did farmers like the idea and it never put any cash on the table.

Agriculture is profit driven the same as any other business or industry. At least it should be. My banker tells me “no profit, no farm.” He also says if ducks can generate a profit, go ahead. I can’t afford freeloaders. Ducks don’t pay their way.

The conservation (wildlife) community is competing for tax money and land without investing their own money. The rules imposed by some of these clubs and agencies are impacting the transportation of grain to the marketplace. This impact is compounded when we look at taxation on ag land and noxious weed control (or “uncontrol” depending on the area where you live).

The so called valuable areas (wetlands) are already protected by federal rules so who will get this changed? (Looks like a carrot on a string.)

Let’s go back to wetland function and value. In times of drought, functions decline, decreasing waterfowl production and diminishing the value. During wet cycles the reverse occurs. How can anyone give a guarantee or even worse how much can someone ask or expect? The western half of North Dakota is in a drought most of the time while the eastern half seems to be flooding. Back to the old question of creating a permanent home for a migrating bird.

Is it possibly we could make some new recommendations? All roadways dish toward the center to hold water. Ducks produced in the ditch could have a place to play so birdwatchers could see them and motorists could throw them food (used diapers, pop cans, bottles, etc.).

More recommendations? All city folks could assist by changing their roofs to hold water and planting cattails in their yards. It doesn’t seem proper, but perhaps someone would like to try an experimental model.

Babe Winkelman, in the Jamestown Sun on April 17, 1998, writes that flows can be reduced by eighty percent in watersheds with wetlands. I wonder if someone took money to the bank for that??

Now any farmer knows when you empty a grain bin with an auger you pull from the top. The same is true if you drain a pond or slough with a pipe. The law of physics in these cases is “last in, first out.” When a small wetland becomes filled, excess simply slides over the top. If it freezes full in the fall you have an immediate problem in the spring.

The Governors Wetlands Working Group is scheduled to complete their work in the very near future. It doesn’t seem possible with all the unresolved issues that are still on the table. There are no benefits for landowners at this time and LAND does not support the current proposal.

Now if someone asks me to sign on for half truth I need to know which half we’re going to receive. If I’m being asked for another free ride we can’t afford it. If landowners are being tied to some project without any benefits I’m not interested. We have enough wetland and too much wildlife.

At this point I see no reason to legislate or mandate a subsidy for the sportsman, Sierra Club, or anyone else. The government wants out of agriculture so they may as well get out of duck production. Hope everyone has a good harvest.