If we do a reality check and apply soil science, we learn that most soils in wetlands are unable to percolate large amounts of moisture and plant materials. That is why they are so valuable for crop production. The soil types found in wetlands will not support a septic tank drain field. How then, can wetlands have value for ground water recharge?

As production agriculture has moved into high tech, no-till and high residue practices, the amount of agricultural runoff has decreased. At the same time, development practices in and around our cities has caused an increase in runoff and contamination. Where is the filter on the city storm sewer?

The average depth and size of the wetlands that have been drained in North Dakota could not contribute to controlling a flood. If a rain can raise Lake Darling over a foot in one afternoon, all area wetlands would be full to capacity. If this occurs in August or September, the wetlands will freeze up in that condition. What is the value of a full wetland for flood control?

Let me present a real problem. Travel management is a question of public use. We have a diverse public - all-terrain vehicle riders, hunters, roadless enthusiasts, snowmobilers, and all want some lands available for their particular use. They demand a variety of uses by claiming a public value.

The taxpayers provide auditoriums of all types of games and events, race tracks, fairgrounds and rodeo grounds, baseball parks, regular parks and sports complexes. It appears the public is working on the last frontier. The invasion and destruction of private lands without regard for landowners’ rights or cost. The really sad part is when we discover that some of these ideas are being taught in our school system. It gets even worse when the media calls it “society’s need.”

I believe the fact to be the difference between society’s desire and landowners’ rights. Society first places a high burden of tax on the same land they wish to use for free. Society then writes rules for air and water and then makes demands so they can pollute both.

Does the public believe that all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles are a part of pollution control? Does everyone believe a hunter in a four wheel drive crossing a farmer’s muddy field is a “need?” Is it a need that should be preserved? If it needs to be preserved, who should pay for it? Can a city person preserve the same ratio of wetlands that they demand from a farm? Chances are, the city was once a farm. Has society reached the point that a city dweller will allow the same trespass in his backyard that he demands from a farmer? Can the media determine the difference between need, desire, human rights and property rights?

Let us now apply reason to wildlife rehabilitation. The owls and hawks (which are protected) have destroyed most of our partridge, grouse and pheasant by hunting day. The remainder of our wildlife have followed the farmer and his plow. As agricultural production increases, so does wildlife. As farmers have drained the small wetlands and enhanced large wetlands, waterfowl production has reached record levels.

After all of these issues we need to provide a permanent home for migratory birds. Mitigation is the new deal. Prime farm land is being taken for city expansion and highway systems. The new proposal is to mitigate for wildlife. The private property owners have enough trouble feeding their own families. I doubt they can afford to set land aside for wildlife.

Next is the fact that lawyers declare wildlife easements to be restrictive on land use. Easements decrease the value of property. That in turn limits a bank or lender in making production loans.

From my desk it appears mitigation is another land grab effort on the part of special interests. If they can lay a guilt trip on lawmakers they get to use a large acreage in North Dakota for free.