Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
I know since you all have such admiration for Mr. Dean, i figured i would post his most recent article.
Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Keeping Our Land for Hunting Important
Keeping our land for hunting important
By Tony Dean
For the Argus Leader
PUBLISHED: December 13, 2006
I've spent over three decades covering the outdoors in the Dakotas, and each legislative threat to fish and wildlife seems to find the agricultural lobby on the wrong side of the issue.
Usually, the Farm Bureau is leading the way. This is a powerful lobby, one used to getting its way.
South Dakota fishing and hunting is of a quality that provokes envy from many visitors, and, based on nothing more than license sales, it's important to South Dakotans. We have good hunting because most landowners are good stewards and quality fishing because, at least for the present, water quality remains good in our lakes and streams.
For many, these are the things that spell quality of life in South Dakota.
We don't have to look very far to see what can happen if we let industrialized agriculture set the guidelines. Consider Iowa, a state that has seen the drainage of most of its wetlands, and where fish consumption advisories were posted on most streams at one time or another over the past two decades. Yet, even in intensively farmed Iowa, there are glimmers of hope, especially among farmers, who having seen the results of industrial agriculture, decided to go in another direction.
Several years ago, I spoke at Iowa's Pheasants Forever State Convention in Des Moines. Many attending were farmers who loved bird hunting, and I heard them address what they were doing to reverse a trend they didn't like. And when they're not doing that, they're planning trips to fish and hunt in the Dakotas.
Not long ago, I made another trip to Iowa to speak at yet another Pheasants Forever banquet, this time in Lemars. The room was full of farmers and appreciative sportsmen, and they honored an individual who did some outstanding conservation work on his farm. He was so proud of his effort that when he addressed the more than 600 attendees, tears came to his eyes. Each year, the Lemars Pheasants Forever chapter recognizes a landowner who cares. And to give you an idea of the significance of sacrificing land for wildlife habitat in Iowa, good farmland sells for about $3,000 per acre in that area. By contrast, in the heart of South Dakota's pheasant belt, south central SD, it goes for about $600 per acre.
Iowans have learned that sometimes you have to lose everything before you realize what you had, a lesson still to be learned by many Dakotans.
Certainly, you'd think that when almost everyone knows that land here is worth a lot more for recreational purposes than for agricultural production, there's a message. No, we're told, we have to save that land for agricultural production.
So, can we continue to bow to the agricultural history of our states and think we can somehow recreate another Little House on the Prairie community? The sad news is the 160 acre farm and Jefferson's dreams of populating the west and supporting it economically with small "yeoman" farmers, have not materialized, and in fact, were never possible.
Meanwhile, many who stay proudly say they do so because of the high quality of outdoor recreation, and there may be truth there. But what they don't realize is that industrial agriculture doesn't give two hoots about ducks or pheasants. And I can't think of a worse situation than working for low wages while having nothing to fish or hunt.
Fortunately, we have some landowners who have developed a strong land ethic, and you can tell of their love for the land, just by looking at it. They include Steve Halverson who farms near Kennebec in Lyman County, and my ranching friends, Brady and Wendi Rinehart, who ranch in Hyde County in the heart of the best pintail breeding area on the continent.
But there are others who resent the Swampbuster Program because, as weak as it is, it prevents them from draining the last slough, and they are joined by those who talk independence and free enterprise, but can't wait for the government to do something else for them.
Steve is a successful farmer, who's worked hard to make a good living raising wheat, sunflowers and cattle, but his land also produces what might be the biggest population of pheasants per acre anywhere on Earth. He knows the value of wetlands; doesn't apologize for maintaining them, and the tall stands of grass on his diversified Lyman County operation haven't hindered his beef operation any.
Brady and Wendy know the land they ranch in northern Hyde County should never be plowed and it bothers them greatly when similar ground is turned over for the first time in their area. That's why they've become outspoken proponents of grassland easements.
A year ago, the South Dakota legislature considered, and then rejected, proposals that would weaken conservation easements. Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service realty office in Huron has a huge backlog of ranchers who want to enact conservation easements on their land to prevent more sod busting.
What the Halverson's and Rinehart's have in common is a land ethic, and I've no doubt they'll leave their holdings better than they found them. Meanwhile, our governments face choices, difficult ones. They can look toward economic development that represents nothing more than a continuation of what we've been doing for over a century - a policy that's resulted in the loss of most of our farmers or ranchers and the small towns they supported. Or we can try another direction. Farming has been propped up by federal farm programs for many years, and it's not been better for anyone other than the agri-business industry.
As I review the past three decades, there have been attempts to turn wetland purchases by the state or federal government, over to county commissions; to "sunset" the Game, Fish & Parks Department, and to put their license dollars into the general fund, which would force the GFP to go back to the legislature for approval on the spending of sportsman dollars. These are shortsighted efforts that remain on the agenda of too many agricultural organizations.
Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Keeping Our Land for Hunting Important
Keeping our land for hunting important
By Tony Dean
For the Argus Leader
PUBLISHED: December 13, 2006
I've spent over three decades covering the outdoors in the Dakotas, and each legislative threat to fish and wildlife seems to find the agricultural lobby on the wrong side of the issue.
Usually, the Farm Bureau is leading the way. This is a powerful lobby, one used to getting its way.
South Dakota fishing and hunting is of a quality that provokes envy from many visitors, and, based on nothing more than license sales, it's important to South Dakotans. We have good hunting because most landowners are good stewards and quality fishing because, at least for the present, water quality remains good in our lakes and streams.
For many, these are the things that spell quality of life in South Dakota.
We don't have to look very far to see what can happen if we let industrialized agriculture set the guidelines. Consider Iowa, a state that has seen the drainage of most of its wetlands, and where fish consumption advisories were posted on most streams at one time or another over the past two decades. Yet, even in intensively farmed Iowa, there are glimmers of hope, especially among farmers, who having seen the results of industrial agriculture, decided to go in another direction.
Several years ago, I spoke at Iowa's Pheasants Forever State Convention in Des Moines. Many attending were farmers who loved bird hunting, and I heard them address what they were doing to reverse a trend they didn't like. And when they're not doing that, they're planning trips to fish and hunt in the Dakotas.
Not long ago, I made another trip to Iowa to speak at yet another Pheasants Forever banquet, this time in Lemars. The room was full of farmers and appreciative sportsmen, and they honored an individual who did some outstanding conservation work on his farm. He was so proud of his effort that when he addressed the more than 600 attendees, tears came to his eyes. Each year, the Lemars Pheasants Forever chapter recognizes a landowner who cares. And to give you an idea of the significance of sacrificing land for wildlife habitat in Iowa, good farmland sells for about $3,000 per acre in that area. By contrast, in the heart of South Dakota's pheasant belt, south central SD, it goes for about $600 per acre.
Iowans have learned that sometimes you have to lose everything before you realize what you had, a lesson still to be learned by many Dakotans.
Certainly, you'd think that when almost everyone knows that land here is worth a lot more for recreational purposes than for agricultural production, there's a message. No, we're told, we have to save that land for agricultural production.
So, can we continue to bow to the agricultural history of our states and think we can somehow recreate another Little House on the Prairie community? The sad news is the 160 acre farm and Jefferson's dreams of populating the west and supporting it economically with small "yeoman" farmers, have not materialized, and in fact, were never possible.
Meanwhile, many who stay proudly say they do so because of the high quality of outdoor recreation, and there may be truth there. But what they don't realize is that industrial agriculture doesn't give two hoots about ducks or pheasants. And I can't think of a worse situation than working for low wages while having nothing to fish or hunt.
Fortunately, we have some landowners who have developed a strong land ethic, and you can tell of their love for the land, just by looking at it. They include Steve Halverson who farms near Kennebec in Lyman County, and my ranching friends, Brady and Wendi Rinehart, who ranch in Hyde County in the heart of the best pintail breeding area on the continent.
But there are others who resent the Swampbuster Program because, as weak as it is, it prevents them from draining the last slough, and they are joined by those who talk independence and free enterprise, but can't wait for the government to do something else for them.
Steve is a successful farmer, who's worked hard to make a good living raising wheat, sunflowers and cattle, but his land also produces what might be the biggest population of pheasants per acre anywhere on Earth. He knows the value of wetlands; doesn't apologize for maintaining them, and the tall stands of grass on his diversified Lyman County operation haven't hindered his beef operation any.
Brady and Wendy know the land they ranch in northern Hyde County should never be plowed and it bothers them greatly when similar ground is turned over for the first time in their area. That's why they've become outspoken proponents of grassland easements.
A year ago, the South Dakota legislature considered, and then rejected, proposals that would weaken conservation easements. Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service realty office in Huron has a huge backlog of ranchers who want to enact conservation easements on their land to prevent more sod busting.
What the Halverson's and Rinehart's have in common is a land ethic, and I've no doubt they'll leave their holdings better than they found them. Meanwhile, our governments face choices, difficult ones. They can look toward economic development that represents nothing more than a continuation of what we've been doing for over a century - a policy that's resulted in the loss of most of our farmers or ranchers and the small towns they supported. Or we can try another direction. Farming has been propped up by federal farm programs for many years, and it's not been better for anyone other than the agri-business industry.
As I review the past three decades, there have been attempts to turn wetland purchases by the state or federal government, over to county commissions; to "sunset" the Game, Fish & Parks Department, and to put their license dollars into the general fund, which would force the GFP to go back to the legislature for approval on the spending of sportsman dollars. These are shortsighted efforts that remain on the agenda of too many agricultural organizations.