The Case for Pheasants - We Don't Have a Problem
September 01, 2016 by UGUIDE South Dakota Pheasant Hunting
Whether it is in our personal, professional or political lives, it isn’t always easy to see or agree that we have a problem. It is surely not in our human nature to take responsibility for problems we can resolve. However, sometimes we should consider it pure blessing when the problem is so clarified that agreeing there is a problem and taking personal responsibility over its remedy, is almost effortless.
This is part 2 of our ongoing series. As you may recall, in part 1, we discussed the concepts of Precision Conservation and the value of Habitat Optimization. These terms might be new to the solutions roundtable which we will get into more in later series. For now it is essential to define the problem adequately so that the solutions might seem effortless and enjoyable.
When you look at the pictures on the headlines of this article it is easy to see the stark contrast between the picture in part 1 and the picture in part 2. No one can deny that agricultural technology has come a long way. I employ several of these newer pieces of equipment on my farm and it has made a world of difference. Is this part of the problem or the solution? Both.
Problems and Common Myths Defined
Myth #1 – The farmer is the greatest conservationist in the world. One of the greatest barriers for solutions is thinking that those who farm the land are always taking best care of the land. While noble at its core, the agricultural runoff issue confirms that this is not the case. The farmer is the greatest “producer” in the world. The farmer is not bad. They are simply doing what they know how to do in order to provide a living for their families.
Myth #2 – We need to feed the world's doubling population by 2050 – You will hear this concern being brought up by many of agriculture's large companies. Why is this a problem now? Was it a problem 40 years ago? Are we starving or do we have an obesity epidemic? Is it the farmer's responsibility to “feed the world”? Will our environment support feeding the world in 2050? Does it even support today’s agricultural production? Aren’t we over producing now as it is?
Myth #3 – Government and conservation organizations are all things wildlife and environment – Organizations like state game and fish and conservation leader Pheasants Forever are certainly synonymous with wildlife and environmental issue solutions. There is no question that these organizations have a tremendous depth of biological knowledge as well as being on the forefront of bringing their constituents' issues to light. However, by their very nature being .GOV or .ORG entities, it makes it difficult to address issues and opportunities within the .COM world. Another way of phrasing this is to say that government and nonprofit organizations are constrained by laws and regulations that prohibit them from fully partnering with those operating in the commercial private market space. While the general public assumes this is their area of responsibility and expertise, their hands are tied by their bylaws and governing principals.
Myth #4 – Access to clean water and wildlife are entitlements to the US Citizen – While state game and fish departments hold wildlife in trust on behalf of the general residents of their state, meaning that the public owns its state's wildlife, the private land of which the majority of a state's wildlife is produced and sustained is under the control of the private landowner. The same can be said for water and other natural resources. The commercialization of the outdoors, wildlife and water is viewed as being bad by the general public, but whose responsibility is it to bear the costs associated with these resources? Who will pay the bills? “Pay to Play” is a phrase used in these discussions. Is it assumed that we should not have to pay to play? Whether it is a bottle of fine filtered water or a round of golf on the local golf course, we have to pay the fee.
Myth #5 – South Dakota Game Fish and Park's #1 Objective is to partner with private landowners – To this day GFP has no partnership with me or any of the 9 other farmer/landowners I work with in the pheasant and farming business. Why? State law mostly. If you read South Dakota’s state pheasant management plan, you will see this objective being identified. If you also read further into the plan under “Issues” and “Commercialization of Wildlife,” you will see South Dakota codified law 41-2-23. This law basically prevents any monies from being given to private landowners for habitat improvement if that landowner receives greater than $1 for hunting fees regardless of how much that landowner generated in nonresident license fees for the state (which can be significant). This very law contradicts the SDGFP #1 Objective.
Myth #6 – South Dakota Game Fish and Parks is not in the commercial hunting business – I think if most were asked they would perceive that this statement is accurate. That GFP is not in the fee based hunting business. However, did you know that South Dakota GFP leases private land from landowners totalling well over 1 million acres in the state? These leases are paid for from license money and sales tax on hunting equipment. Landowner payments vary from $1/acre to $40/acre for open access. Or, they pay by the hunter at $2/hunter or $6/hunter from controller access. As an example, for the 85,000 CREP acres in the James River Watershed the GFP pays on average $40/acre in supplement to the CRP payment to the landowner for opening the access to that ground. That's $3.4 million dollars a year in payments from the state to landowners just for that program alone. You can image the range of quality and what some do not even consider "huntable" acres when payments are between $1 and $40/acre.
Myth #7 - If you only hunt on public ground, you are not "Paying to Play" - I hear this term thrown around a lot (pay to play). I really don't know what it means. It is stupid. If you pheasant hunt, everyone pays to play. At a minimum, you need to buy a license and shells for the gun and gas for the car. I think people think in terms of public vs. private or commercial vs. non-profit. It is really more like selecting a golf course. You can pay $30/round at the local municipal course or $200/round where they played the US Open a few years ago. And everything else in between. I wrote an article a while back describing these various levels of ways to enjoy pheasant hunting in South Dakota. Levels of South Dakota Pheasant Hunting.
Problems Defined
Problem # 1 – Agricultural runoff – Look no further that the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against 3 Iowa counties or the Gulf Hypoxia issue identifying 10 upstream state contributors to the problem. Regardless of how improved our agricultural practices and technology have become, we still have to admit that there is evidence enough of an Ag runoff problem.
Problem #2 – Wildlife, water, humans – The definition of a keystone species is one that represents all the other species in the region. If you take care of the keystone species then all other species are taken care of. Identifying the Pheasant as the keystone species in South Dakota would go a long way in addressing all other potential issues in the state including human health and clean water.
Problem #3 – Agricultural Costs and Markets – Agricultural producers margin of profitability has declined steadily over the last several decades. This drives a natural progression of expansion in acres, yields and technologies. This in turn drives free markets. One of the common terms discussed in agricultural markets is input costs like land, fuel, seed, fertilizer, etc. What isn’t commonly discussed is the “externalization of costs”. Agricultural runoff problems are one example of externalized costs to the producer. The legal community is beginning to use this term when identifying the source of the problems and assigning responsibility.
In Part 3 of the “Case for Pheasants” we will address the issue of "Wild Birds".
Read all the articles in the Case for Pheasants Series from UGUIDE:
