An Urban's Rural View

A Winter Walk in a North Dakota Wetland

Urban C Lehner
By  Urban C Lehner , Editor Emeritus
Connect with Urban:
@urbanize

To many "prairie pothole" region farmers, those numerous little wetlands on their land are a nuisance. If conservation compliance weren't a condition for receiving federal farm subsidies, they'd drain the potholes tomorrow.

Not Don Bauman, a west-central North Dakota farmer who grows wheat, canola, lentils, peas and garbanzo beans. He likes wetlands. At a Farm Foundation forum in Washington on conservation programs, he supported the requirement in the Senate's version of the farm bill that would tie conservation compliance to crop insurance.

Many farmers don't understand the value of wetlands, Bauman said. They purify water and help recharge aquifers. They limit drainage and runoff and help control floods. And they provide wildlife habitat.

It was when he got to habitat that Bauman started to wax eloquent, so I'll let him tell the rest of the story. You can listen to the forum by clicking http://tiny.cc/….

"It's 20 below at home and after a good North Dakota blizzard it's enjoyable to go out for a walk," Bauman began. "And yes, it's cold, it's 20, it's 25 below, but the air is quiet, the storm has passed and I go out to walk across one of our wetlands.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

"And I've had this experience. Our native sharp-tailed grouse, they have a way of adapting to North Dakota winter by burrowing into the snowdrifts, and I've actually seen them fly into snowdrifts when a storm is approaching. And if you come walking along after a good North Dakota blizzard -- and there's no evidence, there's no tracks, there's nothing -- and you're just enjoying the beautiful day and the bright blue sky and all of a sudden, a dozen, two dozen grouse come exploding out of the snow, all around you, in front of you.

"If I ever pass away on one of these walks and my little dear wife finds me and all she sees are these little bomb craters around me, honey, that's what happened.

"And then I walk along into the cattails and a rooster pheasant comes cackling out of the cattails and he's there because that wetland gave him protection.

"And I look out on the wetland and I see a muskrat hut. And I think of all these little muskrats huddled in that little hut, and will they survive the winter, this cold, brutal North Dakota winter. And as I approach the hut I notice some tracks in the snow and I'm thinking, well, maybe life isn't so peaceful in that hut, and maybe they've had a visitor. Sure enough, a wild mink has come along and he's burrowed into that hut, and you know, nature can be cruel. So I'm not sure what all took place in there but it probably wouldn't be too pretty. But that's part of nature.

"And then I see another track in the snow and I crouch down by this hut and I start to squeak" -- and here Bauman purses his lips and makes squeaky noises -- "like a little mouse. Sure enough out pops a red fox, comes trotting out across the ice to see where is he going to get his next meal. Well I kind of surprise him. I peek around the hut and say 'Boo' and he takes off. And he doesn't know how fortunate he is that I'm not on the pheasant's payroll that day. Anyway he goes bounding off across the wetland.

"And out go a couple of white-tailed deer, they run out in the field, stand back and look, what's all the commotion about? Their winter coat is bristly and it's amazing how our animals can protect themselves. But they do need help. And that wetland is what is helping protect them.

"The reason I chose the winter season to tell you just a little bit about what life would be like in a North Dakota wetland is because if I had chosen spring, summer or fall I'd be up here for hours explaining to you all the animals and the interactions I would have observed.

"So they are extremely valuable and we need to preserve them."

urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES/)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Previous Post (So When Is the Real Farm Bill Deadline?)
Next Post (Magic Moments From the Ag Summit) 
P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Unknown
12/16/2013 | 5:39 PM CST
Thank you Bonnie!
Bonnie Dukowitz
12/16/2013 | 9:27 AM CST
The first sentence, Urban, is an insult to many, many of us. How many free flowing creeks are there in Cook County, Il. or Hennipen County, Mn.? To express a prejudiced opinion, such as Mr. Baumans' is not appropriate. I do not live in N.D., however there is huge residential and urban destruction of open space, across the nation and that seems OK. Yes, there are some farmers who could care less, except for money. There are many more farm land owners who take it upon themselves to be good stewerts of the land, water,wildlife and other resources. It is done because it is the thing to do. I wonder how many of these tax-exenpt organizations would exist if sustanance would rely on their own merits.
Unknown
12/16/2013 | 8:32 AM CST
To clarify the 1000% error it was an appeal that initially NRCS determined 1.0 acre wetland and latter on appeal was determined .1 acre. If not for the appeal that wetland would have been 100 times bigger that it should have been. I don't think producers are ever allowed to have that big of error. That is what you get when they don't have a producer board on the NRCS side. Instead you have groups like Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited sitting in the office with no producer board oversight.
Unknown
12/15/2013 | 9:21 PM CST
I am a taxpayer also. If they want to use eminent domain they should pay fair market value. That is not happening instead this is a takings. A majority of my taxpayer dollars get paid to salt streets in urban areas which go into storm water that is not treated, pay subsidized health care to drug addicts and people that are not working or paying taxes. Do some research on how many wetlands get appealed with 1000 % errors. How about the over 2 month waiting period for determinations in the Dakotas?
Unknown
12/15/2013 | 8:21 PM CST
Do they teach equal protection in law school anymore?
Unknown
12/15/2013 | 8:17 PM CST
The part that you do not understand Lehner is the discriminatory way wetlands are treated. Different rules for different regions, people that drained before 1985 can continue and get these subsides will people that would choose to drain after 1985 will not receive these subsides. It should be about fairness and equality. Maybe make 25% all wetlands protected and restored that surely would be more fair. I see you have a law degree, how can you say this is not discriminatory policy. I too support conservation in a equal matter. Many of these wildlife groups are loaded with tax free money but yet don't contribute to a fair mitigation policy for wetlands and help pay for that. But instead we have decided to promote subsidized hunting. I wonder who is going to feed and fuel America?
Bonnie Dukowitz
12/15/2013 | 7:51 AM CST
I also support conservation. One huge problem with it is, who defines! I wonder how much valuable time of the staff at NRCS, Soil and Water etc. is wasted behind the desk rather than in the field. EWG, EPA, Pheasants Forever, etc. influences too many rules and regulations in support of their own agenda. Some defeat the purported intent of the organizations. Do people realize that colorfull pheasant was imported. I have read, this led to the decimation of the native prairie chicken. Conservation, yes, protection and subsidies to protect and expand an invasive species for recreational purposes, no. I am not opposed to conservation compliance, but get the idiots out of influencing the rules.
Urban Lehner
12/13/2013 | 8:30 PM CST
Thanks for the comment. I can understand farmers opposing any link between crop insurance and conservation compliance. I can't understand why conditioning the receipt of a taxpayer subsidy on not draining wetlands would infringe on the constitutional right to property. The landowner would remain free to do as he wishes with his land; all he has to do is opt out of federally subsidized crop insurance. If at least some forms of eminent domain are constitutional, as they clearly are, surely it's constitutional for the government to say if you want the subsidy, you must agree to protect the environment.
Unknown
12/10/2013 | 8:29 AM CST
I would like to say that nobody has the right to speak for somebody else. This country was built on a constitution. A person has the right to his rights, a person has a right to his opinion as long as it is not overriding another persons rights. All of this groups including the gov't can go in the free market place and buy land and buy property rights but to take land and those rights is unconstitutional and violates one of the most important rights that makes America and that is the right to own personal property. To discriminate one region and take away benefits there for the same thing the rest of the country is doing or has done and will enjoy these benefits surely is not Liberty or Just. The house you live in the street you drive on has all taken habitat. The good thing about farming is that we provide food that the wildlife enjoys too unlike your streets, malls, and houses, that land is lost forever. I find it interesting today we honor Nelson Mandela for fighting for equality and yet we are discriminated against with rules that treat us differently than other areas and other people that have prior converted wetlands. Where is the justice, who's fighting for us? Where is the reporting on these injustices?