Minnesota’s Buffer Zone Proposal Needs Careful Consideration

I suspect this blog post won’t make me popular among all sportsmen.

Particularly those sportsmen in Minnesota who have latched on to Governor Mark Dayton’s proposed statewide 50′ waterways buffer zone law proposal.

Is the new law proposal the panacea to bring pheasant populations back to respectable levels once again?   I doubt it.

Will the one-size-fits-all proposal achieve positive outcomes for improved water quality?   Maybe.

Does the Governor in his attempt to sell both farmers and sportsmen on the concept really understand what he is doing?   Not likely.

Ever since this buffer zone concept was first proposed at the Minnesota Pheasant Summit last December sportsmen have clamored to this notion of having landowners mandated to provide vegetative strips to “buffer” waterways from our varied land use (i.e. such as crop farming, etc.).   The concept was first introduced to a bunch of pheasant hunters meeting to brainstorm ways to turn the tide of our state’s pheasant population decline.

In reality, it was a savvy place to announce such a proposal because the crowd gathered all welcomed the concept and was hungry for something positive to grasp onto.   In effect, immediately the news spread like wildfire with sportsmen as the ambassadors carrying the message of this much needed change.   It was a perfect public relations scenario.

IMG00032

Predators love to roam areas near watercourses for the buffet it can become with susceptible prey often being easy pickings.

Well, truth is this concept is intended to have a greater impact on future water quality than it will have for upland birds.   In fact, I actually question if these buffers won’t become killing zones for pheasants, et al. as nesting and brooding habitat now becomes condensed to narrow corridors where most predators are ripe to roam.   Seriously, where do mink, raccoon, skunks, and coyotes do most of their traveling — yup, along watercourses.   It’s a natural highway for them.   Are you telling me that a nest that must sit idle for 3–4 weeks during incubation isn’t a large gamble for the birds anyway?   Let’s not make it even easier for the predators.

Honestly, that is one of my great concerns that deserves much deeper study instead of some anecdotal legislative gesture put forward by an elected official looking to place a feather in his proverbial political cap.   Granted, I applaud the proposal as a measure deserving consideration on many levels, but my concern is it’s nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that will ultimately not be served as promised.

Now, in full disclosure I am both a sportsman and a landowner who has a watercourse running through my farm.   To the best of my knowledge, there is no crop production that comes within the 50′ requirement, so I do not have any issues that I believe personally affect me regarding this matter.

But other farmers and landowners do have some legitimate concerns as it relates to their interests.   In one blog post I read yesterday the blogger summed up the agriculture perspective concerns far better than I could have grasped and/or explained it.   Take a look at this post entitled: The Buffer Strip Controversy…Debunked.   The blogger, Sara Hewitt, appears to be someone who understands the ramifications even better than our Governor.   I urge you to check it out.

This raccoon is not out for a casual stroll...it's on a mission to find food.

This raccoon is not out for a casual stroll…it’s on a mission to find food.

In closing, perhaps the aspect I hate most about this buffer measure is the simplicity of it.   To the average sportsman who hears about the concept…the immediate response is something like this: “it sounds good to me…let’s do it!”   Yet, I think such a cursory examination of the proposed buffer measure really shows a certain shallowness in thinking.   A shallowness by the sportsman in terms of a “quick fix” or “stop gap” action to fix a problem that is much deeper than adding a few strips of grassland here and there.

I might even call this buffer strip concept a false conservation hope that has potential for future negative consequences.   Indeed, I did not attend the Minnesota Pheasant Summit, but I ask what other substantive pheasant population measures did you hear come from that gathering?   I heard none.   It seemed once this buffer concept was proposed it overshadowed any other potential conservation action conversation.   In effect, the stakeholders of that meeting largely came away from the gathering skipping and singing “Happy Days Are Here Again!”

Well, time will tell.   I might be entirely wrong in my take on this subject, but I can’t help the fact I have some deep reservations about this buffer proposal, especially as it relates to conservation.   It could backfire.   I don’t believe the proposed measure has all upsides without some legitimate risks.   In nature there are few easy answers in this complex world.   Let’s be putting our efforts and our hopes behind proven science and not a government policymaker looking to increase his overall public approval rating.

Beware The Politician Who Wears Orange

Blaze orange has a powerful meaning to most outdoorsmen.

We all know the intended purpose is for safety’s sake, but I’m not one who takes it lightly when putting on the so-called uniform of our fall outdoor passions.   After all, the wearing of blaze orange helps to identify who we are even among a crowd of people.

Take the police officer who sits in the local dinner having breakfast.   I’d venture to guess most patrons know of their presence in the restaurant and likely pay closer attention to his/her actions.   With the wearing of the uniform comes a certain default respect, but it also carries a bunch of expectations we strive to see confirmed in our mind.

We expect that officer to be polite, an upstanding citizen in their actions, and approachable (or friendly) in their mannerisms.   We acknowledge how the badge and the uniform condition our minds to observe for behavior to confirm these preconceived notions.   It’s human nature to match what a person wears with how they are supposed to be or act.

DSC00679The same goes for hunters.   Walk into any busy dinner on a November Saturday morning in rural America and you are likely to see orange-clad hunters reliving stories of the hunt.   Good or bad, these hunters are confirming expectations in people’s minds about what they are seeing.   Are they acting proper?   Are they acting respectful?   In other words, to the non-hunting public the behavior they are witnessing is acting as the poster child, so to speak, for all the rest of us.   We get judged by the general public based on this observed behavior.

Yet, when someone wears orange we also make judgments amongst ourselves.   Take, for instance, the politician who appreciates how they need the sportsman’s vote in order to get elected to public office.   What better way than to show he/she is one of us than to don the orange garb we wear into the fields and woodlands.   Does wearing orange alone make you a sportsman?   Does a TV commercial showing clips of a politician in hunting/shooting scenarios wearing the garb make that person a sportsman?

In Minnesota we have one such candidate, who I won’t single out, who feels it necessary to show he is a hunter and shooter.   Throughout the commercial it shows various snippets of him hunting in the outdoors proudly displaying the orange.   Only problem is, the commercial appears as if it was filmed in mid-summer.   It likely was.   It’s easier to throw on some orange than it is to make the surrounding landscape appear to be the correct season.

Now, I have no idea nor do I care (the candidate is from a different voting district than me) if the politician is a legitimate sportsman.   For that matter, he likely comes from a family deeply rooted in the outdoors.   That doesn’t matter.   What matters to me, and it should matter to you, is when candidates strive to appear as someone when the overall evidence is not convincing.

Honestly, if a candidate with good morals and well-meaning ability is a sportsman I don’t care if they are Republican or Democrat alike.  What I despise, however, is someone who tries to look like me simply to get my vote when by all other measures things don’t appear to be sincere.

This fall all eligible voters throughout the country will have elections coming up in November where we are asked to make important choices.   All I am asking is don’t be fooled by outward appearances and political rhetoric.   There’s much more to being a true sportsman than buying a blaze orange coat and then looking pretty for the cameras.

====================================

Follow-up:

Okay, so I wrote this post this morning and now this afternoon I stumble upon a picture showing the unnamed politician in my post.   Here is the picture apparently found on Twitter (and linked to from the GOP website):

Note, indeed, the politician, Rick Nolan (pictured here holding a so-called “assault weapon” that he’s gone on record supporting a ban on) is not wearing blaze orange in this photo, but he seems to proudly be holding said gun.   Worse yet, look at his finger on the trigger.   Yup, one of the quickest ways you can tell how familiar (or shall I say unfamiliar) a person is with a gun is their penchant for placing a finger on the damn trigger when it shouldn’t be there.   REAL gun folks know the finger doesn’t touch the trigger unless you are ready to shoot.   Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up and have it more obvious.

 

Refreshing Read: My State Legislator “Gets It!”

A couple of times each week my Legislator in the Minnesota House of Representatives sends out an emailed newsletter.   I’ll be honest, I read almost every one of them…but often I stop a paragraph or two into the usual diatribe being offered.   It’s not that I disagree with his rantings, moreover, it’s more a situation of how many politic-related matters these days just bore me to death.

But when I read his most recent update mailed today it struck a chord with me.   In fact, even though you many not care about Minnesota game and fish matters this situation could hold true for any state.   All it takes is one “over-zealous” conservation officer to ruin your day.   As a sportsman, you have certain ethics of fair chase, statutory laws and administrative rules to govern your behavior in the field.   Well, guess what…game wardens, or conservation officers as they prefer to be called here in Minnesota, have enforcement rules they must play by, too!

Without further ado, take a read of my Legislator, Rep. Steve Drazkowski’s (21B) update to his constituents:

Hello from St. Paul,

 

 When it comes to enforcement of game and fish regulations, many people I hear from usually have a bone to pick with the Department of Natural Resources – probably because the result of their encounter ended with a ticket.

 

 But other times I’m presented with information that suggests the DNR has overstepped its authority and needs to be reminded that the agency is in place to serve the people, not vice versa.

 

As a hunter, I can understand how many Minnesotans put their lives on hold for one weekend or week each fall so they can participate in a sport that they love. For some families or groups of friends, it’s the one time each year where everyone travels to a specific location and gets together for a few days of camaraderie and the hope of spotting an elusive white-tail.

 

That’s why I was disappointed to learn that some of my constituents from Wabasha and Winona counties basically had their hunt ruined by some over-zealous game wardens.

 

While out on their annual hunt last November, a DNR airplane flew overhead monitoring their every move, for well over an hour. That alone is not illegal; but according to the hunters, what was troubling was the low level of height at which the airplane was repeatedly flying.

 

Federal law requires normal hunter airplane surveillance to be conducted above 500 feet. Typically, the DNR tells us that their pilots’ normal altitude during these hunter surveillance flights is between 800 to 1,000 feet. Yet in this instance, the hunters tell me the plane was hovering between 100 to 300 feet over their heads, saying it was so loud they couldn’t hear each other speak.

 

The problem is if an airplane is flying that low and making that much noise, the deer are going to get spooked and leave the area, which is exactly what happened. Eventually these hunters gave up their position and left because the deer had been scared away. Their yearly weekend of fun had ended early through no fault of their own.

 

Keep in mind; these hunters were doing nothing wrong. The wardens eventually checked every one of them. They had licenses. They were not illegally baiting deer. They were not driving around with loaded shotguns. They were not doing anything illegal, just simply and legally participating in a sport that they enjoy and minding their own business.

 

I fully understand that the DNR needs to enforce hunting laws. There is nothing wrong with officers walking up to hunters and asking them for their registration. But hovering an aircraft at 200 feet and scaring the hunting party and every animal in sight in order to spy on hunters makes absolutely no sense.

 

After hearing from these constituents, I crafted and amended a bill stating that DNR aircraft could not fly below 500 feet for normal hunter surveillance, unless game wardens had probable cause of wrongdoing. Failure to stick to this threshold would cost the pilot $1,000.

 

The bill was heard in our House environment policy committee and was received favorably by the chair of the group. During the hearing, the DNR testified that this incident was a rare exception to the rule.

 

That may be, but its small consolation to those hunters who had their hunting experience ruined. I’m left to wonder how many other area hunters have suffered a similar fate but just didn’t bother to report the problem.

 

The DNR has a job to do and I respect that, and the vast majority of our conservation officers do their job very well. But the overwhelming majority of deer hunters are also playing by the rules, so it seems pointless to harass them and potentially ruin their experience simply because watching them from the sky is easier than approaching them on foot.

 

Have a good weekend,

 

SteveWeekly Legislative Update Email

Now, please understand I’m not some anti-enforcement advocate with a chip on my shoulder when it comes to game wardens.   Quite the contrary.   However, I have worked in the criminal justice field (particularly criminal defense) and I can tell you how those folks entrusted to uphold the law need checks and balances on their powers just as much as the typical citizens needs clearly defined laws to guide their proper behavior.

I’ve seen first-hand how law officers will push the limits of their powers.   I’ve seen how sloppy job performance can be corrected by creative report writing.   Indeed, the very people who are badge wearing professionals entrusted to use proper procedure will at times take shortcuts or other inappropriate measures.   Oh, I’m sure the actions are sometimes justified in their minds because they are up against all odds when it comes to performance of their sworn duties.

All of that being said, Steve’s got it right when here in Minnesota for many families deer hunting comes down to just one weekend spent in the woods each year.   How can you maximize that recreational satisfaction when big government goes to such extremes to keep an eye on you in the manner he claims?

During the 35+ years I have been hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. I have seen the number of rules I must follow explode into a fairly large synopsis nowadays too large to even fit into one’s pocket.   It seems only fair and reasonable that if common sense doesn’t dictate the appropriate actions of law officers than we must write more rules that govern their behavior, as well.

The way I view it…it’s not about making a tough job even tougher by setting enforcement limits.   Instead, it’s giving those who wear the badge an opportunity to lead by example following their own rules first and foremost.   Kudos Rep. Drazkowski on a job well done and for the courage to make this change of policy!