# Farmers vs "Duck Huggers" Minot Daily News



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

This letter to the editor appeared in the Sunday edition of the Minot Daily News.
:eyeroll:

Farmers vs. 'duck-huggers'

Wes Tossett

Minot

In 2005 we had a record number of wildfires and a record number of acres of forests burned over. This year we are well on our way to breaking both of those records, again. This disaster is the direct result of the enviro-extremists, like the Sierra Club infiltrating all levels of the Forest Service and bringing continuing litigation to stop all logging, thinning and otherwise progressive management of our forest resources.

When comparing 1900 year pictures of the Black Hills and Rocky Mountain scenes, it is estimated that we have about twice as many trees west of the Mississippi now as we had then, but they are too thick, undersized, diseased, subject to pine beetle damage and fire storms, plus they are lowering local water tables, so that springs and creeks are drying up. Roadless and primitive areas are expanding all over, so that fire fighting is hampered drastically.

In the last couple of years I have been reading bits and pieces in all of my conservation propaganda that I receive about how Ducks Unlimited is forging a "Memorandum of Understanding" with USDA. A little while later I saw where D.U. just signed a "working agreement" with NRCS and now they have formed a "partnership" with FSA. The fruits of this latest endeavor were announced, not at some agricultural forum or farm meeting, but rather at a North American Duck Symposium. It targeted the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and especially the Dakotas, in spite of the fact that virtually all of the agriculture groups in these states have resolutions calling for less land retirement programs in their respective states.

When Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns was at the North Dakota State Fair in 2005, he showed surprise at the extent of this opposition and acknowledged there might be "some" down-sides. This latest scheme will add 100,000 additional acres of CRP to this region with 40,000 in North Dakota and another 40,000 in South Dakota, which is Ducks Unlimited's prime target area. Now that this infiltration of USDA by a "wildlife, at any cost, propagation group" is now out in the open for all to see, will the National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club be far behind?

This latest move by outside interests to interfere with our markets, comes at the same time as our marketing guru's are speculating as to how high 2007 crop bids are going to have to be, in order to assure adequate supplies for our oil seed and row crops this coming year.

We, in the Dakotas, think our walleye fishing industry is a $2 million to $3 million industry, which is important to our state's economy, but is doesn't hold a candle to the winter-long duck hunting industry of Arkansas and its surrounding neighbors of Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. All of these states, plus Ducks Unlimited, realize that if the Dakotas don't raise their ducks, they can't shoot them. These "fat cat" Ducks Unlimited boosters, with their $3.000-$5,000 Berettas and their $1,000-$2,000 retrievers think it's great sport if they lay waste to our barren prairies - after all - they are good ol' boys.

This latest scheme, by the "wildlifers at any cost," is to raise an additional 60,000 ducks per year. The last time I checked, there wasn't a single species of prairie duck that was endangered, or even threatened.

Ron Reynolds, a biologist with the federal Fish and Wildlife Service in Bismarck, was quoted in one Associated Press article as stating "If you hunt ducks, study ducks, eat ducks, look at ducks, or think about ducks, you will like (the plan)." Read that again. What about if you're a young farmer and you have to compete with your own federal government on land rental rates and then unwillingly feed these ducks out of your own pocket at the same time. "Duck huggers" like "tree huggers" don't live in the real world and it should be against the law for government agencies to partner with lobbying organizations. Who knows, maybe PETA will be next.

Some cities, like Lakota, have already wised up and are not scheduling any Ducks Unlimited "fun nights," but sad to say they are the exception. I feel that any grain farmer in the Dakotas who belongs to Ducks Unlimited or participates in one of their alcohol enhanced fundraisers is short-sighted, stupid and naive.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Evidently this guy hasn't read the study done by the Un. of Tenn. about CRP.It saves billions of $$$$ of taxpayers money over lower prices for crops because of higher acres of cropland which would result in billions in subsidies.

If I have a choice of using my tax $$$$ for CRP or crop subsidies.....that's a no brainer.

I hope the next farm bill increases CRP to the 45 million acres authorized.Saves us even more money.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The name of the author seems familar but I can't place it?


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Dick, I was thinking the same thing. I want to say he had the bar in Tolley at one time but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Wes Tossett, former President of LAND

Just another one of the LAND boys

:eyeroll:

This is not his first shot and I am sure not his last.

Bob


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When I was young and growing up on the farm we put some of out land in what was called soil bank. My dad had a heart attack, and I was only in the seventh grade so it was hard to take care of everything by myself. Feeding 70 head of cattle by hand, because the farmhand was broke down was enough work for me. 
Anyway it was in those years that I decided I would rather be paid for conservation practices than have support prices. I don't live on a farm now, but I feel the same now as I did then. These practices are not only good for ducks, they are good for the future of agriculture.
I remember the 80 acres we had at the base of the hills in the Sheyenne River valley. We trapped three feet of the neighbors topsoil in the valley of this 80 acres, and six inches on the hill tops. It was in soil bank for seven years.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here are a few references to Wes.



> Dyer said many farmers have shifted their position in recent years, adhering more to the principles of strict wetland management.
> 
> But not all farmers.
> 
> ...


Another snippet



> Mr. Wes Tossett presented testimony on the elk study. He said this state received the elk from other states. He said this state should return the favor and provide elk to other states. He said it appears this state is taking an isolationist stance when it does not export elk and limits nonresident hunters.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

This Tossett is just the kind of farmer that makes me dislike farmers so much. He's where my stereotypes of farmers come from. I've made it my personal goal to purchase as much farmland as I can from the farmers and let it go wild. No farmer will ever touch land that I own.

I'm giving it back to the animals. Of course this benifits me also (hunting). It just sickens me when I see farmers encroaching on the right-of-way of roads and wetlands.  God forbid a pheasant can have 10 feet of grass along the raod. Seems like a lot of them will take and take till there is no more.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Farm subsidies or habitat production ??? As others have pointed out - a no brainer! 
I'd better change my name if I ever meet this guy!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> "We've paid for this land with our blood, sweat, oil and tears.


He is right. There is some oil over there that helped pay for that land.

I will have to see if he has any on his land. Not sure.


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

It's nice to see you've gotten around to bashing farmers. The thing to remember about farm subsidies is that though the politicians will tell you it's about saving the family farm, it is really about cheap food for the rest of the country. Any time you subsidize something you get more of it.


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

Ruger1, your where my stereotype of a "NR" comes from!!


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Roughrider, what kind of farmer are you? Look at yourself before you criticize me.

And how would you know anything about my hunting ability, ethics, or skill? I'm a bad person because I think most famers are greedy and lazy? Sure, I know some that are good guys who deserve my respect. But if your farming or haying the ditch banks and the windrows, I've got no time for you.

But thanks for your input anyway.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Excessive payments.....This morning's paper said congress is pushing for an additional $6.5 billion on top of the $20 billion already given to farmers for regular government payments.

$1.8 billion will go to every farmer in the program regardless of where they farm or what they grow,including $6 million to Hawaii sugar cane growers.....big drought there I guess. :eyeroll:

Supposedly the extra money is to offset high fuel costs......I drive 20 miles to work every day.....shouldn't I get high fuel cost subsidies?

Hopefully GWB won't go for this pork.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Yes you should Ken, we all should get fuel subsidies for driving to work. It affects everyone who drives to work, not just farmers and other who get subsidies. But, that's our government for ya.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Lakota isn't going to sell out to DU? That's because that area has already sold out to the outfitters! Heck, even the hotel owner up there is an outfitter.


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

Did I criticize you? Read your first post, because of your own ignorance you judged me before you knew anything about me. How do you know how we farm? And because you don't farm you are more of a conservationist than me? We farmers are greedy and lazy?


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Roughrider, your sure trying to criticize. Unless you are Mr Tossett, then I didn't take a shot at you specifically.

Of course if you mow/hay and farm ditchbanks, edges of wetlands, and windrows. Leaving nothing for any wild creates that were here long before us, and have more claim to the land then we will ever have. Then yeah, my comments are directed directly at you (roughrider).

Thanks though. Am I more conservationist? You tell me. You know how I manage my lands. What do you do with yours? How do you farm? What do you do that benifits the other animals that inhabit your lands? How do your ditches look, wetlands, fields in the winter (tilled under or harvested and left standing stuble)?


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

You took a shot at me by sterotyping me as "Mr Tossett." Would you find it fair if I lumped you in with a small percentage of radical thinkers in your chosen trade? You gave me no insight as to how you manage your land, all you have said is that you let it "go wild" and obviously don't hay. What does "go wild" mean? 
Let me ask you how much of your land is posted? Be honest. Typically if land is bought for the sole purpose of hunting and improving wildlife usage it is posted. But if land is dual purpose (i.e.farming, hunting) it is more likely open to sportsman.
Do you not think that the crops in our fields provide food and cover for all types of wildlife, summer and winter. We don't hay more than we have to or drain more than we need to. It's simple really, the more we take care of our land the more it will give back. If you negelct your land will you see a loss of income or will you just see a few less ducks and deer? We make our living from the land. We care about the land because it puts food on our table and a roof over our heads. Don't tell me farmers are not conservationists.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Roughrider,

Well then I owe you an apology. You are one of the farmers that deserve my respect and share my ideals. Obviously I would be impressed if I drove past you farm.

My whole point was how many times I was not impressed or downright upset to see some farming practices at some farms. I'm pretty sure you know the what those famrs look like. You've seen them to.

All my lands are posted. I didn't buy them and manage them for others to benifit from my hard work. Except my family and friends of course.



> Would you find it fair if I lumped you in with a small percentage of radical thinkers in your chosen trade?


I don't know if there are many radical thinkers in the Cardiology trade. But that's a funny thought. Thanks for that laugh.

To me, going wild means meeting with Pheasants Forever, D.U. and any other appropriate organization to put my lands back to "native". Native grasslands, wetlands, and the like.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

We need more roughriders and less rugers!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

BS djleye,

We need both. We need people like ruger to buy and manage land that should never have been farmed and we need farmers like roughrider to farm land in a sustainable manner.

What we really need is both sides to understand that they both have different goals but they can both work together for the benefit of everyone.

So what if ruger posts his land and doesn't let anyone else hunt it. That is land that is producing wildlife and it also takes pressure off of other places because he and his family and friends are hunting his property. Property that without his work would not exist.

See the big picture guys.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

BS djleye,

In my particular case, what I do benifits many other hunters. The amounts of land that I have aren't nearly enough to have a monopoly on the game. I know for a fact that many of the deer and turkeys that I see on my farms are shot on other farms. I'm sure that goes the same for the pheasants, but they are a little less likely to leave food, cover, and water. I do my best to give them everything that they want so they'll stay. But they are wild animals with minds of thier own.

Another way to think of it. I'm a non-resident to most of my farms. that means I don't get to hunt them much. Which essentially makes them a refuge for most the hunting season. And we all know what happens when game is constantly pressured with no refuge in the area. They leave the area. In that respect, again I am helping other hunters and the game.

All the lands that are tilled, drained, cut, and burned. We need to try and save some of it for the game and non-game animals alike.

If we have all the corn and beans we need to eat, but no nature to enjoy, then what's the point?


----------

