# Dennis Anderson: DU initiative has five components



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dennis Anderson: DU initiative has five components 
Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune 
February 4, 2005

In recent years, Ducks Unlimited has stressed the importance of saving the Missouri Coteau region of North and South Dakota.

The Coteau -- a relatively unbroken stretch of fertile grasslands and wetlands -- extends approximately through the middle of both states, in a north-south direction. It produces most of the ducks hatched in the United States each spring.

Traditionally, farmers have considered the Coteau to be untillable. But recent developments in machinery, farmland chemicals and genetically modified crops have changed that and today, as never before, the Coteau is being converted to cropland.

All of which has prompted a rethinking by Ducks Unlimited officials in Minnesota. If the Coteau is so important, they asked themselves, and Ducks Unlimited --and all other duck-conservation groups in the country-- don't have enough money to save it at this time, how wise is it to spend available funds in Minnesota, where duck production potential is significantly less?

"Protecting the best of the best in the Coteau is paramount because once it's lost, it's expensive to get back, and even if you do, it's hard to restore to its original condition," said Jon Schneider, DU's manager of Minnesota conservation programs.

"It doesn't make sense to spend limited dollars in Minnesota to restore habitat, when you can protect five to 10 times as much habitat, and better habitat, in the Coteau with the same money."

Yet no one in DU considered giving up on Minnesota. Instead, Schneider said, they needed to refocus their efforts here.

Thus was born, recently, the group's Living Lakes initiative, the goal of which, generally, is to restore the state's large shallow lakes that are used, primarily, by ducks migrating through the state in spring and fall.

"The declining number of scaup [bluebills] were a major concern when we conceived the Living Lakes program," Schneider said. "But scaup alone won't benefit by this work. Our belief is that if we focus on the migration habitat that benefits scaup, other ducks will benefit as well."

DU recognizes their effort -- important because about 70 percent of ducks harvested in Minnesota originate elsewhere -- is just one piece of the puzzle, and that grasslands restored by Pheasants Forever, waterfowl production areas purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and wetland restoration projects overseen by the Department of Natural Resources also are important.

In fact, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division Director John Guenther has directed his waterfowl managers to develop a concise duck-recovery plan for Minnesota. The DNR plan will be part of efforts by conservationists leading to an April 2 rally at the Capitol in support of ducks, wetlands and clean water.

DU, the Minnesota Waterfowl Association, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other government agencies are expected to be involved in development of the recovery plan.

Included will be the five basic components of DU's Living Lakes initiative, including:

• Increasing the group's public policy efforts. This is a big step for DU in Minnesota, as it seeks to become more active in developing public policies that affect wetland and grassland habitats. As part of this effort, DU in Minnesota has formally joined the planning group, under the direction of Dave Zentner of Duluth, that is developing the conservation agenda for the April 2 rally.

• Active water management through engineering of water-control structures and fish barriers.

• Restoration of drained shallow lakes, among them, perhaps, 800-acre Moonshine Lake in Big Stone County.

• Restoration of small wetlands near large shallow lakes, as part of an attempt to improve the area's overall hydrology.

• Protection of shorelines around shallow lakes through conservation easements -- the first of which was recently donated on Lake Christina.

All of this comes with a big price tag: about $6 million a year (including support from DNR and other agencies), up from the $2 million the group now spends in Minnesota. Translation: Aggressive new fund-raising efforts will be needed.

All of which will be discussed at DU's state convention next weekend in St. Cloud.

Ambitious? Yes.

Necessary? Yes, if Minnesota is to save ducks and duck hunting.

Now the DNR needs to accelerate its efforts to integrate the Living Lakes initiative into its still broader Minnesota duck recovery plan -- a plan that makes sense to duck lovers and is worthy of their support.

Dennis Anderson is at

[email protected]


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

So DU's big plan for saving ducks and duck hunting in MN is to try to restore the same lakes they've been trying to restore for the last 3 decades? :roll:

A trained group of chimps could think of a better recovery plan than this.

I am so friggin' sick of all the "duck plans" for MN revolving around shallow lakes. To me this is a giant dissapointment to hear DU is taking the reins and to hear there plans are this; to do the same thing they've already tried doing and what seems like they've always done. Which is trying to do the impossible and restore a few historic shallow-duck lakes that simply can't be restored (at this point in time).

The problem is that no one drafting these plans has the intelligence to realize they're putting the cart before the horse. When you have a lake that is the epicenter of a basin, it's only going to be as good as the condition of the basin. Groups keep dumping money down a rathole by trying to restore lakes like Christina and Heron. They spend millions on rotenone applications to watch the lake clear up for two years and then turn back into a carp infested, chemical runoff mudhole. Then they have nothing but high dollar receipts and a lake that looks the same as it did before they "restored" it.

What needs to be done is this; take the millions they plan on wasting on the shallow lake initiave and use it to buy land. Buy sections of land and then pull out the tile and restore the countless small wetlands and plant the rest of it to native grasses. What MN really needs is small shallow wetlands (potholes) and grasslands. The sad thing is that the potholes have been drained for so long I think people must have forgot they were even there. Hence the continual focus on shallow lakes. Once there's enough land reverted to small wetlands and grasslands in a basin the lake will take care of itself.

Until then all you're doing is wasting precious money on temporarily clearing up a few lakes that used to be great. Besides, 10-15 small wetlands on a section of grassland will raise more ducks and attract more ducks than a 1000 acre shallow mudhole lake. So even if the lake can't be restored at least you have something besides a bunch of receipts for reotenone treatment.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

I agree with Jones. The drainage is the root of the problem. Plug up that tile. You have to have small wetlands mixed in with fields to get the habitat back to where it once was. It would be hard to calculate the loss of yield to the farmers in plugging up the tile so buying the best land outright would be the best long term solution IMO.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Yea, and I don't understand why I can't seem to win the lottery. I'm sure the MN Farm Bureau HAS NO SAY in reclaiming wetlands and farmland. Sure go ahead and rip out some tile; I'll buy the beer and donate my time. I think your idea Mr. Jones is spot on but does not reflect why DU can't do it.

You guys act like DU is making the choice to do shallow lakes rather than prairie and wetland restoration. I think the MN corn/soybean growers might have a problem with pulling tile too. I would encourage you to pick up the phone and call the Bismarck DU office or Mr. Scheider the DU biologist that lives in MN and find out the FACTS. You will find that the political pressure and $$ is the reason why.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

DK - I'm not minimizing the influence of the farm industry. If you go back and read some of my posts on this I've said that the largest hurdle to clear in establishing a lot of habitat will be the farm industry. That's why I don't think payments over time will work. The land needs to be purchased by the state or the conservation group to achieve LT results.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

If that's truly the case DK, then why even waste the money? I'm all for getting habitat on the ground in MN but if that means wasting $6 million to clear up a few shallow lakes for only a few years then to hell with it. Take that money and use it where it can permanently do some good; like buying land or easements in the couteau. Personally, I'd rather not see anymore money thrown down the ratholes named Christina, Heron and the like.

I'm sure there are some strings that have to be pulled to accomplish taking land out of production but I don't see why it is not something that can be accomplished. If a section of land was purchased by a private individual why can't they remove tile from it? I guess I was under the assumption that there aren't regulations that do not allow you to do that in MN but perhaps I'm wrong. PM me those numbers so I can get the facts straight.


----------

