Anderson, Pheasants and Conservation

D

Daisybuck

New member
Wherever you may fall on this topic, this was a powerful, well-written and a bit scary column in the Star Tribune. Having read some of our Iowa members' concerns about the state of their bird population, this is a heck of a good reason to contribute to the habitat protection organization or organizations of your choice.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/129499658.html

I want my boys, 3 and 5, to be able to enjoy this sport as much or more than I have.
 
I think the new Walk in Program is a great idea. Mother Nature is out of our control, so the winter and spring nesting conditions can't be changed.

I voted for the Outdoor Amendment. I can't see that hurting anything but some pocket books.

I don't see the same doom and gloom as Anderson, but I haven't hunted as long either and don't know how it was.

Things don't get subsidized if they can make it on their own.
 
We are at a critical time. Available habitat in farmland wildlife areas has fallen dramatically since 2007. Even more acres will be at stake in the next Farm Bill. Having said that IMO Anderson does a really poor job portraying the issue.

How we do agriculture in this country isn't sustainable long-term. We put too many chemicals and nutrients in the waterways, we don't conserve soil, we destroy diversity and create row crop monocultures etc. etc.. All of the true long-term costs of doing agri-business today basically get washed downstream or pushed out into the future for someone else to pay.

Anderson (and many of us) talk way to much in terms pheasant numbers and hunting opportunities. What really matters is soil conservation, clean water & sustainable bio-diversity. If we truly acheive those three goals the sport of hunting and pheasants (not to mention countless other upland species) will survive too. A nice secondary benefit to what has to be the primary goal.

In a time when government spending is being scrutinized from every angle I want to make my business case for continued funding based on the long-term environmental benefits that will be realized by all citizens not just us pheasant hunters.
 
I get your point and maybe I should re-read the article -- I think that what he's driving at is, for example in my cases, when I'm upside-down on my house, cancelled cable TV and clipping coupons, I would not worry too much about how the foods coming -- just keep it cheap and plentiful. It is as a hunter and outdoorsman that I have to keep one eye on habitat and wild spaces. I think Anderson uses pheasants as means to illustrate the larger issue.
 
Downtown Bang! said:
Anderson (and many of us) talk way to much in terms pheasant numbers and hunting opportunities. What really matters is soil conservation, clean water & sustainable bio-diversity. If we truly acheive those three goals the sport of hunting and pheasants (not to mention countless other upland species) will survive too. A nice secondary benefit to what has to be the primary goal.
Click to expand...

Precisely! When the non-hunting crowds read something like this article, they focus on our desire for better bird populations and tend to forget (at least ignore) the other implications. Read some of the comments below his article. He didn't persuade the folks on the other side of the issue even a little bit:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top