Conflicts of conservation: Two cases indicate that money retains its long-held role

Two seemingly disparate conservation struggles, one in Minnesota that seeks to ban lead shot on some wildlife management areas, the other in Montana that has pitted a wealthy landowner against anglers wanting to ensure public river access, are in key ways linked.

Each highlights the inherent conflict between economics and conservation that celebrated Wisconsin ecologist Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) struggled with throughout his career.

Each also has dragged two wildlife habitat groups, Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited, otherwise known for their valued efforts to enhance and restore land and water, into the skirmishes, in the process revealing the trade-offs and compromises that forever have been part of conservation.

Americans, Leopold said, originally considered their country as something to be conquered, and they valued land and water initially only according to their ability to produce financial gain.

When extensive timber cutting, the industrial revolution, the expansion of agriculture and the mass production of automobiles inflicted significant wounds on the land, Leopold said, a reconsideration of its worth was required.

"Quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem,'' Leopold wrote in "A Sand County Almanac."

Instead, "Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Here in Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources has proposed that most hunters (deer hunters would be excluded) on state wildlife management areas in the southern part of the state be required to use nontoxic shot.

Lead shot-shells are now allowed on these areas, though unknown is the percentage of these cartridges expended annually, relative to nontoxic loads.

The concern, the DNR said, is that lead is a recognized toxin, and that pheasants and other wildlife, perhaps including songbirds and raptors, ingest lead pellets discharged by hunters.

No proof has been offered that lead distributed in this way on these areas harms wildlife or people.

(It's long been recognized that lead shot deposited by waterfowl hunters in shallow lakes and wetlands is ingested by ducks and other wildlife, sometimes resulting in death. For this reason, lead shells for waterfowl hunting have been banned nationwide since 1992.)

Because of its 35-year advocacy for pheasants and pheasant habitat, Pheasants Forever has been singled out for criticism by some who say the group is selling out to its corporate supporters.

"You have crawled into bed with lobbyists for Lead Inc.,'' one complainer said. "You support those that will spray lead on MY public land, to drain into MY water, which will be consumed by MY grandson.''

Pheasants Forever disagrees, saying the issue instead is the lack of research identifying lead as a problem on these lands. Absent such studies, the wishes of the group's members should prevail, say Pheasants Forever leaders, most of whom prefer to retain ammunition options.

• • •

Ducks Unlimited got itself into a similar bind in recent months in Montana when it fired Don Thomas as its longtime (15 years) magazine columnist over critical remarks he wrote in a different publication about James Cox Kennedy, a major Ducks Unlimited supporter.

River access (to the high watermark) generally is guaranteed to the public in Montana. As applied to his property, Kennedy disagreed but eventually lost in Montana's Supreme Court by a 5-2 vote but not before, according to reports, contributing $100,000 to the election campaign of one of the two justices who sided with him. (The case has been remanded to a lower court.)

Though Ducks Unlimited (membership: 605,000) is an organization mostly comprising "little people,'' it also has big-time supporters, one of whom is Kennedy, a former Ducks Unlimited Wetlands America Trust president and recipient of the group's Conservation Achievement award.

In fact, nationwide, Kennedy has donated millions to waterfowl conservation, most recently, along with David F. Grohne of Wilmington, Ill., endowing a $2 million chair in waterfowl and wetlands conservation at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Which helps to explain why Thomas, the Ducks Unlimited columnist (he was paid about $10,000 annually on a freelance basis), was fired after he wrote in a separate Montana publication that Kennedy's "apparent belief (is) that a remarkable body of Montana law establishing the public's right to recreate freely on the state's waterways does not apply to rich people.''

"We felt the article demonstrated a lack of fairness in vilifying a member of the DU family without allowing that person the opportunity to provide his perspective,'' Ducks Unlimited said in explanation.

Discussion:

Ducks Unlimited is run by a lot of good people, and the group does a lot of great work, including in Minnesota, on behalf of its members, many of whom contribute untold volunteer hours to keep the operation running.

The same is true for Pheasants Forever (disclosure: though no longer affiliated with the organization, I was its principle founder in 1982).

Yet both groups regularly must make tough choices.

Both would argue their choices often aren't between "right'' and "wrong'' but between which fork in the road will best help them reach their overall goals the most expediently, and which will sidetrack those efforts.

Pheasants Forever's opposition to the lead ban proposal is more complicated.

Lead is bad, that's a given, and it should be kept out of the environment as much as possible. Moreover, its removal from many Minnesota public hunting lands is inevitable, if not this year, then in five years, or 10.

Pheasants Forever should prepare its members for this eventuality by educating them through its magazine.

The DNR, meanwhile, which routinely professes its science-based underpinnings, could aid its case by proving through research the problem it says exists.

But if, as some allege, Pheasants Forever is a hypocrite in this case — and it is, partially, professing its love of the natural world while opposing the lead ban — so are others, including the DNR.

And no one is proposing a ban on lead fishing tackle, including the DNR.

Maybe that's because none of us is as pure, or as free from influence, as we profess.

As Leopold said: "We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve, but to strive.''

Dennis Anderson danderson@startribune.com