At the brink: Upcoming Pheasant Summit could be a turning point

In advance of the Pheasant Summit to be held Saturday in Marshall, upland hunters appear to be split into two camps.

One suggests the effort is a waste of time, and that any benefit of the gathering will accrue not to pheasants, but to Gov. Mark Dayton and his Department of Natural Resources, whose appearances and words will create the illusion of something good happening while, in fact, little or nothing will come of it.

The other camp doesn't necessarily disagree but figures it can't hurt, and perhaps might help, to put concerned parties in one place on a winter Saturday to discuss farmland conservation.

Some observations:

• Minnesota office holders have spent the past 150 years ensuring that the state's conservation advocates are at a substantial political disadvantage to development and agriculture advocates.

• Simplified, the scheme works this way: Business and agriculture have significant influence with the governor and Legislature, and both, in turn, control the Department of Natural Resources (and partner agencies). The result: Notwithstanding the hand-wringing of state conservationists over the years, more than 85 percent of wetlands in the state's south and west have been drained and replaced with cropland. Ditto most of its native prairies. The metro also has its share of environmental problems, many of which it washes downstream.

• Historically, most Minnesotans haven't cared about these losses. But that's changing, now that some of our lakes are too contaminated for swimming, some of our wells pump nitrates as well as drinking water, and some of our rivers carry toxic mixes of farmland chemicals.

• Comes now the Pheasant Summit and its promise, if only implied, that something good will come of it, not only for upland wildlife, but for the state's environment.

How to gauge, in retrospect, whether it was worthy of the time and money spent, or a waste of same?

Use this handy-dandy pocket scorecard (circle Yes or No):

Question: Did Gov. Dayton direct Commissioner Tom Landwehr to appoint someone in his agency whose specific charge is to coordinate, monitor and ultimately increase and manage more effectively upland habitat in the pheasant range, and whose success or failure at this effort will be measured at specified intervals by agreed-upon metrics? (This would include intensified habitat management of state wildlife management areas.) Or will the DNR continue its present tack, in which everyone in the agency is responsible, kind-of, and no one is held accountable? Yes. No.

Question: Did Gov. Dayton commit his administration to enforcement of the state's waterway buffering laws that require grass strips — rather than fertilizer-rich corn and soybeans — to be planted along farmland drainage ditches and rivers? Yes. No.

Question: Did Gov. Dayton direct the DNR to use whatever marketing, advertising or PR means necessary to urge farmers and other landowners to delay roadside mowing until pheasant chicks and other hatchlings are off the nest? Yes. No.

A lot — a lot — more can and should be done. But if those keeping score don't circle "Yes'' four times at the Pheasant Summit Saturday, it ain't gonna matter.