Sometimes getting a consensus can be darned near impossible.

That was the main thing I took away from a workshop on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (NWFR) in Onalaska, Wisconsin, on June 23.

I sat around a table with seven other people discussing specific parts of the plan for two hours that night.

Most of the people in our group were duck hunters, and they pretty much did agree that NWFRís recommendations stunk. They wanted option A, no action.

But that was our table. I talked to other people who felt just the opposite, that the proposed changes were good for the future of the refuge.

For example, our group thought the proposed 25-shotgun shell limit was ridiculous. (I heard that word used many times.) Yet a man from another group said they unanimously approved the idea. They felt that if you canít get your ducks with 25 shells, perhaps you should not be hunting.

It will make for some interesting decision-making for the refuge managers and staff. They will have to balance public input with their own sense of the river.

Iím probably in the minority here, but I actually trust the refuge managers and employees. Iíve seen them at work. They know the river, they study it, they see where itís been and where itís going. They see the big picture, if you will.

Thatís not to say duck hunters, fishermen, and assorted ìriver ratsî (I use that term as a compliment) donít know the river and donít have wisdom or donít have the river in mind. Most of those folks are quite respectful of the river.

But local decisions shouldnít always lie with local people. Our country is full of examples of that. People in Montana and Wyoming opposed making national parks in California, Wyoming, and Montana. Yet Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Glacier are national treasures now.

People in Ely, Minnesota, opposed making the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness non-motorized, and banning snowmobiles. Itís still a touchy subject. Yet that area is the most widely visited wilderness area in the United States. Couldnít have been such a dumb decision after all.

People opposed the Minnesota DNR buying up acreage in the 1960s and making state forests out of them. Looks like a good move now.

The list goes on and on.

I donít like some of the NWFRís recommendations either. Making so many areas electric motors-only really does raise safety issues. There are times on the river when the weather changes and you have to have a quick and reliable means to get to shore.

I agreed with the comments from several people in my group that posting no-wake signs, or making areas ìvoluntary avoidanceî areas, will get most people to slow down or to stay out. Like I said earlier, most people who use the river are respectful of things like that. But when people are forced to do something, their natural reaction is to rebel against it, Jim Kapellas of La Crosse said. Very true.

The same thing applies to a proposal to have people remove their own feces from islands. Apparently that is a problem on some of the heavily-camped islands. Rather than making it a rule (and a rather unpleasant one to enforce), why not post signs asking people to please remove their waste?

These are the kinds of things that the refuge managers will be mulling over. I think theyíll make some wise decisions. I commend the NWFR for doing such a thorough job of seeking public input.

Top of Page

Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475

E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com