Ambivalence means having mixed views or feelings on a given issue or topic. It's the perfect word to describe how many upper Midwest agriculturalists feel about wildlife.
As a general rule, most of us enjoy having some wildlife, or at least some species of wildlife, in and above our fields, pasture and farmsteads. It's a connection to nature that can enrich and satisfy. I think of the first time I saw a bald eagle, its habitat greatly expanded, flying majestically above my family's farmland. (The image lost a little luster when I realized the eagle was swooping down to eat the guts of a deer we'd just shot and gutted, though the sight of the eagle was pretty cool nonetheless.)
ADVERTISEMENT
But the enjoyability of having wildlife around can vary greatly depending on both the type of animal and the individual priorities and personality of an agriculturalist. Some types of wildlife are just more likeable, for lack of a better word, and some agriculturalists just enjoy wildlife more than their neighbors.
At the risk of overgeneralization, I think most wildlife, from an ag perspective, falls into three main categories: the really likeable, the really unlikeable and ones that are simultaneously both. There will be disagreement about which types of wildlife belong in the differing categories, but the basic concept seems sound to me.
The really likeable group consists mainly of wildlife that create great economic value or are physically appealing or both. Pheasants certainly belong in this group; the South Dakota Department of Tourism estimates pheasant hunting generates $223 million in retail economic impact annually and an additional $111 million in salaries annually.
And though it's impossible to quantify emotional satisfaction, hunting pheasants brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Bald eagles, for their part, are just flat-out fun to watch. Other animals, at least for some of us, are, too.
At the other extreme is wildlife that few agriculturalists want to see. Enormous flocks of blackbirds that ravage sunflower fields and packs of coyotes that take down livestock are two of the worst villains in my book. I'm not a biologist, but I realize that the birds and coyotes probably play some useful role in their ecosystems. Please drop me a line if you can help me understand what those benefits might be. Still, I would really like having fewer blackbirds and coyotes.
Beavers are the "bad" type of wildlife that I personally detest the most. They've destroyed countless trees in and near the portion of North Dakota's Sheyenne River Valley where I grew up and subsequently have spent big chunks of my life. I've driven literally thousands of times past beautiful trees, especially oak, that they've ruined. Yeah, I'm a tree guy and probably overvalue those ruined trees, but to me, they're far more important than the so-called "nature's engineers." And I'm not the only person who feels that way.
Most controversial are types of wildlife that bring obvious enjoyment and obvious damage. Deer, it seems to me, are easily the most outstanding example. Hunting them (which I've done for 50 years) can be a lot of fun. So is spying a big-antlered buck or watching a doe and her tiny fawn. On the other hand, the damage done by deer to growing crops and haystacks is aggravating and financially painful.
ADVERTISEMENT
I don't know what's the right and proper role of wildlife in ag. Nobody else does, either. Opinions and priorities vary so greatly that a one-size-fits-all answer is impossible. But there's one thing I am sure of: I could do with a lot fewer blackbirds, coyotes and especially those accursed beavers.
One last suggestion: The title of this column is adapted from the song "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" in "The Wizard of Oz." If your children or grandchildren have never seen this classic movie, please consider watching it with them this winter. After all, its star, Dorothy, is a brave and wise Kansas farm girl.
Jonathan Knutson is a former Agweek reporter. He grew up on a farm and spent his career covering agriculture. He can be reached at packerfanknutson@gmail.com.
The Trust Project
