Make a Stand for Free Market Ranching: Support Tony Dean Grassland!

Mr. Kurtz brings to my attention commentary on another good bill Thune and the Republicans are holding hostage for the sake of more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Well-traveled George Wuerthner at New West observes that S. 3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act, would preserve our swiftly dwindling native prairie. Wuerthner also finds it ironic that a bill bearing Tony Dean's name would (contrary to Kristi Noem's willfull ignorance) protect existing grazing rights:

America has very little of its native prairie in any protected status. Most of the plains have been carved up by till farming, and the rest is grazed by livestock. Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would correct this by designating 48,000 acres as wilderness in the Indian Creek, Red Shirt and Chalk Hills areas of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland on the borders of Badlands NP. Walking these vast open breathing spaces reminds me of being on the vastness of tundra in Alaska. It’s a sense of freedom that is more difficult to experience in more forested terrain. As with any designated wilderness, livestock grazing will continue. This is particularly ironic since Tony Dean, who was an outdoor writer in South Dakota, railed against welfare ranchers and their impact on the state for decades. However language could be inserted into the legislation to permit buyouts of grazing privileges so that eventually bison, not cattle, will be grazing these lands [George Wuerthner, "Omnibus Wilderness Bill Likely," New West, 2010.11.29].

Welfare ranchers? Did Tony Dean say that?

Well, he let Sam Hurst say it on his website, and in reference to this very land:

Welfare Ranchers on Public Lands," Tony Dean Outdoors, 2006]

Dean himself called the no-bid grazing leases on public lands "welfare ranching" in this article. Neither Hurst nor Dean was advocating eco-socialism. They argue for ending subsidies and letting the free market rule.

The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would create a unique national grasslands wilderness. It's a good idea. So is ending the market-skewing, deficit-widening subsidy to a handful of ranchers who plea for socialism. Why don't John Thune and Kristi Noem get that?

Stimulus Buys Madison Trail Signs

Hey, Kristi! Here's more federal money for you to send back to Washington. That nasty, dirty stimulus package just spent $14,213 on trailhead signs for 13 South Dakota towns, including Madison.

I'll admit, this tiny sliver of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act looks pretty nickel-and-dimey. Spending several thousands dollars on signs seems to be about as good for the economy and the general welfare as spending thousands of dollars on banners to hang on Madison's lightpoles to remind everyone to keep looking for the Unexpected™. It certainly doesn't put anyone else to work in Madison: Ted LaFleur and his crew will just add those signs to their long work list.

The intent of the Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative includes increasing physical activity and decreasing obesity. These signs address these goals only indirectly. The trails are already there; in Madison, people won't see these signs until they've already made the decision to go walk or bike on these trails. Maybe the signs vaguely increase the enjoyment trail users experience and thus induce folks to come back for more walks... but I'd have a hard time floating that line in a debate with Rep.-Elect Noem and others determined to criticize the stimulus that they accepted to save the state budget.

Now surely some wood shop somewhere in America got a really nice order for couple thousand big signs that kept their machines turning and workers ratcheting and staining for a few more days. In return, we get an innocuous, durable product that makes our trails a little more attractive and useful. Back in the 1930s, the CCC and WPA also put up signs alongside all of their useful public works. The signs don't seem like the best possible investment of stimulus dollars, but I guess they're jsut part of the total program.

--------------------------
Bonus Sign Snark: If we have to spend stimulus money on signs, maybe the Madison Chamber could apply for a grant to get a sign out in front of the Depot that motorists could actually read.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Poachers Filch Fauna, Forfeit $14K

Now that was expensive antelope meat... and they didn't even get to keep it!

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks announced Thursday that eight hunters have been fined $14,000 for a string of hunting violations. Conservation Officer Josh Carr stopped a big group of pheasant hunters in Stanley County for a routine license check. Officer Carr found the party had basically poached a whole bunch of antelope out in Butte and Harding counties. The perps and their fines (as listed by GF&P):

• Randy Malterud, 44, of Watertown, S.D. Fraud to obtain a big game license, unlawful possession of big game and failure to tag big game. Fines and court costs of $852, one-year loss of hunting privileges
• Glynn Grantham, 35, of Houston Texas. Misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act, $525 fine, $8,000 in restitution
• Wesley Grantham, 42, of Hayti, S.D. Five counts of unlawful possession of big game, $500 fine and court costs, 30 days in jail, 30 days suspended, one-year of loss of hunting privileges
• Brian Willard, 42, of West Des Moines, Iowa. Misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act, $525 fine, $3,000 in restitution and forfeit antelope meat
• Kenneth Willard, 68, of Wray, Colo. Misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act, $525 fine and forfeit antelope meat
• Michael Schwartz, 39, of Watertown, S.D. Transportation of big game without head or hide, $127 fine and court costs
• Jonathan Fox, 29 of Cypress, Texas. Improper tagging of game, $135 fine and court costs
• Chad Olson, 38, of Watertown, S.D. Lending a big game tag, $300 fine and court costs, five days jail, five days suspended, one-year loss of hunting privileges

Key point from GF&P's Supervisor John Murphy: "Perhaps the most disturbing part of this incident was the number of youth involved in the hunt.... While none of the youth were charged with wildlife crimes, the actions of the adults in the group set a very poor example for the young hunters."

Poor example indeed. Jerks like this who take kids out to hunt and teach them they don't have to follow the rules make it awfully hard for South Dakotans who do follow the rules to maintain the trust of landowners, voters, and elected officials and continue the great tradition of South Dakota hunting. Hunters have an obligation to teach their kids respect: respect for their weapons, respect for the land, and respect for the law. If you can't handle that obligation, you can't handle a rifle or a bow.

p.s.: A genealogically inclined reader notes that Wesley Grantham of Hayti, S.D., is husband of Cindy (Arnold) Grantham, who is a campaign donor to and sister of South Dakota's GOP candidate for U.S. House Kristi (Arnold) Noem. Now we can't hold stupid behavior by a brother-in-law against a person, but uff da—one must hear some wild stories about run-ins with the law (and morals thereto) at Arnold/Noem/Grantham family reunions.

Noem Didn't Read Whole Wilderness Bill Before Blasting It

I thought after hammering out ten posts on the State Fair U.S. House debate, I'd be done with Kristi Noem for a while. But Princess Kristi keeps spinning the hits.

Location of first national grassland wilderness (blue zones), proposed in Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. Click image to enlarge. [Image courtesy of South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition]

After trumpeting her opposition to Senator Tim Johnson's really good proposal to create the first national grassland wilderness right here in South Dakota, Kristi Noem faced some questions... like did you read the bill?

Ask Noem a question, and that's usually about when the wheels come off:

Noem said she has read “most” of the bill and feels informed on it. She voted for a resolution in the state House this past session to oppose the designation [Tom Lawrence, "Noem Opposes Wilderness Legislation," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.09.09].

OpenCongress.org measures S.3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010, at about six pages. Princess Kristi couldn't take time to read all of six pages. She apparently just read the talking points Senator Thune handed her.

Had Noem read the actual bill (or even my humble blog coverage thereof from June), she would have learned that nearly every point of opposition she raises to the bill is bogus:

1. "I believe this federal land grab is a solution in search of a problem." False: this bill takes no land away from private owners. The wilderness area is already entirely federal lands.
   
2. "We should continue what has worked in order to preserve and protect these lands and to ensure these lands are available to be enjoyed by the public." True... and S. 3310 continues current practices. Current grazing rights are protected. Current state fish and wildlife management practices are protected. Fire, critter, and disease management practices are continued. Access by soldiers, Indians, and private landowners is protected. We just won't go in and sell off this land for further development.
3. "It would threaten the rights and livelihoods of those with grazing permits in the proposed wilderness areas..." False.
4. "...it also has the potential to compromise the control of forest fires, prairie dogs, and noxious weeds in the designated areas." False and false.
5. "Our federal forests have been neglected and mismanaged by the bureaucracy and now we are dealing with an extremely serious pine beetle epidemic and the threat of catastrophic fire." Fa—what? Federal management will not lead to a pine beetle infestation of grasslands. And the catastrophic fire risk in the Black Hills comes from all of us (yup, my fault, too) wanting nice thick stands of pine for pretty pictures as well as residential developments packed hither and yon right where good healthy forest fires might blow through.
6. "There is overwhelming local opposition to S 3310." False! The only survey out there shows Pennington County voters favor the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act by a 61% to 34%. Among Custer County voters, the split is 53% for, 39% against. Noem's boosters have cited smaller poll margins than that as signs of overwhelming support for their candidate.
   

That's what you get when you hurry to get things done. Kristi, you really need to take the advice of your own Tea Party boosters and fearless leader John Boehner: Read the bill.

And stop saying silly things that make my blogging far too easy.

Now if we can just get Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin to cut the crap and endorse Senator Johnson's really good bill.

Feds Fail to Enforce River Law: Time for SD to Act!

Rebecca Terk points out we have our own need for some Arizona-style, federal-authority-usurping legislation right here in South Dakota. She noted that on the Missouri River near her home, people break the law regularly by running jet skis in the restricted waters of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The National Park Service banned personal watercraft from WSRA-designated stretches of the Missouri in 2000, citing damage to wildlife, oil pollution, conflict with other more mellow recreationists, noise pollution (hear hear!), and high accident and injury rates. But the jetskiers keep rop-rop-roaring along the protected waterway in flagrant violation of federal law.

Terk says she has contacted the local heat to go after these lawbreakers. Their response: yup, they're illegal, but we can't touch 'em. Only a federal agent can enforce federal law, and the National Park Service hasn't even stationed a ranger in the area.

Well, who are we to let a little thing like federal jurisdiction stop us from enforcing the laws of the land? South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is filing a friend of the court brief supporting Arizona's effort to usurp federal authority on immigration law. AG Jackley justifies our state's involvement by saying illegal immigration "is really a public safety issue." GOP House candidate Kristi Noem favors expanding state government power to enforce laws when the feds fail to do so.

When the 2011 South Dakota Legislature gets on its high horse and puts off working on the budget to pass grandstanding legislation on immigration (and they're already chomping at the bit to do so), they should consider expanding any such proposal to a general declaration that South Dakota's sheriffs, city cops, Highway Patrol, and game wardens will gladly enforce any law that the federal government isn't... including the ban on jet skis on the Missouri downstream from Yankton.

After all, our support for Arizona's immigration law isn't just about those darned Mexicans. It's about our unwavering support for the rule of law and strong government... right?

-------------------------
Bonus Fun Fact: Congressman John Thune was outraged when this ban was announced in 2000. He demanded the National Park Service reopen the issue for public comment. NPS did so. 82% of the folks who commented supported the ban.

New Bike Trail Spur Paved Along Highway 19

Is that new pavement I see? Let's ride!

Crews have finished laying the pavement for the new bike trail spur that connects the main Madison–Johnson's Point trail with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office on Highway 19. Paving included a nice little parking spot at the USFW headquarters entrance... because heaven knows nothing will fly in Madison without lots and lots of parking. (You can see all the parking I needed up by the wetlands kiosk.)

Yay for trees! This shady copse greets riders at the south trailhead.

Ah, fresh asphalt. Zoom!

Yeah, soft shoulder. Not to worry—I'm sure the sity will send out our man Ted LaFleur and the rake crew with some grass and wildflower seed, and we'll be pedaling past prairie pasque presently.


Up the hill toward the Highway 19–34 intersection—Most of this spur, like the main trail, is out in the open. Perhaps the Lake Madison Sanitary District will do riders a favor and plant some trees alongside the west edge of their containment ponds. After all, do visitors really need a clear view of our admittedly glorious sewage treatment facilities?

View south from the trail intersection—The ride from USFW HQ to the 19–34 intersection is just 0.7 miles, but it's a nice addition to the 4.2 miles that parallels 34 from town out to Lake Madison. Next priorities: extending this spur all the way down to the public access area and the mondo-cool mountain bike park we could build on the old gravel pit, then giving riders an actual loop! Riders love loops!

Boost Rural Entrepreneurship: Build Bike Trails?

...and support small firms!

As the Madison City Commission prepares to make its case to the public for building a bike trail to Lake Herman, the commissioners might want to keep a copy of this blog post on outdoor amenities in their back pockets. Mike Knutson at Reimagine Rural summarizes a USDA/U. Tennessee study on "The Rural Growth Trifecta: Outdoor Amenities, Creative Class and Entrepreneurial Context." Say Knutson and the professors:

1. More people are looking to move out of urban areas (in other words, there are more fish coming! Cast your line, rural economic developers!)
   
2. Rural towns with outdoor amenities draw more creative folks, see more entrepreneurial action, and generate more jobs.
3. Rural towns lacking outdoor amenities tend to draw more folks who fill factory jobs but fewer folks who create new jobs.

So if I take this summary correctly, building more bike trails could support building more jobs. (I'm telling you, build the Lake Herman Loop, and we'll be in high cotton!)

Of course, manmade features like recreation trails would only make up a tiny portion of outdoor amenities. The study measures outdoor amenities by the following characteristics:

• January sunshine
• January temperature
• July humidity
• July temperature
• topographic variation (hills! vistas!)
• water area (Lake Herman!)
• mix of forest and open space (plant more trees... but not too many! the optimal forestation amount on this scale appears to be between 41% and 64%)
• tourism (visitors and residents are attracted by similar features)

Alas, put all those things together, and we prairie folks have our work cut out for us. This map from page 10 of the study shows we South Dakotans sit right in the middle of the least outdoor-amenitous area of the nation:

Source: David McGranahan, Timothy Wojan and Dayton Lambert, “The rural growth trifecta: outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context,” Journal of Economic Geography Advanced Access, May 17, 2010.

Uff da. With everywhere but the Black Hills and the Badlands falling into the bottom quarter of the outdoor amenity scale, most of South Dakota has a hard row to hoe in selling itself to the migratory creative class. I would suggest that we need to make the most of what watery, woody, hilly places we have. In other words, run some trails out to the Vermillion Hills, keep Lake Madison as clean and accessible as possible, and for Pete's sake, don't chop down those shelterbelts!

Also worth noting in the study:

4. The third and fourth sentences: "Traditional strategies of promoting exogenous growth through the recruitment of employers are now much less effective. Routine and lowskill functions are increasingly outsourced to low-wage countries." As LAIC director Dwaine Chapel comes asking the city commission tonight (and county commission tomorrow) for our tax dollars, perhaps someone ought to discuss a shift from the failing strategy of recruiting those big outside employers.
   
5. The lit review notes that folks in small firms tend to move into self-employment more often than folks in large firms. Now there is some self-selection involved—entrepreneurial types gravitate toward small firms in the first place. But recruit and/or seed 40 little firms that employ ten people each, and you lay the groundwork for more independent entrepreneurship than if you recruit one big firm that employs 400 people. (This sounds so familiar!)
   

High Water at Lake Herman: Algae, Weeds, Snails!

I got to break out the waders and boonie hat and play Junior Science Ranger again yesterday: we had another round of water sampling as part of our area lake bacteria monitoring project yesterday. Samples so far this year have come in relatively clean. Bacteria counts have been well below the maximum state and EPA standards for safe swimming and other recreation. (You still take a swig at your own risk.) We've had some soupy and stinky algae days, but yesterday the water seemed remarkably clear—not northern Minnesota clear, but we'll take what we can get.

Lake Herman has dropped significantly in the past dry week, perhaps as much as a foot. But the lake is still remarkably high at my home shoreline and at my two water sampling sites at Camp Lakodia and, pictured above, the south tributary on Rick Doblar's land. (Click each photo for bigger view.)

Looking north toward the state park... see the brown triangle beyond the tree? Usually, that's all green grass. But the water was high enough in June to inundate that low ground alongside the tributary and drown the grass.

That usually dry ground is still plenty wet. Out at the tip is the point where I usually drop my gear on dry ground and wade in to take samples.

Lake Herman's south bay is about a meter deep just off shore and stays that depth for quite a ways out. The water is rife with what my biologist friends say is sago pondweed. Good for ducks and geese, bad for your boat prop.

Snails dig sago pondweed, too.

Madville Times "Lake to Shining Lake" Bicycle Ride Saturday 8 A.M.!

This time we thought we'd plan ahead....

Blog and bike enthusiasts alike, up for a bike ride tomorrow morning? Regular commenter, avid cyclist, and MHS debate alum Tony Amert is in town for America's birthday and suggested we ride our mountain bikes from Lake Herman to Lake Madison and back, as we both did most separately a couple July 4ths ago. Then we thought, heck, why not invite everyone else?

The plan:

• Meet at the public access boat ramp on the west side of Lake Herman at 8 a.m. Saturday, July 3, 2010. That's on Cottonwood Cove Trail, within view of my green house.
  
• Recommended gear: fat tires (we're riding lots of gravel) and water
• Estimated distance: about 22 miles from lake to lake (longer if we get lured by detours)
• Planned route: see map! We'll go south around Lake Herman first, through the boonies to Lake Madison, and up to the new public access area. From there, we'll wend out way back toward Madison and Lake Herman.
• Possible detours: east on the paved bike path to Johnson's point; charge through downtown; loop through Lake Herman State Park and Dirks Resort.

Come climb some gravel hills (slight bumps, my Black Hills friends will call them) and anoint yourselves in the cooling waters of Lake County's crystal blue-green gems. Come ride!

Madison Pix: High Sun, High Water, High Corn

Bicycle, camera, no need to rush home... photos around town! (Click pix to embiggen!)

Looking west down Northwest First Street... in prairie towns, the sky is still the biggest thing around.

South on Highland Avenue, the water in Silver Creek is about two feet from the bottom of the bridge.

On the town side of the road, the ditch toward Gehl is full of water.

I take it all this rain has been good for corn... at least the corn on the high ground. This corn on the way to the state park looks like "knee high by the Fourth" won't be a problem. But like the water elsewhere, this corn is creeping into the ditch.

The Lake Herman spillway that sends water to Madison (and Lake Madison, and Lake Brant, and ultimately the Big Sioux River) is topped out.

Dick Simpson's dock isn't fit for sitting... unless you're wearing your swim trunks. His dock panels wait on shore for drier fishing weather.

GF&P is keeping its dock at the public boat ramp just barely above water. Last year around this time, nine or ten of those big concrete slabs forming the boat ramp lay above the water line. This year, only four slabs are dry. Another gauge: I went swimming yesterday in front of my place. The shore where I could just get my toes wet last June is now under two and a half feet of water.

We refer to the bump in the shore southeast of the boat ramp as "The Point" (akin to "The River," "The Hills," and "The Cities"). I think some maps call it "Stony Point." From the boatramp, one usually sees a long line of rip-rap stones where fishermen can sit in the shade. Those stones are all submerged.

The lake is also thickly green. The water was remarkably clear after our dry April. The May and June rains have brought in more field runoff, which I suspect means more nutrients from fetilizer and more food for algae. Those little green stringies really catch in a guy's whiskers....

Grassland Wilderness Opponents: Are You Sure Thune's on Your Side?

Senate Bill 3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010, gets coverage from Kevin Woster in today's Rapid City Journal. Woster tells us that 13 of the 15 grazing permit holders oppose the bill, which would create America's first national grassland wilderness right here in South Dakota.

"It's kind of like a land grab," says opposing rancher Travis Bies. Actually, it's not a land grab at all. Not one acre of the 48,000 to be designated wilderness belongs to private landholders. It all belongs to us, the public. Neighboring ranchers have the privilege of buying leases from us and running their cattle on public land.

Perhaps these ranchers have the federal government confused with an entity that really does want to grab their land, the DM&E railroad. Now part of Canadian Pacific, the DM&E has long wanted to build a rail extension from the coal fields in the Wyoming Powder River Basin, around the south edge of the Black Hills, and up through that ranchland and grassland up to Wall. DM&E has threatened landowners with eminent domain to get what they want. DM&E has long tried to get special federal loans and other gimmes to make the PRB extension fly. These efforts have thus far failed, despite the dogged assistance of their former (?) chief lobbyist, Senator John Thune.

Hey, wait a minute: isn't Senator Thune also leading the charge against this wilderness designation? I've heard he extended a special invitation to Hermosa rancher Scott Edoff to come to Washington, be wined and dined, and testify against S. 3310. Fascinating: The Edoff family is among the ranchers who have staunchly opposed Thune-backed DM&E's land grab and rail extension. Thune singled Edoff out as representing South Dakota's ranch community, ignoring Edoff's neighbor and fellow Hermosa rancher Dan O'Brien, who came to speak in favor of the wilderness bill. (If I, a fellow South Dakotan, go to Washington to testify before the Senate, and Senator Thune declines to acknowledge me like that, I'll be torqued.)

It sounds to me like Senator Thune is rousing some ranchers to act against their own interests. S. 3310 explicitly addresses every concern voiced by the ranchers, thanks, according to Woster's report, to significant input already received from area ranchers. The legislation clearly protects existing grazing activities. It guarantees continued authority to address problems with epidemics, disease, insects, and prairie dogs. It even allows one road down the center of the Indian Creek area to remain, allowing continued public access for the old folks and people with disabilities Edoff tells Woster he's worried about. Supporters of the law tell Woster federal wilderness designation could actually improve ranch operations by providing better protection against destructive off-road vehicle activity than shifting Forest Service rules can.

Wilderness designation may also provide better protection against development like the DM&E Powder River Basin rail extension. Look at the maps of the proposed PRB route, the existing Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and the proposed grassland wilderness. DM&E appears to want to run its rail extension through the current grassland. I can't tell if the route would intersect the proposed wilderness, but if it crosses Edoff land, it must come close. There's no way DM&E would get to run rail across wilderness. Even if the route doesn't intersect the wilderness, one would think that raising the profile of the Cheyenne River Valley as home of the nation's first and only grassland wilderness would help the ranchers enlist more allies in keeping DM&E from resurrecting its Powder River Basin rail plans in the area. Might DM&E recognize this prospect as well and be asking their man in Washington to prevent it?

Ranchers, when Senator Thune comes knocking, pay close attention to what he's after. He's willing to make noise about protecting your right to lease federal land for your business efforts... even though the bill he's fighting includes clear language protecting exactly that right. But when DM&E offers you lowball prices and then tries using the courts to take away your land for their private business interests, does he take your side, or the side of his former employer?

Johnson Good on Grassland Wilderness; What's Thune's Problem?

Location of first national grassland wilderness (blue zones), proposed in Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. Click image to enlarge. [Image courtesy of South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition]

Senator Tim Johnson has a good idea. In May, he introduced S. 3310 the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. The bill, which got its first Senate committee hearing last week, would designate about 48,000 acres of West River grassland as national wilderness. That's about 75 square miles, a total area a little larger than Sioux Falls, declared off limits to development and mechanical travel (including my mountain bike) and kept about as natural as it can be.

The South Dakota Wild Grasslands Coalition released a survey last March finding about 60% support for this specific wilderness proposal among voters in the neighborhood of the affected lands. The survey even found majority support among snowmobilers and off-roaders.

Ranchers won't lose any grazing land if the wilderness designation passes. S. 3310 specifically excepts established grazing from the bill. In other words, if your cows eat grass near Red Shirt now, they'll be able to eat grass there after the bill becomes law.

Hunters and fishers would still get to enjoy the area right alongside backpackers, birdwatchers, and rock collectors. S. 3310 specifies that the state retains jurisdiction over fish and wildlife management, including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Even Ellsworth Air Force Base gets to carve a niche in this bill. S. 3310 specifies that the military gets to keep its current flight training routes and can even declare new flight paths over the wilderness. (And you know, even when I'm backpacking, I think getting a good look at big jet planes is kind of cool... as long as that ordnance stays bolted on tight!)

Now Senator John Thune ought to be backing Senator Johnson on this proposal. Thune appreciates the value of protecting habitat and game populations for hunting and tourism.

But Thune is opposing S. 3310. He cites opposition from Governor Rounds, the Legislature, county commissioners, and area ranchers like Ken Knuppe and Scott Edoff, who worry their grazing permits will change.

The list of ranchers opposing the wilderness designation does not include Dan O'Brien, who holds the largest grazing permit in the northern portion of the targeted territory. He raises buffalo and is looking into eco-/agritourism. In his Senate testimony last week, he invoked the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt to declare the silence and solitude of the Indian Creek area a vital national resource deserving "maximum federal protection." He says wilderness designation would protect his own ranching and business interests as well as the rights of all Americans to enjoy the grasslands, which he says are "the least protected landscape in the world."

Senator Thune appears to be reaching for arguments, resorting to saying that the language in the bill doesn't say exactly what it says. He's rounded up the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association to echo his alarmism. The SD Wild Grassland Organization pretty effectively disposes with every one of Senator Thune's and the SDCA's stated concerns here.

The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would create a unique national wilderness, protecting a fragile prairie ecosystem that enjoys this sort of protection nowhere else. Right between South Dakota's two existing wilderness areas, the Black Elk Wilderness in the Hills and the Badlands Wilderness, the Indian Creek, Red Shirt, and Chalk Hills wildernesses would boost South Dakota's profile, tourism, and hunting without taking away from ranching. Passing this bill would honor the memory and wisdom of famed South Dakota outdoorsman Tony Dean, who appreciated the value of wilderness.

Senator Johnson recognizes the clear and immediate good S. 3310 would do. Senator Thune is grasping for hypothetical "potential" harms refuted by the spirit and the letter of this legislation, not to mention plain facts.

Come on, John: you can work with Tim on Ellsworth; you can work with Tim on wilderness. Drop the obstructionism, and support this good bill.

-----------------------
Update 19:37 CDT: I learn via Sibby that President Bush proposed creating a 71,381-acre Cheyenne River Valley Grassland. Sibby also leaves me to puzzle over how protecting wilderness ecosystems on federal land is part of the "socialist anti-property-rights agenda in South Dakota." Hmmm....

New Public Access Open at Lake Madison

...and other reasons for a ride in the country...

Some people think signs like this are signs of progress:

But when you go to the lake, would you rather see this:

Or this:

That happy blue sign is your welcome to the newest public access area on Lake Madison. After considerable public discussion last year, Lake County has opened its shoreline property to the public for fishing and recreation. The entrance is on 236th Street, not quite a half-mile east of Highway 19.


Where a chain gate hung two weeks ago, the driveway is now open. But don't steal that tree.

Through the shelterbelt, you're greeted by this view:

Long driveway, wide beach, and a nice view of the western lobe of Lake Madison. The county commission also appears to have taken heed of local folks' obsession with parking. There's room for five times as many cars and trucks as there is for fishermen sitting cheek to cheek on the beach.


Your tax dollars at work: there's a nice dock on floats, just waiting for fishermen on the beach. There's no boat ramp here, so docile fisherfolk won't need to move over every few minutes for folks launching and beaching.

On my Friday afternoon visit, there were a couple of ladies reclining on the beach and flattering their swimsuits. Courtesy forbade my snapping their pix, so instead...


...outhouses. Folks around here are almost as obsessed with potty as with parking. The county and A-1 Portable Toilets have us covered, with Men's and Women's. (The bikini ladies are just around the men's station.)


Ah, so clean, so commodious....


Check out the new trees! Just as pretty as Commissioner Bert Verhey painted them. Some of the McMansioneers on Woodland Drive had concerns about allowing the common folk access to the neighboring county land. The county thus planted some really nice spruces all along the eastern fence. Now the neighbors won't be disturbed by the view of those fisherman... or bikini ladies... or the county gravel pit.


Alongside the spruces toward the shore, there's also a really big water pump and hose at water's edge. If the fishermen get too rowdy, I assume the sheriff can come out, fire up the pump, and powerwash miscreants right off the beach. Cool.



That reminds me: the new public access area adjoins the county gravel pit, not to mention the hundred-some acres of the rest of the old poor farm that the county rents out for crops. There goes the county mingling recreation and industry. Didn't the commission consult with David Pitts, who said the two don't mix?

But I gaze eagerly into that gravel pit and see an opportunity. Just think what a great mountain bike park we could build here.

There are already a number of truck tracks around the county gravel pit area. Add on to them. Haul out the remaining easy-to-get gravel for public use, then bring in Rapid City bike trail expert Tony Amert to supervise grading out some fun and swoopy adventure trails.

Come on, sheriff—let me in!

The coming extension of the Madison bike trail south along Highway 19 makes turning the poor farm into a bike farm a natural next step. But let's not stop there. Let's think really big.

The grounds south of the beach include a big basin that looks an awful lot like an amphitheater. Bring a couple bands and a few hundred picnic blankets, and you have a lakeside music festival! Lake Madison Development Association, discuss.

The new public access area is near the site of Old Madison, the first county seat. The county seat moved when certain city fathers swiped the county safe from the Lake Madison site and hauled it in the dark of night to "New" Madison, the present county seat. (Ah, our fair city, established on a foundation of theft and secrets. Again, discuss.)

Extending the bike trail out to the public access area opens itself to another festival event: we could re-enact the great county safe heist! Bring out a bunch of replica safes, load them on trailers, and challenge cyclists to hitch up and race back to town lugging a few hundred pounds of steel and county papers. First one to the courthouse wins a DQ Blizzard and a rubdown!

And how about some shady picnic space? That shelterbelt along the county road looks pretty healthy. Run one spur of the bike trail through the shade along the north edge of the trees, mow some clearings, place some picnic tables... presto! Another step toward the fabled Bicentennial/Semiquincentennial Park that fisherpeople, bicyclists, and swimsuit-clad picnickers could all enjoy!

Oh, about those swimsuits. Who needs those curves, when just up the road I could find some curves I can really get into:

Fellow mountain-bikionados riding out to the new public access area might enjoy this alternate route back to town. A half mile north from the Highway 19-County Road 236 intersection lies one of those welcome prairie rarities: an honest-to-goodness curvy road! The gravel road snakes west through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuge. Not quite the thrill and excitement you can find on two wheels out in the Black Hills, but still a quiet, scenic country ride away from highway traffic.

Plus, you probably won't get shot.

Lake County has made a wise investment in creating the new public access area on the southwest shore of Lake Madison. It provides another welcome recreation opportunity for residents and visitors alike. It also opens the door to new recreational endeavors that would draw more people to enjoy our fair square of the prairie.

--------------------------
Bonus video! A very mellow view of my ride along the USFW road. Sorry, no wipe-outs, just gravel and grass, water and wind, birds and a bunny... all in pixellated Impressionism. ;-)

Obama Loosens Gun Laws Tomorrow

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act comes in with a bang tomorrow. But the bang won't be layoffs at Premier or Citi. An eager reader points out the bang comes in an odd amendment, Section 512 of P.L. 111-24, which allows firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

So even if Premier takes you to the cleaners with new annual fees and more 79.9% interest rates, you can still run to the wilderness, pin your credit cards to a tree, and do some target practice. Backpack with your Baretta! Camp with your Colt! Hike with heat!

And be sure to thank President Barack Obama for his continued defense of the Second Amendment.

-----------------
Update 2010.02.24: Understanding Government further refutes the NRA propaganda that President Obama is anti-gun.

Video Postcard: Lake Herman in Winter

A video postcard from Lake Herman, on perhaps the most perfect winter day conceivable.

Rapid City Hansen-Larsen Park: Best Biking in America?

I know some folks think a good bicycle transportation network is just a luxury. But good bike trails can make for some darn good press for your town. Look at the attention Rapid City is getting for its newest bike trails, the Hansen-Larsen Memorial Park. One magazine calls the new trail system the best bike park in the country. The National Park and Rec. Assoc. named the Black Hills Fat Tire Festival held there the "best commercial recreation and tourism special event" of 2009. (Yeah, that's a mouthful, but if I were the Chamber of Commerce, I'd take best in the nation in anything anytime).

Says Rapid City parks and Rec director Jerry Cole:

There isn't anything within Rapid City like this. There isn't anything within 99 percent of the cities in the United States like this. This is unique....

This has the potential to change Rapid City for the betterment of the community and the visitors that will come here [quoted by Emilie Rusch, "New Park Drawing National Praise," Rapid City Journal, 2009.11.30].

But also note, City of Madison, this amazing trail system was built with zero tax dollars and no eminent domain. All it took was a community, including some smart donors, who recognize the cultural and economic value of good recreational infrastructure.

Your Opinion: Eminent Domain for Madison Bike Trail No Go

Madville Times readers are apparently passionate defenders of property rights. Our latest poll asked "Do you support using eminent domain to extend Madison's recreational trail to Lake Herman?" The results:

• Yes: 21 (27%)
• No: 56 (73%)

If I were a Madison City Commissioner, I might well say, "That's that" for eminent domain on the bike trail. After all, if anyone is going to draw the sort of hippie socialist crowd that would favor seizing private property for the collective pedaling good, it's this blog. Yet even readers here appear to be saying a bike trail is not worth violating private property rights.

I'm still open to the argument that the social benefits of a bike trail outweigh private property rights in this case. But the city and trail supporters will have to work really hard to make that argument. In the meantime, let's offer all the landowners a more-than-fair price for the privilege of using their land. Let's give them ironclad assurances that state law protects them from liability (and that if state law doesn't, the city and county will).

And if the landowners turn down our offer, then we'll have to be content to find an alternative route.

SD Law Limits Bike Trail Liability?

One of the arguments I've heard against building the Lake Herman bike trail is liability. Private landowners don't want to be sued by individuals who might tumble off their bikes on their land or wander off the trail and trip on a corn stalk or who-knows-what. I think I've even heard some folks fret about the liability the county might incur if the trail is alongside the road.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of case law where an adjoining landowner gets sued by a cyclist for an accident on a bike path. We are certainly a litigious society, so I would think if there's a legal leg to stand on, someone would have already filed such a case.

But I'm thinking you won't find such an example in South Dakota, because statute appears to protect landowners and public officials from such liability. Check out South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 20-9, Liability for Torts. Specifically, see SDCL 20-9-12 through 20-9-22. SDCL 20-9-13 appears to absolve farmers like David Pitts of any obligation to maintain safe conditions around a bike trail through their land or even to warn trail users of hazards on the land. SDCL 20-9-21 appears to protect local government from liability for accidents on land local government might invite folks to use for recreation. Certainly landowners and public officials still have some obligations, but so do users of recreational land.

As far as I can tell, state law has just the protections I was looking for for landowners next to the bike trail. If I go for a ride and take a tumble, it's pretty much my own darn fault.

Blog Brings Neighborly Conversation: David Pitts Sets Record Straight

One of the greatest merits of blogging is that it gets me into conversations that might never otherwise happen... often with people who vigorously disagree with me. Sometimes that conversation happens online, sometimes off.

Sometimes it's a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with a fellow Lake County resident whose language I have called "selfish, inconsistent, and at least unneighborly if not insulting."

David Pitts called Thursday evening.

From the top: Mr. Pitts called to ensure that at least two issues were straightened out:

1. Contrary to the characterization I gave in my original article on the bike trail the city wants to build across the land he farms on the southwest edge of Madison, David Pitts and his wife Gloria do not live in or by Ramona. They lived up in that neck of the woods for a long time, and Mrs. Pitts was postmaster in Ramona, but a year or so ago, they moved into Madison. David Pitts is a taxpaying resident of the city that wants a piece of his farm land.
   
2. Mr. Pitts also felt I dismissed his arguments against the bike trail and said he should have just said no. (I believe he may be referencing this passage from my Oct. 22 post: "I have deep sympathy for arguments in defense of personal property. If Mr. Pitts wishes to simply say, "It's my land, and I don't want to sell," that's fine.") Mr. Pitts emphasized that he had already told the powers that be "No" to this project five times—six, if you count the open house we both attended last week.

Mr. Pitts and I have lived in the same county for my whole life. He's my dad's age; his son Gary graduated from Madison HS a year before I did. It took this long for the two of us to end up in the same room last week, two feet apart over the same maps. But even there, David and I didn't talk. He had more important people at whom to direct his questions and concerns than a strange skinny guy with a backpack. I went to the meeting to listen, not argue. I checked my rebuttive urges until I had slept on what I'd heard a couple nights. Then I published a pretty stern critique that I knew wouldn't go down well with some readers.

Mr. Pitts said he was pretty steamed when a copy of the text reached him. When the phone rang and he introduced himself, I was ready for steam and checking my own valves. But we never got hot with each other. For two and a half hours, we had a perfectly neighborly and serious conversation about property rights, farming, bike trails, and local government.

Mr. Pitts and I still disagree on the value of a bike trail. I've given my reasons; let me give Mr. Pitts's view some air time so we all—including some of the folks who are more committed to building this bike trail than I am—can better understand where he's coming from.

Mr. Pitts has lived in this county all his life, just like me. His great-grandfather homesteaded here back in 1880, beating my forebears to this turf by a good 60+ years. He says he wants to see the land he has in this county remain in the family. He has at least as much reason for attachment to his patches of Lake County as I have to mine.

Mr. Pitts has honest concerns about the mingling of recreation and industrial agriculture. He sustains his land and productivity with heavy equipment and big chemicals. The big sprayer drivers and the crop dusters are as stingy as they can be with those expensive chemicals, but there will always be some drift. Right now, Mr. Pitts sees the fenceline, ditch, and raised roadway as a reasonable buffer to harm to passersby. Invite them onto the other side of that ditch on a ribbon of asphalt, and Mr. Pitts says his effective operating area will be reduced much more than the width of the trail and a flat strip of grass next to it.

(I did suggest going organic; Mr. Pitts said it would take too long to cycle the land into alternative production methods and turn a profit again.)

I haven't seen case law to justify Mr. Pitts's concerns about his liability for injuries on a trail crossing his land (and I'm reading up on SDCL 20-9 to see if it applies). But Mr. Pitts's concerns are reinforced by a grim experience on his land 22 years ago. His son went hunting with a couple other boys. Those other boys were walking the creek bed, one on each side, while Mr. Pitts's son waited at the end of the creek. A pheasant flew between the two walkers. One boy turned, shot from the hip.

There were 110 pellets in the shell that boy fired. The doctor took 97 pellets out of the other boy.

Mr. Pitts's liability insurance paid for the boy's medical bills. He was thankful worse didn't happen. But his insurer told him that, if he had charged a fee for the use of his land, his liability would have been much greater. So now, when the city asks him to accept payment for a recreational trail on his land, he puts two and two together and gets a concern informed by grim experience about having to pay for others' accidents.

Now as a businessman, Mr. Pitts could probably find out what the additional cost of liability insurance might be to cover the additional use his land would experience with a bike trail on it. He could add that to an estimate of the bushels of corn or beans lost to a 3-6 acre strip of pavement and grass. He would then have a good picture of what the city would have to offer to make the trail easement worth his while.

But interestingly, the city and other organizers have not once made a formal offer. No officials have told Mr. Pitts what the city will be willing to pay for the privilege of laying a trail on his land. In his dealings with the city, Mr. Pitts has gotten the distinct feeling that the city is more like a bully than a partner or the entity whose bills he pays with his taxes.

Cases in point: When the first proposal for a trail to Lake Herman started floating around a few years ago, Mr. Pitts says a trail organizer asked if they could sit down and discuss the plan over coffee. Mr. Pitts said he could do that some time... but he didn't hear anything else on the topic until a county commission meeting that considered applying for the grant to build the trail. Mr. Pitts says trail supporters considered circulating a petition seeking support to obtain land for the trail "by any means necessary" even before making any straightforward financial offers to landowners like him.

Mr. Pitts also notes that, as he understood it, the federal grant eventually obtained to trail up the neighborhood was designated for a trail along Highway 34. However (and this is all grapevine and no documentation, but I'm giving Mr. Pitts his say here), he heard that some of the bigger businesses along Highway 34 west of town didn't want the trail crossing their lots, and the city backed off that plan. So Mr. Pitts can't help getting the feeling that the city is just shopping around for little guys like him to push around.

His experience with the surveyors this spring didn't inspire any further confidence in our city leaders. With little warning, Mr. Pitts received a letter from Ulteig Engineering saying they would be coming onto his land to survey along the creek for a possible trail. Having just put in his wheat, Mr. Pitts was not eager to have surveyors tearing through his field on a four-wheeler. He called Ulteig, expressed his opposition, and apparently got them to call off the survey.

Soon afterward, however, he received another letter, this one from Madison's city attorney, Mr. Jencks, saying surveyors would be entering his land under statutory authority. Mr. Pitts couldn't remember the statute number in our conversation, but he says that when he showed his lawyer the letter, the lawyer looked up the law and found it dealt with abandoned mines and still required owner permission. Another phone call, another cancellation... but this time not before marking flags had been set in Mr. Pitts's field. Those flags are on wires. Leave one in the field, and it will run right through the combine and into the straw. Feed that straw to livestock, have a cow chaw down that wire, and that wire could kill the animal. Mr. Pitts thus spent some extra time in the field picking up flags to make sure what he sees as an unauthorized entry on his land didn't also result in the loss of a valuable critter.

Given what Mr. Pitts told me Thursday night, it's not hard to construct a narrative where, far from being the bad guy, Mr. Pitts is the average little guy, just trying to make a living and keep his land for himself and his kids while the powers that be—powers who wages he's paid for years with his sales tax and now property tax dollars—try to push him around.

So maybe we can understand a little better why Mr. Pitts might be inclined to offer some stiff resistance to a plan that could lead to the city taking his land. And in the face of such resistance, maybe we'll have to accept a compromise and live with widening the county road for a less-than-ideal but better-than-current bike route.

That's a discussion we as a community need to have. The best decisions will come from an open, above-board discussion where everyone, including David Pitts, gets a say.