OCR Text |
Show Service above and beyond farming practices. This is true to an extent, but before we chastise them, we should ask ourselves "why?" What alternatives have we offered? Except for an innate love of wildlife shared by many farmers and ranchers, what other motivation do they have for protecting and perpetuating wildlife wild-life habitat on their land? On the one hand, the public demands them to produce more food and fiber at minimum cost to the consumer. On the other, can we justifiably expect them to produce wildlife for the enjoyment of a sometimes inconsiderate and disrespectful public with no compensation.' It is essential that the citizenry of Utah recognize the irreplaceable role of our farmers and ranchers in the production of our wildlife resources. These private land-, owners rightfully deserve greater genuine respect than they have frequently received in the past. Fven this is small compensation for their great contribution to this rich legacy which they help provide. Nevertheless, Neverthe-less, it is a start and we can work from there to find ways and means of really making it worthwhile for them to produce wildlife in addition to other farm crops. In a recent article, Gale Chamber, editor of the Idaho Farmer-Stockman Magazine, editorialized at length concerning landowner-sportsman relationships in the Gem State and the dwindling pheasant population. He vividly emphasized that the". . .track record between sportsmen, fish and game, and the farmer isn't that good . . ."in spite of past cooperative efforts. He finalized his article by suggesting various ways of improving farmer-sportsmen relationships and with the comment: "A change of attitude, the development of some genuine respect, and some proper recognition of the farmer as a full partner in wildlife could put Idaho back into the pheasant hunting picture." Some Utah farmers would add a hearty "Amen" to Mr.Chambers'commentary and perhaps with good reason. Landowner -sportsman conflicts have been a "bone of contention" for many years. Although improved relationships have been frequently acknowledged over the years, there is still substantial room for improvement on all sides of the issue. The Division of Wildlife Resources typically finds itself in the middle of such conflicts: An unenviable position at times, but one which is appropriate insofar as wildlife interests are concerned. Unfortunately, decisions and actions of the Division do not always resolve disputes to everyone's pleasure, nor are they always right. Because of this, both farmers and sportsmen occasionally express criticism of the Division and its programs, as well as each other. Disharmony seems to be a natural byproduct by-product of conflicting vested interests. This can be discouraging but need not be entirely negative in effect. After all, progress can often be measured only in terms of com -promises achieved for a common good. As the Division of Wildlife Resources embarks on this Bicentennial Year, it does so with a commitment for improvement and a dedication to continued "Service Above and Beyond" intensive management of the State's wildlife resources. It is acutely aware of its need for the support of an informed public. Although less than 22 percent of the State's land area rests in private ownership, owner-ship, the private landholder, especially the farmer and rancher, holds the key to the future of many forms of wildlife. The Division acknowledges the tremendous contribution con-tribution of private landowners, both historically and presently, to the production of game populations; some of which could not exist without their contribution. It truly is a contribution since little or no compensation is tendered to most landowners. land-owners. ' There are those who will immediately rebut the foregoingby claimingthat farmers have hastened the demise of some species, particularly pheasants and quail, by certain |