To my Grandchildren's Grandchildren

Iwrite these words to you because I feel I must. Why bother? In a world rife with negativity and reinforced polarizations on most things, why bother with an attempt to record or convey a subject so complex as the history of Missouri Conservation to my descendants? Why bother to reach out to you through a long letter when you have an overwhelming abundance of information in hand via the internet, social media and other networks no doubt far beyond my imaginings today? Because there are many truths, perspectives and lessons in what I know that you had best consider, come what may in the future.

Our ancestors arrived in North America to a landscape of abundant natural resources, seemingly without limits, and beyond the restrictions of distant sovereigns. The fact is, even things so abundant as Passenger Pigeons and Bison are finite in their numbers. No natural resource exists which can fulfill all the insatiable desires of all people. Never has and never can.

By the first few years of the 20th Century, the limits of natural resource health and abundance were very apparent in Missouri. Bison, elk, bears, cougars and many others were gone or disappearing.

Things got even worse and came to a head here in the early 1930's. Our people were struggling to survive the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Every attempt to squeeze a living out of land already taxed beyond its ability to support and renew itself much less people, forests, fisheries, and wildlife yielded less and less each year. Erosion of topsoil by unobstructed wind and water, overharvesting and frequent burning of our forests, channelization of streams, levees and dams, artificial structures intended to circumvent over exploitation's symptoms rather than encouraging resilience and health of soils and water, plowing the prairies, draining the wetlands.

Things got so bad that those who recognized the causes of problems became more prominent in shaping the attitude of the public than those who denied them. A book published in 1933 chronicled a lion "hunt" on an island in the Mississippi River. This was the brainchild of Denver M. Wright from St. Louis. His perspective was that he could set up a safari, complete with real lions and beasts, and have his safari right here without a trip to Africa. There were no laws against this. Sportsmen at the time, facing the nearly extirpated big game, decided that if this sort of artificial adventure were the future of hunting, they wanted something else. the legislature, you won't recognize it when it comes E. Sydney Stephens that night changed the course of modern American history. A committee was formed to draft the amendment to Missouri's constitution. The chair was a country lawyer from Sedalia, James T. Montgomery. Montgomery's big picture guidance to include protections for forests and wildlife, in addition to game and fish, was unique at the time. History has proven this inclusion as an act of inspired genius.

The campaign was successful. The victory was by a wide margin. July 1937, a new agency, The Missouri Conservation Commission, was formed and set into operation: of, by and for the people, forests, fisheries and wildlife of Missouri.

On September 10, 1935, right here in Columbia, Initially, all that was known was what did not Missouri, in the Tiger Hotel's ballroom on 8th Street, work—what had repeatedly proven ineffective and the tide began to turn. Seventy-five or so private consistently yielded unsatisfactory results. Quick citizens gathered to do something about this mess. and easy solutions, treating natural resources like They agreed that the status quo was unacceptable expendable, interchangeable, marketable commodities to them. There were those who favored a legislative greatly caused the depraved status quo. Attempts to solution, and thankfully, those who artificially propagate game and did not. Members of legislative They brought to fish, then release them into areas bodies are elected by people to serve and represent them in our democratic life the wisdom of lacking both the desired species and their vital habitats didn't republic. Although many legislators Theodore Roosevelt work. Attempts to regulate without are friends of conservation, none can long serve in public office if they "Do what you can, enforcement didn't work. Big goals like restoration of depleted consistently defer to the needs of where you are, with wildlife, fisheries, habitats, and fire natural resources in their decisionmaking actions. what you have." This self-sustaining, costprevention in Ozark forests must come first. In the long run, the needs of natural resources and people are the same; clean air and water, healthy soils, but effective approach became a hallmark of The first professor of conservation at Mizzou, Rudolf Bennitt, and the first student of conservation at there may be differences in the short Missouri's "system." Mizzou, Werner Nagel published in term. 1937 "A Survey of the Resident Game That night, in Columbia, Missouri, private citizens was an essential first step along the road to wildlife decided to utilize a mechanism available to them to restoration. Their efforts and those of all who came create a voice for Missouri outdoors: the initiative later deferred always to science and the best available petition process. "If you get a law passed, what have data for decision making and actions—and considered, you got? The next legislature could repeal or amend it, but always delegated to second place, politics and and the politicians take over. By the same token, if you fancies of people who were not beneficial to "the attempt to get a constitutional amendment through resource." out. But if you write the basic authority exactly as They brought to life the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt you want it, put it on the ballot through the initiative "Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." and let the people vote it into the constitution—then This self-sustaining, cost-effective approach became a you've got something permanent." These remarks by hallmark of Missouri's "system." and Furbearers of Missouri." This

Along the way, a new science of conservation was developed, refined and integrated into all aspects of the new agency and its supportive public. Above all, we have learned that for conservation to exist (and for any agency or organization to endure long), it must have a public that understands it and supports it. Such public support rests solidly on the foundation of a culture of continually improving public service among employees of this unique agency.

Early on, as the profession of conservation developed, it was all new. It was expected and natural for all professionals to always convey their learnings to the public in language and products understandable by lay people. Eventually, however, this connecting the public at times was deemphasized as myriad things researched and learned caused the development of specialists. Or at least professionals whose work required so much of their time and attention that feeding the public will became less of a consideration, or at worst, someone else's job.

In the long run, even temporary neglect of engaging, fueling and nurturing the public will have proven costly. Leaders can choose either to ignore the public for a while—and invest tremendous effort later to fix the brist—or invest a significant amount of professional attention in developing and maintaining a sustained will of the public.

Conservationists like me share responsibility for reminding our people of the relevance of conservation to each of us and balancing that with unwavering service to natural resources. My point is not that one should always bow to the public wishes at the moment, but more as Theodore Roosevelt "The wildlife and its habitat cannot speak, so we must, and we will." We must consistently and constantly work to balance our rights and responsibilities. Thus, have I as concisely and fully as possible, given you my understanding of why conservation is essential and how it came to life here.

During my nearly 50 years of professional service, I have no doubt sat with, listened to, and offered support and encouragement and counsel to hundreds of passionate citizens, private organizations, businesses, and state and federal agencies. Never have I encountered a single outfit with a shortage of ideas— but they always face limited resources to implement those ideas—if they have any resources at all.

For organizations to accomplish anything, they must have people and money. For agencies, with at least some of each, they must have the authority to do their work. Authority and funding can only come from and endure with a sustaining will of the public.

In the 1970's, Missouri had reached the impasse first described by Aldo Leopold in 1930 at the American Game Conference in New York "No game program can command the good will or funds necessary to success, without harmonious cooperation between sportsmen and other conservationists." Simply put, hunters and anglers can never pay for or deliver natural resource conservation by themselves.

To address the ever-increasing costs of conservation and the concerns for a future where participation in hunting and fishing would remain stable and at worst decline, a group was commissioned by MDC Director Carl Noren and CFM Executive Director Ed Stegner at the behest of the Missouri Conservation Commission. The group produced what became known as The Missouri Conservation Program Report. Members were Irving Fox, Charles Callison and Starker Leopold. The upshot was the formation of a Citizen's Committee and an initiative petition drive for an amendment to the Missouri constitution.

The Citizen's Committee solution was a state-wide sales tax proposal. They realized that some things cost more than any of us can individually afford, which none of us would choose to live without. We pay for these via taxation.

The first attempt failed. Signatures were gathered and submitted to the Secretary of State without the enacting clause "Be it enacted by the people of the State of Missouri" on the petitions. So, the signatures were thrown out. The proposal was for a tax on beverage containers, and the beverage industry had more resources and better lawyers than the Citizens' Committee. Stegner told the Citizens Committee of the failure and said, "My wife said if I ever led such a campaign again, she would leave me." The Committee decided to ASAP embark on another attempt. It became the Design for Conservation Sales Tax, a sales tax of 1/8 of 1% on all goods and services.

It passed by a slim margin on election day, 1976. None of us who worked on the campaign knew it would pass, but we all believed that if we did nothing, things would only get worse. The world changed. Thankfully, Stegner led the Citizen's Committee, CFM, MDC, and the Missouri people to success. Sadly, his wife did forever leave him over it.

For the last 80+ years, Missouri and Missourians have greatly benefited from constitutionally guaranteed authority and designated funding (40+ years) for conservation. On the same land at the same time, our human population has doubled—while forests, fisheries and wildlife and their habitats have thrived.

Hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, and forestry yielded over $12 Billion to Missouri last year. We Missourians spent $100 Million on the Design for Conservation Sales Tax last year. This represents a 10,000% return on the investment—in the year the investment was made! To put this vitally important fact in proper perspective, one should note that in 1937, the first year MDC existed. It was funded entirely by general revenue appropriation from the legislature and revenue from permit sales. The agency's entire budget was equivalent to only 0.8% of the Missouri State Budget at the time. This past year, the MDC budget was equivalent to only 0.7% of the Missouri State Budget! One must also note that last year's figures include the revenues from the Design for Conservation Sales Tax and Federal dollars from excise taxes on the sales of sporting goods administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, none of these revenue streams existed back in 1935.

The notion, often parroted by critics, is that MDC has too much money. Even the suggestion that MDC has an adequate amount of money to do its work, demonstrably to the benefit of all Missourians, is preposterous. The Sales Tax makes each of us an owner/operator of conservation in Missouri. Resources for MDC are finite—so each of us should be willing to concede a little of our insatiable personal desires for the overall welfare of forests, fisheries and wildlife.

Man has long had his thumb on the scales of the balance of nature—for his own benefit. Thus, I believe we have a fundamental responsibility to restore and nurture the balance of nature as best we can, whenever we can. MDC has a proven track record of success. For that to continue, they must have authority and funding to do their work—and a public who understands, appreciates and will support them.

If this is to be, it is up to us. Don't be long distracted from the purpose of caring for God's creation by what you cannot do or change, focus on the possible and find the way to get it done. For those who follow you, give them tomorrow.

Dave Murphy

(Left) Eldest girl Ellie (5), her sister Hadley (2)...Keicher. (Photo: Courtesy of Dave Murphy)

(Right) Eldest boy is August (6), his brother Ezra (3), twins Henning (redhead) and Kai (brunette)...Ballan. (Photo: Courtesy of Dave Murphy)