(1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.f3...)

Is this a reasonable way to avoid piles of theory? I can't be an expert on all openings and I haven't studied the Dutch defense beyond expecting to play d4 and c4 and fiancetto the King's bishop. This Staunton gambit looks good to me...any discussion and tips concerning this exciting gambit would be greatly appreciated...anyway I'll try it out and get back to you with my results.

My impression is that it's considered a bit unsound, though I'm not well enough versed in the theory to know quite why that is.

Looks like suicide to me, you give black strong center play and a free pawn..

Choosing an anti-dutch like the staunton isn't neccesarily a bad idea, but you should be aware that many dutch players don't begin with 1. ..f5 but get to a dutch later via a transpositional move order. 

I find it odd that you're calling this an Anti-Sicilian, it seems that the odds of transposing into a Sicilian are a bit remote considering the array of other possibilities stemming from 1. d4.

I'm under the impression that 3. Nc3 is the much more common move and f3 is delayed for a while since White has plenty of useful moves to play before playing f3, which can be played any time. If I remember correctly Black has to twist and turn to keep his extra pawn which ends up being doubled and isolated on the e-file.

I don't play d4 so I don't have any experience with this opening. This is just stuff I read in a book some time ago.

The staunton gambit is a fine choice against the dutch. In the main line black even gives back the pawn, and white still has a comfortable game in my opinion.

Yes usually Nc3 and Nf6 is played before f3, and if white plays the f3 line then black shouldn't take the pawn but instead just play d5 or Nc6.

Thanks for all the helpful comments. So, Staunton gambit it is then!

Update:- played one, won one!