Emotion versus logic on the Conservation Reserve

Two opposing forces are lined up to determine the future of land that is now under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

A lawsuit has been filed by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to block haying and grazing in the period from August to November of this year. The judge who granted a temporary stay has prevented further signup for the program and has stated that he thinks the wildlife interests will win.

There seem to be two sides to all government programs: one takes the position of logic and economic conditions and the other considers it an emotional issue. USDA is representing the economic interests while the NWF is clearly emotional in its view of the reserve as the means to rebuild habitat for wildlife across the vast, privately owned lands of the plains and Midwest.

For livestock producers, in the flood and drought year of 2008, emergency haying and grazing will alleviate disasters that took most of their options away. But there is an underlying factor that makes all parties nervous about the future of CRP as it is being pressured by high prices for grain and the prospect of USDA's granting an early out for CRP contracts.

My hypothetical arguments are from the USDA perspective and that of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to reflect what I see as the sentiments of those passionate to keep the land for wildlife and those who favor agricultural use under exceptional circumstances.

USDA: Your Honor, this land is owned by farmers and ranchers who have abided by the rules and regulations of this department in removing it from cultivation, caring for its needs in controlling erosion and invasive vegetation and, in turn, being compensated at an amount that would be less than the land could have produced had it been utilized in their standard cropping or haying practices. In this troubled year of weather related disasters, we contend that it is within our authority to allow these landowners to exercise a provision of the law allowing haying of a reduced portion or stocking at a reduced rate, so they may be able to keep a ruminant herd intact or maintain their cash flow until another year presents them with opportunity for other action.

NWF: Your Honor, our members aligned themselves with the wishes of farmers and ranchers to conserve their land and they were compensated fairly for doing so. A major portion of the CRP, from our perspective, is the recovery of habitat for native wildlife that agriculture almost destroyed with its fencerow-to-fencerow cultivation of the 1970s. This program has been highly successful in bringing elements of nature back from the brink of extinction, from the plains of Texas to the prairie pothole region of the upper Midwest. It has been a long, hard journey to regrow native grasses and encourage cultural practices that allow wildlife a chance to flourish. It is vitally important to realize that this land and this native population of ground-nesting birds remain fragile and may be unable to recover from the slash of a sickle across a large swath of North America.

USDA: Your Honor, we hold our friends in the wildlife community very dear and recognize their advocacy for restoring habitat while also enjoying sporting activities from the bounty of these lands. We also submit that the land under contract with the CRP is owned by those same farmers and ranchers who have paid taxes on it and abided by our program for well on 20 years. Now they are in trouble, through no fault of their own, and we feel it only just to place their interests in the forefront with full consideration given to the wildlife that is nurtured on their land. This single time period of haying and grazing would be after the nesting season ends and will run only until November. Removal of forage for hay will be allowed in limited areas or grazing will be allowed in limited quantity per the guidance of our agency. The wildlife will be protected and the farmers will be able to utilize their lands in this devastating year.

NWF: Your Honor, the nesting season runs late this year as the same problems affecting farmers are affecting wildlife. The cover that they need will be senselessly eliminated, along with many young birds, by the rush to gain revenue by selling the hay they produce. May we point out that the USDA is making this program so attractive that landowners will receive their full program payment with only a pittance fee of $75 to lay waste to habitat that was painstakingly built for a decade or more? This is not right! Most CRP landowners don't have livestock so they have no loss; but they will benefit handsomely by auctioning off the rights for others to demolish the habitat in the name of profit and greed.

USDA: Your Honor, we are an agency that has served America well since we were founded by President Abraham Lincoln. It is our intent to balance the needs of farmers and ranchers with the interests of wildlife on their land. We have no jurisdiction over federal lands or state lands but only on the parcels of property where the landowner and the government came together to agree to rest a field, protect a stream or stop a hillside from eroding. The benefits to wildlife are duly noted but they must be secondary to the needs of those who produce our food and finance our schools and towns with their taxes.

NWF: Your Honor, this is just the first step that this devious agency is taking. In a time of rising food costs and the need for larger quantities of crops for use in making biofuels, this agency is planning on releasing, without financial penalty, much of the CRP for full bore, erosive crop production. Removing the forage from it this year, with the government's blessing, will make the transition to corn or soybeans far easier next spring. The wildlife will find no comfort in a ruling that favors USDA. Before you allow this travesty, consider a pheasant hen when the cold winds blow and the snow falls. What will she and her chicks do? They will die because they have diminished cover to protect them! Next year, the plow will again cut the soil and the entire effort to rebuild our grasslands, both below the surface and above, will have been for naught.

There you have it: Conservation Reserve or Wildlife Preserve...You make the call.

Editor's Note: This is Ken Root's 34th year as an agricultural reporter. He grew up on a small farm in central Oklahoma and started his career as a vocational agriculture teacher. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as a broadcaster and was the original host of AgriTalk. He has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters in Kansas City. Ken is now the lead farm broadcaster at WHO and WMT Radio based in Des Moines, Iowa. He has been a columnist for HPJ and Midwest Ag Journal for seven years.

7/21/08
1 Star WK\14-B

Date: 7/17/08

Reader Comments Buffalo Gal — 07/22/2008 01:07:07 "--isn't there a contract involved somewhere in here?" Yes, there is a contract, and the USDA made special provisions for those who signed this contract. The Critical Feed Use Provision was for this grazing season only because of drought conditions and skyrocketing feed prices. Those of us with CRP contracts were informed of this decision in late May. Since that time we have made many business decisions based on the knowledge that we would be able to utilize the CRP ground for grazing this year. We have spent time and money on fencing and watering systems. And the grazaing allowed is a MANAGED grazed----- meaning that we couldn't put cattle on before the end of the nesting season for birds, and the cattle must come off in mid-October or when the grass is grazed to five inches whichever comes first. My local Natural Resources and Conservations Services man felt that this grazing would be beneficial to grass and wildlife. Reader Comments Mary R. — 07/20/2008 07:07:01 Excuse me -- isn't there a contract involved somewhere in here? People must have suspected what they were signing up for. This is a good program that has had many benefits. Leave it be. Reader Comments wastingtime — 07/20/2008 06:07:40 EXCUSE ME? That isn't emotion. That's MY tax dollars. My tax dollars paid for the conservation of that land. If they feel they need to plow, farm, plant, hay....fine. I understand emergencies. But pay me back. I paid for it. I want what I paid for. How dare you belittle me and the taxpayers of this country by saying our side is all emotion? Yes, I do want the conservation benefits, but clean water isn't an emotional issue. It is a matter of human health, too. Think about it, buddy. Do you like paying for things you don't get? Reader Comments Farmer Brown — 07/18/2008 12:07:49 Nice commentary. I would also point out that the farmers have been taking off crops in the past off this land so its not like it is changing uses. What about tree fiber farms that grow trees for many years and then come in and harvest it for the pulp. I guess it is different when the government isn't paying them for the years the trees are growing. It is still a drastic change in habitat that has been developed over the years. Another thing is not all are going to opt to do anything different with their CRP. In my area much is remote hilly country that can't have hay made and is hard to fence to run cows so the issue is blown out of proportion. Article: Emotion versus logic on the Conservation Reserve Add Your Comment To post a comment on this story, enter your screen name and email address then click "Add Comment." Your email address will not be displayed. 51 Recommend | 4 Comments

	Web hpj.com

Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008.  High Plains Publishers, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com