|
|
|
National Wildlife Federation responds to criticismBy Jennifer M. Latzke The July 8 decision by a U.S. District Court judge to impose a temporary restraining order on grazing and haying of 24 million Conservation Reserve Program acres has not been welcome news to most ranchers on the High Plains. Many had spent time and money improving CRP pastures, or had already started haying their acres. Most were anticipating being able to turn out hungry cattle and rest their drought-stressed pastures for a season. And every phone call to the High Plains Journal regarding this order has had one main question: Why is the National Wildlife Federation against this provision and why did they wait until now? NWF responds But, the NWF contends that its lawsuit to challenge the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to open up the CRP land under a new Critical Feed Use provision is in the best interest of wildlife and the future use of CRP acres by ranchers. Julie Sibbing, senior program manager for Wetlands and Agricultural Policy for the NWF, explained the organization and six of its state affiliates filed for the injunction and the temporary restraining order against the Critical Feed Use provision because they felt the USDA had not followed its own regulations regarding the timing of grazing and haying of CRP acres. "We want to make sure that people understand that haying and grazing are allowed under a managed plan," Sibbing said. "The new contract modification throws out the window what has been managed for years." Specifically, the NWF is worried that no environmental impact analysis had been conducted by USDA before allowing this new provisional use and, therefore, was opening the CRP land indiscriminately. "We know of several things that could be a serious concern in implementation," she said. "If they hay as late as Nov. 10, which is allowed under this, the land could be denuded and provide no place for wildlife this winter. Arid areas, under the haying and grazing management plans, may have been grazed last year, and this would allow them to hay again." Sibbing said it could take up to 10 years to replenish the forage available on CRP. "We've never been opposed to emergency haying and grazing for counties with declared disasters," Sibbing said. "That's legitimate. This is just a sudden windfall to CRP owners that came out of nowhere." Timing of the court case The timing of the NWF's court challenge is one major sticking point for many producers. The USDA announced its intentions to open up 24 million CRP acres under this new provision in late May. However, Sibbing contends that NWF had no expectations that this new provision would be in place in 2008. NWF didn't challenge the USDA's decision until after the first states had already signed up producers and began implementing the program starting July 2 in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. "It's unfortunate that no one expected this to happen this year," she said. "No one knew the USDA would allow it this suddenly. "A lot took advantage (of the program) and spent money, but now they are mad at us for saying it's not legal when the USDA led them to believe it was," she continued. "No one knew. USDA gave Congress a half hour notice that they're doing this and that's part of the problem. They went ahead and did it and knew it was illegal." However, the USDA released a public statement May 27 that announced its intentions to authorize certain acreage to be available for hay and forage after the primary nesting season ended for grass-nesting birds. Sign-up began June 2 for the program. "More than 24 million acres of land enrolled in CRP will be eligible for this critical feed use program," according to the statement. "USDA estimates that this program will make available up to 18 million tons of forage worth $1.2 billion." The statement went on to explain the provisions for land eligibility, including that some of the land enrolled must be reserved for wildlife and all enrolled acres must have a conservation plan in place. "Further, the most environmentally sensitive land enrolled in CRP will not be eligible," the USDA statement said. Also, the modification for critical feed use would only be for 2008 and all forage use must be completed by Nov. 10. The nesting season referred to is the one that was agreed upon by the USDA and NWF in a 2006 settlement. Sibbing referenced the 2006 decision, explaining that NWF was concerned that USDA had not followed the rules and conducted an environmental impact analysis. The NWF did not do an analysis either to present to the court, though. "The only thing we said to the court was that there needed to be an environmental analysis and USDA did nothing," Sibbing said. "The funny thing about this is that we sued them in 2004 for not doing an environmental analysis and we knew full well if we went to court we'd win. Farmers should be angry with USDA for giving away the program." Location of the court case Another contentious issue is that the U.S. District Court that is hearing this case is located in Seattle, Wash., where there are minimal acres affected. Sibbing explained NWF was concerned that many Washington state CRP acres eligible under this provision are habitat for the sage grouse, and that it was a legal principal to either perform a review of USDA's actions regarding all 24 million acres or none at all. Sibbing said a compromise to this proposed legal action would be that USDA would withdraw the Critical Feed Use provision and pledge to work under its current authority to promote managed haying and grazing, specifically under existing management plans written into contracts. Also, NWF contends that if the CRP acres are to be used as forage then the routine 25 percent reduction in fees stay in place, rather than the $75 per contract enrollment fee. "There are people who don't have land in CRP because they want to produce hay on an intensive basis," Sibbing said. "Suddenly we allow those in CRP to harvest theirs and compete with those guys and flood the market with hay." Overall, Sibbing reiterated that the NWF isn't opposed to emergency forage use of CRP in federally declared areas struck by drought or floods. Only that the organization is opposed to USDA implementing this plan without public review and that producers shouldn't be angry with NWF for bringing this case to court. "We say (producers') anger should be placed with USDA who have put folks through this," Sibbing said. Jennifer M. Latzke can be reached by phone at 620-227-1807, or by e-mail at jlatzke@hpj.com. 7/21/08 Date: 7/17/08
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. 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 |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
