Incentives for a walk-in program - Shooting Preserves
January 28, 2001 Farm Bill Network Discussion Summary
By Amy Papenfuss and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu
In this discussion, participants conversed on a range of topics relating to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This range of topics included: the effectiveness and importance of the CRP, the complexity of the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI), the advantages and disadvantages of “Flex Fallow” (annual set-aside) and other farm policy bills recently introduced, and the value of brome grass. Following are highlights from the discussion:
· The main problem CRP attempts to address is supposedly lack of conservation on the ground. While CRP does a wonderful job of helping with retirement of land, it is essentially preservation versus conservation. What most of our country needs is conservation ethics and management rewards.
· Leaving something completely without management, doesn't serve wildlife, and often creates opportunities for plants we would prefer not to promote. What we need is a whole farm approach to conservation implementation. What we really need is a mechanism that makes doing conservation more lucrative than the status quo.
· If hunters want more places to hunt, they first need to realize "six degrees of separation", works best when there are more producers than when there are less.
· The average person that walks into an USDA office finds the EBI beast initially confusing. It takes quite a bit of time to sit down with that person and explain each EBI factor thoroughly.
· Citizens that are thinking of renting their land to "Big Brother" need to know how the program works before they can make a decision that CRP is a good program for them. This takes time.
· The more things we hang on the CRP EBI, the more administrative overhead costs we acquire. The Conservation Dollar Pie is only so big. The more time that USDA field staff spends in the office shoveling paper and pushing pencils, the less that gets done on the land.
· We have to be mindful on how all these things play out where the "road meets the rubber." Things often look very easy and calm when viewed from the ivory tower.
· CRP is important in terms of wildlife and health of the plant community. In the northern plains, CRP plantings are dominated by warm season grasses and forbes which evolved in an environment of wildfires and buffalo grazing. Since we don't have the buffalo, fire is the main tool, but this often is viewed as risky to the surrounding landscapes.
· Burning requires producers to maintain adequate firebreaks and to often hire a crew with training to carry out the operation. This can be expensive and I like John's recommendation to allow additional EBI points and funds to carry out the management practice.
· While Flex Fallow does permit farmers, on a voluntary and annual basis, to conserve a percentage of their total cropland acreage in exchange for higher loan rates on their remaining production--we consider it to be much more than an annual set-aside. I point this out because, to the uninformed, calling Flex Fallow just a set-aside may cause concern in two different camps.
1. The first camp includes many of you who use this list serve every day. I am very cognizant that many in the conservation/wildlife community do not like the annual nature of flex fallow. However, flex fallow offers multi-term contracts, so it can indeed be much more than an annual set-aside. We're open to how multi-term practices can be applied to our bill.
2. The other camp, however, the so-called "free-traders" or "grain-traders", curl up in fear when the word set-aside is mentioned. In this vein, flex fallow is purely voluntary, retains current planting flexibility, and I'd like to think, shouldn't scare this crowd off if they take time to understand it.
· In addition to the potential conservation benefits of flex fallow, I most often like to describe it as an option to amend the farm bill that gives farmers a real opportunity to negotiate a price from the market.
· Flexible Fallow (annual set-aside) and other farm policy bills introduced. January 28, 2001 - The Ag legislative agenda is off to a quick start with the introduction of flexible fallow bills, a couple of framer assistant packages and a resolution by Senate Democrats urging farm policy changes this year.
· S. 130 - Food Security and Land Stewardship Act of 2001, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00130: would establish a flexible fallow program under which a producer may idle a portion of the total planted acreage of the loan commodities of the producer in exchange for higher loan rates for marketing assistance loans on the remaining acreage of the producer. This is basically an annual set-aside program requiring the set-aside land to be devoted to an annual conservation use with practices to enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitat.
· It does allow the Secretary to implement a multi-year program for conservation uses. A similar bill, H. R. 32, Food Security and Land Stewardship Act of 2001, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00032:, has been introduced in the House by Representatives Doug Bereuter and Bob Schaffer Senate Resolution 13 sponsored by Senator Dashel and 18 other senators (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.res.00013: and see "text of legislation) calls on Congress to take action on farm policy legislation this year because " the farm economy and the financial condition of farm and ranch families and rural communities continue to decline."
· Language in the resolution outlines several "inequities" under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act that justify moving farm policy legislation promptly, such as inconsistent criteria for receipt of disaster payments, the unpredictability of the payments, and the inequity of payments across producers, regions, and agricultural commodities.
· The resolution also calls on Congress to:
(1) Include sufficient funds in the FY2002 budget to provide an adequate farm income safety net and eliminate the need for off-budget, emergency spending.
(2) Ensure that all farm-related payments are allocated fairly and reasonably and in relation to need.
(3) Provide additional sums as necessary to fund other farm bill priorities, such as rural development and telecommunication, conservation, research, nutrition, and food safety.
· S. 20, Securing a Future for Independent Agriculture Act of 2001, has also been introduced by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00020:). This agricultural assistance package would provide protection from anticompetitive practices and contract fairness; establish a national rural cooperative and business equity fund, provide country of origin labeling, marketing assistance loan rate equalization, farmland protection, and civil rights protection for minority farmers.
· S. 165, Farm Equity Act introduced by Sen. Dorgan that would increase loan rates for marketing assistance loans for each of the 2001 and 2002 crops (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00165:). The bill would also make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye.
· S. 130 - Food Security and Land Stewardship Act of 2001, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00130: would establish a flexible fallow program under which a producer may idle a portion of the total planted acreage of the loan commodities of the producer in exchange for higher loan rates for marketing assistance loans on the remaining acreage of the producer. This is basically an annual set aside program requiring the set aside land to be devoted to an annual conservation use with practices to enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitat. However, it does allow the Secretary to implement a multi year program for conservation uses. A similar bill, H. R. 32, Food Security and Land Stewardship Act of 2001.
William McGuire
· Even though, as a restorationist of a private prairie project, I have no love of smooth brome grass, I must disagree with the sentiment that brome grass fields have no value for wildlife or hunters (at least in Iowa County, Iowa). On our 640 acre project, the fallow pasture and CRP of the open ridges is dominated by smooth brome (nearly a monoculture with only a little quack grass, blue grass, timothy and a diminishing thistle crop).
· Since summer of 1997 we have observed numerous singing male bobolinks, dickcissels and sedge wrens (as well as the ubiquitous red-winged blackbirds). Grasshopper sparrows also are not infrequently heard and seen. Modest numbers of singing male Henslow's sparrows are well distributed across the brome-dominated ridge tops (and only seen and heard there!). This uncommon grassland bird, listed by Iowa as Threatened, has been positively sighted and heard both in as yet unburned areas and in burned areas the summer following our spring burns. Contrary to published reports, recent burning (indeed as little as 1.5-months prior) seems to have little impact on the presence of territorial male Henslow's at our site.
· Furthermore, our tract harbors at least a diffuse population of the smooth green snake, also listed by Iowa as Threatened. It has been sighted nearly throughout our farm, both in brome-dominated areas and in other habitats. I also would point out that we allow free hunting (white-tailed deer, rabbit, raccoon, and pheasant only) on our farm which completely lacks row-cropped areas.
· In 1999/00 we had 198 pheasant hunters comply with our request that written permission be executed in order for them to hunt (only about 170 did actually hunt). About 140 roosters (all wild hatched to my knowledge) were reported harvested by the about 75% of these hunters who renewed their hunting permission for the 2000/01 season. With both new and returning hunters, I estimate that we hosted over 200 pheasant hunters this 2000/01 season. These hunters not only found reason to hunt our brome fields but also seem to me to concentrate their efforts to take pheasants in the brome itself. Of course our project isn't all brome. I estimate that we have (roughly): 40 acres never ploughed but degraded prairie, 40 acres naturally regenerating prairie (mostly steep slopes cultivated many years ago and with smooth brome a major component), 100 acres rented for hay and pasture (mostly planted to endophyte-free tall fescue but also some alfalfa), 20 acres planted to eastern gamma grass filter strips (not yet established), 100 acres in trees and brush (mostly "weed trees" in draws, steep slopes and stream galleries; also degrading the prairie remnants), and the remaining 340 acres of pasture and CRP in nearly a monoculture of smooth brome.
· Lest you believe we are deluded in proceeding with a prairie project here, our floristic quality assessment for the entire 640-acre tract has so far found 434 spontaneously occurring plant taxa (328 native to Iowa). Of these, 207 species are prairie plants of Ladd (1997). These prairie plants have a Coefficient of Conservatism averaging 3.9 (draft under development for Iowa by Drobney, et al) and yield a Floristic Quality Index of about 57 for our tract.
· However, the prairie plants are dominants or co-dominants on only 13% compared to smooth brome pasture/CRP. Which comprises over 50% of our tract (including all of the open ridges). Although not a desirable vegetative cover, I believe that our brome fields do provide significant wildlife benefits for grassland species, both state-listed and more common species.
· Furthermore, the continuing interest of both returning and new hunters indicates that there is considerable value for production of or cover for game species. I ask that you do not reject without thought the value of existing vegetation before destroying it to plant "more desirable" cover types.
· Indeed, much of our remnant prairie habitat would not have been recognized as such in the heavily-grazed condition prior to our purchase of it -- and could easily have been destroyed to plant an "enhanced" but much lower diversity CP25 mix (undoubtedly of exotic ecotype to our area). Richard S Rhodes II, private landowner Iowa City, Johnson Co, IA & Indiangrass Hills, Pilot Township, Iowa County, IA