CONGRESS READY TO PASS LARGEST EVER INVESTMENT IN WILDLIFE
A Farm Bill for Non-Farmers
By Bill Schneider, 10-24-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Most of us don’t live on farms, so why should we care about the soon-to-be-passed 2007 version of the massive federal farm bill? That’s an easy question to answer.
The current version of the farm bill does more for wildlife and public access than any legislation passed in a very long time--not only for hunters, but for everybody who enjoys seeing wildlife, game or non-game, and who doesn’t? That’s why the new farm bill matters to non-farmers.
And now is your time. You only have a few weeks left to chime in and make sure it becomes the law of the land.
“The farm bill represents the largest federal investment in conservation,” Geoff Mullins from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservaton Partnership (TRCP), a relatively new conservation organization (see last week’s column) and driving force behind passing a wildlife-friendly farm bill, recently told NewWest.Net.
How does the farm bill, always controversial because of its large subsidies, suddenly become a wildlife conservation bill? Mullins went on to briefly explain the suite of conservation programs in the bill. Briefly, they are:
- CRP, or Conservation Reserve Program ("the Holy Grail of Wildlife Conservation,” according to Mullins), which along with smaller, related programs, Wetlands Reserve Program and Grassland Reserve Program, is the most significant part of the bill. “These are land retirement programs in which land is set aside and not put into agricultural production.” Translate, it becomes quality wildlife habitat.
- Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which gives landowners financial incentives when they want to enhance wildlife habitat. “This one is a very popular program,” Mullins notes. “Applications are more than double the available funding. There are a lot of landowners who want to improve wildlife habitat, and this gives him incentive to do it by helping with the costs that they normally wouldn’t be able to afford.”
- Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the related Conservation Security Program, two more farm bill programs that help farmers make wildlife habitat improvement on lands they already have in production, often for endangered species and critical habitat.
“These are all cost-sharing programs for farmers for programs they might not be able to afford otherwise,” explains Mullins. “They are all optional programs. The farmers have to be interested in improving habitat. That’s a lot different than an automatic subsidy.”
In addition to the habitat programs in the farm bill, the TRCP is championing a new program called Open Fields. “This program grants money to state wildlife agencies to implement whatever hunter access plan they have such as Montana’s Block Management Program,” Mullins said. “We have $20 million total for this program.”
He said there was no formula for divvying out this $20 million. State agencies will request grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency to be charged with administrating the Open Fields Program, if it passes.
Right now, Mullins explains, CRP and other land retirement programs do not guarantee public access, although applications from landowners agreeing to keep land open to the public do get priority in the approval process.
“Open Fields made it through in the House passed bill at the $20 million level,” Mullins said, “and it has been in all of the drafts so far on the Senate side, so we’re hoping it stays in the senate bill.”
Every hunter knows how critical access is nowadays, so even without the cost-sharing incentive programs, the Open Fields plan should be enough to foster strong support from sportsmen and women.
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed its version of the farm bill, and it includes $21.5 billion for the above programs, all of which benefit wildlife and public access. This is, Mullins boasts, a $4.5 billion increase in funding for programs benefiting wildlife and public access compared to the current farm bill.
The Senate version is currently being marked up in committee, and Mullins says TRCP is trying to add another $1.5 billion to programs benefiting wildlife and public access. The committee will probably vote on it this week or next week, and he expects the full Senate vote sometime in the next five weeks, so now is the time to call your senator and support all of these wildlife and access programs.
If you’d like more detailed information, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
So tell me: just how much of that "incentive" do you think would actually/reasonably warrant someone allowing the public to access private land?
This is not a trick question ... I really want to know what you think.
The issue, of course, is to keep populations in proportion to habitat. And to not have too many critters camping out on de facto reserves until the hunt season is over. The State has the ability to help or not, depending upon the level of cooperation the landowner wants to offer. If the elk are eating them out of house and home, and they don't want the public shooting them, I guess they don't have any real options. The land is private and the critter resource is public. Once that is established and understood, answers should not be hard to come up with. Respect of each aspect is all it takes.
Obviously, for me anyhow, the fact, as you've stated, that "The land is private and the critter resource is public." is the crux of the matter. Many years ago I used to approach all trespassers here with a "Do you know ..." and a "Would you please ..." assuming an innocence prior to making any accusations to the contrary. But after having been called everything in the "nasty/non-nice" book of words ... and having had only *one* person *ever* tell me they were sorry and just leave my land in the last 33 years ... I regret to admit I am not a nice person to those I find on my land without my permission and keep the sheriff on speed-dial because if I do not file charges they only return the next day with a 1/2-dozen buddies in tow with them. I always do, however, take a lot of time to most sincerely thank any hunter who calls me *asking* to hunt ~ no one appreciates that courtesy more than I do in spite of the fact that I do not allow the public to hunt on my ranch.
And, of equal distress to me is the fact that our local branch of the state DOW does not even abide by the law themselves ... a fact I had the unfortunate experience of having to prove beyond any reasonable doubt last year ... a long story I will spare you on this day! I will also spare you the very unpleasant details of why I was left with no option other than to file criminal trespass charges against the USFWS, to which they finally copped a "no contest" plea.
All that said, coupled with your comment that "Supervision would be up to the State and the land owner working together." it would sound like this is not a program that I should personally pursue on my own property.
However, I will look forward to more updates from you, Bill, and am pleased to see you coming to the forefront with at least one portion of the Farm Bill that does not fall under the critical analysis of many who like to refer to that Bill as *only* having to do with so-called-subsidies for farmers. It is very important to educate urbanites regarding all rural issues, for better or for worse. Not knowing and making assumptions can do much damage to all concerned.
So when your time permits, I hope that you will do even more articles on the subject of "A Farm Bill for Non-Farmers".
It is as though most of the people, most of the time, have forgotten the enormous number of $$$$$s included in the Farm Bill that have to do with non-farmers ~ for instance:
The version of the bill voted on on July 27, 2007 contained provisions for the food stamp program that was renamed the Secure Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Special attention was given to helping states stock homeless shelters, increase availability of nutritious foods for the elderly, provide vouchers to seniors for purchasing fresh fruits and vegetable at farmer’s markets, and provide fresh fruits and vegetables to 50 schools in fifty states.
The bill would also create the National Hunger Fellowship Program and the Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellowship Program to encourage careers in humanitarian and public service, to recognize the needs of low-income individuals, and to provide assistance to people in need.
Perhaps when the dust settles you will write an article disclosing just how many of our $$$$$s labeled as the "Farm Bill" provide such benefits to our entire society? Consider it a "public service" ~ as THIS article most certainly is!!!
Thanks, Bill ~ good one!!!