Conservation in a new age of high-valued commodities

Conservation biologists are working in a new era.  Frequent readers of this blog will recognize my constant drumbeat on this theme (here and here, for example).  Landscapes are changing, even as I write--with grass and trees being removed to make way for high-valued corn and beans.  Even the Nebraska Sandhills are seeing revitalization of center pivots that had been put to sleep 20 years ago.

I have previously shown a graphic of corn prices, showing that we are entering a new era in which CRP payments will find it hard to compete with potential rental rates paid by large-scale farmers.  I hear anecdotal evidence that land is selling at ever-increasing values across Iowa and Nebraska--land prices that push the limits of the margin that seems probable for making a profit.

Some have argued that we are in a bubble--that land and commodity prices will eventually crash, which will be horrible for farmers, but good for CRP and wildlife.  At a meeting of administrators of land grant universities today, I heard a different view. 

There is a group of economists who believe that world-wide commodities are indeed in a new era--and that they will not return to previous levels.  We are not in a bubble, they argue.

Jeremy Grantham has been a voice for this camp, and I have taken a graphic that he provides to support his argument.  The graphic shows a commodity index calculated by GMO Capital: the index includes agriculture commodities (but also several other commodities like coal, iron ore, and copper). 

Grantham's argument is that commodities (with the exception of some major fluxes caused by global wars) have decreased in relative value over the last century--at about 1.2% per year.  We became more efficient at producing them, essentially.  But, the recent up-tick since 2000, which I have also illustrated with my corn price graphic, is here to stay, Grantham argues.  He suggests that commodities are now raising in price because there are real shortages, caused by global population growth.  Grantham argues that this demand is real, and we are now in an era of continued demand for commodities with little room for efficiency of production (we are pretty much technologically maxed on efficiency) to balance the demand.

Commodities will remain high, says Grantham.  That has big implications for landscape use in agricultural and mining regions.  And, big implications for wildlife and conservation.  Is he right?

It is an exciting era if you are a creative conservation biologist, because new, innovative methods are going to be needed.  One can look at this as 'glass half full' if you want--and see how landscapes will be altered in ways that they may not have been altered before.  Or, you can be excited by the challenges.  For the time being, I'll put myself in the latter camp.  Regardless, it is clear that wildlife management will be conducted under a new paradigm.

April Fools!

My family has a tradition on April Fools Day that dates back to my grandfather.  The story has it that every April 1st, he would go to the window and exclaim, "Well, there's a robin in the yard!"  The family would run to the window to look, and he would joyfully shout, "April Fools!"  No robin to be seen.

A side note: the low-stakes subject of this April Fools may explain a lot about my heritage (there was no risk of physical harm and no risk of personal embarrassment that often accompanies pranks on April 1).  It doesn't take much to get my family excited?

I remember both my parents making similar annual jokes about robins or other critters in the back yard when I was growing up.  My son is now 14, and his grandfather has routinely called to exact the April Fools joke.  In recent years, the animal of choice has often been a bobcat.  The prank is played out on the phone, so the question goes something like, "I just called to tell you we have a bobcat in the back yard!"  After the desired shock expressed by my son, the April Fools gag has been revealed.  There is no bobcat.

So, it was interesting this morning when Dad called and asked my son if he could believe there was a bobcat in Dad's back yard.  "Yes" is the response that he got from my son.  Although still 'cool' to see one, bobcats are a lot more common in southern Iowa than when I was a kid at home.   So, it is not completely unusual that one might be in the back yard--as reflected in my son's less-than-shocked reaction.  It sounds like my Dad needs to get a new April Fools animal--maybe a unicorn?!  Or, maybe he should pick some southern species expanding its range--an armadillo or perhaps a peccary? 

This exchange between my Dad and my son got me thinking about the robin--the focal species of the 'original' April Fools gag played by my grandfather.  Robins are known as the sign that spring is here, even though they often stick around during winter.  But, why in the world would it have been unusual to see a robin in the yard on April 1?  It would have had to have been rare for it to be used for the prank, right?  You wouldn't run to the window and note, with shock in your voice, that there was a house sparrow would you?  It wouldn't make a good prank--no one would run to see it.

Hypothesis #1: climate is changing and March and April are warmer--leading to more robins on April 1 now than in the past.  This turns out to not be the case.  I downloaded average March and April temperatures since 1940 for Lamoni, Iowa (my grandfather's home town).  Mean monthly teamps for March and April are steady during that time period (I ran a linear regression analysis). 

Hypothesis #2: robins are more common.  I downloaded the American Robin data from the Breeding Bird Survey web page, and the trend since 1967 for survey routes in Iowa is shown here.  Sure enough, it is more than twice as likely to spot a robin in your back yard now than it was in 1967 (the earliest year of data for robins in Iowa).

Robins are adaptable birds in urban environments, and there is some evidence to suggest that robin populations decreased prior to the period of the BBS data because of DDT use and DDT levels found in earthworms--a primary food source for robins.  Hence, their relative scarcity in the 1960s made them an excellent candidate for an April Fools prank.  But, their recovery makes them a poor candidate, now.

Just goes to show--a good comedian is forced to change their material every few decades.

Hungry for hunters and anglers?

Word on the street (well, in our local newspaper) is that The Hunger Games book series has sparked a massive interest in archery programs across the US.  Kids are signing up for archery leagues in record numbers.

It is hard to tell if our literature reflects society or drives society.  In this case, a book is driving interest in archery.

In the past month, colleagues at the University of Nebraska reported--under headlines aptly constructed as "Where the Wild Things Aren't"--that references and images of nature have been disappearing from children's books since 1938.  This follows the feeding frenzy over the concern of "Nature Deficit Disorder" from Richard Louv.

More evidence that literature is at least tracking our societal trends, and perhaps playing a role in our choice of activities?

State and federal agencies are currently spending millions of dollars to recruit and retain hunters and anglers.  Maybe some of that money could be spent to support authors and screen writers who cleverly wrap hunting and angling into stories in which youth can engage.  It appears they are hungry for it.

-----------
Photo from: http://www.sportsguideblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/kids-archery-set.jpg

Is freezer space a limiting factor for deer control in Nebraska?

This morning's newspaper announced a new program from Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to address deer populations in Nebraska.  The previous earn-a-buck program is out.  The River Corridor plan is in.

Earn-a-buck required hunters in certain hunting districts to take an anterless deer (hopefully female) before shooting a buck.  The goal was to remove the population's reproductive 'engine'.  The new program also targets antlerless deer, and provides incredibly cheap licenses for long periods of time along river corridors in Nebraska.

The problem with the Earn-a-buck program was that people grumbled about it (although we Nebraskas didn't grumble as much as Earn-a-buck'ers in other states have grumbled).  And, most critically, it took effort to enforce.  There are stories of the same doe making the rounds to the check-in stations for multiple hunters--which led to tactics of making cuts on ears and such, just to make sure each doe was a fresh one.  Point: Earn-a-buck required extra law enforcement effort.

Second Point: Earn-a-buck did not help the effort to get more  hunters in the woods.

My students in Wildlife Ecology and Management learn about population regulation, and there are two things required for a predator to regulate (dependably curtail rising numbers) a prey population.  Classic ecology:  first, there must be a numeric response to increases in prey.  So, as deer numbers increase, predators (the hunters) must increase in numbers.  Game and Parks has successfully done this, state-wide, through cheaper permits and access programs.  While the number of gamebird hunters is dropping, the number of big game hunters (deer hunters included) is rising.

Statewide is one thing, but damage management has to be concerned with the local level.  The Earn-a-buck program had the potential to frustrate local hunters in regions where numbers of deer really needed to be dropped. 

The second factor needed to regulate a prey population is for the predator to increase its kill rate (number of deer taken per year by hunters, in this case).  Normally, wild animals have territorial boundaries and only so many predators can be attracted to a certain area.  And, predators only have so much room in their stomach.  So, there is a limit to the number of deer that a mountain lion can kill in an year.  Same with hunters. We only have so much freezer space. 

There have been some interesting proposals by my colleagues to increase the number of deer that a hunter can take in a year, by allowing highly regulated sales of meat.  I support their call, but that proposal has a lot of political opposition.  There are programs to allow easy transfer of meat from hunters to non-hunters and donation to facilities (nursing homes, soup kitchens) that need meat.  Those programs count on hunters taking the extra step (after processing the deer) to donate it.

So, can deer  hunters regulate deer in Nebraska?  The current tactic by Game and Parks appears to be to really hammer on the first factor above:  offering cheap licenses (now down to $11/license for two antlerless deer--that is almost giving them away from free!).  And---the River Plan targets specific areas where deer populations are most problematic and where farmers encounter the most deer damage to crops. 

It is possible that cheap licenses may accomplish both goals--more hunters taking to the field and those same hunters making the decision to continue to shoot deer by getting a second, third, or fourth cheap license (or more).

But, we still have only so much room in the freezer.  The big question is--can Game and Parks attract enough hunters to overcome the limitations of our freezer space?  It appears to be working in eastern Nebraska, according to Game and Parks' data.  Stay tuned.

Institutional fatigue

Fatigue makes cowards of us all.

                 --Vince Lombardi

Guilt is a pretty good motivator for some folks.  It has potential to work especially well for me...to the point where I have learned to identify when I am feeling guilty as part of a process to make more rational decisions. 

Lately, it seems the Guilt-O-Meter has been stuck on 'full'.

Here are some guilt-trips that have been thrown out in the past week in my professional life:

--faculty don't come to faculty meetings or planning meetings

--professionals don't come to the Nebraska Wildlife Society meetings

--faculty need to increase their grant success

--we need to increase the number of students in our majors

--faculty are not available for one-on-one student advising

--faculty should have more graduate students in their labs

--no one submitted nominations for campus awards

--no one submitted nominations for Nebraska Wildlife Society awards

--no one is volunteering to fill campus-level or department-level committee positions

--suitable, exciting candidates are not applying for Dean or department-level leadership positions

My thoughts are in regards to university faculty life, but I would guess that other professions are experiencing similar situations. The label that I am attaching to the cause of my frustrations is "institutional fatigue". It is a term that does not appear to be in widespread use, and I am not convinced that university leaders are aware that it exists.  

The only reference to 'institutional fatigue' that I can find is a description of how political instability breeds fatigue in international, on-site workers who are trying to carry out missions of cooperation between the EU and NATO.  The suggestion is that the workers are quickly tiring of trying to interpret the direction of the mission and how they should contribute to on-the-ground work.

Hmm...sounds similar.  Insert 'faculty' for 'on-site workers' and 'university administration' for 'EU and NATO'. 

So, there are two levels of this fatigue:  first, people seem to be wildly busy--to the point where folks are not contributing to 'normal' activities (serving on committees, nominating people for awards, attending faculty meetings) at 'normal' levels.  And, second, the fatigue is exacerbated by conflicting messages of what is important to the organization.

One big problem--some institutional structures have become obsolete.  My prediction: at Universities, the 'department' will be replaced in 15-20 years with a different structure.  Departments are obsolete as decisions are made at higher levels and more work is between-departments than within-departments; faculty perceive this and have stopped attending faculty meetings because nothing is accomplished of meaning.  Professional societies may also re-structure in the coming years.  The local-level structures (i.e., Nebraska chapter of The Wildlife Society) are already re-evaluating how important their existence is to their members.

Professionals of all types are working at a different level than our colleagues of 50 years ago did.  We are called to be more efficient and produce more than our colleagues did in the past.  The structures in which we work are still the same, however. 

Something is going to have to change.  My bet is that fatigue and its associated guilt are eventually going to cause some major changes in the way we work.  And, that transition will be much better if we address it proactively, rather then reactively.