Pittman and Robertson never considered this

I always enjoy games where people try to connect two seemingly disparate topics. Want to play? OK, try this on for size:

(1) Mass shooting tragedies and (2) funding for wildlife research

What is the connection? Give up?

The connection is that tragedies like December's horrific shootings in Connecticut usually start conversations about guns and gun control. Those conversations make some people nervous, and those people go to gun stores and buy handguns and other firearms they fear may be outlawed in the near future. When they buy those guns, they pay an excise tax (11%; handguns: 10%) that is applied to all guns and ammunition. And, the federal government distributes those funds to the states to fund habitat management and research to support game species of wildlife (as well as hunter education programs).

And, it appears to be happening again. Gun stores are reporting record sales. And, wildlife research should be well-funded for the next couple of years. An odd turn, to say the least.

The legislation that supports this excise tax was passed during the midst of the Depression in 1937; it was the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, but is most often referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act. Pittman and Robertson were federal legislators from Nevada and Virginia. The Act was a grand idea, and a unique part of the American experience--hunters supporting conservation.

Of course, Pittman and Robertson most likely never considered the large collector market, much less the potential for non-hunting weapons to contribute to the pot of funds. In the coming year, we citizens will debate the best way to protect society, and especially our children. A bit of common sense shall do us well.

The Great Plains shelterbelt plan

If you watched Ken Burns' "The Dust Bowl" documentary, you saw some brief references to a large plan to create a network of shelterbelts, or wind breaks, throughout the Great Plains. I did a bit of digging around, and found some interesting photos and tidbits about this program.

For Cornhuskers, you might be interested to know that Lincoln, Nebraska was home to this regional project for the USDA Forest Service. The USDA Agroforestry Research Center on the East Campus of UNL is the modern-day, visible sign of this federal investment in the midst of the Depression.

The US Forest Service archives have a couple cool photos that I thought I would share here. It is an example of how the landscape of the Great Plains has been altered by government policies. The shelterbelt program was credited with slowing wind erosion in local areas.

The US Forest Service estimates that shelterbelts were placed on 30,000 farms (over 200 million trees), and the total length of shelterbelts was 18,600 miles (circumference of the earth at equator: approximately 25,000 miles).

The addition of trees to the Plains has had far-reaching effects on wildlife diversity as well. More deer, turkeys, and shrub and forest-dwelling birds now populate the Plains.

Public Photos:
Map of areas of highest planting intensity, 1935-42, available on-line at: http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/first_century/sec4.htm

Photo of Raphael Zon, standing in front of map of proposed planting areas, available on-line at: http://fhsarchives.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/december-1-1874-a-red-star-is-born/

Dust Bowl statistics from Nebraska

Many folks around the country have been tuning into The Dust Bowl, a documentary by Ken Burns that has been showing on PBS stations.  Nebraska was not at the heart of the drought and was not a literal part of the Dust Bowl, centered on TX, OK, KS, and southeast CO. But, the drought affected Nebraska. Did we see similar trends in Nebraska as depicted on the documentary?

I published a paper, with three colleagues, in 2009 (Hiller et al. 2009. Great Plains Research Volume 19) that detailed the history of Nebraska land use for agriculture, and our data summaries allow an easy comparison to the statistics and trends noted for the southern Plains in The Dust Bowl. So, here are some Nebraska land-use trends.

The Dust Bowl noted that because of high wheat prices in the 20's, everyone had "broken out" (the language of the dry land farmer for plowing) land to increase acreage. So, when the drought of the 30's hit, there was more land under the plow than ever before. Correct in Nebraska?

ANSWER: turns out to be truer than true. In Figure 2A in our paper, you can see that Nebraska had more land under agricultural production in the late 20's than ever before. And, we have not been back to that level of agricultural use of land since. So, yes--Nebraska had broken out land. Interestingly, if you look at Figure 2B, you will see that Nebraska's wheat production had not gone up...the breaking out of land was for increased corn production. That is different than the trends in the southern Plains, where drier lands prevented corn and necessitated wheat.

The Dust Bowl noted that there was a massive demographic shift caused by the drought. People sold farms when they could not pay the bills. Did the same thing happen in Nebraska?

ANSWER: Yes. Very much so. Take a look at Figure 1 in the Hiller et al. paper. By 1910, the size and number of farms in Nebraska had largely stabilized--there was consolidation after the initial homesteading failures. But, in 1930, a critical change occurs in the trajectory of both size and number of farms...and again, we have never looked back. Fewer, larger farms became the trend, and that trend is still true: we are still consolidating.

The Dust Bowl noted there the demographic shift for the Southern Plains included a large exodus of people leaving for California and states west. Was this the same for Nebraska?

ANSWER: Maybe, but mostly not the same. Although I have found some photos in the Library of Congress of displaced farmers from Nebraska that moved to Wisconsin and Oregon, the state population did not markedly change because of the depression and the drought (effects of both have to be considered). Census figures (links below) show that the population of rural Nebraska peaked at 679K in 1910, while the state population has yet to peak--thus, urban Nebraska has continued to grow, while rural Nebraska has shrunk since 1910. In 1920, the rural portion of the population, for the first time, dipped below 50% of the state population (it was 48% in 1920). In 1930, the rural percent of population was 42%, and in 1940 (assumedly after effects of the drought had been seen) the rural portion was 40%. Growth, overall, was slow in the 30's, but the state did not shrink because of outward migration, and the rural portion of the population actually declined at a slower pace than it did between 1910 and 1920 or between 1920 and 1930 (losses of 9% and 6% of the total state population, compared to a reduction of only 2% between 1930 and 1940). Lots of stats there, but the bottom line: Nebraska did not see massive exodus like the southern Great Plains.

The Dust Bowl noted that the drought caused a large shift in agriculture: federal government's involvement in ag through subsidies and complex farm policy, and a furthering of the push to install large systems of irrigation. Did those happen in Nebraska?

ANSWER: There is no doubt. These two forces have changed Nebraska's landscapes more than the drought did, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Nebraska has more irrigated acres than any other state (>8.5 million acres, one out of every six irrigated acres in the US, according to UNL ag economist Bruce Johnson). Our irrigation system is so complex that at one point, an irrigation canal goes under the Platte River and I80 and resurfaces on the other side! And that system supports the state's economy. Just look out your window as you drive through I80 on your way to Colorado.

-------
Nebraska population census stats from:
http://www.neded.org/files/research/stathand/bsect5a.htm
http://www.neded.org/files/research/stathand/bsect5b.htm

A bit of a tadoo about a tree

The 'land ethic' is interesting when it comes to application.  Many people who genuinely care for the land have given in or given up on something of concern when the price becomes too high.  Not so in Texas, where a 100-year-old oak tree was moved to make way for a highway project. 

This is a fun video to watch.   An incredible amount of effort for one tree.

If nothing else, it is a demonstration of the power of 'yellow' equipment being put to the test.

A tip of my hat to Mom and Dad Powell for showing me the video.

Economic impact of landscapes in Nebraska

Ever wonder how much money comes from hunting and fishing and nature viewing (and etc.) in the United States and Nebraska?  The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has participated in a study to establish some estimates.  Watch the video below:  the quick answer--it approaches $2 Billion (with a "B"!) every year. 

As a comparison, net agricultural receipts in Nebraska has been hovering around $7-8 Billion each year.  I bet you didn't realize that Nebraska's landscapes were competing with production agriculture (Nebraska's largest portion of the economy) for such impact on Nebraskans?

My colleagues in Namibia train their students in wildlife and nature conservation to be proud of their contributions to their nation's economy.  We need to do the same in the US. 

Maybe we get stuck on teaching Aldo Leopold's "A Land Ethic"--and we try to convince everyone they should be 'doing conservation' for the general good feeling you get (by having a 'land ethic').  But, we miss the opportunity to make the point that conservation can pay!  It's a new way to think about wildlife education.