I have an agreement with the
large bucks of Nebraska
that stipulates that we will
only come face to face
when I am not carrying my rifle.
This agreement works especially well
for two reasons:
I did not go hunting as much as I should,
and bucks are well-suited to avoid me when I do.
Just yesterday, I was visiting a friend
and awoke early to look out the
bedroom window
to spot a 10-point creature
slowly making its way across
the alfalfa field to the far cedars.
Hunting season: check.
Permit purchased: check.
Gun/ammunition: no.
But, as much as I need a day in the field
that ends with that sacred moment
hidden in a swale while you come
face to face with your own mortality,
I am also grounded by
the view of the tail of that buck as it disappears
into the cedars to prove
that I mean absolutely nothing to him.
December 28, 2012
Arriving at night
We came to this place
down a road that seemed like
most other roads
in the narrow glare of our high-beams.
We set up camp
with the help of shadows that seemed familiar.
The fire's glow created
a room for two
in this open field,
and there were no surprises as
we drifted to sleep.
But as we awoke,
the dawn made us aware
this place was like no other we had seen before.
The new view from our camp
broadened even as the fog rose
and finally we were standing
as captains of a ship
that has risen from the depths
in an ocean of grass and hills.
And we ask,
How could we have missed this
in the dark?
down a road that seemed like
most other roads
in the narrow glare of our high-beams.
We set up camp
with the help of shadows that seemed familiar.
The fire's glow created
a room for two
in this open field,
and there were no surprises as
we drifted to sleep.
But as we awoke,
the dawn made us aware
this place was like no other we had seen before.
The new view from our camp
broadened even as the fog rose
and finally we were standing
as captains of a ship
that has risen from the depths
in an ocean of grass and hills.
And we ask,
How could we have missed this
in the dark?
December 23, 2012
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.
(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.
December 1, 2012
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/
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/
November 23, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)