I was interviewed a week ago by Grant Gerlock with Harvest Public Media. Grant asked me to describe the changes that have take place on a section of land near Ord, NE. Here is the video of that discussion:
November 28, 2013
Ghosts on the landscape
 |
| A view of the landscape around my parents' farm in southwest Iowa during harvest season. |
My wildlife colleagues and I have been discussing the trend of simplified landscapes in farm regions. Farms that raised 3-4 crops in the 1950s now raise two crops (corn and beans) at most. Some raise only corn. Farms that used to host a variety of livestock (cows, pigs, horses, sheep) now have none. Gone are small grains (oats, wheat), and gone are pastures that used to surround farmsteads to provide forage for the small flocks of livestock. In 2002, the average number of commodities grown by US farmers was 1.2. Yes, 1.2. And, that was before the ethanol boom.
Even the crop fields are 'simpler' than they once were. High commodity prices and the use of no-till planting (planting directly into unbroken soil from last year's harvest without plowing or discing) have reduced the perceived need for grassed waterways. Grass strips around fields and along streams have disappeared. Large machinery, such as 12- and 16-row combines and planters, needs to turn around in the fields, so small trees have been taken out. Finding a shady spot to make repairs is tough.
A recent trend, which pushed the Nebraska Forest Service to issue an alert, has been the removal of trees along streams and creeks to enable as much crop area as possible to take advantage of high commodity prices. All of these trends make folks concerned with wildlife populations and soil erosion a little nervous. Well, actually, the trends scare us.
As I drove the combine and tractor through the fields and around the neighborhood, I witnessed these trends first-hand. It was a weekend of seeing 'ghosts' in every direction.
Near one of my Dad's fields, across from the neighborhood cemetery, is the ghost of the 1-room schoolhouse. It hasn't been a school house for a long time. However, it was where I first went with my parents to watch them vote. No sign of it, now. Just a ghost.
There are many places where I could see ghosts of barns and abandoned houses that I remember as a kid. The structures are now completely gone. Some of the spaces now host a large silver grain bin, or a cottonwood tree may remain to bear testimony to the fact that this space was once a thriving farmstead.
Fences have disappeared in the last 15 years. If livestock are not on pastures, there is no need to for a fence to keep them from escaping and there is no need to fence your crops to stop livestock from going in your crops. No one drives cattle down the roads anymore in this neighborhood, so a corridor of fences is not needed. Of the 12 sides of pieces of my parents' farm, I believe that 4 of them have had fences removed. And, their farm may be unique, in that they still have pastures next to 5 of those sides of their property. So, at least 5 of their fences are still being used to keep in/out livestock.
So, you can see fence-ghosts. Lone metal t-posts are left to remind neighbors of the location of property lines. My parents have good neighbors, and my father and one of his neighbors now plant their crops side-by-side at the property border. The grass strip and some trees that once surrounded the fence line has disappeared. It's a sign of good neighbors, and a sign of change on the landscape. The folks who once farmed that land used to climb that fence to fish in our pond. It would be a much easier walk for Lester and Olive, now. And, they would not believe how the landscape has changed.
At Christmas, our family used to conduct a 'wildlife census' by walking around the property near the house to see how many pheasants and quail we could scare up. We haven't done one of those walks in a long time; mostly, we knew what the result would be. This past weekend, I saw only one pheasant while harvesting. And, I saw none of the hunters that used to over-run the neighborhood in the 70s and 80s. A few more ghosts to add to the list. Ghosts wearing orange vests, and ghosts with white rings around their necks and wonderful long tail-feathers.
I thought about these things as I worked the combine through strips of corn and beans that my father uses to combat soil erosion. I navigated across the grass strips that he has kept in his farm fields. My father has planted his fields with a concern for the soils that he stewards. People have slowed their pickups to look at his unique strips of crops for over 35 years. And still, only one pheasant on his farm.
Economic forces are heavy forces. These ghosts on the landscape represent progress, in some form. Or, at least they are symbols of change. It is clear that our rural landscapes are not natural landscapes; they are industrial landscapes where natural resources are extracted efficiently. The problem is--many people think rural landscapes are natural landscapes. They expect 'natural products' like pheasants to come along for the ride. In fact, some of these landscapes are no more natural than a parking lot. And, that is tough for this former farm kid to write. But, economics is economics; the landscapes are designed to produce corn, and they do that well.
Pheasants are only going to come back when land owners decide they need to manage for pheasants. In previous landscapes (1950s) pheasants did come along for free. So, it is difficult to convince a person that it takes planning, management, and insight to grow pheasants in a modern farm landscape. For the moment, most people seem to believe in ghosts.
September 8, 2013
Children are NOT like flowers
Yesterday was a nice, warm Saturday in eastern Nebraska, and our family trekked out to a local orchard to pick raspberries and apples. By day's end, a pie featuring both fruits was in our tummies.
On the way home, we passed a billboard. It was a billboard of the type that can be seen in the Great Plains states--which are 'redder' states, as a group, than anywhere else in the country. We (speaking from the perspective of the majority) are conservative, we farm, and we are pro-life. We put up billboards about all three.
This billboard was pro-life. It was bedazzled with images of flowers, and it read, "Too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Simple. Effective. I like flowers. Why stand in the way of populating the world with more children?
The irony was that the billboard was standing in the midst of a cornfield.
Today's column by Alan Guebert (Farm and Food) commented directly on the problem not addressed by the billboard in a Nebraska cornfield. Human population growth.
Guebert commented on the current "manifest destiny" arguments that we must bolster production of agriculture in terms of efficiency and quantity so that we may "Feed the World". The argument centers around the projection that the world population will be 9 billion by 2050. If you look back at my blog, you'll see that I commented on the possibility that recent evidence suggests we may not get that high, but that's another story....maybe.
Guebert's main criticism of the agriculture community is that we do not discuss world population growth--the "demand" side of the equation. We only discuss the need for "supply." He writes, "How do we in U.S. agriculture constantly chew over how much food the world might need in the future and never once get within a hoe's length of discussing population?"
He comments that one reason is that the conversation becomes very complex when you are discussing world population growth, so it is easier to avoid the discussion. Just like the billboard--it's a lot more complicated than the cuteness of our kiddos. Guebert asks, "Is that [the tendency to avoid the issue] stubbornness or arrogance?"
Guebert also quotes a study from the University of Leeds that estimated that women around the world have a combined 80 million unwanted pregnancies per year--which is nearly equal to today's annual population growth, worldwide. We know that income, education, and women's rights play directly into that equation. We also know that children in developed countries eat a lot more than children in developing countries--contributing more to the worldwide food deficit.
Yes. For some families in our world, there can be too many children. Sorry, Mr. Billboard.
Bringing this topic home (for me and other Nebraskans), the University of Nebraska has developed a Water for Food Institute. We can hope that the Institute will contribute to the broader discussion, and perhaps erect a few billboards of their own.
How about: "Help feed the world: send your daughter to college and use a condom."
It is not as cute as a billboard with flowers on it, I will admit. Pass the pie, I'll keep thinking.
---------------------
You can read Alan Guebert's full column "Feeding the world, but not talking about it" here
.
August 20, 2013
Landscape change
In the past, I have talked about the slow speed at which the landscape changes...and how humans often do not perceive the change that is happening, even on their own farm and potentially even when they are the architects of the change.
Well, the current rate of landscape change has sped up. The culprit is high commodity prices, which is not news....for the past couple of years, marginal grounds have been 'recovered' by removing trees and canceling CRP contracts to put ground into production. And, why not? There is money to be made. If you owned that piece of ground, you might make the same decision.
But, a couple of bell-weather signs of the SPEED of this change have come out in the past couple of weeks.
First, the state of Nebraska and the state of Iowa have both released news releases about the dramatic loss of trees. Nebraska went as far to issue a press-release that had the wording of an endangered species announcement....and the species of concern? The cottonwood. Who would have thought we would get to the point where people were concerned about one of the fastest growing, most common species (and our state tree)?
Last, today the Upland Game forecast was released in Nebraska. Besides the words that most Nebraskans have grown accustomed to (pheasant numbers appear to be down, but late production might still offer some hope), the following phrases were included:
"Habitat loss in the eastern counties continues to be a concern. Hunters are again advised to scout areas prior to hunting to make certain areas are still available."
Yup, that's right...the landscape is changing so fast that you might not be able to hunt (or even find) the spot you loved last year. Wow. Grass disappearing quickly.
Worst of all...that favorite shade tree might be gone. We live in interesting times.
August 18, 2013
Feral and free-ranging cats in history: 1933
In the course of doing research for a new book, I ran across an interesting editorial on feral and free-ranging cats from 1933. The editorial appeared in Nature Magazine (published by The American Nature Association in Baltimore, MD).
To place the editorial in context, remember that the 1930's were essentially 50 years (a couple of human generations, but perhaps 8-10 cat generations) after settlement of the western US by Europeans. In the Great Plains, these 50 years had seen massive transitions, including the obvious removal of Native Americans. Barbed wire had also appeared, farms now dotted the landscape, and mechanization was beginning to shape the size and shape of the farm. A transition that had not occurred to me was the appearance of cats in this landscape.
Cats were introduced by Europeans aboard ships (to control mice). It is intriguing to think about the spread of cats in the western hemisphere. And, as cats spread, the number of feral cats increased. Feral cats, by definition, are cats that are outside, have no owner, and are not tame. Free-ranging cats are cats that are owned but allowed to roam outside.
By the 1930's, when the editorial below went to press, the problem of feral and free-ranging cats was already a controversy. Cats are still in the news. I have colleagues at the University of Nebraska who have recently contributed to the discussion about feral cats by providing management guidelines to those seeking to find solutions to feral cat issues. You might check the University of Nebraska's Extension publication or a book by Dr. Stephen Vantassel if you have further interest in the topic. Stephen suggests there are 60 million feral cats in the US (we have a bit over 310 million people!). The Wildlife Society, to which I belong, has released a position statement on feral and free-ranging cats, as well.
All of the recent publications listed above have roused public outcry from some types of cat lovers. And, outcry of this type is referenced in the 1933 editorial, below. As you read the editorial, I think you will also notice the unique mix of the feral cat issue with the issue-of-the-day: declining wildlife in North America and the transition from sustenance hunting by humans to sport hunting. Wildlife laws were in place, but large bag limits (e.g., 15 ducks per day) were the norm. Thus, sport hunting and cats found a place on the same end of this editorial!
Here, in its entirety from the March 1933 issue of Nature Magazine is the editorial "Cats: is some regulation of the feline a wild life necessity?"
"Curled up in the corner of the sofa or purring contentedly before the fire, Tom or Tabby looks like a much-domesticated, well-civilized pet. Even to intimate that this view is debatable is to invite the ire of many. The friends of the cat are legion, ranging from those who own felines with imposing pedigrees to those who befriend any and every alley cat. And the number of cats forms a greater legion than that of their defenders.
"It is just this great number that moves us to risk the deluge and to say something about cats. They pose a question of outstanding interest to lovers of wild life. It is a question that becomes more important as cats increase and our wild life wanes.
"An heritage from a wild ancestry, there remains innate in the feline, however finely bred, the instinct of the marauder. In the dim past its ancestor lived in and from the forest, preyed upon and preying. Predatory instincts in a civilized environment cost us great sums for police and courts and jails. This trait is, in a cat, natural, not discreditable; in man, punishable. But that it does exist makes the cat a problem.
"The solution most frequently proposed is that licensing of cats be compulsory. To this proposal the American Humane Association, in a brief statement, raises protest, declaring that "the idea back of the project is that if there were fewer cats there would be more game for sportsmen to shoot." It is true that most of the inspiration of the movement to license cats comes from sportsmen. It is likewise true that if there were fewer cats there would be more game. And, further, it is a fact that, as the Humane Association says, "there would be more game if there were less shooting."
"It is plain that, between hunters and the cats, the game birds are in a sad way. It is our ardent hope that it will not be long before sportsmen recognize the inevitable and put their own house in order. At the same time we cannot see why, in the event of such a millennium, the feline should be preserved in a monopoly on hunting.
"The Humane Association asserts that the public will have no sympathy with the licensing idea; that the farmer will not relinquish the aid of the cat in fighting rodents; that cat lovers will organize and post ten times more land against hunters. This last argument, we fear, is likely to appeal to bird lovers and true conservationist as an excellent reason for licensing cats.
"We agree that the licensing idea is not a good one. We feel that a license for the cat would give it a preferred status as a killer. There are too many of these already. And we believe that cat license laws would be even less readily enforceable than are the current dog licensing laws. We recognize that one can fence against the dog fairly effectively, but no fence discourages a cat.
"While we are alternatively agreeing and disagreeing with the Humane Association, we do not feel that the whole picture has been given. Our birds of song and beauty are favorite victims of the marauding cat. We have every sympathy for the bird lover who, having watched a family of baby birds develop in the back yard nest, destroys by the most convenient means available the cat which is about to wipe out the little family. If this cat bore a license, there might be a lawsuit. As it is there may be nothing more serious than the exchange of a few harsh words and an coldness between one bird lover and one cat lover.
"Now that we have discarded the license idea for what we regard as adequate reasons, what remains? Not much, we fear, except the naïve hope that we are progressing in our ability to think of our fellow man. There is great joy and value in our human affection for a dumb creature, whether cat, dog, horse or other. But when we let that love become so dominating and so selfish that it infringes upon the right of our neighbor to invite songbirds to his bird houses, feeding tray and bird bath, we forfeit rights of consideration in return. As for the thousands of criminally thoughtless and inhumane people who turn cats loose to fend for themselves instead of turning them over to the local humane society, they have no right to the affection or companionship of any animal, dumb or otherwise.
"Let us recognize, then, that the cat is naturally and frequently a predator; that the extent of damage done by the marauding feline is our own human responsibility; that the welfare of wild life in general demands a far better control of the homeless cat; and that those who wish to keep such a pet should feed it well and keep at a minimum its urge and opportunity to hunt."
--------
Editorial is from The American Nature Association. 1933. Cats: is some regulation of the feline a wild life necessity? Nature Magazine 24(3): 103.
To place the editorial in context, remember that the 1930's were essentially 50 years (a couple of human generations, but perhaps 8-10 cat generations) after settlement of the western US by Europeans. In the Great Plains, these 50 years had seen massive transitions, including the obvious removal of Native Americans. Barbed wire had also appeared, farms now dotted the landscape, and mechanization was beginning to shape the size and shape of the farm. A transition that had not occurred to me was the appearance of cats in this landscape.
Cats were introduced by Europeans aboard ships (to control mice). It is intriguing to think about the spread of cats in the western hemisphere. And, as cats spread, the number of feral cats increased. Feral cats, by definition, are cats that are outside, have no owner, and are not tame. Free-ranging cats are cats that are owned but allowed to roam outside.
By the 1930's, when the editorial below went to press, the problem of feral and free-ranging cats was already a controversy. Cats are still in the news. I have colleagues at the University of Nebraska who have recently contributed to the discussion about feral cats by providing management guidelines to those seeking to find solutions to feral cat issues. You might check the University of Nebraska's Extension publication or a book by Dr. Stephen Vantassel if you have further interest in the topic. Stephen suggests there are 60 million feral cats in the US (we have a bit over 310 million people!). The Wildlife Society, to which I belong, has released a position statement on feral and free-ranging cats, as well.
All of the recent publications listed above have roused public outcry from some types of cat lovers. And, outcry of this type is referenced in the 1933 editorial, below. As you read the editorial, I think you will also notice the unique mix of the feral cat issue with the issue-of-the-day: declining wildlife in North America and the transition from sustenance hunting by humans to sport hunting. Wildlife laws were in place, but large bag limits (e.g., 15 ducks per day) were the norm. Thus, sport hunting and cats found a place on the same end of this editorial!
Here, in its entirety from the March 1933 issue of Nature Magazine is the editorial "Cats: is some regulation of the feline a wild life necessity?"
 |
| Public-use image from Wikipedia. |
"It is just this great number that moves us to risk the deluge and to say something about cats. They pose a question of outstanding interest to lovers of wild life. It is a question that becomes more important as cats increase and our wild life wanes.
"An heritage from a wild ancestry, there remains innate in the feline, however finely bred, the instinct of the marauder. In the dim past its ancestor lived in and from the forest, preyed upon and preying. Predatory instincts in a civilized environment cost us great sums for police and courts and jails. This trait is, in a cat, natural, not discreditable; in man, punishable. But that it does exist makes the cat a problem.
"The solution most frequently proposed is that licensing of cats be compulsory. To this proposal the American Humane Association, in a brief statement, raises protest, declaring that "the idea back of the project is that if there were fewer cats there would be more game for sportsmen to shoot." It is true that most of the inspiration of the movement to license cats comes from sportsmen. It is likewise true that if there were fewer cats there would be more game. And, further, it is a fact that, as the Humane Association says, "there would be more game if there were less shooting."
"It is plain that, between hunters and the cats, the game birds are in a sad way. It is our ardent hope that it will not be long before sportsmen recognize the inevitable and put their own house in order. At the same time we cannot see why, in the event of such a millennium, the feline should be preserved in a monopoly on hunting.
"The Humane Association asserts that the public will have no sympathy with the licensing idea; that the farmer will not relinquish the aid of the cat in fighting rodents; that cat lovers will organize and post ten times more land against hunters. This last argument, we fear, is likely to appeal to bird lovers and true conservationist as an excellent reason for licensing cats.
"We agree that the licensing idea is not a good one. We feel that a license for the cat would give it a preferred status as a killer. There are too many of these already. And we believe that cat license laws would be even less readily enforceable than are the current dog licensing laws. We recognize that one can fence against the dog fairly effectively, but no fence discourages a cat.
"While we are alternatively agreeing and disagreeing with the Humane Association, we do not feel that the whole picture has been given. Our birds of song and beauty are favorite victims of the marauding cat. We have every sympathy for the bird lover who, having watched a family of baby birds develop in the back yard nest, destroys by the most convenient means available the cat which is about to wipe out the little family. If this cat bore a license, there might be a lawsuit. As it is there may be nothing more serious than the exchange of a few harsh words and an coldness between one bird lover and one cat lover.
"Now that we have discarded the license idea for what we regard as adequate reasons, what remains? Not much, we fear, except the naïve hope that we are progressing in our ability to think of our fellow man. There is great joy and value in our human affection for a dumb creature, whether cat, dog, horse or other. But when we let that love become so dominating and so selfish that it infringes upon the right of our neighbor to invite songbirds to his bird houses, feeding tray and bird bath, we forfeit rights of consideration in return. As for the thousands of criminally thoughtless and inhumane people who turn cats loose to fend for themselves instead of turning them over to the local humane society, they have no right to the affection or companionship of any animal, dumb or otherwise.
"Let us recognize, then, that the cat is naturally and frequently a predator; that the extent of damage done by the marauding feline is our own human responsibility; that the welfare of wild life in general demands a far better control of the homeless cat; and that those who wish to keep such a pet should feed it well and keep at a minimum its urge and opportunity to hunt."
--------
Editorial is from The American Nature Association. 1933. Cats: is some regulation of the feline a wild life necessity? Nature Magazine 24(3): 103.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)