The Case for Pheasants - Precision Conservation
August 22, 2016 by UGUIDE South Dakota Pheasant Hunting
This is the first in an ongoing series from UGUIDE. Precision Conservation is the next wave of pheasant management in the Corn Belt.
While this is not a new term, it is certainly time to promote and/or resurrect the term "Precison Conservation". John Carey from Conservation Magazine wrote "If we treat agricultural pollution with a scalpel instead of a hatchet, we might have a fighting chance of cutting the flow of fertilizers into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters." - John Carey (Conservation Magazine)
Maybe another way of looking at this notion is to call it "Habitat Optimization". My definition of habitat optimization is to first seek to FULLY enhance and optimize any acre of habitat before seeking (or being permitted) to ADD any additional acre of habitat.
From experience we know how productive our brome grass CRP stands are (not) and there has been good reform to mitigate the losses to wildlife and water quality from poorly managed long term stands of CRP.
Unfortunately, the education process and knowledge base from which to reform CRP and fully optimize habitat, has a very long way to go. In fact, it is a limiting factor for existing programs. Several producers have told me they would be more interested in conservation programs if there was an entity that could more fully engage them in concert with their agronomy.
Precision Conservation is really determining to put more energy and resources into existing stands of habitat for the purposes of increasing conservation benefits. One of the mentalities behind CRP is the thought that you "set it and forget it". Biological analysis has found that over time the CRP benefits continually degrade without energy and resource investment in the initial investment.
Furthermore, the recent CRP general signup was met with historic results. Record offers and record low acceptance. I think that this is OK because it shows the turn towards reform. One of the issues with CRP and Ag producers is the fact that CRP is known for taking good quality soil out of production and its perceived impact on the local economy as such.
For instance, in CRP reform, instead of paying farmer #1 $50 acre for enrolling his whole 640 acre section in CRP, of which half is perfectly good ag production soil (cropland), you might be able to instead offer his neighbor across the road twice as much in rent for half the acres or less to completely buffer his watershed creek which ultimately feeds into the Gulf of Mexico. Another principle applied here is this, "Let's get 10% of everybody's acres in the state optimized instead of getting 100% of 10% of the farms in the state." Or another way of saying it is "Let's make sure we have ALL of the most highly sensitive resources OPTIMIZED before determining to expand acres for lower prioritized benefits.
By the way.....which is a higher priority? Water Quality? Air Quality? Wildlife? I think it depends who you ask. I know for the major funder of CRP, the federal taxpayer, the response would not be wildlife. Especially if they are a non-hunter that lives in a major city.
Part 2 of this series will address the fine job that existing conservation organizations have done over time, but will also seek to expose the huge gap in areas they are perceived to be operating in, but by law, cannot really make an impact in at all. Like Clint Eastwood once said, "Man's got to know his limitations".
What's ultimately at stake?-our planet. Here is your homework assignment: Get up to speed on our two major water quality issues related to production agriculture and where precision conservation can be the solution.
Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit
Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone related Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Take 30 seconds and cast your support for CRP and conservation in the 2018 farm bill by signing the CRPWORKs petition. Doing your part to for cleaner water might be as easy as a few mouse clicks.
Read all the articles in the Case for Pheasants Series from UGUIDE:
