I'll enjoy it while it lasts -- however I do see myself moving someday when the push for commercialization championed by our gov himself has turned our state into a Texas soley pay to play clone or the high prices for commodities have turned the farmfields into a chemically modified muck that would make the CEO of Monsanto or ADM brim with an ear to ear smile.
This is an excerpt from one of KsHusker?s posts to the thread about Brownback?s plan to release LPCs. I?m posting it here as an introduction to a different topic.
All of us lament the loss of habitat. Kansas is losing CRP acres like every other state. One of my farmer contacts who lets me hunt has converted 3 quarters of CRP back to production in the last five years. He has also converted 3 out of 4 ?corners? around a pivot from CRP back to production.
What?s worse, land under cultivation does not provide the habitat that it did years ago because of changed farming practices. Wheat stubble is shorter than it used to be. Wheat stubble has fewer weeds than it used to. There is less wheat stubble come hunting season than there used to be. Fence lines are gone. Hedgerows have gotten mature enough that there is very little understory. Most of the flint hills gets burned and intensively grazed every year.
We all know the reason for these changes is economics. Farmers and ranchers need to make a living like everyone else. Like almost everyone else, they are constantly looking for ways to improve their economic situation. I don?t propose to discuss whether these practices are in fact the best path to maximizing production. There are plenty of people who are far more qualified to discuss that issue than me. The point is that farmers and ranchers do what they do because they believe that?s the path to economic success. There is economic value in cattle gains and in bushels.
The farmers, ranchers, and other landowners who participate here (and certainly others who don?t) are willing to sacrifice some production in the name of conservation, but they are the exception. They deserve high praise from those of us who are not producers.
Consider again the rest of the farmers and ranchers, those whose internal math balancing wildlife and their own wallet is different. Speaking only for me, I understand what they?re doing and why. I don?t judge or criticize them in any way for pursuing economic success.
The reason I quoted KsHusker above is that I think part of the issue is that a wild pheasant has no economic value to the producer. If the birds had value to the producer, ie, if they were ?commercialized? in some way, would that have positive impacts on habitat and population?
I understand this might generate a lot of controversy. This post is not about advocating commercialization. We all miss the days when pheasants were plentiful and permission was as easy to get as a polite smile, some common courtesy, a little small talk, and an earnest thank you.
This post is about starting a discussion of whether commercialization is a means of slowing or eliminating the disappearance of habitat (and therefore birds).
This is an excerpt from one of KsHusker?s posts to the thread about Brownback?s plan to release LPCs. I?m posting it here as an introduction to a different topic.
All of us lament the loss of habitat. Kansas is losing CRP acres like every other state. One of my farmer contacts who lets me hunt has converted 3 quarters of CRP back to production in the last five years. He has also converted 3 out of 4 ?corners? around a pivot from CRP back to production.
What?s worse, land under cultivation does not provide the habitat that it did years ago because of changed farming practices. Wheat stubble is shorter than it used to be. Wheat stubble has fewer weeds than it used to. There is less wheat stubble come hunting season than there used to be. Fence lines are gone. Hedgerows have gotten mature enough that there is very little understory. Most of the flint hills gets burned and intensively grazed every year.
We all know the reason for these changes is economics. Farmers and ranchers need to make a living like everyone else. Like almost everyone else, they are constantly looking for ways to improve their economic situation. I don?t propose to discuss whether these practices are in fact the best path to maximizing production. There are plenty of people who are far more qualified to discuss that issue than me. The point is that farmers and ranchers do what they do because they believe that?s the path to economic success. There is economic value in cattle gains and in bushels.
The farmers, ranchers, and other landowners who participate here (and certainly others who don?t) are willing to sacrifice some production in the name of conservation, but they are the exception. They deserve high praise from those of us who are not producers.
Consider again the rest of the farmers and ranchers, those whose internal math balancing wildlife and their own wallet is different. Speaking only for me, I understand what they?re doing and why. I don?t judge or criticize them in any way for pursuing economic success.
The reason I quoted KsHusker above is that I think part of the issue is that a wild pheasant has no economic value to the producer. If the birds had value to the producer, ie, if they were ?commercialized? in some way, would that have positive impacts on habitat and population?
I understand this might generate a lot of controversy. This post is not about advocating commercialization. We all miss the days when pheasants were plentiful and permission was as easy to get as a polite smile, some common courtesy, a little small talk, and an earnest thank you.
This post is about starting a discussion of whether commercialization is a means of slowing or eliminating the disappearance of habitat (and therefore birds).
:cheers:
