Livestock grazing will be allowed on thousands of acres of Midwest land that had been set aside for conservation, Department of Agriculture Secretary Ed Schaeffer announced this week. Under the federal Conservation Reserve Program, landowners are paid to let their acreage just chill out and be wildlife habitat. But after the region's recent spate of flooding, Schaeffer gave in to the requests of several state and federal officials to allow grazing on CRP land in counties designated as presidential disaster areas. "Flood waters inundated thousands of acres that cannot be salvaged for production this growing season," explains Schaeffer, "and it happened at a time of record crop, food, and fuel prices." Advocates of the exemption hope to convince Schaeffer to also allow haying on no-longer-really-conservation-reserved land.
sources:
source: Associated Press, The Daily Reporter, Des Moines Register
see also, in Grist:USDA head suggests harvesting switchgrass on conservation land
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
catman Posted 8:57 am
09 Jul 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:10 am
09 Jul 2008
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:46 am
09 Jul 2008
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 6:19 am
10 Jul 2008
Giving the government fallow land that is supposed to be fallow is too much of a temptation to them and they want to make money off it. Well, that's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house if you ask me.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:05 am
10 Jul 2008
You misunderstand the program. If you're a farmer, the government pays you to leave certain land alone to provide habitat for wildlife instead of plowing it for crops. The land is never transferred to the government; you still own it. The problem is, as usual, that the government really doesn't care about wildlife, which doesn't vote or make bribes, er, I mean campaign contributions. So when the farmers start crying that they lost land in a flood, the government caves into them by allowing them to renege on the deal. I sure hope they're not still getting paid!
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 10:26 am
10 Jul 2008
Permalink
jimhadden Posted 6:05 pm
10 Jul 2008
The sight of one of those foxes in the underbrush is a treasure to behold!
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:14 am
11 Jul 2008
Yes, deer are overpopulated, though I was obviously referring to humans. However, deer are overpopulated BECAUSE OF humans, who killed the native predators, like wolves, coyotes, wolverines (ahem), and bears, that would naturally keep the deer from overpopulating.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 10:22 am
11 Jul 2008
I already know that your answer will be "Troll!", I am just not convinced that it passes for intellectualism on Grist.
I agree that what ever space you inhabit should be confiscated and given to animals, however.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:40 am
11 Jul 2008
Extremism on either side is bad, folks. Shooting the messenger is an everyday occurence for those self-righteous fringe folk (especially Dick Cheney!).
Hooray for science!!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:32 pm
12 Jul 2008
In April, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, citing steep increases in feed prices for cattle and rising food prices, asked the Environmental Protection Agency to cut the federally mandated volume of biofuel use for 2008 (most of which will be met by ethanol made from corn) by 50%. The EPA is expected to rule on this request by 23 July.
According to David Shepardson, writing for the Detroit News, ("Flooding muddies push for ethanol"), however:
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said no decisions should be made on the mandate until after the harvest is complete. He and other farm state members of Congress argue that the Agriculture Department should allow more planting in 35 million acres of conservation [reserve] land as a way to help ease the price increases. [My emphasis]
As Robert Fargo writes, over on The Truth About Cars blog, "It just gets worse."
Permalink