# interesting article about sodsaver



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

By Keith Sutton

I hope you'll pardon me today if I get up on my soapbox and rail a bit about some of the narrow-minded politicians who are allowed to make important decisions that affect all of us. It irks me to no end when these short-sighted nitwits cater to big-money interests instead of doing what's right for present and future generations of Americans. So allow me to rant and rave a few minutes and get this out my system. Wildlife and taxpayers have been mistreated once again, and I figure someone should at least tell you there's a turd hidden under the corn, beans and bread on your dinner plate, and some politicians put it there.

Courtesy Ducks Unlimited
Here's what's happening. As part of the 2008 Farm Bill, the governors of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Iowa were given the opportunity to opt-in to the federal "Sodsaver" program, which makes newly plowed native grassland areas ineligible for crop insurance or disaster payments. Proponents of the Sodsaver provision hoped to stop the illogical practice of subsidizing destruction of some of the world's most biologically diverse and threatened grasslands. The measure does not prohibit landowners from planting commodities, but it does remove the perverse government-funded incentives to plow up land with low crop-yield potential just to get an insurance pay-out. According to a 2007 Government Accountability Office report, the U.S. lost 25 million acres of grasslands between 1982 and 2003, largely as a result of Farm Bill commodity subsidies like the crop insurance program.

Most remaining large tracts of native prairie in the U.S. are found in the five states involved in the Sodsaver provision. This region is full of shallow ponds formed by glaciers called "prairie potholes." The lands around these ponds are generally arid and rocky, and while they are well suited to grazing livestock, they are ill-suited for row crops such as corn, wheat and soybeans. More importantly, these lands provide ideal habitat for nesting waterfowl. Millions of ducks are reared in this Prairie Pothole National Priority Area each year and migrate to places like the Chesapeake Bay, Arkansas' Grand Prairie, Louisiana's Gulf Coast and California's Central Valley.

Courtesy Ducks Unlimited
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? States that opt in to Sodsaver would end the moronic practice of rewarding landowners for plowing up valuable prairie habitat that has little agricultural value to begin with. But one must take into account that politicians like these five governors rarely take actions common-sense people would deem appropriate. And that was the case in this instance.

A target date of February 15, 2009, was set for the states to take formal action on Sodsaver. And, not surprisingly, not a single state did so. In effect, Governor John Hoeven of North Dakota, Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota, Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Governor Chet Culver of Iowa thumbed their noses at conservation, showing the world they don't give a damn about promoting healthy land stewardship within their states. Their inaction on the Sodsaver provision showed they would rather continue practices that benefit few to the detriment of many. And ignorance is no excuse. Conservationists and taxpayer watchdog groups alike hailed the inclusion of the Sodsaver provision in the 2008 Farm Bill as passed by both the House and Senate. And dozens of conservation organizations joined together be sure the governors were well-informed of the consequences their decisions on Sodsaver might have.

Courtesy Jared Newton, Ducks Unlimited
We shouldn't be surprised, of course, that governors of states where farming interests are so powerful should take this course of action. But we shouldn't be apathetic either. The governors' failure to do what common sense dictates is right could have long-lasting negative effects for all of us. Consider, for example, these facts. Over the past six years, the Dakotas and Montana have lost a half million acres of native prairie already, destruction encouraged by high commodity prices and the federal mandate to produce more ethanol, a corn-derived motor fuel additive. This habitat is irreplaceable. And Ducks Unlimited biologists estimate an additional 3.3 million acres of native prairie could be lost during the next five years without Sodsaver - the equivalent of 15 percent of the remaining 22 million acres. These native prairie conversions will ultimately reduce fall waterfowl migrations across North America.

The economic ripple effect of losing native prairie will be in the millions of dollars. According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, losing native prairie will cost taxpayers more than $119 million dollars. In addition, with the decrease in ducks from the migration, part of the $1.3 billion dollars that migratory bird hunters contribute to rural economies across the nation will be lost.

What can be done to halt these negative changes?

"While the door has closed on this opportunity to protect the prairies, we are working with members of Congress and the Administration to come up with solutions that will ensure the prairies are not lost," said Don Young, Executive Vice President of Ducks Unlimited. "These habitats represent some of the most productive waterfowl breeding areas in North America, and we will continue to work to secure their long-term existence."

Courtesy Ducks Unlimited
The situation is dire, but you can help stop the devastating loss of native prairie by making a donation to Ducks Unlimited's Rescue the Duck Factory campaign. Launched on September 1, 2008, this important program was conceived to obtain funds needed to pay for conservation easements in the Prairie Pothole region. It already is working. As of February 16, 2009, 2,933 acres of wetlands and 11,239 acres of grasslands had been protected with perpetual easements. The Fish and Wildlife Service, DU's key conservation partner in the Rescue the Duck Factory campaign, also has obtained signed options on another 1,436 acres of wetlands and 10,841 acres of grassland. This brings the total acres secured since the launch of the campaign to 26,449 acres.

Although significant progress has been made, the need is still great. There are 597 landowners on the waiting list for easements in North Dakota and South Dakota offering over 244,358 acres for protection. More than $88 million is needed to secure this habitat.

DU hopes to raise a portion of this money through private gifts. Each dollar given to the Rescue the Duck Factory campaign will be leveraged at least three times with matching funds from corporations, federal duck stamps, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and other sources. At current land values, grassland easements can be purchased from cooperating ranchers at an average cost of $360 an acre. These easements are permanent and prevent grasslands from being plowed and wetlands from being drained regardless of future ownership.

Time is not on our side. The U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole region already has lost more than 70 percent of its original grassland, and most of the remaining 22 million acres of native prairie in the region is vulnerable to conversion. I encourage you to help.

To make a gift to DU's Rescue the Duck Factory campaign, please contribute online at www.ducks.org/helptoday.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

What you have here is plain pure and simple a fund raising ploy for DU. Nothing more , nothing less, scare the troops with the sky is falling retoric thatsodbusting is going to break out all over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is 99.99% of any tillable land has been broke and what there is remaining is full of sloughs, rocks etc as mentioned earlier.You CANNOT farm land that in figure eights, ie going in circles. And it WONT be farmed, ie tilled.The only land that will be tilled is CRP coming out and this has nothing to do with this.
I wonder when they (DU ) will be honest with their members (and public) and quit acting like the prostitute down on the corner.(anything for a buck) Oh well at least you get something in return from the prostitute for your money.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Apparently CRP is now being refered to as "native prarie" One more spin to change the parameters on what was originally an agriculturally based program into what is now considered the "Holy Grail of Conservationalism" It's funny how the DU members I know don't have to worry much about what % of their income is spent on food unlike millions of Americans. Keep taking VIABLE land out of agriculture production and see what the result is. I like hunting ducks and geese as much as anyone on this site, but there needs to be an understanding and balance of land usage in this country, and inaccurate spin type information such as this simply is selfserving and paints a picture of what some of these groups will do to achieve their agendas.


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Obviously this is an opinion article, meant to express one side of a heated debate. I'm going to take it with a grain of salt and explain why.

Throughout the article there are many references to "moronic destruction of grasslands" and the like. According to this article, any landowner that allowed their land to be turned over was commiting a crime against wildlife, the economy of the rural Midwest, and sportsmen. How is this justified? Are producers in the Prairie Pothole region seen as power-hungry and greedy? Take a look at the past few years. Throughout that time we have obviously seen an enormous increase of crop input costs. To adjust to that, producers either grew to maximize profits and level losses or got out altogether. That has definitely been a deciding factor when it comes to pulling land out of conservation programs. Yes, commodity prices have spiked throughout this period but definitely fall shy of record-shattering profits. To stay afloat with one's way of life is hardly an injustice in my book.

I recall a discussion on "News and Views" this past summer just before the end of a lot of contracts. Given in this discussion were facts hard to dispute. Of those people with land in programs such as CRP, the average profit (revenue-cost) per acre was $0.10. Yes, ten cents. Please explain to me how this is beneficial the landowner...especially when that value does not include time value. There are stringent regulations as to what needs to be done with those acres, and keeping up with them is not only a time, but also financial burden. (The cost of pesticides has also shot up, making proper upkeep very costly).

F350 raises an excellent point. Continually, the lost land is referred to as "native prairie and wetlands" going into production. How much of the lost land is really native? In reality, probably very little. If it is native and unbroken there is a reason which is more than likely because it is unfit to use. The major loss of these lands comes from the Conservation Reserve Program. CRP is often land that had once been in production, enrolled in the program and seeded with grass. This is not native land. Keep in mind CRP was a program developed to stabilize commodity prices over time! It was not developed to support wildlife and sporstmen!

The proposed "easement" payments offered to farmers and ranchers is a joke. Average land values and rent payments point to the fact that $360 to keep the land unbroken is an insult to the owner. That money is easily covered in less than 10 years of renting or production. Not to mention, it is permanent and does not allow reconsideration at a later time. If these lands are so important to Ducks Unlimited, perhaps they should look into raising more money and actually purchasing the land.

In essence, what is the debate? That sportsmen and conservationists are upset that their hunting land is being turned into farmland? It is hardly a solid argument given that the owners assume the liability of that land and receive little compensation for leaving it open to hunters. I know from previous posts that "pay hunting" is not a good proposal at all. However, if people insist this land stay as grassland, landowners have little option but to charge for access and try to recoop their losses. There needs to be a better program than just "Sodsaver" and CRP to keep these lands around.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

gst said:


> Apparently CRP is now being refered to as "native prarie" One more spin to change the parameters on what was originally an agriculturally based program into what is now considered the "Holy Grail of Conservationalism" It's funny how the DU members I know don't have to worry much about what % of their income is spent on food unlike millions of Americans. Keep taking VIABLE land out of agriculture production and see what the result is. I like hunting ducks and geese as much as anyone on this site, but there needs to be an understanding and balance of land usage in this country, and inaccurate spin type information such as this simply is selfserving and paints a picture of what some of these groups will do to achieve their agendas.


Or keep planting food for fuel and that might hurt as well!!! :wink:


----------



## honkerslayr (Dec 14, 2006)

As far as you first point they are talking about both CRP and Native grassland more or less. What is so valuable is that its the most important thing to duck nesting. Without this the ducks are screwed,predation comes to wipe them out and competition for nest sites will deplete the population. And Yes I agree with your saying about how 99% of the CRP I've seen IS cropland. I'm just saying both are needed for production.

Ya they(governors) have seemed to put it off for way too long!!


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Tsodak , I call your uninformed bluff. I live directly in the middle of your "Minot to whereever" comparison. NO , I repeat , NO mass breaking of land has or will occur other than CRP coming out.The PASTURE land that is not cropped presently has 30% slopes, high water table, high gravel or poor water holding and nutrient holding capacity. This land cannot be economicly farmed even with $6 corn. This is why it wasnt broke 30 years ago.It is PASTURE. It is private land that is grazed ( or overgrazed)so talk of nesting this or that is a mute point.

As far as your "numbers", they are only as reliable as the special interest that has a financial stake in their outcome. Always consider the source for their reliability. Especially when fundraising is the primary goal.Peta is a master of it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

F350 makes some very direct and accurate statements. One I might add is that almost all of these native praries, if they are not refering to CRP??, are being used in cattle production. The assumption that all these cattle will "disappear" and these lands be converted to crop production is simply wrong and misleading. More and more cattle producers are managing their lands with an increased emphasis on conservation as it fits in with productivity not only in their own operations, but with wildlife as well. After many years of fighting this, DU themselves have recognized this and supports this type of grasslands management on rangeland as well as CRP. This "sky is falling" rhetoric is simply a misleading fund raising ploy. 
"Peta is a master of it" as is HSUS, apparently these groups are willing to take a page from their play books.
tsodak, how are you so sure they are not CRP acres being "renamed"?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Sodbuster is pushing ranchers off the ground that is high and dry. While swampbuster is pushing farmers around on land that is low and wet. Is it really about ducks? Or is for control of those places where ducks live.

http://www.sd.nrcs.usda.gov/news/2007_D ... mTalk.html

Scroll down to May 2007 Seasonal Wetlands 25KB


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

All you farm boys shouldn't think all city boys are stupid. What is not cost effective about plowing up a bunch of rocky land sowing some scrap seed and collecting insurance. You know you didn't apply the fertlizer,insectside or herbiside you would on the nice soil you farm.

All you city boys shouldn't think farmers are all rich despite the loadded 3500. 350 pickups they drive. Just because you are paying near 4 a gallon for milk don't even think farmers even get half that.

As for CRP, price supports and all the other goverment hand outs you do it for the cash flow pure and simple. Would not be one acre in CRP if ya weren't getting a garenteed payment for doing so.

And you farm boys have the gall to rail about people in need collecting welfare.

Ya I also rail about those who collect it for genrations
too. Seems there should be a point in time when they are forced to get an edicution (some thing I should do for spelling too.) and a job.

 Al


----------



## Gildog (Jan 30, 2007)

alleyyooper said:


> And you farm boys have the gall to rail about people in need collecting welfare.


Europe learned long ago the value and security of having ample food production...wars are started by hungry people.

The government programs help secure an adequate supply of relatively cheap food...whereas Wellfare programs seem to ensure what--another generation of probable recipients??


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Is that your voice? May 2007

http://www.sd.nrcs.usda.gov/news/2007_D ... mTalk.html


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

So now you would like some separation between your opinions and that of your federal employer, NRCS. Why? It seems one hand of the government doesn't know what the other is doing. Ethanol is being promoted meaning more corn. Economic development, capitalism, jobs. The other side, I think where you are coming from, is against any kind of growth.

What if a producer did not wish to participate in this struggle, bought some cropland and then spent his hard earned money on grass seed of native mixes. It is converted to grass but not quite native prairie. So how does he make enough money to stay on the land? Selling hay is not an option because it doesn't put out the tonnage like alfafa nor bring the price. Outfitters won't pay more than two dollars per acre. Cattle, well then the producer is back on the treadmill. Would you recommend buffalo?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

alleyyooper said:


> All you farm boys shouldn't think all city boys are stupid. What is not cost effective about plowing up a bunch of rocky land sowing some scrap seed and collecting insurance. You know you didn't apply the fertlizer,insectside or herbiside you would on the nice soil you farm.
> 
> All you city boys shouldn't think farmers are all rich despite the loadded 3500. 350 pickups they drive. Just because you are paying near 4 a gallon for milk don't even think farmers even get half that.
> 
> ...


That was a very good post and I quoted it because it deserves another look by everyone. It respects all concerned. 
Most of my relatives farm, and I don't mean distant relatives I mean my immediate family. They don't participate in many of the programs because they are sort of independent types. Others take every tax dollar they can get, then meet you at the door with their hand out. I have a distant relative with 22 sections and he farms the programs as much as the land.

Yes, I think society in these economic times has to put their foot down. No more payments on poor land practices. Also, we are talking only native prairie. I wish I had the photo of the pie chart I put together at one time. It was native prairie broken up in North Dakota since 1925. Although most of the damage was done by 1962 many acres of native prairie still existed. However, that doesn't mean there isn't still many acres, the last, still around today.

Remember "payment in kind" under Reagan? Farmers were paid not to plant. What happened? They took the payments on their land, then went out and broke up native pasture, and native hay land. What happened next? We had near record crops that year and the intent of payment in kind was to take land out of production and increase the price of commodities in the free market. So if the price per bushel is not up who's fault is that? It's the farmers fault that's who. If the people in America are going to buy 100,000 Ford pickups this year Ford doesn't make 200,000 and expect to sell them all at full price. However, Ford would if the government was paying support prices.

We need some sodbster laws, because it's tough for the rest of us to make ends meet also. Breaking up native prairie not only destroys habitat, but it's another way into the pocket book of Joe Taxpayer, and they keep getting their hands in there without our permission.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

boring zzzzzzzzzzz

Plainsman,

Whenever someone does something wrong here their posts are removed. What did tsodak do wrong? You missed removing one of his posts. It's a cut and paste by honkerslayr. LOL


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> boring zzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Plainsman,
> 
> Whenever someone does something wrong here their posts are removed. What did tsodak do wrong? You missed removing one of his posts. It's a cut and paste by honkerslayr. LOL


Thanks for the heads up.

He didn't do anything wrong. If you notice I have never used your name, and I don't like it when people use g/o's name. Some people however have used mine, and they did use tsodak's. To me these are just trying to make life miserable for someone if they can't dominate a debate. I think if it continues rather than removing someones post we remove the offenders, and their posts.


----------

