Growing agricultural crops to feed wildlife is one of the oldest wildlife management techniques. This practice is still utilized in some locations with high concentrations of waterfowl. Wildlife refuges also use farming techniques to prepare land for restoration. In many areas, wildlife refuges continue to farm or cultivate many more acres than needed for wildlife because funds are not available to manage the acres differently, such as by developing moist soil and wetland management infrastructure. Some wildlife refuges use cooperative farming agreements to produce crops for wildlife where funds or personnel are not available for the refuge to farm. Cooperative farming is cost effective in terms of dollars spent, but it often requires three to four times as many acres to be in production.
The production of agricultural crops on wildlife refuges also emits carbon, contributing to the problem of climate change. On the other hand, restoration of native vegetation sequesters carbon. Priorities for funding should be directed towards carbon sequestration projects.
Recommendation: Review the farming program and identify opportunities to reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon by restoring native vegetation.
Comment below and/or move on to next sub-section of Chapter 2 - Water Supplies and Aquatic Ecosystems
11 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
There is no mention of GMOs, and we should state that we are not going to allow GMOs to be grown on Refuge lands.
Does “ranching” fall under this category? Raising bison on NWRs (Neal Smith) is vital to the tallgrass/prairie ecosystem. I would think that involving local and potential bison farmers could help to advance the concept of “conservation farming” where acreage provides profitable output for people and at the same time restores land to benefit various types of wildlife.
Bison can be raised on native prairie landscapes without damaging the land (like cattle) and could be sold for meat and by-products as well as breeding stock. Prairie seeds could be harvested to use in other restoration projects or sold to private conservation efforts.
I did not realize there was a lot of agriculture happening on the refuges. I recommend that you adopt permaculture practices for your agriculture efforts. Please see my posting to the Bold Ideas forum: http://ideas.americaswildlife.org/forums/96077-bold-ideas/suggestions/1537745-look-for-intersections-between-permaculture-and-re?ref=title
If you have questions or concerns about permaculture, let me know.
This section fails to include a variety of benefits associated with cooperative farming and seems to be agenda driven. The benefits to waterfowl of providing agriculture crops including high levels of metabolizable energy and increased Duck-Use Days have been documented through various publications. What also needs to be taken into account is how the cooperative farming program coincides with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The comment “Wildlife refuges also use farming techniques to prepare land for restoration” needs to be clarified. The statement that cooperative farming requires three to four times as many acres to be in production is true, but fails to include the fact that these acres are being utilized by certain wildlife species during growth even though they are harvested as the farmers share after maturation. On Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, the cooperatively farmed unit has the highest waterfowl use, highest visitor use and provides a prime location for our lottery deer youth hunts, which are one of the biggest attractants to the refuge. Our cooperative farming program also positively impacts the Louisiana Black Bear, an endangered species. Former agriculture fields restored to their previous state through reforestation have resulted in a direct decline in waterfowl and white-tailed deer use on Tensas. Although white-tailed deer are not a federal trust species, they are the primary reason the public visits Tensas River NWR. John Dickson/Wildlife Biologist/Tensas River NWR
Great argument. The refuge I work on is phasing out farming in the next two years. The phase out has been in motion for the past couple years and you can see the impact on the wildlife already. The first impact I noticed were the wild turkey, not a focal species for us but wildlife nontheless, the numbers just don’t seem to be there.
The refuge tract is located on the Cat Point Creek, a focal area for Congress, USFWS and local land conservancies. The small grain planted on the refuge is highly benifitial to the migrating waterfowl which overwinter in this area. Once the fields go fallow no more waterfowl. The argument has been made that there is no shortage of small grain in this area but there is a shortage of fields that the waterfowl can rest in without getting shot at. I understand the argument against GMO crops but the alternative is also unacceptable due to the amount of chemicals needed for a successful yield. There needs to be a happy medium. Migratory waterfowl have always been a focus for the Service but they seem to be taking a back seat in areas were they need us the most.
Nobody outside the cadre of current and former refuge employees knows what we mean by “the farming program”. I support limiting agricultural production on refuge lands to the minimum necessary to meet our mission and have no problem with a thorough evaluation of where, when, and how we raise crops. Responsible refuge managers should already be doing that. However, if we are going to restore cropland to native vegetation, the reason for doing so is the refuge system’s mandate to provide habitat for wildlife. Carbon sequestration is a secondary benefit, not the primary goal.
Excellent comments above. I think this section shorts the benefits of agriculture, including the benefits of to the local community in acceptance of refuges. I am not a proponent of ag in refuges, I think however that this section is a bit short sighted.
Issues related to agriculture clearly go far beyond food for wildlife and carbon sequestration and thus deserve greater consideration as part of this vision…
Recommendation: Evaluate innovative opportunities to utilize the knowledge and capacity of farmers to help with ecological restoration and enhancement activities on public lands.
As farm bill subsidies are reduced simultaneously with diminishing federal and state conservation budgets (and emerging biofuels and carbon markets), there will be new opportunities for value-added collaboration with farmers. Farmers bring immense knowledge and an army of equipment and livestock to the table; they also manage extensive agricultural landscapes that could potentially be leveraged to complement the work being done on refuges and other public lands. If there are indeed ways to promote the complementary stewardship of public and/or private lands by farmers that also support local economies and improve the condition of our public lands (which are increasingly difficult for the Service and other federal/state/NGO agencies to manage effectively on their own), then we need to be seriously considering these options in the future.
I support Ryan’s recommendation. The “Walking Wetlands” Program developed in the Klamath Basin is another model that can be used for working w/farmers and surrounding communities. This section really needs to be rewritten, seems like it was an afterthought.
Farming is a legitimate land use of many National Wildlife Refuges. I agree with the comments above. The current cooperative farming program should be evaluated according to several potential criteria such as: 1) its ability to provide quality, food resources for resident and migratory wildlife; 2) its assistance in maintaining a rural, agricultural lifestyle; 3) its contribution to the local economy; and 4) its contribution to local and landscape-scale habitat diversity.
If more agricultural fields in the Lower Mississippi Valley are re-forested for caron sequestration and wildlife habitat, more consideration should be given to designing these restorations to benefit a broad suite of wetland-dependent species and maintaining flooding capability of these areas.
I agree with Steve’s comment that, “Carbon sequestration is a secondary benefit, not the primary goal.” The second paragraph and the recommendation greatly oversimplify the situation and come across as a knee-jerk reaction to climate change. Analyses should be more directed at a review of the needs and methods of farming on refuges, and the recommendation should include review of agriculture on a case by case basis with a landscape perspective.
Is this quantity or quality of food available elsewhere, or would the removal of farming at a particular refuge come at the expense of meeting the energetic needs of the wildlife?
What is the C-sequestration potential of the native habitat? — in some cases conversion to native vegetation would have little benefit to the C-budget of a system.
If there is cooperative farming, would the loss of this managed, farmed landscape result in acres of land that the refuge does not have the staff or resources to manage, opening the door to invasive species and other problems?
What farming practices are being used? Conservation tillage systems can increase C storage through enhanced soil sequestration and reduce C emissions by reducing equipment time on the landscape. In areas where farming is meeting critical wildlife needs, can the refuge’s responsible farming practices be used as a model?