Ecological goods and services

[Gomez]

This topic is very interesting and an important discussion to have in my opinion. Initially, I would just be happy to keep trespassers and unauthorized hunters off my property. I have recently have had individuals thinks they are entitled to hunt on property I own because they hunted there when others owned it. They are quite upset when I tell them no I have my own list of hunters that I allow. Secondly, there is not a recognition of the change in the ecosystem from seeding a number of acres back to grass and the improvement that has had on the deer population. I find it silly that in Canada it is my responsibility to post my land and not the hunters responsibility to seek formal approval.

As we move down the path to getting credit for what positive contributions we make to the ecosystem we will also become more accountable for any damages we do as well. (inadvertent or otherwise) I am ok with the accountability but am concerned if "big brother beaurocrat" sees the work we do in addition to raising beef as i do.

I think it is a pandoras box - there is no question that society benefits from what we do in addition to raising beef and they are not compensating us for that. However, once they start paying they may dictate more what we do and how we do it and penailze us if we dont do it like they think. I am on the page that i dont need any more help or visitors and help will arrive soon enough.

I think it a very important conversation to have as ranchers before the help arrives. :wink:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Like it or not we have to have the government on side on this issue. I know here on ranchers we deal with many different jurisdictions regards to hunting regulation ect. but in the big picture hunting is only a piece of the pie of EGS.
In Sask. the government collects a fee from every hunter for a Habitat Certificate. Does that go to the land managers that provide the habitat? NO it goes into a Wildlife Development Fund that is used to buy land competing with local land owners and idle it for wildlife. The stuff I've seen most deer prefer the alfalfa field next to it.
What I envision would be a "Foundation" that ranchers could enroll their acres into and all the certification would be is a range health assessment every few years showing range in a healthy state to qualify.
The monies should come from corporate and private donations as well as some from various levels of government for what they deem as important.
Since many governments as looking for "Results Based" initiatives, moneys that has been targeted at programs that pay for change such as ALUS (Alternative Land Use Services) this would reward the producers that are already producing EGS .

 

[RSL]

We are participating in a pilot project called ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services) selling EG&S from our ranch. It is a market driven approach that is paying some dividends, particularly in places like PEI where the government has endorsed it as the tool to deliver goods to the public. Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change.
http://www.alus.ca/
We are excited about it. We were actually to the point where I was hatching a plot to try to develop and sell EG&S projects through a medium such as EBay. This is easier... :lol:

 

[leanin' H]

I get nervous anytime someone else makes a judgement call as to what constitues as healthy range land. :shock: That could be government or a private entity. In order to recieve compensation for the benefits a healthy range offers wildlife and the whole ecosystem, i'd think you'd have to relenquish some of your control to someone else's judgement. I don't know that it would be worth it to me. I know that a healthy ranch with active grazing benefits the entire ecosystem in countless ways. I work hard to be a great steward of the land i my control, which also benefits plants and animals besides livestock. But it's more of a fringe benefit that has always come with responsible range management to me instead of an asset to be compenstaed for monetarily. Sadly, most enviromentalists fail to recognize anything except the few negatives. I guess my thoughts are based from seeing folks allow the door to be cracked open only to have it kicked down later. From Sage Grouse to endangered chubs to mustangs or wolves, what starts out as "cooperation" or "multiple use" turns into limitations and restrictions, even on private land. The LDS church owns a huge ranch in Florida. The EPA flys over it twice a week to inspect any activity that might "Endanger" the Evergaldes. That is a radical example but too many times the same things have happened throughout the west. Makes me leery and not very excited to jump in bed with folks who claim to have my interests in mind! :?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

We are participating in a pilot project called ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services) selling EG&S from our ranch. It is a market driven approach that is paying some dividends, particularly in places like PEI where the government has endorsed it as the tool to deliver goods to the public. Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change.
http://www.alus.ca/
We are excited about it. We were actually to the point where I was hatching a plot to try to develop and sell EG&S projects through a medium such as EBay. This is easier... :lol:

Your saying that ALUS is a "Market driven approach".
Market for what?

WHO is paying?

When Bob Sopuck approached the SSGA with probably the first attempt at ALUS in western Canada they were paying for change not rewarding those doing it right all along.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I get nervous anytime someone else makes a judgement call as to what constitues as healthy range land. :shock: That could be government or a private entity. In order to recieve compensation for the benefits a healthy range offers wildlife and the whole ecosystem, i'd think you'd have to relenquish some of your control to someone else's judgement. I don't know that it would be worth it to me. I know that a healthy ranch with active grazing benefits the entire ecosystem in countless ways. I work hard to be a great steward of the land i my control, which also benefits plants and animals besides livestock. But it's more of a fringe benefit that has always come with responsible range management to me instead of an asset to be compenstaed for monetarily. Sadly, most enviromentalists fail to recognize anything except the few negatives. I guess my thoughts are based from seeing folks allow the door to be cracked open only to have it kicked down later. From Sage Grouse to endangered chubs to mustangs or wolves, what starts out as "cooperation" or "multiple use" turns into limitations and restrictions, even on private land. The LDS church owns a huge ranch in Florida. The EPA flys over it twice a week to inspect any activity that might "Endanger" the Evergaldes. That is a radical example but too many times the same things have happened throughout the west. Makes me leery and not very excited to jump in bed with folks who claim to have my interests in mind! :?

Of course a healthy range where you live if different then where I live and different again where Gcreek lives. But there is ways to determine healthy range without being onerous to the rancher. There must be ranchers with healthy range that can be benchmarked for the rest.
With Results based paymnets/markets if your producing endangered species you would get a payment or sell your results. It sage grouse unlimited figures A grouse at $100/ each then if you are providing habitat for 20 there is your $2,000. You can produce them cheaper then they can buy habitat and they probably won't be doing the right things anyway.

 

[leanin' H]

I get nervous anytime someone else makes a judgement call as to what constitues as healthy range land. :shock: That could be government or a private entity. In order to recieve compensation for the benefits a healthy range offers wildlife and the whole ecosystem, i'd think you'd have to relenquish some of your control to someone else's judgement. I don't know that it would be worth it to me. I know that a healthy ranch with active grazing benefits the entire ecosystem in countless ways. I work hard to be a great steward of the land i my control, which also benefits plants and animals besides livestock. But it's more of a fringe benefit that has always come with responsible range management to me instead of an asset to be compenstaed for monetarily. Sadly, most enviromentalists fail to recognize anything except the few negatives. I guess my thoughts are based from seeing folks allow the door to be cracked open only to have it kicked down later. From Sage Grouse to endangered chubs to mustangs or wolves, what starts out as "cooperation" or "multiple use" turns into limitations and restrictions, even on private land. The LDS church owns a huge ranch in Florida. The EPA flys over it twice a week to inspect any activity that might "Endanger" the Evergaldes. That is a radical example but too many times the same things have happened throughout the west. Makes me leery and not very excited to jump in bed with folks who claim to have my interests in mind! :?

Of course a healthy range where you live if different then where I live and different again where Gcreek lives. But there is ways to determine healthy range without being onerous to the rancher. There must be ranchers with healthy range that can be benchmarked for the rest.
With Results based paymnets/markets if your producing endangered species you would get a payment or sell your results. It sage grouse unlimited figures A grouse at $100/ each then if you are providing habitat for 20 there is your $2,000. You can produce them cheaper then they can buy habitat and they probably won't be doing the right things anyway.

Let's us sage grouse as an example. They (US Fish & Wildlife, enviromentalists, ect. ) are really wanting them declared as endangered. They approached many landowners in my area to form a "Cooperative study group" which included ranchers, farmers, government and grouse appreciation groups. They started by trying to find out actual numbers of birds and asked for input on sightings, feed areas or mating areas. They only showed a tiny amount of the actual number of birds we helped them end up finding were there. Guess it helps to know the mountains and the historical areas they have always been in, instead of "estimating using textbook data"? :roll: So, it was determined that X amount of grouse live on Y square miles of habitat, with lots of it being on private and allotment ground. But instead of rewarding landowners and permitee's for having the grouse present in LARGER NUMBERS THAN THEY REALIZED, they started talking about protection! Keeping cattle away from leks (Breeding and mating grounds), planting sage brush for more cover for young grouse in an area where it is invasive and has choked out grass altogether, and even banning grazing, forest thinning and recreation in a select few areas! That was called "COOPERATION"? :shock: And this was for a NOT- endangered speices? God help us if they put it on the list!

Again, what you propose makes sense. But that is exactly why it would be a nightmare to implement! And i agree that using a benchmark ranch as a measurement for a healthy range makes sense as well. But "THEY" seem to keep moving and changing the definition of Healthy to fit whatever agenda comes down the pipe. Losing that control to groups who historically havent had my best interest in mind is not acceptable for me. I hope you can find a way to make it work and please, share that when it does. But, keep your wallet in plain sight, never turn your back and trust things that are said or written like you'd trust a high-headed bull. More regulation, regardless of where it comes from, usually oversteps it's bounds and wears out it's welcome pretty damn skippy. :wink:

 

[RSL]

We are participating in a pilot project called ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services) selling EG&S from our ranch. It is a market driven approach that is paying some dividends, particularly in places like PEI where the government has endorsed it as the tool to deliver goods to the public. Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change.
http://www.alus.ca/
We are excited about it. We were actually to the point where I was hatching a plot to try to develop and sell EG&S projects through a medium such as EBay. This is easier... :lol:

Your saying that ALUS is a "Market driven approach".
Market for what?

WHO is paying?

When Bob Sopuck approached the SSGA with probably the first attempt at ALUS in western Canada they were paying for change not rewarding those doing it right all along.

Rewarding change vs existing is actually the biggest challenges and one we have been trying to address. What about the people who haven't wrecked anything? We have tried to address some of this issue by offering a small payment on native rangelands. It actually seems to be helping to preserve some areas in the county where they would otherwise go to grain.

The premise is to stack goods to make the payment worthwhile:
eg: Carbon credits, wildlife habitat, watershed cleansing, etc. all on the same acres.

Currently Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, and are working on how to pull money out of the marketplace. There may be a place for oilfield remediation funds in the mix as well.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

We are participating in a pilot project called ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services) selling EG&S from our ranch. It is a market driven approach that is paying some dividends, particularly in places like PEI where the government has endorsed it as the tool to deliver goods to the public. Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change.
http://www.alus.ca/
We are excited about it. We were actually to the point where I was hatching a plot to try to develop and sell EG&S projects through a medium such as EBay. This is easier... :lol:

Your saying that ALUS is a "Market driven approach".
Market for what?

WHO is paying?

When Bob Sopuck approached the SSGA with probably the first attempt at ALUS in western Canada they were paying for change not rewarding those doing it right all along.

Rewarding change vs existing is actually the biggest challenges and one we have been trying to address. What about the people who haven't wrecked anything? We have tried to address some of this issue by offering a small payment on native rangelands. It actually seems to be helping to preserve some areas in the county where they would otherwise go to grain.

The premise is to stack goods to make the payment worthwhile:
eg: Carbon credits, wildlife habitat, watershed cleansing, etc. all on the same acres.

Currently Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, and are working on how to pull money out of the marketplace. There may be a place for oilfield remediation funds in the mix as well.

" Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change."

What did the people who can't afford to do it right now do with the money they were paid to do it wrong?

" Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, "

Does the public know that in the past their taxes were used to create the mess they are being asked to give more taxes to fix?

Every time a new regulation/law is proposed or comes into effect that involves the plants, animals, water, air, minerals, etc. that is integral to the property we manage we have lost control, and that is without payment. Being paid to continue to provide these things does not involve loss of control it puts you in control of your management. If you chose to not produce what is in demand you will forgo the payment attached to that market. That should be the only punishment in an open market. Laws and regulations have distorted the true value of the EG&S we produce. If it was left to the market they would be a lot cheaper.
-as we are the people who provide the habitat due to our day to day management and even the groups who are pushing for the heavy handed laws will admit that, why are we on the defensive. Regulations which control drainage in Sask. should be proof of how effective Government programs dealing with environmental issues on agricultural land are.

 

[RSL]

Your saying that ALUS is a "Market driven approach".
Market for what?

WHO is paying?

When Bob Sopuck approached the SSGA with probably the first attempt at ALUS in western Canada they were paying for change not rewarding those doing it right all along.

Rewarding change vs existing is actually the biggest challenges and one we have been trying to address. What about the people who haven't wrecked anything? We have tried to address some of this issue by offering a small payment on native rangelands. It actually seems to be helping to preserve some areas in the county where they would otherwise go to grain.

The premise is to stack goods to make the payment worthwhile:
eg: Carbon credits, wildlife habitat, watershed cleansing, etc. all on the same acres.

Currently Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, and are working on how to pull money out of the marketplace. There may be a place for oilfield remediation funds in the mix as well.

" Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change."

What did the people who can't afford to do it right now do with the money they were paid to do it wrong?

" Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, "

Does the public know that in the past their taxes were used to create the mess they are being asked to give more taxes to fix?

Every time a new regulation/law is proposed or comes into effect that involves the plants, animals, water, air, minerals, etc. that is integral to the property we manage we have lost control, and that is without payment. Being paid to continue to provide these things does not involve loss of control it puts you in control of your management. If you chose to not produce what is in demand you will forgo the payment attached to that market. That should be the only punishment in an open market. Laws and regulations have distorted the true value of the EG&S we produce. If it was left to the market they would be a lot cheaper.
-as we are the people who provide the habitat due to our day to day management and even the groups who are pushing for the heavy handed laws will admit that, why are we on the defensive. Regulations which control drainage in Sask. should be proof of how effective Government programs dealing with environmental issues on agricultural land are.

I should clarify. County support is largely through Ag Fieldmen, supplying of tree planters, office space, etc. The project is very public here and has good support. The County started down this path because they were trying to solve drainage issues (particularly with the growing acreage/subdivision populations.
There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates (varies by land type/classification).
I support the approach/concept for a couple of reasons beyond what I probably mis-explained above.
- I have say in the design of any projects on our land (there is not a cookie cutter recipe book for projects)
- In many cases ALUS is paying for existing EG&S (we can argue about price)
- ALUS is based on landowners approaching the program, rather than forced participation
- I can opt out of ALUS at any point if I am willing to pay back a portion of the project establishment costs (pro-rated)
- I can graze or use my ALUS project, I just forgo all or a portion of my ALUS payment for the year. This is important for things like drought management, etc.

I think the ALUS model is generally a cheaper solution than legislation (particularly with no enforcement) as it enables improvement and empowers landowners.
ALUS has been a positive step with local community involvement. I think that is one of the keys. The funding source is external and work is ongoing on how to develop methodologies for the public the "buy" EG&S. The work and program is local, based on local conditions/culture/needs/etc.
Norfolk Ontario's program is a lot further along than ours, but they have really created some great EG&S, public awareness and developed a lot of private funding (Sold EG&S).
I don't think it should be all privately funded or that government should get off without paying. They are supposed to represent the public and protect the environment and are already spending a lot of ineffective money for little benefit.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Rewarding change vs existing is actually the biggest challenges and one we have been trying to address. What about the people who haven't wrecked anything? We have tried to address some of this issue by offering a small payment on native rangelands. It actually seems to be helping to preserve some areas in the county where they would otherwise go to grain.

The premise is to stack goods to make the payment worthwhile:
eg: Carbon credits, wildlife habitat, watershed cleansing, etc. all on the same acres.

Currently Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, and are working on how to pull money out of the marketplace. There may be a place for oilfield remediation funds in the mix as well.

" Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change."

What did the people who can't afford to do it right now do with the money they were paid to do it wrong?

" Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, "

Does the public know that in the past their taxes were used to create the mess they are being asked to give more taxes to fix?

Every time a new regulation/law is proposed or comes into effect that involves the plants, animals, water, air, minerals, etc. that is integral to the property we manage we have lost control, and that is without payment. Being paid to continue to provide these things does not involve loss of control it puts you in control of your management. If you chose to not produce what is in demand you will forgo the payment attached to that market. That should be the only punishment in an open market. Laws and regulations have distorted the true value of the EG&S we produce. If it was left to the market they would be a lot cheaper.
-as we are the people who provide the habitat due to our day to day management and even the groups who are pushing for the heavy handed laws will admit that, why are we on the defensive. Regulations which control drainage in Sask. should be proof of how effective Government programs dealing with environmental issues on agricultural land are.

I should clarify. County support is largely through Ag Fieldmen, supplying of tree planters, office space, etc. The project is very public here and has good support. The County started down this path because they were trying to solve drainage issues (particularly with the growing acreage/subdivision populations.
There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates (varies by land type/classification).
I support the approach/concept for a couple of reasons beyond what I probably mis-explained above.
- I have say in the design of any projects on our land (there is not a cookie cutter recipe book for projects)
- In many cases ALUS is paying for existing EG&S (we can argue about price)
- ALUS is based on landowners approaching the program, rather than forced participation
- I can opt out of ALUS at any point if I am willing to pay back a portion of the project establishment costs (pro-rated)
"

I think the ALUS model is generally a cheaper solution than legislation (particularly with no enforcement) as it enables improvement and empowers landowners.
ALUS has been a positive step with local community involvement. I think that is one of the keys. The funding source is external and work is ongoing on how to develop methodologies for the public the "buy" EG&S. The work and program is local, based on local conditions/culture/needs/etc.
Norfolk Ontario's program is a lot further along than ours, but they have really created some great EG&S, public awareness and developed a lot of private funding (Sold EG&S).
I don't think it should be all privately funded or that government should get off without paying. They are supposed to represent the public and protect the environment and are already spending a lot of ineffective money for little benefit.

"There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates"

In other words they are paying for change.

"- I can graze or use my ALUS project, I just forgo all or a portion of my ALUS payment for the year. This is important for things like drought management, etc."
How sustainable is that? It means it is a set aside program not a sustainable use of the resource.

Just like many of the programs in the past it is being farmed. Paying for change only lasts until something else pays better. All the cultivated land in the west has been broke under a incentive right from the Homestead Act, Crow rate to the Quota system all gave financial incentives from the government to break land with no consideration to the quality or best purpose. Then the government started paying people to seed it back to grass and artificially distorted the cow herd. Then cows got cheap and they broke the grass again.
Did you read Hyland Armstrongs article on the next page to yours in the Grainnews?

 

[RSL]

" Basically paying to do good stuff instead of penalizing the folks who can't afford or don't want to change."

What did the people who can't afford to do it right now do with the money they were paid to do it wrong?

" Delta Waterfowl and the County are funding a big part of the pilot, "

Does the public know that in the past their taxes were used to create the mess they are being asked to give more taxes to fix?

Every time a new regulation/law is proposed or comes into effect that involves the plants, animals, water, air, minerals, etc. that is integral to the property we manage we have lost control, and that is without payment. Being paid to continue to provide these things does not involve loss of control it puts you in control of your management. If you chose to not produce what is in demand you will forgo the payment attached to that market. That should be the only punishment in an open market. Laws and regulations have distorted the true value of the EG&S we produce. If it was left to the market they would be a lot cheaper.
-as we are the people who provide the habitat due to our day to day management and even the groups who are pushing for the heavy handed laws will admit that, why are we on the defensive. Regulations which control drainage in Sask. should be proof of how effective Government programs dealing with environmental issues on agricultural land are.

I should clarify. County support is largely through Ag Fieldmen, supplying of tree planters, office space, etc. The project is very public here and has good support. The County started down this path because they were trying to solve drainage issues (particularly with the growing acreage/subdivision populations.
There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates (varies by land type/classification).
I support the approach/concept for a couple of reasons beyond what I probably mis-explained above.
- I have say in the design of any projects on our land (there is not a cookie cutter recipe book for projects)
- In many cases ALUS is paying for existing EG&S (we can argue about price)
- ALUS is based on landowners approaching the program, rather than forced participation
- I can opt out of ALUS at any point if I am willing to pay back a portion of the project establishment costs (pro-rated)
"

I think the ALUS model is generally a cheaper solution than legislation (particularly with no enforcement) as it enables improvement and empowers landowners.
ALUS has been a positive step with local community involvement. I think that is one of the keys. The funding source is external and work is ongoing on how to develop methodologies for the public the "buy" EG&S. The work and program is local, based on local conditions/culture/needs/etc.
Norfolk Ontario's program is a lot further along than ours, but they have really created some great EG&S, public awareness and developed a lot of private funding (Sold EG&S).
I don't think it should be all privately funded or that government should get off without paying. They are supposed to represent the public and protect the environment and are already spending a lot of ineffective money for little benefit.

"There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates"

In other words they are paying for change.

"- I can graze or use my ALUS project, I just forgo all or a portion of my ALUS payment for the year. This is important for things like drought management, etc."
How sustainable is that? It means it is a set aside program not a sustainable use of the resource.

Just like many of the programs in the past it is being farmed. Paying for change only lasts until something else pays better. All the cultivated land in the west has been broke under a incentive right from the Homestead Act, Crow rate to the Quota system all gave financial incentives from the government to break land with no consideration to the quality or best purpose. Then the government started paying people to seed it back to grass and artificially distorted the cow herd. Then cows got cheap and they broke the grass again.
Did you read Hyland Armstrongs article on the next page to yours in the Grainnews?

The program does pay for existing EG&S. The committee has approved a variety of projects that include an acreage payment for virgin native rangeland as an example of paying for existing EG&S. In many cases people will choose to do things such as plant shelterbelts (the opposite of what grain prices are dictating) and the program provides encouragement and support for that as well.

I agree with you about the challenge of what pays and more importantly what is valued...

There are challenges - for example should the program pay for a sand blow that was reclaimed with crested wheat in the 1930s? It provides EG&S, but is there a statute of limitations.
We are at land rents of $60+ in this area now, so I fear the the environmental side of things is going to take a further back seat. If the EG&S market is not driven by producers and is decided by government I am pretty scared what it may look like and just how poorly it will work.

BTW - I agree with Hyland.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I should clarify. County support is largely through Ag Fieldmen, supplying of tree planters, office space, etc. The project is very public here and has good support. The County started down this path because they were trying to solve drainage issues (particularly with the growing acreage/subdivision populations.
There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates (varies by land type/classification).
I support the approach/concept for a couple of reasons beyond what I probably mis-explained above.
- I have say in the design of any projects on our land (there is not a cookie cutter recipe book for projects)
- In many cases ALUS is paying for existing EG&S (we can argue about price)
- ALUS is based on landowners approaching the program, rather than forced participation
- I can opt out of ALUS at any point if I am willing to pay back a portion of the project establishment costs (pro-rated)
"

I think the ALUS model is generally a cheaper solution than legislation (particularly with no enforcement) as it enables improvement and empowers landowners.
ALUS has been a positive step with local community involvement. I think that is one of the keys. The funding source is external and work is ongoing on how to develop methodologies for the public the "buy" EG&S. The work and program is local, based on local conditions/culture/needs/etc.
Norfolk Ontario's program is a lot further along than ours, but they have really created some great EG&S, public awareness and developed a lot of private funding (Sold EG&S).
I don't think it should be all privately funded or that government should get off without paying. They are supposed to represent the public and protect the environment and are already spending a lot of ineffective money for little benefit.

"There are supports in place to implement projects and then payment is acreage based on going rental rates"

In other words they are paying for change.

"- I can graze or use my ALUS project, I just forgo all or a portion of my ALUS payment for the year. This is important for things like drought management, etc."
How sustainable is that? It means it is a set aside program not a sustainable use of the resource.

Just like many of the programs in the past it is being farmed. Paying for change only lasts until something else pays better. All the cultivated land in the west has been broke under a incentive right from the Homestead Act, Crow rate to the Quota system all gave financial incentives from the government to break land with no consideration to the quality or best purpose. Then the government started paying people to seed it back to grass and artificially distorted the cow herd. Then cows got cheap and they broke the grass again.
Did you read Hyland Armstrongs article on the next page to yours in the Grainnews?

The program does pay for existing EG&S. The committee has approved a variety of projects that include an acreage payment for virgin native rangeland as an example of paying for existing EG&S. (the opposite of what grain prices are dictating) and the program provides enc In many cases people will choose to do things such as plant shelterbelts ouragement and support for that as well.

I agree with you about the challenge of what pays and more importantly what is valued...

There are challenges - for example should the program pay for a sand blow that was reclaimed with crested wheat in the 1930s? It provides EG&S, but is there a statute of limitations.
We are at land rents of $60+ in this area now, so I fear the the environmental side of things is going to take a further back seat. If the EG&S market is not driven by producers and is decided by government I am pretty scared what it may look like and just how poorly it will work.

BTW - I agree with Hyland.

" In many cases people will choose to do things such as plant shelterbelts ouragement and support for that as well."

Gimme me a break,,, Trees have been free for 100 years, If planting them produces EGS the mature rows must be producing alot more. My Dad plants tree rows in the '60's and I planted some in the 80's, They trap tons of snow slow the wind and provide habitat for partridges and other birds. Ever heard of 'Shrubs for Shrikes".


"should the program pay for a sand blow that was reclaimed with crested wheat in the 1930s? It provides EG&S, but is there a statute of limitations."

If it is providing a marketable EGS , yes might not be a high value but if you put on a statute of limitations on it what about native prairie?

Yes the market needs to be driven by the producer and the government needs to "Get out of the way" They need to tell these organizations that want something protected to go buy protection from the people who have been protecting it all along. DU could have raised more ducks paying farmers and ranchers rather then owning land and setting it aside. NCC could have protected millions more acres by paying ranchers for providing biodiversity could have found ranchers grazing cattle in a sustainable manner and rewarded them as an example to draw in other to improve their management of native prairie.
The federal government has put a value on endangered species and all the money they have spent could have be used as a incentive to have ranchers improve their practices to qualify for payments. The producer then would have a vested interest in those SAR rather then view them as a liability to their operation.

 

[RSL]

" In many cases people will choose to do things such as plant shelterbelts ouragement and support for that as well."

Gimme me a break,,, Trees have been free for 100 years, If planting them produces EGS the mature rows must be producing alot more. My Dad plants tree rows in the '60's and I planted some in the 80's, They trap tons of snow slow the wind and provide habitat for partridges and other birds. Ever heard of 'Shrubs for Shrikes".


"should the program pay for a sand blow that was reclaimed with crested wheat in the 1930s? It provides EG&S, but is there a statute of limitations."

If it is providing a marketable EGS , yes might not be a high value but if you put on a statute of limitations on it what about native prairie?

Yes the market needs to be driven by the producer and the government needs to "Get out of the way" They need to tell these organizations that want something protected to go buy protection from the people who have been protecting it all along. DU could have raised more ducks paying farmers and ranchers rather then owning land and setting it aside. NCC could have protected millions more acres by paying ranchers for providing biodiversity could have found ranchers grazing cattle in a sustainable manner and rewarded them as an example to draw in other to improve their management of native prairie.
The federal government has put a value on endangered species and all the money they have spent could have be used as a incentive to have ranchers improve their practices to qualify for payments. The producer then would have a vested interest in those SAR rather then view them as a liability to their operation.

I agree with what you are saying, although I disagree that trees are free. The trees are free but it takes a lot of money/time to get them in the ground. The ALUS or any EG&S market needs to pay for that time investment as well as the wind slowing, moisture trapping, wildlife habitat, etc. The whole premise is paying for the "stacked" benefits directly to the provider of the benefits. The question is the best way to do it.
I don't see an easy market mechanism for that yet (an EG&S auction market).

We went through a DU biodiversity assessment program a few years ago and were told that there was no funding available from the environmental industry (that is the correct term I believe) because everything was in such good shape. They could not believe the biodiversity we had. If I had managed to wreck something there was all kinds of funding available to fix it. We have to get out of that mindset, but it is easier said than done in my experience.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

" In many cases people will choose to do things such as plant shelterbelts ouragement and support for that as well."

Gimme me a break,,, Trees have been free for 100 years, If planting them produces EGS the mature rows must be producing alot more. My Dad plants tree rows in the '60's and I planted some in the 80's, They trap tons of snow slow the wind and provide habitat for partridges and other birds. Ever heard of 'Shrubs for Shrikes".


"should the program pay for a sand blow that was reclaimed with crested wheat in the 1930s? It provides EG&S, but is there a statute of limitations."

If it is providing a marketable EGS , yes might not be a high value but if you put on a statute of limitations on it what about native prairie?

Yes the market needs to be driven by the producer and the government needs to "Get out of the way" They need to tell these organizations that want something protected to go buy protection from the people who have been protecting it all along. DU could have raised more ducks paying farmers and ranchers rather then owning land and setting it aside. NCC could have protected millions more acres by paying ranchers for providing biodiversity could have found ranchers grazing cattle in a sustainable manner and rewarded them as an example to draw in other to improve their management of native prairie.
The federal government has put a value on endangered species and all the money they have spent could have be used as a incentive to have ranchers improve their practices to qualify for payments. The producer then would have a vested interest in those SAR rather then view them as a liability to their operation.

I agree with what you are saying, although I disagree that trees are free. The trees are free but it takes a lot of money/time to get them in the ground. The ALUS or any EG&S market needs to pay for that time investment as well as the wind slowing, moisture trapping, wildlife habitat, etc. The whole premise is paying for the "stacked" benefits directly to the provider of the benefits. The question is the best way to do it.
I don't see an easy market mechanism for that yet (an EG&S auction market).

We went through a DU biodiversity assessment program a few years ago and were told that there was no funding available from the environmental industry (that is the correct term I believe) because everything was in such good shape. They could not believe the biodiversity we had. If I had managed to wreck something there was all kinds of funding available to fix it. We have to get out of that mindset, but it is easier said than done in my experience.

"If I had managed to wreck something there was all kinds of funding available to fix it. We have to get out of that mindset, but it is easier said than done in my experience"

EXACTLY right, When Delta approached the SSGA many moons ago with the idea of ALUS we wanted to take it in the direction of rewarding those doing it right and providing the biodiversity and draw the others up rather then paying for change. Delta and APAS who was pushing for the status quo of paying for another grass seeding program wouldn't agree to that so rather then bastardizing our principals we didn't join in on promoting ALUS. :cowboy:

 

[per]

I know BMR is waiting for me to chime in on this but being as he is pretty much on the same page a me on this I have been enjoying being on the sidelines.

Having an NGO populated with feel gooders and do gooders who are without a doubt well intentioned as a partner or having the populous controlled local or provincial governments as partners will turn out full of unintended consequences in the end.

To me a marketplace is about providing (whether already existing or by making change) value that can be sold. I think that is where we should concentrate our effort.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well I enjoyed this discussion immensely.

I might have been a little hard on RSL but you did a great job of explaining ALUS and I hope it got more people to think EGS. The stacking of benefits is probably the only way to generate significant payments on some land.

Leanin' H I understand your "fear" of more regulation but quietly doing a good job on your own place won't stop or make regulation go away. When I was on the Stockgrowers board my friend and I did lots of work on land use committee and the required meetings that go along with it. Lots of times it might have been just the two of us that were making our living off the land but twenty others at the meetings wanting to regulate what we could do on that land or wanted to use it with the responsibility of caring for the land.

The one disappointment on this thread was the limited number of producers that chimed in with ideas or constructive criticism, i had surely hoped that this would have been a more important issue in ranch country. :?

 

[gcreekrch]

You guys just keep discussing this issue and I might possibly learn something! :wink:

 

[RSL]

I agree BMR. Good discussion. It will be interesting to see how EG&S evolves. I think we both agree on a couple of things...
1. It is not easy - especially when we consider existing services vs. new
2. It needs to be driven from the ground level (landowners) rather than the top (government legislators).

BTW - You don't need to worry about my skin on any topic, unless it's family... but you may have to get in line on any given day. :lol: