Environmental stewardship

[grassfarmer]

I heard recently of someone in Northern England who seems to have hit a home-run with an environmental stewardship program.
The area is probably beautiful mountain scenery and some environmental people have decided that maintaining a small number of cattle (likely in addition to sheep there already) would have a beneficial impact on the environment. So on his 200 acres of hill land he has qualified for the equivalent of $46,800 annual payment for 10 years to keep 10 Galloways.
Lots of restrictions and paperwork no doubt but still that's quite the pay check.

[Graybull]

Nice work........IF you can get it.

[Horse]

Must have taken a page from Alta public land office.

[grassfarmer]

It sure seems strange the value put on some of these things in my opinion.
I know in that same area another farmer gets paid well to run some Luing cows on the hill. His property is one of only a couple that have a really rare type of butterfly on them. The land is largely covered in bracken (a weedy forb related to ferns) but there is a particular flower that lives under the bracken that the butterflies thrive on. So they employ the cows to trample and open up the bracken canopy at certain times of year to help the butterflies. It's done at super low density like the 8 cows on 200 acres they aren't mob stocking it or anything.
I find it a bit strange trying to selectively interfere with nature like this and subsidize it from the public purse. Farmers as always adapt to the situation and I can't blame them for taking the money.

Maybe there is a parallel with the sage grouse controversy here?

[kato]

We met a farmer in Scotland who also gets some butterfly compensation. It's a significant part of his income. It sure amazed us when he told us about it. It amazed him too.

I wonder if we could get paid for squirrels? Or deer? We could be millionaires. Lol

[perfecho]

There may be a time we look back and say that there should have been more of these programs.......maybe.......

[AllisWD45]

Any get rich quick oops environmental stewardship ideas for 17 belted Galloway cows grazing along a major highway in summer

[smcgrath76]

I actually agree with society paying for EG&S. They can either do it indirectly through the food choices they make, or directly through payments. Grain guys can sell carbon credits for using no till (an EG&S) but there is presently no market for those of us growing grass and sequestering even more carbon into the ground.
If society values things like native prairie, open spaces, wildlife habitat, etc. then the way our system works there needs to be a mechanism to make it the most viable economic option. Case in point, look how much grass/prairie has been turned under in the latest round of the grain market price rise, look at oil development or look at the economic options for areas surrounding the corridor in AB, or around other major centers.
Right now a lot/most of these public services are provided for free by farmers/ranchers and in some cases at their own personal expense. That may be sustainable in some places and the result of personal choices, but over time I am convinced we will see loss of these undervalued services if the economics are not changed.
A question to make you think about it is: What is a glass of clean water worth vs. what is the last glass of clean water worth? Somewhere between these 2 there has to be a middle ground.

[grassfarmer]

I agree that costs of desirable societal outcomes should be borne by society as a whole rather than individual land owners. I'm not sure the public at large would support such an idea yet given how much short term/Walmart type thinking prevails.

Having grown up with "subsidies" I'm wary too of ill designed systems that often have the opposite of the effects intended. I don't like "outsiders" coming in and deciding that a certain type of butterfly deserves stocking a place with 10 cows, or restocking a place of livestock for that matter. I guess I don't fully trust the people promoting some of these ideas.
I think a system rewarding Holistic Management practices for example would be more worthwhile than one supporting the preservation of one species. But then how do you implement such a program so that it doesn't grow like government and finish up costing billions and achieving nothing?

[smcgrath76]

I don't disagree with the outsider perspective, although if enough people want to pay for a specific outcome, then the market should be open to manage for that outcome.
The trial EG&S project we are involved with has several key principles, but one of the most important ones is that it is controlled locally and the majority of the people in control must be farmers. It is also a priority to focus on outcomes rather than methods. For example, there is no specific methodology for seeding native grass species, rather payment is based on successfully establishing the said species for various projects. Also, the farmer designates/designs their own projects with professional assistance (eg: biologist) and it is assessed relative to expected outcomes. There is everything from grain farmers planting shelterbelts and pollinator habitat to cow guys that are fencing creeks and producers that are preserving native prairie, etc. Key is monitoring and documenting the EG&S that are produced, and even more important is objectively valuing it. These are not easy things to do.

[Graybull]

What Government Types forget is that famers/ranchers worldwide are as innovative or more innovative than any other class.

Set the parameters (without BS "Expert" Requirements........and you will "Git the job done".