Wild Harvest: Farming for Wildlife and Profitability

Yes, but California always gets rooked on the farm bill. The farm bill provides huge subsidies for crops like wheat and soybeans, crops that 90 percent of California farmers don't grow. People are surprised to hear that fruit and vegetable farmers don't get direct farm bill subsidies.

California has to make it up by getting our fair share of conservation dollars. Conservation funding in the farm bill will ramp up year by year until 2007. Unlike subsidies -- which bail out farmers for growing unprofitable crops -- conservation incentives reward farmers for being good stewards of the land. California is the perfect place for this kind of thing: we have the greatest diversity of species and the richest agricultural lands. We have a historic opportunity to protect California's watersheds. For example, we can develop comprehensive farmland stewardship agreements that deliver proven results and provide fair compensation for farmers. If we do it right, we can keep agricultural producers on the land producing food and fiber for our families even as we rescue species like the San Joaquin kit fox and the riparian brush rabbit from the brink of extinction, clean up the rivers that we rely on for drinking water, and preserve California's extraordinary landscape.

No. If our native species disappear from the Earth, we'll be next. As a nation we have decided we don't want to lose our native species -- indeed, the Endangered Species Act is responsible for the survival of our national emblem, the American Bald Eagle. We doubt that many Americans would like to tell their grandchildren that the symbol of our great nation disappeared from this earth due to human-caused extinction.

Farmers know better than anyone that a healthy, resilient ecosystem is essential for a productive and profitable farm. If the range can't support tule elk or pronghorn antelope, it won't support cattle either. When the native grasses and the balanced plant communities are gone, the damaged landscape fills with exotic species that reduce the ecological and economic value of the land. An incentive-based approach to species conservation recognizes the capacity of farmers and ranchers and forest landowners to care for the land, and it supports practices that may not provide the greatest short-term economic return, but pay off again and again in conservation value.

Why should we have to pay for this, aren't farmers bound by law to protect species?

The law can only set a baseline standard for the conservation of species. To protect wildlife and restore our many threatened species, California needs farmers and ranchers to go above and beyond what is required. Many already do. But these are the ones most threatened in today's agricultural economy; with costs rising and prices falling, many producers feel they can't afford to go the extra mile for California's wildlife. We need to reward the landowners who provide the best environmental return for the public, and inspire others to improve.

We all share in the responsibility for the health of the land. We eat food, drive cars, and live in cities that were once habitat for species that are now endangered. People need to recognize the connection between the endangered species list and the grocery list. Too often we reward farmers who deliver the lowest prices, even if they achieve these low prices by using damaging stewardship practices. And so the farmer who goes the extra mile to conserve species and restore native ecosystems ends up at a competitive disadvantage. We have an obligation to share the costs of conservation of these species. If species conservation isn't viewed as economically beneficial by landowners, California's imperiled species will always be the losers when it comes time to make hard economic decisions. We want them to be the winners.

Farmers do go for it. Today our farmland is threatened right along with our wildlands -- urban sprawl is paving over 49 square miles of California farmland every year. If environmental groups and agricultural groups don't work together, we will continue to fight two losing battles. That is why, all over the state, these groups are building coalitions and partnerships, creating a new cooperative spirit that will restore our ecosystems and preserve our agricultural heritage. For example, the Mill Creek Conservancy is a landowner-led organization that is enhancing habitat for one of the few Central Valley streams that still contains Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Yolo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) is a farmer-led organization and one of the leading resources for wildlife-friendly farming practices in the state. The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission is actively pursuing sustainable vineyard management within the industry.

The initiatives in this report represent a bold, innovative step forward toward the future of farming. The old way of looking at agriculture -- as an industrial production isolated from the larger landscape -- is obsolete and is rapidly giving way to current realities. Today, the most successful farmers are recognizing the connections between irrigation, farming practices, water quality, and urban constituencies. The best farmers are becoming land managers as well as commodity producers. For example, the future belongs to the rancher who raises more than just cattle -- successful ranchers today focus their management of the health of the grass and the fertility of the soil. This leads to environmentally friendly practices that are good for the cow, good for wildlife, and sustain the productivity of the land over time. Increasingly, the public expects high environmental standards from landowners and, as the federal farm bill's conservation title and California's 2002 Parks Bond demonstrate, they are increasingly willing to pay for it. The future of agriculture lies in the successful integration of public values and private enterprise.

It's far cheaper to invest in conservation today than to try and clean up the mess later on, after species have been driven to the brink of extinction. Look how much time and taxpayer money was spent to save the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or California condor (at least $40 million for the condor so far and it's not saved yet). Some of the conservation policies we recommend in Wild Harvest would pay farmers directly to provide the public with a measurable benefit in wildlife habitat; others would allow tax credits or offsets for farmers who protect species and habitat. These are highly economical and cost-effective, far cheaper than buying land outright to protect it. For example, relatively small amounts spent on conservation easements, tax credits or offsets, stewardship agreements, in-kind materials such as fencing, and the like, can provide large habitat benefits to the public while keeping the land in private ownership, economically productive, and in the county's tax base -- and saving taxpayers the high cost of acquisition. It is much cheaper to invest now in these conservation programs than to be forced to buy land outright later on, after imperiled species' predicament becomes much worse and its habitat much more scarce.