16 minute read
Eye on the Outside
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana.
This quote or variations of it is sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill. The quote presupposes those condemned have a good grasp on the facts revealed in the past. In other words, to remember something you have to have known it at one time.
Relative to this thought, I have two criticisms of the extreme environmental movement. First, they make pronouncements without telling the truth to further an agenda. Second, knowing the truth, they conveniently forget again for the purposes of furthering that agenda.
What is the agenda? Here in the intermountain west their agenda is to eliminate all livestock grazing on the public ranges. This effort began to heat up just after WWII. Coincidently, this was about the time when range science began to really evaluate the western ranges. The conclusion of most range scientists is there was a great deal of overgrazing in the early settlement of the west and on into the 20th century. The scientific analysis also resulted in ideas and techniques to decrease overgrazing and the use of livestock in a responsible, managed way to improve the ranges. Without question, most ranchers now acknowledge there were some grazing abuses. They also embrace the science and use their livestock to improve the public ranges they have permits to graze. They don’t hide the truth or fail to address the mistakes of the past. Instead, they improve those ranges by using modern scientifically based managed grazing to protect the resource while keeping it productive and useful for many different interests.
THE P/J SITUATION
Below is the reason I thought about expressing my views on this issue of who is telling the truth about what is really happening on the ranges of the west, and who is actually doing something to make sure those ranges are productive and sustainable on into the next century of the wise use of those ranges. The BLM recently ruled the use of categorical exclusions is a valid NEPA process to permit the removal of up to 10,000 acres of pinion- juniper conifers (P/J) in sage brush steppe communities to reestablish the preferred vegetation in areas where the conifers have overrun the brush and grass areas historically dominant at certain elevations above the valley floors in the mountainous west. This encroachment of trees began after fire suppression efforts took hold as the twentieth century advanced. This decision has created a firestorm among various environmental groups whose spokes persons have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They criticize the BLM for a decision they claim will mean less biodiversity and increased cheat grass invasion. This is wrong in so many ways. I read in another well-respected publication a spokesman for a big game foundation said there is proof such tree removals in sage brush steppes improves habitat for all kinds of wildlife including mule deer. There are places in eastern Nevada, for instance, where the historic tree population was around one hundred trees per acre where now one thousand trees per acre grow. These monocultures create an environment in which no other plants are able to germinate and grow underneath the canopy. A short walk through one of these monocultured areas proves my point. First, in some P/J infested areas it is almost impossible to walk without being blocked by branches from hundreds and hundreds of trees. Second, the notion that any big game or livestock including a ridden saddle horse could easily make their way through such areas is laughable. The ground is so bare of any other vegetation it is a virtual desert under these canopies of P/J. Diseased and stunted trees are everywhere just waiting for a strategic lightning strike to burn thousands of acres.
The University of Nevada, Reno has done research which shows the canopy is so thick in places that snow and rain never reach the ground. I have also read each one of these trees transpires at least 15 gallons of water a day. This amounts to billions of gallons a day west wide from the increasingly large P/J forest that is changing the ecological balance all over the west.
I have heard the historic P/J forest in eastern Nevada was about two million acres. This infestation by the current forest exceeds 7 million acres. Imagine what this has done to the water table if 7 million acres of trees transpire what 2 million acres of trees used to. The math is easy. 1000 trees times 15 gallons is 15,000 gallons per acre per day. You can do the rest. Old timers in the area can point to canyons where water from springs used to flow freely which are now dry because too many trees are consuming too much water.
I have personal experience in seeing the benefits of the scientific management of a small piece of private property in an isolated canyon in Central Nevada. The owner accomplished a restoration of historic water and grass by clear cutting trees on the private ground while leaving thousands of acres covered with trees on the public land except for a permitted removal of relatively few trees from the surrounding public land. This limited clear cut on just under 200 aces resulted in a meadow and springs coming back to life to the point that water flowed across the meadow for all but a few of the driest weeks every year. By cutting all the brush off of the meadow and judiciously spreading just a bit of the newly established spring water, the rancher created a vibrant and thriving forage resource that had been lost for many decades. The result is an important forage resource for his livestock and the return of sage grouse to the important sage/ meadow interface area so critical to the survival of new broods of birds in the spring every year. Any livestock producer in the Great Basin can tell you about the dozens of birds they see at this critical time as they ride horseback along these meadow fringes in the spring because the birds and their chicks need the insect food source established in this zone for their survival and that of their broods.
And, so we have the radical environmental community ignoring the science or deciding not to do even a bit of research to admit they are wrong which in turn does nothing to help the resource they claim to care so much about. Their attitude is if the BLM says it is ok there must be something wrong with it because livestock grazing is just one of the uses benefitting from a common sense scientifically justified decision. Thanks for caring so much NGOs.
I’ll see you soon.
Returning The Nevada Board of Agriculture To Their Leadership Role
By Doug Busselman | Nevada Farm Bureau | Executive Vice President
When the Nevada Board of Agriculture held their December Board meeting we raised the issue, during the opening public comment period, that Nevada Farm Bureau had some issues with the pre-filed legislation that was submitted by the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
The legislative proposal at question is SB 54, which seeks to change Nevada law (NRS 561.055) spelling out the areas of representation for members on the Nevada Board of Agriculture. Part of the concern centered on the lack of advanced discussions (or warning) that the Department was bringing forward this type of a proposal. While bringing forward the comment of concern during the public comment period at the start of the meeting, it became obvious that the majority of the members of the Board of Agriculture weren’t aware of the bill being introduced. As the meeting continued, the legislation was included in a report provided to the Board, but because of the construction of the meeting agenda and not having an opportunity for the Board to take action the matter provided limited conversation, but no definite course for the Board to do anything about. Nevada Farm Bureau greatly appreciates the actions of the Board of Agriculture chair in calling for a special board meeting (scheduled for January 19) to provide the Board to discuss the legislation as well as to serve as a platform, in advance of the start of the legislative session, for public input regarding the proposal. The details included within SB 54 calls for re-classification of the present criteria in NRS 561.055. Current law provides for three seats for producers “actively engaged” in range/ semi-range cattle production. SB 54 as written reduces the number to two members and changes the “cattle” to “livestock.” In the next line the current seat designated for a sheep producer who is actively engaged in range or semirange operations is totally deleted. It is assumed that the sheep and cattle producers fit into the “livestock” category and having two of someone from either of these sectors is good enough. Taking the four seats (3 cattle and 1 sheep) and turning the combined total into a two slot proposal, then creates two new positions for nonagricultural producer slots. For these “new” designations – it is proposed that one member would be someone who is working in the field of supplemental nutrition distribution and one member would be someone who is actively engaged in food manufacturing or animal processing. Beyond the surprise factor for learning about SB 54 through the Legislature’s website and the listing of introduced bills that included such a major change; there’s a very basic question of who’s in charge of what? State law (NRS 561.105) identifies the duties; rules and regulations of the Board of Agriculture and states that the Board “must” be informed on of “the entire” field of legislation and administration charged to the Department of Agriculture. The Board is supposed to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the matters that are deemed to be relevant to the Department. The Board is directed (with a “Shall”) to advise and make recommendations to the Governor or the Legislature relating to the policies of the State concerning livestock and agriculture. The matter of SB 54 was not included in any of the discussions by the Board of Agriculture prior to being introduced. In addition they are to establish (again using the “Shall” command) the policy of the Department. Finally, letter “e” of the five bullet set of duties states that the Board – “Shall adopt such regulations as it deems necessary for the operation of the Department and for carrying out the provisions of laws and programs administered by the Department.” Sitting through quarterly reports and being told what the Department has decided they are going to do is something that will need to change, at least in the view of what Nevada Farm Bureau policy says. That Farm Bureau policy position includes this perspective:
“Nevada Farm Bureau supports that the Nevada Board of Agriculture be maintained as a policy-setting entity.
The Board of Agriculture should also maintain strong connection with Nevada agricultural organizations, providing Nevada agricultural producers with the opportunity to give input and influence into services or programs which are needed to benefit farmers and ranchers.”
“Policy-setting” in Farm Bureau’s interpretation goes beyond deciding what color shirts that Department of Agriculture persons wear as part of the uniform and actually takes the form of setting the course for programs, regulations and operations. In the not so distant past, the Board of Agriculture would direct whether regulation processes should be started and authorized workshops and hearings to be held.
With only a few exceptions, the Board of Agriculture is now briefed through reports that they receive on a quarterly basis what regulation proposals are being worked on by the Department and possibly the decisions that have already been made. Without having an agenda that provides for a “Possible Action Item” notation there’s no toehold for anything to take place beyond asking some questions. Where there are possible questions of authority for who is responsible for deciding in regard to regulations, based on language covered in separate sections of statute, clarification might be necessary to re-establish the understanding that the Board of Agriculture are the deciders for “such regulations as it deems necessary
for the operation of the Department and for carrying out the provisions of laws and programs administered by the Department.”
Further, the Board of Agriculture needs to step forward in the process of initiating regulations and interaction with the agricultural producers who are most of the time paying for the services and programs that they need. One example along this line of reasoning is the brand program. Nevada Farm Bureau policy supports a livestock producers’ advisory committee to be formed to develop recommendations regarding brand policy to the Board of Agriculture. Other areas and matters of importance should also be covered with similar approaches for engagement of those who are impacted. Taking the necessary steps to reestablish the authority of the Board of Agriculture is not going to be a single action. It will require the Board of Agriculture standing up for their appropriate authority, corrections to some laws to clarify that authority and the Nevada agricultural sector interacting with the Board to bring about necessary improvements. Based on our understanding of the clear meaning of what the statute NRS 561.105 says, the Board of Agriculture should have been in the very front of determining whether the Department of Agriculture should be submitting changes to who would be on the Board of Agriculture…not finding out about it after the bill had been introduced and it appeared on the pre-filed legislative list.
Farm Bureau Establishes 2021 Policies
Brittney Money | NFB Director of Communications
Farmer and rancher delegates to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s 102nd Annual Convention today adopted policies to guide the
organization’s work in 2021. Key topics ranged from farm diversity to farm labor and dairy policy to livestock marketing. For the first time in AFBF history, delegates met and voted virtually due to COVID-19. “Our Farm Bureau delegates showed that no challenge, not even a pandemic, will keep them from working to improve the lives of America’s farmers and ranchers,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “Their work not only sets policy for 2021, it will also serve as a guide for AFBF as we prepare to work with a new president and a new Congress to ensure we continue to lead the world in producing healthy and safe food, fiber and fuel.” Recognizing the importance of broadening access to agriculture, delegates voted to encourage increased racial diversity in farming. This new policy calls for increased funding for USDA programs that make inheriting farms easier and increases funding to promote diverse farmland ownership. Delegates updated labor policy, emphasizing the importance of reforming the H-2A program by expanding the program to provide visa workers for both seasonal and yearround employment. An expanded program would address workforce shortages and extend the program to operations that do not currently qualify to employ guest workers, like dairy farms. The Holcomb plant fire and the COVID-19 pandemic caused meat prices to skyrocket while the price paid to farmers dropped. AFBF delegates voted to provide stability in markets by supporting efforts to increase negotiated sales in fed cattle markets. Delegates also called for increased transparency in livestock pricing. Milk price volatility was exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in financial damages to dairy farmers in excess of $2.5 billion. Delegates updated dairy policy to call for re-examining the 2018 farm bill’s modification to the milk price formula, improving equity in USDA’s Federal Milk Marketing Order revenue sharing pools, and reaffirmed their support for allowing dairy farmers the opportunity to cast an individual and confidential ballot during milk order referendums. There are new policies on crop insurance. Delegates called on the Risk Management Agency to improve hurricane protection coverage, including but not limited to, providing protection against both hurricane-force winds and excessive precipitation. Delegates also supported modifying specialty crop insurance to minimize food waste.
Michael Flores named University Director of Government Relations & Community Engagement
Longtime Nevada government affairs and community outreach professional to join University of Nevada, Reno
Michael Flores has been named the UNR director of Government Relations and Community Engagement, President Brian Sandoval announced today.
Flores, a longtime Nevada government affairs and community outreach professional, has previously held positions within the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), including chief of staff for the chancellor of NSHE and director of government affairs and communication for the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas. He was also press secretary and senior community liaison for Nevada U.S. Congressman Steven Horsford and was a program assistant for Clark County. He is also founder of the non-profit Nevada Youth Network, which works with the youth of Nevada to prepare them to become tomorrow’s leaders. “Michael’s substantial experience in government affairs as well as in strategic community outreach has given him expertise and insight on a broad and diverse range of issues that are central to the future of our University,” Sandoval said. “He has a wealth of experience that will help our institution continue to build the bridges of collaboration, both in northern Nevada and throughout the state, that are essential to our success. I’d like to offer Michael a warm welcome to our Wolf Pack Family.” NSHE Chancellor Melody Rose praised Flores for his ability to understand the needs of Nevada’s higher education stakeholders and to build a forward-reaching consensus that has helped realize many of NSHE’s strategic goals. “Michael has played a prominent role and provided a guiding voice in many of the initiatives that are critical to NSHE’s mission,” Rose said. “His familiarity with Nevada’s organizational and political landscape and understanding of constituent needs have helped NSHE better serve the state. I’m happy about this new and exciting chapter in Michael’s professional life. He will be missed, but thankfully won’t be going too far, so he may continue working alongside other NSHE institutions to further the importance of higher education within the state of Nevada.” Flores, a graduate of Bishop Gorman High School in Las Vegas who holds a bachelor’s degree in public policy and a master’s degree in urban leadership from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, will be responsible for a variety of duties, including representing the University of Nevada, Reno in working with elected leaders at the federal, state, regional and city level, as well as state agencies such as NSHE. In addition, he will collaborate with private-sector interests, non-profit organizations and leaders in the community to help further the University’s mission. “I am extremely honored to have been chosen for this position,” Flores said. “The University of Nevada, Reno has established a tradition of excellence and achievement that has been recognized nationally as well as throughout our entire state. I’ve seen and experienced the transformational benefits of higher education first-hand, including the nights I’d accompany my mother, who was a single parent, to her night classes at CSN and UNLV. I couldn’t be happier and more personally humbled to begin working for the oldest institution of higher learning in Nevada.”
