10 minute read
Wildlife as an Agricultural Crop
Wildlife management is a form of agriculture and the crop produced is a memorable experience.
Article by STEVE NELLE Photos by RUSSELL A. GRAVES
We all know how important agricultural crops are. Our lives and the entire world population depend on crops each day for food and clothing. But not all crops require tilling soil and planting seed.
It is easy to recognize wheat, corn, cotton, soybeans, vegetables, fruits, and nuts as agricultural crops. And it is not hard to see that cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, and other livestock also are an agricultural crop. Likewise, we understand that timber is a type of crop even though it takes many years to be ready for harvest. These are what we might call traditional agricultural crops.
The beauty of agricultural crops is that they are sustainable and renewable—the land will produce these crops perpetually and without loss of productivity if the cropping is done well. Good agricultural practice not only feeds man and beast but also perpetuates soil health and can even restore depleted soils. In the United States where we are blessed with productive soil, favorable climate and efficient agriculture, each farmer feeds an average of 166 people.
IS WILDLIFE A CROP?
Everyone knows that grain, cattle, and pecans are agricultural crops, but how does wildlife fit into the agricultural picture? Is wildlife also an agricultural crop, or is it something different and separate from agriculture?
Aldo Leopold (1887 – 1948) is well known in the world of wildlife management but he also understood agriculture. In fact,
he was hired as the first ever professor of wildlife management by the Dean of Agriculture to teach in the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin.
Leopold believed that wildlife is a product of the land, like a farm crop in some ways, but produced in a different way. We have all heard of deer farming, fish farming and game bird farming but these are not what Leopold promoted as wildlife crops.
In his classic book, “Game Management,” published in 1933, Leopold provided this simple explanation: “Game management is the art of making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use.” Later, he wrote, “Effective wildlife conservation requires a deliberate and purposeful manipulation of the environment.”
For Leopold and thousands of game managers who followed him, yes, wildlife can be considered a crop. The crop of wildlife is produced, at least in part, by manipulating the land to create or enhance the habitat for the desired species. Leopold insisted, “Game management is a form of agriculture.”
At the same time, Leopold knew very well that wildlife sometimes exists in natural abundance where there is no intentional management. His new idea of management was designed to increase wildlife populations through thoughtful habitat management beyond what the land would otherwise produce and to help it produce acceptable crops in poor years.
His proposed methods of management and manipulation varied by species and varied regionally. There are no cookbook recipes on how to make land produce wildlife. Wildlife management was and still is an art that requires knowledge, skill, creativity, and adaptation uniquely applied to each individual tract of land.
The bonds that are forged while enjoying wildlife-related activities keep families connected for generations. Whether producing traditional agricultural crops or crops of wildlife, both require skill and dedication on the part of the farmer.
PRODUCING A WILD CROP
The tools and techniques for raising crops of wildlife can be similar to those employed for raising traditional crops. Tractors, plows, dozers, track hoes, fences, fire, water development, levees, water control structures, airplanes, and herbicides are some of the tools that can be used for both traditional agriculture and wildlife management.
But the differences are just as important as the similarities. The primary differences between wildlife management and traditional agriculture are the recognition of what exactly is being produced and the intensity of management.
In traditional agriculture, yield is of utmost importance, as it must be, along with the quality of the product. When wildlife is the desired crop, the experience gained is of primary importance, not what is taken home. First and foremost, those who produce wildlife are providing a memorable and special aesthetic experience for the consumer.
A genuine crop of wildlife should be wild. Tameness in any degree is a detraction and can be so great a detraction that it spoils the experience. Leopold maintained the opinion, “The recreational value of game is inverse to the artificiality of its origin.”
novelty but has no “wild value.” The same can be said for various exotic ungulates confined in a small pasture. For some, these are not a wild experience and are not much different than a trip to the zoo.
Crops of wildlife do not always have to be harvested. Birding and photographic opportunities on private lands are a growing segment of the wildlife business.
A - B CLEAVAGE
One of the dilemmas that Leopold faced and which we still grapple with is finding the balance between an appropriate level of managerial intensity without spoiling or degrading the wildness of wildlife or the aesthetic value of the experience. Leopold spoke of the A – B cleavage in describing the divergent ways in which wildlife crops are produced.
He said group A is content to produce wildlife with the same level of intensity the farmer uses to produce cotton, corn, poultry, or beef. Group B also desires wildlife productivity, but in a wild setting by tweaking the natural habitat rather than resorting to artificial means. These two groups are still active in our day and each has their proponents.
Many will admit that something special is diminished for every new degree of artificiality we introduce into hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation. Just because we have the technological ability to enhance and multiply what nature can do does not mean it is always a good idea. The degree of intensiveness and artificiality warranted in raising agricultural commodities does not always translate nicely into the world of wildlife management.
Many of today’s hunters, birders, and nature enthusiasts prefer a more natural experience rather than artificial. Most are not impressed in seeing a group of semi-tame “house turkeys” or a grainfed covey of quail that stays around the headquarters. A huge buck born in a pen and fed from a trough is an interesting
ECONOMIC REALITIES
The serious farmer or rancher does not raise crops or livestock just for fun. Although they enjoy their profession and lifestyle, they engage in the hard work of agriculture to make a profit. It’s not their only motive but it is important.
This same economic motive is also important for many who raise crops of wildlife. Yes, it is enjoyable and fulfilling but it also must generate a return to justify the expenses. Raising good annual crops of wildlife requires active management and that comes with a price tag.
Our system of lease hunting and feebased nature tourism on private lands generates revenue to carry out the necessary management. In many cases, it provides a significant net return to the landowner.
Leopold did not believe that landowners are necessarily obligated to manage for wildlife without any kind of compensation. He said, “The private landowner must be given some kind of an incentive for undertaking it.” The incentive can be cash payments for lease hunting, fishing,
Something as simple as fishing for crawdads is a childhood experience that often leads to a lifetime of wildlife enjoyment.
or birding, or it can be other incentives that make wildlife management worth the effort and cost.
Some landowners are willing and able to funnel outside money into the land to manage for wildlife. This is good and commendable while it lasts, but the best long-term management is that which pays its own way; if not fully, then at least to a large degree.
AGRICULTURAL HARDSHIPS
Just like other forms of agriculture, the management of wildlife is also prone to hardships, setbacks, and natural disasters. Droughts, floods, wildfire, hailstorms, ice storms, disease, predators, and other calamities wreak havoc on crops, livestock and wildlife alike. The losses can be catastrophic both in natural and economic terms as well as emotionally.
Watching a deer herd diminish due to anthrax or hemorrhagic disease is not only an extreme economic loss but is also traumatic to the owner and those who have hunted there. Likewise, the demise of an abundant quail population due to no fault of your own is demoralizing.
Even though we know that quail populations naturally and inevitably boom and bust, that does not make it any easier to endure the loss of what you enjoy and what you have worked for. Both the wildlife manager and the farmer share a deep connection to the land and there is a personal sense of gain or loss when the crop thrives or fails.
We must also be aware that wildlife can be serious agricultural pests causing significant harm to farming and ranching operations. Crop damage, predators, damage to fences, disease, and parasite transmission are some of the ways in which wildlife are not always welcome on the farm or ranch. Sometimes aggressive wildlife damage control is needed and justified.
OTHER CROPS AND BENEFITS
Besides traditional farm crops and crops of wildlife, there are other less tangible “crops” which the land provides and which can be enhanced or degraded by our management. Water is increasingly being recognized as a crop that comes from the land. As of now there is not yet a good way to monetize the land’s ability to provide, process, and purify water but that day may be coming.
In the past, water was regarded as coming from aquifers, springs, creeks and rivers without understanding the essential role of healthy landscapes. We now use the term “water catchment” to convey the concept that well-managed land captures and stores water for a slower, cleaner and more sustained release into tributaries, creeks and rivers.
A well-managed landscape also provides greater opportunity for rainfall to seep into underground aquifers. Drought mitigation and flood attenuation are other water-related services provided by healthy, well-managed landscapes.
The storage of excess atmospheric carbon in the soil is now widely recognized as a benefit of good agriculture. Increased soil carbon (organic matter) is not a crop in the traditional sense but is nevertheless a service or benefit of well-managed land. Some landowners are beginning to capitalize on the land’s ability to sequester increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon.
IS WILDLIFE ESSENTIAL?
There is no debate that sustainable agriculture is essential to feed the world and provide fiber and wood products. But what about the necessity of wildlife?
Perhaps wildlife is not as essential to mankind as wheat, corn, or other staples. But for many of us, wildlife is just the next level down on the scale of necessity. Yes, we could survive in the physical sense without wildlife, but our lives would be much poorer.
In the introduction to “A Sand County Almanac,” Leopold wrote these words which resonate with many of us: “There are those who can live without wild things and those who cannot; these essays are the delights and dilemmas of those who cannot.”
The good news is that we do not have to choose between food crops and wildlife crops. Healthy, managed land can produce both. When land is properly managed, all the crops we need as well as wildlife and other ecological benefits will be produced and sustained. It is a proverbial win-win.
We live in a state where robust agricultural production exists alongside rich and abundant wildlife. In Texas, private farms, ranches, and timberland are where most of the wildlife is found, not on refuges, preserves or sanctuaries. With a balance of economic, aesthetic and stewardship motives, Texas agricultural lands will continue to produce crops, wildlife, water, and other societal benefits for now and for the future.
