This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Farmers and Conservation


I keep hearing that farmers are making pennies per acre per year.  Farming
simply doesn't pay enough to raise a family.  It seems the most severe
threat to the farming economy and the farming way of life is farming
itself, basically over-production.  The farmers are producing too much and
as a result, are not making any money from it because of the huge
surplusses.  

We keep talking about helping the farmers out economically:  "give them
jobs helping plant the prairie", "find ways to preserve the land and
still keep them working" etc.  But the problem is not economic, farmers
aren't farming to make money.  Otherwise, if farmers were serious about
farming to earn a living, they would be happy to see land taken out of
production to reduce the surplus.  (From an economic standpoint, they 
SHOULD all want to be the only farmer in America, because it would give
them such an economic advantage.) Since they don't want this, there must
be some OTHER reason why they oppose projects like these.  It seems to me
that it's a cultural thing, and the problem is what Doug has pointed out:
basically, that there is a culture clash between farmers and
conservationists.

So we have a cultural barrier.  To be most effective these projects
involving farmers (or anyone else), we need to reach through that culture
gap through cultural methods.  Like someone said before, we need to see
things from a farmer's perspective.  When we argue for preservation and
conservation, we need to aim the argument at the cultural background of
the listeners.  Below are some ways we could effectively communicate with
farmers the value of natural areas:

1.  I think a good way to start would be by thinking about exactly why we
personally are so passionate about nature, prairies, etc.  When I
personally understand why I get so excited when I see a remnant prairie...
only then can I pass that passion on to someone else.

2.  Farmers are very production-oriented.  If we demonstrated that
natural areas are "productive" and are important for so many
reasons including habitat, water filtration, etc.  This is probably why
Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever have been so successful, because
"I can see that the 40 acres of Pheasants Forever land down the road
is the ONLY reason there are pheasant on my farm. And, because that land
is PRODUCING pheasants, it therefore has value, utility, etc."  For
example, so many beautiful and benefitial plants, birds and insects are
almost completely dependent on remnants.  That makes prairies valuable
because they are preserving things that are valuable to me.

3.  The previous approaches are only partial fixes, though.  I think a
better solution is through ethics, values, and spirituality.  When people
value things for more than what they can get from them, and when people
see that treating nature as a commodity is a wasteful, un-ethical, and
un-Christian way to act, then they will think twice.  Nature is good for
the soul, who can argue with that?

Any other ideas?
Chris.



On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 MELYRID@aol.com wrote:

>When we consider any type of project that involves the displacement of 
>farmers from the land, there is bound to be some opposition. With only 2 
>million farmers in the whole country, any activity that decreases or erodes 
>that number even further will be viewed negatively. 
>    Even if it involves some training and re-education, we have to consider 
>things from the farmer's point of view. We can't expect them to get behind 
>conservation efforts if doing so means an end to their way of life. Remember, 
>many of these people have families and are very independent sorts of people. 
>If you threaten their way of life without providing an alternative, they will 
>fight you all the way and they will never be behind the project. Most of them 
>see any type of conservation program as a government land grab, not a prairie 
>restoration program. They don't normally share the same set of ideals that we 
>do. To many of them a well tended field of corn looks better than a patch of 
>"weeds" (prairie) or "brush" (forest). You notice that they don't even use 
>the same terminology when describing the same piece of ground. If you desire 
>support for the project, then you must begin by building "grassroots" support 
>for your project with the affected public. Give them alternatives and a way 
>to support their families with dignity and they will also support your 
>project.
>
>Doug LeDoux
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index