1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



Bob Martinka 



Montana Department of Fish, 

 Wildlife and Parks 



Rsh and Wildlife Issues in Montana 



The status of wildlife ix)pulations on privately- 

 owned agricultural land in Montana is depend- 

 ent on a number of things, including the land's 

 natural productivity, agricultural economics, 

 land owner attitudes, and the interaction and 

 influence of federal agricultural policies and 

 programs on the land. 



In the mid-1950s, the Soil Bank Program was 

 initiated in an attempt to stem increasing farm 

 commodity surpluses and to bolster farm 

 income. This was a voluntary land retirement 

 program that converted crops into permanent 

 undisturbed grasslands. The response of 

 wildlife, especially upland game birds, to the 

 Soil Bank Program was quite dramatic. Numer- 

 ous studies documented significant increases in 

 the populations of pheasants and other upland 

 game birds. 



After the Soil Bank contracts expired, and land 

 was taken out of p)ermanent cover, wildlife 

 populations decreased in many of these areas. 

 Some of the farm programs during the interim 

 decades were actually quite detrimental. In 

 most of the cropland set-aside programs, the 

 majority of the acreages were left unseeded 

 rather than being seeded to cover crops. This 

 practice was not only detrimental to wildlife 

 but, of course, to the soils and other resources 

 that were present in the areas. 



In 1985, new farm program legislation with 

 strong conservation provisions was enacted. 

 The conservation programs included in this 

 historic legislation were aimed at correcting 

 excessive soil erosion, enhancing water quality, 

 restoring wildlife habitat and placing agricul- 

 tural land use on a more sustainable basis. I 

 want to address the wildlife and conservation 

 provisions of the 1985 Act. 



From our perspective, the 1985 Farm Bill was 

 one of the most significant pieces of conserva- 

 tion legislation that had been passed in this 

 country in a number of decades. Again, from 

 our perspective, the 1985 Farm Bill contains 



four important provisions that affect our 

 wildlife and fishery resources. Two of these, the 

 sodbuster and swampbustcr sections, are aimed 

 at protecting existing habitat. The other two, the 

 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Farm 

 Debt Restructure and Conservation Easement 

 Sections, are aimed at restoring highly erodible 

 or other farmland back to jjermanent vegetative 

 cover. 



The Conservation Reser\'e Program has prob- 

 ably the most potential of any of these conser- 

 vation provisions for impacting and jX)tentially 

 increasing wildlife populations. 



We now have about 2.5 million acres of land in 

 the CRP and the latest signup has added 

 somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 

 acres. We don't have any quantitative informa- 

 tion at this p>oint about the impacts of CRP on 

 wildlife, other than to say that our biologists 

 and hunters are reporting quite an increase in 

 upland game birds in these CRP fields. 



After its initiation, the CRP was expanded to 

 allow vegetative filter strips along streams to 

 qualify for the program. This is significant for 

 water quality and our fishery resources. An- 

 other important addition was cropped wetlands 

 that now qualify for CRP without having to 

 meet the erodibility criteria. 



The sodbuster/swampbuster and conservation 

 compliance provisions also had varying degrees 

 of direct or indirect benefits to wildlife. 

 Sodbusting in Montana has resulted in signifi- 

 cant reductions in antelope and sage grouse 

 populations in a number of areas. 



It is imp>ortant that the swampbuster provision 

 be maintained. The Bush administration has 

 indicated an interest in implementing a national 

 no-net-Ioss-in-wctlands policy. If this actually 

 occurs, strict enforcement of the swampbuster 

 provision will be an important component. 



The conservation compliance provision had 

 many direct and indirect benefits to wildlife 

 through the requirement that conservation 

 plans be developed for highly erodible soils. It 

 is our hope that this provision remain relatively 

 intact as it docs benefit our wildlife resources as 

 well as our soil. 



Montana Chapter, Soil and Water Conservation Society 



August 28. 1888 



