Guest post: what South Dakota Republicans have done to habitat 'managerially inexcusable'

John Wrede lives in the occupied Black Hills.

Frankly, a tax break is a start but it won’t accomplish much because the costs of installation far exceed the savings in property taxes. Cost data show that conventional installation of sodded turf grasses may exceed $12,000 per acre. Planting turf grass seeds may cost in the range of $4,000 to $8,000 per acre. This contrasts with installation costs of $2,000 to $4,000 per acre for seeding native prairie grasses and forbs. In order for this to work as intended, native grass and forb plantings are the only seedings that can or will achieve success and seed mixes must be closely matched to soil classifications and capability classes. Tame grass seeds don’t last long in shallow soils in Western SD. There needs to be incentives to reclaim the plow out in addition to tax incentives. USDA has been trying to do it for 40 years or more. Then, what are we going to say to all those responsible landowners who have gone years resisting the urge to plow out their native range; opting [instead], to improve their range and grass management practices to improve their bottom line while protecting soil, water, and wildlife habitat….. Shouldn’t they get a tax break too?

Buffalo grass and blue gramma grass, (native short grass species) are extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to start from seed and their rhizomatic/stoloniferous spread is slow at best. The same with highly nutritious sedges. In one case, buffalo grass/blue gramma, these are increaser species that usually spread with normal grazing pressure. In the case of most other species in the short/midgrass prairie, they are decreasers. County seed mixes are by in large comprised of mixes of tame and wild species that are the cheapest and most available. They are short term vegetative cover mixes designed to be quick livestock forage rather than a remedy for an ecologically sustainable landscape. And I will argue that there are plenty of plants that survive well on clay pan and silt soils. Then there is curly cup gum weed and prickly pear to consider. In Harding, Butte, much of Fall River, and parts of Meade, Pennington, Perkins, counties, the original ground cover is sage steppe which includes two different varieties of sage brush and associated understory of mid grass, forb plants and sedges that when properly managed, provide good forage for both wildlife and livestock (particularly sheep).

There are not less than 10 species of native wildlife, that are 100% sage steppe dependent to include the greater sage grouse which has been on the SD Threatened Species list for over 15 years. Like the short grasses, sage brush can not be easily started with seed and once it is converted to any other vegetative cover, can not be reclaimed in any volume or quality in under 25-30 years. We shouldn’t have to be reminded, continually, that this state use to be called “The Land of Infinite Variety” and within that identification, was not less than 6 biographic regions of unique habitats; only one of which ideally supports the chinese ringneck [sic] pheasant. The term habitat, in political circles in SD has come to be understood to be pheasant habitat and more particularly, pheasant nesting habitat…. What we refuse to address is the damage this state has done to all other habitats and even the 4 other habitat requirements for the ditch parrot that makes cash registers ring.

What we’ve done to tall grass prairie, riparian tree zones, wetlands, marshes, entire watersheds is both economically damning but it is also managerially inexcuseable [sic]. Why don’t we concentrate on repair of those habitats equally? What we refuse to address is the reality that all that land use conversion to “pheasant nesting” habitat has negative consequences for other species of native wildlife at the same time as it benefits something we exploit for fun and profit. What all that habitat inferrence also means is virtually all other species of wildlife, managed and otherwise, and their habitat needs, are ignored or disregarded because they aren’t economically important or worthy of development…… Is that good stewardship or responsible government advocacy. I think not.

40 years of wildlife habitat development, formal instruction and 30 years of practical experience in range science and cumulative 25 years spent with 1. the Chief Range Scientist and researcher for the US Forest Service, 2, my best friend and ranch owner that retired from a 35 year careeer with the NRCS as a range conservationist,( by the way, I work on that ranch of and on and have for the past 20 years. 3, 10 years with another good friend and a district conservationist and west river range conservationist for the NRCS. Add to that 8 years of field training and experience in both plant physiology and vegetative monitoring with both USFS, NPS and NRCS. Those are the people that ranchers go to for help and understanding when they can’t figure it out themselves.

Did I fail to mention that the reason ranchers like buffalo grass is because it’s the only thing that survives heavy grazing pressure while decreaser species start to disappear and invasives like cactus, curly cup gum weed et al try to fill in the gaps.