Circle the wagons…
An expression “…traditionally used by 19th century American settlers traveling to the West in convoys of Conestoga wagons. When faced with attack, such as by hostile Native American tribes, the travelers would rapidly form a circle out of their wagons, bringing the [vulnerable]… to the center of the circle….This tactic was popularly known as “circling up the wagons”, and survives into the modern day as an idiom describing a person or group preparing to defend themselves from attack or criticism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laager
I was especially drawn to the last sentence, “…and survives into the modern day as an idiom describing a person or group preparing to defend themselves from attack or criticism.”
Every week I talk to farmers who are on the defense, and many are some of the best conservation farmers I know. When they hear leaders in the ag industry say we need to do more, these conservation farmers immediately feel the need to circle the wagons. And if it’s not a farmer, it’s someone from the ag industry who feels they too must circle the wagons to defend agriculture as a whole. I hear the following claims:
- We are doing a much better job than we used to do.
- Farmers are doing conservation; you ought to come see my farm.
- America’s farmers are the original conservationists who take great pride in the stewardship of the land. Why would any farmer intentionally do something to cause soil erosion?
Eventually, after I confide in them for a while, I start to hear things in this vein:
- You’re right; some farmers are doing a crappy job at conservation. However, don’t lump us all together. I am doing a great job and I am tired of getting blamed for their lack of effort.
- You’re right; I am tired of hearing excuses from my neighbors. I know they can do a better job, because there are a lot of us doing a great job.
- You’re right; some farmers should not be allowed to farm. If we get regulated, they will be to blame.
In every classic western movie, there was the dubious peddler who just rode along with the wagon train for protection. He had no interest in working for the betterment of the group and was never around to do his share. Invariably, and repeatedly, he was a trouble maker that brought misery upon everyone. Sooner or later, fed up with the ne’er-do-well, the good people on the wagon train kicked him out and made him fend for himself.
Likewise, conservation farmers and the ag industry should stop protecting the bad actors. Yes, farmers should be proud of their occupation, but they also need to stop circling the wagons. I think defending your own is human nature, and I understand the temptation. But protecting bad actors paints all farmers with the same broad brush. And it’s a disservice to you the farmer, to your career as a farmer, to the ag industry and to our natural resources. Rather than defending all of agriculture, consider if it is time for conservation farmers to circle their own wagons and abandon the bad actors.
Driving Supply Chain Sustainability
Tom:
As I finished reading the news that the US Supreme Court did not take up an appeal from the IFBF and some states challenging an EPA regulatory expansion in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, your post arrived. I must say that when the wagons weren’t circled the folks suffered. I fear massive regulatory expansion coming from an unsympathetic USEPA–and it has been my recent experience that they and the USDA don’t see eye to eye on just about everything. I agree that we cannot be constantly circling the wagons, but since the USEPA has now knocked down the barrier that once reserved regulation of non-point pollution to the states I do think this to be a prudent time to “CIRCLE THE WAGONS!”
Don, I agree agriculture needs to be unified against bad public policy and regulations. It has the potential to cripple agriculture. However that is completely different that pretending all of agriculture is doing a terrific job. If farmers want to be treated like individuals then they need to make a case why they are different. If they all want to be painted with the same brush then circling the wagons will get them there.
Tom, you are correct. Bad policy is bad policy. It always will be in the best of times and the worst of times. And yes, those who are “riding coattails” of others who are trying and sacrificing short term gain for long term stewardly practices need to be shook out of the coat.
Good article but I gotta admit I’m tired of hearing about that stinking neighbor who shouldn’t be allowed to farm. Just as annoying as the post-snowstorm rant, “I’m a great driver but everyone else on the road is an idiot”. I would be willing to bet the truth of the matter is most farmers do a good job most of the time. Blaming everything on a few “bad actors” is at best inaccurate, and at worst just cowardly. Not to mention the fact that it is a horrible defense against regulation. If I accept your claim, how do you then argue against requiring you to do something that you are already doing? When do people start owning the improvements they could make… be it on 20% or 80% of their farm?
Carl,
I agree that most farmers do a good job most of the time. But the research does bear out that there are farmers that are causing more of the problem. Dr. Pete Nowak, Professor of Environmental Studies at UW-Madison, says that agricultural degradation is not evenly distributed across the landscape. Nowak suggests there are certain farmers who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of soil erosion, nitrogen leaching, or phosphorus loading. These farmers are outliers and cause significantly more pollution than the average farmer. http://www.mtcws.mtu.edu/pdf/2009-10_PeteNowak_Flyer.pdf
I don’t think anyone would buy the argument that we should all be billed the same amount for auto insurance because we are all “trying to do a good job”. Insurance companies have actuarial data to show that some drivers are, in fact, safer than others and should be pay less for their insurance premiums.
Lastly, while I worked for NRCS I wrote a lot of plans for farmers that were fully complying with conservation compliance. However just because a farmer is complying doesn’t mean the bureaucracy of writing and maintaining a conservation plan less arduous. There is a significant negative impact on the good actors who are doing things right.
A very timely article Tom. As we approach the 2016 elections, no mater who is elected, agriculture is in for some major changes due to the economics of farming, not which party wins. Although, one party is definitely supportive of more and more regulations, the common feeling amongst our public today is for cleaner a environment period. Thus, circling the wagons will result in an outcome similar to the Little Big Horn.
We as farmers are charged with contributing to the social welfare (from the FFA Creed) of society. We must work to provide food and fiber for society but we MUST do it in as professional way possible. To be a steward of the soil, water, wildlife and air. Farming like our fathers did no longer meets stewardship standards established of recent times. We can expect more demands (regulations) imposed on us because, like the bad kid in the classroom spoils it for everyone. If we continue to lose soil, contaminate our waters, and pollute the air our neighbors have to breathe, we can expect more regulations. Agriculture has enjoyed an immunity because we were considered a wholesome occupation. Those days are coming to an end as our public becomes more removed from the actual occupation of ranching and farming.
When we do make attempts to do the right thing by farming in a conservative manner, we need to standup and tell our story. Likewise, when we see our fellow farmers continue to operate like they have for decades, resulting in challenges to our environment, we need to challenge them to change their practices just like someone who wants to light up a cigarette in your home.
General George Armstrong Custer graduated last in his class from West Point. He fought in the Civil War in a very unorthodox fashion, not according to the rules of engagement. It cost many a soldier under his command their lives. This unorthodox approach eventually cost Custer and all those who followed him their lives at the Little Big Horn. Are we as farmers going to continue to farm in an unorthodox fashion and end up like Custer or are we willing to make the changes to survive. Tom is right, circling the wagons will not save our current system.
Gentlemen:
The SCOTUS decision to not hear the AFBF-led Chesapeake Bay appeal allows the USEPA to eventually impose mandatory TMDL regulations to the Mississippi River Watershed. It will not matter one bit to them whether a farmer is a “good” or “bad” manager. I imagine it will commence in the form of a lawsuit brought by a consortium of environmental groups to require the USEPA to impose TMDLs to address pollution in the Mississippi River and Gulf. The USEPA has resisted prior such suits but will now settle out of court and agree to do it.
To that narrow-minded biased regulatory agency all those who till the soil or dare install drain tile are doing a bad thing and must be regulated. What is coming will be of far greater concern than WOTUS has been to farmed wetland owners and their drainage districts. SWCDs will become minion agents of the USEPA. Indeed, the USEPA could now be the ultimate decision maker regarding the issues in the Des Moines Waterworks lawsuit.
Bad farmers did not bring this on us. Apostle Paul declared that the law makes sinners of us all. That is applicable here. It is time to circle the wagons and stop pointing fingers. The real threat is at our door and that monster isn’t gonna take just the poor stewards.