Brian Lendrum’s letter to the YAA environment conference

From: Brian Lendrum

February 5, 2007

Rick,

We have come up with a benchmark: If it is below -40 degrees on Thursday morning, we will not subject ourselves or our truck to the trip to town. It looks like that may well be the case, so I would like to offer a few thoughts on the theme of the workshop. You and Angela should feel free to share them with the participants or not, as you see fit.

I have often been very surprised to hear that both farmers and environmentalists consider each other as, in some sense, the opposition. This surprised me, because the two are both so necessary to happy, healthy human communities. Obviously, we need farms – there are so many of us now that the hunter/gatherer way of life can not support us all. As I have often heard it said, “Even environmentalists eat vegetables.” Equally obviously, we need wild places and farmers need them more than most people. Farmers, often without being aware of it, reap the benefits of the presence of wildlife all around them. We need the coyotes to keep the gophers in check; we need the gophers to keep the encroaching weeds in check and aerate the ground; we need the pollinators, clean water supplies, wind breaks and right down to the microscopic fungal spores and bacteria for which wild spaces act as a reservoir. In short, farmers and environmentalists ought to be on the same side of the fence. Let us start from the assumption that we are on the same side and see how we can make sure the interests of both groups are met.

I have heard it suggested that each region should stick to what it does best. Southern California, for example, has been largely ruined as wildlife habitat, so let’s grow our food there and keep the Yukon open for wildlife – it’s not efficient to try to grow food in this harsh climate anyway, but it’s excellent for moose. This, of course, does not take into account the incredible waste of energy associated with storage and transport of food over thousands of miles. It ignores the importance of eating fresh local food, the insecurity of living at the tail end of a long supply line that could be cut by any number of disasters, the disconnect that happens when people are divorced from the source of the food that sustains their life. And it is based on a fallacy: California, too, must find its own balance between agriculture and environment, because if their environment is degraded, our migratory birds will suffer. Thank goodness the re-wakening of enthusiasm for local food that we see all over North America has put paid to the idea that we can preserve our wilderness and let some one else do the “dirty work” of raising food for us.

One thing that tends to put a fence between farmers and environmentalists is the sheer size of many farms. A wildlife advocate sees every acre under cultivation as an acre lost to wildlife habitat. This, of course, is not quite true, since many farmers’ fields provide some kind of winter habitat for some species. But with some anecdotal exceptions, it is generally true that farms are not as good for wildlife as pristine wilderness is. So we should keep our farms as small as possible.

Now some low-value crops such as hay do take up a lot of acreage. So does the pasturing of large animals. But vegetables, herbs, poultry, even pigs, take up very little space and fetch a better price per pound. If we had more small farms growing this kind of product, if government policy encouraged new farmers to start small with high-value crops, if the City of Whitehorse encouraged the location of small farms within its sprawling boundaries, then less acres would be removed from wildlife habitat; less brush and trees from farm clearing programs would go up in smoke; less dust would rise from wind-blown summer fields; and farmers would use less heavy equipment and, with any luck, stay out of debt. More new farmers would be able to get into the business, since what prevents many of them at this time is the perception that farms must be big and who can afford big land at today’s Yukon prices? And, to be blunt, more small farms would do a lot to eliminate the perception, correct or not, that farmers are land-grabbers.

Government attempts to ensure that land acquired under the agriculture program are actually farmed, have failed in many highly visible cases, especially in the Whitehorse area. This gives Yukon agriculture a black eye, so if we could come up with a way of making sure that farm land continues to be farmed, we would do all Yukon farmers a great favour. And if land parcels granted under the program were smaller, then the failures of the program would be less spectacular.

This discussion of parcel size applies even more in the case of fenced grazing areas. No doubt these fences are disruptive to many (not all) animals. If they contain food animals such as cows, then the community benefits by having meat for sale. If the grazing area is used for outfitters’ horses, does the community benefit from having that outfitter do business in the area? This would be a good topic for discussion.

A few words about farming methods. I have been involved in both chemical and organic farming. For many reasons I have a definite preference for organic methods. The run-off of agricultural chemicals into streams is one of the worst aspects of farming in most of North America. Environmentalists should be aware that, though some use fertilizer and pesticides in Yukon, agro-pollution of rivers has, so far as I know, not begun here yet. Yukon farmers should not be tarred with that brush, but at the same time they should turn to more earth-friendly methods before that brush does apply.

Many thanks to you and the YAA for putting this workshop together. I hope I will be there to participate.

Brian Lendrum