Leave it to a monocultural mind like that of state representative Dale Lueck, R-Aitkin, to concern troll his fellow lawmaker Fue Lee, DFL-Minneapolis over HF721 a bill intended to promote pollinators by preventing neonicotinoid use on wildlife management areas.
Lueck mixes it up--suggesting that Lee needs his help to understand how growing things works. One better have rotations and such--and any bill better be about funding single-plant food plots for bees. Eventually, Representative Hansen reviews statutory pollinator policy.
Watch the moment below,(full committee hearing video here) followed by a rough transcript:
First Lueck suggests that bill to be sent to the ag committee, since it deals with an agricultural chemical. Then he concern troll about the lack of pollinator food plots and the funding for them:
What is it that you're doing now to increase the diversity of these food plots directly, you and the DNR to support the pollinators? This doesn't say anything about what the last testifier just mentioned about diversity. I mean, the corn and the beans and the stuff ...is there primarily for the birds and mammals. It's not intended to be there specifically for the pollinators. . . .So why don't we have a whole bunch of separate food plots out there that are diverse just like the testifier mentioned?
That's what we do in agriculture when your rotate crops. You really can't have good alfalfa, good clover, those types of things depend on that, so it strikes me that this is not only pointless because one, the DNR has full authority to regulate exactly what's done on that property, but secondly it totally misses the point-and I'm speaking directly to the author. I'll help you with this.
But this doesn't do a doggone thing to put new stuff out there for bees and that's where we need to go with this if we're going to walk the walk and not tie this up with a situation. Where is the program to put those plots out there for the birds, the ones we mostly take home and eat, to sell hunting licenses, let's be honest. And put those plots out there for the deer. Where are all the plots and where is the funding for the plots for pollinators. This is way off base.
Lee defers to DNR expert Patrick Rivers, who explains that the agency used to grow a lot of switchgrass and very few species of cover for the birds (pheasants) and other animals but that has changed over the last 20 years:
A good prairie on WMAs now includes forbs--species that bloom throughout the entire year--to your point Representative Lueck,to provide that pollinator habitat. And it's not uncommon to see 60 different species on our best managed WMAs, so we're working hard to address those issues, providing habitat not only for pheasants, small mammals but also for those pollinators.
It's an ecosystem.
That notion of ecosystem doesn't register and Lueck doesn't give up:
Just a follow-up. Isn't it just about time that we shifted the strategy to do something directly for the pollinators. ...as we did for pheasants and for deer and those type of things to provide a ....and I'm talking about on a big strategic level here. This? I disagree completely. This? The author . . .this accomplishes nothing. They've already got the authority to control what's used there. This doesn't do a doggone thing to move the ball ahead.
After Chair John Persell, DFL-Bemidji, says some words about bipartisan support for the notion of improving WMAs, S. St. Paul Democrat Rick Hansen reminds Lueck of the recent past in pollinator protection:
You may not be aware, but in 2013, we passed a statute that says that for wildlife management areas, we have to have pollinator habitat.
So we did it five years ago. We said that any land purchased, any land we have has to have pollinator habitat. We directed the Board of Soil and Water Resources to develop pollinator seed mixes for a cost share on private land. We did extensive work on habitat where we directed the state of Minnesota to do things for pollinators.
But the thing we couldn't do. [Pauses]. The thing we couldn't do, because of the intense power of the agricultural chemical industry, is deal with anything with pesticide.
And so what Representative Lee has here is saying just on 30,000 acres, "Can we have 30,000 acres of public land where we don't spray?"
And as a state, we have the choice on what we chose to buy. The Interstate Commerce argument [editor's note: made earlier by an agricultural chemical lobbyist] was patently ridiculous on its face. We have the choice on what we can buy and so we provide the habitat. We spend tons of money when we do the restorations, when we do the enhances, they have to have pollinator habitat. Not just on wildlife management areas.
But, if we spend all that money, and then the pollinators get sprayed, and they die because of the chemicals, or because of the seed treatment, which we had testimony in in this or the other [environment and natural resources finance] committee, if we spend all that money on trying to reintroduce endangered species and they're getting contact with chemicals-so there's no naturally occurring neonicotinoid. It' didn't exist 25 years ago.
. . .To assert the right to spray it everywhere on our public lands--we can do things differently. We don't just have to plant corn. We can plant sorghum, we can plant oats, variety of food plots. Diversity is what makes the difference for food plots and diversity is what makes the difference in our habitat--and we've done that by statute. Everything we do has to have the pollinator habitat. . . .
We've spent beaucoup money on research. We've developed a bee lab that's the best in the country. They're researching mites, Representative Heintzeman.
Pesticides, parasites, poor nutrition, and poor habitat. Minnesota has dealt with three out of the four. Pesticides, a pesticide discussion is always off limits at the Minnesota legislature where we cannot take action because of the power of the lobby. So I applaud you Representative Lee . . .for trying to do a little bit on our public lands. A little bit for those little wildlife. Not just the wildlife we shoot but the wildlife that makes the ecological chain of life work.
Lueck chimes in again, but we think Hansen pretty much covered the bases. Prior to being elected to the Minnesota House, Hansen oversaw the Minnesota Department of Agriculture' pesticide applicator permitting program; he holds degrees in biology and soil science--and farms the family place down in Fillmore County with his brother. Lueck, on the other hand, defends neonics while proclaiming his concern for bees--though he's ill-informed about state statues related to the tiny critters.
UPDATE: Lueck's ignorance of pollinator legislation passed in 2013 (he beat Joe Radinovich in 2014 to take the seat in 2015) leaves us scratching our heads over this remark at last Friday's Eggs and Issues in Brainerd:
"The ideas and many of the things we put forward and got to the governor's desk the last four years were vetoed and guess what? Some of our DFL friends are putting their arm around me and saying 'Say, how did that work again?'" Lueck said. "We're starting to get those bills passed to undo the damage of all those vetoes. Last year's bright ideas, some of them are now the bright ideas of our friends on the other side of the aisle."
We haven't seen Fue Lee, Jamie Becker-Finn or Rick Hansen giving Lueck a hug before the environment and natural resources policy committee and finance division meet, but it's not the first time a Republican is claiming credit for the creation of everything this session. [end update]
For some background on the power of the industry on shaping pollinator policy, check out our older posts from January 2016, On eve of MN Dept of Ag Pollinators Summit, Rick Hansen five must-have steps for pollinators and Summits, stakeholders & interest groups: On the peculiar closing of the MDA pollinators summit.
Bluestem is going increasingly impressed by Fue Lee's vision for Minnesota's natural resources, now in his second term. See Tuesday's post, Hunting license fee reallocation would boost DNR deer management funding.
Screengrab: Lueck carrying on. This Lueck moment in the Environment and Natural Resources Policy committee nearly matched that earlier in the session. Check out Dominant culture: Lueck gets in a huff about proposal aimed at getting kids into the outdoors and Aitkin Co Land Commish: local conservation center would benefit from Becker-Finn bill.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments