The double-barreled blow of high corn prices and the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) decision to suspend general enrollment opportunities for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), does not bode well for wildlife, according to the Wildlife Management Institute.

USDA recently announced that it does not plan to conduct a general sign-up for CRP during Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, which it estimates will result in withdrawal of at least 4 million acres from the program over the next three years. The agency projects that more than a quarter of the land coming out of CRP is located in the major corn-producing states of the Upper Midwest?a substantial portion of the landscape that has contributed to the resurgence of many grassland-dependent wildlife species during the past two decades. Pheasants, bobwhite quail and several species of waterfowl are heavily dependent on the habitat provided by CRP in the Midwest and a significant reduction in CRP enrollment there will almost certainly result in declining numbers of those game birds, which, through recreational opportunities, generate millions of dollars annually to the region and for the management of all wildlife resources.

High corn prices, in response to growing demand for ethanol, are at the root of the matter. USDA economists project that demand for ethanol will increase by 50 percent next year, which will drive high corn prices even higher and thereby boost farmer incentive to plant even more of the crop. Since virtually all high-quality farm land is already in crop production, additional ground to address this high demand will almost certainly come from more marginal croplands, a great deal of which has been enrolled in CRP in recent years.

Beef, pork and poultry producers also have been turning up the heat on Congress and USDA to take action to address the high price of corn, because it has resulted in increased costs of their operations.

Presumably, in response to calls for an immediate increase in corn production, USDA also announced that it is considering allowing producers to opt out of existing CRP contracts without having to meet otherwise required penalties for early withdrawal. This action promptly drew fire from most of the country's leading conservation organizations. They claim that the hard-earned language, enrollment and gains of CRP for the landscape, for wildlife and for producers would be undermined by the USDA actions as announced.

On the other hand, USDA advised that continuous sign-up for buffers, wetlands and other initiatives, as well as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, will continue. The conservation organizations think it doubtful that additional enrollment in these programs will be able to offset much of the habitat lost from general CRP.

Information relative to the impact of these actions on CRP in specific states can be found at www.fsa.usda.gov.(pmr)