BLAIR, NEBRASKA (MARCH 20, 2024) In Blair, Nebraska, a Facebook thread started by Judi LaScala has evolved into a poignant discussion reflecting the community’s concerns over environmental conservation and the intersection with agricultural needs. LaScala’s post, questioning the widespread removal of trees, “Trees are what helped during the dust bowl. Shelterbelts. I dont get it, are they being paid to remove the trees? People complain about wind…well tree’s are rapidly diminishing,” taps into the area’s historical context and its ongoing struggle with nature. The query not only reveals a deep-seated worry about the diminishing tree cover but also invokes the protective legacy of shelterbelts established to mitigate such environmental challenges.
Matt Saunders’s response, suggesting a rationale behind the tree removal, “probably just farmers getting trees out of fence lines and overgrown river ditches,” sheds light on the practical decisions farmers confront. This perspective introduces the complexities of maintaining agricultural productivity against the backdrop of environmental stewardship. LaScala’s pinpointing of specific areas undergoing this change, “On the bottoms and North of Blair,” focuses the discussion on the local landscape, inviting further scrutiny into how these actions align with the broader ecological and economic interests of the community.
The interchange between LaScala and Eric Potadle adds a layer of community dynamics to the conversation. Potadle’s jest, “Hers is made from tinfoil…,” met with LaScala’s kind-hearted “Bless your heart,” illustrates the range of sentiments within the dialogue. This exchange, while light-hearted, underscores the varying degrees of engagement and perspectives on environmental conservation efforts and their perceived impact. Through these interactions, the Blair community is actively grappling with the challenges of balancing agricultural expansion with the lessons of the past, striving to find a path that honors both economic vitality and ecological sustainability.
This dialogue brings to light the state’s rich legacy of tree planting and its crucial role in combating challenges such as soil erosion and wind damage, issues that have historical roots going back to the Dust Bowl era.
“Nebraska has a proud history of planting trees and putting the 100 millionth tree in the ground reflects Nebraskans’ willingness to invest in the future,” Dr. Orval Gigstad, president of the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, emphasizes. This statement not only celebrates the milestone but also underscores the collective commitment to environmental stewardship (NACD).
The Nebraska Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) stand at the forefront of this mission, planting over a million trees annually to serve various conservation purposes. These efforts range from creating windbreaks that protect farmland to enhancing wildlife habitats, illustrating a holistic approach to safeguarding the state’s natural resources. Through collaboration with the Nebraska Forest Service, NRDs also offer forestry programs to communities, further embedding the importance of trees in the state’s environmental and agricultural practices.
Amidst this backdrop of statewide conservation efforts, the controversy in Blair unfolds, shedding light on the complex balance between agricultural expansion and environmental preservation. The debate is not just about the trees but what they represent—a lifeline to the past and a bridge to a sustainable future.
Dennis and Teri Taylor of Newport, Nebraska, embody the spirit of Nebraska’s tree planting culture. Awarded the Tree Planter of the Year, they have added more than 20 shelter belts over 50 years, recognizing the multifaceted benefits of trees. “The primary reason for the windbreaks is livestock protection, but we have noticed the windbreaks shield the sandy soil greatly reducing erosion. The windbreaks also offer an excellent place for wildlife to find food and protection,” the Taylors share, highlighting the intrinsic value of trees beyond their immediate practical benefits (NACD).
As Nebraska grapples with the environmental implications of tree removal in areas around Blair, the specter of the Dust Bowl looms large—a historical event that starkly illustrates the consequences of land mismanagement coupled with severe natural conditions. The Dust Bowl era, marked by devastating dust storms and agricultural collapse, was not only a result of natural drought but significantly exacerbated by human actions, specifically the removal of native vegetation that anchored the soil.
Richard Seager, a climatologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, emphasizes the human contribution to this disaster, stating, “Human-induced land degradation is likely to have not only contributed to the dust storms of the 1930s but also amplified the drought,” highlighting the interplay between environmental mismanagement and natural phenomena.
This historical lesson is particularly relevant today as the Great Plains, including Nebraska, face the removal of shelterbelts—rows of trees planted during and after the Dust Bowl to prevent soil erosion and stabilize the land. These shelterbelts, once heralded as a salvation for America’s farms, are under threat. Carson Vaughan of the Food and Environment Reporting Network observes, “So, why would farmers want to cut them down? In most cases, the answer is economic pressure,” illustrating the modern challenges of balancing agricultural productivity with long-term environmental sustainability.
The significance of these trees extends beyond their immediate environmental benefits. As Vaughan explains, “Shelterbelts help maximize irrigation efforts, and the future of irrigation is also looking grim,” pointing to the broader implications of shelterbelt removal on water management and agricultural resilience in the face of changing climate conditions.
Despite the proven effectiveness of shelterbelts in mitigating soil erosion and the risks associated with their removal, economic pressures continue to drive some farmers towards short-term gains, potentially at the expense of long-term land health and sustainability. This situation underscores the ongoing tension between immediate agricultural needs and the imperative to maintain ecological balances that protect against future environmental disasters akin to the Dust Bowl.
The integration of sustainable land management practices, such as the maintenance and expansion of shelterbelts, represents a critical strategy in avoiding the repeat of historical environmental catastrophes. The dialogue surrounding tree removal in Blair and beyond reflects a broader conversation about our relationship with the land—a conversation that continues to evolve as we seek to navigate the challenges of modern agriculture within the context of environmental stewardship.
Do you have story idea for BlairToday? Email blairtoday@mail.com with any story ideas.
“”Bless your heart” is a phrase common to the Southern United States. The phrase has multiple meanings and is used to express genuine sympathy but sometimes as an insult that conveys condescension, derision, or contempt. It may also be spoken as a precursor to an insult to mitigate its severity.”
I didn’t take LaScala’s response to Eric to be kind hearted. But that’s just another opinion on the matter, isn’t it? Bless your heart.
Jenni, I was born and raised in Louisiana. I spent 22 years in Shreveport and New Orleans. Another three years in the Jacksonville, Florida region. So, 55 years in the south. The term “bless your heart,” was used nearly exclusively by people I knew as either something kind, or a condescending phrase. Very polarized. In this case, it may be that LaScala’s reply was sarcasm. And, even so, I would still say it was lighthearted. I’ll remove the “kind-hearted” reference, though.
Since you chose to use me as your example, I will offer a different view.
Honestly, I have seen no shelter belts being removed in our area. The largest stands of wild growing trees that I do see being removed are for housing. And to be clear, it’s not housing for farmers but for people fleeing the dirty cities they helped build. Rarely is good farm ground sold for subdivisions, usually it is hill ground covered in grass and trees.
I find it laughable, this Urban/Rural split.
You chastise me for cutting trees out of fence lines while you bulldoze a hillside for a McMansion.
You tell me I’m killing people with my pesticides yet you use the same pesticides off label in grand amounts on your lawn.
You get angry at the way farmers treat their animals yet you bring your unwanted pets to our land and dump them to starve.
Most of you are so far removed from the farm you just have no clue. Farming is a low profit margin business. We are forced to buy our inputs at retail prices and forced to sell our product at wholesale prices.
The farm program you all love to hate is 71% food stamp/ welfare programs. The remaining gets split between farmers who eventually give it back to the people in our towns through super high property taxes that support the schools that most farmers don’t have kids going to.
In my opinion, the real problem here is Social Media. It has become to easy to spread untruths. It has allowed people to isolate with their own kind and feed each others theories.
Finally, the internet has made everyone an expert because if Google says it true then it must be true.
If you really want to know what’s going on out here, come pay us a visit and talk. Like folks used to do.
Eric, I’m not sure who you mean by “you” in your comment. If “you” means me, it’s not accurately placed. I just wrote an article about the issue. If “you” means a general call for folks to open the dialogue with, well, you, I support that and hope people will do so.