bridging the gap between private landowners and conservationists

3
269 Conservation Biology, Pages 269–271 Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002 Bridging the Gap between Private Landowners and Conservationists STACY M. JAMES Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211–7400, U.S.A., email [email protected] It was a May afternoon and I was completing a survey of my study site, a wet meadow owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Klamath Basin of Ore- gon. In the distance, I could see the figure of a man lin- gering at a cattle gate. It was the owner of the adjacent property and I could tell he was waiting to talk with me. I walked toward him until I was forced to stop at the ca- nal separating the two properties. Ten feet wide and at least half as deep, I could not cross, and neither could he. So we talked from our divided territories, separated not just by space, but by history, culture, and values. The conversation was awkward, at least for me, perhaps also for him. He wanted to know what I was looking for. Yellow Rails (Coturnicops noveboracensis), I answered. He thought the BLM property’s grass was too thick, that it needed a burn. Were there any plans to allow grazing this year? If so, his were the cattle that would graze it. I didn’t know; maybe at the end of the summer, once the birds were done nesting. Little more was said before we went our separate ways, and I regretted terribly my in- ability to speak comfortably and honestly. I wanted to discuss why I consider it so critical to restrict cattle from this valuable remnant of rail habitat. But I couldn’t be- cause it was the same as saying a bird is more important than his livelihood. And who was I, but another outsider thinking I knew what was best for the land, land his fam- ily had ranched and known for years. Since that afternoon in 1999, I have spent much time pondering how to bridge the communication gap be- tween conservationists and private landowners, because the most effective, mutually beneficial discourse, and subsequent action, comes from people who understand one another. And what must be understood is our land ethics. The foundation of a land ethic is a moral percep- tion whereby people take responsibility for the health and well being of the land. The structure that rests atop this foundation varies by individual and is often a reflec- tion of one’s understanding of ecological processes. When I talk with landowners, I am wary of the fact that I am an urban-raised environmentalist who values native prairies and songbirds far more than agricultural fields and farm animals. But what about the land ethic of the private landowner? Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Al- manac (1966) provides a dismal, blunt perspective from over half a century ago: “There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus’ slave-girls, is still property. The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.” Yet Leopold smelled change in the air and considered the budding conservation movement the beginning of a land ethic. Environmental groups are now widespread and influen- tial, and indeed, rural attitudes appear to have changed somewhat since Leopold’s time. Rural landowners are a diverse group of people not bound by a single land philosophy. Values vary with ed- ucation, age, source and amount of income, place of res- idence, location of upbringing, and family history. In general, it is the younger, more educated landowners with an urban background and outside sources of in- come who are most willing to adopt environmentally friendly practices ( Wilson 1996; Sutherland 1997). I re- fer to those individuals with a land ethic as “stewards” and those without as “utilitarians”; this is not a strict di- chotomy, however, because one person may exhibit both attitudes at different times. Stewards consider them- selves caretakers of the land and adopt conservation strategies so that future generations may benefit. Proud of their rural heritage and ties to the land, stewards are more prone to sympathize with environmental issues and participate in conservation programs and societies. In contrast, utilitarians have a more economic, exploit- ative view and act largely to maximize profit. Not to use good land is immoral and wasteful, and less thought is given to the effects of current practices on sustainability. Research conducted by sociologists reveals that many rural people are sympathetic to environmental issues Paper submitted January 26, 2001; revised manuscript accepted March 14, 2001.

Upload: stacy-m-james

Post on 06-Jul-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Bridging the Gap between Private Landowners and Conservationists

269

Conservation Biology, Pages 269–271Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002

Bridging the Gap between Private Landowners and Conservationists

STACY M. JAMES

Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211–7400, U.S.A., email [email protected]

It was a May afternoon and I was completing a survey ofmy study site, a wet meadow owned by the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) in the Klamath Basin of Ore-gon. In the distance, I could see the figure of a man lin-gering at a cattle gate. It was the owner of the adjacentproperty and I could tell he was waiting to talk with me.I walked toward him until I was forced to stop at the ca-nal separating the two properties. Ten feet wide and atleast half as deep, I could not cross, and neither couldhe. So we talked from our divided territories, separatednot just by space, but by history, culture, and values.The conversation was awkward, at least for me, perhapsalso for him. He wanted to know what I was looking for.Yellow Rails (

Coturnicops noveboracensis

), I answered.He thought the BLM property’s grass was too thick, thatit needed a burn. Were there any plans to allow grazingthis year? If so, his were the cattle that would graze it. Ididn’t know; maybe at the end of the summer, once thebirds were done nesting. Little more was said before wewent our separate ways, and I regretted terribly my in-ability to speak comfortably and honestly

.

I wanted todiscuss why I consider it so critical to restrict cattle fromthis valuable remnant of rail habitat. But I couldn’t be-cause it was the same as saying a bird is more importantthan his livelihood. And who was I, but another outsiderthinking I knew what was best for the land, land his fam-ily had ranched and known for years.

Since that afternoon in 1999, I have spent much timepondering how to bridge the communication gap be-tween conservationists and private landowners, becausethe most effective, mutually beneficial discourse, andsubsequent action, comes from people who understandone another. And what must be understood is our landethics. The foundation of a land ethic is a moral percep-tion whereby people take responsibility for the healthand well being of the land. The structure that rests atopthis foundation varies by individual and is often a reflec-

tion of one’s understanding of ecological processes.When I talk with landowners, I am wary of the fact that Iam an urban-raised environmentalist who values nativeprairies and songbirds far more than agricultural fieldsand farm animals. But what about the land ethic of theprivate landowner? Aldo Leopold’s

A Sand County Al-manac

(1966) provides a dismal, blunt perspective fromover half a century ago: “There is as yet no ethic dealingwith man’s relation to land and to the animals and plantswhich grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus’ slave-girls, isstill property. The land-relation is still strictly economic,entailing privileges but not obligations.” Yet Leopoldsmelled change in the air and considered the buddingconservation movement the beginning of a land ethic.Environmental groups are now widespread and influen-tial, and indeed, rural attitudes appear to have changedsomewhat since Leopold’s time.

Rural landowners are a diverse group of people notbound by a single land philosophy. Values vary with ed-ucation, age, source and amount of income, place of res-idence, location of upbringing, and family history. Ingeneral, it is the younger, more educated landownerswith an urban background and outside sources of in-come who are most willing to adopt environmentallyfriendly practices ( Wilson 1996; Sutherland 1997). I re-fer to those individuals with a land ethic as “stewards”and those without as “utilitarians”; this is not a strict di-chotomy, however, because one person may exhibitboth attitudes at different times. Stewards consider them-selves caretakers of the land and adopt conservationstrategies so that future generations may benefit. Proudof their rural heritage and ties to the land, stewards aremore prone to sympathize with environmental issuesand participate in conservation programs and societies.In contrast, utilitarians have a more economic, exploit-ative view and act largely to maximize profit. Not to usegood land is immoral and wasteful, and less thought isgiven to the effects of current practices on sustainability.

Research conducted by sociologists reveals that manyrural people are sympathetic to environmental issues

Paper submitted January 26, 2001; revised manuscript acceptedMarch 14, 2001.

Page 2: Bridging the Gap between Private Landowners and Conservationists

270

Private Landowners and Conservationists James

Conservation BiologyVolume 16, No. 1, February 2002

and express interest in conservation initiatives ( Jones etal. 1995; Sutherland 1997). Yet despite environmentallyfriendly claims, actions often indicate otherwise. Insteadof pointing fingers from a distance, conservationistsshould make an effort to understand why certain land-use practices are implemented by actually talking withthe landowner. Like almost everyone, rural peoplehighly value financial security and personal freedom,and these two things may be considered more importantthan conservation.

When faced with environmental issues that threatentheir ability to develop land, a common reaction of ruralpeople is the claiming of private property rights. Theserights have their foundations in the Saxon freemen phi-losophy of unhindered exploitation, developed whenEurope was largely unsettled and farmers could abandonabused land for fresh soil (Hargrove 1989). This philoso-phy was later championed by John Locke, who pro-claimed that “property, whose original is the right a manhas to use any of the inferior creatures, for subsistenceand comfort of his life, is for the benefit and sole advan-tage of the proprietor, so that he may even destroy thething, that he has property in by his use of it, whereneed requires” (from John Locke,

Two Treatises of Gov-ernment

, quoted by Hargrove [1989:71]). Rural peopleenjoy owning property because of the associated useprivileges and feelings of independence. Acts or initia-tives that threaten the freedoms of ownership are takenseriously. Property rights too often are undervalued byconservationists, but it is imperative that we both ac-knowledge and respect these rights.

Many landowners claim that monetary restrictionsprohibit them from employing environmentally friendlypractices. Such claims are relative, however, becausepeople vary in their desired quality of life and willing-ness to make time and monetary sacrifices for steward-ship. Yet it must be remembered that conservation hasdirect and indirect costs that can be real obstacles. Sin-clair et al. (2000) believe that “for most conservationprojects, sustained and flexible outside support will berequired.” As a result, programs such as the nationwideConservation Reserve Program have been developed bypublic and private groups to alleviate conservationcosts. Some have an encouraging number of partici-pants, whereas others are sorely unused. Lack of aware-ness, the widespread belief among landowners that theyknow how best to manage the land, a dislike of bureau-cratic paperwork, and perceptions of insufficient com-pensation are partly to blame. But the restrictions ofsuch agreements are perhaps the greatest culprit.

An understanding of land philosophy can begin toclose the gap between landowners and conservationists,but there remains an impassible space: understandingmust be complemented by respect for the rights, needs,and knowledge of rural people. The attitude that conser-vationists know best and that landowners are obstacles

twists like a thorn in the side of private land conserva-tion. Rural people know their property and its historylike no one else, and that makes them invaluable part-ners. We must also recognize that land yields are thesole source of income for some people. When conserva-tion initiatives affect property use, it is only natural forlandowners to feel threatened and concerned. Withownership comes use rights, and it is a blatant sign ofdisrespect when these rights are challenged or ignored.

Finally, we must work with, and not around, privatelandowners. When private landholdings are directly orindirectly involved, resource management programsshould include landowners in the decision-making andplan-writing processes. Any concerns landowners haveabout the environmental issues at hand should be thor-oughly and thoughtfully addressed. Because scientificrhetoric may not be very readable and often lacks a basisin local culture, failure to recruit landowner participa-tion results in one-sided decisions that anger a neglectedpopulace. Opposing views may cause some immediateproblems, but collaboration could do much to preventor reduce future conflict. Only through partnershipsbased on compromise and mutual respect can we re-verse the widespread and not unfounded belief that en-vironmentalists are elitists who do not value the ecologi-cal knowledge or opinions of landowners. Together, wemay be able to accomplish more than either groupalone.

Hundreds of collaborative efforts have been successfulin the United States, including New Mexico’s Malpai Bor-derlands, Oregon’s Applegate Partnership, and Texas’sCameron County Agricultural Coexistence Committee( Yaffee & Wondolleck 2000). Critical to the success ofthe latter organization was overcoming communicationproblems and erroneous perceptions, establishing trust,and creating an atmosphere in which all members couldcontribute expertise ( Yaffee & Wondolleck 2000). As aresult, the group has become well respected in the com-munity for its ability to work out environmental prob-lems with solutions that balance the needs of both wild-life and farmers ( Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000).

In contrast, lopsided efforts may succeed in creatingprotected areas, but often at great social cost. TheGolden-cheeked Warbler (

Dendroica chrysoparia

) waslisted as an endangered species in 1990, which led tothe purchase of private land by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService ( USFWS) to create Balcones Canyonlands Na-tional Wildlife Refuge in Texas. Local ranchers were em-bittered because their concerns and comments were ig-nored despite their participation in public hearings, andfew appear eager to participate in future cooperativeagreements with the USFWS because of this experience(Peterson & Horton 1995). Efforts by researchers to pre-serve habitat in foreign countries have resulted in similardissatisfaction because of a lack of concern for local cul-ture and economic needs. After discovering a new spe-

Page 3: Bridging the Gap between Private Landowners and Conservationists

Conservation BiologyVolume 16, No. 1, February 2002

James Private Landowners and Conservationists

271

cies of lemur in 1986, Western scientists urged the cre-ation of Madagascar’s Ranomafana National Park, whichencompasses an area historically used by locals for farm-ing and other means of subsistence (Peters 1999). Whenthe park was officially declared, neighboring residentshad a poor understanding of the implications and restric-tions of the park and felt it was an attempt by foreignersto take their land (Peters 1999). This unfortunate case,in which local people were neither consulted nor in-formed, has led to social conflict, economic distress, anddistrust of foreign researchers (Peters 1999).

Without effective interaction with private landown-ers, conservationists will never succeed in protectingbiodiversity to the extent that is possible. In the UnitedStates, roughly 60% of the total land area is privatelyowned, and approximately 80% of federally listed spe-cies occur partly or solely on private property (Thomas2000). Norton (2000) thoughtfully wrote that “privateland is important not only because of its indigenousbiodiversity but also because it is the area where most ofthe human population lives, works, and plays, and it ishere that most people encounter nature.” Creating con-servation plans only for public land is inadequate be-cause not all landowners have a stewardship philosophyor experience in land management. If conservationistsvalue the rights and knowledge of landowners, seek col-laborative efforts with rural groups or individuals, en-courage innovative and local solutions to problems, andprovide fair compensation, conservation efforts should

be far more productive. If unilateral decisions and misin-formed prejudices prevail, we can only blame ourselvesfor the loss of what was and might have been.

Literature Cited

Hargrove, E. 1989. Foundations of environmental ethics. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Jones, D., C. Cocklin, and M. Cutting. 1995. Institutional and land-owner perspectives on wetland management in New Zealand. Jour-nal of Environmental Management

45:

143–161.Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press,

New York.Norton, D. A. 2000. Conservation biology and private land: shifting the

focus. Conservation Biology

14:

1221–1223.Peters, J. 1999. Understanding conflicts between people and parks at

Ranomafana, Madagascar. Agriculture and Human Values

16:

65–74.Peterson, T. R., and C. C. Horton. 1995. Rooted in the soil: how under-

standing the perspectives of landowners can enhance the manage-ment of environmental disputes. The Quarterly Journal of Speech

81:

139–166.Sinclair, A. R. E., D. Ludwig, and C. W. Clark. 2000. Conservation in

the real world. Science

289:

1875.Sutherland, B. 1997. Nature conservation on private land in Nova Scotia.

Proceedings of the Nova Scotia Institute of Sciences

41:

77–89.Thomas, G. A. 2000. Private property and public benefit: habitat con-

servation planning for endangered species. Conservation Biology

14:

327–331.Wilson, G. A. 1996. Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participa-

tion. Geoforum

27:

115–131.Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.Yaffee, S. L., and J. M. Wondolleck. 2000. Making collaboration work.

Conservation Biology in Practice

1:

17–25.