While there is a common ground between ESA advocates and landowners, at the initial stage of potential collaboration, the landowners still perceives federal involvement as a threat. The example in the video is common considering the landowner’s effort to make an agreement was driven by recognition that 1,100 of the rancher’s 1,300 acre plot was being deemed critical habitat and he could not afford to lose that (Pacific Legal Foundation 2016). However, Kelly Kreps is unique in that he spent endless hours working with the agency officials to devise a plan that conserves the species (Pacific Legal Foundation 2016). His case is a perfect example of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) stance on how to work with private landowners. The USFWS encourages federal agencies to involve their applicants, such as private landowners, in the consultation process through opportunities to provide information and review documents (USFWS 2009). However, not all landowners are as concerned with the fate of the species compared to Kreps. Instead, the common ground typically goes back to the landowner’s potential for financial gain. That said, a common landowner would be more so focused on USFWS incentive programs such as the Safe Harbor Policy or the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Policy (USFWS 2009). Evidently, in the video, Jack Field from the Washington Cattlemen’s Association emphasized the need to compensate landowners in cases of their land maintenance being aligned with conservation (Pacific Legal Foundation 2016). It would make the cooperation Kreps illuminated in the video, from start to finish, a more common circumstance.
Reference:
Pacific Legal Foundation. 2016. “Washington cattlemen and PLF challenge ESA overreach.” Pacific Legal Foundation. August 4th, 2016. Video, 4:06. https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/washington-cattlemen-and-plf-challenge-esa-overreach/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. “Our endangered species program and how it works with landowners.” US Fish and Wildlife Service.July 2009. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/landowners.pdf
Comment by Fenton Kay:
Mary, based on what you have read so far, do you think the UFWS does an adequate job of informing the public about the available options with respect to land management and T&E species protection?
My Comment:
Hi Fenton,
Based on what I have read so far, the USFWS does broadcast available options with respect to land management and T&E species protection. However, landowners may not know where to look for the information without directly being provided with the resources. Otherwise, the landowners may not even consider looking it up online. Also, there seem to be many different ideas for incentive programs. As a landowner, it would be difficult to decipher which ones are theoretical versus those that are actually in place. Incentives may also specific to certain regions within the USFWS and a landowner may not know which programs apply to a specific situation. The USFWS can improve by having consultations that go over all options with the landowner, instead of perhaps only ones that are in the USFWS best interest. By the USFWS implementing a thorough consultation into its protocol, landowners would be able to communicate the variety of local options with each other by word of mouth. As a result, there may be more who are willing to cooperate.
Comment by Devon Yuwiler:
Hi Mary,
In mentioning Jack Field’s contribution, I think you picked up on something important about the video. The tone of Kreps is very different than the tone of Field or the narrator, who are certainly more defensive and on the attack. I found it interesting to have these same-sided but differently conveyed perspectives all side by side. I think this gives further proof that Kreps is a more unique landowner.
My Comment:
Hi Devon,
Excellent point. I found a great article showing a third landowner perspective to add. It was interesting to read about landowners who perceive the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is unfair because they want more involvement in the conservation process (Olive 2016). The paper presents analysis from 141 interviews with landowners in the United States and Ontario (Olive 2016). In recognition of distributive justice claims, both the U.S. and Ontario governments have enacted programs aimed at increasing financial incentives for participation and compliance with the law (Olive 2016). However, even landowners who are aware of the incentives still perceive the law as unfair because the landowners’ deepest desire is to be included in the protection and recovery process, as well as be considered by government and society as good stewards of the land (Olive 2016). What are your thoughts on this? How would future amendments to the ESA confronting procedural justice and justice as recognition change the outcome of T&E species conservation efforts?
Reference:
Olive, Andrea. 2016. “It is just not fair: the Endangered Species Act in the United States and Ontario”. Ecology and Society. 21(3).
Comment by Devon Yuwiler:
Hi Mary,
Interesting supplemental information! I’m honestly surprised to hear that landowners would want to be more included in the protection and recovery of a species. To me, it seems like a bit of an “angle,” but perhaps there are fewer cases of “who cares about a frog” that we would expect. I admit that I expect to be disappointed by people, and am presently surprised when people instead prioritize the earth, a species, etc. over themselves. If there were to be an ESA amendment in regards to landowner inclusion, I think that first understanding the landowners is key. Then, once a general “here is what we want” has been attained, writing (very carefully) an amendment to make it a more collaborative process between the ESA and landowners.
Comment by Elizabeth Pagliuca:
Hello Mary,
Great post, I really like that you brought up the way the federal involvement appears as a threat to landowners no matter what the situation and outcome are. Your point about the positive relationship between compensating landowners and their cooperation is something that I also agree with. From a landowners point of view it seems that the USFWS incentive programs focus on species nearing threatened population levels but not yet listed – then we know that once they are listed there is a new set of regulations and restrictions that could void the previous efforts put in by landowners in these programs. I feel like there if there could be more flexibility under the blanket no-take ruling for endangered and threatened species for the threatened species within the areas where landowners are working with the USFWS toward their recovery. There are times that the decline of a species isn’t the fault of the landowner working to protect them but some other human activity in the area or a natural cause. these types of situations would be best looked at case by case rather than having a singular ruling.
My Comment:
Hi Elizabeth,
Thanks for your comment! I agree with your idea of looking at situations case-by-case rather than having a singular ruling. If private land conservation issues are conducted on a case-by-case basis, there would need to be more dialogue conducted between the government and landowners. It would make the landowners feel less threatened by federal involvement, and consequentially encourage collaboration between the government and landowners.