|
It sometimes seems as if the majority of the environmental community have, in the years since Gale Norton took office, become devotees of free-market environmentalism. Not long ago, that was the exclusive turf of policy wonks in right-wing economic think tanks. Reading the appended article from today's Salt Lake Tribune I was stricken by much things have changed.
Perhaps nowhere within the environmental community have free market solutions been so enthusiastically (and broadly) embraced as amongst public land grazing activists and amongst pollution cap-and-traders.
That's the prerogative of these people, but I wonder if they appreciate how difficult they make it for those are trying to beat back, and defeat, the policies of Norton, Scarlett, O'Toole, Anderson, Leal, Baden, Fretwell, Beckwith and similar put-your-money-where-you-mouth-is right-wingers.
Scott
"Remember this: The house doesn't beat the player. It just gives him the opportunity to beat himself." -Nicholas (Nick the Greek) Dandalos
---- begin quoted ------
10/30/2005
The Eco-Cowboys: Big land buys signal greens are moving into ranching
Environmentalism and the New West
By Joe Baird - The Salt Lake Tribune
KAIBAB PLATEAU, Ariz. - If you're going to to break into the cowboy business, this is as good a place as any to do it.
The historic Kane and Two Mile ranches on the Utah-Arizona border not
only take in 850,000 acres - most of it in the form of federal grazing
lands - but also some of the most flat-out astonishing scenery in all
of the American West. Head south through the pines and meadows of the
Kane Ranch and visitors are eventually deposited on the rim of the
Grand Canyon. Go north into the twisting canyon country of the Two Mile
and it doesn't take long to get to the top of the Vermillion Cliffs,
spitting distance from the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
It's big. It's beautiful. And it now has a pair of new owners: the
Grand Canyon Trust and the Conservation Fund, which soon will be
running nearly 800 head of cattle on their new range.
The two environmental organizations last month completed the purchase
of the two ranches, and the accompanying Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service grazing allotments, from Californian David Gelbaum for
$4.5 million. In terms of acreage, it may be the largest single
purchase of land by conservationists in U.S. history. In that sense, it
also may mark the biggest splash for free-market environmentalism, a
put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is approach to conservation that is
gaining converts in an arena that is otherwise marked by polarization,
litigation and gridlock.
"We believe you can do more for conservation with money than without
money," says Michael Ford, southwest director for the Arlington,
Va.-based Conservation Fund. "We believe we've helped create a brand of
conservationism that engages all Americans. And you do that by
involving the private sector - foundations, major corporations, etc. -
as partners. There are other models that work, but we like this model
and so do our partners.
"The purchase of Kane and Two Mile demonstrates one of the most successful public-private partnerships of our time."
The Conservation Fund has a 20-year track record of buying federal
grazing allotments, including those in Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area (52,000 acres) and Great Basin National Park (250,000). They have
since been followed by sister organizations such as the Trust for
Public Lands and the Nature Conservancy, which have bought ranches and
allotments throughout the West, including the Dugout Ranch in
southeastern Utah (305,000 private and federal acres).
Typically, these conservation groups partner with, or sublease to,
ranchers for the actual day-to-day management of their vast spreads.
But sometimes they take on the task themselves - which is where
Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Trust comes in.
Already a $1.5 million contributor toward the purchase of the Kane and
Two Mile, the Trust also will operate the two ranches. To do so, it had
to agree to get into the livestock business. And we're not just talking
about a couple of dozen cows, which it runs on a grazing allotment it
bought previously in the Grand Staircase monument.
To fulfill the grazing requirements of the Forest Service (which
manages most of the Kane's grazing lands) and BLM (which oversees much
of Two Mile), the Trust must buy 720 head of cattle and begin grazing
them by next spring. That's nearly $1 million worth of cows on today's
market.
"Usually you buy a ranch with cows. We bought a ranch without cows,"
says Rick Moore, the Kane and Two Mile ranch director for the Grand
Canyon Trust. "It's no easy feat to go out and buy 800 head of cattle.
We'll validate the permits; the question is, how and when. It's going
to be a challenge."
It will also necessitate bringing in an experienced ranch manager -
Wyoming resident John Heyneman - who in turn likely will employ a crew
of three or four wranglers. But Heyneman isn't any ordinary cowpoke; he
holds a master's degree in soil science from Montana State.
By combining that kind of expertise with the talents of the Trust's
army of specialists and volunteers, Moore hopes to put a new spin on
grazing in one of the more challenging grazing environments in the
country. Which is the whole point of these kinds of endeavors in the
first place.
"We wouldn't have gotten involved with this unless we could graze
livestock in a more environmentally sustainable way than a normal
permittee," Moore says, ticking off planned water and fencing projects,
as well as species and plant inventories. "The Trust can bring a lot
more resources to bear. Grazing has to be based on rigorous science.
We'll really integrate the livestock operation into restoration and
stewardship. In that sense, we think we're the best option."
It is the Trust's almost singular combination of deep pockets and
environmental savvy that has the federal agencies enthused about the
deal.
The conservation group hardly has the market cornered on progressive
grazing practices, notes Vermillion Cliffs National Monument Manager
Linda Price. The BLM and Forest Service jointly revised the region's
grazing standards four years ago, and some area ranchers implement new
approaches when they can. But the Trust has the ability to do such
projects on a scale and timeline that outstrips the ability of a
regular rancher - whose first priority might be putting food on the
family table - or the budget-strapped federal agencies.
"That's the optimistic aspect to this. If we want to try something
different, they have the resources to help us do it. They don't have
the constraints others do," says Price. "So it's a great opportunity
for us. They can do things like cultural inventories that we haven't
been able to do. We're short of archeologists around here."
Not everybody is elated to see the Grand Canyon Trust running cattle on
nearly a million acres of public land. Over on the Utah side of the
line, some ranchers and county officials fret about livelihoods being
lost.
"The little rancher cannot compete with environmental funding," says
Kane County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw. "If this keeps up, everybody's
going to get bought out and all of our public lands will be run by
conservation groups. Where do our ranching families fit into this
picture?"
At the other end of the spectrum are environmental organizations that
are opposed to public lands grazing of any kind in the arid
Intermountain West.
Daniel Patterson, an ecologist and desert program director for the
Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, says the Conservation
Fund and Grand Canyon Trust's purchase of the ranches is a positive
step - but only if they succeed in eventually getting the grazing
allotments retired.
"As long as the Trust is making most of the decisions, we're confident
they'll do the best job they can toward full restoration of the
landscape," says Patterson. "If the Trust can get cooperation from the
agencies, this will be a good deal for southern Utah and northern
Arizona."
There is also some risk involved in such an undertaking, notes Lawson
LeGate, southwest representative for the Sierra Club. Not only
financially - even the Trust says it will be lucky to break even on its
new cattle operation - but in the results of its stewardship of the
range.
"If it ends up showing that grazing is terrible, that would play well
with a lot of conservation groups. If it's shown that grazing can be
done in a more benign manner, it probably won't sit so well," says
LeGate. "So it's a risky notion. But it's something that's new and it
ought to be given a chance to see if it works."
The Trust and Conservation Fund created some initial consternation on
its own when the Kane and Two Mile deal was first announced in 2004 -
pitching the purchase as a transaction that would weave a conservation
mosaic, stitching together the ranches with Grand Canyon National Park,
the Grand Staircase and Vermillion Cliffs monuments and a trio of
wilderness areas.
"Their use of language was not very precise. Words like 'preservation'
are loaded," says Forest Service spokesman Scott Clemans. "They imply a
lot more restrictions in terms of public use and a more restrictive
management style. That scared some people."
Moore, the Trust's ranch director, acknowledged some of the early
rhetoric was a little "over the top." But he says he wants to make it
clear that the Grand Canyon Trust is just a regular permittee. Hunters
will still have full access to some of West's premier mule deer habitat
on the Kaibab Plateau; off-roaders will still be able to ride their
favorite trails.
"The one thing we've really tried to push is that this is a public
lands ranch," says Moore, noting that the Trust and Conservation Fund
own just 1,000 private acres surrounding the two ranch headquarters.
"I still think we'll make some real conservation gains here. But a lot
of people have interpreted this deal as locking the land up. That has
never been the case, nor could it be even if we wanted it to. The
agencies manage these lands. What we can and can't do is prescribed by
them. But we can do things a little differently. And we will."
|
- Privatization 
