Back to SCB LOGO CONTEST

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SCB: SECTION UPDATES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

FROM PUGILIST TO PRAGMATIST

by David S. Wilcove

A few years ago, when I was working for Environmental Defense (EDF), I spent a couple of hours in the back room of a feed store in the town of Oatmeal, Texas, talking to two ranchers. One of them was as tall and thin as a corn stalk; the other was so portly that the buttons of his shirt seemed ready to burst apart under the strain of his bulging belly. My colleague Melinda Taylor had arranged a meeting with these gentlemen to see if they would be willing to create habitat for the endangered black-capped vireo on their property, with some financial assistance from EDF. They listened to our pitch, asked a few questions, and said they would think about it. I inquired if they would be willing to give us the names and phone numbers of other ranchers in the neighborhood who might be interested in a similar deal.

"Maybe you ought to let us talk to them first," replied the portly rancher. "Folks around here are a little suspicious of you since you burned down that building out West."

Melinda and I looked at each other in bewilderment. And then it dawned on us: these guys were confusing EDF with ELF--the Earth Liberation Front--which had recently claimed credit for torching a ski resort under construction in Colorado. We explained the differences in philosophy and approach between EDF and ELF, but from the blank looks on their faces, we couldn't be sure they believed us.

First moral of the story: to the public at large, all environmental groups are a blur. And the most outrageous, asinine, or illegal deed committed by one group reflects badly on all.

Second moral of the story: in Oatmeal, Texas, people will listen politely to what you have to say, even if they think you're nothing but a couple of arsonists.

Although never a supporter of violence and destruction, and certainly not an arsonist, I began my career as something of a fire-breather, eager to do battle with the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), timber companies, developers, and anyone or anything I thought was failing to act in the best interests of this nation's growing roster of endangered species. Truth be told, I regret none of those battles, and I like to believe that at least some of them resulted in positive change. But in recent years I have come to realize that a softer voice and a gentler touch will work a lot better under certain circumstances than does shouting and shoving. This, then, is the story of my evolution from pugilist to pragmatist.

For years, some landowners have been saying that they would be pleased to restore habitats for endangered species on their property, if only they could do so without incurring new regulatory restrictions on the use of their land. If true, this was an exceedingly important offer on their part, inasmuch as most of North America's endangered species have most of their habitat on privately owned lands. Most of us in the environmental movement weren't listening. But my EDF colleagues Michael Bean and Robert Bonnie were, and they eventually convinced USFWS to adopt a policy known as "safe harbor." Under the safe harbor policy, landowners agree to restore and maintain the habitat of an endangered species. (This, of course, is something they are under no legal obligation to do. The Endangered Species Act may forbid people from harming existing populations of protected species on their land, but it cannot force them to create habitat for protected species that are not already there.) In return, the landowners receive a guarantee from USFWS that they will be able to alter or develop the restored habitat at a later date, even if an endangered species has taken up residence. This guarantee does not apply to endangered species that were already on the property at the time the safe harbor agreement was signed; it applies only to the species attracted to the newly created or restored habitat.

The response from landowners has been nothing short of astounding. Since the program was announced in 1994, participating landowners have enrolled more than two million acres (8000 km2). Among the species currently benefiting from safe harbor agreements are red-cockaded woodpecker, northern aplomado falcon, gila topminnow, desert pupfish, Attwater's prairie-chicken, black-capped vireo, golden-cheeked warbler, San Joaquin kit fox, northern Idaho ground squirrel, and nene. Three national environmental organizations--The Peregrine Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Environmental Defense--are now enrolling landowners in their own safe harbor programs (with permission from USFWS), and I expect more groups to follow suit in the coming years. Almost as important as the improvements in habitat have been the improvements in attitudes: in a number of communities where safe harbor efforts are underway, the level of suspicion and animosity among landowners, the environmental community, and USFWS has eased considerably.

Safe harbor is no panacea to the problems associated with restoring endangered species on private property. It is, by definition, a temporary improvement. But once the habitat has been restored, the species re-established, and a dialogue initiated, other good things may happen: the landowner might agree to sell the property to a conservation organization . . . or donate an easement . . . or simply renew the safe-harbor agreement when it expires. Moreover, if enough landowners participate, then at any given time, there is likely to be a net increase in the amount of habitat, even if a few people pull out of the program. In short, safe harbor programs buy time for endangered species, and time is perhaps the one thing that endangered species need most of all.

Six years after the first safe harbor program was launched, my EDF colleagues and I began to wonder how landowners would react to other types of incentives. In the Texas Hill Country, we began an experiment of sorts--we created a Landowner Conservation Assistance Program (LCAP) that provided one-stop shopping for endangered species. Under LCAP, private landowners interested in helping two endangered birds (the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo) could come to our Texas office and receive technical assistance, including surveys for warblers and vireos and the development of a habitat restoration plan, financial assistance for the restoration work, and coverage under a safe harbor agreement.

Given the strength of the property-rights movement in Texas, we were uncertain what the response would be. To our delight, it has been completely positive. Thus far, 35 landowners have enrolled more than 65,000 acres in the program, and EDF's Texas office is getting more requests for assistance than it can handle. The offer of technical assistance has proved to be as popular as the offer of financial assistance, leading me to conclude that a lack of information on the part of landowners may be as big a barrier to endangered species recovery as a lack of resources. It may well be the case that the best thing federal and state governments could do on behalf of endangered species would be to create LCAP-like programs in every state.

I like to think that I still retain much of the feistiness that characterized my earlier battles with despoilers of nature. And there are still plenty of issues (oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example) that demand nothing less than a fight to the finish. Yet to a degree I could never have imagined when I started my career, I have come to believe that a smile and a helping hand can sometimes accomplish much more than a snarl and a subpoena.

David S. Wilcove received a 2001 SCB Distinguished Service Award in recognition of his extraordinary skills in bringing the authority of biological scholarship to conservation advocacy.

Back to SCB LOGO CONTEST

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SCB: SECTION UPDATES FROM AROUND THE WORLD