Private Lands Breakout Session

Scribe: April Johnston
ajohnston@wildlands.org
March 20, 2008

Goal: Capture collective thinking about issues and ideas surrounding wildlife linkage conservation as they pertain to private land issues

The group focused on three main topics- suggestions regarding improvements to American Wildlands’ linkage data presented at the workshop, tools/funding resources available for implementing private land conservation efforts, and strategic considerations for integrating local knowledge and gaining local government/landowner buy-in.

Data: Scale of data is a very important issue. Three scales were discussed- regional (for climate change), landscape (what is exemplified by maps presented by AWL at workshop) and local. The group all liked the nested scales of the PLA data- in addition, the group stressed the importance of the very fine (parcel scale). Conversely, the ability to scale up is critical for integrating climate change data. The current “blobs” on the AWL maps are useful as an initial refinement tool to allocate research resources (*Note- the fine scale data that AWL has for many of the “blobs” was not show at the workshop). Scaleable data is most useful to serve applications. Two applications were discussed- the data for use in private land conservation, and for climate change. The group generated the following suggestions:
• For private land conservation efforts, the more site specific data layers, the better, especially on a parcel scale, such as wetlands, avian areas, micro-site ecological quality, water quality, etc.
• Define, and map, on a parcel level, what level of housing density is appropriate in linkage areas- this would be useful for zoning efforts.
• Discuss limitations of data in plain English
• Keep up and integrate any new state processes may bring in more data- such as efforts by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
• There was an emphasis that synthesizing information is more critical than trying to figure out implementation- many groups already doing that, just need synthesized information to make good choices

Implementation Tools: The group discussed some tools that could be used to address the cross-hairs of private land-wildlife corridors. Many agree that conservation easements are very important for habitat resiliency, especially in the face of climate change. Also, the group acknowledged that since conservation easements are not always feasible, there are other creative ways to generate a grassroots concern among landowners regarding the value of private land as a wildlife corridor. The group cited examples of statewide programs to provide money to watershed groups- in Oregon, the Natural Resources Conservation Service started local groups; grant money may already be available. Over the next two years- there is supposed to be a statewide assessment of federal and private lands as they relate to wildlife values.

Outreach methods. The group focused on the issue of how to engage and gain buy-in of landowners. Two recurrent themes surfaced: How do you engage local communities and how to get change to happen on a local scale.

Engaging locals: The point was raised about private landowners- why should they listen to you? The group emphasized that landowners must have incentives to care enough about conserving their land not to develop it. An example of such an incentive was in New York Community watershed groups that pay farmers to conserve land. However, gaining local trust and buy-in is very important; the group relayed that conservation efforts always need a local advocate, and that often the only way to get to commissioners is though grass roots. Many expressed that involving locals in data collection- by gathering traditional ecological or anecdotal knowledge, may be a good “foot in the door”. This raised the second theme- what to do with such knowledge, and when to, and not to, use it.

How to get change to happen on a local scale: There was discussion regarding what to do once conservation efforts gain local buy-in, particularly if this is done by gathering local knowledge. How do you best use this data? Local biologists may believe in traditional ecological knowledge, but in courts, a land developer will bring in a consultant of their own that may use empirical data that could overrule traditional ecological knowledge. The group made several points for conservation organizers to consider:
• Credibility is context specific- are you presenting evidence to a commissioner or to a court?
• Present traditional ecological knowledge from local landowners to local government only- like county commissioners.
• Take home message: Both empirical and traditional ecological knowledge are needed for different purpose. Use empirical data when you have it- telemetry, and convene biological opinion on a very local scale
•
The group also made points about utilizing other social groups other than purely environmental groups- and example is by Montanan Bill Geer of the Teddy Roosevelt Club- engaging thousands of locals through hook and bullet clubs to map important hunting areas – what other ways can you appeal to social groups like these that have a lot of political clout. These groups should steer future development