VI. Private Lands & Wildlife

This HISTORY is an ongoing personal project that has evolved from a number of volunteer presentations. It is a draft and not for attribution. All comments and corrections welcome.

 Claiming the Best

Overall 71-74 percent of the U.S. lower 48 landmass lies in private hands. East of the 100th meridian, the vast majority of land is private while it accounts for slightly less than half (47%) of the Intermountain West.

In the western United States, the most valuable lands in terms of soils, water, and biodiversity reside on private lands. This is the result of historical settlement patterns. As the American West was settled by private interests in the mid- to late-1800s, arriving settlers did not choose the highest, driest, most exposed landscapes, they claimed the most fertile soils, most abundant and accessible waters, and most protected from wind and exposure. Not surprisingly, these lands are also the most valuable ecologically. Would-be homesteaders who came late to the party were not so lucky as the abandoned homesteads and farm equipment littering the western landscape attest. 

An Accounting of Private Land Values

· Almost 90 percent of the rain and snow that falls on the contiguous United States falls on private lands before making its way into streams, estuaries, and underground aquifers.[1]

• Private lands harbor 80% of remaining grasslands and 75% of remaining wetlands.[2]

• Two-thirds of federally listed species have at least some habitat on private land, and some species have most of their remaining habitat on private land.[3]

• Even in the public land states of the west, private land is essential for conservation, providing critical wildlife habitat providing food sources, nesting, nurseries, winter range and other essential service on a year-round or seasonal basis.

• Privately owned croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands provide additional environmental services including carbon sequestration, pollination, nutrient cycling, water quality, water storage, and aquifer recharge.

Private working lands--the nation’s farms, ranches, and forestlands—have a substantial ability to affect the quality of the nation’s natural resources and its quality of life. But despite the oversized importance of private working lands, however, their owners amount to only two percent of the U.S. population, and they are aging. The average age of farmers and ranchers in 2017 is 57.5 years old and growing older every year.[4] In the next 10 to 20 years, tens of millions of acres will change hands. What the heirs and buyers elect to do with this land will have significant effects on local economies, the quality of environmental and natural resources, the ability to manage growth, and individuals’ quality of life.[5]

Unfortunately, too often attention has paid to the importance of public lands for wildlife while private lands are dismissed or ignored—especially the working lands that are economically productive and support an individual’s livelihood, such as farms, ranches, and timberlands.

As described in Chapter V, today’s public estate has been largely carved out of the unclaimed remainder as lands were granted to the states, homesteaders, railroads, and others. But unlike lands in the public domain, the future conservation of private lands depends on continued economic viability. While Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands need not provide a return on investment (ROI) as a condition for remaining in public ownership, private lands require a positive ROI to the owner—be it in crop yields, cattle weights, recreational assets, or other values. In the absence of a positive ROI, the lands will be sold and/or converted to other uses. From a wildlife conservation standpoint, such conversions often translate into a loss of habitat and resiliency (i.e., conversion of rangeland to row agriculture or residential development).

Rangeland Losses

Rangelands are critical habitat across the western United States for big game, gamebirds, and other wildlife, ranging from sage grouse and burrowing owls to bighorn sheep and swift fox. Since pre-European settlement, some 340 million acres (> 34 percent) of rangelands, particularly in the Great Plains, have been converted to alternative land uses, especially intensive agriculture. And the trend continues as rangelands experience significant increases in housing development.[6] This increased residential development, human modification, and fragmentation of rangelands leads to a variety of impacts, including:

1. Decrease in native wildlife populations, decreased biodiversity, and increased prevalence of non-native species—plants, animals, and even diseases.

2. Reduced resiliency and adaptability of species to climate change and habitat fragmentation.

3. Decrease in ecosystem goods and services including food and fiber, recreational opportunities (including hunting and fishing), scenic quality, etc.

4. Increased user conflicts as more people seek use of a decreasing land base.

5. Potential for greater wildfire ignition due to drier climate, weeds, and residential development encroachment.

Private Lands Not Well Studied

Even though private lands are commonly the most valuable wildlife habitats and provide the greatest ecological values in terms of soils, water, and wildlife throughout the Intermountain West, the vast majority of advocacy, research, and policy attention has been focused on public lands. This is largely the result of access, as it is much easier for a researcher or activist to access an entire National Forest as compared to one, never mind dozens of, private properties. But it is also a matter of trust as many landowners in the Intermountain West are leery of having researchers and activists on their private property—too often they are viewed as outsiders without a direct stake in the immediate community who are disrespectful, even disdainful, of the concerns of the private property owners. There are also liabilities concerns.

A Shift of Habitat Quality from Public to Private?

During much of the 20th Century, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (the two largest landowners in the Intermountain West) and other federal agencies grew both in land holdings and influence. Bolstered by waves of legislation and accompanying appropriations, as outlined in Chapters 5 and 6, the federal land managers defined best practices for rangeland and timberlands – they were the cutting edge of applied research, innovation, and adaptive management. In additional, a range of assistance programs enabled federal agencies to influence adjacent private lands.

But those days are behind us. At least for the foreseeable future, the halcyon days of adequately funded and staffed federal agencies are in eclipse as federal and state land management capacity and budgets continue to erode, and the ability of federal and state land management agencies to manage their own lands and influence management on adjacent lands continues to wane (Figure 1). 

While largely anecdotal in nature, Tilt (2020) found long-time ranchers and other landowners in Montana’s Paradise Valley observing larger numbers of elk spending more and more time on private lands—in the foothills and on the valley floor rather than higher elevation forest as was traditionally observed during the summer months. A number of factors are potential contributors to these observed behaviors, though their actual impact has not been quantified by substantive research:

1. The impact of increased recreation—from trail-running and mountain biking to extended hunting seasons including archery and black powder—on Custer Gallatin National Forest lands displacing elk and other wildlife.

2. Increased numbers of predators present on NF lands, including gray wolf, grizzly bear, and mountain lion.

3. Decreased habitat values on Forest Service lands due to range of factors including invasive weeds, conifer encroachment, livestock grazing, drought, and fire (lack of and burned-over)

4. Increased production of hay and other crops at low elevations that also offers greater security for wildlife from #1 and #2.

Case Study: Paradise Valley & Elk

Report summary. Elk in Paradise, conserving migratory wildlife and working land in Montana’s Paradise Valley (full report).

Montana’s Paradise Valley is a rural landscape with deep-rooted ranching traditions, scenic views, and ample recreational opportunities located at the northern gateway to Yellowstone National Park. Surrounded by national forest lands, Paradise Valley and its ranching community support a range of wildlife including elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. The region also hosts expanding populations of gray wolves and grizzly bears.

Much of the responsibility and financial burden of providing crucial habitat for these species falls on the valley’s private landowners—yet landowners often feel their perspectives are not adequately heard. This report presents findings from an extensive survey and numerous discussions with landowners in Paradise Valley, which reveal landowner attitudes toward wildlife and point the way to solutions that can support landowners and wildlife in the valley.

Our results show that elk in particular present significant challenges for landowners in Paradise Valley—including competition with livestock for forage and hay, damage to fences, and disease transmission. As elk spend more time on private lands in the valley, and in greater numbers, tolerance often wears thin. Many landowners feel that the public benefits they provide are too often overlooked by the state and federal land management agencies, hunters, and the general public that often shape wildlife policies.

We found that Paradise Valley landowners are united in their interest in new approaches that can help preserve agricultural traditions, maintain open spaces, and conserve the valley’s private working landscapes that support agriculture and benefit wildlife (Figure 2). Nevertheless, many landowners are increasingly leery of the potential for regulation and loss of property rights and want solutions that preserve their autonomy and provide tangible benefits for supporting wildlife.

For wildlife proponents, the message from this report is clear: The private working lands of Paradise Valley are vital for sustaining populations of elk and other wildlife. But to ensure those lands can continue to be counted on as part of a conservation portfolio, more work is needed to embrace private landowners as full and equal shareholders in a new era of cooperation. We offer a toolkit of strategies that landowners, conservationists, and policymakers could employ to help sustain the working lands of Paradise Valley and the wildlife they support.[7]

Where Do We Go From Here?

Many of our historic battles over wildlife management, especially in the western United States, have focused on our public lands. As Delwin Benson observes, the big chunks of real estate have largely been acquired, public environmental interests and citizen group activism have expanded, and demands on wildlife and wildlands have broadened.[8] Society is waking up to the fact that private lands are important components of the environment, but what does that mean?

Let’s start with the pragmatic recognition that private landowners control the fate of habitats, wildlife, and recreation on their lands. To that end, the following quote by Aldo Leopold needs to be engraved into the mind of all hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists who care about wildlife and open spaces: [9]

“Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest.”

Despite the core tenet of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that wildlife are managed by the state as a public trust for the benefit of all citizens, under the U.S. Constitution, it is a landowner’s right to allow their property to be unsuitable for wildlife—i.e., erect wildlife-proof fencing, ignore best practice for habitat management, etc. In fact, if a landowner works to avoid fencing wildlife in and does not directly kill or harm endangered wildlife, he/she is acting lawfully.[10]

Additionally, if society’s interest in improving wildlife habitat on private lands translates to landowners facing increasing governmental regulations which limit uses of their personal properties, landowners actually will be incentivized to reduce the wildlife habitat value of their properties.

Aldo Leopold was a leader in the emergence of wildlife management as a profession and development of a land ethic. One of his observations was that wildlife can be restored by the “creative use of the same tools which have heretofore destroyed it—axe, plow, cow, fire, and gun.”[11] He was also a leading voice in understanding that landowners were vital to wildlife management for the simple reason that they reside on the land and have authority over it. In the 1930s and 1940s with wildlife viewed as competition for forage, crops, and timber. Leopold recognized that absent some form of incentive, why would landowners manage their land to benefit wildlife? His 1930 Report to the American Game Conference laid out three alternatives to induce the landowner:

1. Buy him out and become the landowner.

2. Compensate him directly or indirectly for producing a game crop and for the privilege of harvesting it.

3. Cede him the title to the game, so that he will own it and can buy and sell it just as he owns, buys, and sells his poultry.

Leopold evaluated these alternatives noting the first option was feasible on cheap lands, but prohibitive elsewhere. The second was feasible anywhere but the question was how, and the third way was “the English system, and incompatible with American tradition and thought.”[12]

Ongoing research continues to affirm that private lands principally dedicated to agricultural, rangeland, and forestry uses are essential for achieving ecological, environmental, and economic sustainability.[13] Today, Aldo Leopold would find his Alternative 2 in practice in much of the eastern United States but sparsely applied in Montana and the Intermountain West.

There is a real and timely opportunity to develop one or more programs to compensate interested landowners whose land management provides tangible benefits for elk and other wildlife. Such benefits in turn translate into public benefits. But the question remains, how and to what extent.

Benson and other researchers studying wildlife and habitat conservation on private lands provide a number of important insights: [14]

1. Meaningful cooperation is difficult to develop when participants fear a loss of rights or increased regulatory scrutiny.

2. Historical conflicts between governments and landowners make working together a new challenge.

3. Debates about governmental controls over wildlife must be updated to enable the private sector to become guardians and stewards of resources.

4. The primary tools--trust, empowerment, enfranchisement, and cooperative planning—take time and commitment to be successful.

5. Attention needs to be paid to such things as the bureaucratic hassle of enrolling and does landowner participation “pencil out” financially.

Lessons from Paradise

Landowners do not all share the same priorities. But research conducted in Paradise Valley, and borne out in other studies, indicates they share many of the same values. In the Paradise Valley, landowners have a strong desire to maintain their properties as working ranches and agricultural land for future generations and to protect the land as open space while maintaining agricultural use. This is good news for wildlife such as elk, which depend on open spaces provided by landowners. [15]

Studies consistently highlight the need to change and diversify both the message and the messenger. For example, a message delivered by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks that concentrates on increasing elk numbers to benefit public hunters at the expense of private landowners is unlikely to be received warmly or result in much voluntary action by property owners. Conversely, a message delivered by Montana State University Extension about how agencies and conservation organizations can help landowners increase their land health to the benefit of their ranching operations and wildlife alike is likely to be more warmly received and have a greater likelihood of success.[16]

Ranchers are a diverse group with a broad range of attitudes and motivations. There is also a great deal of variation in how, when, and for how long wildlife use their property. It stands to reason, therefore, that one method of recognition or compensation may be appropriate and appeal to one group of landowners but not others. This reality runs counter to many existing landowner programs, such as conservation easements and cost-shares, that are limited in scope and flexibility. As research from around the country has documented, a “one size fits all” approach for engaging private landowners in wildlife conservation programs is likely to fail because of the wide range of attitudes and behaviors among landowners, both locally and nationally.[17]

“The easy things are done in courtrooms, on paper, and at the ballot box. The hard things are done on the land, with honest conversations among stakeholders and property owners. These are not the easy things, but they are the things worth doing.” Richard Knight [18] 

__________

[1] USDA, “Preserving the Health of the Land: America’s Conservation Challenge” brochure (1999).

[2] Michael Brasher et al., “The history and importance of private lands for North American Waterfowl Conservation,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, no. 3 (2019): 338-54.

[3] USFWS, “ESA Basics: 40 years of Conserving Endangered Species,” (2013): 2.

[4] USDA, “Highlights-Farm Producers,” 2017 Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farm_Producers.pdf

[5] National Governors Association, “Private Lands, Public Benefits, principles for advancing working lands conservation” (2001): 4-5.

[6] Matthew Reeves et al, “Rangelands on the Edge: Quantifying the Modification, Fragmentation, and Future Residential Development of U.S. Rangelands, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-382. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (2018): 2-3, 22 (Map)

[7] Whitney Tilt, Elk in Paradise, conserving migratory wildlife and working land in Montana’s Paradise Valley, PERC (2020): 4.

[8] Delwin Benson, Private Lands: The new frontier for wildlife and recreation management, 8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996): 105-109.

[9] Aldo Leopold, “Conservation Economics,” The River of the Mother of God.

[10] Morgan et al., “A State Assessment of Private Lands Wildlife Conservation in the United States,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, No 3 (2019): 328-29.

[11] Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 481 p.

[12] Leopold, Aldo. 1991. Report to the American Game Conference on an American Game Policy (1930). In The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold (Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott, editors). University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI: pages 150-155.

[13] L. Wes Burger et al., “Private Lands Conservation: A Vision for the Future,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, No 3 (2019): 404.

[14] Delwin Benson, “Private Lands: The new frontier for wildlife and recreation management.” 8th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference (1996): 105-109. Drew Bennett et al, “Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest, University of Oregon (2014)

[15] Whitney Tilt, Elk in Paradise, conserving migratory wildlife and working land in Montana’s Paradise Valley, PERC (2020): 17.

[16] Whitney Tilt, Elk in Paradise, conserving migratory wildlife and working land in Montana’s Paradise Valley, PERC (2020): 29.

[17] Whitney Tilt, Elk in Paradise, conserving migratory wildlife and working land in Montana’s Paradise Valley, PERC (2020): 28.

[18] Richard Knight, “Private Lands: The neglected geography,” Conservation Biology Vol. 13, no. 2 (1999): 223.