STATE OF THE ROCKIES
Report: Population Threat Looms on Land Conservation and Biodiversity
By Tonya Poole, 4-11-06
 | |
|
The panel discussions yesterday on conservation and biodiversity followed the thread of an important overriding message: the short term benefits of our lifestyles can, and in many ways will, lead to the long-term peril of our region. Faculty Director Walter Hecox, Program Coordinator Bryan Hurlbutt and Research Manager Caitlin O’Brady each took a turn providing an introduction to the materials and conference topics and later, expert and student panel members presented questions, findings and ideas on protecting our unique landscapes and habitats and addressing threatened, endangered and invasive species.
In both land conservation and issues impacting biodiversity, it was population growth that represented the largest threat to both, as growth in the Rockies continues to outpace the national average. Bryan Hurlbutt walked conference-goers through a variety of data illustrating the squeeze that growth puts on the land and resources throughout the Rockies but he and others were careful to note that despite the concern, there’s hope that a balance can be struck between profit and protection, and that together we can work to find a way to reap the benefits of growth while minimizing the damages.
Panel Recap
The conference’s first panel was moderated by Colorado College Professor of Biology Tass Kelso who kicked the discussion off with a personal comment. “I’m increasingly saddened by what I see, and what I don’t see anymore,” she said, and noted that human imprints are taking over natural imprints at alarming rates. But there’s much more to learn, she says, after all – Lewis and Clark didn’t find all the answers, nor have any of us since then.
Student researcher Jared Kapela presented findings on conservation easements – an agreement between land trusts and private land owners that protects land from development while offering tax benefits to owners. Easements have proven successful thanks to efforts from organizations like The Nature Conservancy through whom more than 117 million acres worldwide are protected. Nature Conservancy panelists included Rocky Mountain Division Vice President Bruce Runnels, State Director Charles Bedford and Senior Conservation Ecologist Chris Pague.
Kapela addressed the increasing pressure placed on ranchers and other land owners from developers who are often willing to pay 5-10 times the agricultural value of the land, and how economic factors and changes in the agricultural industry are tempting more and more ranchers into selling. The result is an accelerated modification of land and habitat, and the construction of dense subdivisions or trophy ranches.
Runnels aimed to remind us that thinking at the full landscape scale instead of adopting a “patch” mentality to conservation helps to see and consider things in the appropriate context and perspective, thereby making smarter, longer-term solutions possible. He offered examples of lessons learned and conservation success, and stressed the need to connect with the people in any landscape, any community, to discuss mutual visions for the surrounding land. Ultimately, he says, The Nature Conservancy aims to maintain functioning and resilience of the land, and a critical connectivity in nature for the some five million acres the organization protects and manages in the Rocky Mountain region, and through conservation easements, develop a value-for-value relationship with ranchers.
Encouraged by new frontiers for conservation in Colorado, Bedford stepped up to the podium to discuss examples of how conservation easements have provided answers for a variety of conservation questions, but says that we’re facing a precarious time as many ranchers (about 50%) move quickly toward retirement age and find themselves in increasing positions to sell to the highest bidder, as development accelerates in the state at a rate of 35,000 acres per year. “There’s a joke that says water runs uphill toward the money,” he said last night. “Over the last one hundred years or so, nature hasn’t had a seat at that table.”
The Nature Conservancy, he says, is giving that seat back.
Habitat loss and fragmentation was the subject of Pague’s discussion, pointing out that separating habitat results in more than just a footprint measurement, but a much larger picture that bleeds out into the edges of the affected area. But protecting living resources, he said, includes protecting the human cultures that support them, and he too hopes we can find the right balance between economics and ecology: “The economy of the west can include compatible growth that retains sustainable ecological services.”
Pague says it’s important to step back and bring scientific data into the debates about fragmentation, habitat destruction and conservation, as it’s easy to find biased information from either side of the issue.
The evening continued with panel discussion on biodiversity from a variety of field and academic experts. New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Cabinet Secretary Joanna Prukop discussed the need for collaboration and leveraging in biodiversity preservation, and student researcher Amanda Strauss presented related data from the 2006 State of the Rockies Report Card. Challenge essay talks included the topics of endangered species by Randy Simmons, professor of political science at Utah State University, and the challenges of invasive species from Anna Sher, professor of conservation biology at the University of Denver. Simply removing invasive weeds, she says, doesn’t solve the underlying problem – we need to restore functioning ecosystems and discover what’s responsible for the invasion.
In his presentation, Simmons sought to challenge a variety of common misconceptions about nature and endangered species, noting that nature is not the highly structured and balanced entity many consider it to be, and that it hasn't been thrown into chaos only by modern human impact. In large contrast to popular environmentalist arguments, Simmons suggests that impact on nature can be traced as far back as early native settlements.
Panelists across the board seemed to agree that, despite the tendency among us to ‘choose sides’ and either demonize or applaud development and population growth, there was a strong hope that both sides of the coin could be tapped for best practices and a plan to move forward in that spirit was very possible in our region, but the answers remain elusive.
Discussion: Efforts are underway and succeeding in our region, albeit slowly, to preserve natural habitat, protect wild spaces and to reduce impact on biodiversity. But how will we make conservation last in the face of ever-growing populations and widespread development pressures?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
It's simple mathematics. More people = less nature. We can (and should) do everything possible within reason to mitigate our impact on natural landscapes where we live, but ultimately, if our numbers continue to increase, we will eventually overrun the places we love. Nothing in the long run, short of reducing our population, can change this.
What astounds me is how few us are willing to openly acknowledge this seemingly simple fact. The vast majority of economists (generally a bright lot) seem to have no conception of how to view the world unless there is "growth". The immigration "debate" ignores to simple, race-neutral fact that allowing more immigrants means expanding populations and greater development pressures, regardless of where the people come from or what their motives are.
Finally, I would urge everyone to read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse". It really spells out the importance of foresight and courage in making difficult decisions as a society in order to preserve the long term viability of the society. Very enlightening.
An example: Joanna Prokup, the New Mexico cabinet secretary, used the Western sage grouse as an example of how states and local governments got on the stick to protect habitat. In her version, this shows how the ESA could be changed to encourage such efforts. In my view, it was the looming ESA itself that forced action (and it remains to be seen how effective those local and regional efforts will be). I don't really see that the local and state efforts referenced by Prokup would have occurred without the ESA. That's not to say it can't be improved. We all know there need to be more assurances and incentives for private landowners to make it work in the long run.
But it appears that, increasingly, the science is telling us to take an ecosystem management and conservation approach. That means looking beyond habitat for a single species and trying to manage for an array of plants and animals.
I'm all for regional and state efforts, but another effective tool could be a management overlay in the form of a Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Protection Act that would still allow for state and regional management that takes into account local communities, while still providing a big picture framework. We've done this on the national level with coastal ecosystems, so why not the mountains?
Maybe today's panel on regional politics is a place to start addressing this idea. If we can put local politics aside and recognize that there are overriding common interests in this area, we will have taken a big step.