Out here, there isn’t any black and white- just ever-increasing shades of grey
Guest post by Clemson Montana Summer Program student Brett Jenkinson
After the entirety of the final section of this course, American Prairie Reserve manager Damian Austin phrased my thoughts quite concisely when he said, “Out here, there isn’t any black and white- just ever-increasing shades of grey.” Up until this, I saw most of the issues presented in this unit as either on one side or the other, as either pro-ranching or pro-wildlife. I thought that you couldn’t be both mostly because the complexity of managing the two was a perpetual battle that I wasn’t sure anybody could win. On the contrary, after meeting with people from both sides of this grapple that has engulfed the people and land of the Great Plains, I feel more confident that multiple aspects of both ranching lifestyle and conservation can one day find a common ground, not because either side will willingly do so, but because they won’t have much of a choice to in the future.
I learned that the debate on land use and management comes from two basic sides: ranchers, here represented by the Rancher’s Stewardship Alliance (RSA), and conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the American Prairie Reserve (APR). What I didn’t know is that even groups on the same side can have disagreements and different models of conservation. But this can be favorable, as US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Randy Matchett explained to us, internal conflict can create different models of conservation that will benefit the wildlife more overall than just one model. Examples of these different models are seen in TNC and the APR. TNC uses a model that allows ranchers to use land owned by TNC to graze their cattle if they have a wildlife species of interest on their own property. If they meet this criterion, then an agreement can be reached to protect the wildlife on the rancher’s property, and in turn, a discount will be awarded to their grazing price on TNC property. For example, if sage grouse are discovered on a rancher’s property, they can lease grazing land at a discounted rate from TNC with the agreement to take steps to conserve the populations of sage grouse on their own ranch. On the other end of the conservation spectrum is the model that serves the APR. In this case, the APR seeks to buy large tracts of land that are for sale, using a “willing buyer, willing seller” model, and designates them as reserve land for wildlife. Their goal is to eventually get to 5.5 million acres of protected land including the already established Charles M. Russel Wildlife Refuge of 1.1 million acres. Both of these entities have an ultimate goal of wildlife protection and conservation, but each acknowledges that their systems are indeed very different and do not see the other as “right” or “wrong.”
However, driving to the APR reserve, the van passed two signs that read, “Don’t Buffalo Me”, a clear objection to what the APR is doing to ranchers’ property throughout Phillips County. We met Ranchers Stewardship Alliance (RSA) members Clyde and Jim Robinson, along with Buddy Walsh and Leo, who wasted no time in relating their displeasure with the APR and their mad dash for what appeared to them as a federal land-grab under the disguise of claiming private property. They said that the updated contract to lease grazing land on the APR was insulting and outrageous, so they terminated their lease. They also claimed that it was near impossible to outbid the APR for a piece of land because they received virtually limitless amounts of funding and donations from domestic and foreign sources. Damian disputed this claim, saying that the APR had clear limits on how much they could spend on land, although these prices were unspecified. The ranchers also stated that the federal land grab was driving communities and towns bankrupt and into economic hardships. Damian also disputed this and most of the other theories the ranchers had. Another aspect of the conversation I noted was that the Robinson’s said that they loved seeing wildlife on their property just as much as anyone else, and they had no objections to it being on their property, except when it’s a nuisance. It is interesting to me that the APR continues to lease land to ranchers for grazing. I think that this, in the future, could possibly be a common ground for the ranchers and APR to get along. Both representatives from the APR and the RSA seem to care deeply for wildlife on their property, with the difference being that the APR seeks to manage their land for the single use of wildlife, whereas ranchers and TNC see a better model in working directly with ranchers and not ousting them from their land completely.
Separate from even these two sides of the debate, yet impossible to disregard, is the way tribal communities handle conservation efforts. Michael from the Fort Belknap Reservation seemed to me to have the most favorable chances of rescuing the black-footed ferret out of all the attempts I have heard about. In my opinion, this can be attributed to the uniqueness that a tribal community possesses in terms of their relationship with wildlife. The Gros Ventre have a spiritual and cultural tie to the ferret, once the most endangered mammal in North America, which adds the support of the entire community to the effort, and not just the few biologists working on the project. In contrast, conservation efforts of the APR and TNC usually have at least some sort of disagreement or opposition, but it seems these attempts on tribal lands are met with almost unanimous approval and enthusiasm from high-ranking tribal members, because the people whose land the animals are on actually care about the animals themselves and value their presence.
Overall, I think that the ranching lifestyle will have to find a way to adapt and manage their land more efficiently, which they have been doing recently, in order to coexist with the increasing pressure to preserve wildlife that may not be here for much longer if managed incorrectly. But in turn, conservation agencies will also have to do their part and accommodate for the fact that agriculture is the backbone of our society and is essentially what feeds all 370 million of the American people. Even considering the fragile animals and unique habitat at stake, it is impossible to ignore the growing demands of the people that live on this continent. So, at least for now, the shades of grey continue to grow deeper and increasingly blurred as the controversy continues.
After the entirety of the final section of this course, American Prairie Reserve manager Damian Austin phrased my thoughts quite concisely when he said, “Out here, there isn’t any black and white- just ever-increasing shades of grey.” Up until this, I saw most of the issues presented in this unit as either on one side or the other, as either pro-ranching or pro-wildlife. I thought that you couldn’t be both mostly because the complexity of managing the two was a perpetual battle that I wasn’t sure anybody could win. On the contrary, after meeting with people from both sides of this grapple that has engulfed the people and land of the Great Plains, I feel more confident that multiple aspects of both ranching lifestyle and conservation can one day find a common ground, not because either side will willingly do so, but because they won’t have much of a choice to in the future.
I learned that the debate on land use and management comes from two basic sides: ranchers, here represented by the Rancher’s Stewardship Alliance (RSA), and conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the American Prairie Reserve (APR). What I didn’t know is that even groups on the same side can have disagreements and different models of conservation. But this can be favorable, as US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Randy Matchett explained to us, internal conflict can create different models of conservation that will benefit the wildlife more overall than just one model. Examples of these different models are seen in TNC and the APR. TNC uses a model that allows ranchers to use land owned by TNC to graze their cattle if they have a wildlife species of interest on their own property. If they meet this criterion, then an agreement can be reached to protect the wildlife on the rancher’s property, and in turn, a discount will be awarded to their grazing price on TNC property. For example, if sage grouse are discovered on a rancher’s property, they can lease grazing land at a discounted rate from TNC with the agreement to take steps to conserve the populations of sage grouse on their own ranch. On the other end of the conservation spectrum is the model that serves the APR. In this case, the APR seeks to buy large tracts of land that are for sale, using a “willing buyer, willing seller” model, and designates them as reserve land for wildlife. Their goal is to eventually get to 5.5 million acres of protected land including the already established Charles M. Russel Wildlife Refuge of 1.1 million acres. Both of these entities have an ultimate goal of wildlife protection and conservation, but each acknowledges that their systems are indeed very different and do not see the other as “right” or “wrong.”
However, driving to the APR reserve, the van passed two signs that read, “Don’t Buffalo Me”, a clear objection to what the APR is doing to ranchers’ property throughout Phillips County. We met Ranchers Stewardship Alliance (RSA) members Clyde and Jim Robinson, along with Buddy Walsh and Leo, who wasted no time in relating their displeasure with the APR and their mad dash for what appeared to them as a federal land-grab under the disguise of claiming private property. They said that the updated contract to lease grazing land on the APR was insulting and outrageous, so they terminated their lease. They also claimed that it was near impossible to outbid the APR for a piece of land because they received virtually limitless amounts of funding and donations from domestic and foreign sources. Damian disputed this claim, saying that the APR had clear limits on how much they could spend on land, although these prices were unspecified. The ranchers also stated that the federal land grab was driving communities and towns bankrupt and into economic hardships. Damian also disputed this and most of the other theories the ranchers had. Another aspect of the conversation I noted was that the Robinson’s said that they loved seeing wildlife on their property just as much as anyone else, and they had no objections to it being on their property, except when it’s a nuisance. It is interesting to me that the APR continues to lease land to ranchers for grazing. I think that this, in the future, could possibly be a common ground for the ranchers and APR to get along. Both representatives from the APR and the RSA seem to care deeply for wildlife on their property, with the difference being that the APR seeks to manage their land for the single use of wildlife, whereas ranchers and TNC see a better model in working directly with ranchers and not ousting them from their land completely.
Overall, I think that the ranching lifestyle will have to find a way to adapt and manage their land more efficiently, which they have been doing recently, in order to coexist with the increasing pressure to preserve wildlife that may not be here for much longer if managed incorrectly. But in turn, conservation agencies will also have to do their part and accommodate for the fact that agriculture is the backbone of our society and is essentially what feeds all 370 million of the American people. Even considering the fragile animals and unique habitat at stake, it is impossible to ignore the growing demands of the people that live on this continent. So, at least for now, the shades of grey continue to grow deeper and increasingly blurred as the controversy continues.
