Triumph over Tragedy - PUBLIC PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE AMERICAN COMMONS

By Ron Moody

     Most people of this country own private property in some form. Few American citizens realize, however, that they also are equal co-shareholders in a vast, complex and immensely valuable PUBLIC property estate. 

     The parcels of this estate are called by a number of names: national park, national forest, national wildlife refuge, state wildlife management area, monuments, etc. The largest single public landholding is that administered by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – some 276 million acres by this one federal agency alone.

     Parcels of the public estate are managed for the citizen-owners by every level of government, national, state and local.

     Sadly, because people don’t know about their public property portfolio, they don’t realize that the value of their national public estate is in great and continuous jeopardy from private interests who would profit at public expense. 

     Everyone is familiar with the old parable titled “The TRAGEDY of the Commons.” That story tells a tale of a village public pasture which is owned in common by everybody in the community. The pasture is overgrazed – the story goes - into a desert waste because nobody has a reason to conserve the resource because nobody has an ownership motivation.

     American history does indeed record stories of just such tragedies – the whole Industrial Revolution is punctuated with them. Certainly, the early years of cattle grazing on the northern plains, before land management laws were enacted, is one such tale.

     Another parable – one that is actual USA history – is seldom or never told. That parable is of the “TRIUMPH of the Commons.” This tale is the actual history of the invention of conservation and its development and leadership by the American people. This triumph of the national will has produced the wild-life, wild-waters and wild-land miracle that anybody can go out and see around us today. 

     The American triumph of the commons was an act of deliberate, intelligent, forceful citizenship exercised across a half dozen generations and always against continuing, powerful political opposition  – yet, too many Americans today think it just happened by chance and ‘those wild critters have just always been there.’ 

 

     We call this democratically inspired miracle ‘conservation’ -- a new word invented for the English language because the North American resource management system it represents had no precedent in human history and thus no label that could be extended to our new way of governing resource use. or, ‘wise use.’ 

     We Americans are champion problem solvers. When confronted with the “tragedy of the commons” on the American frontier, we solved the problem by inventing the “public trustee” to take authority over the people’s property and manage it wisely so that we can use it and conserve it at the same time. The “trustee” appointed by the people for the management task is our government – local, state and federal.

     Indeed, what loss of value of our public resources that does occur typically comes via the influence and effect of converting our state and national public properties into private hands – ‘unwise use.’ 

     A major reason the parable of the ‘Triumph of the Commons’ is less often told than that of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ is simply because people who want to take personal profit from our public resources use the negative parable as propaganda to persuade the American people to surrender part or all of their public ownership rights.

     Tragedy is a persuasive parable when you meet it in the context of our national obsession, spanning two centuries, to seize, occupy and exploit the North American continent. Manifest Destiny has been our brightest cultural light from pilgrim days to the present, and expanding private property rights always was a hallmark of the national idea of Manifest Destiny.

     A key difference from the Old World Order that our American forefathers made in their time was to assert that all people, even the most ordinary, have rights of private ownership that can’t be legally taken away without just compensation. 

     In feudal Europe, the King owned everything and the people were merely tenants. The American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution changed all that in the United States. 'We The People' became our own sovereign. And we set out at the very beginning to protect our individual rights from any future kings or despots. There is no more strongly held value today among the American people than that of ‘private property rights.’

     As long as there was more public property available than there were Americans to exploit it nobody paid much attention to preserving some of the public resource for the future. About the time that we realized that we had seized, occupied and were in the process of exploiting everything from sea-to-sea, a few people began to speak out for holding back parts of the continent from private ownership in order to preserve it unspoiled for future generations. And that is just what ‘We The People’ did. Every time you set foot on a national park or forest, or wildlife refuge, state management area or any of several other public trust properties you are receiving the gift of foresight from citizens who came before you – we are the ‘future generation’ they saved for.

     From this 19^th Century public outcry came the National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, state lands and other elements of the public estate that we continue to own in common today as a nation of people equal before our laws.

     One important part of our American Conservation Movement has lagged behind, however. And the lagging of that part leaves the door open to actual tragedy on the American commons. 

     That ‘part’ is the education of the American people to the fact that they are responsible as owners of public property - even though its held in common under direct supervision of hired help we call a trustee. Yes, it’s true, in addition to being the owners of their personal private property; American citizens have to participate in the management of their public estate. 

     One thing that private property and public property have in common is that: "if you want to keep it you had better keep your eye on it." Pickpockets are everywhere.

     Preserving the value of our public property demands the same diligence as does preserving the value of private property. Just because the people have created a ‘trustee’ in the form of laws and government agencies to administer the laws does not mean the people don’t have to constantly keep a sharp eye out for those who would take unjust value from us - including the occasional wayward trustee. 

     Turn your back for an instant and the private ‘Takers’ start telling the public Trustee

what to do. The economic interests I call ‘Takers’ will slice a piece of value such as unsustainable resource extraction off here and block an ownership right such as access by locking you out there. And they will try to persuade you, Jane and John Public, to believe their taking is for your own good so that the alleged “tragedy of the commons” doesn’t occur – even as they are leading you directly down the path away from triumph and toward tragedy.

     Assertion of public property rights in our national conversation is the effort to wake people up to the value of their public land, water, wildlife, wilderness, air and mineral property birthright – and to act on their responsibility as citizen-owners of the public estate.

     Ownership without owner engagement inevitably leads to property (and rights) lost.

     The great irony is that resistance to recognition of public property rights comes entirely from ostensible champions of private property rights. Proper, lawful enjoyment by the people of their public property rights does not subtract one iota of lawful value from the private property nearby but you would never know that from listening to the incendiary rhetoric of ‘land grabs’ and ‘socialism’ thrown at every exercise of public rights.

     In reality, the only ‘value’ the private property owner stands to lose is any public property value they have previously taken from the public when he or she has encroached, ‘borrowed’, diverted, locked off or otherwise claimed until challenged by outraged members of the public. On the other hand, enhancing value of one property in a neighborhood also enhances the value of adjacent properties. Public and private property rights are mutually complimentary where people are intent on being good neighbors rather than becoming value competitors.

     The creation of public property and the assertion by the people of their authority to appoint a trustee and control their property is the genesis of our National Triumph of the Commons. The people should not surrender their public property rights with less regret than they would feel for loss for all other personal rights civil and inalienable.

Smart Ranching – Good for cows, good for predators, good for ranchers

A BullMooseGazette Special Report

By Ron Moody

The program was advertised as a discussion by experts on non-lethal methods of preventing livestock losses to large carnivores such as wolves with an emphasis on use of ‘Livestock Protection Dog.’

    The real news of the evening, however, turned out to be up-close reports of the strong connection between cow-friendly methods of rangeland management and predator loss prevention - along with a new interest of federal Wildlife Services officials in adding non-lethal methods to their uniformly lethal game book. 

    The discussion took place in Bozeman, Tuesday, October 29, during a program sponsored by ‘Enhancing Montana’s Wildlife & Habitat (EMWH),’ a collaborative conservation project founded by Kathryn QannaYahu of Bozeman. (http://www.emwh.org/ )

    Participating were Representatives of federal and state agencies, private non-profit conservation groups and ‘predator friendly’ livestock producers.

    Commercial cattle herds typically spread out across their available pastures; a natural behavior when not threatened by predators, noted Matt Barnes, a former cattleman and field director for rangeland stewardship at Keystone Conservation. “But this makes them vulnerable to being killed by large carnivores.”

    When a prey species like cattle, muskox or bison cluster together they are much more able to fend off an attacking wolf or bear and this is an instinctual behavior among wild ungulates, Barnes said. “Can this be used on domestic livestock to reduce conflicts with predators?”

    The answer is yes, according to Barnes, and, in a happy coincidence of interests, training cattle to graze in close groups, rather than loose dispersals, opens other opportunities to the livestock producer for better rangeland health and high profits through higher stocking rates on the same amount of acreage.

    But training cattle to an unfamiliar new behavior initially requires extra effort on the part of the livestock producer, Barnes added.

Low Stress Stockmanship

    Advocating ‘low stress stockmanship,’ Hilary Zaranek, is a range rider working for an experimental ranching project near Yellowstone Park. She is one of those tasked with doing the extra work of teaching cows to herd together.

    “There is real labor, some significant work, at the beginning. But it really pays off as you go along,” she said.  “At first you have to move the cattle every day; but soon they learn the new routine of staying close where you put them and that becomes what they want to do. Then you can put them up on the hill where the best grass is and they will stay there for several days.”

    In terms of a lower predator-loss pay off, Zaranek cited the experience of six cattle herds in her program.  “Of the six, the three herds handled most often lost no calves to predators. The three herds handled least all lost calves.”

    And then there is the financial reward of low stress handling to the rancher.

    “Scattered cattle creates the need for high-stress handling methods,” she said. “And stress in cows means lower weight gains and lighter calves.” Weight translates into cash when the rancher takes his or her product to market.

    In this context training cattle to herd close “has nothing to do with wolves,” she added, “it’s just good business.”

    Both Barnes and Zaranek pointed to training cattle to herd close as essential for making modern rest-rotation grazing plans actually work to improve forage quality and rangeland health. 

    Long rests and short, intense grazing periods are key, Barnes said. Doing that means being able to quickly move cattle between pastures – a benefit of training the stock. A rest-rotation properly done can allow higher stocking rates because the plants are able to come back faster and stronger after being grazed.

Going To The Dogs

    As planned, the Tuesday EMWH program went to the dogs as the discussion progressed.

    The Wildlife Services Division of APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) is famously identified with killing animals deemed pests to agricultural interests. In a dramatic departure from its routinely lethal activities, the federal agency is engaging in extensive research into non-lethal methodology by use of guard dogs, according to APHIS officials at the meeting.

    APHIS Researcher Julie Young described the efforts by her agency to import new strains of wolf-grade guard dogs from their native European countries and test them in American landscapes. “We are focusing on ‘Adaptive Protection Management,” she said.

    The ‘adaptive’ part, she said, refers to changing predator behavior, changing cow behavior, and, perhaps most importantly, changing human behavior. 

    Use of guard dogs to protect livestock from predators is now a widespread practice in the Rocky Mountain West. “Dogs are one of the most accepted non-lethal methods of reducing predator losses, and also one of the most effective,” said Michael Marlow, head of APHIS research in use of guard dogs.

    But there is a down side with dogs getting into conflicts with humans – particularly in the West’s expanding urban-rural interface, according to Marlow. He cited a case in California when a cyclist was attacked by a guard dog while riding through a herd of sheep – an activity the dogs apparently viewed as a threat to ‘his’ sheep.

    He also described conflicts with pets in neighboring subdivisions and even cases where hikers picked up guard dogs and turned them into local animal shelters as lost.

    “Public education is crucial to making use of guard dogs more successful and conflict-free,” he said.

“Leave Them Alone”

    Professional dog trainer Peggy Duezabou of Canyon Creek introduced the audience to two of her Akbash dogs, Azor and Colt, both of whom appeared capable of competing with wolves in the heavy-weight division.

    “When you see one of these dogs out on the landscape, leave it alone,” She urged.       “The dog is at work doing its job.” And above all don’t do anything the dog could interpret as an attack on the livestock it is protecting. 

    Becky Weed of Belgrade, a woolgrower who had used ‘predator friendly’ methods including guard dogs for 18 years, concluded the program with first-person insights into the new livestock producing landscape. 

    “Wildlife Services is doing research on non-lethal methods,” she said. “But it is hard to do rigorous, scientific research on something like livestock losses to predators.

    “The whole business of being ‘predator friendly’ is about adaptation to change. It means reading a complicated code of relationships between cattle, wild animals, people and dogs.

    “In the end, if you want something to work you can make it work,” Weed said.

WILD BISON ON THE MONTANA PRAIRIE? MAYBE. BUT WHAT IS WILD?

A BullMooseGazette Special Report

By Ron Moody

September 29, 2013

Whether or not returning wild American bison to some meaningful presence in Montana outside the Yellowstone area is politically possible was debated during a two-day conference convened in Lewistown last week, Sept 26-27, by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

FWP Director Jeff Hagener emphasized at the beginning the meeting was not to be a decision-making event rather a “good discussion of opportunity. Can we explore some common values or are we at a dead end?”

By the end of the session on Friday, however, at least one agreement had evolved to a virtual decision. There will be no free-roaming bison in Montana for any foreseeable future.

A debate ensued on what it means for bison to be ‘wild’ but not free-roaming. This raised the question of fencing and other containment methods. 

The most frequently mentioned location for an initial bison re-introduction in the prairie region is within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge Manager Rick Potts reported to the group that the Department of Interior wants no more ‘high fence’ management areas in its wildlife refuge system. “They create more wildlife problems than they solve,” Potts said.

This does not mean, however, that U.S. Fish & Wildlife would not consider other, more natural, methods of containment, Potts added. He also emphasized that the federal agency will do nothing about bison restoration without the leadership of the State of Montana.

Another extended discussion revolved around the question of whether bison should be managed as wildlife at all or as livestock regulated by the State Department of Livestock. The trend of debate, however, moved in the direction of talking about bison as public wildlife simply because private owners of livestock bison are not affected by FWP rules and are already free to manage their animals as they see fit.

Participating in the discussion were ranchers and farmers, MT Stockgrowers and Farm Bureau, two county commissioners both of whom also are ranchers, four state legislators - three with ag interests, representatives of three environmental organizations, two FWP commissioners (one of whom also spoke as a tribal member and the other as a rancher) and state and federal agency personnel. 

No sportsmen were included in the panel and one place set for a tribal representative was vacant. The absence of a hunter representative is ironic since sportsmen license dollars evidently financed the event.

The three environmental groups were the Wildlife Conservation Society, The National Wildlife Federation and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

The discussion among interest-group participants was uniformly cordial. The temperature level, however, was considerably higher during the public comment period Thursday afternoon.  Ranching groups had urged members to show up and speak out. Several dozen did so with passionate denunciations of the whole idea of bison restoration with particular venom toward the idea of free-roaming bison and out-of-state meddling. “Fix Yellowstone First” was a common theme.

Only three public commenters identified themselves as hunters, and two others spoke for the tourist industry value of viewing bison as wildlife.

Working under the direction of Facilitator Ginny Tribe the participants developed recommendations for topics of future value should FWP decide to continue with an effort to develop a bison conservation plan for Montana.

First was to offer ideas for a ‘pilot’ or ‘test’ project for bison restoration somewhere in Montana’s prairie counties. Second was to create a set of possible guiding principles that would set the limits of FWP’s decision space in moving on bison conservation. Third was to identify mutual agreements or constraints on what a bison restoration proposal should look like. Fourth was the question of what roles the often conflicting public interests in bison should play in any future process.

A pilot (test) project, according to the first work group, should evaluate restoration and management of bison as wildlife.  Some debate over the choice of names ensued after St Senator Jim Peterson asked that it be called a ‘test’ rather than a ‘pilot’ project because the word ‘pilot’ implies the project would lead to subsequent projects. 

The project, they said, also should have a defined territory, time limit and number of bison involved.  An ‘adaptive management’ method should be used with qualified research and management. Landowners should be involved along with incentives for landowners.  The group also listing other elements: a public hunting opportunity, compensation for property damage, annual reporting, cost accounting and a reliable funding source. Also cited were: Exit strategy defined and determination of what qualifies as success, and a contingency plan for catastrophic conditions.

Guiding principles proposed for any FWP bison conservation process were offered by a work group. First was that expectations of the project on the part of the public should be carefully managed. Other principles included: adherence to laws, respect for private property rights, show how any unanticipated problems will be solved and local working groups should be used to flesh out a specific plan in a given location.

Other principles proposed were that desired outcomes are clear with open, honest communication and commitment. The plan should manage bison as wildlife.  A FWP plan should target a population of bison at least partly on public land that is available for public hunting.

Mutual agreements at this point among the conference participants included:

1.     The idea of ‘free-roaming’ bison is impractical and overly divisive and should be dropped from the discussion.

2.     Any bison planning process must include a clear method for adjusting the plan along the way to ensure objectives are met.

3.     Any test project or bison placement must include a containment plan that meet current state law and thus contains some fencing.

4.     Any publicly owned bison being managed must be certified disease free with continuing monitoring to ensure good health.

5.     Comingling of public bison with nearby private bison herds is to be avoided.

6.     Public hunting should be recognized as a public good and as a legitimate primary management tool.

A public process for bison restoration was described by another work group.

The planning process needs a timeline that has a reasonable end point, they said, it can’t go on forever.  Also, more involvement of sportsmen and tribal interests should be included. And finally, that ‘free roaming’ should be removed from the process and ‘containment’ should be included.

FWP Director Hagener, when summing up the meeting, said “important progress has been made. We will now have to take what we’ve learned here and go back and try to figure out how we should proceed.”