Tag Archives: prairie conservation

Dating Sites for Prairies?

Posted on by
20

One of the biggest, but rarely talked about threats to prairie conservation comes during transitions of land ownership. I’m frequently approached by people who have poured their heart and soul into restoring and/or managing a nice parcel of land and are wrestling with how to make sure their investment isn’t squandered after they’re gone. I think about the same issue with my own family prairie, though I hope I have many decades before the issue becomes urgent.

Our family prairie stayed in the family after my grandparents died because their kids (my dad and his sisters) made it a priority and I was willing and able to take it over its stewardship. I don’t know if any of my kids or their kids will be interested or able to take it when it’s time. That’s definitely a big worry of mine, and many other landowners have similar worries.

Conservation easements are a tool that can provide some help, and they are absolutely valuable in landscapes where prairies are rapidly being turned into crop land. However, easements don’t address all threats and come with a number of complications and disadvantages. If you’re not familiar with conservation easements, they are essentially a legal agreement made between a landowner and a land trust organization in which the landowner gives or sells certain land rights to the land trust. A landowner might agree, for example, not to ever construct a building on the site, till the land for crops, or do other things that would destroy the prairie or threaten the conservation value of the property. That agreement becomes legally binding and is attached to the deed so that all future landowners have to abide by the same restrictions (for the length of the easement, which is often perpetual). Typically, those restrictions are difficult, if not impossible, to alter once everything has been signed.

Easements can help eliminate some clear threats to prairies such as housing development or tillage, but easements are not well-designed to ensure that current or future landowners control invasive plants or otherwise manage the site to benefit plant diversity or habitat quality. A prairie destroyed by chronic overgrazing or invasive trees is just as destroyed as it would be by conversion to a soybean field, but most easements can’t protect against those first two threats.

It’s very difficult to use any kind of legal contract to dictate how a prairie should be managed for the long-term. Challenges to prairies change over time, as do our best ideas about how to address them. Easements, however, are static and inflexible. We need a better option.

A conservation easement could prevent a house from being built on this prairie but can’t force a future landowner to suppress invasive plants or prevent them from managing in a way that damages its biodiversity.

The crux of this issue is that every landowner wants to know that the next landowner will do their best to take care of the property. Sometimes, that assurance comes because land is transferred to a family member who has already invested time, energy and passion into the property. Often, however, family members are uninterested or unable to own or manage the land, so the current owner has to look elsewhere.

What if there was a kind of online dating site for prairie owners and conservation-minded people looking to purchase a prairie? There are myriad ways this could be handled, but the basic idea is that someone looking for a successor could post information about their prairie and the kinds of work they’ve invested in it. Meanwhile, potential buyers could post a profile of themselves that outlines their interest and (potentially) expertise in prairie ownership and conservation. If two people see each other as potential partners, they could set up ways to further explore that relationship.

There are lots of ways to help this idea succeed, including training and certification programs for prospective buyers, educational and financial assistance for both current and future owners, and many others. Clearly, there are also many ways this model could fail, but if even if it only works in some cases, it seems a lot better than our current lack of options. If every passionate prairie owner passes their site on to another passionate prairie owner, it creates a self-perpetuating chain of land protection based on relationships and trust. The model could work equally well for both tiny prairies in the eastern tallgrass prairie and large ranches in the west.

This piece of Sandhills prairie is owned by The Nature Conservancy, and that should keep it conserved. However, TNC and other conservation organizations can and should own a limited amount of land. Many private landowners do a terrific job of prairie conservation and just need help finding someone who will take on that mantle when they’re done.

Legally-binding land protection strategies are typically expensive and limited in scope and effectiveness. Conservation organizations can only buy and manage so many parcels of land, and too much conservation and/or government ownership creates significant social friction in some landscapes. Easements can protect against some threats, but not others, and placing long-term or permanent restrictions on land isn’t a desired solution for many landowners.

Simply helping landowners find appropriate successors for their land seems like a potentially valuable addition to the currently available options. Whether that comes in the form of an online dating-style website or something completely different, I love the idea of helping people find someone they can trust to carry on a conservation legacy. I don’t love it enough to set something up myself, because that kind of thing is not my strength. However, I’d sure be happy if someone else wanted to step up and do it! (Or let me know if something like this already exists – I can’t be the only one thinking along these lines.)

Concerns about EARTH A New Wild’s Messages About Grassland Conservation

Posted on by
27

I know that many of you watched the first two episodes of EARTH A New Wild last week on Public Television, including Episode 2: Plains.  I watched as well, and while I was glad for the attention paid to grasslands, I also had some concerns about the content of the Plains episode.  If you didn’t see it, you can watch it here.

The recent measles outbreaks in the United States have been the topic of much discussion lately.  While there is a great deal of finger pointing going on regarding vaccinations, I worry that a bigger issue is being ignored; in today’s noisy world, it is very difficult for the public to know what information is based on good science and what is not. The growth of the anti-vaccination movement is a good showcase of the issue, but the problem is much broader, spanning topics from climate change to dietary supplements.  It often seems that anyone with charisma and/or a loud voice can gain credibility and a following, especially if they are promoting a message that feeds people’s fears or tells them what they want to hear.  Cutthroat politics and a desire among media outlets for provocative stories both stoke the fire, and there is almost no way for the average citizen to sort truth from propaganda.

As a scientist who spends a lot of time and effort communicating about science, this is something I really struggle with.  I try really hard to present only the best information I can, and to distinguish between facts, assumptions, and opinions.  At the same time, I do have an agenda – I want to see prairies conserved, and I feel strongly that factors such as biodiversity, habitat heterogeneity, and ecological resilience are critically important.  While there is a lot of research that backs up those assumptions, I still have to acknowledge my biases, and I try to be careful not to pass off opinions as science.  It’s very difficult.

All of this is leads back to my main topic of this post; my disappointment in the Plains episode of EARTH A New Wild that aired on Public Television last week.  I was disappointed with the program because I thought it presented a very one-sided perspective on some ideas, and their promoter, Allan Savory, that are very complex and widely disputed. To be fair, the narrator of the series, M. Sanjayan, did mention that Savory and some of his theories are controversial, but not that numerous scientists and studies have actually contradicted those theories.  Instead, he appeared to endorse Savory’s ideas, and much of the episode explored how they could be applied in grasslands around the world.  I welcome any attention paid to prairie conservation issues, but I felt the Plains episode led people to believe that the strategies it advocated were better supported by science than they really are.

My intent with this blog post is not to discredit or disprove the theories and ideas promoted by Savory or the Plains episode.  Instead, I want to provide additional information that I hope will help round out some of the topics presented in the episode and facilitate a productive discussion among those who watched it.  The following are a few pieces of information I feel are important to be aware of as you consider the potential value and application of the ideas presented in last week’s show.

Controversy over Savory’s Big Ideas

  • Allan Savory gave a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talk back in 2013 that gained a lot of attention because of its assertion that “planned grazing” was necessary to reverse desertification and climate change. In fact, he claimed that his method of intensive, concentrated grazing is the only viable solution to reverse those two processes.  The most specific rebuttal (among many) to that talk was published by five eminent grassland scientists in a Society for Range Management journal (Rangelands 35(5):72-74. 2013).  The rebuttal addresses each of the main claims made in the TED talk and refutes them.  Unfortunately, the article is not available online to those who don’t have a subscription allowing access to SRM publications.  A brief summary and links to some responses to the rebuttal are included at the end of this post if you’re interested.
  • There were many other critiques and rebuttals of Savory’s TED talk, including one by George Monbiot in The Guardian and another by James E. McWilliams in Slate.  Both echo many of the points made in the Rangelands rebuttal, and also provide links to other information, including numerous scientific studies that refute both Savory’s TED talk claims and the broader success of his Holistic Management grazing practices.  You can read a rebuttal to Monbiot on the website of the Savory Institute.
  • To be fair, it’s important to separate Savory’s “bolder” theories about desertification and climate change from his more moderate Holistic Management and planned grazing ideas, which have been incorporated by a segment of the ranching community across the world.  Among other things, Holistic Management encourages careful planning and monitoring, which is certainly positive, but its proponents also tend to promote the use of higher stocking rates than many rangeland scientists feel are sustainable.  The results of scientific studies evaluating the results of Holistic Management and planned grazing have been decidely mixed.  Some studies have supported Savory’s theories, but many others showed that planned grazing either didn’t deliver the promised benefits or performed less well than other grazing systems.   As is typical in the scientific process, more data needs to be collected and research projects need to be repeated to resolve the inconsistent findings so far.  In the meantime, however, it seems premature to conclude that Savory’s grazing strategies are obviously and significantly better than other options.
  • Allan Savory is vocal about his distaste for the use of fire for managing grasslands and excludes it from his land management recommendations. Coincidentally, there was no mention of fire in the entire Plains episode, despite it being one of the three major forces that control grassland ecosystems (along with grazing and drought).  An example of Savory’s thoughts on fire can be found in a quote from An Overview of Holistic Management and Holistic Decision Making from the Savory Institute’s website, which says that fire “pollutes the atmosphere and exposes soil contributing to desertification/climate change.”  Climate change and its contributing factors comprise a very complex web, and I sure can’t say that fire is not part of that web, but it’s also important to consider the way fire affects carbon in the atmosphere, a topic I covered in an earlier blog post.  Of course, fire can have both negative and positive consequences, as can any management tool, depending upon the way it is applied.  However, most people working in prairie conservation feel that prescribed fire is a very important tool, and there is abundant research that supports that view.  One synthesis of that research can be found here, and Chapter 4 (page 29) deals with central North America, in particular.

The Complex Issue of Prairie Dogs

  • During the segment on prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets, the Plains episode highlighted the ability of prairie dogs to increase the health of grasslands. They create habitat for other species by burrowing, and grazing/clipping of vegetation by prairie dogs can increase the forage quality of grassland areas.  All of that is true and important.  However, research also shows that prairie dogs can change the composition of a plant community in ways that lower forage quality and/or quantity available for livestock and other animals.  As a result, there is strong evidence that prairie dogs can compete with livestock for forage.
  • I was disappointed that the Plains episode focused only on the positive aspects of prairie dogs, especially because it also talked about (and showed) ranchers working to eradicate prairie dogs without really explaining why.  Balancing the ecological benefits of prairie dogs with the economic impacts they can have to ranchers is a key component of prairie conservation in North America.  It is a complex and multi-faceted issue that requires understanding and empathy on all sides if it is going to be resolved. Here are links to two recent research publications that highlight the complexities of the prairie dog issue.  The first is publicly accessible, but the second is only available to those who have journal access subscriptions.  Thank you to my friend Stephen Winter for providing these citations.

Both Savory and Sanjayan are charismatic speakers, and very effective salesmen.  The ideas presented in the Plains episode of EARTH A New Wild are attractive because they appeal to our romantic sense of balance in nature, and imply that we can play an important role in re-setting that balance.  I agree that large predators are key components of ecosystems, and that we should find ways to live with them when it’s possible, and attempt to replicate their role when it’s not.  However, I felt the Plains episode unnecessarily focused on a very narrow set of theories and proposals for grassland conservation; a set built upon widely and vigorously challenged assumptions.  I am very optimistic about our ability to conserve our grasslands and other ecosystems, but doing so will require robust and well-rounded conversations and a wide range of strategies.  As we continue those conversations, it will be imperative that we are upfront with each other about which strategic options are based on good science and which are not.

.

Here are the main points from the rebuttal to Savory’s TED talk that was published in the journal Rangelands.  The rebuttal essentially focuses on Savory’s presentation piece by piece, including:

1) Pointing out the fallacy of Savory’s statements that all non-forested lands are degraded and that rangeland science fails to either understand the reasons for or to be able to mitigate that degradation;

2) Laying out the physical impossibilities of Savory’s claim that changing the way grasslands are managed could solve climate change;

3) Pointing out that photos were the primary evidence used to support Savory’s claims of restoring degraded grasslands and that several of the photos he used either had a different grazing history than Savory claimed or were from a completely different location than Savory stated.

4) Refuting Savory’s statements about the benefits of hoof action breaking up biological crusts in desert grasslands  to increase water infiltration by pointing to the well-studied ecological roles (protecting soil from wind erosion and carbon loss) played by those same crusts.

For those of you who do have access to the Rangelands journal, I hope you will read not only this rebuttal article, but also a response from Richard Teague and the subsequent response to that critique.  In addition to providing context around Savory’s climate change and desertification theories, the series of three short articles also provides an excellent synopsis of the many arguments among scientists trying to understand the complexities of grazing management.