JOE DUGGAN / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:00 pm
A chapter called “Buying Arthur County” in a report by a Lincoln-based conservation group has stirred fears of a government land grab in the Nebraska Sandhills.
Except the Grassland Foundation’s report does not advocate government ownership of Arthur County for the sake of wildlife. Those who read the 4-page chapter will see it poses a hypothetical — the creation of a 400,000-acre grassland reserve through private and public partnerships to conserve habitat and diversify rural economies.
“We don’t support large-scale acquisition of land by state or federal government,” said Tyler Sutton, president of the foundation. “What we’re talking about is private landowners working in collaboration with private and governmental organizations to supplement agricultural economies.”
Nonetheless, fearing a guilt-by-association backlash from private property owners, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission on Wednesday will consider formally distancing itself from the group and its report. The fear: landowners could confuse the report with a new commission effort to conserve wildlife called the Nebraska Natural Legacy Project.
So on Wednesday, as the commission meets in the north-central Nebraska ranching community of Bassett, commissioners will consider a resolution that “repudiates any linkage between the Nebraska Natural Legacy Project and said Grassland Foundation report.”
“We felt there was a need of going on the record saying we don’t have any intention of buying private property,” said Kirk Nelson, assistant commission director in charge of fish and wildlife.
The situation illustrates the sensitivity of rural landowners to discussions about land use changes in a state that is 97 percent privately owned. It’s a sensitivity shared by the commission, an agency that needs landowner cooperation to accomplish the mission of conserving Nebraska’s wildlife resources.
But the foundation’s 2005 report echoes the same concerns and advocates for a new approach to conservation, one which hinges on participation by local leaders and landowners.
Called “Economic Benefits of Grassland Protected Areas,” the report attempts to ignite discussion about creating large-scale grassland reserves on the Great Plains through local leadership that coordinates land purchases from willing sellers. The report makes the argument that such reserves would attract eco-tourists and their cash, helping to ensure the economic viability of the region.
In an effort to examine the economics of such concepts, the report introduces the idea of “buying” Arthur County as a “somewhat fanciful and hypothetical scenario—which we offer for discussion purposes only.”
The report says the people of Arthur County could start a joint venture with a local Natural Resources District to create a conservation trust. The trust would in turn purchase 400,000 acres of land from willing sellers in the county, creating a reserve that would potentially generate more income and jobs than agriculture.
But the report repeatedly states that creating the huge reserves would not come at the expense of farming and ranching. In many cases, livestock grazing would represent a management tool for the grassland reserves. Economically, the reserves would diversify an economy dominated by agriculture.
“Cattle will always be king in Nebraska,” the report says.
Conserving Nebraska’s flora, fauna and habitats through private landowner participation, sound economic principles and broad partnerships is also the goal of the Natural Legacy Project. Approved by the commission in September, the project is the most ambitious effort to protect biodiversity in the state’s history.
As commission staff have attended public meetings to launch the plan, they’ve caught some confusion between the project’s goals and methods and the foundation’s report, Nelson said.
“We just felt like it was a good move to make,” he said, referring to the resolution. “Not to downplay the importance of large-scale conservation, but to alleviate the fears that big government is here to buy up all the land. That’s not what we're about.”
If the resolution’s aim is to denounce the idea of a federal land grab, Sutton said he has no problem with it. But if the commission means to suggest that the foundation supports government land purchases, the resolution would inaccurately reflect the foundation’s positions.
Ultimately, Sutton said, the report speaks for itself.
He just wonders if the critics have read it.
Reach Joe Duggan at 473-7239 or jduggan@journalstar.com.
For more information
To read the Grassland Foundation’s report, go to www.grasslandfoundation.org.
To learn more about the Nebraska Natural Legacy Project, go to www.outdoornebraska.org.