Jeff Fowle is a fourth generation family farmer and rancher from Etna, California. His latest blog post entitled “Endangered Species Act: Are We In Need Of Protection Now?” is a great summation of the impact public regulations have on private landowners. Protection for threatened and endangered species is important but, regulations often make it difficult to do the right thing.
Jeff is explicit in his position that regulations designed to protect certain species do not consider the impact on the rural economy and can lead to unintended consequences.
“Even though environmental impact studies are required prior to regulations and restrictions being imposed, socio-economic impacts are rarely addressed and beneficial uses are regularly weighted towards single species.”
Beneficial uses are management practices farmers, ranchers and landowners adopt to help protect an endangered species. He goes on to say.
“Failure to adequately address these impacts and assess all beneficial uses results in landowner hardship and often negative impacts on other species due to a lack of foresight and holistic approaches.”
He cites three examples of how listing the Northern Spotted Owl eliminated the logging industry in Northern California, listing Chinook and Coho salmon placed the blame on private landowners and currently the listing of the Delta smelt has shut water off to highly productive farms across the San Joquin Valley.
Jeff’s humility, like many farmers and ranchers, shines through with this quotation.
“Certainly, some past practices from the early 1900’s through the 1970’s were not exactly “environmentally friendly.” However, science and technology have changed practices and management styles to be beneficial to both resource managers and the environment. It is in the best interest of resource managers to ensure that the land is healthier and able to support future generations.”
Farmers and ranchers act as resource managers who steward their land to keep it viable for future generations. Often, their generations of experience and new science and technology give them the best insight to search for new practices.
Fortunately, we have an opportunity to build trust as many people in agriculture are using social media tools to connect with the public. Let’s say enough to misrepresentation, poor communication and duality and turn a new page toward compromise and common sense.
To hear what we chat about, check us out on Twitter; @JeffFowle and @danielschel and stay connected with the AgroGuru Newsletter.
Daniel,
This is interesting. I’m very glad to hear the author’s defense of responsible and local resource managers. I’m not sure about all his points, though. Would you say you agree with his assessment that environmental regulations need to be rolled back to meet industry demands?
The American environment has been under relentless assault since the arrival of European settlers (maybe starting earlier). What once may have seemed like rational use has become unsustainable exploitation as our population and consumptive patterns balloon. I don’t think it’s being narrow-minded of environmentalists to try to protect specific species (the smelt, the salmon) when they are indicators of larger ecological health. (And what about the livelihoods of fishermen? Do they not count?) Yes, unintended hardship does result from environmental protection. But how much environmental hardship results from economic protection? Is it even comparable?
I do agree with the man, though, that policy needs to look at environmental protection alongside socio-economic impacts on rural communities. Rural communities are under a lot of pressure. They are often ignored. I think what we will find, however, is that the best, most “balanced” answer to their woes is not a simple rollback of environmental protection, but a comprehensive approach that recognizes we can’t keep doing things the same way we’ve been doing them for generations, but, there are ways to support rural economies (agricultural conservation programs, retooled subsidies, investment in alternative industries) that don’t have to come at the expense of long-term environmental health, which is, ultimately, the great underwriter of all our economic wealth.
There can be incentives and policies established that allow farmers to (1) protect the health of their land and (2) apply the science and technology needed for sustainable agriculture and other rural industries. These are the changes we need to be working toward, not wasting our time deciding between farmers OR salmon. We need both. (I agree with Mr. Fowle on that point.) The difference is, farmers and the rest of us can adapt to a changing world. Fish cannot.