TP&WD Withdraws Proposed
Habitat Protection Plan
AUSTIN The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department has withdrawn an embattled plan to
encourage landowners to improve habitat for endangered
species.
Some landowners had objected strongly to the proposal,
which was aimed mostly at protecting two endangered bird
species, the black-capped vireo and the golden-cheeked
warbler. In the process, it was envisioned as a way to
protect landowners themselves, but that message never
quite got across.
The plan would have covered a wide swath of Texas,
from the hill country to as far west as Brewster County
in the Big Bend.
Andrew Sansom, director of the Parks and Wildlife
Department, said he "discontinued" work on the
plan, still in early draft form, because the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service could not promise to keep
information about private property confidential.
Landowners were particularly concerned that
information about endangered species on their land could
be shared with other federal agencies or otherwise find
its way into the hands of lawsuit-happy environmental
activists.
Its developers saw the plan as a way to prevent
landowners from being forced to maintain enhanced habitat
that they might deliberately or inadvertently
create through normal land management practices.
The idea was to survey the land of voluntary participants
and draw a "baseline" of conditions existing at
the time of enrollment; landowners would not be held
accountable for improvements beyond that baseline.
Gary Graham, director of the Texas
endangered-resources program, explained that many
landowners in Central Texas have improved their property
to attract deer and the resulting revenue from deer
hunters. The same habitat favored by deer also attracts
vireos and warblers, he said.
The department was trying to write a
"safe-harbor" plan under which landowners who
improved habitat would not be held liable if they later
returned their land to its previous condition, Graham
said.
At one time the plan was supported by the Texas Farm
Bureau, but that support is said to have weakened under
pressure from some members. Graham said the erosion of
Farm Bureau member support was a factor in the
department's decision to drop the idea.
A variety of other producer and landowner groups had
participated in efforts to create a viable "safe
harbor" plan, but none of them wrote any blank
checks.
Texas Wildlife Association executive vice president
David K. Langford termed the negotiations "sitting
at the grownups table," rather than waiting on
the sidelines for a government agency to devise policy
behind closed doors and then learning of the consequences
only after the fact. Like his colleagues, Langford vowed
to oppose any plan that "begins to smell just the
littlest bit off."
A nagging concern, for participating industry
representatives as well as non-participating opponents,
was the viability of any federal government guarantee,
given the record. Even assuming the unlikely that
a federal agencys promises could be accepted as
sincere no guarantee could prevent an eco-activist
group from filing suit, picking any one of a
well-researched gaggle of friendly judges, and forcing
bureaucrats to go back on their word.
The plan was not nearly far enough along at the time
of its cancellation to have dealt with that crucial
problem, so it may never have matured even under the best
of circumstances, but F&WS inability to offer
confidentiality was an omen of what lay ahead.
While groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund
were unhappy with the agency's decision, some farmers and
ranchers were happy about the outcome.
"I could be forced out of business because I'm in
prime habitat," said Tony McClenny, who raises
cattle on 400 acres in Coryell County.
McClenny said many Central Texas ranch families have
worked the land for generations and are good stewards.
"We believe we can do a better job protecting the
endangered species if they just tell us what their goals
are," McClenny said. "Give us credit for what
we do. We're painted as bad guys, and we don't like
that."
|