Dream: Watch the Antelope Play

Elizabeth Willott

Alias: Nature Conservancy Ranch Director
(note: this is fiction)

• What’s the dream?
• What’s the plan?
• What’s under my control?
  Of this, what's morally permissible? If something isn't, then revise.
  Will plan work? If no, revise.
• What’s NOT under my control? Of this, what do I have to adjust to take this into account.
• Final plan needs to be at least morally permissible and it needs to be practical.
  
  
• If I can fulfill the plan on my own and if my plan fits the above criteria then I can "go for it"
• If I need cooperation, then I need to check that my plan accounts for that, repeating all steps above.

MISSION: Make SW Arizona a haven for antelope.

Why is this the mission?

PLAN

• Change fencing of fields so antelope move more freely between fields
  Rationale: Antelope don't jump fences. They need to go under. In conventional barbed wire fences the lowest strand restricts and/or harms many antelope. In antelope-friendly fences, there is space for the antelope to go unharmed below the part of the fence that effectively restrains cattle.
• Antelope-friendly fencing will
  • enable antelope to find better habitat so they will be healthier as individuals
  • enable better genetic mixing so they, as a species, will be healthier
  • Give me/other people more satisfaction as I/we see antelope roam more freely

The dream? Watch the antelope play

The plan? Change fencing of fields so antelope move more freely between fields

However, what are the remaining steps in my plan? I need to keep moral constraints in mind for each step, too.

PLAN

• Phase I: Change fences on the Conservancy Ranch
• Phase II: Change fences on surrounding ranches

Do I Need Cooperation?

• I can make the plan independently (to a certain point)
• If I accept a constraint against stealing the resources and enslaving people,
  • I need $ to get fencing
  • I need volunteers or $ to get the labor

Therefore, I need donors and/or volunteers

At least:

• Donors and volunteers
• Also the people who make fencing, the delivery people who bring it to the store where I buy it, and all the other people involved in allowing me the freedom to pursue this dream, but these I can take for granted in Arizona right now! I can make their cooperation worthwhile—their services are for sale and I can pay.

Project Plan Phase I: Conservancy Ranch

• Prepare 20 minute slide presentation for next monthly meeting explaining antelope and fence situation.
• Ask for donors to supply fence, volunteers to contribute labor.
  (I need someone with a backhoe: that would make digging new holes in the caliche a LOT easier. I’ll get more volunteers if they know they don’t have to dig the holes ….)
• Reassess after monthly meeting.

What more do I need?

• schedule purchasing fence
• arrange date to start installation
• contact volunteers and treat them with suitable respect:
  • ensure someone coming is competent in First Aid and CPR
  • make sure there is plenty of drinking water

Consideration so far: Phase I: Conservancy Ranch

• I’m sure I’ll get some donors and some volunteers.
• If I can’t do the entire ranch this year, I can at least get started.
• I can also explain the situation on the Ranch web pages and ask for donors and volunteers that way!

Consideration so far: Phase II: Surrounding Ranches

• Land owners
• Land managers (not always the same as owners)
• Or, if I don’t have their cooperation, I would need coercion, forcing them to change their fences. To do that, I’d need cooperation of
  • Hoodlums, or,
  • Lobbyists and law makers, or
  • Voters, perhaps - if it went to referendum
    So, I need cooperation!

What concerns will land owners/managers have?

• How much will it cost?
• What are the REAL benefits
  • To the antelope?
  • To the farmers?
• I should expect to have to provide farmers with results of
  • Ecological studies, showing beneficial effect on farm land, if possible
  • Cost analysis:
    • how much fence they'd need and how much it costs
    • installation costs compared to alternative old-style

How can I address these concerns, discover others, and prepare an effective presentation?

• I can modify the slide show I present to the Conservancy - Include more comparison with old-style fence
• There are several things I need to learn:
  • What are the installation costs?
  • What are potential problems with installation?
  • How much old-style stock the farmers still have?
    (If they can’t afford to replace their entire fences, they
    can possibly replace when old needs fixing, but, is that feasible?)

CONCLUSION: I need to talk with some farmers before finalizing this step. I need some practical, real-world, knowledge. Talking with a few farmers first will increase their good will, they'll see I'm really trying to understand their situation. That will help.

How can I address the more radical Conservancy members?

• Some members say we should lobby for laws forcing farmers to install new fences
• They say changing Conservancy ranch is insignificant: Only 0.01% of Az land will be changed (what's the real number here?)
• They say the farmers are wealthy; every farmer in this area is a multi-millionaire! All farmers here support increasing the inheritance tax cut-off; they’ve got to be wealthy.
• These members may block successful execution of my plan, because my plan does rely on trust and openness to be fully successful.

How can I address their challenge?

• I can find out how the farmers really are doing financially.
• I can analyze the radicals' proposal (if they have one) for getting legislation passed. I can carefully examine it to see if it is likely to work as well as my voluntary-based proposal.
• If they don't yet have a proposal, I can ask for them to bring a well-thought out proposal to the next meeting.
• Even if there is no proposal I can examine the consequences of legislating compliance. I can do that in this proposal.
• I can point out that the two approaches might not be incompatible, but also that it might not be wise to threaten the farmers before we find out more about the situation they are in. I can suggest we discuss the proposals carefully to see if the two approaches are compatible, and–if not–which is most likely to meet our vision of better habitat for antelopes (and perhaps includes better opportunities for us to enjoy watching the antelopes in their better habitat).

The farmers’ situation?

• What’s their financial situation
  1. For many, their wealth is in land
  2. To be money-wealthy they have to sell land
  3. If they sell, we are likely to see more 4 acre ranchettes, which would be far worse than what we have now
     (arguments can be provided if required)

What's a real-world plan for bringing about legislation?

1. If the results look promising, then we need a fleshed out, real-world plan for getting the legislation.
2. If the consequences aren't what we want, then we don't want to go there, and so we don't need a plan to go there.

How would a law requiring changing fencing affect farmers?

• Farmers won’t be happy if they are forced to change (and we lose good will we have tried to foster)
• If the farmers can afford to, they may challenge the law and we will waste limited resources.
  
• If farmers really can’t afford the fencing, they can't comply
  • A jail sentence is not likely--and wouldn't help the antelope if it occurred.
  • A fine is likely--but that doesn’t install fences, money goes into the general state money (does it?–need to check with someone who would know.)
• So, using the law in its extreme doesn’t appear to help much, if any.
• However, there’s something symbolic about ‘having a law’ to show importance. But, in this case surely that’s balanced by emphasizing that we’re all reasonable people and DON’T always need a law forcing action. If we force them on the antelope, then we're more likely to end up needing to force them on overgrazing (in our view) and on other issues. This is costly. Long term, cooperation will be less costly and will accomplish more. Notice how much we have gained from the voluntary Riparian Habitat Access Program.

Bottom line:

• If we use legislation, farmers aren’t likely to be as tolerant of Conservancy members going on their land to view birds and antelope–and that would really hamper our riparian habitat access program
• Farmers may even decide they can’t afford antelope and then kill them--this supposedly happened with ivory-billed woodpecker in Florida. Developer hired someone to make sure no endangered species would be found on his property ... The story is probably true. We don't want that to happen here.

Summary of my view on forcing compliance via a law—the prominent alternative to my voluntary-based plan.

1. Key Drawback: The law isn't something I control.

I can't control consequences or easily alter the course once a law is in place.
The laws may backfire: If in two years a better fence is developed, we may have to expend energy changing the law to permit us and farmers to use the better fencing. A parallel situation exists in many building code laws where methods now considered environmentally inappropriate are required by law. Changing law is neither easy nor inexpensive. We have greater flexibility using a voluntary mechanism, if it can work. This voluntary plan seems sound enough to work.

2. We don’t know enough about farmers' finances:

• Perhaps the farmers really can’t afford it.
  If they can’t, then ‘forcing’ them by law is counterproductive:
  it destroys goodwill and destroys some opportunities to make it affordable for them.
• We can expect some farmers to exaggerate costs, trying to get more out of us.
• We can work with that:
  • We can encourage a limited open-book perspective so we show farmers our true costs and resources and they show us theirs.
  • Farmers willing to share sufficient limited financial info could perhaps
    • Obtain a significant discount when purchasing fence
    • Obtain volunteer labor for installing fence
    
    both of these are things I can work to provide (details will be included in next draft of plan; I can schedule a meeting with the manufacturer; and at next meeting I can ask about volunteers)

3. We don’t know enough about non-financial affects:

• What problems do farmers/managers face with installation
  • Will they have to train workers who are resistant to change?
  • Can they afford the time for retraining?
  • Will they be forced to waste resources?
    • how much fence do they normally replace per year?
    • how much fence inventory do they have?
  • Is repair they usually do compatible with installing antelope-friendly fence?
  • Can they afford time this coming year to make changes?
    If not this year, any year?
    Is there anything we can do to help?

SUMMARY

Dream: Enhanced habitat for antelope

Goal: Remove hazardous fencing and replace with more antelope-friendly fencing, starting first on the Conservancy ranch, and then on surrounding ranches

Constraints: I am committed to treating the land (broadly construed, like Leopold used it) with respect and the people with respect.

Whose Cooperation Do I Need:

• Donors for $
• Volunteers for labor
• Farmers (for Phase II, obviously; but also for Phase I where the fence is boundary between Conservancy ranch and adjacent ranches)
• Fence manufacturer (not absolutely NEEDED but if we can negotiate discount, we can accomplish more)

Has Plan Been Reasonably Thought Through? In several places I need to learn more before finalizing the plan. That's normal, but the overall structure looks decently solid.

Have I Checked that Overall Aim is Morally Appropriate? Yes, it wouldn't be appropriate if farmers were literally starving, but given the situation in southern Arizona, saving antelope is not unreasonable as a goal.

Have I Checked that Each Step is Morally Permissible and Appropriate? This voluntary-based approach does not appear to have any major problems, unlike the more radical approach of attempting to change the legislation. That might not be morally acceptable because, even if we succeed in getting a law passed,

• there is a chance that farmers truly cannot afford to make the change.
  If so, then likely scenarios include:
  • The land will be sold to make ranchettes and our vision will not be achieved; or,
  • Farmers will use the land more intensively and thereby change good antelope habitat into cattle habitat or some other crop (remember Guy Grant's situation). Again, our vision will not be achieved.
Either way, we will have created harm without any offsetting benefit; this simply cannot be morally appropriate.
• Forcing compliance via legislation fails to show sufficient respect for farmers' situation.
• Forcing compliance via legislation will set us back on acquiring further 'access riparian habitat' easements, thereby jeopardizing other good aims we have.

In addition, this voluntary plan has several big pluses over a coercive plan:

1. On a society level:

• I really think we will be making positive social change, too. Building a better world for antelope and people, too. Building a community.
  

2. On an organizational level:

• It will be easier to recruit volunteers with pleasant characters.
  My most reliable volunteers prefer to interact with cooperators, preferably out of doors working on projects or in a small friendly cafe over a cup of coffee.
• It will be easier to raise money: We can say that all of the "Antelope Fence Funds" we raise are spent directly to improve the environment. No lawyer fees.

3. On a personal level:

• I will be working more with people who obviously love the land.
• I will have opportunities to go onto farmers' lands and maybe see some of the rarer birds I haven't seen so far, just as part of building cooperation.
• I will build my "understanding" skills rather than my "debating" skills; develop empathy rather than attack skills.
• It will be easier to recruit the volunteers with whom I really enjoy working.
• There will be a more positive atmosphere, more conducive to personal growth and happiness.