Wildlife Agencies Have Opportunity 

to be Good Neighbors

           State and federal wildlife agencies have a unique opportunity to advance the Good Neighbor Policy being crafted for the Sacramento River Conservation Area (SRCA) Board of Directors.

          SRCA’s Landowner Assurances Committee is nearing completion of a draft policy that will recommend protections for landowners and local governments which may suffer adverse impacts from SRCA activities.

          Perhaps the most detrimental impact of the habitat restoration program would be attracting endangered species to areas that are next door to farming operations.

          Providing a place for various species to recover is, of course, the main purpose of habitat restoration. But the success of the program could be a nightmare for adjoining landowners.

          If one of the endangered species migrates out of the habitat onto adjoining farm land and is accidentally injured or killed in routine farming operations, the farmer could be prosecuted for violation of the Endangered Species Act.

          As it now stands, the farmer may be allowed some “incidental take” of an endangered species if he enters into a Safe Harbor Plan, or Habitat Conservation Plan, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Fish and Game Department.

          These agreements, however, are extremely bothersome and expensive to the landowner. He must set aside part of his land as a “mitigation area” and he is subject o monitoring and other intrusions by government agents.

          We feel that forcing farmers into these agreements to gain protection against prosecution is an undue imposition. At least, in theory, they are assured by the California Right to Farm Policy that their farming operations are protected against the intrusion of incompatible land uses.

          The creation of wildlife habitat next to agricultural land is clearly an incompatible intrusion.

          Through participation of the Family Water Alliance in helping to craft a Good Neighbor Policy for SRCA, we have urged that the wildlife agencies make special efforts to hold adjacent landowners harmless from adverse impacts that would be thrust upon them.

          Our line of reasoning with regard to incidental take is this: Since the newly restored habitat will provide a net benefit for threatened and endangered species, the habitat area should be designated as a mitigation area to offset any loss of species that migrate to adjoining lands and are accidentally injured or killed.

          If the wildlife agencies are proactive in providing immunity to adjacent landowners to the greatest extent allowed by law, the agencies will reap two major benefits:

    1.      They will make their programs much more palatable to adjoining landowners and reduce the most intense opposition the agencies face.

    2.      In making their programs more acceptable to their neighbors, they will achieve more success in their mission –the recovery of threatened species.

          We know it is not the nature of government agencies to be proactive in trying to make their programs more acceptable to the public, but this seems to be an ideal time to make an exception.

          The agencies have the latitude in most cases to administer laws strictly or with moderation. It would be greatly to their self-interest in this case to use moderation.

          If, on the other hand, they insist on hanging tough and hiding behind their 800-pound gorilla (the Endangered Species Act), they can expect continued, heavy resistance to their plans. Such a course, on their part, would be self-defeating to their goals.