Creative financing to protect watersheds from development

[Brownout]

Wondering from you guys, what type of financial arrangements you have seen that work to protect land for hunting and fishing.

While not everyone agrees with fishing clubs, I would rather see a club, than a housing development. But, what about entering into contracts with landowners and fisherman that pay all or part of property taxes for access to the stream or river. Anglers would then sign liability contracts, agreeing to not sue the landowner in case of injury on the property, etc.

I am looking for ways that don't involve tons of red tape, but would allow a small group of anglers to save lands that would otherwise turn into developments and be otherwise destroyed.

 

[jayL]

Clubs are not a viable option, assuming any exclusionary policy. Prohibitive cost is an example of such policy.

I do not feel that development poses a significant enough threat to the overall ecosystem to get involved in conservation of "resources" to which access is not permitted. I used quotes, because a fishery is no longer a public resource, once access is removed.

I feel that anglers should only undertake conservation efforts on fisheries which are able to be utilized by the public.

Long story short: hate to say it, but unless it's there for everyone to enjoy, I don't see a reason for everyone to care.

 

[Brownout]

Well, that's a fair position. Anyone else have any experience with clubs or pay to fish scenarios of land that would otherwise be posted and sold?

 

[pcray1231]

I'm with Jay on the clubs. Property with exclusive access is not a resource at all, and should not be treated as such with ANY public money, and are subject to environmental rules on pollution and changing of streams the same as any private company or individual is. Clubs are not even always all that environmentally friendly, especially ones with private hatcheries (a hatchery on a stream is typically worse than a house!). Can't stop you from giving them money for personal enjoyment, thats what they offer. But if you're telling yourself its to protect the waterway, then your money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Conservancies are perhaps the most successful groups, best bang for your buck. These lands sometimes get sold to turn into parks, SGL's, State or National Forests, or just held by the conservancy. They've secured and protected more land than any other group. One example is this group, but there are plenty more:

http://www.paconserve.org/

Go to their history timeline, pretty darned impressive! We need more groups like this.

The fish and game commissions have done similar things on a smaller scale. Even timber companies should get some love. They hold wild areas for long periods of time, open to recreation, and these days the logging operations are pretty darned environmentally friendly if not actually beneficial. When they do sell their plots, they typically sell to a conservancy or other public insitution to preserve indefinitely, rather than parcel off for development. Sure, the reason may be exclusive rights to continue timbering operations, but the effect is the same, and its good.

Watershed organizations have been great, not so much at ensuring access to good water (they do that some), but more in improving fisheries which are often on public land which I think you were more driving at. TU, and even DU, fit in the same mold. These organizations are often focused on a particular stream or watershed rather than land or a global approach like a conservancy, but if you care about a particular stream then this is where to go.

I also think programs like the PAFBC's CAP program hold a lot of promise. Areas bought by the commission, like Spring Creek, are often more closely protected and recieve more attention from watershed organizations. Wish TU would get more involved in access issues, open access is how you get people to care about preserving a resource.

 

[Brownout]

Pcray, thanks for the thoughts, I have heard of conservation easements before, I will take a look at them. I understand what you guys are saying about private land not being a public resource, however, a watershed knows no boundaries, so, in my opinion, if management of the private water is done well, public water can benefit, and that would be a good thing, even though the water would not be directly open to the public. I am thinking of last resort scenarios, or situations where land wouldn't qualify for a beneficial program.

Everyone and their grandmother wants to live on a mountain, and these watersheds start in and around swamps, where developers love to pitch some housing complex named Fawn Meadows, Buck Estates, or the like, and the water just gushes brown off the tops of these places every time it rains.

Living in a free land, this is to be expected, but it's quite disheartening that urban sprawl just continues on and on.

Interestingly, most game lands that I have known, are on the beginnings of watersheds. I don't know if this is because the land is generally swamps, and no one wants it, because it is so out of the way, or if because some entity took a proactive stance and began securing these lands. Most likely a result of all of the above, but if anyone has any input on this, it would interesting to hear.

 

[pcray1231]

a watershed knows no boundaries, so, in my opinion, if management of the private water is done well, public water can benefit, and that would be a good thing, even though the water would not be directly open to the public.

Thats true. But I'm not sure that private clubs are any better stewards of the waterway than houses or businesses, on average. This is especially true of clubs that stock ridiculous numbers of fish in a small stretch. And even worse, many of them have private hatcheries. Thats a lot of pollution!

Residential areas aren't typically that bad, though you have to watch out for the chem-lawn types. Farms can be bad news, fertilizer and siltation.

Obviously the best case is to make it public land with no harmful development. If thats your goal, give your money to the fish commission, or a conservancy, or a watershed organization.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I 100% agree with pcray about the WPC. TU gets my membership dues because of the political action they take. The WPC and the Nature Consevency get my larger donations.

I worked with the WPC to get registered with a mechanism for donating the sale of items to WPC on ebay called missionfish.

http://www.missionfish.org/

I clean out my closet about twice a year and donate to WPC and the Nature Conservency through missionfish.

You need to decide whether you're a conservationist or fisherman first and donate appropriately. (Nothing wrong with either decision - as long as your vested in the environment in some way you're a friend in my book)

Fishing is but one of many outdoor activities I enjoy (hunting, camping, hiking, photography) and I prefer to go a bit more global with my dollars.

I'd prefer to donate to these oragnizations than join a fishing club or buy a cabin in the woods.