Ramifications of the conservation bond

By CLARICE RYAN

The Open-Space Conservation bond is on the ballot! Five meetings with County Commissioners, May 7 through July 3, were well attended by members of Long Range Planning and Land use Committees, Trust for Public Lands, Flathead Land Trust and Moore Information opinion research agency, and supported by letters from Parks, Weed & Recreation Board and Conservation District. It's noteworthy that the general public never seemed aware of these meetings until the final one was announced in the paper. The purpose was to gain County Commissioner approval on a telephone survey of Flathead County voters to determine public interest in a conservation bond measure on the November ballot with possible commission final approval for its inclusion.

Flathead Land Trust selected Moore Information Opinion Research Agency to conduct the survey. This firm undoubtedly utilizes such surveys to gain land acquisition and control throughout their seven-state Northwest Region. Conservation Easements, the primary tool for locking up privately owned lands, are key to filling the gaps within the millions of acres of public land mass in the Yellowstone to Yukon portion of the Wildlands Project. Information and maps concerning this huge land acquisition project are on the internet. This program contributes to retaining what is left of remaining conservation easement-unencumbered properties for exclusive enjoyment of the elite who can afford them. Yes, land scarcity thus created contributes to decreased affordability and reduced middle-income populations.

The initial proposed survey offered a choice of $10, $20 or $30 million bonds but was reduced to a $10, $15 or $20 million choice. The questionnaire contained carefully targeted questions reflecting the interests of the research firm, but limited the opportunity for personal concerns and comments of citizens interviewed. Surprisingly it did not even question whether or not citizens would like the issue to appear on the ballot, which was the original claimed intent of the survey.

The phone results from 404 citizens out of 46,723 active Flathead voters showed the 64% preferring the $10 million dollar bond. Of course, there was no report of those preferring "no bond at all," as that question wasn't asked. So now voters have the option as it appears on the November ballot: "Yes" or "No" on Bonds (plural).

The highest interest rating on the survey was clean water issues, lakes, rivers, and streams. One wonders how that relates to the existence or non-existence of a conservation easement. Somehow it must be assumed that an easement contributes to pure water? And would anyone ever logically say, "No, I prefer dirty, polluted water?" Access for outdoor activities and keeping the valley beautiful also received top priorities and were embellished in the report. Only four out of eight additional questions showed interest in farming and ranching as a way of life for land owners and their families trying to make a living. Owners are basically deemed essential for care and maintenance of the "open space" and payment of bills, so they must be retained and "working." Although survey demographics were unavailable, the survey indicates an increasing majority of urbanite voters. These people largely lack understanding of "working" land ownership and associated needs and rights of rural property owners. They think of farm land as basically "open space" to view and personally enjoy, including access for recreational activities and possible establishment of rural parks.

Approximately 80 percent of the land in Flathead County is under public land management and control. However, federal management policies have reduced " nearly eliminated " natural resource revenues which previously supported communities and the economy. Increasing restrictions on human access to public lands is triggering the attempt to force farmland owners to compensate and provide desired recreation such as hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, etc.

Outsiders even demand more control over how owners conduct their farming and ranching practices, including providing for wildlife which has always been welcome anyway. Essential components of farming are misunderstood. They complain about livestock polluting; insecticides and fertilizers essential to crop production contributing to declining water quality; dust from farming operations; fuel for farm equipment; water for irrigation. Farmers are expected to conform to the wishes and whims of non-farming residents, while planning and zoning officials develop seemingly endless non-use land restrictions through stream set-backs, wet lands, steep slopes, and restricted fish and wildlife refuges.

Farming and timber harvest simply cannot financially continue with these ever increasing restraints on essential operational practices. Tax dollars fund public lands while private property is financed by the owner/operator. Close-down of the timber industry, which had enabled federal forests to finance their own maintenance, fire protection and fire-fighting, now depends almost exclusively on drastically reduced federal tax dollars. The Forest Service is now resorting to "just let it burn" policy, destroying massive amounts of timber and wildlife. Burned areas, gated roads and entire closed sections make these lands unavailable for recreation and even lack scenic value and tourist appeal.

Conservation easements are expected to lock unsuspecting, financially stressed farmers into opening access to their land, while restricting agricultural operations under pretense of protecting clean water. Even then farmers retain full burden of operating costs. The time will come when pressures and demands on these farmers will force them out of business with no place to go.

The behind-the-scenes intent is to share control over this land through the land trust partnering with the federal government for matching funding. Thereby, in the course of perpetuity, this land will be destined for absorption by the government with the land trust acting as the middle-man. Meanwhile with increasing government ownership, including possibility of becoming a public park, the county tax base declines.

Let's beware of deals with the federal government. Prior to signing any contract in perpetuity I suggest investigating the Conservation Easement Directives (http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov). Upon request, I would be pleased to provide an extracted composite of critical key federally required regulations.

If the conservation bond passes, land owners must recognize funding for what it is: tax-funded financial bait, the apple in the Garden of Eden. Repercussions not immediately apparent will subject future heirs to long-term commitments and consequences of this one-time-only financial benefit limited to the current owner. Meanwhile all county taxpayers contribute to the demise.

Clarice Ryan lives in Bigfork.