by Chris Larson
December 15, 2001

The Buckeye Conservancy was formed in 2000 to bring together people towards the common goal of preserving open space through family ownership and management of ranch and timberland. Several founding members live in the Mattole, and “the Buckeye,” as its supporters call it, has garnered much interest locally. On October 30, 2001, MRC Executive Director Chris Larson interviewed Andy Westfall, Buckeye’s Chairman, and Johanna Rodoni, their new Executive Director. What follows is an edited transcript of their conversation:

CL: Could you describe the series of events that lead to forming the Buckeye Conservancy? What trends were you seeing that led to its formation?

AW: We felt that there was really no single organization that represented families and family ownerships and helped them deal with all the issues and concerns that all family landowners are faced with.

CL: What are some of those issues?

AW: There are really a couple—the maze of regulations that were built primarily for industrial land management do not fit very well with the non-industrial timber manager. That is a growing concern. The cost for a small operator to comply with growing regulations is burdensome, putting some parcels out of operation and forcing people to convert their land to other uses. The other concern is the struggle for the family rancher to stay on the land. Whether it is a subdivision or other event that displaces the family rancher, we consider that a negative event for the land and the family.

JR: The people who formed the Buckeye Conservancy felt that we in Humboldt County need someone to monitor all of these regulatory changes, [and] restrictions and keep us informed. We needed an umbrella group to keep us all on the same track. Andy mentioned the small-landowner, the open space issue was really important with us, to keep it a “working landscape,” to keep people on the land and keep it economically viable.

CL: Would you say that this effort is about local culture, local economics, or the local environment, or equally all three, or would you place more emphasis on one area than others?

AW: We see them as very interdependent. In our Mission Statement, we use the phrase “economic and ecological sustainability.” You can’t have, we believe, one without the other. The family rancher can’t make it economically on the land if it [the ranch] is not ecologically sustainable.

Strategies for ranch and timberland conservation

CL: What are some of the tools that you advocate or use to meet your goals of keeping large ranches intact?

JR: One thing we hope to do is be some kind of voice to regulators to demonstrate that we are different than industrial timber as far as the regulatory process. Another thing we may work into in the future is assisting landowners who are interested in conservation easements.

“Road testing” alternative forestry regulations

CL: Going back to the topic of the regulatory structure, would you say that the main regulation you are interested in addressing at this point is the THP [Timber Harvest Plan] Review process, or does the Buckeye Conservancy also track issues like TMDLs [Total Maximum Daily Load] or Endangered Species Act issues?

JR: Well, Endangered Species, TMDL, and THP are all connected.

AW: Our concern is for the multiple layers of regulation and the prohibitive cost of that process for the small landowner. Ironically, operating within the law does not necessarily mean you are a good steward. The good steward must still pay the high cost of going through the process. To create a better understanding of these problems we are launching the Buckeye Forest Project, which will be on a real piece of property over an extended period of time, 12 to 18 months probably, with a diverse team including CDF that will work with us through the entire process. They will start off with a long-term management plan for the property, looking at water, timber, wildlife, all the resources that the landowner should manage. We see a big benefit in taking regulators, environmentalists, ranchers, and foresters through that process together. When we come out the other end, we hope we will have a template for some regulatory or statutory changes. I think what makes this project a little different and, we hope, will compliment other similar efforts is that this will be “on the ground” and not in an office somewhere. So we have high hopes that this is going to create some kind of a structure for the non-industrial owner who has some forest mix on his property, to give him the security to do what’s right. Right now it’s the other way around. The regulations basically encourage the wrong things to happen.

JR: You can’t regulate good stewardship or the love of the land. Regulations actually kind of have a negative effect on a lot of people.

AW: It’s my feeling that regulations have been built over time as a response to what the public didn’t want to happen. If they were to do it again, I believe the better approach would be to build the regulations for what they want to happen.

Caught in the crossfire?

CL: You have the environmentalists on one side and the corporate timber companies like Sierra Pacific or Pacific Lumber on the other side. What side does the Buckeye Conservancy identify itself with? People who are primarily interested in preserving the forest landscape or people that are in the same economic vein [as the family landowners]? How do you identify with the two different camps?

JR: Well I think Buckeye is right in the middle. We can’t really identify with one or the other.

AW: It’s the radical center. We have some common ground with just about everyone.

CL: Do you see the Buckeye Conservancy making alliances with either camp?

AW: Well, I think that’s what makes our group a little intriguing and I know there are a lot of questions about exactly who we are and it’s even a difficult line for us to follow. We are not industrial timber. I think that’s safe to say. We are focused on the family, the non-industrial operator. Beyond that, we’re pretty much open to people who support our mission.

JR: We are a whole different category, not that we’re not aligned indirectly with both of them.

AW: We have to have a place to sell our logs also. We really can’t afford to alienate anyone. We have set out our mission, our parameters, our goals, and so forth, and the idea is to bring as many people along as we can to support us. Historically, groups form on constituent bases that are like themselves, but we drew our circle in a much larger loop than is probably traditional. For some people that’s a little uncomfortable. There is a lack of trust and some of that is for good reason. So we are trying to rebuild and reshape some of that trust and focus on those things we have in common rather than differences. We have found that there are a lot of people who support maintaining the open space in Humboldt County.

JR: Within our own organization, personally, I am not a “timber” person. I’m a rancher. A lot of ranchers are both and there are people who are just timber owners. We have a lot of members who are neither; they are more interested in the open space.

CL: A big issue on the North Coast is the harvest of old-growth forests. Do you see that as an area where economic and ecological sustainability clash with each other, or do you see that as part of responsible timberland management, to be harvesting old growth forests?

AW: This is a touchy issue. There is a ballot initiative kicking around that would restrict the cutting of old or large trees. Landowners will respond to this in several ways. It will definitely add to their anxiety about the future of forest management in California, and many of them will make certain that most, if not all, of their trees never get old or big enough to be “protected.” Again, this kind of rule making hurts those folks who are trying to do the right thing. A lot of small landowners use an uneven age management system. With this method, you would always have older trees.

JR: The Buckeye, as an organization, doesn’t address old growth. That’s not one of our purposes.

CL: If you are a landowner and your goal is to maximize profit, then it seems like the natural thing to do would be to subdivide and sell. So what’s the catch? And why is it that ranchers in Humboldt County are interested in retaining family ownership whereas ranchers in say, Salinas, aren’t?

JR: A lot of them are forced to [subdivide and sell] because of taxes and encroachment of the population on them that’s restricting them.

AW: The goal of most family ranchers is not to maximize profits but to stay on the land. Expensive regulations, low commodity prices, higher living costs, and you throw in death taxes, and some families have, and will continue to run out of options. If forced to sell, developers usually pay the highest price for the land. Humboldt County still has a lot of family ranches intact because we haven’t seen the population and development increases. But they’re coming.

JR: Humboldt County is one of the last great places.

AW: I don’t think we see supporting open space and the ranching economy as mutually exclusive from other economic developments in the county. I believe a lot of people in Humboldt County love Humboldt County for what it is and want to see that those spaces and that culture continue. I would hope that one thing we represent is a more enlightened, progressive approach to resource management that has broad appeal and is working towards the right thing.

Developing and maintaining the Buckeye vision

CL: In terms of the future of Humboldt County, would you say that ranchers and non-corporate landowners throughout the county have broadly endorsed the Buckeye Conservancy’s vision? Are you able to sell your message to the community that you’re trying to focus on?

JR: I definitely think so. We’re such a new organization that a lot of people are still learning about us. But our membership is strong. They seem to have a strong interest.

CL: How long would you see the Buckeye Conservancy being in existence? Under what circumstances would you feel that the organization is no longer necessary?

JR: I can’t see any circumstance where it wouldn’t be…. I think you have to say “ever-vigilant”.

AW: We look upon it as a permanent organization, especially with regard to the whole new conservation easements issue. That’s a very serious undertaking. I can’t imagine the pressures on land and land use diminishing in the decades to come. If anything, it’s only going to increase.

CL: So you see success for the organization measured in a kind of on-going vigilance rather than achieving a specific goal?

AW: Well, as an ear and an eye, and a voice for the family ranchers, you have to be political. You have to be involved. You have to be a player. Heretofore in many cases, the individual rancher has been left on his own.

JR: By nature, ranchers aren’t out in the public a lot by virtue of where they live. Scott Downie of the Dept. of Fish and Game described the Buckeye Conservancy as a voice for the voiceless. Our organization fills that need.

Exploring new ground

CL: How would you describe your relationship to groups that are working towards watershed management and fisheries restoration? How do you see those efforts fitting in to the efforts the Buckeye Conservancy is involved with?

JR: Well I don’t really see them fitting together. I think we definitely compliment one another, but our purpose isn’t restoration.

AW: Restoration efforts are very consistent with our mission, but we’re working on a different plane. We’re mostly trying to promote better understanding of some of the struggles we’re having and at the same time pointing out the public benefit of many of the things we provide—open space being one of them.

Buckeye in the Mattole

CL: What can the Buckeye Conservancy offer Mattole landowners, and how can people in the Mattole help the Buckeye Conservancy with its efforts?

AW: I think what we offer landowners in the Mattole is the same that we would offer landowners throughout the county. We believe that rural landowners benefit from our efforts to maintain open space. We are starting our fall membership drive, so we would certainly appreciate the support. We don’t ask for a lot of money. We would rather have people’s participation and support and involvement. But we do accept larger checks…. [Hearty laughter from all]. We are growing the organization across the board.

Side Box:

For more information, you can contact the Buckeye Conservancy at (707) 764-5112 or P.O. Box 5607, Eureka, CA 95502.



Printer Friendly Version

Table of Contents for Mattole Restoration Newsletter, Issue 17 - Winter/Spring 2002