I 



71 



— Page 3 — 



For that crucial reason, our proposal favors active management agreements to a program 

 of conservation easement acquisition, which might preserve habitat but provides no 

 guarantees of needed management. 



Our proposal also protects the rights of property owTiers, because landowTiers will 

 voluntarily work to protect listed species. Under our proposal, they will also be provided 

 the direction and means for accomplishing that protection. The requirements of the Fifth 

 Amendment will also be satisfied, because the protection of spedes that are to be conserved 

 for the benefit of the general public will be paid by the general public. In effect, 

 participants in the program will be paid to protect and help recover listed species. 



A major concern of rural communities is the increasing loss of taxable base property 

 when property is withdrawn from productive use. Rural economies in areas of large federal 

 land ownership or where significant land use restrictions are in place, have already been 

 stretched to the limit. Thus, any withdrawal of property or diminution in taxable value 

 occasioned by the program will have to be offset with appropriate compensation to local 

 communities. 



The five-year agreement term in this proposal coincides with the five-year status reviews 

 required under the Act, and would provide a measurable and accurate baseline and 

 assessment of such status. 



These are only some of the highlights of our proposal. 



Our proposal is premised on the following factors: 



• that more can be accomplished by providing incentives than by land vise 

 restrictions and prohibitions; 



• that active spedes management is more benefidal to species recovery than mere 

 habitat preservation; 



• that private property rights can and must be respected; and 



• that day-to-day monitoring and management by the person on the ground is 

 better and more cost-effective than attempted goverimient management. 



This is a serious proposal offered in good faith. We submit that it is the best plan we 

 have seen to date that would answer the challenge of the Chairman to protect both listed 

 species and private property rights. It will promote a partnership and spirit of cooperation 

 between the government and the private sector for the protection and recovery of listed 

 species that is so sorely lacking today, and that keeps the Act from being successful. In the 

 process, it will show that the interests of listed spedes and the interests of private property 

 rights can co-exist. 



