 |
 & Private Lands |
Here's a summary of the two-day workshop between the Landowner Working Group and Review Committee that was held in May 1997. You may either scroll down through this page, or click on your choice below:
| Agenda | Workshop Summary | Decision/Action Method | Issues Walkabout | Cardstorming Solutions | Proposed Strategies | Draft Lease | Next Steps | Two Points of View | Closing Conversation | About the Facilitation Team |
you may also click below to view all the feedback and proposals generated during the workshop:
| Ideas, Responses to Concerns & Proposals Generated by 5/97 Workshop Participants |
PANTHERS & PRIVATE LANDS
LANDOWNER WORKING GROUP & REVIEW COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
MAY 5-6, 1997
University of Florida
Southwest Florida Research & Education Center
Immokalee, Florida
AGENDA
For a summary of each agenda item,
please click on the highlighted items below:
Day 1
Session I
Welcome by Florida Stewardship
Foundation
Video
Session II
Opening Conversation
Agenda Overview
Ground Rules
Issues Walkabout (Review of Issues Posted on Walls of Room)
Session III
Cardstorming Solutions (Posting of
Comments Written on 4x6 Cards Next to Issues)
Session IV
Proposed Strategies
Day 2
Session V
Presentations and Feedback
Session VI
Issues
Summary
Draft Lease Presentation and Feedback
Session VII
Closing Remarks
Next Steps
Acknowledgment and Reflection
On Monday and Tuesday, May 5th and 6th, members of the Panthers and Private Lands Landowner Working Group and Review Committee met to talk and plan together how best to move forward on recommendations presented in the Project Report, A Landowners' Strategy For Protecting Florida Panther Habitat On Private Lands In South Florida. Craig Evans, of Florida Stewardship Foundation, opened the meeting with the following remarks that referenced the Project Report:
"We are here today to work together toward consensus... to take the combined thoughts of this broad spectrum of players... and translate them into a draft lease document that we can use to test the Landowners' "Conceptual Plan" in an actual field trial on a specific piece of property. We want to try to see if this is a workable, practical plan. There are three principle ways in which habitat for endangered species can be protected. First, land can be purchased by a government agency and put into the public trust. Second, a public agency or non-profit organization can negotiate with the owners to reach agreement on how the land will be used and this agreement can be memorialized in a conservation easement. Or, third, government agencies can exercise their police powers to place restrictions on land use.
"These three approaches all contain serious drawbacks for many private landowners in southwest Florida. For example, I'd like to ask the landowners gathered here: How many of you are willing to sell your land to government agencies? ... Do I see any hands? None. Okay, how many feel a government agency does or can do a better job managing habitat than landowners? ... Still no hands. How many of you feel that the conceptual plan is better and more reasonable than easements or restrictions? As you can see from this show of hands, the answers are clear. If panther habitat is to be preserved, we need a workable alternative.... which is offered by the landowners' conceptual plan."
The project timeline and meeting objectives, which were threefold, were introduced:
Participants were given some background information about how the three Arenas, (1) Defining Basic Program Components, (2) Considering Cost Elements, and (3) Establishing Authority For Setting Policy, had been selected. Based on the 150+ written responses by reviewers, ideas had been sorted, grouped and refined, and were presented in their entirety in the workshop notebook and Project 1 Report (for a copy of this report, please click on Publications). The keys to a viable future for all interests were represented pictorially as good stewardship, good government, and a holistic approach that included scientific research, sound economics and ecosystem management. Through a cooperative agreement based on the common interests of landowners, agencies, the review committee and the public, all inhabitants of the land could be considered and protected.
The planned agenda was presented and the group processes that would be used were described: a combination of individual reflection and written responses, small group discussion, stand-up team meetings and presentations, and large group feedback sessions . It was explained that there would be several opportunities for participants to share their thoughts, concerns and proposals.
Some basic ground rules were introduced, and the explanation given that facilitators do not come to the group as content experts, rather as process specialists whose function was to structure the meeting in such a way that all could be heard, that large numbers of ideas could be organized into manageable units, and that time together was spent productively generating results. The group itself contains the experts, and that's why they were gathered together for this workshop. A model for consensus building w as presented:
1. Discuss: We need more clarification. We need to know the values or intent better. We need to know the anticipated outcomes.
2. Delegate: This needs more input. Another draft should be written soon.
3. Defer: This needs more work, sometime later.
4. Decide: Yes, I can support this.
Participants were invited to write down on cards the compelling interests and great ideas that they had brought with them to the meeting. On walls around the room, Arenas were listed with space for posting related cards. Participants took time to read and think about ideas others had posted, which in turn generated more ideas for discussion in small groups.
The large Arena groups examined and prioritized individual concerns and comments, discussed and defined issues more specifically, cardstormed solutions (i.e. wrote ideas and suggestions on 4x6 cards) that might form the basis for solution steps and actions for each of the issues.
Arena groups then divided into smaller proposal teams to more fully develop strategies with recommendations that would move the group forward toward consensus on implementation. Teams presented their recommendations to the assembly, who responded with written feedback cards. These strategies can be viewed by clicking on Issues Overview then clicking on "5/97 Workshop" under each issue.
The Cardstorm Session results and Proposed Strategies for each Arena Group also can be viewed by visiting the Discussion Groups on this site (where you can add your own comments as well). All feedback from the workshop -- and from the committees that are continuing to work on these issues -- is summarized through links to each of the three discussion groups.
You may also view all the feedback and proposals generated during the workshop by clicking on:
| Ideas, Responses to Concerns & Proposals Generated by 5/97 Workshop Participants |
The draft lease was presented as a work in progress. The group discussed and responded to issues raised in earlier sessions that had applicability to the lease components. Written recommendations for changes or modifications were collected, and are described in detail on the pages linked to the Lease Discussion Group.
Three committees were formed to continue the work begun in this workshop:
1. Issues
2. Lease
3. Public Education/Policy
While there are many issues that require further scrutiny, and there is more work to be done, there is much common ground to build upon. Joe Pearce and Bernie Yokel spoke candidly with the assembly over lunch on Monday, and their remarks captured the workshop's spirit and tone of cooperation and collaboration.
Joe Pearce
"Today, we, as farmers and ranchers, see that there is increasing evidence that at
least some private landowners are actively managing their land so as to avoid potential
endangered species problems. I emphasize that these actions are not the result of malice
toward the environment, but fairly rational decisions motivated by a desire to avoid
potentially significant economic constraints.
It is ironic that the Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. Army, even in the name of national defense, from requiring that a citizen quarter a soldier (that is, provide food and shelter for a soldier). Yet the government can require the same citizen to quarter a grizzly bear, a spotted owl, or a Florida panther or any other member of a threatened or endangered species, at the landowners expense.
If the Army had the same power to demand the billeting of soldiers as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does now for endangered species we could expect to see soldiers feared, despised, and perhaps even abused, as listed species are today. Yet, in fact, the armed forces are always welcome. The reason is that the military pays its way. The current battles over base closures are fights by communities to keep the soldiers, not to make others take them. Thanks to the policy of compensation, it is truly difficult for the Pentagon to close a base.
To make the Endangered Species Act effective on private lands, it will be necessary to change the status of endangered species from the landowner's enemy to the landowner's friend.
If Fish and Wildlife had to compensate landowners for the Endangered Species Act, they would see that the incentives had changed. Once the agency had to pay for what it used, its staff would begin to search for cost-effective ways of preserving species."
Bernie Yokel
"While Joe Pearce came by this issue honestly, I believe that his analogy comparing
soldiers to panthers is an inappropriate one. Soldiers are intruders, while native species
are not. It is important to focus our discussion on concern for the existing members of
our community -- which includes both animals and people.
We are here today to solve problems and polarity is one of our biggest obstacles. We urgently need to come together to conserve the biodiversity of our community. The endangered species should not be seen as intruders. And endangered species are the direct products of human activities. We're here to balance the problems produced by human concerns.
There are two extremes: 'I will use the land as I see fit,' and 'It must be the environment above everything.' Balance is the key. We must work together to find common ground in the middle of these two extremes. In closing, I would like to quote Joe Pearce, 'To make the Endangered Species Act effective on private lands, it will be necessary to change the status of endangered species from the landowner's enemy to the landowner's friend.' These problems will be solved by people of good will assembling to seek consensus."
What have we accomplished here together in the past two days?
What are some of the outcomes you are most proud of?
What will you do differently in future as a result of having participated in this workshop?
Please click below to view all the feedback and proposals generated during the workshop:
| Ideas, Responses to Concerns & Proposals Generated by 5/97 Workshop Participants |
Margaret Runchey (Peggy) has facilitated over 50 strategic planning workshops, visioning, action planning and reengineering sessions, and partnering meetings in the last four years in not-for-profit, public and private sectors. Her background also includes two years training experience with a Fortune 500 company. She holds a BS in Construction Engineering from California Polytechnic University, Pomona. An engineer and project controls specialist, Margaret's planning focus gave her grounding for applying participative methods to technical problem solving arenas. Participants not normally drawn to the concept of facilitated group process have been highly satisfied with the results. Ms. Runchey was a presenter at the 1995 Conference of the International Association of Facilitators, in Denver, Colorado. Her session was entitled Methodologies and Applications in Partnering and Project Planning.
Cynthia Vance, of Strategics International Inc., is a master facilitator with twenty-five years experience working with both large and small groups in public, private and non-profit sectors. Cynthia is further qualified as a management coach (Thomas Leonard's "Coach University"). She was instrumental in developing the Technology of Participation (ToP) as well as the widely used LENS methodology. Ms. Vance is also a co-author of Government Works, an overview of successful applications of participative process around the world. Ms. Vance's consulting has taken her to most states of the U.S. in addition to six other nations. She is a skilled management consultant, professional facilitator and interactive trainer who has worked with more than 450 clients leading participative group processes in strategic planning, vision, mission and action planning, customer service, consensus building, organization transformation and many other topics.
Bob Vance, of Strategics International Inc., has 25 years of conducting strategic and operations planning with public sector and private organizations across the U.S. and around the world. His participative methods promote integrated strategies to institute change, which result in clear implementation plans with strong ownership of those involved. As a professional facilitator he brings to every project his enthusiasm, his capacity to custom design, and the ability to train others in sophisticated facilitation and consensus building methods.
Cynthia and Bob are currently serving fourth terms, Peggy a second, on the Board of Directors of the International Association of Facilitators, a worldwide organization with members in over twenty countries. Bob served as Association President during 1995 -1996, and Peggy has served on the Research and Publications Task Force, which publishes the association newsletter, journal and website, for four years, the last two as Chair.
Please click below to view all the feedback and proposals generated during the workshop:
| Ideas, Responses to Concerns & Proposals Generated by 5/97 Workshop Participants |
or to visit other pages in this web site, please click on your choice:
| Top
| Home Page | Publications
| Project Partners | Project
Funders |
| Photos of Panthers & Their Habitat | Search | Send E-mail | Help Support This Project |
Designed & Maintained by Florida Stewardship Foundation || Photos &
drawings by David Maehr
Copyright 2002 by Florida Stewardship Foundation || All rights reserved.