Get reliable rangeland science

Past critiques of conservation easements have focused on the nature of perpetuity, enforcement limitations, and lack of easement flexibility and conservation effectiveness (Korngold 2009; Owley 2011).� I argue that easements especially an exacted easement, one that is fulfilling a mitigation requirement fundamentally change the landowner�s relationship to the land and its associated conservation values. Through review of three exacted conservation easement agreements, their management plans and endowment budgets, I provide evidence that re-territorialization, dispossession, and enclosure leading to accumulation perpetuate conflict between ranch landowners and conservation interests over protected versus working lands.� First, re-territorializing of the ranch as a preserve changes how ranchers can use the rangeland resources. It fails to value livestock production or rancher ecological knowledge, which contribute to ecosystem sustainability.� Second, prohibitions on some rangeland management practices like pest control, water development, and range seeding may render parts of the land of little value for livestock production resulting in dispossession.� Third, enclosure for conservation requires compliance and for exacted easements typically requires resource enhancements leading to accumulation.� A service industry emerges to uphold environmental regulations required for �special status� species that previously had no economic value. On the surface, all conservation easements give sustainable management �a foot in the door� and support the rancher�s place on the landscape, but taking a closer look reveals new enclosures of rangeland resources from exacted conservation easements and dispossession of livestock ranchers combined with accumulation by third party, non-state agents.