Trouble in Tortuga!
A Rangeland Conflict Simulation Exercise

Evaluation Report Overview

Trouble in Tortuga! was designed as a simulation to model rangeland conflict issues, conflict processes, and procedural and substantive tools for working toward solutions to these conflicts. It was also designed to give both the participants and audience a chance to see how perspectives and priorities can differ in important ways, and how dialogue and creative solutions can be possible even when conflict is complex and impassioned.

The exercise presented at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference took place in two one-hour sessions, separated by a lunch break. The participants in the exercise included Candace Allen, U.S. Forest Service district ranger from Nogales; Jeff Burgess, environmentalist from Tempe; Jim Chilton, rancher from Arivaca; Becky Jordan, Arizona state representative from Phoenix; Rod Mondt, with The Wildlands Project in Tucson; Joe Parsons, rancher from Tucson; Dave Walker from Arizona Game and Fish Commission in Phoenix; and Kirk Emerson and Hal Movius from the Udall Center (see "Cast of Characters").

At the outset, the facilitators outlined groundrules for the discussion, and solicited introductions from the participants. The goal during this first stage of the process was to separate the verbal positions taken by the parties from the implicit interests and concerns driving them. Some of the interests that emerged included protecting ranchers' livelihoods, ensuring continued access to forest lands, minimizing traffic through town, and providing development investors with an adequate profit (see Table 1). It soon became clear that the short-term issues around the development project and allotment permits were connected to longer term planning and land use issues.

During the second stage of the process there was lively discussion as the group generated a list of issues for consideration. These issues were recorded in the form of open-ended questions, leaving many solutions possible and respecting the needs of each participant. Such issues included the number of homes to be built by the developer, ownership of the X-Bar grazing permit, avoiding "leapfrog" develop, protecting the Gray Hawk, and preserving open spaces (see Table 2).

After lunch a "News Flash!" was distributed to the participants and audience. This late-breaking bulletin made settlement more desirable for all the parties, and stimulated further discussion about tools and options for achieving solutions that would meet key interests. These tools included setbacks from Las Culebras Wash to protect the Gray Hawk, grassbanking practices among the ranchers, a development zoning change, and the use of easements and tax credits (see Table 3). Possible packages of tools began to take shape in the form of "options" as the session closed (see Table 4). Had there been more time, several packages might have been generated for evaluation by the parties.

Following the process, the participants were given a chance to describe their experience during the simulation. A panel discussion ensued on rangeland reform, chaired by Jim Walsh, a Phoenix attorney, mediator, and former Arizona state legislator. The following summaries encapsulate the reactions of the panelists to the simulation and key points made during their presentations. Written statements prepared by the several of the panelists are provided in the Appendix.

Facilitator Kirk Emerson began by noting the complexity of grasslands disputes, emphasizing the interconnectedness of public and private lands and institutions. Her associate, Hal Movius, the session's other facilitator, described the facilitation process, outlining the four steps of identifying interests, framing issues, generating tools and options, and bundling these tools and options into packages which would allow parties to make trade-offs across issues depending on their interests.

Joe Parsons introduced himself as a rancher and said he could speak "from the heart" about many of the issues addressed in the simulation. He said he found it easy to play the role of a U.S. Forest Service district ranger because he has worked with them and understands the pressures they face from their offices. He added, however, that he is regulated every day by nine different agencies, and often has to wait to make even simple repairs on his own land until all of the paperwork has been completed which sometimes takes months. He described himself as an environmentalist who cared about doing the right thing and emphasized the need for communication and education between disputants, so that stereotypes are reduced. He complained that the media "tears us [ranchers] apart" leading to an impression among the public that all ranchers overgraze. According to statistics he presented, six percentof the country's population was involved in agriculture in 1980, whereas today that figure is less than two percent. He reiterated that communication and the development of one-to-one relationships is critical if rangeland conflict is to be reduced.

Jeff Burgess, an environmentalist from the Phoenix area, agreed with Parsons that there is a need for communication, and for parties to "treat each other as people." He also cautioned that not all conflicts can have purely win-win solutions, and stated that in his view, some kind of reform was inevitable, and that it would mean "fewer cows in fewer places." He emphasized the need for equity in settling disputes with land owners, including ranchers, as part of a fair reform process. He then read aloud a proposed grazing-reform act that he had authored (see Appendix).

Dave Walker, an Arizona Game and Fish Commission official, followed by saying that it had been difficult to step into unfamiliar shoes, and that he felt Jim Chilton had done very well playing a State Fish and Game Commission representative. He also described the powerlessness he felt playing a rancher (see Appendix for Walker's submitted statement).

State Representative Becky Jordan mentioned the importance of conservation partnerships, adding that legislation to further them was badly needed. She also described the helplessness that environmentalists feel because of the funding shortages they face and competing constituencies they must serve (see Appendix for Jordan's submitted statement).

Candace Allen, a district ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, recalled a real-life example of a five-million-dollar deal falling apart because of a lengthy regulatory process, and described the dilemma she feels every day "trying to decide which laws to obey" when not enough funding is being apportioned by Congress for enforcement. She said she had come to the session "with open ears, not solutions," and concurred that "personal integrity and communication are important" in building relationships that can generate short- and long- term solutions.

Environmental advocate Rod Mondt described the need "for open places and a love of open places" in the lives of citizens. He described himself as "one of the chosen poor" who had grown up on a sugar-beet farm, and was as passionate as ranchers about preserving wildlands. He agreed with Joe Parsons that the media is a source of falsehoods and therefore a stumbling block to partnerships. He added that in his view, large-scale changes were inevitable because of geographic and historical trends.

Jim Chilton began by stating that for a rancher, "every day is Earth Day." He described the wells, troughs, and salt licks that he had implemented on his ranch to promote wildlife development and preservation. He described overgrazing as "a cruel myth" and emphasized that both environmentalists and ranchers have a passion against "ranchetting." He noted that "cowboys are like bears and lions," needing a rangeland preserve. He showed dramatic photographs from 1959 and 1996, illustrating in his view that "the Forest Service policy of range rotation works!" He closed by saying that if ranchers were forced to, they would sell their land for development, but that this was a last resort (see Appendix for Chilton's submitted statement).