Trouble in Tortuga!
A Rangeland Conflict Simulation Exercise

Lessons Learned

It is hoped that Trouble in Tortuga! can be used in a variety of contexts with a variety of participants and audiences to illustrate the substantive issues and complex dynamics that characterize rangeland conflict and problem-solving. The designers of the simulation wish to make it clear that this is very much a work in progress, from which different lessons and ideas might be drawn in coming months and years.

From the presentation at "The Future of Arid Grasslands" conference, several lessons emerged from both participant and audience comments about what might be done in the future to enhance the usefulness of the simulation exercise.

First, it seemed that breaking the session into two parts, separated by a lunch break, diminished some of the momentum that had been generated by the first session. In the future the simulation probably should be played without a significant break in the action (i.e., two 90-minute sessions separated by a 15-minute break).

Second, it is clear that while enacting an unfamiliar role is essential to the exercise, it can be a difficult task. This is especially the case when one's point-of-view actually clashes with the role one must enact, and when there is a large amount of technical information to be learned. Trouble in Tortuga! requires that participants have some familiarity with rangeland and planning issues in order to produce a more effective and realistic exercise. Participants should be encouraged to read through the materials in advance and to "inhabit" their roles as much as possible in preparation for the exercise, so that they can be both passionate and well-informed as participants.

Third, modeling both conflict and the resolution of conflict can be competing aims when time is limited. The scenario could be used effectively for either, but perhaps not both aims. Because the scenario does not clearly specify negotiation parameters (such as issues, options, and alternatives to agreement for each party), the simulation is perhaps most useful as a tool for introducing participants to issues and conflicts relating to western development: ranching, planning, multiple land-use policies, and environmental protection. Uncovering the interdependence of these issues is a major lesson that should be emphasized during debriefing.

Fourth, it is important to carefully explain the process that will be used during the simulation to both participants and audiences. Modeling a complex conflict and describing tools for its possible resolution are challenging tasks, made even more difficult when there are significant time constraints. Having a clear procedural template to work from can illustrate for participants and audiences where the process is at any point, and where it might go as discussion develops.

Finally, it is clear that more dialogue is needed between the "real-life" participants in rangeland conflict, all of whom in their own words lamented the absence of opportunities for face-to-face communication in a neutral setting regarding the difficult issues which comprise "rangeland conflict." In the future, perhaps simulations like Trouble in Tortuga! can be used as training exercises in the context of longer interventions that are designed to help different western constituencies to grapple with and resolve the choices they collectively face.