Latest Blog Posts

At the age of 12, I was playing with matches in the only grassy field in my urban neighborhood in Yonkers, New York. Pretty soon, my summer fun turned into a dangerous game as a match flicked through the air ignited dry grass. When I frantically stomped on the smoky spot, it turned into a fireball which seemed to magically move to another part of the field. I ran to sound the alarm. But by the time the fire engines arrived, the entire field was charred and smoldering. Fortunately for me, the firemen dowsed the field before any neighboring houses went up in smoke. While I escaped reform school, you can bet my summer fun was replaced by a lengthy grounding and an endless succession of backyard and house chores.

Decades later, I would come to appreciate the important role grasslands play in the circle of life in the Hudson Valley and throughout the world. Scenic Hudson's terrific Conservation Science Director Dr. Sacha Spector has deepened my understanding with a fascinating article recently published in Wings, the Journal of the Xerces Society. Sacha also oversees our grassland restoration projects on park lands owned by Scenic Hudson.

Once one of America's predominant natural features, grasslands historically covered up to 1 billion acres, primarily in the Great Plains where the buffalo roamed. In the Northeast, early settlers' demand for sheep pastures and hayfields proceeded at such a furious pace that by 1850 they'd turned some 80 percent of the region's forests into grasslands. Since then, a combination of natural and human forces (with sprawling development a major culprit) have turned grasslands into subdivisions or back into woods at a breakneck rate. Out West, more than 285 million grassland acres have been lost. Here in the Northeast, trees once again blanket most of those fields our forefathers toiled to clear.
While less dramatic than a mountaintop vista or a stream-filled gorge, the critical role grasslands play in supporting bird and other life makes them a thing of beauty, worthy of our collective efforts to protect them.
Why should we care? Although they may appear scrubby, grasslands offer enormous benefits. In the Great Plains and West, they provide 95 percent of the rangeland for America's beef cattle. Throughout the nation, they support a $123-billion hunting, fishing and wildlife-watching industry. Grasslands are essential for storing and purifying water supplies; they also sustain an incredible variety of wildlife, especially birds and insects. Feathered creatures dependent on this habitat for nesting, breeding and rest during migration have paid a heavy price for grasslands' disappearance. During the last 30 years, these species have declined faster than any U.S. bird group.

Efforts to maintain grasslands have been underway since the 1990s by both the federal government and many states. In the Hudson Valley, protecting grasslands is a priority of Scenic Hudson's land preservation program and one of the reasons we are pushing for restoration of state funding for land conservation. Such lands provide habitat for creatures such as bobolinks, northern harriers and short-eared owls. Because the abundance and variety of wildlife increases with the size of a grassland area, it's imperative to preserve large properties. Scenic Hudson accomplishes this, in part, by safeguarding working farms near each other. The strategy is akin to a three-run homer: In addition to protecting contiguous swaths of pasture and meadows, it guarantees an ongoing source for healthy local food and sustains communities' agriculture-dependent economies.

Saving grassland from development is only half the battle. Equally important is keeping the grass on the grassland. Halting forest succession—the natural process in which shrubs and then trees replace grasses and small plants, turning a wildflower-filled meadow into woodland—is extremely time- and labor-intensive. Halting this leafy onrush can be accomplished by regular mowing, proscribed burns, chemical treatments or livestock grazing. An added challenge is halting the spread of invasive species, such as purple loosestrife, that crowd out native plants wildlife count on. Short of pulling out the offending immigrants, no surefire remedy has yet been found for eradicating them. Here's another good reason for keeping grassland in farmers' hands: their cows and sheep get this job done safely and efficiently.

Two New York Times articles published earlier this month illustrate the highs and lows of land protection right now. One, "Preservation Groups Find Bargains in Housing Bust," described how plummeting real estate prices have provided once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for land-conservation organizations to protect irreplaceable natural treasures once destined for sprawling development. From Idaho to Florida and Virginia to Oregon, groups have preserved fields and forests, marshland and ocean waterfronts that as little as a year ago were slated for massive housing projects. Many of these scenic wonders now will be turned into parks.

That's the high. The low, "New Year but No Relief for Strapped States," noted the challenges many state governments face to rein in skyrocketing deficits. Actually, the earlier article hinted at this dilemma's environmental implications: dedicated funds for protecting land and creating new parks already have been a casualty of fiscal belt-tightening in statehouses from Olympia to Albany -- just when they could do the most good. With red ink continuing to rise, even more drastic cuts are likely. There's a trickle-down effect, too. With less state support, county and municipal governments are being forced to slash their own budgets, so land preservation and parks often take another hit on the local level.

Why are these initiatives such easy deficit-reduction targets? Because there's a presumption they are luxuries. Sure, parks make us feel good and wildflower-filled meadows are pretty to look at, but they don't pay the bills. That's the all-too-common perception among legislators and even the public at large. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

For proof, take a look at "Conservation: An Investment That Pays, a study released last year by The Trust for Public Land. It's one of the most comprehensive looks yet at the myriad benefits land protection offers our cash-strapped economies.

The report compiles a wealth of statistics offering incontrovertible evidence that:

• Parks increase surrounding property values and hence local revenues, while protected open space such as farms keep the costs of municipal services low. (Remember, cows don't go to school);
• New parks spur economic development and boost nearby businesses, often providing the catalyst for downtown revitalization. This point was driven home forcefully in Poughkeepsie (headquarters of Scenic Hudson, the organization I head) with the October opening of Walkway Over the Hudson, which transformed a rusting railroad bridge into a dramatic park. In its first two months of operation, it attracted 400,000 visitors, while local restaurants have enjoyed a spike in business;
• Those of us who live near parks are more likely to exercise, which helps us ward off medical conditions responsible for out-of-control health care costs;
• Preserved forests and fields naturally purify our air and water while conserved floodplains prevent property loss from natural disaster -- all reducing the need for costly manmade protections;
• By enhancing our quality of life, parks and open space attract new jobs and residents. (A healthy local environment is among business executives' top concerns when looking for a place to relocate or set up shop.)

Parks aren't freeloaders. Far from it, they provide communities with direct economic benefits. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has calculated that Americans who engage in hunting, fishing and wildlife-watching spend nearly $125 billion annually, supporting an industry responsible for 1.6 million jobs -- more people than Walmart employs. The National Parks Conservation Association reports that for each $1 invested in our national parks, there's a $4 return in local spending. In New York, figures are comparable for state parks; I bet the same holds for other states.

In many states, including New York, funds for land protection already have taken disproportionate cuts that fail to take into account these far-reaching economic and environmental benefits. It's imperative we let our legislators know they can't let the landscapes that enrich our lives -- and, as it turns out, contribute so much to the bottom line -- be the primary victims of future reductions. For in the end, it's us who wind up being the true victims.