The Lease of Their Problems
Industrial landowners such as Wegrow Plant Products (WPP) often
set aside large areas to learn which of the prized seed sources
consistently germinate and grow well. These areas are often kept in
sown grass or under agricultural crops until the site is prepared
(similar to preparing a corn field for planting) and planted with
established seedlings grown from this seed. An individual test is a
small plantation that usually contains 300-500 trees. Depending on
the study design, every tree or each sixth tree is labeled at
planting. Metal identification tags are placed on stakes in the
ground next to the tree or hung like Christmas ornaments until the
tree is large enough to support a nail in its base. Two rows of
unlabeled trees serve as buffers on each side of the test or around
a group of tests planted at the same time.
Because of the large investment of time and money in this
effort, WPP long ago made the decision to lease recreational rights
in 100-300 acre blocks to these particular areas only to hunting or
fishing clubs composed of employees and their family members.
(Other groups may lease less sensitive areas within the lease
system). In return for the right to legally hunt and fish in season
and with appropriate state licenses and to enjoy other outdoor
activities such as picnicking, bird watching and hiking year-round,
clubs pay a nominal per-acre fee each year and assume some
responsibility for the upkeep of signs and property boundaries.
They also serve as effective deterrents to would-be trespassers
such as poachers, arsonists, garbage dumpers, and the occasional
industrial spy or saboteur.
For convenience, the clubs designate a single representative to
maintain correspondence with Rosa Rubens, the lease manager. At
each lease renewal, Rubens reminds the representative that the club
can plant small seasonal food plots between and around each
individual test, but that they are prohibited from altering the
forest cover within the test boundaries. Only research staff may
prescribe treatments such as cutting, organic or inorganic
fertilizers, or herbicides that affect light or nutrient levels.
The penalties for violating these terms can range from a minor
warning to termination of the lease. For particularly severe or
criminal violations, legal action could be in order, and this
eventuality could influence employment status at WPP. Relatively
few infractions have occurred, because all concerned recognize the
agreement is mutually beneficial. The employees have convenient,
inexpensive recreational areas for after hours, weekends and
vacations, and they provide valuable insurance to the company. The
work environment is also more pleasant because employees rarely
have to clean up after trespassers anymore.
When Aaron Zilgett arrived at Research Area 321 for routine
measurements, he observed that this particular club has cleared
some of the more weedy competition and damaged large numbers of
leaves from some of the test trees in the process. Before visiting
his supervisor to discuss the effect on data integrity (and
possibly the wisdom of the whole lease program), he checks the
lease records to determine the responsible party and to see if
there had been any previous difficulty with this club. When he
learns that well-respected district manager, Jack Spruce, is the
club representative, Zilgett invites him to visit the site. Zilgett
cannot fathom why Spruce's club would jeopardize their long-term
lease agreement, and he needs more information before he can decide
what needs to be done to remedy the situation.
As they approach the vandalized test, Spruce points to several
nests of uncommon Schragian cutenfuzzies that have made their home
in the buffer zone. He excitedly describes the increased numbers of
cutenfuzzies he has seen since his club started cleaning out the
test site to increase the visibility of the common game birds that
also inhabit the area. He shares his disappointment in an earlier
WPP decision to wait for cutenfuzzies to reach protected status to
take action. Once they are listed as threatened or endangered under
the terms of the Endangered Species Act, the company could lose
access to the tract for management activities deemed harmful to the
cutenfuzzies.
Zilgett realizes that the decision to sacrifice this small test
area was intended to prevent harm to the cutenfuzzies and protect
the company's interests. However, he is dumbfounded that Spruce and
the hunting club caused so much damage in an effort to increase
habitat for an animal that may or may not need it. Further, he
cannot imagine how the risky plan "worked." He can only imagine the
likelihood of anything going wrong and destroying cutenfuzzy
nesting sites instead. He is torn: Are Spruce and his cronies
incompetent employees, vandals or misinformed, well-intentioned
tenants?
Discussion Questions:
- What are Zilgett's responsibilities to Rubens, Spruce, WWP and
the cutenfuzzies?
- Should Spruce, as the club's representative, have cleared his
decision with WPP before the club took action?
- Should Spruce's actions "off the clock" affect his professional
life?
- What should Rosa Rubens do?
- How would your responses differ if tests were to determine the
likelihood of reintroduction of equally uncommon plant species and
Mr. Spruce had sacrificed one protected species for another?
- How would your responses differ if Mr. Spruce's club just
wanted to improve his hunting success and hadn't recognized the
cutenfuzzy habitat?
- What responsibility does WPP have to its lessees and to the
environment to have a sound contract without loopholes?