I get nervous anytime someone else makes a judgement call as to what constitues as healthy range land. :shock: That could be government or a private entity. In order to recieve compensation for the benefits a healthy range offers wildlife and the whole ecosystem, i'd think you'd have to relenquish some of your control to someone else's judgement. I don't know that it would be worth it to me. I know that a healthy ranch with active grazing benefits the entire ecosystem in countless ways. I work hard to be a great steward of the land i my control, which also benefits plants and animals besides livestock. But it's more of a fringe benefit that has always come with responsible range management to me instead of an asset to be compenstaed for monetarily. Sadly, most enviromentalists fail to recognize anything except the few negatives. I guess my thoughts are based from seeing folks allow the door to be cracked open only to have it kicked down later. From Sage Grouse to endangered chubs to mustangs or wolves, what starts out as "cooperation" or "multiple use" turns into limitations and restrictions, even on private land. The LDS church owns a huge ranch in Florida. The EPA flys over it twice a week to inspect any activity that might "Endanger" the Evergaldes. That is a radical example but too many times the same things have happened throughout the west. Makes me leery and not very excited to jump in bed with folks who claim to have my interests in mind! :?