Free Market Environmentalist

[Nemont]

EG,
You should enjoy this story. Maybe you have it right in you own private Idaho.

Private Investment Protects Environment Where Government Fails

Thursday, April 08, 2004
By Radley Balko
The Institute for Humane Studies, an essential educational foundation in Arlington, Va., just launched a new Web site entitled A Better Earth. The site aims to educate college students, graduate students and others on alternative methods of environmental preservation — methods less hostile to free markets and free enterprise.



The new Web site is important, because the environment seems to be the one area where even avowed free marketeers can't quite bring themselves to trust private enterprise over government intervention.

Profit-seekers and corporations are too greedy and self-interested, the thinking goes, to give much thought to preserving wildlife, forests and wilderness.

But is that really so? Are governments really better at preserving the environment than private enterprise?

The biggest polluters on the planet are governments, not corporations. The U.S. government immunizes itself from most all of the environmental laws it demands of private corporations. And it is by far the bigger polluter.

Overseas, the countries most hostile to market forces tend to be the countries with the worst pollution habit. We found after the fall of communism, for example, that the dirtiest governments of the 20th century weren't the capitalist corporate giants of the West, but the Soviet Union and the countries of the Eastern Block — governments where the notion of private property and free enterprise were nonexistent.

A little reflection should reveal why that would be the case. Think for a moment about things that are "private" versus things that are "public."

Given the choice, would you rather use a private bathroom or a public one? If forced to bed down on a given night, would you rather sleep in a private home or in public housing? If a loved one were ill, would you rather he be taken to a private hospital or a public one?

Economists call this phenomenon "the tragedy of the commons." We take better care of things we own, things that are ours. We're far less careful and cautious with things someone else owns. And we're least respectful of those things owned by the "public."

Consider forests. Every summer we watch the news as thousands of acres of publicly owned lands go up in flames. Ever wonder why privately owned forests don't burn as often? Why do these fires always seem to start in national or state parks?

The answer is that land owned by the government is generally unkempt. Regulations and pressure from environmental groups keep much of our parks system untouched

.


Story


Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Good article!! Thanks.

 

[Ten Bears]

Good read.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ithaca, you liked it?

I thought it was ok up until this part:

Consider forests. Every summer we watch the news as thousands of acres of publicly owned lands go up in flames. Ever wonder why privately owned forests don't burn as often? Why do these fires always seem to start in national or state parks?

The answer is that land owned by the government is generally unkempt. Regulations and pressure from environmental groups keep much of our parks system untouched.

Fires are natural and without fire forests will NOT be healthy. Don't they get that? That statement would be like saying "every winter it snows on thousands of acres of public land." Duh!! That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Public lands are unkempt????
I don't know why all of our Socialistic friends on the board and in the general populas don't offer their services for free to help rectify the problem. Especially since it just isn't fair if some one actually makes a profit on this and we should not use public funds for it...
But it makes no never mind here, I would just let it burn any way, that way I can be paid to stand and watch it...LOL...

 

[Ithaca 37]

WA Hunter, OK, There were a few parts I didn't agree with, but I thought the article made some good points.

 

[BuzzH]

This persons "theories" dont hold water.

The thing that has to happen to avoid "the tragedy of the commons" is for the owners of public lands(all of us) to demand accountability for its correct management. The answer is not to sell of public lands so an individual owner has a "vested" interest. I believe that we all have a vested interest in public lands, the problem is most dont want to be bothered with doing anything to help public lands.

Also, the forest fire example is lame assed. The reasons for private forests not burning are more complex than "unkempt" forests. How about the fact that most of the public lands "forests" are located in the arid west? How about the fact that periodic natural fire frequencies were 5-15 years? How about the fact that public lands are open to many ignition sources that private forests are not? How about the fact that the PUBLIC demanded that its forests be protected by snuffing out all fires? How about the fact that most private forests are near roads and in flat country? ETC. ETC. ETC.

The person has no idea what they're talking about, you cant compare the complexity of dealing with REMOTE national forests and a freaking tree farm in Georgia. To use that as an example to justify the privatization of the environment is not a good idea. The author may blow merry smoke up the butt of some asphalt born city dude on privatizing the environment, but I aint buying it...

 

[Washington Hunter]

Thankyou Buzz!!! My thoughts exactly!

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
You are missing the point of the article. It is saying public owned assets are never going to be taken care of as well as privately owned assets.
I don't buy everything in the article either and understand the forest comparison is a joke.

The thing that has to happen to avoid "the tragedy of the commons" is for the owners of public lands(all of us) to demand accountability for its correct management. The answer is not to sell of public lands so an individual owner has a "vested" interest. I believe that we all have a vested interest in public lands, the problem is most dont want to be bothered with doing anything to help public lands

Just because you think you know how to manage the land for the good of what you enjoy does not mean that the next guy does. Doesn't the taxpayer that wants to ride an r 4 wheeler have a vested interest in the land? Using the same theory the cattleman who graze land have a vested interest in it as well. My point is who gets to decide what is the "correct" management of the land.


The point of it is that without a value gained, be it money, time, beauty, peace, quiet, ie. something of value of some sort, humans will behave as if they don't care about their impact on the land. Because you like to use the lands to recreate for your pleasure and want a nice place to hunt and fish and enjoy nature, you want these lands preserved for that pursuit and for the next generation, BTW that is what I want also, however the guy riding on the ATV wants his interests to come first, the rancher wants his, the bird watcher theirs, the loggers theirs. All of these people have politically powerful allies who will do their bidding. This doesn't happen on private property because the land owner decides which pursuit bring him or her the most value.

Why is hunting generally better on private land? Because the land owner most likely is protecting his assets by either limiting the number of people on their land or selling the right to hunt. Public lands, on the other hand, have Multiple uses, often incompatible with each other, competing for the resources.

Perhaps you don't see but I guess it boils down to who decides what use is the correct and best use of the land.

Nemont

 

[Rogue 6]

Look at the Wilderness areas (untouched) and compare them to private timber lands. The private lands in Oregon are checker boarded with BLM and Forest Service lands so it is a fare comparison. The private timber lands get logged more often but have much less fuel and fire is never allowed to just burn. They are not a "natural forest" full of shit. They are a growning forest managed for marketable timber, crawling with big game. The wilderness lands such as the Sky Lakes Wilderness or the Cascade Wilderness areas are all dieing doug fir with ground cover that would get a piromaniac boy scout excited, and are also empty of game compared to the private timber lands.

 

[Rogue 6]

Also most the timber land around here are open for anyone to hunt and fish on. Without charge!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Rogue, the reason some wilderness areas are in such bad shape is because they have not burned for decades. If these areas are going to be worthwhile big game habitat, it needs to burn regularly, simple as that.

 

[ELKCHSR]

The biggest problem that will arise from the just let it burn, is that the forests have gone to long with out the proper management. Now if it gets a good fire, it burns every thing just a little to hot. Yes nature will eventually over come any of this, but what I know will happen, because it happens constantly, people will come out of the wood work complaining about how ugly it looks, how it has just destroyed every thing they remember. Those same people are now crying foul on 9/11 and how it could have been prevented...These people don't really know much of any thing except their own shallow existance....Sad really...

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I didnt miss the point at all, the author did.

By that I mean some of the things that we manage for on public lands would be impossible to put a value on. Further, the management of some things simply wouldnt happen. For example, what "vested interest" would any landowner have in managing or helping endangered species? Whats the gain (vested interest) for them to manage for wolverines, lynx, razorback suckers, chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, grizzlies, wolves, black-footed ferrets? There isnt one, and thats why the authors approach is a pipe dream.

Also, I dont think it takes a biologist, ecologist, or rocket scientist to understand what needs to happen to avoid the "tragedy of the commons". I mean for Christ sake, do you have to be told over-grazing, ripping apart riparian vegetation with an ATV, etc. etc. etc isnt the proper way to manage? I think there could be some common sense used that would go a long way to managing land correctly, before we throw in the towel and turn everything over to private interests.

I am a staunch supporter of public lands, because frankly, its the only way I can afford to hunt, fish, and recreate. Well, actually, if push comes to shove, yeah, I could afford a lease and guided hunts, but I aint selfish and I dont think I should have to pay someone for the privelege. I want the working man in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho to be able to grab up grampas '06, buy a cheap tag, and have a good place to hunt without paying some landowner. Again, what incentive (vested interest) does a private landowner have to allow free hunting on his land by the public? He doesnt, it has to be worth his time to manage, in other words he has to MAKE MONEY, or at the least be paid for his effort. That pretty much means charging, and that pretty much means joe average is going to be left sitting on the sidelines.

I say its a crap idea and it wont work. If hunting and fishing were to become a pay some landowner only deal, I'd quit and join PETA...

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- I agree that the real tragedy of the commons is that the average citizen doesn't care enough to put any work/effort in. You know as well as I that too many management issues are being settled in court rooms and legislators offices, sometimes ignoring those who know first hand what's happening on the ground. One good thing, IMO, about the environmental movement is that the general public is more (albeit slight) educated on the issues. Environmentalism to some degree or another is now popular and very well should be.

We ALL have a vested interest in public lands due to many things that are impossible to put a $$ figure to (ie clean water, clear air, a place to 're-center' yourself, aesthetics, etc).