3 ms·

This may seem like a valid viewpoint, but it does not sound completely correct. I am not sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conserv

by sn41 8y ago

This may seem like a valid viewpoint, but it does not sound completely correct. I am not sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conservation. Perhaps ecologically sensitive parcels of land should not be private. Wetlands, mountains, forests and perhaps beaches (that's up for debate right now) should be considered "commons" or "protected" with general access to the public. The fees in National and State Parks go for conservation, not for profit.

the_absurdist 8y ago
Here's one organization that engages in private lands conservation. You can now be sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conservation: https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/private-lands-conservation/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work...
- sn41 8y ago
  Thanks, this is news to me. I am not sure where I am with respect to this. What prevents the entire society deciding to use the land for some other purpose?
  - eigenvector 8y ago
    Nothing except the rules of that society, which is why organizations like the Nature Conservancy actively seek to have their landholdings added to national and state parks so they can be permanently protected. But the political appetite to do that doesn't always exist, which is why private conservancies are there - to protect natural land that the government won't.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      > which is why organizations like the Nature Conservancy actively seek to have their landholdings added to national and state parks so they can be permanently protected This is foolish. Land can't be given with a perpetual conservation requirement attached; as long as the Nature Conservancy owns the land, it's able to ensure that the land is used according to its own preferences. Land given to the government is protected much less permanently than that.
      - eigenvector 8y ago
        You have to look at it in context. The government can do things that private landholders cannot - for instance a private owner doesn't own the subsurface by default. In some places, private landholders can be forced to provide an easement across their property for certain types of activities, including railroads and mining claims. And if you want to protect a vast tract of wilderness, it costs money to monitor it for things like illegal hunting. The government has far more resources to use on enforcement actions to protect parkland.
        thaumasiotes 8y ago
        > In some places, private landholders can be forced to provide an easement across their property for certain types of activities, including railroads and mining claims. This isn't a point in favor of transferring ownership to the government; it's always easier to give yourself permission to run a railroad than to compel someone else to give you the same permission.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
the_absurdist 8y ago
On what rationale can you decree that all lands in need of conservation should be held by the "public"? Certainly you must have some evidence, then, that private entities are necessarily less capable of and effective at conserving land than public entities?

by sn41 8y ago

the_absurdist 8y ago

Here's one organization that engages in private lands conservation. You can now be sure that we allow parcels of land to be private in the name of conservation: https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/private-lands-conservation/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work...

sn41 8y ago
Thanks, this is news to me. I am not sure where I am with respect to this. What prevents the entire society deciding to use the land for some other purpose?
- eigenvector 8y ago
  Nothing except the rules of that society, which is why organizations like the Nature Conservancy actively seek to have their landholdings added to national and state parks so they can be permanently protected. But the political appetite to do that doesn't always exist, which is why private conservancies are there - to protect natural land that the government won't.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    > which is why organizations like the Nature Conservancy actively seek to have their landholdings added to national and state parks so they can be permanently protected This is foolish. Land can't be given with a perpetual conservation requirement attached; as long as the Nature Conservancy owns the land, it's able to ensure that the land is used according to its own preferences. Land given to the government is protected much less permanently than that.
    - eigenvector 8y ago
      You have to look at it in context. The government can do things that private landholders cannot - for instance a private owner doesn't own the subsurface by default. In some places, private landholders can be forced to provide an easement across their property for certain types of activities, including railroads and mining claims. And if you want to protect a vast tract of wilderness, it costs money to monitor it for things like illegal hunting. The government has far more resources to use on enforcement actions to protect parkland.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        > In some places, private landholders can be forced to provide an easement across their property for certain types of activities, including railroads and mining claims. This isn't a point in favor of transferring ownership to the government; it's always easier to give yourself permission to run a railroad than to compel someone else to give you the same permission.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

the_absurdist 8y ago

On what rationale can you decree that all lands in need of conservation should be held by the "public"? Certainly you must have some evidence, then, that private entities are necessarily less capable of and effective at conserving land than public entities?