3 ms·

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

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.

3 ms·

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

by eigenvector 8y ago

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.