9 ms·

In the United States, the American Prairie Reserve [1] is doing something along these lines in the area around the Wyoming/Montana border. In particular, their

by qchris 4y ago

In the United States, the American Prairie Reserve [1] is doing something along these lines in the area around the Wyoming/Montana border. In particular, their purchases (which often include private ranches that come up for sale) focus on building those corridors between existing public lands, effectively creating much larger continuous ecosystems that this article mentioned. It's probably easier to do in the United States (a lot more land than in England, and with fewer entrenched ownership considerations), but I'd really be interested to see if similar projects would work in other parts of the country that are more densely populated, or in areas like the California central basin to where public water resources are being abused to farm a desert. [1] https://www.americanprairie.org/ https://www.americanprairie.org/

throwaway894345 4y ago
Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if anyone can just give their private land to the public for use as a wildlife preserve? EDIT: I also found this map of protected lands, but I'm having a hard time discerning between the different colors and I'm not colorblind. http://www.protectedlands.net/map/ http://www.protectedlands.net/map/
- toast0 4y ago
  > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    There’s two parts. The conservation easement strips the land of its development capacity, and that restriction rides with the land to future owners in perpetuity, while the non profit stewards the land and enforces those legal claims if necessary.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I hate this process. It effectively gives someone else rights over the current owners land. The person becomes a tenet farmer in effect and is responsible for the taxes and upkeep while under the control of the organization. And the land is not accessible to the public. It's much better for the land to be organization-owned and open to public use. Just my opinion.
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.
        giantg2 4y ago
        At least in my experience, th orgs near me buy the land, place restrictions on it, then sell it. Only rarely do they hold it and open it to the public.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        This seems like it would inevitably lead to a limited number of entities owning almost all the conservation land. Stripping it of development value in perpetuity ought to lower the value considerably, making it easier for an interested party to accumulate it. Maybe in hopes that some day they'll figure out how to undo that restriction. Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation easement can be removed. So the value will be impacted, but the land will still have some residual development value.
        4y ago
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas.
    - yonaguska 4y ago
      Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and allow it to pay for itself.
- jen20 4y ago
  > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy than the party in control of the federal government when it comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be "yes".
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    To be clear, my intended implication wasn't "NGOs are untrustworthy", but rather that "the federal government is a lot more likely to be around in 50 years than an NGO". I was also assuming that donating the lands to a federal program implied that the federal government couldn't just turn around and sell the land a few years later, although that might be naive on my part.
- ekidd 4y ago
  > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only works in the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or other protected reserve. In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," private non-profits that protect land, and make it available for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts to work together: One will own the land, and the second will own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes will be protected. Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses also like being able to hand out trail maps to their customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect a certain amount of farmland. The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational use, and we have plenty of other land that doesn't allow them. So why not let people keep doing that here?" I think that's one important trick to running a successful land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to support a wide variety of recreational uses.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "So why not let people keep doing that here?" Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats? In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing? (like using electric engines only for example)
    - ekidd 4y ago
      Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.) A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look for ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.
  - aporetics 4y ago
    Example: Bears Ears National Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?w...
    - loonster 4y ago
      It's just as hard to undo something as it is to do something. A proclamation by a president is a very low bar. A better method would be by law. That would require a future president, house, and Senate to agree.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  >TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana Not only flows through it, but originates it! That's where rocky mountain snow turns into the mighty Missouri river. Another interesting fact is that the world's shortest river also dumps into the missouri close to it's headwaters in central Montana. The river flows from Giant Springs in great falls, Montana for a little over 200 feet and then dumps a substantial flow of crystal clear, clean water into the sometimes muddy Missouri. The mixing is sometimes a striking thing to watch and there is a neat little park there that also has a trout hatchery and you can feed the enormous number of ducks and canada goose that spend large portions of the year in Great Falls. Underrated town with some neat stuff :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River
spurgu 4y ago
Similar initiative for preserving ancient forests in Finland, originally founded by legendary Finnish environmental activist Pentti Linkola: https://luonnonperintosaatio.fi/en/ https://luonnonperintosaatio.fi/en/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Natural_Heritage_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Natural_Heritage_Found... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola
- cromulent 4y ago
  Also the Helsinki Foundation buys land and then distributes veto rights to ensure it is never re-sold.
amalcon 4y ago
It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason The reason is: (1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose. (2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted powers where there must be a specific Constitutional basis for it pursuing a purpose for it to be valid. (3) Seeking revenue is not a thing prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution. (4) Under the federal Constitution, subordinate entities within states don't have distinct powers from states; if they are limited, that is a matter of state law, not the federal Constitution. EDIT: Also, note also that some states do Constitutionally restrict the purposes of eminent domain, or have state laws limiting local use of it, some, IIRC, in Constitutional provisions that were proposed and passed directly in response to Kelo, so that what happened there would not be allowed.
  - voxic11 4y ago
    How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
dbingham 4y ago
There are actually quite a few community land trusts [1,2] out there. They can be conversation focused, housing focused, or focused on other priorities. But they all have similar structures - non-profits that are focused on acquiring some level of ownership over large tracts of land so that they can manage that land to achieve a goal (conservation, keeping housing affordable, etc). My local conservation focused [3] one has been very successful and is the source of many of the best hikes in my area as well! If you want to find similar projects, search for "conservation community land trust" and you'll find them! Alternately, here's a handy tool provided by the Land Trust Alliance a quick search turned up: https://www.landtrustalliance.org/find-land-trust https://www.landtrustalliance.org/find-land-trust [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust [3] https://sycamorelandtrust.org/ https://sycamorelandtrust.org/
- gerad 4y ago
  Here in the Bay Area in Marin County, we have the Marin Agricultural Land Trust [1]. [1] https://malt.org/ https://malt.org/
CodeWriter23 4y ago
> where public water resources are being abused to farm a desert You are incredibly short-sighted and your implied policy direction seems to favor human extinction. "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California." https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/

by qchris 4y ago

throwaway894345 4y ago

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if anyone can just give their private land to the public for use as a wildlife preserve? EDIT: I also found this map of protected lands, but I'm having a hard time discerning between the different colors and I'm not colorblind. http://www.protectedlands.net/map/ http://www.protectedlands.net/map/

toast0 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  There’s two parts. The conservation easement strips the land of its development capacity, and that restriction rides with the land to future owners in perpetuity, while the non profit stewards the land and enforces those legal claims if necessary.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I hate this process. It effectively gives someone else rights over the current owners land. The person becomes a tenet farmer in effect and is responsible for the taxes and upkeep while under the control of the organization. And the land is not accessible to the public. It's much better for the land to be organization-owned and open to public use. Just my opinion.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        At least in my experience, th orgs near me buy the land, place restrictions on it, then sell it. Only rarely do they hold it and open it to the public.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        This seems like it would inevitably lead to a limited number of entities owning almost all the conservation land. Stripping it of development value in perpetuity ought to lower the value considerably, making it easier for an interested party to accumulate it. Maybe in hopes that some day they'll figure out how to undo that restriction. Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation easement can be removed. So the value will be impacted, but the land will still have some residual development value.
        4y ago
- mcguire 4y ago
  Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas.
  - yonaguska 4y ago
    Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and allow it to pay for itself.
jen20 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy than the party in control of the federal government when it comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be "yes".
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  To be clear, my intended implication wasn't "NGOs are untrustworthy", but rather that "the federal government is a lot more likely to be around in 50 years than an NGO". I was also assuming that donating the lands to a federal program implied that the federal government couldn't just turn around and sell the land a few years later, although that might be naive on my part.
ekidd 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only works in the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or other protected reserve. In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," private non-profits that protect land, and make it available for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts to work together: One will own the land, and the second will own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes will be protected. Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses also like being able to hand out trail maps to their customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect a certain amount of farmland. The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational use, and we have plenty of other land that doesn't allow them. So why not let people keep doing that here?" I think that's one important trick to running a successful land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to support a wide variety of recreational uses.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "So why not let people keep doing that here?" Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats? In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing? (like using electric engines only for example)
  - ekidd 4y ago
    Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.) A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look for ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.
- aporetics 4y ago
  Example: Bears Ears National Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?w...
  - loonster 4y ago
    It's just as hard to undo something as it is to do something. A proclamation by a president is a very low bar. A better method would be by law. That would require a future president, house, and Senate to agree.
idiotsecant 4y ago
>TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana Not only flows through it, but originates it! That's where rocky mountain snow turns into the mighty Missouri river. Another interesting fact is that the world's shortest river also dumps into the missouri close to it's headwaters in central Montana. The river flows from Giant Springs in great falls, Montana for a little over 200 feet and then dumps a substantial flow of crystal clear, clean water into the sometimes muddy Missouri. The mixing is sometimes a striking thing to watch and there is a neat little park there that also has a trout hatchery and you can feed the enormous number of ducks and canada goose that spend large portions of the year in Great Falls. Underrated town with some neat stuff :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River

spurgu 4y ago

Similar initiative for preserving ancient forests in Finland, originally founded by legendary Finnish environmental activist Pentti Linkola: https://luonnonperintosaatio.fi/en/ https://luonnonperintosaatio.fi/en/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Natural_Heritage_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Natural_Heritage_Found... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

cromulent 4y ago
Also the Helsinki Foundation buys land and then distributes veto rights to ensure it is never re-sold.

amalcon 4y ago

It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason The reason is: (1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose. (2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted powers where there must be a specific Constitutional basis for it pursuing a purpose for it to be valid. (3) Seeking revenue is not a thing prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution. (4) Under the federal Constitution, subordinate entities within states don't have distinct powers from states; if they are limited, that is a matter of state law, not the federal Constitution. EDIT: Also, note also that some states do Constitutionally restrict the purposes of eminent domain, or have state laws limiting local use of it, some, IIRC, in Constitutional provisions that were proposed and passed directly in response to Kelo, so that what happened there would not be allowed.
- voxic11 4y ago
  How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
  - dragonwriter 4y ago

dbingham 4y ago

There are actually quite a few community land trusts [1,2] out there. They can be conversation focused, housing focused, or focused on other priorities. But they all have similar structures - non-profits that are focused on acquiring some level of ownership over large tracts of land so that they can manage that land to achieve a goal (conservation, keeping housing affordable, etc). My local conservation focused [3] one has been very successful and is the source of many of the best hikes in my area as well! If you want to find similar projects, search for "conservation community land trust" and you'll find them! Alternately, here's a handy tool provided by the Land Trust Alliance a quick search turned up: https://www.landtrustalliance.org/find-land-trust https://www.landtrustalliance.org/find-land-trust [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust [3] https://sycamorelandtrust.org/ https://sycamorelandtrust.org/

gerad 4y ago
Here in the Bay Area in Marin County, we have the Marin Agricultural Land Trust [1]. [1] https://malt.org/ https://malt.org/

CodeWriter23 4y ago

> where public water resources are being abused to farm a desert You are incredibly short-sighted and your implied policy direction seems to favor human extinction. "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California." https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/