4 ms·
> 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 o
by 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 agoHappily, 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.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising." Oh, to this I can very much agree, also that compromises are important. There would be no use of closing everything down officially, to only then have people do it illegal with a worse impact. (but I am still dreaming of the day, when all the noisy engines are gone in nature..)