3 ms·

I attended a private meeting of landowners that border Yellowstone on one side -- many small moments that could be described.. however, it is easy to say that a

I attended a private meeting of landowners that border Yellowstone on one side -- many small moments that could be described.. however, it is easy to say that almost every person in that meeting was distinctly territorial .. those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now, not "your big plan from the city" .. however (mostly) they are there in that location due to personal history and (mostly) think and talk in terms of "stewardship of the lands" and some even claim personal relationships with some of the more prominent creatures that cross their lands. Short version is - most will say that they know far better than you what the wildlife wants in order to thrive, if it is scientifically true or not. Secondly they (mostly) will actively tell urban environmentalists to keep their "opinion" to themselves, and there is the door. Is this surprising among people who managed to own and live on land like that, in the 21st century ? ps- almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands, that I could tell. Also construction of any kind is rarely done as far as I know.. time between changes is certainly measured in years.. even in California, a registered private forest landowner must file and wait for years to make small changes to structures, or other serious landscaping. pps- elaborating on "those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now" .. they are in a social and legal system right now, and for decades, that approaches changes with huge barriers.. personal objection merges with legal prevention and finance limitation.. You think they have a few hundred FAANG shares to cash out to make some change? no, money is on different paths there and half that I could tell, were pretty limited with the cash flow. The point is, it is personal will PLUS personal finance limitation PLUS legal oversight PLUS decades-learned behavior ppps- each attendee was/is deeply aware of the natural world there. Thinking a lot more about this now, I suspect that the meeting I was in, many years ago, in California, was a direct component of this 'Yellowstone to Yukon' plan, though I have no details.

cratermoon 4y ago
> almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands And this is the thing. Many are absentee landlords, and their 'stewardship', such as it is, amounts to doing little-to-nothing until the borders of far-flung suburbs edge up to their property, then they can either sell it to Wal*Mart or outlet store developer and make a tidy profit, or contract with a housing developer to get it rezoned, parcel it out, and make a huge profit turning it over to homebuyers. They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  well frankly, the obvious flaming on those landowners here, more than just being obvious, is causing me to reflect on my own bias while posting on this real meeting I attended, instead of fighting personal demons in some outrage internet comment. First and foremost -- why did the people in that meeting bother to show up? maybe because the ones in the room (mostly) DO care about the wildlands. So my comment about "there is the door" was my own projection.. no one in that meeting said that, I did while thinking about it.. Those people did meet and probably some of them are now part of this proposed corridor action
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Were you present as an owner of wild lands? Would you join this proposed plan?
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      I presented a small bit of technical detail at that meeting as part of the convening environmentalist organization; zero interest in computers there, basically. re: decisions, the authority of a single vote YES/NO is at a maximum in that crowd; even getting the physical meeting was a year+ of prep IIR.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    I do hope you find allies. There are people out there with genuine conservationist intent. These days I hear way more about the people who insist on their rights to do whatever they want with "their" land.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them. this describes real estate developers.. there are plenty of those, and plenty more waiting if they could. But wilderness land owners are (mostly) NOT the real estate developers really because .. ? test question..
jandrewrogers 4y ago
In my own experience, “urban environmentalists” are in the awkward spot of frequently having strong opinions about wilderness management while being utterly ignorant of it. The people that live on or near the lands usually want to preserve it and have nuanced perspectives based on many years of first-hand experience managing the land. It is genuinely eye-opening to manage a large wild property, which I have. Nature is complex. My experiences as a (former) rural landowner have made me sympathetic to rural landowners. Many of them are very in touch with the ecosystems they own. It is completely believable that they have relationships with some of the wild animals on their property. This is somewhat normal if you have resident animals you regularly come in contact with; many higher animals recognize and respect the boundaries of other animals, including but not limited to humans, but it is a negotiation of sorts. Wild animals are pretty clever and self-aware. I know of more than a couple examples where there is a cooperative relationship between the humans and some wild animals, an explicit quid pro quo.

cratermoon 4y ago

> almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands And this is the thing. Many are absentee landlords, and their 'stewardship', such as it is, amounts to doing little-to-nothing until the borders of far-flung suburbs edge up to their property, then they can either sell it to Wal*Mart or outlet store developer and make a tidy profit, or contract with a housing developer to get it rezoned, parcel it out, and make a huge profit turning it over to homebuyers. They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them.

mistrial9 4y ago
well frankly, the obvious flaming on those landowners here, more than just being obvious, is causing me to reflect on my own bias while posting on this real meeting I attended, instead of fighting personal demons in some outrage internet comment. First and foremost -- why did the people in that meeting bother to show up? maybe because the ones in the room (mostly) DO care about the wildlands. So my comment about "there is the door" was my own projection.. no one in that meeting said that, I did while thinking about it.. Those people did meet and probably some of them are now part of this proposed corridor action
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Were you present as an owner of wild lands? Would you join this proposed plan?
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    I presented a small bit of technical detail at that meeting as part of the convening environmentalist organization; zero interest in computers there, basically. re: decisions, the authority of a single vote YES/NO is at a maximum in that crowd; even getting the physical meeting was a year+ of prep IIR.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  I do hope you find allies. There are people out there with genuine conservationist intent. These days I hear way more about the people who insist on their rights to do whatever they want with "their" land.
mistrial9 4y ago
> They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them. this describes real estate developers.. there are plenty of those, and plenty more waiting if they could. But wilderness land owners are (mostly) NOT the real estate developers really because .. ? test question..

jandrewrogers 4y ago

In my own experience, “urban environmentalists” are in the awkward spot of frequently having strong opinions about wilderness management while being utterly ignorant of it. The people that live on or near the lands usually want to preserve it and have nuanced perspectives based on many years of first-hand experience managing the land. It is genuinely eye-opening to manage a large wild property, which I have. Nature is complex. My experiences as a (former) rural landowner have made me sympathetic to rural landowners. Many of them are very in touch with the ecosystems they own. It is completely believable that they have relationships with some of the wild animals on their property. This is somewhat normal if you have resident animals you regularly come in contact with; many higher animals recognize and respect the boundaries of other animals, including but not limited to humans, but it is a negotiation of sorts. Wild animals are pretty clever and self-aware. I know of more than a couple examples where there is a cooperative relationship between the humans and some wild animals, an explicit quid pro quo.