Fallow field model of land conservation.
I am no farmer. But it is my understanding that good, self-interested farmers let their fields lie fallow from time-to-time so as to let the land rejuvenate, replacing nutrients that the crops took from the soil. Certainly there are going to be questions about how often and long to let a field sit, whether certain nutrients will need to be replaced artificially anyway (because it takes too long to let them naturally return), whether planting a different crop will do just as well, etc. But the basic principle--that land cannot be worked continuously forever--I believe still holds true.
Which is why I am constantly surprised that it is so difficult to convince persons who use government lands (e.g. National Parks, Forests, and Grasslands)--whether they be ranchers, oil speculators, or campers--that some of the land ought to be off-limits for some activities, some of the time.
Certainly various activities have different kinds of impacts. So questions about whether to let a given parcel lie fallow, or whether to rotate in a different activity (e.g. take out the sheep, bring in the hikers; or take out the ATVs, bring in the coal miners) are important.
Also, certain activities have more of an impact than others. So it is important to determine whether to ban timber operations entirely, or to merely restrict them to certain, less destructive forms. Or whether to ban camping entirely, or to only forbid motorized vehicle camping.
And it may be that, to ensure the availability of these lands and the services they provide (e.g. clean water, important animal habitat, etc.), we may want to make some areas completely off limits. Compare to the farmer who depends upon insect pollination for his crops some of the time leaving a parcel of untouched meadow.
Anyway. I guess I'm just confused about what seems to be the block in the minds of the loggers who seem to think more is better. I guess it has something to do with the land's quasi-commons status. Hooray for private ownership of everything!
Which is why I am constantly surprised that it is so difficult to convince persons who use government lands (e.g. National Parks, Forests, and Grasslands)--whether they be ranchers, oil speculators, or campers--that some of the land ought to be off-limits for some activities, some of the time.
Certainly various activities have different kinds of impacts. So questions about whether to let a given parcel lie fallow, or whether to rotate in a different activity (e.g. take out the sheep, bring in the hikers; or take out the ATVs, bring in the coal miners) are important.
Also, certain activities have more of an impact than others. So it is important to determine whether to ban timber operations entirely, or to merely restrict them to certain, less destructive forms. Or whether to ban camping entirely, or to only forbid motorized vehicle camping.
And it may be that, to ensure the availability of these lands and the services they provide (e.g. clean water, important animal habitat, etc.), we may want to make some areas completely off limits. Compare to the farmer who depends upon insect pollination for his crops some of the time leaving a parcel of untouched meadow.
Anyway. I guess I'm just confused about what seems to be the block in the minds of the loggers who seem to think more is better. I guess it has something to do with the land's quasi-commons status. Hooray for private ownership of everything!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home