> Re: land ownership
>
> I'll start by being philosophical. How can you really "own" land? You
> are only here a short time and the land will go on long after you are
> dead. Therefore, you can only manage it for a short time.
>
But land ownership is well defined accross time, it just changes
ownership. It's not like it "goes back into the pot" for anyone to have,
it is transferred in a logical, well defined way. While I may own it
only for my lifetime, it will always be owned by someone. This argument
would not stand up as a defense for a tresspassing charge methinks...;)
> The problem I see with land "ownership" (and therefore its treatment as a
> commodity) is that people feel they can do whatever they want to the
> land. Since what they do affects others (we can't all live upstream) in
> the present and most certainly affects others in the future, this is a
> problem.
True enough, however, only where safety or endangerment are concerned do
we have a right to expect a property owner to "not do what he/she"
wants. These claims are legitimate, but just because "I don't like
his/her management policy" is not sufficient reason. Personal liberty
and the *ability* to be secure in your person and property is what our
form of gov't is based on.
We need to consider land "stewardship" rather than ownership --
> taking the best care of this land while we are here, reaping some benefit
> from the land while being careful to consider the other people, species
> (both now and in the future) who depend on "your" land. Property lines
> are a human creation that generally don't fit with the way nature divides
> the land. Your fenceline may divide an animal's natural habitat in two.
>
Animals are property too. While you may not *like* that farmer Brown is
killing all the field mice, you have no grounds to stop him on his own
property unless you arrange to solve his problem by taking chage of the
mice yourself. This is why the EPA is out of control. If they want to
force landowners not to be able to use *their* land, they should at least
pay rent. What people think is "right" varies, so the only legal remedy
is to allow people freedom on their own turf. You may not like it, you
can complain about it, but you have no right to interfere.
> Yes, we are rather in a commune. We and many other species depend on the
> Earth. We're all in this together. Therefore, I think I have a right to
> demand that you are responsible with your treatment of the land so that I
> and future people have clean water, clean air and the plants and animals
> necessary for survival of our ecosystem.
>
While this argument is quaint, this is not the "commune" I was refering
to. Our planet is just not that fragile. Besides, the earth does more
ecosystem damage than humans do. Remember Mt St. Helens? How about the
mudslides in California this week? When you refer to water quality, this
*is* an endangerment issue, and there are legal recourses because water
quality is measurable. As far as "essential" plants and animals, there
are none really. Our planet has been changing for many years, just
because we think it should be static doesn't make it so. Most of the
time when a plant or animal is removed from a particula area the balance
shifts and another temporary equilibrium is established. Am I advocating
the extermination of species? No. I just want *intelligent* management
practices.
> Anyway, when land is treated as a commodity, with little thought to what
> I've said above, it leads to an emphasis on gaining the highest possible
> economic benefit from the land, rather than considering one's
> reponsibility of stewardship. We need to have a land ethic that puts
> more value on land than just money.
>
But money is the only common commodity we have. This is why we price
everything. Treating land as a commodity ensures that the land is placed
in it's position of highest economic value. If a lot of people value
large expanses of timber that is untouched than they should be willing to
pay for it if they value it that much, otherwise a better use jsut might
be paper. Don't get me wrong, I love the beauty of the Northwest, but I
don't expect private individuals to follow *my* conscience. As far as
public land goes, we need to inform our representatives of our
preferences and let majority rule. This is the democratic part of our
Republic.
Best,
Andy