On Fri, 10
Mar 1995, WIEST JAMES ANDREW wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Diane Prorak wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>