X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:39:17 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>>What about resources whose value is currently unknown, or for which markets
>>haven't been developed?
>
>Not an issue with elephants....

But it *is* an issue with the majority of species.

>>>Hunters are; they've done it repeatedly.  How are elephants different
>>>from mountain sheep or other species that hunters have brought back?
>>>(Note that elephants are easier, because there are thriving
>>>populations, but there won't be if the ivory ban continues because
>>>those populations are held by folks who did hunter-style management
>>>and they can't afford to keep that up without the hunter-revenues.)
>>
>>Hunters have made the market strategy work for those species that are
>>attractive and/or profitable to hunt.  No problem there.  What I don't see
>>is how this model can be extended to resources like fresh water, wetlands,
>>species with no current market or trophy value (liverworts, anyone?), etc.
>
>It works for any habitat that supports game, and any species that shares
>those habitats.

Not necessarily.  For example, here in WV we have lots of deer hunters.
And we have a pretty sizeable "game" division within the DNR that makes
sure the deer have nice places to live (using money from hunters, among
other sources).  Thanks to various factors, including management that
focuses on keeping deer around, we've had a huge explosion in the deer
population.  Those deer are trashing several very sensitive and critical
habitats (various kinds of wetlands with large numbers of endemic plants --
which the deer are eating).  They are also trashing farmland -- to the
extent that a coalition of farmers (and others, maybe, but I'm not sure)
are currently suing the DNR for damages due to mismanagement.

And you still haven't explained how to extend the model to habitats that
don't have game species.

(speaking of protecting timber, grazing land, and fisheries):
>All three are characterized by "no one can benefit from expressing
>a long-term interest."  They're not "owned"; they're all poached.
>
>In the case of timber and grazing land, it's easy to fix that problem.
>(Commercial timber interests take great care of their land, and so do
>ranchers who own.  People who rent treat rented property like rented
>property.)  It isn't obvious how to do so for ocean resources.  If we
>could PERMANENTLY sell fishing interests, the buyer would have an
>interest in getting a decent return on that investment, an incentive
>in making sure that the resource can be harvested indefinitely.
>A "rental" doesn't work because the renter has no interests after
>the term of the agreement.

I'd be interested in your evidence that timber companies that own their
land take good care of it.  My experience is that they sometimes also
overharvest.  Moreover, they can turn to national forest land to take some
of the "heat" off their own land.  And ranchers who own are *also* quite
capable of overgrazing.  Perhaps owned land is at somewhat less risk, but
it does happen.  I know; I've seen it.

I don't see how privatizing natural resources and letting the market take
care of things is really going to help.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU