PRIVATE INITIATIVES PRESERVE SPECIES
February 16, 2005
Conservation of natural resources is better left to the private sector, according to a report published by the Reason Foundation.
Michael DeAlessi, Director of Natural Resources Policy, argues that federal oversight of environmental protection is ineffective for many reasons:
- Federal regulations are more process-oriented than results-oriented; for example, the Endangered Species Act has recovered only 10 of 1,300 species over its 30-year life span.
- Public ownership of land, such as National Parks, provides little incentive for individuals to care for it; indeed, one-third of American land is owned by the federal government, but much of it is deteriorating.
- Special interest groups influence the policy-making process in order to create gains for themselves, often at the expense of other groups.
However, private initiatives make all groups better off. When property rights are well-defined, individuals are more likely to care for resources for a future return on their investment. For example:
- Ducks Unlimited, a private organization founded by California sportsmen in 1937, works to restore and improve wetlands to ensure continued populations of waterfowl for future hunting.
- The Louisiana chapter of the Audubon Society earned almost one million dollars in the early 1980s by allowing oil and gas development on Rainey Sanctuary, a 26,000 acre nature preserve owned by society.
Private initiatives show that economic development and habitat preservation can peacefully co-exist, says DeAlessi.
Source: Michael DeAlessi, "Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve our Nation's Resources," Policy Study 328, Reason Foundation, January 2005.
Browse more articles on Environment Issues