The first reason that we look at federal land ownership differently is because we don't interact with it on a day to
day basis. When was the last time you visited a national park?
This does not mean that federal land is not an important issue. When you read stories such as these:
you notice that most wildfires tend to be on public land. It is no accident that most wildfires occur on commonly
held lands. (From R. Nelsons book A Burning Issue). While the forest service and other federal land management agencies
(Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, etc.) might well care, they lack incentive to treat the land as if it were
there own.
In fact, they do not own the land that they manage. Why does this matter? Well, imagine yourself as a bureaucrat. A wildfire
erupts in your National Park. What happens? You get a panicked call from a higher up, and you work with some public relations
people in Washington to assure the public that the fire is under control. You call some fire fighters. They may take days
to contain the fire. You can't get sued (unless you did something that was grossly negligent, like commit arson because
Utah is just that boring) nor can the government get sued (again unless it did something really stupid, like order you to
commit arson) because of soveirgn immunity. In fact, managing forest fires might even look good on your resume. After all,
bureacrats consider forest fires inevitable, and you did your best. You're a real team player. You really have no reason
to care.
Now imagine yourself as Ted Turner, the largest individual land owner in the country. Why is it that your Beefalo
are never in danger of dying in a blazing holocaust? You own the millions of acres that your ranch is on. You
sell the Beefalo to restaurants. The speed with which the federal government operates just isn't good enough for you.
And, if you fail to contain the fire and it reaches civilization, perhaps burning down homes there will be a race
to the courthouse to sue you for your hard earned billions. You make sure you put the fire immediately. Many people hate
you because of your wealth, but a personal stake is the only thing that protects the land you own. They need to choose whether
they care more about looking important, or embracing positive results.
This is just one example of why federal incentives don't work. But the story is the same in many other scenarios. For
instance, although many support federal leasing of land because they believe that goverment supervision will ensure protection.
This sounds nice, but once again it is not enough. Because they don't have to replant the trees after their lease expires,
most leased timberlands are clearcut, while privately owned lots are selectively harvested. In fact, Weyerhouser has on net
added to the national stock of timberland. (Rustici, lecture notes).
There's nothing wrong with good intentions. But when they are not matched with workable incentives, we decieve ourselves
into destroying valuable natural resources.
