With assets that range from sparkling lakes to towering sand dunes to remote hardwood forests, Michigan's state parks rank among our most prized resources.
But in these cash-strapped times, a free-market think tank is floating a novel idea: Why not sell off and "privatize" 14 state parks, including Interlochen, Newaygo and Mears near Pentwater? Read the rest.
This is the brainchild of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which Michiganders may remember as the cerebral cortex of governor John Engler's administration in its early years. So far, the idea is, thankfully, not getting any traction in the state legislature or among conservationists. The comment of one Grand Rapids area camper perfectly sums up the proposal: "Stupid."
To me, this privatization scheme looks like an attempt to start peeling off slivers of state land so that, down the road, slicing off and selling larger chunks will seem more palatable to legislators and citizens. Readers of FTR know that public land and access to it are issues close to my heart. About this, I say, don't even think it.
That, anyway, was my reaction when I first learned of this, and I stand by it. However, as I thought further about the issue, I was struck by my absolutism. I'm far from a relativist, but I do recognize the contingency and limitations of most of our beliefs and perceptions. In nearly every sphere, I tend to be cautious about positions of absolute certainty. I realize the management of public lands involves complex considerations, and that even the best of intentions and the most careful planning can't ward off the possibilty of mismanagement. But when it comes to maintaining public acreage, I respond with a dogmatism even Pope Benedict might find a little scary. They're not making any more land, as the saying goes, and more to the point, governments aren't currently disposed to acquiring any more of it for public usage. (I'm not sure they need to be, though that's another issue.) Private landowners have an important role to play in conservation, but fewer and fewer of them are willing to allow people to walk on, let alone gather, hunt, fish or birdwatch, on their land. Without some kind of free, semi-wild space, those experiences are out of reach for many people. And as the extent of that free space diminishes, so does the quality of such experiences. Outdoor activities have long added considerably to the quality of life in this state, and for the sake of preserving that quality of life, I think an uncompromising stand on maintaining large tracts of public land is nothing to apologize for. You're welcome to call me a mental neanderthal, so long some modern analogue to traversing the plains in search of mastodons remains a ready option.
Sure, consolidate, swap, reorganize, in some circumstances even sell public lands if it serves a valid conservation purpose or if the recreational or ecological value of the land is minimal. Compromise, flexibility, and creative thinking are necessary to maintaining the health of all lands, and I don't think a purely hands-off approach to conservation is always helpful or warranted. But about any step toward a general privatization of state parks and forests, I say again: don't even think it. If you want to parse out the complications of that stance, do it once outfits like the Mackinac Center stop planning land grabs in misguided fundraising efforts. Or once they succeed and we're paying stiff admission fees to visit the places we once roamed at will.
Considering this, perhaps I can relate ever so slightly to the thinking of people who profess those resolutely certain views about which I'm usually skeptical. That Bill O'Reilly and I may share some cognitive DNA is a bit unsettling. But not nearly as much as the spectre of newly privatized state parks being converted to subdivisions, or "For Sale" signs lining the banks of the upper Manistee.
Outdoors; Conservation; Michigan
No comments:
Post a Comment