Proposals to extend wilderness protection to significant additional lands in Utah are regularly criticized on economic grounds. This economic conclusion is based upon two assumptions: wilderness locks up natural resources and the primary reason for wilderness is to provide free recreational opportunities.
The primary economic activities that would be restricted by wilderness classification is commercial extraction of timber and minerals. In southern Utah, it is primarily mineral extraction that would be restricted. In addition, there are fears that grazing would be restricted. the assumed negative impact of wilderness designation is tied to the "locking up" of those minerals and forage. When mining and grazing are analyzed in the context of the overall Utah economy, this is seen to be a seriously exaggerated claim. The transformation of the Utah economy from heavy reliance upon extractive natural resource use is well underway and it will continue. The Utah Office of Planning and Budget projects that employment in agriculture and mineral extraction will continue to shrink as a percentage of the total Utah workforce over the next twenty years despite an optimistic projected "mini-boom" in the mineral extraction industries.
Protected landscapes have economic impacts far beyond their borders because they provide the high quality environmental backdrop that makes an area an attractive place to live, work, and do business. In that sense, the protected landscapes become an important part of an area's economic base and economic vitality. This is the reason that wilderness counties tend to show such dramatic economic vitality.
Wilderness protection does not impoverish communities by locking up resources. Rather, it protects the economic future of those communities by preserving high quality natural environments that are in increasing demand across the nation.
2 comments:
Environmentalists really don't ever take into consideration what happens to economies in such intances as closing, previously open, wilderness to the public. Yet, they [environmentalists] are needed. If it weren't for them, can you imagine our world? There needs to be a medium in which both sides, left and right, can agree on.
All the posts were good, but Max got closest to the nub of the problem.
The way to protect anything is with property rights. Obviously, part of an area being a wilderness/park is that it is public. Therefore the locals will not have any property rights to the designated area. But they will retain their property rights outside the area.
So, turning an area that has been used for grazing into a wilderness takes value away from the property owners who live nearby. It is irrelevent whether they were paying for this in the past, or got that right in a fair way. What is relevent is that it is wrong to take something without compensation. But this is very typical of how governments work.
Here's an alternative: have the Feds make the locals happy first. If this means compensating them for their loss, that's fine. If it means building a visitor's center and paying for a marketing campaign, that too is an investment in the local economy.
Post a Comment