Privatizing wildlife
The Los Angeles Times hints at a controversy about privatization of federal environmental policy today in a story that nudges numerous hot buttons but ultimately proves too complicated for anyone to rally around. The story concerns efforts to turn management of the National Bison Range in northwest Montana over to the Salish-Kootenai tribe, which runs an adjacent reservation. (More background here.)
Under the Clinton administration, federal officials contracted with the Nez Perce tribe to handle management of recovering wolf populations in Idaho. At the time, I thought it was a wonderful move: honoring ancient Indian traditions while providing tribes with economic development opportunities that have a more positive societal impact than gambling. I haven't followed the story closely, but I gather it's been a relative success.
So why wouldn't it work here? In the Times, opponents seem to be hinting at a couple of notions: first, that widespread privatization could erode national standards of wildlife protection, and second, that the Bush administration has written this contract such that the tribe is destined to failure. Sadly, the administration's record on environmental issues has so eroded trust that we have to take both of these notions seriously. (For example, go to Yellowstone here.)
What's the solution? For years, some economists have argued that privatization of environmental policy is theoretically viable. But as we (should have) learned in Iraq, theories about markets sometimes run into difficulties in implementation. Free-market think-tanks must do more than rejoice at this moment: they need to step up with details plans for how to overcome these very real potential roadblocks in implementing their ideas.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
Under the Clinton administration, federal officials contracted with the Nez Perce tribe to handle management of recovering wolf populations in Idaho. At the time, I thought it was a wonderful move: honoring ancient Indian traditions while providing tribes with economic development opportunities that have a more positive societal impact than gambling. I haven't followed the story closely, but I gather it's been a relative success.
So why wouldn't it work here? In the Times, opponents seem to be hinting at a couple of notions: first, that widespread privatization could erode national standards of wildlife protection, and second, that the Bush administration has written this contract such that the tribe is destined to failure. Sadly, the administration's record on environmental issues has so eroded trust that we have to take both of these notions seriously. (For example, go to Yellowstone here.)
What's the solution? For years, some economists have argued that privatization of environmental policy is theoretically viable. But as we (should have) learned in Iraq, theories about markets sometimes run into difficulties in implementation. Free-market think-tanks must do more than rejoice at this moment: they need to step up with details plans for how to overcome these very real potential roadblocks in implementing their ideas.
Join the discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johnclaytonoutreach/
