It seems to me from my limited knowledge of US history that there had been three periods of land management. Originally most of the land was managed by the government for the purpose of eventual homesteading and development – and the government had understood its role only as a custodian of land for this purpose. Getting a slice of land for settlement at the time was comparatively easy. Now, a period of time emerged where areas of wilderness were set aside for conservation.
It needs to be understood that people like Theodore Roosevelt were not, strictly speaking, environmentalists in the same sense as modern Gaia-fans are. They saw wilderness as a resource – they saw a need to preserve, say, eagles so that their descendants would be able to enjoy them. TR saw nothing morally wrong with hunting, or with developing deserts so they became green.
A lot (not all by all means) of today's environmentalists are different. To many of them, preservation of nature is a value in and of itself – so if you turned a desert into a lush park, you're as much of a despoiler as someone who dumps poison into rivers. The natural result of this mindset is to reach out and 'preserve' as much land as possible so eventually only limited areas are available for farmers and real estate developers.
There are also leftist social planners who believe urban life is the way of the future. Their interests dovetail nicely with those of the above factions of environmentalists (note to Gewehr98 and other conservationists on this board: I do not imply that everybody who cares for the environment is like that): Both of them favor setting aside as much land as possible which cannot be developed upon, and sponsoring/funding mass transit that encourages people to move into cities.
This is part of the agenda.
Both the environmentalists of this faction and the leftists abhor the suburb. Don't believe me? Go and read their writings or watch their movies. Look how they describe suburbia as disgusting, their inhabitants as provincial, and so forth. They hate and despise the car and the American suburb not just because the car is polluting and the suburb wasteful, but also because the SUV and the red-roofed house are the symbols of the middle class. The bourgeoisie.
Both the leftist intellectual and the Gaia worshipper hate consumerism: the former, because consumerism maintains capitalism, and the latter, because consumerism 'hurts Mother Earth'. Their agendas thus dovetail nicely – and they join forces.
If you allow the leftists to have their way, sooner or later they'll use some regulatory means or antoher to move you all into NYC-type hives. In Israel they HAD their way and now the government owns 90% of the land, cars are taxed at 50% over MSRP upon import, and only the wealthy can afford separate homes at even semi-decent locations. They are now introducing an RFID-based card that will track all your travel on public transport, too. This is the final end of their journey.
I do not mean to say that we must abolish all the nature preserves and make with the drilling and shooting of near-extinct mammals. There is a place and time for healthy conservationist activities. But we must center our efforts around the notion that Mother Nature is not our Mommy. She is a resource.
By all means, set aside nature preserves – which already exist in all 50 states to preserve key species and locations. By all means, limit logging and emissions on factories – which, by the way, can be done through lawsuits – but make sure that, while legislating, you keep in mind that Mother Nature is not your Mommy. Don't make out like real estate developers are evil.
