After moving to Greenwich, New Jersey, I quickly began to see my own career-long effort to conserve land and wildlife in a new way. In my nearly 25 years as a conservation biologist in New Jersey, I’ve always held a firm view that we must do all we can to conserve our valuable natural resources by opposing the inexorable march to develop the land into homes. While we waste our cities, and all of the existing infrastructure on which people depend, sewer, water, schools, we also destroy the countryside with fields of houses. The loss ticks off like a doomsday clock — day-by-day, 1000’s of acres per year.
I know people care. I have watched five New Jersey governors tackle the problem, all hoping to stem the hemorrhage of land. Democratic governors tended to increase land regulation, Republicans tended to buy land. I met all of these governors and worked with their appointees in my time in the State Division of Fish and Wildlife, and I am convinced they all were sincerely committed to stopping the destruction of our states natural resources. . . . . . . .unfortunately with only mixed success. We call ourselves the “Garden State” but it’s an affectation. Many of the large expanses of forest and farmland are riddled with housing developments. This is no more evident than here in the South Jersey.
Now we have a new administration, they too will tackle this persistent problem, and no doubt follow a right-of-center approach hoping to counter what they see as the previous administration’s left-of-center approach. After seeing the failure of both I find it hard to take either partisan position to heart. In fact, looking at it from Greenwich, I wonder if we will ever come to grips with the destruction if only because it always starts with either a left or right perspective. Some problems are too complicated, and the left-right dialogue may only doom us to continuing failure.
What does this mean in real life. For years the state government — democrat or republican administration — have purchased land. What’s not to like? Public ownership permanently protects, creates opportunity for recreation, and compensates landowners for the loss of value that often comes when regulations protect environmental sensitivity. Everyone feels good about it. Well, everyone except the community in which the land was purchased.
Creating public land is a plus for our state, but unfortunately it can be a minus for rural communities. The land comes off the local tax roles raising local property taxes, it is no longer productive which ultimately cost jobs, and the most the galling of all, the state refuses to pay the bill to take care of it.
So what are the costs of this kind of land conservation. Well, when you add this to the collapsed fisheries, the tangle of regulations that stop forest management, intensified agriculture that needs fewer and fewer people, the rural economy crumbles. Guess which activity makes the most sense? Development — exactly the opposite effect of conservation in the first place.
Jonathan Raban recently wrote in the NY Times about communities caught in the battle over the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. This issue has dropped out of public attention but, sad to say, the owl still declines — now because of the expanding population of barred owl – and local communities still suffer from the economic losses caused by this conservation conflict. In the controversy’s aftermath the communities must now hope for the continued growth of tourism. And now, no one is paying attention anymore. When I read the story I couldn’t help thinking of the land surrounding Greenwich.
I’m not saying we should stop buying land, we need to protect our dwindling natural resources if only because we need to pass it on to our children. I am saying we (conservationists) should pursue land preservation along with plans to reinvigorate the economy of our rural communities and improve the income of residents whose lives depend on the land. In this way statewide and nationwide conservation becomes one with local efforts to conserve.
