Little Darby: Who Do You Trust?
The government has an answer for everything: let them take control. Central Ohioans are currently faced with this situation in the proposed Little Darby National Wildlife Refuge. Just a short ride west of Columbus, a hot debate continues to brew over whether local residents or a federal agency should be the stewards of this region of fresh water, rare wildlife and rich farmland.
What is disturbing about the trend towards government control is the motivation behind such action. Those in government seem to take the view that we citizens depend upon them for protection from ourselves. Personal responsibility boils down to paying your taxes to fund such protection.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s own recommendations hold little faith in personal responsibility. They offer four alternative proposals, the last of which is a plan of no federal action. According to its authors, this situation will result, at best, in the Darby Creek area remaining as is, but most likely “declining”. This recommendation is not only hostile to non-governmental conservation on the part of central Ohioans, but represents an ignorance of past federal action and current trends in free market environmentalism.
Examples are in place around the country for private locally based land protection and restoration. There are over 1,000 land trusts across the United States that seek to preserve land through private action, with many right here in Ohio. Through conservation easements, landowners can forfeit their rights to certain development and are educated in how to maintain and restore their land. In doing this, donors can ensure their land will remain handled according to their wishes and may be eligible for an array of tax breaks. Examples of Ohio groups working in this field include the Black Swamp Conservancy, the Tecumseh Land Trust and the Wilderness Center.
National organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Land Trust Alliance also provide opportunities for easement donations and protection efforts. According to Ducks Unlimited, “most lands can benefit wildlife and still produce an economic return to its owner.” In 1998, Ducks Unlimited protected 2,500 acres of habitat and restored or enhanced 20,500 acres in the Great Lakes / northeast region.
What also needs to be considered is the less-than-trustworthy record of the federal government’s protection of land. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web-site, “From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, agricultural conversions accounted for 87 percent of all wetland losses. Much of this drainage work was subsidized with Federal funds to encourage increased production of commodity crops.” Indeed, the EPA — an active proponent of the Darby refuge in both the authority’s federal and state forms, has recently come under fire for its attempt to suppress the disclosure of dangers in using sewage sludge as fertilizer on farmland and national forests.
Even Al Gore recognizes the failure of government-run conservation. In his book Earth in the Balance, he notes: “the most serious examples of environmental degradation in the world today are tragedies that were created or actively encouraged by governments — usually in the pursuit of some notion that a dramatic reordering of the material world would enhance the greater good.”
At issue is the factor of local accountability. Political agendas at the national level open doors to abuse on grand scales. Federal politicians are faced with an ever-changing myriad of influences, many of which have more to do with their re-election than long-term environmental concerns.
Perhaps the actions of a federal agency should serve as a wake-up call to those in central Ohio that action must be taken on an individual or community level. Rather than accept the doctrine that we are incapable of forming our own institutions and protecting our own communities, here is an opportunity to act responsibly and in the interests of both Darby Creek preservation and those living in the area. Conservation may be too important for federal politicians to be left in control.
