Ironic result of ‘conservation’

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Cheryl K. Chumley is correct about private-property rights being a volatile issue (“Private property rights still very much a fight, circa 2018,” Web, April 5). The fight has consequences, and the unintended ones often result in environmental harm. Ms. Chumley mentions a bunch of federal laws and regulations that directly affect private property, but the indirect impacts can be even more profound.

The Endangered Species Act is a good example. Identifying an endangered species on their land can lead to huge value losses for private-property owners. So there is an incentive not to make the existence of such species on one’s land known.

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was one of the first bird species added to the endangered species list. The bird’s critical habitat includes mature longleaf pine stands in the American South, so finding RCW on a forest tract can lead to greatly diminished timber harvesting opportunities. One way to ensure that won’t happen is to cut the timber before it becomes old and mature (and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service possibly claims it as critical habitat for the RCW).

Lots of longleaf pine stands in the South will never reach old age and become habitat for the RCW for this reason. Many conservation-minded private-property owners are forced to become much less conservation-minded due to federal laws and regulations.

THOMAS J. STRAKA

Professor of forestry, Clemson University

Clemson, S.C.