However, protection by conservation easement, whoever holds it, may prove to be less durable than fee ownership. I provided some discussion of this in Conservation Easements and Perpetuity: Till Legislation Do Us Part, which is one article in a symposium published by Duke University Law School as the fall 2011 issue of the journal Law and Contemporary Problems (vol. 74, no. 4). The whole symposium can be accessed as Conservation Easements, New Perspectives in an Evolving World thttp://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/

Grantham found one small thing to be optimistic about, and he does present a somewhat different approach to discussing the problem. Unfortunately, I’m doubtful that anyone will give a damn. People are too dedicated to ignoring the obvious, or content to console themselves with the notion that they will be long gone before future generations pay the price for their greed.

Japan and several European nations are the only societies I know of where populations have been declining or have become quite stable without draconian controls such as those employed by the Chinese government. Perhaps more research on what the motivators are there, and a lot of publicity about the results, would be positive.

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/us/24cncdunes.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=saugatuck&st=cse

Allegan News http://www.allegannews.com/articles/2011/07/25/cr_news/09.txt

Chicago News Cooperative http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/dunes-tourism-in-balance-in-saugatuck-harbor-plan/

Environmental Law & Policy Center website http://elpc.org/category/natural-places/saugatuck

I heard White-throated Sparrows sing in their migration through Illinois in my youth, but it wasn’t until I knew more about New England accents that I realized that the birds really sing “Old Sam Peabody Peabody Peabody” only if you pronounce “Peabody” as “Pea’b'dy.”

I was never able to keep bird calls straight and I still tease Lucy every year by asking which bird it is that says, “Drink Your Teabody, Teabody, Teabody”. No-one seems to think that’s as funny as I do.

Of course, that would not guarantee perfect safety forever. But it would take that proverbial “act of Congress” for declassification to take place. At least, as things stand toay, an attempt at declassification would set off a lot of howling by interested citizens that might stop any such action.

Richard: Might not something along this line be a good topic for a Saturday discussion? I for one would be very interested in your insights.

I just went to a talk on Allerton’s Paradises (a new coffee-table book by a Maureen Holtz, a former coworker of mine) about Allerton Park and Allerton’s Kauai estate. One topic that came up was how unhappy Robert Allerton had been with the result of giving his estate to the University of Illinois. (The University was pretty unhappy as well.)

Based on that experience, Allerton used a different procedure for his Hawaiian estate, giving ownership of the land to a Chicago-based trust while turning management over to the National Tropical Botanical Garden. That seems to have worked out a lot better.

It makes me think that some similar divided ownership/management scheme is probably the best way to go to preserve land if the goal is to make it “inalienable forever.” If the entity with management authority doesn’t own the land, it eliminates the otherwise perpetual temptation to deal with funding shortfalls by selling off land. And, if the entity with actual ownership has no management authority, perhaps it can be restrained from the temptation to make a killing by selling off the land to developers. (In particular, I think you’d want to require that any money the ownership trust made by selling land would have to go to the management company.)

I joined the Forest Service in Madison at the Forest Products Laboratory, where Leopold earlier served as an Assistant Director for a year or two before resigning to join the UW faculty. The Laboratory artist, who was my best friend among the employees, got a special assignment to update exhibits in the main building lobby. Thousands of visitors passed through the exhibit area annually.

The artist said several employees had questioned why no exhibit space was dedicated to Leopold, and suggested that omission should be corrected during the upgrades to the lobby. Management threw cold water all over the idea, my friend said. It seems Leopold was somewhat of a persona non grata because he had many disagreements with other Lab managers while working there. There also was a strong rumor that Leopold was relieved of his mangement responsibilities in the Southwest and sent to Madison to be put on the sidelines in the research organization because he was straying too far from “the party line” in advocating for broader views of what the Forest Service mission should be.

Petty stuff, indeed. This happened about 35 years ago. I don’t think the same attitudes would be present today at the Forest Products Lab, or within the Forest Service generally.

Unfortunately, it looks like most of your second paragraph got cut off.

Leopold was a Badger all right, through living in Wisconsin for his last 25 years or so, but he grew up in Iowa, which makes him–an Iowan, I guess. If there’s some equivalent name to Badger or Hoosier for Iowa I don’t remember it.

Though he came out of forestry and wildlife management, and they were an important part of his background, he went far beyond them.

Thanks for your thoughts.

As a young, studp

Thank you sincerely for using your real name and having the courage to submit your opinions to public examination. While I have disagreed with some of your conclusions, I have never argued that you are anyone but a lover of the Ott Preserve. As a lover of the Ott Preserve myself, I wish I had gotten involved in the process of selecting the compromise route years ago before all the acrimony had set in. I have always held a moderate position that:

“If this were a zero-sum game (i.e., irreparably damaging the Ott for increased access), then let’s not do it. If we don’t damage the Ott while adding access and security to the park by responsibly increasing foot traffic, then it’s worth the costs.”

I hope you and all other lovers of the Ott Preserve will join the newly reconstituted Friends of the Ott Preserve to constructively and long-lastingly support, defend and appreciate the Ott Preserve.

Regards,

Rob Rumsey

P.S. I’m sorry for the grammatical and spelling errors in the last reply. I’ll start sleeping well again after tonight’s vote!

“Say “No” to Pavement” (facebook.com/protectott through the new and modified Change.org petition) and the past Presidents of Friends of the Ott Preserve have publicly argued for a different route inside the Ott that is 4.75 times large of an area taken / length of the route. [“One straightforward alternative would be to utilize the NORTH boundary edge of the Preserve, directly to Wattles Road where there are already established bike lanes.” That statement was substituted after 850 signatures on the online petition. The original allowed only for the R.O.W. or abandonment of the project. http://ottpreserve.com/?p=626 That route also would require pavement, grading of an esker, another short boardwalk and removal of concrete debris to stay on the Ott’s land (the Preserve has a 2 rod width strip of land that extends for 80 rods to Wattles Road and a concrete debris pile blocks it). It’s obvious that that route is the poorly planed (by those who want to minimize pavement and impact).

The route walked with Dr. Comai, past president of the Friends of the Ott Preserve and myself is at: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&hl=en&msa=0&msid=205310241843075369896.0004a0323e4e98bf91af1&ll=42.31924,-85.129495&spn=0.01117,0.027595&z=15

Thanks for your comments. Even though you didn’t get anything sent to the Calhoun Co. commissioners ahead of the St. Patrick’s Day meeting, it’s not too late. You and anybody else who wants to let their opinion be heard can still send a message to the chair, Art Kale, and to any of the rest of the commissioners. The big vote will be coming up the night of April 7. The Facebook page ProtectOtt has more information about the vote.

To portray the BTR park and it’s proposed expansion as being unsuccessful is misleading and factually inaccurate. It is cut and dry.

I attended the WMU State Senate forum where Mark Totten said he would have voted yes, but disagreed with the process. Him disagreeing with the process is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking Jones and is factually inaccurate. The key is someone like Totten that has no experience or record can and will say whatever they have to, to get a vote.

Did you really write this letter to the gazette without evening know that Totten supports the expansion of the BTR park? Sounds like you got played.

Colony farm orchard conversion: good business, smart politics, or betrayal of a public trust?
http://richardbrewer.org/2009/09/01/colony-farm-orchard-conversion-good-business-smart-politics-or-betrayal-of-a-public-trust/

A response to John Dunn’s Gazette Viewpoint
http://richardbrewer.org/2009/09/28/colony-farm-orchard-new-documentary-film-and-a-response-to-john-dunn-viewpoint/

The colony farm orchard is not trade land
http://richardbrewer.org/2009/10/27/the-colony-farm-orchard-is-not-trade-land/

“The candidates with records are to blame…” Only if their record was voting “yes” on HB 5207.

“Siding with jobs…” Every politician and, in fact, every resident of Michigan is in favor of jobs. Unfortunately, many politicians sign onto any scheme that is promoted as “job creation” no matter how phony the claim is. Expanding WMU’s BTR park onto the Colony Farm Orchard would not be some powerful engine of job creation. It is also doubtful that the original BTR has been as successful as is claimed in the mythology constructed by WMU and the local politicians. See HB-5207, WMU’s job creation bill of 2021.
http://richardbrewer.org/2009/12/23/hb-5207-wmus-job-creation-bill-of-2021/

Mark Totten has not come out in support of HB 5207. As far as I know, his only written statement has been a Kalamazoo Gazette Viewpoint published 6 November 2009. In it (Here is the link: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/11/viewpoint_public_deserved_inpu.html), he rightly criticized the process followed by WMU and Representative Jones and expressed the hope that Senator George would carefully examine the bill and make sure that he had heard every voice before voting. That did not happen. In the link below is a letter I sent George,
http://richardbrewer.org/2009/09/22/the-ball-is-in-the-senates-court-and-tom-george-has-the-racquet/

And here is what George did in the Senate Appropriations Committee
http://richardbrewer.org/2010/02/02/my-colony-farm-orchard-letter-to-mark-brewer/

Maybe I’ll become a red-green activist.

Always glad to have contact with another Saluki (B.S., 1955), especially a zoological one.

It is just a completely irrational argument. The candidate with records are to blame but the one guy who has no voting record is an “excellent candidate”, that has came out in completely support of the bill. I think their is a better reason then misplaced spite to vote for people.