The title suggests that there must be a choice, but I will argue that we cannot have one without the other. The present political discussion pits one against the other. Do we choose between a collectivist society or one with no guidelines? The Libertarian perspective provides relief for both sides. Everyone has an interest in property rights and our naturally beautiful northwest environment deserves our attention on a daily basis. The decline of our salmon runs and the loss of old growth forests are worthy of everybody's concern.

When a problem is identified, its cause must be found and addressed. The cause can usually be traced to an existing government policy. The solution should be alteration or elimination of the existing policy rather than simply adding on another policy. Both of the above environmental problems have a common attribute---they are in the public domain. Salmon and forests offer us perfect examples of what is classically known as The Tragedy of the Commons. In general, The Tragedy of the Commons relates to commonly owned resources. If something is owned by all, then no one really controls it, everyone has a right to use it, and no one has a direct responsibility to care for it. The tragedy is that as the resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more valuable, and it is then rational for each person to try to get some of it while it lasts.

Private property, on the other hand, is controlled by the owner who also has the responsibility to care for it. If the owner fails to properly care for the property then the owner’s investment suffers. If the property is well cared for, then its value increases. Not all owners treats their property wisely, but most do because they have a strong incentive to do so.

Forests are largely owned by state and federal government, but there are large tracts of private/corporate forests as well. Studies show that private lands are better cared for than government lands. Private forests are thinned and groomed to improve growth. They are quickly replanted to improve value. It is in the owner's best interest to care for the land. Government land is not spared from clear-cutting, yet laws are passed that limit the harvesting of private land. This is patently unfair: it is the defined purpose of government to protect property rights, yet it is the government that is trampling on property rights. Because government is a major landowner, the voters should pressure the government to better protect their land. The Congress, as the property managers of our public forests, should choose to protect much of the remaining old-growth forests but should not infringe on the rights of private property owners. I very much favor the preservation of our environment, but it must be done within the limits of the Constitution. When budgetary matters come into play, things get complicated. I believe that past Congresses have been faced with the choice of protecting the forests with spending reductions versus cutting and selling the forests to raise money to spend. They have chosen to raise money but have then not taken responsibility for cutting the forests. The clear-cutting of large sections of our forests has been a direct decision made by the Congress. There is nothing to suggest that government in itself is environmentally conscious, yet it cries out for more total control of the environment. If I am elected in November of 2000, I will take the message to Congress that we want our public land managed wisely and that we want free access to our own private property.

Migrating salmon, on the other hand, is entirely a publicly owned resource. In the act of signing treaties with native tribes, the Federal Government has long claimed ownership of the salmon, but the states have been granted limited control. Many people would argue that the environment is responsible for the decline in natural salmon runs; there are many examples of streams and rivers that have been abused. The Dungeness River, however, is a fast-running river with a fine gravel bed, no polluting industry, and no dams. No fish either (not many, anyway). The problem may very well be over-harvesting. Only Congress can control this. Congress, as the manager of this public resource, has an obligation to limit harvesting, yet its response has been to pass the buck. Rather than try to limit harvesting, Congress has allowed a series of regulations that limit the use of private property. On the Olympic Peninsula, where there is hardly a shortage of water, there have even been serious proposals to place volume flow meters on private residential water wells. The major diagnosis of the problem is overharvesting of the fish and the best treatment that Congress can come up with is to infringe on the property rights of the people of the State of Washington!

I would propose a moratorium against harvesting of migratory salmonids for a period of ten years. Farmed fish would still need to be available and there would be costs incurred to compensate those whose livelihood is endangered by this moratorium. Those costs would be less than would be associated with breaching dams and eliminating property rights. I would also propose privatizing salmon rights on selected rivers as a pilot project that would last for perhaps fifty years. This would allow us to see the benefit of private ownership of a renewable resource.

We can deal with this problem within the limitations of the Constitution. Congress should manage commonly-held resources and privatize those resources that are most difficult to manage. I ask that you support me in my quest for the 6th Congressional seat. Encourage your friends to evaluate this site and please contact me with your ideas and questions. Send your most generous donation to:

Contact Us

E-mail

Back to Main Page