rlown wrote:so, Dave.. you're not a simulation. put forth your ideas. most of this is above treeline.
OK. Fair enough.
First, develop a long term management plan, identifying various uses of different parts of the land base. The plan is not written in stone. It may be revisited periodically and modified/altered to suit changing needs and desires.
Who gets to use it?
It can be open to public use, but by permit only. Activities are controlled.
Do we charge?
Charging for access is allowed. This is privately owned land, and the owners have a right to a return on investment.
As needed, in conformity with needs/wants of the owners.
Just leave it alone and not touch anything?
No. Although some areas may left in a wilderness condition, the entire area need not/should not be. Sometimes manipulating the vegetation or terrain is needed to achieve greater goals. State and federal wildlife refuges do so on a landscape scale, as does the Nature Conservancy. Wilderness designation is not always a good idea.
Subdivide and sell lots in scenic places?
No. But the individual landowners have the right to build a home.
Let anyone do whatever they want as long as they pay an entry fee?
Turn it over to the dreaded guvment 'cause we don't want to pay taxes or can't come up with a way to get enough money?
Portions may be donated to the government. Attaching deed restrictions to the donated parcel probably will not work. The government agencies are loath to accept donated land, or purchase land, with encumbrances. If they do obtain encumbered land, their first action is to go to court and get the encumbrances removed.
Can people chop down trees? Hunt? Fish? Live there??
Yes. Timber harvesting is allowed. The harvesting must be to further long term resource goals, such as improve wildlife habitat, maintain biodiversity, improve watershed, control risk of fire, insect, or disease, etc. The product removed may be sold for profit as a side benefit, but the primary purpose of the removal must be to benefit the resource. Mining is similar. The mining activities can be regulated to minimize any unnecessary or excessive resource impacts.
Wildlife and fish are regarded as state property even if the land they live on is private. State laws control hunting and fishing. Landowners can control public access to their own land, but regulation of fishing and hunting is state jurisdiction.
Existing inholders may continue their established rights of access and property rights.
Protect from forest fires?
One of the stipulations of this exercise is obey all laws. State law requires private landowners take reasonable precautions against wildfire. If they don’t the state will attack the fire anyway and send the bill to the landowner. Introducing fire into the ecosystem may be allowed as needed/desired. The notion of ‘just stop fighting fire under all conditions’ is a non-starter. It is against the law and a bad idea.
Can we introduce non-native species 'cause they're cute, taste good, are good hunting?
Follow state and federal laws, which generally says no.