Public land, that is.
I set out to figure this out a few months back. Surprisingly difficult, actually. It's also a bit difficult to figure out given that some lands are not necessarily public, but protected in some way... so that perhaps asks the even bigger question, what is the goal of these lands?
My goal, I guess, was to figure out what the percentage is, by area. But really I was curious: what is the ideal amount?
I can tell you, I don't even think we're close... I'll also say that there are some sources on the internet that, as far as I can tell, are completely wrong. I found one that claims NY is up to 30% public. That's laughable - show me the math, because I can't find more than half of that land.
And beyond that, how much is "protected" land and how much is land that is managed in some way or another?
Turns out the New York National Heritage program has been tracking this, and they even have an interactive online map.
Using GIS software one can import the data and measure the area. I won't list the number just yet, but you might be surprised at how little it is. And many of these lands are not public access, many are easements, but those still have some level of protection against development, although many have some level of resource management.
That really sparked my thinking as to how much land should "preserved" and how much land should be managed? I think our calculus still shows it's very much skewed toward management.
I was thinking if we broke the land into 3 categories, we might ideally want to try to balance:
- Resource Management i.e. mining, forestry, ect.
- Agriculture
- Conservation
We could say an ideal model might equally divide area between the three - but I also left out housing and urban development, but I don't think that needs an equal amount of land area. Let's say 10% of NY for easy numbers. That gives us 30% of each of the others.
We were at once almost 80% deforested, but not all of that land was used for agriculture - I'd like to work some estimates but I think, at best, 30% of NY's land is really suitable for Ag.
About 60% of NY forested now, but not all of those lands are managed by the state or large timber companies, most are in the hand of small, private owners - which makes sense why the state has a program like the 480a Forest Tax Law to try to utilize resources effectively, and hopefully sustainable from small private owners.
But are these effective systems? It seems to me, by this method, we have far too much land in limbo that is either not being actively conserved or is not being managed properly for its resources.
We know some large clubs have lands that are conserved, but history has shown that these lands are often used for resource management - and there's no doubt, the state almost forces one into that position via taxes (and then rewards via 480a for timber management).
So my question are? How much land should be conserved? Should all of that land be publically accessible, or is conservation really the main goal? How can we more efficiently conserve lands that are currently not and should be (see something like the Riparian Opportunity Assessment)? Can we we shape more effectively what lands are used for resource management and agriculture to meet our needs as a state, and to fund our economy?
I set out to figure this out a few months back. Surprisingly difficult, actually. It's also a bit difficult to figure out given that some lands are not necessarily public, but protected in some way... so that perhaps asks the even bigger question, what is the goal of these lands?
My goal, I guess, was to figure out what the percentage is, by area. But really I was curious: what is the ideal amount?
I can tell you, I don't even think we're close... I'll also say that there are some sources on the internet that, as far as I can tell, are completely wrong. I found one that claims NY is up to 30% public. That's laughable - show me the math, because I can't find more than half of that land.
And beyond that, how much is "protected" land and how much is land that is managed in some way or another?
Turns out the New York National Heritage program has been tracking this, and they even have an interactive online map.
Using GIS software one can import the data and measure the area. I won't list the number just yet, but you might be surprised at how little it is. And many of these lands are not public access, many are easements, but those still have some level of protection against development, although many have some level of resource management.
That really sparked my thinking as to how much land should "preserved" and how much land should be managed? I think our calculus still shows it's very much skewed toward management.
I was thinking if we broke the land into 3 categories, we might ideally want to try to balance:
- Resource Management i.e. mining, forestry, ect.
- Agriculture
- Conservation
We could say an ideal model might equally divide area between the three - but I also left out housing and urban development, but I don't think that needs an equal amount of land area. Let's say 10% of NY for easy numbers. That gives us 30% of each of the others.
We were at once almost 80% deforested, but not all of that land was used for agriculture - I'd like to work some estimates but I think, at best, 30% of NY's land is really suitable for Ag.
About 60% of NY forested now, but not all of those lands are managed by the state or large timber companies, most are in the hand of small, private owners - which makes sense why the state has a program like the 480a Forest Tax Law to try to utilize resources effectively, and hopefully sustainable from small private owners.
But are these effective systems? It seems to me, by this method, we have far too much land in limbo that is either not being actively conserved or is not being managed properly for its resources.
We know some large clubs have lands that are conserved, but history has shown that these lands are often used for resource management - and there's no doubt, the state almost forces one into that position via taxes (and then rewards via 480a for timber management).
So my question are? How much land should be conserved? Should all of that land be publically accessible, or is conservation really the main goal? How can we more efficiently conserve lands that are currently not and should be (see something like the Riparian Opportunity Assessment)? Can we we shape more effectively what lands are used for resource management and agriculture to meet our needs as a state, and to fund our economy?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire