The Colorado Springs Gazette has published an editorial against House Bill 1188, claiming that it is a violation of property rights, and a subsidy to the rafting industry. The opinion piece cites a Colorado Supreme Court ruling, and says that “Responsible commercial outfitters… have negotiated arrangements with landowners.” In short, the law “take(s) from the few and give(s) to the many.”
My take: The phrase “Property Rights” irks me. Property does not have rights. People have rights. Some people own property, and they have certain rights in association with their ownership of that property. That said, I don’t see such rights as absolute.
Access to public goods, such as running water, fish, and game, is increasingly sacrificed on the alter of “Property Rights.” OK, the water is owned by the people of the state, but you can’t use it, for it runs through my rights-holding property. And my property says No! Game animals are a public asset, but you aren’t allowed to hunt or view them, because they are located on my enfranchised property.
The consequences in game management are much clearer than those in rafting. Some wealthy, absentee landowners allow large numbers of deer and elk to seek refuge on their land. Those herbivores cross over to neighboring farms and ranches, consuming large amounts of forage. As soon as shots are fired, the game learns to cross over only at night, and return to safe refuge during the day.
Ranchers who depend on their fields and forage lose money, and in cases have to sell out to developers. Habitat is lost, game suffers, fewer animals are available to hunt.
Not to propose such a solution here, but I think a view of property law in Germany can show us that there is no one correct solution. Hiking and outdoor recreation are considered such a public benefit in Germany that privately owned forests are open to (gentle) public access. Want to hike or go mushroom hunting? No requirement to knock on a door, no searching for “No Trespassing” signs. Put on your hiking boots and find a nearby woodland. What about hunting? All huntable land must have a registered hunting plan, requiring sufficient harvest to maintain an acceptable number of animals. Note that this is not public hunting, the land is typically leased to a specific group of hunters. Again, I’m not making a proposal, just pointing out that different countries have different strategies for dealing with property and recreation.
Take from the few and give to the many? Remember, this country is founded on the principle that we shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. House Bill 1188, if passed, will indeed be law. And the law will undoubtedly reduce the value of the property that triggered this issue. But similar to “eminent domain,” there is a strong issue of a public good being served.
The full Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial.