As habitats and species (and to keep this on topic =96 natural
soundscapes) become rarer they will continue to become more valuable
in the public eye, and more and more people will place a higher value
on habitat protection. More land use restrictions are probably
inevitable, but even so, good soil and habitats (and quiet places)
will continue to be destroyed by development.
It is always a tragedy when good people's (especially nature sound
recordists) livelihoods become compromised. I would agree they should
be compensated for their losses, however unlikely.
--- In Walter Knapp <> wrote:
> Posted by: "John Hartog"
> > Walt, you know I (being a streetwise city kid) can't help but comment.
> > Such perceptions are common and our activities as nature recordists
> > will be taken as intrusions by some no matter how decent, benign (or
> > corrupt)our true motives.
> > Where habitats are faced with destruction there is often a human
> > between greed and compassion, and in this I see no great differences
> > separating city from country folk.
> The big and very significant difference is that much of that habitat is
> owned by country folk, often in the family for generations. I don't see
> city folk too often having their property invaded and being restricted
> in the use of their property by environmentalists. Quite simply it's
> taking without compensation. Often by people who then proceed to
> the habitat in the name of conservation.
> I am only providing a reflection on what I deal with all the time in
> survey work. Often I have to hide the fact I'm acting as a volunteer
> the GA DNR, a government agency. These folks did not go negative for no
> reason, it's become a matter of personal survival for them. Like
> recently after a court decision that allowed it they wiped out nearly
> half the remaining wetlands just because to allow them to continue
> have wiped them out. It's come down to survival.
> And that does not even start in on the government defining the "highest
> and best use" of any land as dense urban blight (though they don't call
> it that). Rabbit hutches for people sprawling across the countryside.
> That includes, in some cases the richest and best agriculture soil in
> the country.
> No, city folk have a lot to answer for. Not that I'm saying country
> are lilly white, but the contrast is large. I think country folk have a
> very legitimate beef.