14er on Private Property: A New Way to View Conservation?

 A few years ago there was a parcel of land for sale in Colorado. The unique situation of this $100 million piece of property is it comes with a 14,000 ft peak. This makes the peak the only privately owned 14er that people have to pay if they wish to summit it. This stirs public outcry, but we should reconsider if paying to access nature is a bad thing.

Culebra Peak is a privately owned 14er and Bierstadt is on national forest land. With these comes different rules. Culebra peak requires permits in advance as well as provided guides for hunting and fishing. Bierstadt requests nothing for admission and required documents for other recreational activities such as a fishing license. The benefits of open access give people the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. The entity in charge of Bierstadt is the USFS. Their goal is to be the steward of the land to preserve nature for current and future generations. Their motivations come from managing the forests to benefit the American people. In contrast, the privately-owned peak may share the same attitudes for nature but their motivation is to profit so they can maintain the land for a source of income. The point I want to make is the restricted access to Culebra limits human traffic creating less damage to the environment. Also, the surrounding area of Culebra is used for high-quality fishing and hunting suggesting the wildlife within the area is superior too. Now, I am not suggesting we privatize America’s forests but we consider admission fees as a conservation tool.

One example of admission fees being a conservation tool is Colorado Parks and Wildlife. To enter any state park or hunt or fish there are respective fees. CPW is largely funded by park admission, hunting, and fishing fees. No funding comes from citizen taxes. The rest of the funding largely comes from grants and lottery proceeds. CPW has more autonomy from politics than the USFS since the USFS funding is subject to congressional approval. With this distinction prices help reflect the cost of using recreational resources. With prices comprising the majority CPW funding there is an incentive to achieve similar goals of the USFS but motivation to adjust pricing so CPW can adequately manage state land. Although this method is imperfect it is more efficient than the model of which the USFS operates. 

The outdoors is seen as a place for all, but charging a price for entry is a turnoff to some. However, we should reconsider what the price represents. It represents the efforts needed to keep the lands people use in a condition to be used for generations.