Most environmental problems can be traced to the government. We need to reemphasize private ownership of all land. Government ownership of land makes no sense. Private owners of land are good stewards. They protect the land much better than governments. When aggressors damage the land (or the environment) private owners will seek restitution. The combination of restitution and property rights provides superior environmental protection than government control.

Under my administration, no one would be immune from the consequences of their actions -- especially not a government agency (state or federal) charged with protecting us. People and governments should right their wrongs by restoring, as much as possible, what they have damaged. Today the federal government makes the taxpayers or new owners shoulder the burden. If the polluters don't pay for the damage they do, why should they stop polluting?

In America the biggest polluter is the U.S. Military, not corporate businesses. In 1988, cleanup of 17military bases was estimated to cost $100 billion over 50 years. Putting government in charge of protecting the environment is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

Instead of putting our environment in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats I will encourage private ownership of the environment. The forest products industry provides a good example. Forest owners profit most when they harvest their forests sustainably. Bureaucrats profit only when they sell out to special interests, such as those wishing to clear-cut our national forests with only minimal efforts to reforest. The same result occurs in other areas of public land use (e.g., mining, grazing, etc.). There is always a compromise that benefits the politician. The answer is to convert publically owned land to private ownership. I will work to avoid public ownership and/or control of the environment and institute private solutions to maintaining the environment.

It is true that some private owners may not take of their property. However, only a very few people destroy what they own, and such foolish people will not own much. In the overwhelming number of cases there will be great care taken of the land. Abusive owners are punished by the marketplace and caretakers are rewarded by higher land values.

Because the free market works so well, private lands are generally cared for better than public lands. For example, private grazing ranges are better maintained than government-operated ranges. Home owners usually maintain their homes better than renters.

Restitution is an effective deterrent, especially to polluters, where restoration costs are monumental and polluters could spend the rest of their lives working to compensate their victims.

Restitution works best when property is held privately. Jane S. Shaw and Richard L. Stroup wrote in Reason magazine ("Gone Fishin'" August/September 1988, pp.34-37) about such a solution in Britain. There, property owners successfully protect their segments of rivers from uphill pollution by suing for restitution.

In the United States, and Montana, individuals are not allowed to sue polluters of public property, and the bureaucrats and politicians would rather not antagonize big businesses that can contribute to their campaigns. For example all water within the boundaries of Montana are the property of the state. This makes restitution for the real victims of water pollution much more difficult in the state of Montana.

Endangered species would also fare much better under private ownership. Currently, many owners try to eliminate endangered species on their property before they are discovered by the endangered species police. If endangered species of large animals are hunted, private ownership will actually protect the species more effectively than government control. A good example is the prohibition of the sale of elephant products in Kenya. After the prohibition the elephant population decreased from 65,000 in 1979 to 19,000 in 1989. However, in Zimbabwe, where elephants could be owned and elephant products could be sold, the elephant population increased from 30,000 to 43,000 during the same time.

People who are allowed to own animals and profit from their sale become fierce protectors, warding off poachers and other predators. Commercializing a useful species takes it of the endangered list. This is what happened to the buffalo in Montana and other western states. We can extend the same sort of treatment to other species.

Sensitive environmental areas would also benefit from private ownership. Instead of lobbying, conservation groups would use their money to buy and protect sensitive environmental areas. As an example, the Audubon Society manages Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary's marshland ecologically, while using carefully-placed natural gas wells and cattle grazing to produce income for future purchases.

The Nature Conservancy, National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Wings Over Wisconsin, and Trout Unlimited are among the many organizations that purchase and protect sensitive areas better than any politician or bureaucrat could.