John Brennan
has a solution for saving Nova Scotia’s wilderness: privatize it.
Brennan is the mind behind what he’s calling the Avalon Private
Wilderness Reserve, a 550-acre development on the backlands above
Portuguese Cove. The development is a rectangular chunk of land that
stretches about five kilometres westward, roughly halfway towards
Williamswood on the Old Sambro Road. Undeveloped crown land sits to the
north and south.
The area is typical Nova Scotia scrub forest, with interesting
granite outcrops that overlook the ocean and several spectacular
lakes—Clarks Pond, Third Pond, Crooked Hat Pond. A small
stream—it’s unnamed on my topographic maps, but Brennan calls it the
Avalon River—crosses the property.
Remarkably, there’s been no mining or lumber operations in the area.
Locals have used the area for hunting and hiking, and a few small
fishing cabins have been built on the shores of Third Pond, but
otherwise it’s been left to the wild.
As Brennan sells it, the Avalon development is a “green lifestyle
immersion concept for a small amount of people who become the stewards
for 550 acres.” The land is divided into 40 lots, at prices ranging
from $179,500 to $349,500. Most of the lots front a lake and then reach
back into the woods, the idea being that a house will be constructed on
the lake, but the rest of the lot is on terrain that can’t be built
upon. The lots have easements for 20 kilometres of trails that traverse
the development, connecting commonly held features like boat ramps and
gazebos on ridgetops. Owners will enter into a covenant agreement that
protects the natural features and funds the upkeep of trails and such.
Hunting and ATVs will be prohibited.
As will trespassing.
Plans call for a substantial granite and iron gate on the road
leading into the development, barring entry to all but residents and
their guests. The perimeter of the property will be posted with no
trespassing signs.
“This is a private, private, private wilderness reserve,”
Brennan explains. “And it has to be that way, because somebody has to
pay for it—and that’s the opportunity for people who love nature, who
want to live in it. Forty people who value the wilderness now get a
chance to buy a finished pristine wilderness product and preserve
it.”
I have no reason to believe that those who purchase Brennan’s
“wilderness product” won’t be good stewards of the land—plenty of
private landowners are.
But the “private wilderness” concept bothers me. For one, I’m of the
old school that recognizes an unstated agreement for how people use the
outback, which boils down to mutual respect: property owners don’t
throw up barriers to people wanting to explore their land, but those
travelling across it put distance between themselves and private
residences, respect “no hunting” signs and make sure not to degrade the
land.
To be sure, that unstated agreement has been sorely stressed in
recent years, especially with the introduction of ATVs, which can cause
huge erosion problems and allow morons to dump garbage and otherwise do
stupid things in places they couldn’t easily reach before.
Brennan himself explains my bigger problem with privatization: had
they not embarked on the “private wilderness reserve,” he says, the
developers could have “clearcut, strip-mined, they could have removed
about $8 million of fill from this pristine area, they could have
gotten about 350 lot approvals and consequently made this a
high-density development not unlike Clayton Park.”
We seemed to have lost any concept of a shared common good for
wilderness areas—they’re simply another product to be exploited,
abused, left for dead or, if we’re lucky, some nice rich people will
protect them, so long as you dirty public stay the hell out.
In the scheme of things, the Avalon development isn’t the end of the
world—some locals will be pushed off their old stomping grounds, but
it’s likely the last such development in HRM (Avalon couldn’t be built
under new subdivision rules).
Still, I can’t help but think the development is analogous to the
wider world, where we can’t figure out how to both protect and allow
access to limited resources, and where, in the end, what really matters
is who’s got the money.
This article appears in Oct 22-28, 2009.
So who do I call about that lot?
If the government can’t implement legislation that prevents private owners from ruining nature, than better to have a handful of caring citizens with the resources to protect it do it.
HRM especially has a pretty poor track record when it comes to smart land use…so maybe it’s better this way.
Awesome, the locals have been using the area for the past 50-100 years for hunting and fishing. Not anymore. In the old days you could set up a camp on Crown Land and lease it from the gov’t (still can as far as I know). A cousin eventually lost our grandfather’s camp due to gov’t red tape. Too bad he doesn’t have $179,500 to $349,500, eh?
So, you don’t like subdivisions like clayton park, you love the city, you don’t like private protected woodlots for environmental stewards like yourself to own, but you like protected areas? I don’t fucking get you tim, i just don’t get you.
Ps, not all of Nova Scotia is similar to the scrub lands around the halifax area. Hit up Cape Breton and its Highlands, Amherst, Yarmouth, the Vally and New Glasgow areas. All amazing and different.
I like Clayton Park.
Great idea – this adds a bit more diversity for those who can afford it. For those who can’t there’s still lots of undeveloped land no one cares about in NS and the HRM. As for the local hunters, it’s a shame, but if the land were all purchased by a single private citizen it would still be trespassing.
Clayton Park = Good
Kingswood = Bad
Hey, I like this idea. There’s enough people out there that have the income to own the area and certainly care about it. I certainly appreciate that everyone should have the right to traverse the wilderness as they please, however, the majority of people that tend to hunt and use ATVs would not respect the land owner’s rights. They would use and abuse as they please. I hope it works out.
The majority of people who hunt and who DO NOT trespass is the main reason behind the special regulations surrounding hunting zone 2A.
But if Dr.Fever has some figures comparing licensed hunters and trespassing, bring it on.
Sorry, I’m just a sucker when it comes to generalizations.
Why doesn’t someone buy a lot and let any member of the general public be a guest. Now that would be funny.
wow, some of my friends ain’t gonna be happy about this. I hope those richy rich types just don’t come in to our community and act like they are better than the rest of us ordinary folk, I’ve seen enough of those yuppies at soccer games this summer to last a while.
It is kind of sad though, that my kids won’t get to camp and learn to drive dirt bikes in the same places I did.
I think it’s a great idea to privatize this land into the hands of those who truly respect and safeguard nature, and keep it clear of rednecks with rifles and the corrupt NS government which recently set a dangerous precedent of handing over provincially-protected wilderness land (Hay Island) to commercial industry (sealers).
Protection of Property Act. R.S., c. 363, s. 1.
15(2) No Person may be prosecuted for contravening any notice given pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting activity on forest land if that person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act, fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, skiing or engaged in another recreational activity or engaged in a study of flora or fauna.