24 j CHRONICLESnoccurred, and on both sanctuaries cordial relationshipsncontinue among sanctuary managers and oil companynexecutives and workers.nAre the Audubon Society managers of the Michigan andnLouisiana preserves less concerned about the environmentnthan those environmentalists debating the potential for oilnexploration in the Bob Marshall Wilderness? Did the oilncompanies choose more cooperative individuals to deal withnthe Audubon Society in the Louisiana and Michigan cases?nThe most likely explanation can be found in the differentnrules governing property in the contrasting cases. Whennpublic land-use conflicts occur, those who disagree havenlittle incentive to look for potential agreement. Aggressivenbehavior is rewarded. Picturing one’s opponents as heinous,nbase, and selfish is appropriate.nIn contrast, under private ownership there is little returnnfor name-calling. Ways to beneficial agreements by satisfyingnothers at the least cost to oneself are needed, and mutualnaccommodation is rewarded. That is precisely what happenednin the case of the Audubon preserves. The Audubonnpeople found they could better provide quality bird habitatn(there and elsewhere) by cooperating with the oil companies.nThe gas wells on the Rainey Sanctuary generate anmillion dollars a year in royalties. The producing well on thenMichigan preserve generated $100,000 in revenue for thenAudubon Society the first year; it is now providing $50,000nin annual royalty payments. These revenues have allowednboth Audubon groups to purchase other habitats and tonmanage existing sanctuaries better. The environment fornthe birds is not entirely pristine because of the wells, but thenAudubon members evidently found the trade-offs worthwhile.nThe oil companies also had to make significant concessions.nRestrictions were placed on times of exploration. Innthe Michigan case, slant drilling was used to minimizendisturbance of prime nesting habitat. High-efliciency mufflersnwere required on all equipment, and all machinery wasnpainted medium moss green. Michigan Petroleum Explorationnalso had to pay for a monitor appointed by thenMichigan Audubon Society. The monitor oversaw operationsnand ensured minimum environmental disturbance.nIt is evident that numerous concessions had to be madenby both sides. However, private property rights encouragedncooperation and minimized conflict.nWe do not know the future, nor is there a consensusnabout resource values. Therefore it is beneficial for a societynto provide a mechanism for diverse preferences and projectionsnabout resource uses to be expressed. The privatenproperty system, based upon individual decision-making,nexpresses that diversity much better than a system of publicnownership under collective decisions rule. A strong case cannbe made that minority viewpoints are expressed and respectednmuch more in the marketplace than in the politicalnarena.nIn the I920’s, a leading conservationist, Rosalie Edge,nbecame concerned with the conservation groups’ lack ofninterest for the preservation of nongame birds. She arguednthat the Audubon Society and state game departments werenmainly dedicated to protecting game species and songbirds.nShe was particularly incensed over the wholesale slaughternof raptors as they migrated down the Appalachian Moun­nnntains. In eastern Pennsylvania, Hawk Mountain was anpopular spot for killing hawks, falcons, osprey, and eaglesnbecause winds and tnpf)graphy brought as many as 20,000 anday past the niouiitain.nAngered at this slaughter, Mrs. Edge attempted tonconvince the Hawk and Owl Society, an affiliate of thenNational Association of Audubon Societies, to purchase thenmountain and stop the killing. The Society failed to act.nTaking matters in her own hands, Mrs. Edge purchased thenproperty in 1934, hired a young naturalist to manage andnpolice it, and effectively stopped the slaughter. Today HawknMountain Sanctuary stands as a monument to RosalienEdge’s farsightedness. During the fall migration, as many asn3,000 people a day crowd the lookouts to observe the largennumbers of birds.nIf Mrs. Edge had depended upon convincing a majoritynof the population or the policymakers that preservation ofnraptors was important, she would have had a difficult task.nDuring this period, most states encouraged the shooting ofnhawks to protect farm poultry and game birds. In Pennsylvanianin 1934 it was legal to shoot all hawk species, and thenstate paid a bounty on goshawks. Even the AudubonnSociety was ambivalent about raptors. Fortunately Mrs.nEdge had to convince only the owner of the property of thenstrength of her concerns. He sold her the land, she acted onnher vision of the future, and her minority view turned out tonbe valuable for the rest of us.nIn Oregon one can visit, for a fee, the largest sea eaves innthe United States. They are the only mainland rookery ofnSteller’s sea lions. Discovered in 1880 by Captain WilliamnCox and purchased by him in 1887 from the state ofnOregon, the sea lion caves have remained in private handsnever since and, after 1932, have been operated as a publicnattraction. About 200 Steller’s sea lions are resident, andnother sea lion species and seals also use the caves. The totalnsea lion caves property consists of 12 5 acres of coast, andndevelopment of this acreage has been kept to a minimum.nSea lions, although not valued for their fur, were neverthelessnalmost hunted to extinction because of their perceivednthreat to the fishing industry. It was believed that thensea lions and seals were significant consumers of sports fishnand were especially hard on salmon. By the early 1900’snOregon had a $2.50 bounty on seals and sea lions, and inn1920 the state legislature asked the State Fish Commissionnto exterminate the entire coastal population of both animals.nThe bounty was raised to $5.00, and in 1921 alone onenhunter killed over 1,000.nOne of the major factors contributing to the preservationnof the sea lion during the 1920’s and l930’s was the effortsnof the owners of the sea lion caves. They protected theirnresident population and drove the bounty hunters away.nAgain, private property owners could stand against prevailingnwisdom because they did not have to convince anmajority of the population. As in the case of HawknMountain, government agencies were not preserving anspecies but were encouraging its depletion. As representativesnof the majority opinion, they were taking the course ofnaction the majority preferred. However, the diversity ofnprivate rights proved useful, in these cases, as well as manynothers.nIt is sometimes argued that our private property rights aren