Dear HCN,
My pet peeve is the
anti-ranchette bias I see in almost every issue of High Country
News. Granted, some ranchettes, just as some ranches, are
environmental destabilizers, but most probably serve to increase
environmental awareness, just as most ranchers who work with the
land amid weather and wildlife have far more respect for the earth
than most city dwellers. I have seen developments of 35-acre
parcels where the builder constructed all houses on the
easiest-to-access meadows and stream sides, but I have also visited
plats where the development was left to
individuals.
Many of these modern-day
homesteaders camped on the parcels or visited regularly and made no
construction plans until they’d seen at least a year of seasonal
changes in their personal wilderness. Then they built homes that
would least impact the elk, bear, mountain lion and the watershed
and ecosystem they depend on. While some people are buying country
homes to get away from problems (which they merely bring with
them), I believe most of us purchasing property do so with an eye
toward the land, not a lifestyle.
As with most
political/social problems, the instigators and solvers are not
categories such as developer or rancher or publisher. They are
individuals, some being part of the problem, some part of the
solution. For example, one “bad” ranchette owner will do less
damage than a single “bad” rancher. Perhaps carving up that ranch
into 35-acre ranchettes full of owners who love their land will
cause less environmental damage. And it may provide a lot more
votes and tax dollars for like-minded
politicians.
Mike
Moxcey
Fort Collins, Colorad
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Ranchettes aren’t all bad.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
