Who owns mountains

The law says there are two kinds, real and personal. But it seems to me that the only real property is that which is truly personal, that which we take into our inner life and make our own forever, by understanding and admiration and sympathy and love. This is the only kind of possession that is worth anything.

A gallery of great paintings adorns the house of the Honourable Midas Bond, and every year adds a new treasure to his collection. He knows how much they cost him, and he keeps the run of the quotations at the auction sales, congratulating himself as the price of the works of his well-chosen artists rises in the scale, and the value of his art treasures is enhanced. But why should he call them his?

He is only their custodian. He keeps them well varnished, and framed in gilt. But he never passes through those gilded frames into the world of beauty that lies behind the painted canvas. He knows nothing of those lovely places from which the artist's soul and hand have drawn their inspiration.

They are closed and barred to him. He has bought the pictures, but he cannot buy the key. The poor art student who wanders through his gallery, lingering with awe and love before the masterpieces, owns them far more truly than Midas does.

Pomposus Silverman purchased a rich library a few years ago. The books were rare and costly. That was the reason why Pomposus bought them. He was proud to feel that he was the possessor of literary treasures which were not to be found in the houses of his wealthiest acquaintances. But the threadbare Bucherfreund, who was engaged at a slender salary to catalogue the library and take care of it, became the real proprietor.

Pomposus paid for the books, but Bucherfreund enjoyed them. I do not mean to say that the possession of much money is always a barrier to real wealth of mind and heart. Nor would I maintain that all the poor of this world are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. But some of them are.

And if some of the rich of this world through the grace of Him with whom all things are possible are also modest in their tastes, and gentle in their hearts, and open in their minds, and ready to be pleased with unbought pleasures, they simply share in the best things which are provided for all. I speak not now of the strife that men wage over the definition and the laws of property. Doubtless there is much here that needs to be set right. There are men and women in the world who are shut out from the right to earn a living, so poor that they must perish for want of daily bread, so full of misery that there is no room for the tiniest seed of joy in their lives.

This is the lingering shame of civilization. In a way, this second defeat of rural communities made absolutizes the constraints of the former seigniorial regime Chouquer, Without being connected to the villages, the compagnies of the state wood industry thus managed the resource without compensation. These different stages led to a profound change in the mountain landscape cf.

The law required cooperatives to transform their entrepreneurial model Maurel, The management of cooperatives had to return the property to its original owners and organize their shareholding. These two statuses of collective ownership were restored by the law on agricultural uses and the restitution of property ownership.

In addition, community ownership prevailed thanks to a liberal policy that put an end to collectivist management. In fact, the agricultural collectivism that had overturned the structure of private property had not totally eliminated the community foundation. However, these were simply associations for natural persons lacking legal character, in accordance with the uncertainty surrounding the collective methods at the start of the transition.

The law on property ownerships set guidelines for their operation by giving them a legal nature. In legal terms, the user rights on the forests had not been abolished. Located on the ground floor of a town hall building, the premises flow through corridors and rooms, which hold an improbable quantity of notarized certificates confirming that each have a small fraction of property and stacks of records; here, two computers serve to consult the geodesy department, where communal maps on free wall faces display the forestry plan for the western Tatras mountains.

Three secretaries help the president to manage an overabundance of beneficiaries. The search for owners is a long one, as is the identification of plots, and the market is not always flourishing, while it does not take long for a property that everyone considers as belonging to everyone to be looted.

Their size is very unequal, both in terms of the quantity and quality of their resources and the interest of owners. Another is that of controlling sections, awarding or product sales; all of this is in a context of unauthorized exploitation that ravaged some sectors of the mountains 7.

The question has remained open, although the situation normalized after a decade. And who else could rent it but the cooperative? Separating the communal areas that are most important to the collective heritage was not obvious. The distinction between the management of assets and becoming a cooperative has still been established in several cases. Once removed from the areas exploited by the cooperative, its summer meadows welcomed new agricultural companies.

It is groups of individuals that continue using the collectively owned herds and who want to steer clear of the restructuring of cooperative by external stakeholders. Conception M. Lompech, realization F. The reasoning would them be supported by limited cases. In , a first cooperative, which brought together fringe members of the rural working class, was established on this land and took over the mill.

The laws changed the order. All of the collective goods granary, forge, sheep pen, barn and the fields, meadows and quarry became the capital of the new cooperative.

Its property was ha of forest and ha of pastures, which were divided into 23, plots 9. In , it counted members and 17 employees. The extraordinary fragmentation of its property is explained by family relationships and this base expands again with inheritance processes.

It regained its property held by the cooperative, the agricultural land and the mill, which was converted into an inn. The frequency of storms, leading to uprooted trees, brought regular income, making it possible to distribute dividends to members, to subsidize several associations and to provide material support to the commune.

It was a beneficiary of a rural development program, which enabled it to purchase a utility vehicle that it shares with the municipality, equipment and to co-finance road repairs. The storms strip the slope of the Low Tatras and requires a plan for replanting supported by European funds. They went further into the complexity of local divisions cf.

The largest operated as a family company in forest management, which was increasingly limited after in the restrictions of the state sector; it had 3, plots owned by owners. Its property limit increased gradually and in , it had ha in forest , for plots and owners. It supports the municipality with a variety of donations school, church renovation, fire brigade. Agricultural land was rented to local cooperatives. Land property is no longer embedded 10 into the matrix of social relations that were those of folk-type societies and the rights that govern it are nevertheless designed as claims made by individuals on material objects.

The latter was deeply disruptive due to the economic crisis that it caused and raised the dilemma of knowing to what point continuing on from the socialist period could be tolerated and to what point the restoration effort could follow on from the pre-socialist period.

Some of the biggest chunks of land in Park City are clearly the ski areas. Many trails, more noticeable in the summer, use these ski areas. When we, All Seasons Adventures, want to use many trails like those owned by Deer Valley or those in the Uintas for our guided tours, we must obtain special permission or permits.

How can this be? When the United States expanded westward, the federal government purchased large sections of land. As states began to form, sections of the federal land were sold for individual states to manage.

Homesteading also divided federal land. Specifically in Utah, The United States Forest Service oversees nearly 8. It is important to understand that each federal organization serves a different purpose and manages wilderness, natural resources, and recreation differently.