I'm writing this column in support of environmental quality prior to the election. I hope voters purge two types of politicians; troglodytes who confuse conservative with exploitative, and watermelons, those green on the outside and pink within.

Remember Jim Watt? When appointed Secretary of Interior in 1981, he led the "Sagebrush Rebellion". He promised to be the great privatizer of federal lands. Later, Watt bragged that he had added more land to the federal estate than any cabinet secretary since Secretary of State William Seward purchased Alaska in 1867.

Likewise, Al Gore advocates a national BTU tax. Yet he led the move to keep federal agencies from analyzing the Tennessee Valley Authority's sweetheart deals for energy. His need to give special breaks to his Tennessee constituencies trumped his environmental conscience.

For a generation Greens saw evil and ignorant people, and too little government, as the primary sources of environmental problems. Their solution was to place ethical, intelligent people in positions of authority and empower them to pursue good policies. Many enviros oppose Bush for they expected a Gore victory to impose a cadre of green bureaucrats.

But, despite Gore's green claims and consistent posturing, he has been pummeled by many enviros. The Oregon-based Native Forests Council, said Gore "hasn't done one thing that benefited the environment. It's all a sham. He is a pathological liar who will say and do anything to get elected." They created a political action committee called Environmentalists Against Gore.

Today, environmental protection is not dependent upon good people in high places. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park Service were created to address real problems. Over time, their purpose and operations were frequently corrupted and their reputations sullied.

Political forces caused them to generate environmental harm and vast economic waste. It's now far more effective to create or support independent, cooperative institutions, which generate support and create incentives for citizens to act as responsible environmentalists.

America's founders understood that throughout history politicians gain power by transferring wealth and preferential opportunities from the weak and unorganized to the powerful and well organized. Many environmental problems, especially in the Rocky Mountain West, flow from this hoary political pathology.

Ecology is too important to be left to election campaigns and huge bureaucracies. Thirty years ago, my colleagues and I at Montana State University recognized that environmental regulations and prudent enforcement are necessary but not sufficient to ensure environmental quality. We advocated market incentives and property rights as tools to achieve environmental objectives.

Most national environmentalists and journalists considered our proposals naïve or self serving. They called us "the wild bunch from Montana". Special interests and complicit politicians were outraged at our arrogance in exposing their misdeeds. Actually, we were just ahead of our time.

Today this emphasis on incentives and environmental entrepreneurship is mainstream. Many environmental leaders now favor incentives and recognize the importance of cooperation based upon secure property rights. The success of groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Trout Unlimited, and Ducks Unlimited, organizations that use property rights and incentives to achieve green goals, is widely celebrated.

Good economists never argue that the market is a magic elixir. Markets drive toward narrow efficiency. However, they ignore much that is intangible, and often destroy that which has no price and no owner.

That's why we need sensible environmental regulations. Unfortunately, when the regulators are distant agencies, recurrent, systematic problems flow from the politics which drive them. However noble their avowed missions, agencies operate to maximize their discretionary budgets.

Governmental management necessarily implies political decisions. And politics ultimately means the winners are those who most effectively apply power to achieve their objectives.

Successful efforts to promote conservation and biodiversity require innovative institutions. The goal is to foster creative management while avoiding the high environmental, ethical, and economic costs of government ownership and political control.

Environmental entrepreneurs see opportunities to foster organizations protecting or producing such goods as habitat for endangered species. Growth of public, non-governmental organizations such as the Montana Land Reliance and Gallatin Valley Land Trust is encouraging. I encourage environmentally responsible citizens to focus on these opportunities, not control from Washington.

It's naive to believe that if "our" guys and gals get into power, we've won. That's not the way the world works. This time, like the last time, national politicians remain self-interested and will act on political incentives. Green advocates neglect this principle at great risk to values we cherish.

This column originated with Bridge News.