Americans are increasingly concerned about our wildlands. Historically we looked toward federal custodians. But, if you believe that Congress will respond with large appropriations, read no further.

The federal government has made promises it cannot afford to keep. The implications preclude an expanded federal wildlands system. What will happen when actual spending cuts become unavoidable? As the 104th Congress demonstrates, environmental expenditures are prime targets.

Yet, as our ecological understanding increases, we realize that large, intact systems are important. David Quammen, author of Song of the Dodo, notes that wildlands cannot exist merely as "island ecologies". Without linking large, diverse areas and populations, island ecologies are doomed to stagnate and fail. But will wildlands be worth their political cost to politicians?

Already, half the federal budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. This drain is projected to double in the next 40 years. What will be left for wildlands? And where would federal wildlands be if revenue-hungry Congressmen, pressured by retired baby boomers, propose selling off bits and pieces of federal lands to fund the boomers' retirement?

According to a Claiborne-Ortenberg Foundation report, The View from Airlie, such mischief is endemic to top-down control where local sites "offer tantalizing potential for financing industrial development, servicing foreign debt, or simply getting rich."

Allowing the political process to determine the priority of wildlands designations invites michief. With the Presidio, an old naval base, becoming a national park, might the Rocky Mountain Arsenal be designated a Wilderness Area? (This would eliminate the required cleanup.)

We expect politicians' attention spans to reach only to the next election, but wildlands require long-term stewardship. These two time frames are incompatible. Politicians aren't held accountable for events after they leave office.

Yet, the stubborn reliance on command-and-control by orthodox environmentalists ignores these structural impediments to a federal wildlands program. We need new institutional arrangements to protect massive tracts of wildlands. Responsible and constructive proposals are required. Here are a few ideas.

Across America, untold multitudes of environmentally sensitive landowners are eager to manage their land for environmental ends but are afraid of political entanglements and potential takings. The Safe Harbor program in North Carolina is successful because it responds to landowner concerns. It is expected to double the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker population through voluntary agreements with landowners. Previously, the arrival of these woodpeckers meant losing control of their property. Landowners enrolled in Safe Harbor have their rights protected. If they attract woodpeckers they may continue active forestry and agriculture. Similar programs can link large tracts of wilderness without removing land from all productive uses.

Creativity, flexibility, and adaptability are essential in coordinating habitat and wildlands. These are not attributes of governmental bureaucracies. Environmental entrepreneurs, however, like leaders of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, specialize in identifying conservation opportunities and building a constituency for wildlands. Likewise, other conservationists could invest in wildlands based on voluntary agreements and mutual exchange.

When governments restrict use of private wildlands, landowners have strong incentives to develop their property before a bureaucrat comes locking. In the voluntary sector, on the other hand, landowners are rewarded if their parcels qualify as wildlands and become attractive to a regional "Wildlands Easement Trust".

A regional Wildlands Easement Trust would have a board of trustees, similar in operation to those of museums and hospitals. This decentralized approach allows caretaking priorities to adapt to increases in scientific understanding.

Such an approach wouldn't rely on massive federal land acquisition or regulatory intervention. This different path to the same goal promises better results with less confrontation. Dave Foreman founded Earth First! because of his frustration with the pro-environment but entirely statist Carter Administration. He observes "conservationists have relied too much on federal government law and regulation". He reminds us that it "has also been easier to pass federal laws than to work out good conservation through the free market or through voluntary agreements."

Preserving vast tracts of land, as Wildlands Easement Trusts promise to do, is a daunting task not amenable to quick fixes. The dangerous temptation is to rely upon governments alone to constrain those who would gladly plunder our natural heritage. America's heritage is not about coercing dissenters into obedient silence. As Alexis de Tocqueville explained early in our history, Americans excel at building voluntary institutions that foster cooperative pursuit of shared interests.

Saving wildlands by dipping deeper into the U.S. Treasury is doomed to frustration and failure. Federal management predictably fails to deliver environmental goods--be they commodities like timber or amenities like habitat. There is an important federal role to monitor against abuse and adjudicate conflict. Mischief follows when it tries to manage.

A decentralized and flexible approach, and positive incentives can make Wildlands Easement Trusts happen. Private and public, nongovernmental wildlands provide our best and most realistic opportunities to further protect nature's precious gifts.

We have many successful models all across America: the R Ranch in California, the Iram Wild Horse Preserve in South Dakota, Pennsylvania's Hawk Mountain, and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust. These nature preserves offer important lessons in the new environmentalism.