Those of us working to preserve wildlife habitat and open space will be more successful when we grasp a key principle; all resources, including land, gravitate toward highest valued uses.

With agricultural prices nearing historical lows, the pressures forcing farmers and ranchers out of agriculture are increasing. Although some people may object to this claim, they are irresponsible when they ignore its strength, for it has tremendously powerful implications for the preservation of open space.

Two important economic and technological forces affect the open space issue. First, commodity prices, including food, are cascading downward, which is a surprise to many environmentalists. A generation of Greens believed we faced an era of protracted shortages and increasing prices. Had these prognostications been even approximately correct, the open space issue would be far less important. There would be much less pressure to convert farm land to other uses-and we'd have other problems over which to worry, for example, the next meal.

In 1973, I sold my wheat for $5.07 per bushel. This is approximately $15.00 per bushel in today's dollars. The current price is about $2.50, less than the cost of production for most farmers. It's a similar story for all major crops. Consequently, one should not be surprised to learn that farmers face strong incentives to convert agricultural land to subdivisions.

The second force involves the substantial reduction in the inconvenience of living outside of town. Housing, vehicles, and clothing are all far safer and more comfortable than in 1970. With daily over night deliveries by UPS and FedEx, and access to the internet and e-mail, isolation has become optional.

Under the influence of these forces there is no realistic set of prices which alone would keep some lands in agriculture. Especially attractive areas in the northern Rockies, the Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, and Teton valleys, for example, are far more valuable as home sites than as farms.

Here's an actual case. Through a historical accident, there was a ten-acre in-holding on our home place, a mile south of our house. The inholding was in dry land hay, producing about fifteen tons of good quality forage per year worth at most $300 after expenses.

Ten years ago, the owner offered to sell it to us for $42,700. Although the offer was a great bargain as a home site, the price was more than ten times its value in agriculture. Today, similar tracts sell for about $80,000.

Thus, we are in the midst of a grand paradox. The technological forces generating these pressures have made a majority of Americans far more wealthy. They have the financial means to buy, if not a ranchette, at least a suburban lot. Although the vast majority of the buyers prefer open lands, they have the desire and the means to destroy the very values they profess to cherish. It's as though progress in the material world has conspired against the preservation of open space.

This is a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. The views and habitats enjoyed by all are gradually eroded and depreciated by individual actions. There is a cultural response to this situation, but it will not be effective and may actually be counter productive.

A new land ethic is emerging among today's Greens. It holds that if a family isn't actually working the land in a serious manner with income substantially dependent upon this work, they should live in town.

I have no quarrel with this position and I admire its consistency with principle. However, it won't save open space. The temptations to live out from town are substantial and only committed "enviroes", a very small proportion of the population, will resist them.

For this plan to succeed as an open lands strategy, nearly all potential buyers would have to honor the "if you work in town, live in town" principle. This clearly won't happen. But even if this principle were widely accepted, those who respect it least would take up rural lands as home sites. And these are the people least likely to be environmentally sensitive. This paradox is ecologically perverse.

What we desperately need, and need soon, are environmental entrepreneurs to mobilize people's love for open space. Success requires converting that love into policies giving land owners strong incentives to preserve open space. Eliminating the inheritance tax on farms and ranches is an idea to consider.