US Military in Iraq, February 2008. Photo by Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images
I am still trying to grok this news from the New York Times promoting the US military’s role in wildlife and habitat preservation on its 270,000 acres of bases in the US. Some of the activities sound ridiculous: like carving holes in trees “so the woodpeckers did not have to toil for six months carving the nests themselves.” On the other hand, controlled burning probably does increase wildlife habitat.
There is a realism beneath this change in policy: by preserving wildlife the military reduces the number of species designated as endangered and allows the military more freedom to to conduct training on their lands.
It’s hard for me to support the idea of nature preservation which will then allow more destruction. Does nature really benefit from bullets, tanks and bombs? But the cold logic behind this policy suggest that almost any large organization can find benefits in supporting bio-diversity. Despite the PR nature of this story and the ultimately violent nature of this organization, the military’s change in attitude about its role as a property owner is at once revolting and cause for optimism.
(Check out New York Times video, too).
Tokyo Green Space 
The military’s efforts to remove feral herbivorous mammals (goats, sheep) on San Clemente Island, off the coast of Southern California, has led to the resurgence of a number of endangered plant species. San Clemente is a training ground, as I understand it, for the Navy. The total control of certain pieces of land by the government for war-making yields marginal benefits for specific wildlife.
Also, the Marine Corps’s Camp Pendleton, in southernmost Orange County, contains the largest remaining tract of coastal sage scrub in California, and is the only extensive undeveloped bit of coastal land between Baja and Malibu. Faute de mieux.
J-son, I agree it’s a mixed bag. What seems important is for popular pressure to make all landowners show responsibility for the eco-systems under their control. The largest landowners have the greatest impact and responsibility.