The 80-20 Rule

The 80-20 rule, also known as the Pareto Principle, comes from economics. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people; inventions are 20% inspiration and 80% perspiration; and so on.

Probably my favorite application of the 80-20 rule, however, was in conservation. When I volunteered with a country park system back in Minnesota, I learned they had a policy that 80% of the resources were left for the plant and animal inhabitants, and only 20% was developed for human use. They created a system of bike trails, public beaches, picnic and play grounds, and the like for human use, but on only a small percentage of the land. This allowed and encouraged people to visit an area largely left in its natural state within a developed metropolitan area, in the hopes of connecting the human inhabitants to the natural world that preceded and surrounded them.

One of the benefits of renting land is that I will never be able to afford as much acreage as I would prefer to surround myself with. I want to be able to lose myself in the woods (figuratively speaking, of course!). The acreage I'm privileged to find myself on now allows that. Most of it is in “tree growth”, with only a couple acres designated for human development. I sometimes feel guilty for taking another area, some distance from the main house, away from the wildlife, but far more than 80% of the property is still left to them, so it is well within the principle I adopted from the aforementioned county park system. As much as I wanted to build deeper into the property, nearly a half-mile from the road, the spot I fell in love with would have been difficult to get materials (imported or locally harvested) to. I also had concerns that developing access to that remote spot would be taking to much of the land away from its other inhabitants. So I am building closer to the neighbors than I would have preferred, and saving that special spot as a hike-in camping location.

I've written before about my efforts to convert the old skidder trails, which the forest is reclaiming, into hiking trails, but a comment made at a presentation the other evening has me wondering about the wisdom of doing so. One slide of the presentation had the quote “Take only pictures, leave only footprints.” I smiled in recognition, having grown up with the Leave No Trace backpacking principle, and was shocked when the presenter emphatically stated his hatred of that quote! He then went on to explain that such a policy, while appropriate in heavily used areas, has expanded to the point that people *never* leave the trails, don't really interact with nature, viewing it from the trail similar to viewing animals in their pens at a zoo. They see it, but don't connect with it. Images started flashing through my mind – backpacking as a young child, admonished by my parents to stay on the trail; later fears of being attacked by plants (poison ivy or poison oak) or animals (bears or rabid raccoons) if I strayed from the designated path; the awe I had at my Indiana neighbor's willingness to thread through the underbrush, always knowing where his was despite a lack of reference trails and trail maps; a reminder of my own realization years ago of how well I had been trained to stay on the trail, to color within the lines, to avoid deviating from accepted and expected behavior. Well, okay, I've done a fairly good job of throwing over that last one! Or have I? That'll be a different topic for later exploration. The point here is, are we allowing trails to limit us, to limit where we go, what we see, what we might otherwise interact with? With the 80-20 rule, are we still separating ourselves from, instead of connecting with, the natural world around us? What are the true ramifications of seemingly beneficial restrictions?