A Analysis On The State Of Forest Ecosystem Services Essay

Today, millions of acres of land in our nation have been fortunate enough to not be disrupted by the touch of man. Around the nation it is also always on debate about using the natural resources of those untouched lands to benefit the economy and man in some way. However, there are many who oppose doing this and there are also those who believe we should harness those resources, but in a way that is not damaging. These two beliefs are called conservation and preservation and are very different in the way people look at the land. Preservation refers to leaving the land and all the natural wildlife and plant life alone and not disturbing the natural beauty and natural cycle of life in the environment.

People have seriously affected the land. We utilize it to develop harvests to sustain our developing populace. We additionally utilize it to give vitality. Every year one individual in North America utilizes assets equivalent to more than 12 sections

Question 2: Although land ownership is an individual right, what takes place on that land is still a concern for governing agencies. In this case, the impact to ecosystems covers an area greater than just the area owned by one individual or firm. Controlling the impacts of the landowners operation mitigates the impact to other landowners in the area. Owning land still requires a reasonable person to behave in a manner consistent with the law of the land. In this analysis, a gentlemen named Hurwitz backed Maxxam Inc. to purchase Pacific Lumber. Hungry for profits, he altered Pacific Lumber’s focus to the short term profitability of the firm, instead of long term sustainment of the business. Poor business practices put Maxxam Inc. in a position requiring a fixed amount of income to pay loan interest and fees. Hurwitz never assessed whether or not he could sustain payment with current operations and was forced to increase operations to make profitability still viable. (The Terrestrial Environment, 1998)

How far was it beneficial to yuma county? Of course building this project wasn't free these men need to pay for it and it wasn't cheap to build it at all but let tell you with the money it went into the project it all pay off big time at the end. “$66 million invested in the project by the United States and the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District”. And all this money invested in this project was beneficial to yuma because they were making off this was crazy and it only got more and more money over time. “The annual economic impact of this crop production on the surrounding area is estimated at five times the annual agricultural income, or a total of $185,000,000” and think about they only invested 66 million dollars in this project and each year they making 185,000,000 million dollars. Other way the project was beneficial to yuma is when they build this they found out they had a gold mine. The Yuma Mesa is a gold mine awaiting development by the viticulturist. “There is unbelievable wealth here to be had by the man of vision, who has the patience to wait and the money to develop a citrus grove”. And this really help uma because they would sale the land that could be mine and make ton of money off it and each year it would go up. The mine was found around the 1925s and at that time the land was being sold at “a net profit in 1925 of $800 per acre” and after each returning year the price kept going up at one point it was at

An important part of this model was to divide the Champion lands into separate but complementary ownerships on the basis of ecological values and basic management purposes: areas with the greatest ecological significance would be publicly owned and protected, with timber harvesting precluded on substantial acreages to allow natural processes like forest succession to occur unimpeded; and the most productive timber lands, with fewer special ecological values, would be kept in private ownership with a requirement that they be managed for long-term sustainable forestry. Public access for a variety of historic uses and other activities would be guaranteed on the entirety of the property.

Duerksen, C. & Snyder, C., (2005). Nature-friendly communities: habitat protection and land use. Case Study for Austin, TX; Washington, DC: Island Press Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.apus.edu/lib/apus/Doc?id=10149942

The Forest Unseen shows how nature has a beauty on a much smaller scale than what is seen on the larger spectrum of life. Haskell studied a square meter in the forest for an entire year to examine the smallest of details to show how when the large scale is studied there are many things happening in the small scale. The Forest Unseen allows readers to see how much beauty there is beyond what meets the eye. He consistently supports his main themes throughout the book by citing specific examples. Haskell’s endeavor to discover the beauty of the environment is successful in that he uses scientific and poetic language to draw the reader into his study as he explains his day to day experiences in the forest.

The NCCP is designed to allow Orange County and participating counties the opportunity to develop plans for saving what remains of the CSS among the existing development. In this process counties are asked to account for future urban and farming development. Stakeholder participation is important in this process for obtaining input from various sectors of the community. Businesses and cities can come forward with plans for future expansion and development, managers of habitat can come forward with goals and limitations of the habitat and scientists can come forward with recommendations for size and structure of habitat and ideas for restoration to enhance corridors between habitat.

With an ever-shrinking base and the increase in their resource need, it is imperative that the nation focus our attention on conserving our rangelands for the future. This concern has become evident in recent years, and there is a pressing need to relay public concern for conservation of our natural resources into the establishment of national policy. The health of our nation is held in our soil and water resources found on rangelands. Their conservation is the responsibility of both public and private landowners. We, as a nation, must recognize that there is ultimately a cost for the conservation. But this cost is minimal in comparison to the damage to our environment if rangelands are not conserved. Therefore, as a nation, we must be willing to help the land user establish and apply long-term conservation management. There should also be consider of long-term, low-interest loans for conservation treatments and tax incentives for conservation practices (Hayenga). The USDA must adopt policies that will provide economic incentives rather than economic penalties to range conservation efforts by private land owners and

While writing an essay about the future of Ascarate Park, I learned that I am not alone in envisioning the parks true potential. Local residents and now government officials are speaking up and taking action. Especially encouraging is Government official, David Stout’s plans for the local park. He proclaimed Ascarate Park as an “important park in El Paso” and stated a funding plan. In turn, local El Paso residents are finally hopeful and eager to see the positive impact on Ascarate Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Such a beautiful green space should be nurtured to its fullest potential for wildlife and locals to appreciate.

According to Richard Stroup, a free-market advocate, there is need to reform the Endangered Species Act to ensure that endangered species are our friends and not foes. Private ownership is the number one problem for the Endangered Species Act(Nelson, 2006). Of all the endangered species, especially in the US, are dependent on habitats that are privately owned. In order to avert the problem of loss of diversity, then, the focus should be on developing strategies that effectively work on privately owned land. Both the mainstream environmentalists and free-market advocates argue that the current status results in persistent incentives that produce objectionable results

In culmination, Tompkins, as a conservational philanthropist, has inaugurated his conservational efforts to accumulate a sizeable portion of foreign nations. Due to lawmakers and local residents’ rising concern of his control of natural resources and his property blocking public transportation routes, he must devise a solution that will satisfy both conservational and public demands. Thus, the most effective and equitable solution would be to sequester most of his land to local conservation efforts, so as to ensure the government had adequate control over its natural resources and access to ancestral

For the past decades, public land policy debates have intensified among scholars, planners, and policy makers. The root of the debates is a question of which types of public lands management can provide better economic benefits to adjacent regions that are referred to gateway communities. For a long time, resource extractive industries – such as mineral, oil, coal, and timber development sectors - have been a primary growth engine for the economic growth in those communities. However, since the past three decades, several federal land use policies such as the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-517) and the Wilderness Act of 1964 began to restrict this type of development (Duffy-Deno, 1998; Rasker, 1994). As a result, the restriction of public lands use has been enhanced, and tourism- and service-based development has been promoted.

Not only Idaho, but all of the Nation’s wilderness areas are of prime importance. Groups such as The National Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club do valuable work in preserving the rich natural heritage of the United States (Casten & Rijsberman 2011). Their efforts to inform the public, conserve wildlife, and wilderness areas should be applauded. Without their efforts, many scenic areas and byways would be polluted and destroyed beyond repair. However, with every civic movement there comes a time when one asks the questions: where do humans fit in, where is the line drawn between preservation and protection, and refusing to allow citizens to enjoy the wonder that is nature? National groups are great for spreading a general amount of information to the public. The national focus on improving property maintenance is wonderful, but they do not know the area for which they argue, they can only

The struggle between providing for California’s burgeoning population and the corresponding increase pressure on California’s ever shrinking pristine natural wonders and natural resources has been a constant clash between the forces of big business and conservation activism. However, the outcomes of these many battles have increasingly favored the side of economics over nature. The trend that becomes clear is that the will of the businessmen have been prevailing over the concerns of the conservationists more and more. What are the forces that are pushing the pendulum closer and closer towards the desires of industry? By examining the history of this conflict between these two factions, it will become clear how one has had progressively more of an advantage over the other. Today, the main reason that industry’s goals almost always prevails over conservation’s efforts is economics and what an advantage in economics can buys one politically. Economic interests will predominately have ever-increasing priority over environmental interest as long as money is considered speech and corporations are people; therefore, the most pragmatic solution that would allot conservation groups with an equal voice in the political process with business is to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention to pass an amendment to permanently get money out of politics nationwide.