Public Land Management In The United States

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

I care deeply about the planet Earth, the home humans originate from, so it pains me to watch “modern” society devastate natural life across the board. I feel personally connected to the issue of how we use our land. Having lived in the Lee County area since birth, I have noticed just in our own little part of the world how much “development” can change things. There used to be so much more plant life: trees, grasses, flowers and a myriad of other greenery. What was once considered “empty” lots, by some, have been adapted to suit human desires be it additional roads, restaurants, shopping malls, and a continuing spread of “chain” corporate industries. Beyond human structures, huge amounts of land also are cultivated for industrial farming

Through strictly regulated hunting we have reintroduced and repopulated various game species into areas where they were previously wiped out due to extremely excessive hunting by settlers. In the early 1900s all of Indiana’s whitetail deer were virtually extinct. By the 1930s whitetail deer were beginning to be reintroduced into Indiana. In just 20 years after initial reintroduction the population was at a sustainable level so that regulated modern hunting programs could begin. Conservationism has been a necessity to the ecology of the United States and many other countries around the world. The U.S. Forest Service by itself manages 193 million acres of public land nationwide or roughly 8% of the total land in the United States. The management of this land would not be feasible without the funding hunters provide through licenses, tags, and stamps. The 193 million acres does not include any public recreational land on the state level. There is 2,260,380 acres of public hunting land in all the states

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.

Throughout history, the US federal government and governmental entities have been prominently positioned in overseeing the management of public lands. However, with its ever-evolving role and its continued progression, the proposal to transfer federal lands to states has re-emerged. With much debate and conflict on this subject, audiences seeking information on this controversy will come across an array of sources with varying viewpoints, dubious credibility and validity, and questionable objectivity, as observed in the articles from the National Public Radio, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

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

Currently, the federal government owns more than 660 million acres of land—around 30 percent of all land in America— effectively restricting new recreation and economic development in numerous states. Putting Washington in charge of federal lands has resulted in the loss of economic opportunities, taken away decisions from local citizens and in many has caused environmental issues stemming from land mismanagement.

Caught between obsession for spiritual transcendence with nature and encouragement for the leisurely enjoyment of nature, many questioned if the development of land and preservation could co-exist. On one side, those that encouraged recreation in the great outdoors, others however, advocated preservation of natural wonders. For example, even though Yosemite is a national park, however many were concerned for Yosemite’s commercial exploitation as a tourist destination. Adams, Gleason, Brower, and members of the Sierra Club joined efforts with Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society to lobby government for preservation of the parks and wilderness. Zahnsier even spoke at the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Public Roads regarding building an interstate highway system and impacts to natural areas. Tensions continued to mount between those that believed in harnessing the land for industry and a source for raw materials with those that viewed the land as nature’s garden. I will return to this

(Q1) Beck illustrated an overview of wetland policy in America. He initially sought to show the changing attitudes of citizens to become a more “pro-wetland” nation. He shows that although our attitudes have changed substantially since the 1700s, more than 100 million acres of land have been lost and are likely to increase due to outside pressures and loopholes of legislation. In the future, American will have to work with these components in order to create programs to mitigate for much of the wetland loss across the country.

Historically, land ownership in America has been basing on the racial disparity and it still applies even now at the post-slavery periods. Though some groups of Americans have associated land ownership with American promise of liberty, equality and democracy, the promise of achieving liberty through this was not open to all. This is because earlier in history the black Americans had no right to own land and later when they were allowed to own, they were not allowed to do what they wanted with it. They were used as source of labor in the whites’ farms. They tended to be tenants of wealthy white landowners where they worked for sub-poverty wages and practiced subsistence farming. The government also imposed heavy taxation to the blacks who bought

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

Some people believe that public land should be managed by the method of conservation, meaning that the environment and its resources should be used by humans and managed in a responsible manner.If people do not manage the land properly and the resources are not being used sustainably, then the environment can be destroyed, and the conservation method will have failed.

Responsibility for areas of natural beauty (other than those within park boundaries) is currently held at local government level. These local administrative bodies are generally happy with the existing situation, which they argue is the best way to balance the need to protect the countryside with the importance of ensuring employment and affordable housing for local inhabitants. Adopting this viewpoint, Marchmont (1999:45) argues that

The grazing of public lands has become a very controversial issue over the last couple of decades. This is due to the fact that there are some people who believe that grazing the land is beneficial to the wildlife and the different plant species there. Then there are other people who have the belief that the grazing of livestock on public lands is detrimental to wildlife and plant health. Therefore, they believe that it is actually doing more harm than good.