Public Land Policy, And The Wilderness Act Of 1964

With Massachusetts State spending on affordable housing and open space at a historic low, when considered as a percentage of the total budget, the production of dwelling units and the conservation of land have become the responsibility of local government, but cities and towns do not build housing, except in rare circumstances. As well they do not routinely buy expensive tracts of open land,

Land is a natural resource that is often mistreated due to human activities. If we learned anything from our past, it is that history leads the same course for those who misuses the environment. Therefore the government have gone through extreme preventative measures to protect our environment by designating “Wild lands”. The Bureau of Land Management (BML) is given the power to designate wild lands and control the use of it. Much controversy have arisen since then and the debate on whether or not Wild Lands are harming rural economies is still ongoing. Mike Mckee, a speaker at the House Natural Resources Hearing Committee, fought against designated wild lands because he believed it was creating an economic crisis. Land that was once used

One of America’s greatest conservation achievements is the Wilderness Act of 1964. Fifty-two years later, this act has a legacy to withhold. A legacy that meant something in 1964 and remains the same today: to protect unspoiled land. Even though, through this act millions of acres have been conserved, the key word is continue. That is why America should pass laws to preserve the wilderness before developers spoil them.

Historically, this region was host to communities of Native Americans (East West Gateway Council of Governments, 2007, Leland, 1953). The abundance of freshwater and navigable rivers has attracted communities of people, and subsequently, commerce (Foley, 2000). Naturally, resources throughout the land have been extracted and utilized to further build these communities and attract prospective businesses. In the 19th century, this watershed was impacted by mining, logging, and grazing practices. In the early 20th century, logging dominated resource extraction (East West Gateway Council of Governments, 2007) which swiftly impacted the landscape. Ultimately, as logging stressed this region’s resources, state legislation allowed the federal government to purchase large tracts of land to establish national forest. Soon after, the national mobilization of the Civilian Conservation Corps, during the height

The Biodiversity Treaty sanctioned that countries whose biological resources are exploited by bioprospecting companies have a right to share the financial benefits resulting from the sale of these resources (Adair, 1997). National parklands are owned by the federal government. Therefore, our national parks have the legal right to share in the financial benefits that

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

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.

The agricultural facets of Appalachia have been influenced over time due to the introduction of various types of foreign farming practices, government enforced regulations, foreign animals and plants, and westward expansion. “Rapidly evolving technologies and fluctuating costs influence the nuances of sustainability, but the essence of the concept is protection of both the land and the people who occupy it” (400). Beginning simply with subsistence farming and hunting and evolving into modern large-scale industrial agriculture Appalachian agriculture has negatively influenced the natural landscape of the mountains and its forest which resulted in a poor economy that was only advanced after more productive farming methods were invented and practiced.

Another problem of suburbanization was that the rampant private development led to the overdevelopment of the landscape. This overdevelopment was due in large part to the fact that the private developers were manipulating the city council. The author states, “[a]t the end of the war, greenbelt zoning for the Valley was actually passed into law by the city council, but it lacked the broad political support to survive the relentless counterattack of developers and landowners.” (Davis, p. 76). Due to the fact that the city council was so small in size, developers were able to greatly gain influence in demanding for policies that would enhance their desire for even more private development. But, lost in this mix was the fact that overdevelopment led to a decreased amount of public space and the loss of natural beauty to the landscape. “By 1928 parks comprised a miserable 0.6 percent of the surface of the metropolis…No large city in the United States was so stingy with public space.” (Davis, p. 65). This statistic gives us clear indication of who the culprit was for the overdevelopment which occurred in Southern California in the 1920s and beyond: the developers.

Environmentalism has always been two sided. Nature versus urban. locals versus national. Frequently, large tracts of public and federal land are bought and developed by industry. Pristine wilderness turned to bustling epicenters of human activity, all in the name of progress and economic growth. This tale of preserving natural wilderness is one that begins with John Muir, an advocate against the taming of Yosemite national park and the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, while the head of the US Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, insisted on the reservoir to supply the city of San Francisco with water. This timeless epic of conservation or preservation brings us to the Jumbo Valley, a vast expanse of uninhabited, pristine wilderness home to diverse

The citizen suite in regards to environmental acts, regulations and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is an essential tool in regulating impacts on the environment, public health, and the health of the wildlife. If used properly it can be an essential weapon for the public to keep companies, organizations, individuals, and even federal agencies in check. Citizen suits should not be taking lightly though, as it takes a great deal of time, research, and patience in trying to win a citizen suit case.

This paper examines the impact of state park systems on nature recreation in the United States and how state’s demographics affect the economic impact of state parks in the US. The author uses 5 time-use surveys done from 1975 to 2007 and data from the National Association of State Park Directors’ Annual Information Exchange. The results of the fixed effects analysis used in the paper show that demographics have a limited effect on visitation to state parks in the US. While the economic impact of state parks is calculated to be $14 billion annually based on the 2.2 billion hours of nature recreation state park systems generate in the US. Nevertheless, a couple of factors, “park density per capita” and leisure hours spent per person per week,

The website for the national and state park systems helps to enlighten the public on the subject of impending changes in policy and regulations, as well as new developments in different parks. Due to this, the parks and recreation districts judge that individuals and families will be more agreeable to the idea of traveling to parks in different states because of the easy accessibility of directions and information about the parks. Owing to the latest rise in interest of campgrounds and recreation areas, there has been an increase in funds. This new revenue has made possible the purchase of more parkland throughout the United States. Without prevailing use of the Internet, this most likely would not have been possible. The East Bay Park District has been able to purchase 1,476 of land. This is the single largest acquisition that the Park has made in over twenty years. The York Center Park District been able to purchase and protect a 20-acre area in the last five years. This is the largest area they manage. With the acquisition of supplementary parkland, it is more likely that this land will continue in its natural condition and not be converted into an urbanized region.

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.