Troy Jones
New member
From my own experiences, no cut and paste from internet sources that could be less than admirable. It's easy to point the finger at any or all of the above normal topics in sportman's issues. That is over simplifying the problems. In order to understand the workings and structure of government lands, it's important to look at the big picture. This encompasses all government lands and the external and internal forces that are delt with.
Public ownership of land is an important part of American society, culture, economy and political structure. Goverment land is held in millions of acres to be conserved, protected and managed for many different purposes. The users of pulic lands have different ideas for the use of the land. Some like it for it's beauty, while others see it as a resource for development. There are many factors that determine opinion on public land. Factors include a persons knowledge, experiences, background, morals, values, and iterests. The private use of public lands will inevitably continue and the multible use of the land is in most part unavoidable.
There are many special interest groups in all areas of the spectrum. Every one of them believes that "their" land is not being used right and that poor progress has been made to date. Balance is an elusive concept in the midst of a tug of war between commerce, moral ethics, etc... You can believe, that all these groups think that their ideals are the only cut and dry choices, with none having any middle ground. It's easy to say in mediation we need or require a balance with a long term economic AND environmental solution, instead of outcomes that are dictated by short term gains promoted by any special group.
Obviously, most believe the depletion or destruction of natural resources on public lands is caused by political beaucrats or big business. As I said in another thread, The problems pertaining the poor management are extremely vast and complex. But what it comes down to, is there are millions and millions of people that require or desire a certain standard of living. To fullfill the wants and needs of this amount of people is stripping the earth of its resources. It's easy to blame someone else, we maybe need to look at ourselves. The politicians and big business's are giving the people what they want. Supply and demand, the american way.
As seen time and time again here on sportsmans issues, the conflicts are strong and intense over the use of our public lands. Loggers, miners, ranchers, and the different aspects of outdoor enthusiasts are tired of having the government tell them how they can and can't use public lands. What is public land for, conservation or development. For the most part there is no choice but to utilize the lands for multible uses. Apparently, from what I understand, planning multiple uses of public land is based around the most complete, accurate, and relevant scientific information that could be obtained. Which arises another problem. The accused cultural biases of the individuals collecting the data. The major concern that administrators have is what happens next year, next decade or next generation is a particular action is taken or not taken and who will benefit or take it in the shorts. The no burn rule for a hundred years is a good example. That resulted in a choked ecosystem and a decline in grazing species. Obviously, humans have become major agents of changing the environment, whether for good or bad. The need will often exist to estimate the trade offs between one output and another. Are these trade offs acceptable to the overall ecosystem or economy? Unfortunatly, that's another problem. What is not acceptable to people in the Rocky Mountain region is more than acceptable to someone on the East Coast.
Humanity has many philosophical or ideological attitudes and positions, what one views as natural, the other views as irrational. Things that some here in SI need to understand is no one or group has all the answers pertaining conservation, economics or virtue. All the cultural differences account for the varied forms of land management. The me, me, me attitude is not one that is very functional. Negotiations or mediation is one perceived on a practical basis in order for the successful use and or concervation of public lands. As a result, people such as Ithaca may not get thier ideal plan of resource utilization, but instead will get a practical plan that will suit a larger cross section that fits more peoples idea of recreation. It's not something I am always happy with, but accept.
I think we all understand that recreation is a basic human need. We need to realize that there are multiple types of recreation. As populations shift, and more money and time is set aside for recreation, the trend in turn increases the demand for it. We all have the responsiblity to protect and preserve the land, but at the same time for the economy and recreational opportunities. Anything else is selfish and tunnel visioned. I have tried working with some personalities like several found on SI and have found them to do more harm for their cause than good in a mediation setting. I've not seen any coming to an understanding with the issues some here lay on the table.
I don't know the answers, I do know that most of the issues brought to SI have the same core problem, with new ones arising annually. What works today probably won't work tommorrow...
I'm not keen on the big picture as a whole, but am familiar with the general outline of it. anyone can easily pick a side. To look at all sides is the hard part.
Sorry I didn't cut & paste or beat a dead horse Ithaca. But you wanted me to start a thread and ramble. So here it is and it didn't cost you a dime. However I would like all the folks here on Hunt Talk to collectively give Ithaca a big hug next time we have a chance.
Public ownership of land is an important part of American society, culture, economy and political structure. Goverment land is held in millions of acres to be conserved, protected and managed for many different purposes. The users of pulic lands have different ideas for the use of the land. Some like it for it's beauty, while others see it as a resource for development. There are many factors that determine opinion on public land. Factors include a persons knowledge, experiences, background, morals, values, and iterests. The private use of public lands will inevitably continue and the multible use of the land is in most part unavoidable.
There are many special interest groups in all areas of the spectrum. Every one of them believes that "their" land is not being used right and that poor progress has been made to date. Balance is an elusive concept in the midst of a tug of war between commerce, moral ethics, etc... You can believe, that all these groups think that their ideals are the only cut and dry choices, with none having any middle ground. It's easy to say in mediation we need or require a balance with a long term economic AND environmental solution, instead of outcomes that are dictated by short term gains promoted by any special group.
Obviously, most believe the depletion or destruction of natural resources on public lands is caused by political beaucrats or big business. As I said in another thread, The problems pertaining the poor management are extremely vast and complex. But what it comes down to, is there are millions and millions of people that require or desire a certain standard of living. To fullfill the wants and needs of this amount of people is stripping the earth of its resources. It's easy to blame someone else, we maybe need to look at ourselves. The politicians and big business's are giving the people what they want. Supply and demand, the american way.
As seen time and time again here on sportsmans issues, the conflicts are strong and intense over the use of our public lands. Loggers, miners, ranchers, and the different aspects of outdoor enthusiasts are tired of having the government tell them how they can and can't use public lands. What is public land for, conservation or development. For the most part there is no choice but to utilize the lands for multible uses. Apparently, from what I understand, planning multiple uses of public land is based around the most complete, accurate, and relevant scientific information that could be obtained. Which arises another problem. The accused cultural biases of the individuals collecting the data. The major concern that administrators have is what happens next year, next decade or next generation is a particular action is taken or not taken and who will benefit or take it in the shorts. The no burn rule for a hundred years is a good example. That resulted in a choked ecosystem and a decline in grazing species. Obviously, humans have become major agents of changing the environment, whether for good or bad. The need will often exist to estimate the trade offs between one output and another. Are these trade offs acceptable to the overall ecosystem or economy? Unfortunatly, that's another problem. What is not acceptable to people in the Rocky Mountain region is more than acceptable to someone on the East Coast.
Humanity has many philosophical or ideological attitudes and positions, what one views as natural, the other views as irrational. Things that some here in SI need to understand is no one or group has all the answers pertaining conservation, economics or virtue. All the cultural differences account for the varied forms of land management. The me, me, me attitude is not one that is very functional. Negotiations or mediation is one perceived on a practical basis in order for the successful use and or concervation of public lands. As a result, people such as Ithaca may not get thier ideal plan of resource utilization, but instead will get a practical plan that will suit a larger cross section that fits more peoples idea of recreation. It's not something I am always happy with, but accept.
I think we all understand that recreation is a basic human need. We need to realize that there are multiple types of recreation. As populations shift, and more money and time is set aside for recreation, the trend in turn increases the demand for it. We all have the responsiblity to protect and preserve the land, but at the same time for the economy and recreational opportunities. Anything else is selfish and tunnel visioned. I have tried working with some personalities like several found on SI and have found them to do more harm for their cause than good in a mediation setting. I've not seen any coming to an understanding with the issues some here lay on the table.
I don't know the answers, I do know that most of the issues brought to SI have the same core problem, with new ones arising annually. What works today probably won't work tommorrow...
I'm not keen on the big picture as a whole, but am familiar with the general outline of it. anyone can easily pick a side. To look at all sides is the hard part.
Sorry I didn't cut & paste or beat a dead horse Ithaca. But you wanted me to start a thread and ramble. So here it is and it didn't cost you a dime. However I would like all the folks here on Hunt Talk to collectively give Ithaca a big hug next time we have a chance.
