Internal
Links

Top
Review Notes on  the Control of the Environment, Nature, & Land
External
Links
Link
 Land Use & Ownership   
Link
       A Socio Historical Analysis of Control of the Land 
 
Link
       The US Forest Service   
Link
       The US National Park Service   
Link
 Trends in Land Ownership & Control 
 
Link
       Timber Mgt 
 
Link
       The Sagebrush Rebellion   
Link
       SLAPP   
Link
       Envl Racism   
Link
       NIMBY, LULU, & NOMTIO   
Link
 The Social Structure of Recreation & Leisure  
Link
       Tourism & Economic Development  
Link
       Recreationists & the Envl Debate  
Link
       Recreational Pressure on the Land  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Land Ownership & Use
External
Links
  -  Project:  Land Use
Link
  LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE USA  
  U.S.               3,618,770 sq. mi   =   2,316,012,800 ac        or    2.3      bb ac
AK                   591,004 sq. mi   =      378,242,560 ac        or       .378  bb ac
US - AK =     3,027,788 sq. mi   =   1,937,770,240 ac        or      1.9     bb ac		  
  The fed govt's ownership of US land is 658 million acres total of  2,316 mm ac or 28%  
  The BLM manages 270 mm acres    (300 mm ac mineral deposits)  
  The FS manages 191 mm acres
The FWS manages 92 mm acres
The NPS manages 80 mm acres 
The DOD manages 25 mm acres		  
 
 Thus the fed govt's non DOD land ownership is 633 mm acres or 27% of the total US land mass, including AK
 
  Others major govl & quasi govl land stewards include the: 
- land grant colleges & universities 
- BIA
- railroads
- state & local parks & lands		  
  Private land holdings, including large & small landowners, are well over half of the total US land mass  
 
 Private land holdings, including large & small landowners, are about less than 60 % of the total U.S. land mass or about 1,390 mm acres
 
  It is important to note that even though the govt does manage over one third of the land in the US, much of that land is completely open to private interests related to logging, mining, grazing, recreation, etc.   
  FED LAND OWNERSHIP  
  The Forest Service (FS)  
  The Dept of Ag contains the USFS which manages 191 mm acres  
  In 1891 Congress estb the first national forest conservation policy & set aside areas known as Forest Reserves.   
 
 The first national Forest Reserve was estb in WY, & later became Yellowstone Park
 
  Forest Reserves became known as National Forests & in 1905 came under mgt by the new Bureau of Forestry  
  Today there are 155 National Forests in the US & Puerto Rico  
  Private water power development, forestry, mining, etc. are all allowed under the FS's Multiple Use Policy  
  Forests are headed by the Forest Supervisor  
  Forests are divided into Ranger Districts, headed by the District Ranger  
 
 The Dept of Interior  
 
 The Bureau of Land Mgt (BLM)  
  Dept of Interior contains the Bureau of Land Mgt (BLM) which manages 264 mm ac & 300 mm ac mineral lands  
 
 Most BLM land lies in the Western US & AK 
 
 
 The BLM was estb in 1946 taking over functions of General Land Office & US Grazing Service
 
 
 From the BLM's beginning, many govt officials were skeptical about having two major land mgt agencies, & despite many govl & orgl conflicts the BLM & the FS have both continued their separate course
 
  The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)  
  The FWS manages 92 mm ac & was estb in 1940  
  The FWS manages 400 wildlife refuges as well as nat fish hatcheries, habitat field offices, research labs  
  While all land mgt agencies have a responsibility to abide by the Endangers Species Act of 1973, the FWS often takes the lead, advising other agencies on how their policies & actions may or may not be compliant under the ESA  
  The National Park Service (NPS)  
  The NPS manages 80 mm ac in 350 National Parks as well as numerous other monuments, memorials, cemeteries, seashores, lake shores, battlefields, etc.   
  The first National Park was Yellowstone Park which was estb in 1872
Every state except Delaware has at least one National Park		  
  The Department of Defense (DOD)  
  The DOD manages 25 mm ac  
  Significant DOD land holdings include the:
- White Sands Test Range:  NM
- Rocky Flats:  CO
- Sandia Test Range:  NM?
- Nuke processing plants:  SC & WA
- USAF Test Range:  ID		  
  Land Grant Universities  
  Land Grant Universities were estb by the Morrill or Land Grant Act of 1862  
  Congress granted every state 30,000 ac for each senator & representative which ended up totaling 11,367,832 ac.   
  The land granted to the States was to be sold & used to create & maintain colleges  
  In relation to land grant college, 
- 30 states used land as expected
- 18 states gave $ to state universities
- 3 states gave $ to private colleges		  
  Most states were unable to sell all the land, & many sold so low as to make almost no $  
  The Bureau of India Affairs (BIA)  
  The BIA was estb by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 & had jurisdiction over 500 tribes in the continental US & 200 in AK   
  The BIA works w/ the tribes who own 285 fed & state reservations, most of which are west of the Mississippi River  
  The BIA has control over  leases minerals & water rights to non Indians, giving the Native Americans little or no say  
  In 1934 the Indian Reorganization Act reduced Indian lands from 138 mm ac in 1887 to 48 mm ac in 1934  
  In 1975 the Indian Self Determination... Act:  gave Native Americans more control in their own lives & reservations  
  Railroad  
  In 1850, the first fed land grants for RRs were awarded  
  States were forced to give up land to the railroad grant program, often, a 10 mile wide corridor  
  The RRs were often given 400 ft right of ways plus a 10 - 20 mile ownership of land along right of way  
  The RRs were also paid $16,000 / mi on flat land & $48,000 in Sierra Nevada mtns to encourage RR construction  
 
 RRs kept some of the awarded land & sold some for construction costs
 
  The first grant to build a RR was on a line from Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile AL  
  By 1856 the RR grant was a successful experiment, so Congress expanded the program  
  In 1862, the Pacific RR Act granted 2 companies the a 20 mi right of way on the 42nd parallel for the transcontinental RR  
  In 1869 the transcontinental RR was completed & by 1900 there were 5 transcontinental RRs  
  From 1850-1900, RR track mileage grew from 9,000 mi to 200,000 mi  
  Approx 83% of the land granted to private interests such as RR went to large orgs & 17% was homesteaded  
  By 1871, there were over 200 mm acres ceded to the RRs & the best est is that 565 mm ac total were ceded to the RRs  
  State & Local Parks & Lands    ?? ac  
  Private Land:  Large & Small  ?? 60% of 2,316 = 1,390 mm ac  

 
Top
  
Table on US Land Area
US 3,618,770 sq. mi  2,316,012,800 ac 2.3 bb ac
AK    591,004 sq. mi     378,242,560 ac    .378 bb ac
US - AK  3,027,788 sq. mi 1,937,770,240 ac 1.9 bb 

 
Top
  
Table of Public & Private Ownership of US Lands
Feds:  658 million acres total of   2,316 mm ac or 28%
BLM  270 mm ac 300 mm ac mineral deposits
USFS 191  
FWS   92  
NPS   80 633 mm ac non DOD or 27%
DOD   25  
Others:    
Land Grant Universities    
BIA    
Railroads 200 mm ac + by 1871
State & Local Parks & Lands    
Private Land holdings:  Large & Small  60% of U.S.?  1,390 mm ac

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on a   Socio Historical Analysis of Control of the Land
External
Links
  A socio historical analysis of land use indicates that the current patterns of land use are the result of a long & complex development of use & ownership patterns  
 
 In the 1700s the govt begins a policy of genocide on Native Americans (NAs)
 
 
 During colonial times, people demanded that the govt grant free land to settlers, & kill or exterminate NAs
 
 
 There were over 1 mm NAs in the pre European US & as a result of European genocide, esp through the spread of contagious diseases, NAs declined to only .35 mm, but today there are over 1.4 mm recognized NAs
 
  Originally, public domains were formed when the Continental Congress was able to persuade the original colonies to give their western land claims to the govt of what, at the time, was the new country called the US  
  Thereafter, when states west of the Mississippi River were admitted to the union, each state had to agree to give up all claims to unsettled lands w/in its borders  
  The Ordinance Act of 1785 allowed the selling of govt owned land
- to the highest bidder
- for a minimum of $1 / acre
- w/ 640 acres as a min parcel		  
 
 In the 1840s & 50s, the Homestead Mvmt was a top political issue
 
  In the 1840s & 50s, the elites wanted the govt to only sell land, not give it up to homesteaders while the Southern slave owning elites opposed the homestead mvmt because it created more free states
 
  The Homestead Act of 1862 allowed any person over 21 who was the head of a family, citizen or an alien who intended to become a citizen could obtain 160 ac or 1/4 of a square mile by establishing a residence for 5 yrs w/ improvements, or buying it for $1.25 per ac in lieu of residence
 
  From 1862 to 1900, 600,00 families estb homesteads, homesteading approx 96 mm ac, (Tindall reports 274 mm ac were homesteaded)
 
  In the govt sell off of land, granting of land, & the allowance of homesteading, speculators would buy, or win the grant to land & then resell it
 
  Because of bad record keeping & fraud, speculators could sometimes resell the homesteaded land
 
  Corruption & land speculation created multiple owners / settlers, some of whom became squatters
 
  Squatters were people who believed they had a right to land because they had homesteaded it only to find that it was not open to homesteading, or that it had been sold to another homesteader, or simply decided to try & squat on the land & take it  
  Congress granted much of best land to RRs, over 200 mm ac by 1871  
  Of all the public land passing to private hands from 1862 to 1900, less than 17% was homesteaded  
  Under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act under Pres F Roosevelt, for all practical purposes, the disposal process ended; estbing grazing districts on the remaining federal lands  
  By the end of homesteading, one billion ac of land had been brought under private ownership with 170 million ac remaining in the public domain  
  Homesteading ended in 1976 in lower 48 & in 1986 in AK  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  US Forest Service
External
Links
  -  Project:  The USFS
Link
  INTRODUCTION   
  The FS is part of the Dept of Ag
 
  The FS manages over 191 mm acres which is almost 9 % of the US land mass  
  The FS is mostly made up of Nat Forests & Nat Grasslands  
  There are 155 Nat Forests in US & Puerto Rico & 20 Nat Grasslands in 44 states  
  -  Supplement:  FS Maps
Link
  -  Supplement:  Clinch Ranger District Recreation
Link
  -  Supplement:  Washington Jefferson NF Offices
Link
  -  Supplement:  Washington Jefferson NF Expansion
Link
 
 -  Supplement:  Wilderness Areas on the Washington Jefferson NF
Link
  Today, the multiple use doctrine is the predominate philosophy of the FS  
  In the early 1990s the doctrine of ecosystem mgt. was tacked on to the multiple use doctrine  
 
 Private water power, forestry, mining, grazing, recreation, & other uses are allowed in the nat forests
 
  The FS headed by the Chief      (Dombeck in 2000)  
  The FS is divided into 9 Regions each of which is headed by a Regional Forester  
  Forests are headed by the Forest Supervisor  
  Forests are divided into Ranger Districts, headed by the District Ranger  
  A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FS   
  In 1891, the Congress estb. the first natl forest for conservation by setting aside areas known as Forest Reserves  
  The first Forest Reserve was estb. in WY, which later became Yellowstone Park  
  In 1897 Congress began setting aside tracts of public land to:  
  a.  create forest reserve  
  b.  furnish continuous timber supplies  
  c.  protect mountain watersheds
 
  The FS was founded as the Bureau of Forestry in the 1800s, the agency became the Forest Service in 1905
 
  The Forest Reserves became known as National Forests  
  THE FS TODAY  
  The FS is the largest branch of the Dept of Ag w/ 35,000 wkrs   
  The FS is the nation's largest road building org at 8 times length of the interstate hwy sys  
  Fed law dictates that the Forest must give 25% of their revenues to county govt for roads & schools in order to replaces tax revenue lost by fed ownership of land  
  MULTIPLE USE DOCTRINE  
  Except for areas set aside as wilderness, forests are managed under the multiple use doctrine  
  Under the multiple use doctrine, private water power development, forestry, mining, etc. is allowed in natl forests  
  Multiple use doctrine calls for a balance of
- recreation
- timber		 - grazing
- conservation activities, & more
 
  In theory all resources receive equal status & consideration but in practice this has not been the case in that many resource areas 'complete' inside the bur for funding for use, dev, & maintenance, esp among the areas of:
- outdoor recreation
- range
- timber		 - watershed conservation
- wildlife
- fish, & more
 
  The MAJOR FS FUNCTIONAL AREAS include
1.  Timber
2.  Recreation
3.  Fire
4.  Grazing
 
 
 FS PAYMENTS TO THE COUNTIES
 
  The FS pays counties money in place of property taxes that the county would have collected if the land were privately owned  
  The amt of pmt that the FS pays counties is usually based on how much timber is cut  
  The fed - county pmts give the counties incentives to pressure the FS to log  
  -  Supplement:  FS Payments to Virginia by County
Link
  -  Supplement:  FS Payments to all US States by county
Link
  There are 4 LEVELS OF FS OFFICES including
1.  Natl office in Washington, DC
2.  Regional offices
3.  Natl Forest Offices
4.  Ranger Districts		  
  1.  THE NATIONAL OFFICE   
  The FS Nat Office is in Washington, DC & is run by the Chief  
  The FS Nat Office works w/ the office of the President to dev a budget to submit to Congress  
  The FS Nat Office supplies info to Congress on FS activities  
  2.  THE REGIONAL OFFICES      aka   RO  
  An RO is headed by the Regional Forester   
  There are 9 regions in the FS which are numbered 1 - 10 because Region 7 was eliminated some yrs ago  
  Each Region covers a multi state area  
  Region 8 is the eastern Forests & includes the GWJNF
 
  Region 4 includes  
  - parts of ID  
  - parts of UT  
  - parts of NV  
  - parts of WY  
  An RO's duties include:  
  - coordinating the activities btwn the Forests in the Region  
  - monitoring activities on the Forests in Region  
  - providing guidance for Forest Plans  
  - allocation of budgets to the Forests  
  3.  NATIONAL FOREST OFFICES     aka The Supervisor's Office       or the SO  
  An SO is headed by the Forest Supervisor who reports to the Regional Forester in the RO  
  The duties of an SO are to:   
  - coordinate activities w/in each Forest  
  - allocate the budget  
  - provide tech support to Forest personnel  
  4.  RANGER DISTRICTS         or just Districts  
  A District is headed by the District Ranger   
  The Ranger reports to the Forest Supervisor  
  Districts vary in size from 50,000 acres to over a mm acres  
  The Clinch Ranger District in the GWJNF is 80,000 acres  
  There are over 600 Ranger Districts in all the Forests  
  The duties of a District are to:  
  - carry out on the ground activities related to logging, recreation, grazing, conservation  
  - plan & implement logging sales  
  - plan & implement forest cultivation  
  - build & op recreation  
  - plan & supervise grazing  
  - plan & implement conservation
 
  FOREST SERVICE PLANNING   
 
 FS Planning occurs on 3 levels the national level, the regional level, & the forest level
 
  The Forest level is the most imp for planning  
  NATIONAL PLANNING   
  Under the Forest & Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act   ( RPA )  the FS must consider a RPA Assessment every 10 yrs  
  An RPA Assessment includes an inventory of renewable resources  
  Mgt. goals are based on RPA resource data & econ analysis  
  REGIONAL PLANS   
  Regional goals are distributed to the 9 FS regions  
  FOREST PLANS   
  As authorized by the Natl Forest Mgt. Act ( NFMA ) each Forest incorporates the regional goals based on its own resource capabilities in a Forest Plan  
  Forest Plans must be revised every 10 to 15 yrs  
  THE FOREST PLANNING PROCESS   
  1.  Identify issues & concerns through the process of public scoping  
  2.  Dev planning process criteria where the public can influence criteria for choosing alternatives in the Forest Plan  
  3.  Gather data & conduct studies & the public can request special studies  
  4.  Analyze forest resources  
  5.  Dev a range of alt  
  Based on issues from step 1, alts are dev according to NEPA  
  The public can voice their opinions on each alt  
  6.  Compare the impacts of each alt  
  The FS must examine the physical, bio, & social impacts of each alt  
  7.  Prepare Draft EIS   ( DEIS )  
  A DEIS discusses the phys, bio, econ & soc aspects of each alt according to NEPA rules  
  8.  Select & review the "preferred alt"  
  The Forest Supervisor determined the preferred alt, & provides it to the Regional Forester who makes the decision  
  The RF provides the rationale for the choice which becomes part of the "record of decision"  ( ROD )  
  9.  Review the Final Plan  
  10.  Implement the plan & monitor its effectiveness  
  The FS must monitor the phys, bio, econ & soc effects of the alt  
  The monitoring of individual projects is open to the public & is a good method to ensure FS compliance w/ rules
 
  ECOSYSTEM MGT   
  Ecosystem mgt. is the guiding mgt. phil of the FS which was adopted in 92  
  EM called for multiple use thru sustained mgt. of healthy ecosystems  
  EM held that the FS must balance econ & non econ considerations in resource mgt.  
  The FS began to look beyond individual projects on individual Forest to projects as having an impact on ecosystems, which are often defined as a watershed or a major part of a watershed, but may be delineated by other broad scale categories such as forest type  
  RPA DOCUMENTS   
  The Sec of Ag is required by the RPA to assess nation's renewable forest & rangeland resources & evaluate their future use & sustainability for the planning purposes  
  The FS prepares 3 RPA documents, including the:   
  1.  RPA Assessments  
  2.  RPA Program  
  3.  Annual Report  
  The RPA info estb a large info base on which public & agencies can make decisions & provide input to the FS  
 
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
 
  To find out what projects are in the FS pipeline, one must be on the scoping list  
  You may request to be added to the FS mailing list by contacting Rangers or Forest Supervisors  
  Scoping lists give the name, location, type, etc. of each FS individual District project & a contact person in charge of the project  
  SCOPING   
  As we saw above, scoping is done for the For Plan  
  Scoping is also done for each major project  
  A person may:  
  a.  submit written input  
  b.  submit oral input  
  c.  attend public scoping meeting  
  Scoping runs during a predetermined comment period, so comments must be given during a specific period or they do not influence the process  
  Scoping comments are public info so you may see all other comments, for & against a proposal  
  INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS   
  Each major individual project that a Ranger District undertakes must be examined under NEPA rules  
  Thus an EA or EIS must be performed  
  The EIS process is similar to For Plan process  
  A Decision Notice ( DN ) will be given & if the project is to go ahead it must be give a Finding of No Significant Impact  ( FONSI ) by the FS  
  ADMIN APPEALS   
  If someone disputes the chosen alt or the FONSI, they may appeal   
  A Regional Plan or For Plan may be appealed to the Chief of the FS  
  A Regional or For indiv project may be appealed to the Regional Forester  
  Failing here, a person may appeal in court  
  THE APPEAL PROCESS   
  1.  A citizen must file a "notice of appeal" w/ forest officer who made the decision w/in 45 days  
  2.  W/in 30 days of the decision on the appeal, a notice of appeal must be filed w/ the next higher forest officer  
  3.  The deciding officer must provide a "responsive statement"  w/in 30 days  
  4.   Citizens must respond w/in 20 days  
  5.   Entire appeal record is sent to Chief for review  
  In Jan of 2005, Pres GW Bush signed an exec order which changed the For Plan & EIS process giving the RF more power
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  US National Park Service
External
Links
  Official NPS Website       http://www.nps.gov/index.htm
Link
  THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS), & OTHER AGENCIES, IS A UNIQUE IDEA THAT SEEMS OBVIOUS & UNASSAILABLE TODAY:  GOVT SHOULD PRESERVE LAND FOR PUBLIC USE 
 
  James Bryce (1838 - 1922), British Ambassador  to US described the National Park Service as 'The best idea American ever had' b/c of the magnificence of the natural spaces the NPS maintains 
 
  Today the NPS manages approx 400 sites on 87 mm acres 
 
  Each President has added to the public lands And growing:  a
 
  President Bill Clinton added 19 new units to the National Park System during his eight years in the White House   
  As Clinton served out his last yrs in office he uses the Antiquities Act to estb more Parks, including the Grand Escalante Staircase Park in UT, & the expansion of the Craters of the Moon Nat Park in ID   
 
 President George W. Bush approved/created seven new units of the national park service during his eight years. In that period he also approved the deauthorization of the Oklahoma City National Memorial in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 
  President Bush declared three vast new marine national monuments way out in the Pacific Ocean, protecting an area larger than CA   
  These preserves are designed to conserve areas that are unspoiled, & largely unvisited by human beings, including the deepest canyon on earth, the Mariana Trench   
  Bush has declared much of the Mariana Trench, some 36,000 feet below the surface of the Pacific, waters around some nearby islands as a marine national monument.   
  Bush also declared as monuments the area around Rose Atoll, part of the Territory of American Samoa, & the seas surrounding seven islands that are US territories scattered in the Pacific   
  President Barack Obama has approved three new National Park Units since taking office in January 2009 (through December 2010). As of January, 2011, five parks have been authorized by Congress with the intention of adding them to the National Park system upon land acquisition or monument completion  
  THE NPS CONTINUALLY REVIEWS ITS GOALS & TACTICS IN ORDER TO BEST SERVE THE LAND & THE PEOPLE 
 
  A National Parks & Conservation Association (NPCA) 3 yr study outlined 4 major issues for the NPS which addressed the core issues including: 
a.  Whose parks are these, & for what purpose? & What sites should be in the NPS? 
b.  What should be the balance btwn the twin goals of preservation & enjoyment be? 
c.  What concessions should be allowed at the Parks? 
d.  Who should the NPS be responsible to?  Should it become indep of the Dept of Interior? 
 
  a.  Whose parks are these, & for what purpose?  What sites should be in the NPS?
 
  The NPCA study concluded that not all sites should be in NPS b/c some states might best administer them 
 
  But their is a need for expansion of the NPS to keep pace w/ increased visitors b/c, for example there were 270 mm visitors in 95 & an est 500 mm visitors in 2010 
 
  NPCA identified 46 natural areas & 40  histl sites that should be added immediately 
 
  The NPS & other agencies often try to buy private holdings w/in the Nat Parks & other blocks of govt land to consolidate holding & improve mgt 
 
  The National Park System Reform Act  of 1995 estb criteria for designation of National Parks   
  The CA Desert Protection Act  of 1994 added 7.5 mm ac of CA land to fed protection 
 
  An important question related to expansion is should the NPS or any land mgt agency expand when it is behind on maintenance?  
  In 1996 the NPS had a $4 bb backlog in maintenance   
  Some things have improved by 2000, for example: 
-  the WA monument has been renovated, though an earthquake has since damaged it again, & it is being repaired again 
-  the Going to the Sun Road in Glacier NP, MT has been resurfaced 
-  the Grand Canyon & several other NPs have dev propane bus systems so there no more cars allowed in some parks 		  
  b.  What should be balance btwn the twin goals of preservation & enjoyment be?  
  Enjoyment, use, visitation of some sites is overwhelming some resources, esp at 
-  Yosemite in CA
-  Grand Canyon in AZ
-  Yellowstone in WY		  
  The NPS & other land mgt agencies struggle everyday w/ how to preserve the natural beauty, wildlife, & resources in the face of the onslaught of recreationists  
  The conflict btwn preservation & visitation can be seen in many issues including:  bear maulings, snowmobile congestion, human presence displacing plants & animals from their habitats, air pollution in the Grand Canyon, etc   
  In most parks & other govt owned venues, by & large, most people barely leave the roadways, but much pressure is put on ecosystem by dividing it by congested roadways   
  c.  What concessions should be allowed at the Parks?   
  The Concessions Policy Act of 1965 largely failed to adequately regulate or limit concessions   
  The General Mining Law of 1872 mostly allowed mining in nat parks, w/ no return to taxpayers, while the Mining in Parks Act of 1976 prohibited new mining claims in national parks   
  The General Mining Law of 1872 allows unlimited mining w/ no return to taxpayers   
  The Mining in Parks Act of 1976 prohibited new mining claims in national parks   
  d.  Who should the NPS be responsible to?  Should it become indep of the Dept of Interior?   
  Like the FS & much of the Fed govt, esp since Reagan & the depreciation of Fed govt, the NPS is under tremendous outside pressure & therefore is riven w/ internal problems   
 
 The NPS's internal problems & external pressures were expressed in the 1992 Vail Agenda   
 
 The Vail Agenda was a report critical of the treatment of NPS wkrs 
 
  The Vail Agenda notes that the NPS does not educate the public enough & therefore more 'interpretation' of sights is needed through signage, speakers, presentations, publications, & so on   
  The Vail Agenda notes that the NPS must guard against encroachment of its lands   
  To achieve the goals of the Vail Agenda it was recommended that the NPS should hire 1200 Rangers   
  THE NPS HAS, AS A % OF LAND, ALLOWED A HIGH LEVEL OF BOTH PRESCRIBED BURNS & LET BURNS   
  The NPS's handling of the 1988 Yellowstone Fire was criticized b/c so much of the Park burned, but today, it is more recognized that this was a natural process that did little harm, & much good to the park   
  In May of 2000 the Cerro Grande Fire, which was an NPS prescribed burn, escaped, became a large wildfire which burned many homes & threatened the Los Alamos national laboratories   
  See Also:  Let Burn Policy   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Trends in Land Ownership & Use
External
Links
  -  Project:  Trends in Land Use:  Urban Sprawl
Link
  TRENDS IN PUBLIC LAND USE & MANAGEMENT
 
  1.  Management strategy has evolved from divestiture & conservation to preservation
 
  2.  Land use policies are tempered by politics
 
  3.  Money is a factor in preservation / use land mgt. strategies
 
  4.  Policies on land use are decided in govt. administration agencies such as the FS, DOD, BLM, EPA etc.
 
  5.  Grps such as the Wise Use Mvmt / Sagebrush rebellions, et al organize against govt regs
 
  Congress designated 5 major uses for public lands including
1.  wilderness
2.  national forests
3.  national parks 
4.  national wildlife refuges
5.  rangelands
 
  Land use & mgt trends include multiple uses such as grazing, forestry, mining, hydropower, recreation & more
 
  Sustained yield policy holds that no more forage or timber may be harvested than can be produced
 
  The Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) institutionalized the policies of multiple use & sustained yields, but in practice sustained yield may not be implemented
 
  The Classification & Multiple Use Act of 1964 tried to shore up the multiplicity in multiple use
 
  The Fed Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 required full public participation in land management decisions
 
  There are many more stakeholders in the env debate now
 
  Enviros do not believe multiple use has been effective
 
  From the 1960s through the 1970s, there was a trend of increasing protection of the land & other natural resources such as the air  
  From the 1980 to the present, the trend of land & nat resource protection was hotly contested
 
  From the mid 1990 to the present, the trend of land & nat resource protection has been mitigated by the need to protect industry & the rights of people for jobs
 
 
 Land mgt by the land mgt agencies is less pervasive from the 1980s to the present because of the reduction in the budgets & the number of workers in the land mgt agencies
 
  TRENDS IN PRIVATE LAND USE & MANAGEMENT  
  In general fewer people own land today than in the past when the nascent middle class was a farming class  
  The transition to the industrial & working middle class resulted in many people moving off the farm to urban & suburban areas  
  Working & middle class industrial workers & office workers often owned their own homes  
  Today less people own their homes or any land holdings  
  Today land ownership is increasingly concentrated as seen in fewer people owning homes, & more landlords owning multiple unit apartment bldgs & subdivisions  
  Today land ownership is increasingly concentrated as seen in fewer farmers, & the remaining farmers owning ever larger tracts of land  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Timber Mgt.
External
Links
 
 About one third or 730 mm acres of US land is forested
 
  Two thirds or 480 mm acres of the US forest land is considered to have commercially valuable timber, though every year forests that had no commercial value are now commercially viable  
  Of the commercially viable land, 
-t he Feds own     20 % 
the States own     7 %
the Tribes own     1 %
Private non industrial owners own   58 %
& the Forest Industry owns    14 %		  
 
 The early FS was criticized for timber rip offs, i.e. sweet deals for ind, looking the other way as in logged larger swaths than agreed too, giving away sales & below mkt prices, etc.
 
  More recently, observers critique the timber policy of the land mgt. agencies for   
  1.  placing timber above all other uses because they are 'captured' by the timber lobby  
  2.  keeping the $ it earns from timber sales, which amounted to $629 mm in 1990  
 
 The timber industry says the envists will do anything to shut them down such putting the welfare of a spotted owl above the needs or working men & women
 
  The communities that are dependent on timber sales from public lands tend to support the timber ind, & thus in the West many communities support the timber ind  
  Nearly 1.2 mm workers earn a living from forestry  
  The public's concern for the environment is linked to timber economics as is seen in
-  CA voters turning down the protection of old growth forests in 1990
-  the gov of OR being threatened w/ recall after making anti industry comments		  
 
 Some old growth forests are in the non intensive forest mgt. areas because fire suppression has choked them off & reduced their value
 
  Industry argues that forests are being locked up by no use advocates  
  Recent trends in forest mgt include the suspension of env laws in the forests so that timber may be salvaged  
  In the mid 1990s, after a severe fire season in 1994, Pres Clinton did not veto the salvage logging rider which suspended env laws in the forests so that burned timber could be logged quickly  
  Envists point out that
- burned logs help replenish the forest
- the timber industry logged more than burned trees		  
  Envists claim that ind used the suspension of env logs to log in an unenvl manner & to take more than just burned trees  
  In the mid 00s, Pres Bush Jr signed the Healthy Forest Act (HFA) which like the salvage logging rider suspended env laws  
  Under the HFA, there is a suspension of env law similar to that of the salvage rider  
  Env laws are suspended under the HFA not because of the need to remove trees to be rapidly salvaged, but because of the possibility that trees may need to be rapidly salvaged  
  The ostensible reason for the HFA is to improve forest health because the suppression of fire has resulted in an unnatural crowding of trees & other foilage  
  The trend in timber mgt in the 1990s is not to roll back env laws, but to "temporarily" suspend them  
  Envists charge that the reason for the HFA is to allow more logging w/o the restriction of envl laws  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Sagebrush Rebellion
External
Links
  The Sagebrush Rebellion (SR) is known as THE organized resistance in the West to fed public land policies  
  The SR is the name applied to a mvmt which gained momentum in the 1960s in the western US & especially in Nevada, to return control of fed lands to individual states  
  In Nevada, fedly managed & controlled lands totaled 87% of all land (Legislative Counsel Bureau, Division of State Lands, January, 1980)  
  The term SR can be applied to four different mvmts that have occurred since the 1880's, but it wasn't actually coined until the 1970's & generally applies to the Wilderness Lands Sagebrush Rebellion  
  The SR protests that over one third of all national land is administered by the fed govt & owned collectively by the people of the nation  
  The SR protests that most of the land is in the West & the proceeds from the land are supposed to go to public schools & nat parks, but it does not  
  The SR reached its peak pwr in the 1970s, & organized & viable challenge to env mvmt since the early 1950s  
  The SR was started to try & gain the land back from the fed govt  
  There was a populist mvmt & 11 state govts involved in the SR  
  The SRists felt the land was rightfully theirs & that they could better utilize the land through the exploitation of resources  
 
 The land that is the focus of the SR came into fed possession in one of three ways, from the: 
- cession from Mexico at the end of the Mexican American War (1848)
- Great Britain in the Oregon Compromise of 1846
- Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in 1853
 
  During the 1970s, Nevada made formal requests for additional land grants from the Federal Land Law Review Commission (FLRC)  
  The FLRC's 1970 report to the Pres Nixon & to Congress recommended "retaining [land] in Federal ownership whose values must be preserved so that they may be used & enjoyed by all Americans."  
  To counter-act the FLRC policy, the SR mvmt, through the Nev Legislature created the Select Committee on Public Lands (SCPL) 1977 to change public lands policies & to seek out other states in the west who might want to join w/ Nev  
  Nev's SCPL attempted to form a coalition of western state & local govts on the public lands issue which was supported by the   
  - Western Council of State Governments
- Western Interstate Region of the National Association of Counties
- which lead the formation of the Western Coalition on Public Lands		  
  Nev Bill 413 entitled the "Sagebrush Rebellion" bill was passed by the 1979 Nevada Legislature,   
  The Nev SR bill was designed to create a board of review & provide for state control of certain lands w/in state boundaries  
  Bills similar to Nev's SR bill were passed by other western states  
  In addition to actual legislation, the SR held that  
  - fed policies affecting the West were made in ignorance of conditions & concerns in the West  
  - policies were made for a so called national constituency w/o regard for Western problems  
  - "colonial" treatment was going to get worse as the West was called upon to satisfy the national's energy needs  
  - fed admins displayed outright animosity toward the West  
  Over the years, issues of the SR have included:
- allotments of grazing rights
- mining development
- military land withdrawal
- closure of selected public lands to hunting & fishing
- & more		  
  The objectives of the Sagebrush Reb are to
1.  transfer land to the states
2.  raise funds to meet / mount legal challenges in fed court
3.  advance public ed to get western & all voters to support mvmt		  
  The SR lost its momentum which it thought it had gained in the White House until Reagan was elected in 1980  
  Prior to his election, Reagan espoused support for the SR & w/ the support of the Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, it was thought that the SR would be a success  
  However, after Reagan won the presidential candidacy, he failed to push the cause & in 1983 Watt's resignation was the end of the support from the White House  
 
 Sagebrush Rebellion, Reagan & Watt
 
 
 The SR thought Reagan/ Watt would help them
 
 
 But the shrill attacks, esp by Watt, on the env & the env mvmt weakened the Sagebrush Reb because middle Americans rejected them
 
 
 Reagan was quoted as saying that 'trees pollute the air too'
 
 
 The SR also failed because state agencies lacked credibility
 
  The SR also clashed w/ Reagan on the MX Missile System which would have taken more Western land & water & made it an even bigger target for a Soviet strike  
  The main cause of the defeat of the SR was the States' inability to estb the basic legal claim that the public domain truly belongs to the States  
 
 Success of Sagebrush Rebellion
 
 
 The SR is not clearly a failure nor a success as seen in its mixed record that
 
 
 - the transfer of land to states has not happened, but legislative battle continue
 
 
 - legal challenges have not won clear victories, but since envl mvmt used the courts first to make policy, SR has countered this trend
 
 
 - the SR has succeeded in public ed & thus most Western states have majority of Reps who are conservative on land issues
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  SLAPP
External
Links
  -  Project:  The Dangers of Public Policy Activism 
Link
  Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are civil complaints or counterclaims, against either an individual or an org, in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Const
 
  A 1988 study found a proliferation of legal actions to stifle political expression
 
  SLAPPs are often in the form of civil suits against envists, citizens’ grps, or other activists to intimidate or harass them into silence
 
  SLAPPs make it expensive to exercise 1st Amendment rights & participate in public debates
 
  To promote their SLAPP, property owner would claim injury such as defamation, damage to a business, or a conspiracy
 
  SLAPP Back suits attempt to counter SLAPP suits
 
  The taking of land by the govt is limited by the 5th Amendment to the Const which holds that  people should be compensated for whatever losses they incur as a result of the govt actions
 
  For example, if a person can’t build on a wetland, log owl habitat, build on flood plain, etc. some people hold that such prohibitions are takings & should be compensated, but little has been done to regulate these limited takings
 
  Because the govt has not generally compensated for regulatory or prohibition types of limited takings, people have employed SLAPP suits against citizens that petition the govt to intiate such actions  
  SLAPPs are often brought by corps, real estate developers, or govt officials & entities against individuals or orgs who oppose them on public issues
 
  SLAPPs frequently come in the form of ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, & interference with prospective econ advantage
 
  While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose which is to chill public debate on specific issues
 
  Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, & legal resources
 
  A SLAPP diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue & makes other stakeholders reluctant to get involved
 
  A SLAPP also sends a message to all stakeholder that: you, too, can be sued if you speak up
 
  Every year thousands of people are hit w/ SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officials, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints w/ officials, i.e. any of the activities available to an average citizen expressing her rights  
  SLAPPS may occur over violations of labor laws, health and safety laws, "whistle blowing" in corporations, organizing tenants, envl issues, LULUs, & more  
  SLAPPs are particularly serious because they are an affront to the 1st Amendment which protects the freedom of speech  
  Freedom of expression is an essential condition of democracy, but it is undermined when individuals do not have open access to govt meetings & docs  
  Efforts to improve access to govt involve such diverse issues as enactment & monitoring of state & local "Sunshine in Govt" laws & implementation of the fed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  
 
 more on Web on SLAPP
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Environmental Racism
External
Links
  Env'l racism occurs when environmental burdens are disproportionally borne by the disadvantaged  
  Poor areas are more likely to have locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) in their neighborhood  
  Powerless grps:
 
  Many minority grps do not have personal or pol pwr to fight env'l degradation in their areas, e.g. placing toxic waste incinerator in poor neighborhood
 
  Recycling centers, incineration facilities, dumps, & other env'ly dangerous facilities are more likely to be located in poor areas where minorities may live  
  It takes time, $$$, effort, knowledge to be able to fight a govt &/ private firms who seeks to put LULUs in poor areas where land is cheap & opposition is weak/ nonexistent
 
  LANCER:  THE LA EXPERIENCE
 
  In LA, the Lancer Plant was expected to dispose of waste & generate elec
 
  Local politicians attempted to put the waste incineration facility in a deteriorating residential area that was once a thriving ind'l & commercial area
 
  In the case of the Lancer Waste Incinerator,
- 96% of the people at the proposed site were minorities
- a public urban env'l grp emerged
- emergent citizens groups questioned the health & safety
- the city launched a $250,000 PR campaign in support of the incinerator
- supporters eventually spent $12 mm & lost
- anti-Lancer city council members were elected
 
  In general, env racism occurs because unpopular or env'ly degrading dev such as landfills, incineration facilities, recycling facilities, etc. are place in minority enclaves or poor areas because these people have less power to oppose them  
  See Also:  Recycling, incineration, dumps  
  Int'l env'l racism /imperialism
 
  Today, dumping often occurs int'ly & has similar dynamics to env'l racism in that int'ly dumping occurs in those nations who have less pwr & influence to reg it
 
  Poor, pol weak nations cannot resist govt &/ global corps who seek to use them as dumping, testing, etc. areas
 
  Examples of Int'l env'l racism /imperialism
 
  The "ghost ship" of Am garbage was dumped in a small nation in the Caribbean
 
  Nuclear testing has gone on for decade on small Pacific island nations
 
  Macquiladories are Mex indl border towns which have extremely poor envl qual because Am corps pollute in manner that is illegal in US  
  Trading the env for jobs  
  Note that all of the relationships such as dumping in the Caribbean, nuke tests, Am  corps polluting in Mex, are perfectly legal  
 
 Local leaders portray the decisions to allow env'l harmful projects as job creating projects  
 
 Trading the env for jobs has five effects, including
1.  env'l racism
2.  world pollution 
3.  lower health standards for minorities & the poor
4.  pol support from the people who fill the jobs
5.  pol support from th politicians & corps who own the jobs
 
  Causes of Env Racism  
  Env racism is caused by many of the same factors as racism in general, but it also has some unique causative factors related to the pwr dynamics of the placement of envly undesirable projects, i.e. LULUs  
  The causes of env racism may be considered to be institutional racism in that often they have no personal, individual, or racial animosity attached to them  
  Institutional racism occurs when social practices that are deemed to be just, never-the-less have a discriminatory impact on a particular grp or grps  
  Examples of institutional racism other than env racism include the last-hired, first-fired policy, some admissions policies, some hiring policies, etc.   
  See Also:  Causes of Racism  
  One unique causative factor of env racism is NIMBYism  
  NIMBY denotes the "Not in My Back Yard" syndrome where people w/ resources opposed any env'ly degrading dev in their area  
  NIMBYism has taken on racial overtones  
  Another unique causative factor of env racism is a LULUs  
  LULU denotes the "locally unwanted land uses" syndrome where people w/ resources opposed any undesirable land use such as a Walmart  
  LULUs are dangerous, lower property values, but they often bring some jobs  
  NIMBYs & LULUs are disproportionately located near concentrations of minority groups:  
  Another unique causative factor of env racism is a NOMTIO  
  NOMTIO denotes the "Not On My Term In Office" syndrome where politicians will not make unpopular decisions in their term in office w/ relation to any env'ly degrading dev, or any unpopular decision in general  
  NOMTIO denotes that politicians will usually place env'ly degrading dev in areas w/ less political power, such as minority enclaves or the poor sections of an area  
  See Also: NIMBYs, LULUs, & NOMTIOs  
 
 Racism in Env'l Grps
 
 
 Many have charged that the env mvmt represents diverse interests, but never-the-less does a poor job of fighting env'l racism & representing the env'l interests of minorities & the poor
 
  Minority leaders believe that environmentalists do not share the same interests of the disadvantaged community  
  Environmental groups have been charged with racism  
  The environmental justice movement focuses on how environmental burdens are frequently borne by disadvantaged neighborhoods, Indian Tribes, etc.  
  In 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held to address the problems of env'l racism  
  The same criticisms of racism could be leveled against business/industry that opposes the env'l movement  
  Industry has not included ethnic grps or interests of the peripheral nation in the corp boardroom  
  They too are dominated by elites and wealthier interests than the population as a whole  
  Critics expect the env mvmt to operate by higher standards than other orgs  
  “Great Schism”  gulf between environmental group leaders and the grass roots members. 
For example, dissidents in the Sierra Club accused the leaders of compromising goals to get legislation through Congress.		  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  NIMBY, LULU, & NOMTIO
External
Links
 
 NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, denoting that people don't want undesirable developments near them whether it be a motocross track, a toxic waste dump, a factory, or just a housing development
 
 
 LULU stands for Locally Unwanted Land Use which denotes that some land uses are simply undesirable given the culture structure of the locality
 
 
 NOMTIO stands for Not On My Term In Office & is the political form of NIMBY & LULU
 
 
 NIMBY. LULU, NOMTIO, etc. don't only apply to envl projects
 
 
 NIMBY & LULU usually refer to envl or land use issues but also may apply to any unwanted project, such as a factory, prison, mental health half way house, etc.
 
 
 The causes of NIMBYism are:
 
 
 - the fear that property values may go down & very often prop values do go down
 
 
 - the distrust of corps & govt to run a safe operation
 
 
 - "chemophobia" or related fear of pollution, toxins, radiation, etc.
 
 
 Effects of NIMBYism
 
 
 In the worst case of a LULU,  local people organize in a united opposition
 
 
 An organized NIMBY mvmt often results in rising costs for projects such as dumps, incinerators, etc. & thus project leaders today often take a hard line against any resistance, resulting in the polarization of the stakeholders
 
 
 If an organized NIMBY mvmt encounters a resistant project team, this combination may lead to outright conflict & even violence
 
 
 NIMBYism contributes to envl racism in that mid & up mid class people have the resources to oppose a LULU while wking & lower class people do not  
 
 Because of the ability of the mid & up mid classes to oppose a LULU, & the near impossibility of LULUs being located in up class neighborhoods, LULUs are often pushed into wking & lwr class neighborhoods
 
 
 In the best case of a LULU, citizens are brought  into the decision making process
 
 
 In the best case of a LULU, citizen participation supplements trad reg policies
 
 
 A LULU can transform public attitudes from NIMBY to one better informed on costs & benefits of project
 
 
 An optimally managed LULU wins citizen support
 
 
 An optimally managed LULU transforms a simple project, such as a landfill or an incinerator, into one that is more envly responsible
 
 
 An optimally managed LULU might reduce need for the landfill or incinerator, etc. thru recycling, waste reduction, etc.
 
 
 Examples of LULUs include cases of waste disposal such as: 
 
 
 -  the "Ghost Ship" Trash Barge
-  the "Train to Nowhere" Trash Train
-  Solid Waste Incinerators 
-  the Yucca Flats, NV Nuclear Waste Repository
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Social Structure of Recreation & Leisure
External
Links
  -  Project:  You are Where You Are
Link
  -  Project:  Social Structure of Rec, Econ Dev & Tourism, Rec Pressure 
Link
 
 Most recreation groups (friends, bridge clubs, etc.) today are informal orgs that purchase recreation services from formal orgs
 
  Leisure is being commercialized by many media orgs & small businesses  
  Rec & leisure is the fastest growing sector of the econ in many regions, & around the world  
 
 Informal Leisure Orgs include - friends, cliques, informal rec grps or teams, networks of friends, workers, etc.
 
  Friendship circles form around various activities  
  Rec orgs, formal & informal, are often structured by gender in that men & women recreate in separate grps & in gender mixed grps  
  Informal female leisure orgs include:
- work grps
- home, birthing, childcare grps
- family extra curricular activities grps
- ladies' night out grps
- shopping grps
- hobby grps, etc. 		  
  Informal male leisure orgs include:
- work grps
- family extra curricular activities grps
- men's night out grps
- hunting grps
- hobby grps, etc.		  
 
 Formal leisure orgs may be large or small in that some rec grps are multinational conglomerates while others are single person businesses
 
  Small formal groups may form around any leisure activity as discussed above, such as a bowling club which may be formalized & even linked to a nat level org  
  Media & entertainment social structures have a strong influence on all of society  
 
 The groups or orgs in rec;  Most recreation grps (friends, bridge clubs, etc.) today are informal orgs that purchase recreation services from  formal orgs
 
 
 Positions:  The positions w/in the soc struc of rec & leisure are often made up as the same friends in informal orgs; same as econ in formal orgs
 
  The positions w/in the soc struc of rec & leisure are often made up as the same friends in formal orgs such as in econ formal orgs  
 
 Relationships:  estb in the soc struc of rec & leisure are the often the same as friends & econ soc structures
 
 
 Allocation of Resources:  There is more $$ spent every day on rec
 
  The History of the Soc Struc of Rec & Leisure:  
 
 In H-G society, separate spheres of wk & leisure were not recognized in that people made wk fun, & fun was work
 
  In H-G society, festivals, parties, celebrations, etc. were all very important to increase cohesion & cooperation & to redistribute goods & services  
  In ancient soc, leisure is seen as a time of rest & societal rituals  
  In industrial soc, leisure develops as industry; people seek fulfillment through leisure  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Tourism & Economic Development
External
Links
  -  Project:  A SWOT Analysis of Tourism
Link
  Scope of tourism
 
  By 2000, tourism was the largest single item in world trade
1 in 15 wkrs, or 150 mm, worldwide, wk in tourism 
The primary occupation in tourism are in the areas of
-  transporting
-  feeding
-  housing
-  guiding
-  amusing 
 
  Only 10% of Am have passports
Most tourism is done in people's home country
 
  In 1970 there were 147 mm tour trips abroad
In 1995 there were 650 mm tour trips abroad
In 2010 there are est to be 1 bb tour trips abroad
 
  Int'l tourism is /\ in breath & so now 1/8 of all tourists go to peripheral nations in Africa, Asia, & Lat Am
 
  Investment in tourism
 
  Tourism requires only a lo cost infrastructure because there are no heavy plants & little hi tech equip
 
  The cost of creating 1 job in tourism is < 20% that of mfr job & < 2% of the cost of a hi tech job
 
  Effects of tourism
 
  The effects of tourism are not always strong at the local level
 
  The concentration of tourists in 20 affluent countries yields 70% of tourists
 
  Transnat corps own many tourism assets such as hotels, tour ships, resorts, golf courses, amusement parks, tour agencies, ski areas, etc.  
  Because transnat corps own so many tourism assets, profits often return to core countries & do not go the the countries where the tourism occurs  
  Typically, only 40% of the cost of a tourist's trip is reaped by the local region in which the tourism takes place
 
  If a tourist trip involves a foreign owned hotel, the port of the trip reaped by the local region falls to only 25%
Who gets the $$ & why?		  
  Tourism often fosters econ vulnerability in the region or nation in which it occurs
 
  All industries have some level of risk/volitility tourism, like all hi-end aspects of consumption depends on style & fashion & thus is especially vulnerable
 
  Thus a tourist region may lose it's popularity & experience an econ downturn  
  Some tourist destinations are sought because of their remoteness & "natural" undev quals & thus are econly successful  
  Thus thru their own success, tourist areas become congested & thus less popular & experience an econ downturn  
  Example Mediterranean beaches were abandoned by the NW Euro mid class tourists, who go to more distant, exotic locales
creating a 70% \/ in tourism on the Med beaches		  
  Various exogenous factors can affect tourism such as warm weather at a ski resort, a change in currency exchange rates, & political unrest in Ireland, the Mid-East, Africa, Lat Am etc.  
  Local benefits of tourism  
  Local tourism provides income to 
- local hotel owners
- tour guide firms
- tourism wkrs		  
  Tourism can 
- help sustain indigenous lifestyles, 
- help sustanin a regions cultures, arts & crafts, 
- provide wildlife preservation
- incrase env'l protection
- support conservation of historic buildings & sites		  
  Local disadvantages of tourism   
  Tourism can
- adulterate & debase indigenous cultures
- foster unsightly dev
- increas pollution
- result in env'l degradation
- bother or threaten local flora & fauna		  
  An example of the threat of tourism can be seen in the Caribbean where sewage poisoned mangrove trees & polluted the coast, boats & divers damaged coral reefs  
  An example of the threat of tourism can be seen in the Alps where 40,000 ski runs attracts tourists 10 time greater than the local pop  
  Tourism can
- support exploitative relationships
- package lifestyles & regional cul for sale
- strip the meaning from cul & cul artifacts
- turn trad ceremonies into acts
- turn artifacts are mfr not for original use, but as col items		  
  Alternative tourism  
  On an alternative vacation, there is an emphasizes self-determination, authenticity, social harmony, preservation of env, small-scale dev, use of local techniques, materials & arch styles  
  To be successful, alternative tourism must be aimed @ tourists who are both 
- wealthy &
- env'ly conscious		  
  Alternative tourism is not a large mkt, but it is growing  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Recreationists & the Env Debate
External
Links
 
 Summary
Recreationists are networked into many groups, including outfitted recreators, motorized recreators, hunters, non-motorized recreators, water recreationists, tourists, businesses serving recreationists, recreational orgs, recreational corporations, the hotel industry & more
 
  Rec'ists have become a major participant in the env debate as their influence has grown in society in general  
  Rec'ists use the env & they have resources to influence the env debate  
  Rec has grown rapidly in the last century to be come one of the major sectors of the econ in the core nations  
  Rec is expected to grow even more rapidly in the next century in the core nations as well as in peripheral & semi-peripheral nations  
  Today, people w/ disposable income, i.e. the middle class, want to recreate & they pursue that recreation at least in part, in the outdoors  
  In many areas that formerly relied almost exclusively on the extractive ind of logging, mining, etc., the econs are becoming more tourist oriented than extractive ind related  
  Tourism & recreation are becoming more econly powerful interests than the traditional extractive ind interests  
  As the mid class, as a class w/ disposable income, the rec'ists are willing & able to enter in to the env debate  
  Rec'ists often are in a mid position btwn Ind'lists & Env'lists
 
  Rec'ists historically supported ind'lists; e.g. Teddy Roosevelt was avid hunter, explorer  
  In relation to forestry, rec'ists were the early conservationists & favored mult-use of land  
  Rec'ists support of env
 
  Since mult-use policy has mostly been policy which supported ind'l use, rec'ists have occasionally supported env'list  
  Rec'ists may be seen as the gen public w/ a stronger personal interest in env  
  Tourism
 
  Most tourism is less environmentally concerned than recreation in general  
  Tourism can be env'l costly & damaging  
  Some tourism, eco-tourism, is known to be env'l friendly  
  Rec orgs
 
  There are many Rec related orgs  
  Almost all of the bigger ones consider env'l issues  
  But by & large they may be seen as ind'l in nature because they are motivated by profit 1st, env & indigenous concerns 2nd  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on   Recreational Pressure on the Land
External
Links
  Recreation & leisure is now frequently the major econ sector in many regions of the US & around the world
 
  Rec dev often has major impacts on the env, as well as urban & rural areas in general
 
  A typical pattern of rec dev occurs when an area that was formerly dominated by extractive ind or mfr ind transitions to an econ based on rec
 
  The transition from trad forms of econ dev to a rec based econ is fraught w/ all the difficulties of econ dev in gen
 
  See Also:  Econ Dev
 
  While the transition to a rec based econ is costly in human terms, the costs are also high in envl terms
 
  For a town, city or region to transition to a rec based econ, these areas must frequently undergo some form of urban renewal which entails env costs & env benefits
 
  There are costs to any new construction but often the transition from an extractive econ to a rec econ, for example a log mill to a downtown tourist center, decreases envl impacts
 
  Dispersed rec can put pressure on flora & fauna as seen in the taming of buffalo, bears, & elk in many densely pop outdoor rec areas
 
  Dispersed rec can put pollution pressure on pristine regions such as AK, Yellowstone, and the Smoky Mtn Nat Park
 
  Even simply the sheer number of people in an area can have a major envl impact remote areas that have less than 5K people in the off season as indigenous peoples, may have 10 or 20 times that number in the peak season resulting in stresses to the natural env & to the human env
 
  Rec pressure on the env, like pollution, may have point sources, dispersed sources or both
 
  Dispersed source rec env pressure may occur from general tourism & recreation as a result of gen pop pressure such as large numbers of people hiking throughout a region  
  Point source rec env pressure may occur from large rec or leisure facilities in an area  
  An example of dispersed & point source env pressure on a region could be a multiseason resort which allows golfing, boating, skiing, w/ all the amenities  
  Dispersed source rec env pressure occurs in, for example, a four seasons resort because the resort will draw in large numbers of people who will hike, camp, explore, & simply populate the area  
  People are drawn to a major resort area, people who are members of the resort, as well as people who simply visit or vacation in the locale because of the resort activities, but also because of the plethora of other rec facilities that cluster around the resort  
  Point source rec env pressure occurs in, for example, a four seasons resort because the resort will take relatively large swatches of land for golf courses, ski slopes, riding parks, water recreation, housing, parking, etc.  
  While in general, rec econ dev has less env impact than extractive ind or mfr ind, rec does create env costs  
  The env costs of rec econ dev can be mitigated, & if they are not, they are much worse  
  Like any urban or suburban dev, if rec dev seeks to integrate itself into the local phys & soc env, the negative effects are much less  

The End
 
Top