Loading…
WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT?
The organic statutes for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management direct each agency to manage lands under its jurisdiction in accordance with nearly identical multiple use, sustained yield mandates. Like the dominant use agencies, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Serv...
Saved in:
Published in: | Environmental law (Portland, Ore.) Ore.), 2014-03, Vol.44 (2), p.447-495 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 495 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 447 |
container_title | Environmental law (Portland, Ore.) |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Glicksman, Robert L. |
description | The organic statutes for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management direct each agency to manage lands under its jurisdiction in accordance with nearly identical multiple use, sustained yield mandates. Like the dominant use agencies, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the multiple use agencies are required to identify lands suitable for preservation as wilderness and must manage lands designated by Congress as wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Although the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are subject to parallel statutory regimes, wilderness preservation practices in national forests and on public lands have diverged. More acres in, and a greater percentage of, national forests are protected as wilderness, and the Forest Service generally has been more receptive to wilderness preservation than the Bureau of Land Management. This Article explores whether the divergence is due to differences in the physical characteristics of the two land systems, agency culture and organization, interactions between the agencies’ organic statutes and either the Wilderness Act or other statutes, agency management policies and procedures, degree of congressional commitment, and judicial treatment. After concluding that several of these factors have more explanatory power than others, the Article suggests statutory and administrative actions that would allow wilderness to be preserved as effectively on public lands as in national forests. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1786151235</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A375290685</galeid><jstor_id>43267706</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A375290685</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g3335-2295ded985dc93b4e7549165f56b76052fc8bee6545a3013d661e4c17583875b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqV0c9vmzAUB3AOrbSu259QydIu7SGVjbENu0yUmASNkIkfq3ZCBB6IioQUE6m77G-f0_SwSFHbyQdbX3_e07N8ZlxgbPGJaQr-wfio1APGmAkuLow_90E4lXEkkwQt3MidyYWMUnT3C6VziRZZmAY_QomyRCJ9F3mBTL6i-7mbav1dJs_KX8YySVEi45-Bp100fY7vsli6GVr6KNxH_3SfBr4vY3369sk4r4tOweeX_dLIfJl680m4nAWeG04aSinTgzusgsqxWVU6dGWBYJZDOKsZXwmOmVmX9gqAM4sVFBNacU7AKolgNrUFW9FL4_rQdzv0jztQY75uVQldV2yg36mcCJsTRkzK3qaMY0KIZe7plwNtig7ydlP341CUe567VDDTwdzeq8kJ1cAGhqLrN1C3Oj7ytye8XhWs2_Jkwc1RgTYjPI1NsVMqD5L4P2z0bmvPwtce-WLLvuuggVx_prc89lcH_6DGfsi3Q7suht-5RU0uBOb0L1A3yUU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1560111425</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT?</title><source>Nexis UK</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Glicksman, Robert L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Glicksman, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><description>The organic statutes for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management direct each agency to manage lands under its jurisdiction in accordance with nearly identical multiple use, sustained yield mandates. Like the dominant use agencies, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the multiple use agencies are required to identify lands suitable for preservation as wilderness and must manage lands designated by Congress as wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Although the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are subject to parallel statutory regimes, wilderness preservation practices in national forests and on public lands have diverged. More acres in, and a greater percentage of, national forests are protected as wilderness, and the Forest Service generally has been more receptive to wilderness preservation than the Bureau of Land Management. This Article explores whether the divergence is due to differences in the physical characteristics of the two land systems, agency culture and organization, interactions between the agencies’ organic statutes and either the Wilderness Act or other statutes, agency management policies and procedures, degree of congressional commitment, and judicial treatment. After concluding that several of these factors have more explanatory power than others, the Article suggests statutory and administrative actions that would allow wilderness to be preserved as effectively on public lands as in national forests.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-2276</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Northwestern School of Law of Lawis and Clark College</publisher><subject>Administrative agencies ; Company business management ; Forest management ; Forest service ; Forests ; Land ; Land conservation ; Land management ; Management ; National forests ; Policies ; Preservation ; Public land ; Statutes ; Statutory law ; Wilderness ; Wilderness areas</subject><ispartof>Environmental law (Portland, Ore.), 2014-03, Vol.44 (2), p.447-495</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 Environmental Law</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43267706$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43267706$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,58237,58470</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Glicksman, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><title>WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT?</title><title>Environmental law (Portland, Ore.)</title><addtitle>Environmental Law</addtitle><description>The organic statutes for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management direct each agency to manage lands under its jurisdiction in accordance with nearly identical multiple use, sustained yield mandates. Like the dominant use agencies, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the multiple use agencies are required to identify lands suitable for preservation as wilderness and must manage lands designated by Congress as wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Although the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are subject to parallel statutory regimes, wilderness preservation practices in national forests and on public lands have diverged. More acres in, and a greater percentage of, national forests are protected as wilderness, and the Forest Service generally has been more receptive to wilderness preservation than the Bureau of Land Management. This Article explores whether the divergence is due to differences in the physical characteristics of the two land systems, agency culture and organization, interactions between the agencies’ organic statutes and either the Wilderness Act or other statutes, agency management policies and procedures, degree of congressional commitment, and judicial treatment. After concluding that several of these factors have more explanatory power than others, the Article suggests statutory and administrative actions that would allow wilderness to be preserved as effectively on public lands as in national forests.</description><subject>Administrative agencies</subject><subject>Company business management</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forest service</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Land</subject><subject>Land conservation</subject><subject>Land management</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>National forests</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Preservation</subject><subject>Public land</subject><subject>Statutes</subject><subject>Statutory law</subject><subject>Wilderness</subject><subject>Wilderness areas</subject><issn>0046-2276</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqV0c9vmzAUB3AOrbSu259QydIu7SGVjbENu0yUmASNkIkfq3ZCBB6IioQUE6m77G-f0_SwSFHbyQdbX3_e07N8ZlxgbPGJaQr-wfio1APGmAkuLow_90E4lXEkkwQt3MidyYWMUnT3C6VziRZZmAY_QomyRCJ9F3mBTL6i-7mbav1dJs_KX8YySVEi45-Bp100fY7vsli6GVr6KNxH_3SfBr4vY3369sk4r4tOweeX_dLIfJl680m4nAWeG04aSinTgzusgsqxWVU6dGWBYJZDOKsZXwmOmVmX9gqAM4sVFBNacU7AKolgNrUFW9FL4_rQdzv0jztQY75uVQldV2yg36mcCJsTRkzK3qaMY0KIZe7plwNtig7ydlP341CUe567VDDTwdzeq8kJ1cAGhqLrN1C3Oj7ytye8XhWs2_Jkwc1RgTYjPI1NsVMqD5L4P2z0bmvPwtce-WLLvuuggVx_prc89lcH_6DGfsi3Q7suht-5RU0uBOb0L1A3yUU</recordid><startdate>20140322</startdate><enddate>20140322</enddate><creator>Glicksman, Robert L.</creator><general>Northwestern School of Law of Lawis and Clark College</general><general>Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law</general><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140322</creationdate><title>WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT?</title><author>Glicksman, Robert L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g3335-2295ded985dc93b4e7549165f56b76052fc8bee6545a3013d661e4c17583875b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Administrative agencies</topic><topic>Company business management</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forest service</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Land</topic><topic>Land conservation</topic><topic>Land management</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>National forests</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Preservation</topic><topic>Public land</topic><topic>Statutes</topic><topic>Statutory law</topic><topic>Wilderness</topic><topic>Wilderness areas</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Glicksman, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>LegalTrac (OneFile)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental law (Portland, Ore.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Glicksman, Robert L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT?</atitle><jtitle>Environmental law (Portland, Ore.)</jtitle><addtitle>Environmental Law</addtitle><date>2014-03-22</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>447</spage><epage>495</epage><pages>447-495</pages><issn>0046-2276</issn><abstract>The organic statutes for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management direct each agency to manage lands under its jurisdiction in accordance with nearly identical multiple use, sustained yield mandates. Like the dominant use agencies, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the multiple use agencies are required to identify lands suitable for preservation as wilderness and must manage lands designated by Congress as wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Although the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are subject to parallel statutory regimes, wilderness preservation practices in national forests and on public lands have diverged. More acres in, and a greater percentage of, national forests are protected as wilderness, and the Forest Service generally has been more receptive to wilderness preservation than the Bureau of Land Management. This Article explores whether the divergence is due to differences in the physical characteristics of the two land systems, agency culture and organization, interactions between the agencies’ organic statutes and either the Wilderness Act or other statutes, agency management policies and procedures, degree of congressional commitment, and judicial treatment. After concluding that several of these factors have more explanatory power than others, the Article suggests statutory and administrative actions that would allow wilderness to be preserved as effectively on public lands as in national forests.</abstract><pub>Northwestern School of Law of Lawis and Clark College</pub><tpages>49</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0046-2276 |
ispartof | Environmental law (Portland, Ore.), 2014-03, Vol.44 (2), p.447-495 |
issn | 0046-2276 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1786151235 |
source | Nexis UK; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Administrative agencies Company business management Forest management Forest service Forests Land Land conservation Land management Management National forests Policies Preservation Public land Statutes Statutory law Wilderness Wilderness areas |
title | WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT BY THE MULTIPLE USE AGENCIES: WHAT MAKES THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENT? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T03%3A02%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=WILDERNESS%20MANAGEMENT%20BY%20THE%20MULTIPLE%20USE%20AGENCIES:%20WHAT%20MAKES%20THE%20FOREST%20SERVICE%20AND%20THE%20BUREAU%20OF%20LAND%20MANAGEMENT%20DIFFERENT?&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20law%20(Portland,%20Ore.)&rft.au=Glicksman,%20Robert%20L.&rft.date=2014-03-22&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=447&rft.epage=495&rft.pages=447-495&rft.issn=0046-2276&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA375290685%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g3335-2295ded985dc93b4e7549165f56b76052fc8bee6545a3013d661e4c17583875b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1560111425&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A375290685&rft_jstor_id=43267706&rfr_iscdi=true |