Tuesday, March 19, 2013

When it comes to land management, is 'multiple use' relevant?

by Rocky Barker

The term grew into a powerful phrase that signaled the longtime consensus view for managing public lands.

 But today, now that it no longer stands for placing logging, mining and energy production first on the people's lands, some are suggesting we need to scrap "multiple use."

 The term first appeared in a 1933 U.S. Forest Service report describing the five major uses of forests; timber production, watershed protection, recreation, production of forage and wildlife conservation...

 Earlier this month, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee described the traditional view of multiple use during Sally Jewell's confirmation hearing for Interior Department secretary.

 "Multiple use is a principle that has become more or less synonymous with public land-management policy on the federal level," Lee said. "This is a fundamental concept, a broad-based concept that is designed to ensure that our federal public land will be open and available to a number of different uses... ."

Lee was trying to get Jewell to say that regulations, which could force ranchers to reduce grazing numbers below a financially sustainable level, went against the multiple-use concept. "You would agree that federal land-management policies ought to focus on preserving multiple use to the maximum degree possible?" Lee asked.

Jewell didn't bite.

"Multiple uses are important," Jewell said. "Multiple uses in the Grand Canyon ... the Grand Canyon is a national park and it's got its primary use. In areas of oil and gas production or mining, that is a primary use, and I think it's important to look at things on a case-by-case basis ... . "

 Jewell was reflecting the reality that there are places where one or more uses are dominant and places where that dominance is no longer recognized the same way.


I previously posted David Groeschl's piece on the dominant use paradigm here.

No comments: