It is unlikely, given the often-contentious history of the national forests, that incremental change in their administration can resolve fundamental differences in values. So concludes a task force appointed by the Society of American Foresters (SAF) to review federal forest management; its analysis and recommendations have been published in Forest of Discord: Options for Governing Our National Forests and Federal Public Lands. Whereas the Committee of Scientists was asked to stay within the framework of current laws and regulations, the SAF analysts were not so constrained. The following excerpts from Forest of Discord summarize the reasons that fundamental legislative and regulatory change is warranted and consider the purpose of having national forests and public lands.
Document Type: Journal Article
Deputy Director, National Office of Fire and Aviation, Bureau of Land Management, Meridian, Idaho
Publication date: May 1, 1999
More about this publication?
The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the Journal has received several national awards for excellence. The mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry: economics, education and communication, entomology and pathology, fire, forest ecology, geospatial technologies, history, international forestry, measurements, policy, recreation, silviculture, social sciences, soils and hydrology, urban and community forestry, utilization and engineering, and wildlife management. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.