Question about public land?

Question

what are the conflicts between public land usage? like between saving an animal or developing recreation?

Answer 1

public lands are for the people so the question is how can they be used which balances all interests.  Most public land is held by the federal government.  The govt. allows ranching, mining and logging on public lands, often times at the expense of some nice wilderness.  Of course some public lands are managed for wilderness, hiking and camping etc.  The biggest conflict is whether public lands should be managed as a source of timber, forage and minerals or should environmental preservation be the main objective.

Answer 2

I must completely disagree with Jared's opening premise that public lands are for the people!!!

The WHOLE idea of public land is that they are areas which are set aside for the 99.9% of other species which have the unfortunate priviledge of sharing the planet with us!!!!

The rapacious greed of the multinationals which view such lands as a resource which is infinite is going to do us all a great disservice in the near future. They MUST be made to pay - and pay WELL - for their destructive practices.

There should be little or no conflict between saving all the animal, plant, insect and bird species which are the original inhabitants of a place and the human desire for recreation. I have lived in the southern Australian state of Tasmania for many years and the Park system there is - for mine - doing the land the justice which it deserves. Some areas - the more scenic ones - are set aside for large - scale, environmentally sensitive developments. The remainder is considered as a Wild Zone and recreation is limited by the human capacity to endure the wildness - you have to carry everything needed upon your back. These requirements are in place because the whole world has recognised the global significance of the need to preserve the Place and it is a part of the UNESCO World Heritage Area network.

As far as other resource-needy industries such as logging and mining - they have to look elsewhere, like every other industry! There are masses of private land which is available - the thing that the natural resource extractors don't like is that if they're forced to go for private land, they have to pay, just like every other person!

So. That's a hard-core tree-hugger's viewpoint. I am also responsible for the creation and operation of a very environmentally sensitive tourism operation which was the catalyst for the protection of the southern hemisphere's biggest cool temperate Rainforest a few years ago.

There was about to be a HUGE conflict between my fellow Greenies and a couple of logging companies who wanted to devastate the pristine Tarkine rainforest in order to source timber which they are now getting elsewhere. We convinced the government that it was a far better idea to leave the forest standing and allow tourism - which can happen forever -  or have the whole lot disappear after harvesting in just 10 years for a few measly jobs and more profit for 2 companies. Now there are ample opportunities for a myriad of tourism operators to make good, sustainable livelihoods forever!!!

Love and Light,

Jarrah