Micah De Voe

Dr. Erika Cornelius Smith

PSCI 315 ON2

07/28/17

Conservation and Wildlife Management

Environmental policy has been in the media and a focal point since the mid 1970s but has not been a

major consideration of the general populace until the early 90s. Many laws have been passed since the

early 30s causing the creation of many federal and state organizations dedicated to the welfare of

resources, wildlife and conservation efforts. Many of these agencies have many different goals which

vary widely from each other. Many of these differing goals can cause conflicts of interest which can

create a sluggish or even stalled movement certain areas of development. With these inefficiencies and

conflicts, we can begin to see many different stake holders emerge in the Conservation and Wildlife

arena.

As for stake holders, the first we should mention is the federal government. Specifically we should

discuss the four differing agencies of the federal government that deal directly with these issues, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the US Fisheries and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park

Service (NPS)- all three of which fall under the Department of the Interior- and finally the US Forest

Service. Each of the agencies all have a specific mission and tasked to carry out particular duties. The

three agencies that fall to the department of the Interior are tasked with resource preservation and

wildlife tracking and conservation. In many cases, jurisdiction of these lands are over lapping and usually

fall under the authority of the BLM, but as we will see, this could also creep into the US Forest Service

and Vice-Versa.
This is where we start to find our potential conflicts. Any land that falls to the BLM is strictly forbidden to

be mined, timbered or harvested in any way with the exception of regulated and legal hunting as based

on predetermined season. Land that falls to the US Forest Service, however, is to be used for sustainable

yield and multiple use in regards to grazing timber harvesting, recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking

and camping, and tasked with water shed protection. Considering the huge amount of land that fall

under the federal government, many citizens and politicians have considered moving many pieces of

land to the control of the individual states.

This gives us our second stake holder, the states. Each state has some parcel of land that falls to one of

these 4 major bureaus, but the majority are in the far west with the border being the eastern sides of

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico respectively. Each of these states are known for their

fishing, hunting and agricultural resources, with many state economies based on these activities either

in part or in major demand. The states can pass legislation on the use of many of these lands in regards

to recreation such as dictating the hunting seasons for particular species but most decisions are to be

made by the federal government. This can be an issue when the local governments are not able to

manage the land in a manner that the area may need. For example, many areas in the west have had

issues with large wild fires because the federal agencies have not been able to manage these areas

sufficiently.

This brings us to our third stake holder group, which I would classify as the resource industries, such as

timber and coal. Timber effects just about every single citizen in America. Homes and business, for the

most part, are framed from timber, home dcor is made from timber and the paper you are reading this

report on is made from the waste wood chips from the timbering process. One major restriction to this

industry is the lack of open land for use. The US Forest Service provides what it can, but once a land is

harvested it must have a t least a 7 year rest period before any other harvesting can occur.
Although I am a major proponent of woodland and wildlife conservation, there can be too much in the

way of protection. For example, Oregons primary industry is logging and timber. The industry works

hand in hand with local and federal governments to gain access to land and safely move the cut timber

across the state. A number of years back, however, there was not enough public federally owned land to

pull enough timber to meet demands. Timber cutters than had to reach out to private land owners in

order to try and meet demand levels.

Other issues that come from not enough timber harvesting, and a problem Oregon is far to familiar with,

is wild fires. Deforestation is a major environmental risk but the proper amount of deforestation and

timber harvesting can reduce the magnitude and the impact of large scale uncontrollable wild fires. In

order to cut down the trees that will be harvested, logging roads must be made. In order to make those

roads and access the trees with heavy machinery, the old underbrush and dead timber must be

removed. This under brush and dead timber is the primary fuel for wild fires, and by removing

systematically and periodically, the amount damage to resources is reduced dramatically.

The issue of wild fires brings sup our next stake holder, home owners and privates citizens. In almost all

of these far western states, homes are built very close to heavily wooded areas and even abutting

protected lands. Should a wild fire break out, their lives themselves could be put at risk, not to mention

homes and belongings. For many of these people, especially in Colorado and Wyoming, the land is these

peoples livelihoods. A large majority of people in these states hunt, fish, ranch and use natural

resources to make a living. A large portion of these states economies are built on tourism and hunting as

well. This gives sportsmen, outfitters and guides a stake in the game as well.
 High
Federal
Government and
agencies

State
Governments

Influence

Resource
Harvesters
(Timber, Coal)

Private Citizens
and Sportsmen
Low

Low Impact High

Looking over the above analysis, it does become clearer where stake holders fall and why certain

decisions are made the way they are. The federal government has the most influence when it comes to

policy and management decisions. However, they do not have the most interest in the choices made.

Resource industries and private citizen are arguably them most impacted but their power is strictly

limited by comparison. State government could potentially better manage these lands based on the

needs at the time, but the power they have significantly more limited. A coalition between states,
private citizens and resource development could help to persuade the federal government to take more

action in certain areas.

References

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/21/sportsmen-conservationists-candidates-reject-public-lands-
transfer