Choosing a forest vision

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of forestry Vol. 97; no. 5; pp. 44 - 46
Main Authors Floyd, D.W, Alexander, K, Burley, C, Cooper, A.W, DuFault, A, Gorte, R.W, Haines, S.G, Hronek, B.B, Oliver, C.D, Shepard, E.W
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Bethesda Oxford University Press 01.05.1999
Subjects
forest management
forest policy
land management
national forests
sustainability
United States
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-1201
1938-3746
DOI:10.1093/jof/97.5.44