OCR Text |
Show interest in the retention, management, or disposition of the public lands was recognized by Congress in this Commission's Organic Act. As detailed in the Preface, provision was made for an Advisory Council to the Commission with members representative of the various interest groups, including representatives of Federal departments and agencies. For clarity of analysis, and in an effort to assure ourselves that all justifiable interests were given consideration, we classified these interests and, as indicated in this chapter, identified the direct and indirect benefits and burdens that are afforded or imposed on them by public land policies. In doing so, we gave recognition not only to the direct user, whether a consumptive or nonconsumptive one, but also to those whose only interest might be an intellectual or emotional one. The Nation has learned that a threatened destruction of a wilderness or some other unit of natural beauty will have a tremendous impact on city dwellers thousands of miles away, even though they have no immediate expectation of themselves being able to visit such areas. While such reactions may sometimes have had a disproportionate impact on a decision in either the legislative or the executive branch, we believe that it can be placed in perspective in the weighing of interests that we have used, and that we recommend for future use in decisionmaking. The interests we identified could have been categorized in many different ways. In analyzing the multiplicity of problems brought to our attention, we identified six interests or points of view which, in our opinion, comprise, in the aggregate, the general public with respect to public land policies. Because the interests are not mutually exclusive, there is some overlapping and, therefore, duplication among them. An individual living in an area where public lands are dominant possesses the interest of each one of the different publics we have identified. Similarly, the concerns of the city dweller far removed from the public lands will, in many respects, be the same as those of a person who uses the public lands daily. Nevertheless, we find the identification of these separate interests necessary in order to work with them consistently in the analysis of public land policy. Our six categories, each of which is discussed in detail below, are: The National Public; The Regional Public; The Federal Government as Sovereign; The Federal Government as Proprietor; State and Local Governments; and The Users of the Public Lands It is difficult, if not impossible, to establish priorities among the concerns that a member of any group 34 has regarding the public lands. Our enumeration, therefore, is to assure that all of them are given consideration. There is no intent to indicate priorities for weighting the various publics or the interests within categories. The National Public Although the public lands, as noted in Chapter 1, are not distributed proportionally throughout the Nation, they and their resources belong to all the people of the United States. Considered by many as playgrounds, the public lands annually provide millions of dollars in revenue for the Treasury of the United States, and much more in terms of the value of goods and services they produce. Despite the fact, noted above, that many desirable public lands are not readily accessible to everyone, it is obvious that all the people of the United States have certain common interests in them. The national public has an interest in reducing the burden on taxpayers generally either by maximizing the net revenue from the public lands, or by assuring more efficient management, or both. The national public also has an interest that consumer goods and services derived from the public lands will be made available at the lowest possible price consistent with good conservation practices. Each citizen, whether he has expressed it or not, wants the lands to be used and, to the extent necessary, retained, so as to maintain capability for future use. Timber, water, forage, and wildlife are among the most plentiful renewable resources of the public lands, but good management is required to increase or even maintain the ability of the land to produce them. Policies for the use of nonrenewable resources must take into consideration the interest of the national public that the resources be available when and if needed. The national public, we assume, is concerned that the public lands should contribute to the maintenance of a quality environment. The interest of each person in the preservation of areas of national importance, such as national parks, monuments, or wilderness areas adds significance to his identity as an American. We have concluded and base our consideration on the assumption that the national public is also desirous that the public lands should be managed to enhance human and social values. While the interests of the national public are not associated with any particular kind of use of the public lands, the national public is concerned that people who do use the public lands shall be treated equally. |