Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA

R. J. Gutiérrez, Antony S. Cheng, Dennis R. Becker, Scott Cashen, David Ganz, John Gunn, Michael Liquori, Amy Merrill, D. S. Saah, William Price

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Nearly 258 million ha (28%) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency. Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information. A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationConflicts in Conservation
Subtitle of host publicationNavigating Towards Solutions
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages271-286
Number of pages16
ISBN (Electronic)9781139084574
ISBN (Print)9781107017696
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

national forests
logging
Libraries
case studies
wildfires
stakeholders
national grasslands
tree diseases
fuels (fire ecology)
collaborative management
federal government
forested watersheds
government agencies
ecosystem management
environmental protection
aesthetics
economic development
wildfire
USDA
forest ecosystems

Cite this

Gutiérrez, R. J., Cheng, A. S., Becker, D. R., Cashen, S., Ganz, D., Gunn, J., ... Price, W. (2015). Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA. In Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions (pp. 271-286). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574.020

Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict : A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA. / Gutiérrez, R. J.; Cheng, Antony S.; Becker, Dennis R.; Cashen, Scott; Ganz, David; Gunn, John; Liquori, Michael; Merrill, Amy; Saah, D. S.; Price, William.

Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 271-286.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Gutiérrez, RJ, Cheng, AS, Becker, DR, Cashen, S, Ganz, D, Gunn, J, Liquori, M, Merrill, A, Saah, DS & Price, W 2015, Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA. in Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574.020
Gutiérrez RJ, Cheng AS, Becker DR, Cashen S, Ganz D, Gunn J et al. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA. In Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. 271-286 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574.020
Gutiérrez, R. J. ; Cheng, Antony S. ; Becker, Dennis R. ; Cashen, Scott ; Ganz, David ; Gunn, John ; Liquori, Michael ; Merrill, Amy ; Saah, D. S. ; Price, William. / Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict : A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA. Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge University Press, 2015. pp. 271-286
@inbook{851d672bd2754dfd9045376ae7b9a0ca,
title = "Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA",
abstract = "Nearly 258 million ha (28{\%}) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency. Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information. A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).",
author = "Guti{\'e}rrez, {R. J.} and Cheng, {Antony S.} and Becker, {Dennis R.} and Scott Cashen and David Ganz and John Gunn and Michael Liquori and Amy Merrill and Saah, {D. S.} and William Price",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/9781139084574.020",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107017696",
pages = "271--286",
booktitle = "Conflicts in Conservation",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict

T2 - A case study of the quincy library group in California, USA

AU - Gutiérrez, R. J.

AU - Cheng, Antony S.

AU - Becker, Dennis R.

AU - Cashen, Scott

AU - Ganz, David

AU - Gunn, John

AU - Liquori, Michael

AU - Merrill, Amy

AU - Saah, D. S.

AU - Price, William

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Nearly 258 million ha (28%) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency. Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information. A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).

AB - Nearly 258 million ha (28%) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency. Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information. A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954173975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954173975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/9781139084574.020

DO - 10.1017/9781139084574.020

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84954173975

SN - 9781107017696

SP - 271

EP - 286

BT - Conflicts in Conservation

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -