A recent post sugests: > Most state natural resource program -- in fish & wildlife, > forestry, and even parks -- lack any clear mandate in the key > agency organic acts to place any real emphasis on protecting > biodiversity or ecological integrity -- esp. as this regards > native plant and animal communities. > > What you have at the state level is a system cobbled together > back in the 1920s and 1930s whose vision -- and whose clientele > -- have remained virtually the same for over 50 years. Until > these state programs change, then it's hopeless to imagine that > you can save the planet from the top down. I don't see this as so different from the National Parks, National Forests or BLM recreation areas. I think that a biocentric mandate is largely 'read into' the acts, but ecology was not even thought about when the crown jewels of the NPS were established. All of them were based on scenery and any conservation was for future human use. In this context, the Adirondacks in New York are an unusual exception with a constitutional mandate to be 'forever wild'. I suggest that the real differences in what is happening at the state and federal levels is more a matter of politics. In a particular state, it is very difficult to resist BIG local interests. At the federal level, it is much easier for people in Los Angeles, Chicago or New York to tell people in Idaho or Maine what should happen because they are more removed from the local interests. To my way of thinking, there is a need for biocentric research and planning at all levels. Presently there is very little legisative support for this activity at any level. Jim Palmer
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0