Start your Monday off right, and catch up on some of the trending articles you may have missed last week. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

Cannabis in America May 2017: Learn How Legislators Are Aiming to Protect Cannabis Customers

Check out our May Cannabis in America Newsletter for an exclusive interview with Oregon State Rep. Carl Wilson (R-3rd District), where he discusses his state’s new bill that protects cannabis consumers’ private information from being stored by dispensaries and other marijuana businesses.

Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall?

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 has been used by presidents from both political parties to protect hundreds of millions of acres of land, but overnight, dozens of parks and monuments are now at risk. The parks under review include Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, Marianas Trench near Guam, and the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona. Many of these parks are concentrated in the West and Southwest, but marine reserves in both the Pacific and Atlantic are also under threat. With a second executive order approving offshore drilling in previously protected areas signed last Friday, marine environments are in an especially precarious position.

Trump framed the national parks as a “massive federal land grab” and claimed to be giving power back to the states, but by gutting public land protections, he is opening the parks up to industries that they have long been protected from. If the acreage of national parks is reduced, the land will be available for drilling, mining, and logging. The argument for defending states’ rights is a transparent cover for promoting commercial interests.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke went so far as to state that Trump is concerned national parks result in the loss of jobs and reduced wages. This concern is based on zero evidence. The National Park Service helps add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy, which is why economists encouraged President Obama to frequently use the Antiquities Act while in office. In 2016, visitors to national parks spent an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway regions (communities within 60 miles of a park). Hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and bars flourish in areas around national parks. The parks are undeniably popular–hundreds of millions of visitors stream to them each year and the number of visitors has been rapidly rising for the past three years. States orient their entire tourism industries around their national parks and reap the benefits accordingly. For example, in Utah, national park tourism at the state’s 13 sites created $1.6 billion in revenue last year. It’s an interesting statistic considering that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch claims that President Obama abused the Antiquities Act and now supports Trump’s executive order.

If Trump truly believes parks are draining public funds, then he should be attacking the private vendors that monopolize concessions and merchandising within the parks. If he really sees designating parks as an individual state’s responsibility, he should have placed state governments in charge of the review, not Ryan Zinke. If Trump truly cared about parks having a negative impact on the economy, he should have established a review of park spending, not a review of the parks’ existence. Disbanding the parks is not a bold move to cut government spending or limit the authority of the federal government–it’s a transparent power grab from the private companies that Trump is beholden to.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks appeared first on Law Street.

Public lands dot significant portions of America’s landscape from coast to coast. Managed by a variety of agencies, these lands and waters are home to diverse ecosystems and prime settings for recreational activities. With an immense amount of annual foot traffic and billions of dollars of revenue generated, public lands play a substantial role in American lives.

For decades, there have been debates over whether or not these lands should be turned over to the states or private organizations. Now changes could become a reality, as Capitol Hill is filled with lawmakers who support transferring millions of acres of public lands away from the federal government. But the consequences of such a transfer may have more negative impacts than positive, and many citizens feel that access to public land is an American birthright.

Background of Federal Lands and Agencies

The majority of public lands in the U.S. are held in trust by the federal government and managed by a variety of agencies. According to a 2014 report, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, which is about 28 percent of all the land in the United States. Four agencies own over 600 million acres of that land: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The lands are utilized primarily for recreation, preservation, and natural resource development.

U.S. Forest Service

President Benjamin Harrison established the National Forest system with 13 million acres and 15 forest reserves through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which gave the president power to set aside and reserve public lands. Conserving land for the people was a national priority, as was obtaining acknowledgement that forested areas needed special protection from the exploitation of natural resources. With 155 forests and 20 grasslands currently totaling over 191 million acres, these lands overseen by the United States Forest Service reach diverse populations and are extremely popular destinations for a variety of outdoor and recreational activities. According to a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report, there were over 180 million visits made to National Forest sites in 2015.

“US Federal Land Agencies” Courtesy of National Atlas of the United States: License Public Domain

The Bureau of Land Management

The BLM is responsible for managing 247.3 million acres of public land–one-eighth of all the landmasses in the country. From grazing permits to mining and coal leases, the agency administers 205,498 miles of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 4,500 miles of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreation Trails in addition to multiple-use trails for recreation purposes. The BLM collects a significant amount of revenue from public lands. In 2016, the agency made $2 billion in royalty revenue from federal leases; the Outdoor Industry Association also estimates that $40 billion in federal tax revenue comes from the recreation industry on public lands.

The Western Concentration

Other agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers participate in federal land management and administration. Most of the federal land ownership is concentrated in the western part of the country, contributing to greater controversy over ownership and use of federal lands in the area.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is a long-standing principle that the government holds some lands in trust for public use, regardless of any private property ownership. Generally, this applies to land, water, and natural resources, such as beaches and navigable rivers. While the doctrine itself varies heavily from state to state, the public may fully enjoy any public trust lands, waters, and natural resources for a “wide variety of recognized public uses.” These rights became established in the U.S. after Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, an 1892 case that held that the government cannot alienate a public right to lands under navigable waters.

“Fall Color at Natural Arch – Daniel Boone National Forest” Courtesy of US Forest Service -Southeast : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Additionally, the public trust doctrine puts a limit on private rights. A landowner may not alter their property in such a way that it would interfere with use of public land. Moreover, the doctrine specifically protects the land from misuse by the state. A state may not convey public trust lands if the conveyance could substantially impair public use of lands or waters. Thus, any move to privatize public lands may be in direct violation of the public trust doctrine, particularly if the sale would then impair the public’s use of such land or water.

Plans to Privatize Public Lands

The collective ownership of these lands, however, could possibly change if lawmakers continue down their current course. House Bill 3650, introduced to the House of Representatives in September 2015, directs the Department of Agriculture to “convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System.” These portions of conveyed land will be administered and managed “primarily for timber production.” On June 15, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee voted to adopt H.R. 3650; it is currently awaiting the next stage in the lawmaking process.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a piece of legislation at the end of January 2017 that was later dubbed the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. In a press release for H.R. 621, Chaffetz claimed that 3.3 million acres of land maintained by the BLM “served no purpose for taxpayers.” If the bill passed, ten states were poised to lose federal land. However, he withdrew the legislation in February 2017 after facing harsh criticism from his constituents.

“Gunnison National Forest Colorado” Courtesy of David : License (CC BY 2.0)

Despite the withdrawal of H.R. 621, Republican lawmakers still laid out a plan to give away roughly 640 million acres of land in early 2017. Lawmakers overwrote the value of federal lands by changing a single line of rules for the House of Representatives, making it easy to dispose of federal property–even if it ends up losing money for the government and there’s no compensation for American citizens. In essence, the change states that transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” The land would be given to the states, and then could possibly be sold to private owners.

As a result, places like the Grand Canyon National Park and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which are rich in uranium and copper respectively, may be up for grabs first. The oil-rich lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could also be vulnerable for sale. According to Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government relations for The Wilderness Society, it seems very likely that Alaska’s national lands will be open for drilling under a Republican-controlled House. Many western states are already taking the necessary actions to prepare for public land transfers.

Criticism of Privatization

First things first: critics fear that local governments with small budgets will not be able to manage the land once it is transferred to them by the federal government. In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service spent $240 million a week to fight forest fires, and the Department of Interior has estimated that the cost of deferred maintenance is around $11 billion. Over time, whenever federal land has been given to states, it has become less accessible. Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of public land; in Colorado, citizens may only use 20 percent of state trust land for hunting and fishing.

Private ownership of public tracts of land has profound consequences, as it will probably affect land managed and regulated by conservation programs or private entities, likely reducing public access. Public access to National Forests contributes greatly to state economies; a report completed by the Outdoor Industry Association found that the outdoor industry directly impacts over six million jobs and contributes to $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending. The Outdoor Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of groups that support outdoor activities, has argued that any action to transfer lands to private hands is a “public land heist.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy School study, found that 95 percent of the American public believes in the importance of protecting national parks and 80 percent would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to do so. Such an overwhelming response certainly indicates that protecting public places is incredibly important to Americans.

Conclusion

While there is still time before these resolutions become law, plans to privatize our forests have been set in motion on numerous occasions. If Americans’ access is restricted and these lands are exploited for a profit, the primary purpose of establishing public lands for citizen use will disappear. In the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, champion of conservation and public lands, “I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few . . . Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Land is Your Land: Should Public Lands Be Privatized? appeared first on Law Street.

Spread out across the United States are our 59 national parks. They include some of America’s most beloved tourist attractions–like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and Denali. But our parks aren’t picture perfect. They cost a lot of money to keep open, and to keep in good shape. So, the National Park Service may be turning to the private sector for help–it’s considering a plan to sell corporate sponsorships to companies.

The National Park Service would use these corporate sponsorships to pay for $11 billion in maintenance works that have become backlogged. Another motivation for accepting corporate money would be to make the parks more attractive to young people, although it’s unclear exactly ow that work work. It’s also unclear exactly what a “corporate sponsorship” would entail, given that the plan is still under consideration. While the National Park Service director has said that naming rights would not be allowed, according to the National Parks Traveler one of the changes could be:

Letting individual parks decide how to recognize donations, with restrictions against no implication of NPS endorsement, official sponsorship of the park, or naming rights. Whereas the existing guidelines prohibit donor recognition on vehicles, bricks, benches, or other park furnishings or buildings, the proposed revisions would allow recognition on vehicles if the vehicle was the donation, and would allow recognition on bricks, walkways, benches, and landscaped areas.

Understandably, a lot of people who are upset with the heavy influence that corporations already have on our lives–mainly in the form of advertising–have expressed their concerns over these kinds of sponsorships. A petition, launched by Public Citizen, has garnered over 200,000 signatures of people who are against these proposed changes. A letter written by Public Citizen outlines the reasons why the non-profit advocacy organization is opposed to the potential for corporate sponsorships in national parks, including the fact that:

Citizens are constantly bombarded with aggressive corporate advertising and influence everywhere they go; our national parks should provide a space for people to escape corporate clutter, a haven from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

While it’s understandable that the idea of our parks having any sort of corporate connection could be uncomfortable, the amount of money needed to keep them up to par isn’t grown on the trees of the Redwood Forests. Fear of corporate influence is founded, but now it’s up to the National Park Service to decide if it should even implement this kind of funding.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s National Parks: Now Brought to You by Corporate Sponsors? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

George Zimmerman Auctioning off Gun Used to Kill Trayvon Martin

Yes, you read that right. The listing for the 9 mm Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol used to kill Martin went live today on gunbroker.com. The starting bid? $5,000. The news has inspired many passionate people. Some are outraged by the fact that the DOJ returned the gun to Zimmerman, others are anxious to get their hands on it. All proceeds, however, will not be going to Zimmerman’s own fortune but to “fight BLM (Black Lives Matter) violence against Law Enforcement officers” as well as “ensure the demise of … Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.” Yep. 

National Parks open to proposal of corporate sponsorships

National Parks may soon have corporate sponsors: https://t.co/FoAwfmiRFX pic.twitter.com/pWud0nIQYk

— The Daily Dot (@dailydot) May 12, 2016

America’s national parks are insanely broke. It’s sad because a lot of that land is used to preserve natural monuments and precious wildlife. But there is a solution: to allow for limited corporate sponsorship, meaning corporations could fund national parks in exchange for marketing plugs. The proposal is still up for heated debate but you can see some national treasures reimagined with popular brands here.

Europe’s leaders diss Trump and it’s kind of beautiful

If the leaders of the world made a “Mean Girls” movie, it would look something like this. Sadiq Khan, newly elected mayor of London and Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris, have teamed up against Trump and it is literally squad goals.

Bye, bye Regina George, I mean, Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s Awkward Email Scandal Continues

Listen, we’ve all been there. We’ve lost emails, accidentally deleted them, sent them to the wrong person, wiped servers, and burned them in gallons of kerosene. But when you’re Secretary of State, the whole correspondence thing is taken way more seriously. This time it isn’t Clinton but Clinton’s IT staffer who has come under scrutiny for a year’s worth of email files gone missing. The State Department says it can’t find the file. So, either they’re incompetent or someone’s trying to keep something under wraps. The scandal continues to be a huge vulnerability for the Clinton campaign, and one which it refuses to truly respond to the press about.

Four years’ worth of State Department emails from Clinton’s top IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, can’t be found#Hillary pic.twitter.com/8sK0ym6YLi

— ginny j. (@ncginny) May 10, 2016

Woody Allen’s son not buying into Woody Allen’s innocence amidst abuse allegations

Anyone who’s seen a Woody Allen film would find it hard to believe that the famous director is facing allegations of sexual abuse. How could you, given that no one really talks about it?

But this week, Rowan Farrow, Woody Allen’s estranged son, blasted the film community in a Hollywood Reporter piece for remaining silent and continue to praise Allen, despite the abuse he allgedly inflicted on his daughter. The Hollywood Reporter has since been banned from the Cannes’ Luncheon. What do you think?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Images of deforestation are among the most striking when it comes to addressing human impact on the environment and all the problems that follow. Similarly, endangered animals are constantly in the conversation and the need to enact more protections and conservation measures remains pressing.

Read More: Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough?

Yet what tends to be overlooked is that from both an ecological and human policy-related standpoint these things are deeply interrelated. When we consider how to protect and improve our forests and our biodiversity, we should think about them in tandem.

Among the innumerable reasons why maintaining forests is important, one is that they store carbon. Having it naturally contained in the biomass means that there is less in the atmosphere; forests help keep greenhouse gases and climate change in check. But, as has been a topic of conversation for decades now, some of the most substantial ones, such as the Amazon Rainforest, are in danger. A 30-year study by the University of Leeds concluded that the unnaturally large amount of carbon in the atmosphere has accelerated the lifespans of trees there. This means that they die younger; high tree mortality is an unexpected contributor to the shrinking of the rainforest. It is not just a matter of logging and increased building. With a higher tree mortality and a decreasing range of the forest, the amount of carbon the rainforest can store has been overtaken by the amount of fossil fuel emissions in Latin America.

Courtesy of CIFOR via Flickr.

Another consequence of deforestation is the loss of biodiversity that resides therein. It has been determined that there exists a “threshold” for forest cover, and if it is surpassed then the loss of species accelerates in quantity and geographic spread. Most surveys tracking deforesting activity indicate that thresholds are drawing quite near or have recently been surpassed. The problem with the way this issue is approached is that Brazilian law applies activity to individual farms and their property. Rather, due to the more complex nature of animal geographies and forest topography, policies need to take into account particular regions in the rainforest.

This concept is further complicated by the interrelatedness of forests and animals. It is not just a matter of aesthetically preserving animals, but they play an integral role in the health of the forest itself. Similar to how bees have a key function in floral reproduction because they distribute pollen from plant to plant, large animals spread around tree seeds as they go about their business. Big mammals in particular tend to have a wide range, traveling far in search of food and marking their territory. As forests and animals affect each other reciprocally, damaging one invariably damages the other, which in turn degenerates the other further and onward in the vicious cycle. This is another series of reasons why the New Jersey bear hunt ought to be rethought.

Courtesy of laurence_baulch via Flickr.

These problems are not restricted to the Amazon and Latin America. The national park system in the United States is primarily designed to preserve scenic natural wonders. Yet a new study demonstrates that the locations of these parks do not line up with the general locations of biodiversity in the country that are in need of protection. The bulk of parks is concentrated in the American West, where the lands are relatively sparsely inhabited compared to the East, South, and Appalachians, which contain many “unique or rare species” whose interests are not properly addressed. It is in these geographic regions, researchers explain, that the majority of the continent’s endemic species are located. Meaning that they are not found elsewhere in the world or in other habitats, endemic species play an vital role in the health and operations of their ecosystems. Once more, if they become too severely threatened and begin to die out then the surrounding forests and general environments themselves, and subsequently human health, are likely to degrade substantially.

In addition to striving to protect the correct and most vulnerable areas, there are generally speaking two measures we can take in order to avert crises. The first is to pursue development in a more conservation-oriented fashion. Laying down specific ground rules when pursuing building projects, especially roadways and infrastructure, can help decrease the amount of destruction that follows. This way, as representatives of the plan have put it, “We’re not anti-development, we’re anti-environmentally destructive development.” The second course of action is to actively attempt to restore forest cover. Leading the way in this endeavor is China, whose Three-North Shelter Forest Program is creating a corridor of trees intended to diminish expansion of the Gobi Desert. Reducing desertification will also ensure there is more farmable land, which is obviously in human interest as well.

We have been talking for a very long time about saving the trees and preserving the rainforest. But there is a lot more at stake than symbolic environmentalism or ensuring there is enough oxygen to breathe. Carbon storage, wildlife habitats, anti-erosion, anti-desertification, and many other things on a long list are at stake. Addressing these concerns, while also thinking about the status of many animals, will help to improve the condition of both as well as the many interrelated factors on the Earth.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Protecting Forests and Animals Should Be the Same Mission appeared first on Law Street.

Logging was once a major industry in the western United States and often supported entire towns in rural areas. In the 1970s and 80s, under pressure from environmental groups, the federal government dramatically reduced timber harvesting inside federally protected land, reducing logging activity by up to 80 percent in some areas. Since the rampant wildfires that have swept through western states such as California, Nevada, and Oregon over the past few summers, many have called for increased logging inside national parks and forests in order to thin forests and decrease the number of destructive wildfires each year. Read on to learn about the logging industry, and the arguments for and against allowing continued logging in national parks and forests.

What has the government been doing about logging on federal land?

The House of Representatives passed the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” (HR 1526), a bill that would require a minimum quota of timber to be harvested from federal lands each year for the creation of lumber or bio-mass energy, while removing environmental and federal restrictions to timber recovery projects in order to expedite this process. While the bill passed the Republican-controlled House with a 244-173 vote, political experts predict the bill has little chance of passing the Democrat-held Senate, especially after the Obama administration has promised to veto the bill if it reaches the President’s desk. The debate will most likely be ongoing until some sort of legislation can be agreed upon.

What’s the argument for logging in forests?

Logging supporters argue that forests have become too dense and overcrowded, and that forest thinning could help reduce the risk of forest fires while stimulating the economy. In the summer of 2013, a fire in the Yosemite Rim incinerated 400 square miles of forest while endangering nearby communities, and numerous similar fires have prompted affected residents to look for ways to reduce the threat of wildfire.

Forest fires not only threaten the trees in a particular area, but the wildlife as well. Some experts have indicated that fires such as these are increasing in frequency due to the increased density of national forests, caused by the reduction of logging in these areas in the 70s and 80s. Californians have a vested interest in the health of their national forests, as in addition to the yearly threat of wildfires, roughly 75 percent of California’s drinking water comes from forest watersheds. Many believe forest thinning through logging can improve the health of national forests and protect local wildlife.

Increased logging activity means more revenue for rural counties, where logging mills are often located, and more jobs in these areas. Many rural communities have experienced economic decline since environmental concerns decreased logging on federally protected lands. The authors of HR 1526framed the bill as a measure to both decrease the risk of wildfires and stimulate the job market in economically stagnant communities.

What is the argument against logging in forests?

Opponents of HR 1526, including Senate Democrats and the White House, are apprehensive about the bill’s measures to decrease regulations on logging, while pointing out that the economic stimulation of logging would counteract the outdoor recreation industries that have flourished in these same regions. An integral part of the bill is a measure to decrease public input, environmental analysis, and federal regulation of timber harvesting projects, which opponents say decreases control over the timber industry and would lead to a resumption of rampant deforestation experienced in the early-to-mid twentieth century. While the logging industry could create more jobs and provide economic stimulation to rural counties, logging would damage the outdoor recreation industry that has flourished in communities adjacent to national parks and forest. Therefore, HR 1526 would essentially destroy one newly established industry in the hope of reinstating what many consider an antiquated industry.

Many opponents also point out that in past TSPIRS reports (Timber Sale Information Reporting System), the US Forest Service repeatedly reported significant losses in its timber sales. Although the Forest Service has not released one of these reports since 1997, opponents of logging in national parks do not expect the logging industry to be much more profitable for the US Forest Service now than it was then.

Many scientists point out that forest wildfires are a natural part of the life of any forest, and that while in the short term these wildfires destroy trees, wildlife, and their habitats, in the long run wildfires help create enriched soil, greater biodiversity, and the greater overall health of a forest. While it is important to protect communities at risk of wildfire destruction, forest thinning would actually do little to improve the health of American forests.

Conclusion

Logging is both a way to provide energy and keep forest populations under control, but when done in excess it can be harmful. The political debate about logging has been contentious, but with the constant changes brought by the environment, the political landscape, and logging companies, but it is a hot topic to keep an eye on.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Congress: Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act

Additional

Billings Gazette: Barrasso Sponsors Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

CBS Sacramento: Rim Fire Prompts Calls for Opening National Forests to Logging

San Francisco Gate: Pro and Con on the Healthy Forest Initiative

Jefferson Public Radio: Groups Aim to Boost Logging, Restoration in Olympic National Forest

A New Century of Forest Planning: Planning in HR 1526

Earth First: Greenwashing Senators Call for Increased Logging in National Forests

Kentucky Heartwood: The Economics of Logging Our National Forests

AmericanForests.org: Burning Hot: The Evolution of Eastern and Western Fires

All Gov California: House GOP OK’s a Lot More Logging in California National Forests

Los Angeles Times: House OK’s More Logging in National Forests, Including in California

AmericanForests.org: HR 1526: Limiting Judicial Review of Forest Management

Jurist: U.S. House Approves Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Logging in National Parks and Forests: A Contentious Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Deep within the heart of the notoriously dangerous and underdeveloped city of Paterson, New Jersey, lies a scenic waterfall of historical and environmental significance.

In 1778, Alexander Hamilton picnicked in the vicinity and was impressed with the power of the Passaic River and its Great Falls. The brilliant and foresighted founding father envisaged water as a source of power for the industries of the new and developing nation. Hamilton’s work, including founding an organization called the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, did in fact result in the river and waterfall providing power for the region, including the newly founded city of Paterson, which it continues to do to this day.

Alexander Hamilton: Paterson’s founder and the Great Fall’s promoter. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The Paterson Great Falls area is supervised by the National Park Service and the US Department of the Interior. Many people have not heard of this all, much less the fact that it is a national park. Granted, one might not visualize this place alongside Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, or Old Faithful; however, this is not a consequence of its inferiority or failure to provide for its visitors a transcendental experience in nature. Rather, the National Park Service, and We, the People, have forgotten about it and let it languish.

One can be easily misled by the high quality literature received upon arrival. An NPS map delineates the site along with trails and overlooks. Another references an audio guided walking tour around the park and other local points of interest. None of these things is a particularly viable option for the curious tourist or visiting family. The trails have fallen into a state of disrepair, or are completely closed for renovations, the completion dates of which are vague. The limited angles by which one can view the falls do not effectively convey their beauty. Furthermore, in order to get there one must wade through an accumulation of trash on the grassy area. At one point, I picked up and threw out a deflated balloon. This was particularly frustrating because of the dangers these items pose to local animals; a hedgehog scampered by shortly thereafter.

Minimal access in the park. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

On the day I attended, there happened to be a decent number of people present because a small lecture was scheduled. It had recently been the anniversary of the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and so some people came out to hear the historic tale. Otherwise, I am told by some associates who had explored the park on an average day, the place tends to be relatively vacant. The brochure map indicated a visitor center across the street; I figured it would be productive to look into it and acquire more information. All I found, though, was an empty parking lot and building with no signs or indicators. Was this it? There was no evidence in any of the literature, nor at this building itself, that the center was under renovation or closed. Upon further research at home, I discerned that this empty building was in fact the Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center and its overhaul should be completed later this summer.

The Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

It is a disgrace in its own right that this historically and environmentally significant location has fallen into such a state of disrepair, under-appreciation, and under-attendance, but there are economic and social factors at play here as well. While there are many complex reasons why the city of Paterson is in such poor condition, the Great Falls provide an untapped opportunity to inject some life into the local sector. Fostering tourism via the Falls could provide a source of income to the Paterson economy. While there are many other issues that must be addressed in order to truly lift the city out of its current situation, the Falls are an easy starting point. This would also provide incentive to refurbish the locale and other points of interest, creating a self reinforcing system. As it stands, the streetwise tourist is not likely to wander around the streets of Paterson listening to an audio tour; improving the park experience and improving the local quality of life go hand in hand.

Paterson is a prime example of the social and economic ramifications of deindustrialization. There is a plethora of abandoned buildings and vacant streets, which are breeding grounds for violence, gang activity, and drug use. Aside from the fact that many people do not know of the Falls, finding one’s way there and back is relatively stressful. Once arrived, one is deterred from truly experiencing everything the site could and should offer. Rather, one is distracted by the abysmal infrastructural and human conditions that abound. These are all things that surely reduce the number of annual visitors. If many people wanted to come, the city would find more motivation to improve; if the city found more motivation to improve, many more people might want to come. However, the city of Paterson is not wholly responsible or to blame, as the Falls are a national park and the initial spark must be provided by the federal government.

A typical sight in the Great Falls vicinity. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

We must understand that the quality of our environments and the quality of our lives are intertwined. Nature is not something that only exists “out there,” but is right in our backyards. It is all around around us and is a part of us as much as we are a part of it. This nation has a culturally motivated value system that has to do with preservation of natural spaces. The Paterson Great Falls is a gem that needs polishing. It is a beautiful site that we ought to appreciate and for which we should be grateful. Revamping this gift of nature would not be just for its own aesthetic sake. A quality national park site would have a direct effect on the local conditions and continued potential for growth and improvement in the city and region.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A National Park That’s a National Disgrace appeared first on Law Street.