选择森林愿景

IF 1.8 3区 农林科学 Q2 FORESTRY Journal of Forestry Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1093/jof/97.5.44
Donald W. Floyd, Kelsey Alexander, Charles Burley, Arthur W. Cooper, Arthur DuFault, Ross W. Gorte, Sharon G. Haines, Bruce B. Hronek, Chadwick D. Oliver, Edward W. Shepard
{"title":"选择森林愿景","authors":"Donald W. Floyd, Kelsey Alexander, Charles Burley, Arthur W. Cooper, Arthur DuFault, Ross W. Gorte, Sharon G. Haines, Bruce B. Hronek, Chadwick D. Oliver, Edward W. Shepard","doi":"10.1093/jof/97.5.44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":15821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forestry","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing a Forest Vision\",\"authors\":\"Donald W. Floyd, Kelsey Alexander, Charles Burley, Arthur W. Cooper, Arthur DuFault, Ross W. Gorte, Sharon G. Haines, Bruce B. Hronek, Chadwick D. Oliver, Edward W. Shepard\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jof/97.5.44\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forestry\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forestry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/97.5.44\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/97.5.44","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于国家森林历史上经常出现争议,逐步改变其管理方式不太可能从根本上解决价值观上的分歧。美国林务员协会(SAF)任命了一个特别工作组来审查联邦森林管理,该工作组的分析和建议已发表在《不和之林》一书中:管理国家森林和联邦公共土地的选择方案》一书中。科学家委员会被要求在现行法律法规的框架内行事,而美国林务员协会的分析师们却没有受到这样的限制。以下是《不和之林》的摘录,总结了需要从根本上改变立法和法规的原因,并考虑了拥有国家森林和公共土地的目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Forestry 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.
期刊最新文献
Do Experimental Forests and Ranges of the Southeastern United States Represent the Climate, Ecosystem Structure, and Ecosystem Functions of the Region? Quantifying the Variability of “Fixed-Width” Buffers on Harvested Lands in Western Oregon and Washington An Analysis of Political Identity Development in State Forest Advisory Groups Wildfire Management Strategy and Its Relation to Operational Risk Ten-Year Response of Riparian-Associated Songbirds to Implementation of Streamside Management Zones in Watershed-Scale Harvests in the Appalachian Mountains
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1