Abstract
Implementation of a consensus-based management and planning process on three pilot areas has reduced conflicts among interest groups. There are insufficient data to demonstrate biological improvement in range condition on the pilot areas at this time. Economic analysis indicates that recreation values exceed all other resource values in all three pilot areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature cited
Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environmental disputes, a decade of experience. The conservation foundation, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Land Managemennt. 1978. Proposed livestock grazing management for the Tuledad-Homecamp BLM, planning unit. Final environmental impact statement. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Proposed livestock grazing management for the Cowhead-Massacre BLM, planning unit. Final environmental impact statement. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Challis rangeland program summary. Progress report 1979–85. Salmon district, Idaho.
Cleary, C. R. 1984. Experimental stewardship—what's happening.Rangelands 6, (4):166–169.
Congressional Research Service. 1984. Source materials on CRS rangelands workshop. Mimeo. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.
Culhane, P. J. 1981. Public land politics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Experimental Stewardship Committees. 1984. Draft experimental stewardship report to Congress. Mimeo. BLM/ USFS. Washington, D.C.
Floyd, D. W. 1986. The policy of experimental stewardship on public rangelands. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Floyd, D. W., and W. R. Frost. 1987. Measuring management objectives with condition classes: time for a change.Rangelands 9 (4):161–162.
General Accounting Office. 1982. Public rangeland improvement—a slow, costly process in need of alternate funding. GAO, Washington, DC.
Hacker, R. B. 1973. The objectives of land resource management.Arid Zone Newsletter. CSIRO, Perth, Australia, pp. 112–119.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2d. ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lowi, T. J. 1972. Four systems of policy, politics and choice.Public Administration Review (4):298–310.
Natural Resources Defense Council. 1972. NRDC et al. v. Morton et al. 458 F 2d, 827 DC Cir.
Schiff, A. L. 1966. Innovation and administrative decision making: the Conservation of land resources.Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (1):1–30.
Society for Range Management. 1983. Range Inventory Standardization Committee. Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and monitoring. Report to board of directors, Denver, CO.
Smith, E. L. 1979. An evaluatiton of the range condition concept.Rangelands 2:52–54.
Sorg, C. F., and J. B. Loomis. 1984. Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: a comparative review. Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-107, USDA-Forest Service.
US Code. 1976. 43 USCA 1732. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
US Code. 1978. 43 USCA 1901. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.
US Code. 1934. 43 USCA 315. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.
Wald, J., and D. Alberswerth. 1985. Our ailing public rangelands: condition report-1985. Natural Resources Defense Council/National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Floyd, D.W. Reducing multiple-use conflicts on public lands through experimental stewardship. Environmental Management 12, 457–462 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873259
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873259