Introduction
The US Forest Service is a significant organization because it is responsible for the natural resource management of the nation. Established in 1905, the given agency is responsible for more than 190 acres of forests and grasslands and “is the largest natural resources research organization in the world” (US Forest Service, n.d., p. 1). This statement denotes that the body has a rich history and vast experience in the stipulated area. However, it is necessary to admit that the US Forest Service’s involvement in natural resource management has witnessed significant changes over its course of existence. Thus, the organization exceeded its authority and brought harmful effects on the environment, which resulted in the shift of its role from a broad discretion to that of considerable constraint.
The US Forest Service
In the beginning, it is necessary to explain how and why the US Forest Service was considered a movement of discretion. In the early and mid-20th century, the sphere of forest management was controlled by generalized and vague regulations and legal statutes. For example, they included the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and other legal documents (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). All these legislation pieces were similar because they did not impose any harsh restrictions on how exactly forests should have been mentioned. That is why the US Forest Service was provided with the freedom to manage natural resources at its own discretion.
The given period resulted in a significant burden on the US forests. The rationale behind this statement refers to the fact that the Forest Service actively engaged in timber production (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). Even though the organization kept considering some forests as recreational areas, the business affairs became a significant activity of the body. What is more, the body relied on thinning and clearcutting, and the latter way was negative for forests (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). In addition to the use of herbicides, the US Forest Service’s activities led to essential harm to the American environment.
It is reasonable to admit that these activities did not go unnoticed by the community. Numerous public concerns resulted in legal cases against the Forest Service. Different activists and nature conservation organizations admitted that the selected body utilized practices that significantly harmed the environment, and court decisions typically satisfied plaintiffs’ claims (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). Congress attempted to solve the issue and created the mentioned Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, stating that forests could be used for multiple purposes. This information demonstrates that the US Forest Service was provided with opportunities to rely on its discretion, and the body kept engaging in timber production. Congress admitted the problem and responded to it with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). The legislation piece was designed to abandon the Forest Service’s harmful activities, which ended the period of discretion.
The NFMA marked the beginning of a constraint period in the Forest Service’s history. The given law resulted in the fact that the organization was deprived of the freedom to dispose of forests and grasslands at its discretion. In particular, the NFMA asked to “assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System” (US Forest Service, n.d., p. 30). This statement resulted in the fact that the organization could not engage in thinning, clearcutting, and other vegetative management techniques that harmed forests. The US Forest Service was forced to stop its timber production processes to ensure that its activities were not against the law.
The information above demonstrates that the Forest Service was provided with essential constraints in the late 20th century. The government and society understood that aggressive timber production techniques were detrimental to the environment. That is why a legislation piece was needed to establish significant and sufficient constraints for the US Forest Service. The NFMA ensured that the organization did not exceed its authority and limited its business activities. The focus was placed on the multi-purpose use of land and the preservation of animal and plant diversity (Feldman & Reimer, 2019). Consequently, the Forest Service should have ensured that American forests were not subject to extinction threats.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the information from the essay has demonstrated that it is possible to divide the history of the US Forest Service into two periods. On the one hand, the organization witnessed the stage of discretion when it was provided with freedom of action. During this time, the Forest Service actively engaged in timber production, relying on clearcutting and other practices that were harmful to the environment. On the other hand, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 marked the second history stage. The given legislation piece established essential constraints on the Forest Service’s activities, and the latter was obliged to stop engaging in timber production. Instead of it, the organization was forced to promote multiple-use land management and preserve the forests’ biodiversity. Consequently, the Forest Service’s history reflects the Americans’ changing attitudes toward the value of nature protection.
References
Feldman, M., & Reimer, H. (2019). Ecological succession of national forest planning regulations. Natural Resources & Environment, 33(3), 8-11.
US Forest Service. (n.d.). The US Forest Service – An overview [PDF document].