With differing legislative mandates, federal agencies will have difficulty sharing authority to further transboundary EM although BLM and Forest Service heads Dombeck and Thomas aver that there will be renewed effort at cooperation and communication. State jurisdiction over lands complicates the problem further, and Stewart contends that the state should take the lead in EM. The agencies have no authority to impose ecosystem management on private land, and the challenge is to convince property owners of the benefits of EM. According to Coggins, private property rights are not absolute, are subject to the rights of other community members, and the Supreme Court has generally favored social interest. However, in recent years the judiciary has moved more toward a property-rights position. Coggins stressed that much of public input will be adversarial and antagonistic to public agencies. He believes that new legislation will be needed to define the level of public participation. While stressing the importance of collaboration between agencies and other groups, Thomas pointed out the impediments posed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. A number of speakers commented on the need for legislative change.
Kelson, Aaron; Lawrence, Russ; Perault, Dave; Schroeder, Sue; and Shank, Christican
"Legal and political complexities of ecosystem mangement,"
Natural Resources and Environmental Issues:
Vol. 5, Article 22.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol5/iss1/22