'Made for you and me' – to do what with?

Indirectly, the same feeling may be true for all Americans. Mining, grazing, and logging on public lands illustrate the conflict between environmental protection and resource extraction – both of which Americans want, the one to follow their ideals and the other to support their lifestyle.

"Environmental issues today are more complex and subtle than the ones we faced in the 1960s and '70s," says Interior Secretary Gale Norton. "With the growth of our population and expansion of our economy, pressures have increased correspondingly on our undeveloped land, water resources, and wildlife."

In some cases, those pressures mean tinkering with the crown jewels.

Parking lots are being reduced at Yosemite to reduce air pollution, and there will be some logging to reduce fire hazard there – both showing the necessity for "management" of nature as human impact increases. Arguments rage across the country over allowing snowmobiles, jet skis, and all-terrain vehicles into Yellowstone and other parks.

Preservation of the environment versus a policy of "multiple use" on public lands has been part of America's post-frontier history ever since Sierra Club founder John Muir debated Forest Service chief Gifford Pinchot a century ago. It continues today.

In a National Press Club speech earlier this year, Secretary Norton laid out her plan for "a new environmentalism."

"The concept puts collaboration ahead of polarization. Markets before mandates. It transcends political boundaries," she said. "New environmentalism is about meeting our nation's need for a vibrant economy and energy security – while at the same time protecting the environment."

These are lofty goals. They're much the same as those put together several years ago by the Western Governors Association – a program dubbed "Enlibra," a hybrid Latin word meaning "to move toward balance." Its principles, crafted by conservative Republican Mike Leavitt of Utah and liberal Democrat John Kitzhaber of Oregon, include greater public participation, more collaboration between agencies and private organizations, economic incentives, and a focus on outcomes rather than government programs and regulations.

For the Bush administration, this means more road-building and logging in national forests, more oil and gas drilling in the Rocky Mountain states and Alaska. But, says Ms. Norton, it will also mean "a healthier land, watched over by self-motivated citizen-stewards."

All of which makes environmental activists suspicious.

They're using this holiday weekend to warn vacationers that favorite outdoor recreation spots could be under attack. "These spectacular places are being targeted for rapacious energy development," says Johanna Wald, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who recently sued to stop oil exploration near Arches National Park in Utah.

Rapacious or not, development of natural resources on public lands seems just as inevitable as the urge to experience their beauty, as Woody Guthrie put it, "from the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters."

Page: 1 | 2