Land use on federal public lands in southern Utah ranges from oil and mineral extraction by private companies that have received leases from the U.S. government, to ranchers who also must go through a permitting process to graze their cattle on public lands, to subsistence users (e.g. hunting, fishing, firewood collection, plant collecting), to local and tourist recreators who hike, bike, camp, drive off-road vehicles, canyoneer, climb, etc.
These varying uses are regulated based on the agency responsible for an area's management and on its designation (e.g. as general BLM or USFS land, as national monument, as wilderness, etc.). BLM land especially (and to some extent national forests) are intended to be multi-use spaces, but such regulations (for instance, wilderness designations that allow hiking and equestrian use but prohibit bicycles and off-road vehicles) antagonize relationships between different land users.
Department of Interior agencies such as BLM and USFS seek to take into account public perspectives in managing public lands for multiple-use through the creation of advisory councils (US Fish and Wildlife Service also does this), the positions of which are divided into specific land-user/"stakeholder" categories such as recreational land users, commercial tourist companies, extractive industry representatives, BLM staff, and so on. One area for further ethnographic exploration is examining how/whether these advisory councils actually shape public lands management--they do hold votes on whether to recommend particular policies to federal agencies but by all appearances these council polls simply communicate a recommendation and are not binding in any way. Additionally, as this is one way in which members of "the public" are included in a formalized way (this is a position people must apply for, be accepted to, hold for a certain length term, and participate in a specific number of meetings), I am curious to know whether this avenue for public participation (or for the communication of public perspectives through representatives) is perceived as an effective or meaningful inclusion of multiple perspectives and interests. Another facet of public participation has been BLM hearings and city/county council hearings, which seem to be predominantly perceived as futile engagement that merely stokes community-level conflict. In communities where a number of people may hold anti-federal sentiment, is a system of advisory councils run by federal agencies perceived as desirable or effective?
