 |
|
|
|||||
As summer approaches, millions of Americans begin planning or taking trips to state and national parks, seeking to explore the wide range of outdoor recreational opportunities across the nation. A lot of them will head toward the nations wilderness areas110 million acres, mostly in the West, that are protected by the strictest federal conservation rules. When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it described wilderness areas as places that evoked mystery and wonder, where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. These are wild landscapes that present nature in its rawest form. The law requires the federal government to protect these areas for the permanent good of the whole people. Wilderness areas are found in national parks, conservation land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, national forests and U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges. In early May 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives began to consider allowing the sale of federal lands in six counties in Nevada and Utah, five of which contain wilderness areas. Ostensibly, these sales are to promote affordable housing, but the reality is that the proposal, introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, is a departure from the standard process of federal land exchanges that accommodate development in some places but protect wilderness in others. Regardless of whether Americans visit their public lands or know when they have crossed a wilderness boundary, as environmental historians we believe that everyone still benefits from the existence and protection of these precious places. This belief is an idea eloquently articulated and popularized 65 years ago by the noted Western writer Wallace Stegner. His eloquence helped launch the modern environmental movement and gave power to the idea that the nations public lands are a fundamental part of the United States national identity and a cornerstone of American freedom. var divElement = document.getElementById('viz1747405934583'); var vizElement = divElement.getElementsByTagName('object')[0]; if ( divElement.offsetWidth > 800 ) { vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+'px';} else if ( divElement.offsetWidth > 500 ) { vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+'px';} else { vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height='777px';} var scriptElement = document.createElement('script'); scriptElement.src = 'https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement); Humble origins In 1958, Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to examine outdoor recreation in the U.S. in order to determine not only what Americans wanted from the outdoors, but to consider how those needs and desires might change decades into the future. One of the commissions members was David E. Pesonen, who worked at the Wildland Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. He was asked to examine wilderness and its relationship to outdoor recreation. Pesonen later became a notable environmental lawyer and leader of the Sierra Club. But at the time, Pesonen had no idea what to say about wilderness. However, he knew someone who did. Pesonen had been impressed by the wild landscapes of the American West in Stegners 1954 history Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West. So he wrote to Stegner, who at the time was at Stanford University, asking for help in articulating the wilderness idea. Stegners response, which he said later was written in a single afternoon, was an off-the-cuff riff on why he cared about preserving wildlands. This letter became known as the Wilderness Letter and marked a turning point in American political and conservation history. Pesonen shared the letter with the rest of the commission, which also shared it with newly installed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. Udall found its prose to be so profound, he read it at the seventh Wilderness Conference in 1961 in San Francisco, a speech broadcast by KCBS, the local FM radio station. The Sierra Club published the letter in the record of the conferences proceedings later that year. But it was not until its publication in The Washington Post on June 17, 1962, that the letter reached a national audience and captured the imagination of generations of Americans. Wallace Stegner, right, knew the power of American wilderness landscapes. In this photo, probably from the 1950s, he pauses with his son Page and wife, Mary, on a Yosemite National Park hiking trail. [Photo: Multimedia Archives, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah] An eloquent appeal In the letter, Stegner connected the idea of wilderness to a fundamental part of American identity. He called wilderness something that has helped form our character and that has certainly shaped our history as a people . . . the challenge against which our character as a people was formed . . . (and) the thing that has helped to make an American different from and, until we forget it in the roar of our industrial cities, more fortunate than other men. Without wild places, he argued, the U.S. would be just like every other overindustrialized place in the world. In the letter, Stegner expressed little concern with how wilderness might support outdoor recreation on public lands. He didnt care whether wilderness areas had once featured roads, trails, homesteads or even natural resource extraction. What he cared about was Americans freedom to protect and enjoy these places. Stegner recognized that the freedom to protect, to restrain ourselves from consuming, was just as important as the freedom to consume. Perhaps most importantly, he wrote, wilderness was an intangible and spiritual resource, a place that gave the nation our hope and our excitement, landscapes that were good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it. Without it, Stegner lamented, never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste. To him, the nations natural cathedrals and the vaulted ceiling of the pure blue sky are Americans sacred spaces as much as the structures in which they worship on the weekends. Stegner penned the letter during a national debate about the value of preserving wild places in the face of future development. Something will have gone out of us as a people, he wrote, if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed. If not protected, Stegner believed these wildlands that had helped shape American identity would fall to what he viewed as the same exploitative forces of unrestrained capitalism that had industrialized the nation for the past century. Every generation since has an obligation to protect these wild places. Stegners Wilderness Letter became a rallying cry to pass the Wilderness Act. The closing sentences of the letter are Stegners best: We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope. This phrase, the geography of hope, is Stegners most famous line. It has become shorthand for what wilderness means: the wildlands that defined American character on the Western frontier, the wild spaces that Americans have had the freedom to protect, and the natural places that give Americans hope for the future of this planet. Death Valley National Park in California contains one of the largest protected wilderness areas in the United States. [Photo: National Park Service/E. Letterman] Americas best idea Stegner returned to themes outlined in the Wilderness Letter again two decades later in his essay The Best Idea We Ever Had: An Overview, published in Wilderness magazine in spring 1983. Writing in response to the Reagan administrations efforts to reduce protection of the National Park System, Stegner declared that the parks were Absolutely American, absolutely democratic. He said they reflect us as a nation, at our best rather than our worst, and without them, millions of Americans lives, his included, would have been poorer. Public lands are more than just wilderness or national parks. They are places for work and play. They provide natural resources, wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water and recreational opportunities to small towns and sprawling metro areas alike. They are, as Stegner said, cures for cynicism and places of shared hope. Stegners words still resonate as Americans head for their public lands and enjoy the beauty of the wild places protected by wilderness legislation this summer. With visitor numbers increasing annually and agency budgets at historic lows, we believe it is useful to remember how precious these places are for all Americans. And we agree with Stegner that wilderness, public lands writ large, are more valuable to Americans collective identity and expression of freedom than they are as real estate that can be sold or commodities that can be extracted. Leisl Carr Childers is an associate professor of history at Colorado State University. Michael Childers is an associate professor of history at Colorado State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Does your manager hate to delegate tasks? It might sound like a good thingafter all, that means less work for you. But, just like having a micromanaging boss is no fun, having a manager who takes on much of your work can create a work environment that is both stifling and unproductive. We asked three experts about what causes some bosses to act this way and how to encourage your supervisor to step aside and allow you to do your job. What is a snowplow manager? A “snowplow manager” is a supervisor who takes on excessive work themselves rather than delegating to their team, says Frank Weishaupt, CEO of videoconferencing tech company Owl Labs. His team recently came up with the term, says Weishaupt, after noticing this trend in management, which resembles snowplow parenting, where a parent removes as many challenges from their childs life as possible. Signs that your manager is snowplowing can include micromanagement, not letting you lead projects or calls, excluding you from meetings with senior leadership, and stepping in to do work they had previously assigned to you, says Jennifer Dulski, CEO and founder of software company Rising Team. Another telltale sign your boss is snowplowing is that they rarely delegate meaningful tasks to you. Instead, they hand off smaller, administrative work to your team while they handle bigger, more significant projects themselves, says Weishaupt. Rather than empower workers with self-reliance, snowplow managers often request constant updates and check-ins, showing their lack of trust in their team. He says they will use phrases like “I’ll just handle this,” or “It’s faster if I do it.” Why some managers act this way According to Owl Labss 2024 State of Hybrid Work Report, the trend of snowplow managers likely stems from managers worries about their own job requirements and expectations. The study revealed that managers stress levels are 55% higher than non-managers, says Weishaupt. Respondents said they were concerned about their teams productivity and employee engagementparticularly among workers who are hybrid or entirely remote. Good managers help remove obstacles for their teams, but removing any and all adversity reports may encounter will hinder their teams development and success. When managers hog the work, they strip away learning moments, says Annie Rosencrans, people and culture director at HiBob. You lose the chance to problem-solve, build resilience, and grow your skills. The short-term relief isnt worth the long-term setback to your career. So, whats causing managers to behave this way? For some, their own reputation is a top priority. Some may be concerned that poor results will reflect badly on them, especially in high-pressure situations where the managers supervisor expects a lot from them, says Weishaupt. Other managers may not trust their team to complete tasks to their standards. And, finally, they may believe that its just easier to complete a task themselves. Efficiency can also be a misleading motivator as some managers convince themselves its faster to handle a task themselves than explain how it should be done, says Weishaupt. The impact of potential layoffs Fear of downsizing can play a role in driving snowplow managers, experts say. As layoffs increasingly become a looming threat, managers can feel intense pressure to demonstrate results to protect both their team and their own position, says Weishaupt. At organizations that emphasize short-term results over long-term team development, snowplow management can become a survival strategy to hold on to your position. Those in middle management may be experiencing particular worries. Many recent rounds of layoffs at large companies like Amazon have specifically targeted middle managers, so people at that level may rightfully be worried about their jobs, says Dulski. Those middle-management layoffs also leave the remaining managers with more scope, which compounds the problem of them feeling overwhelmed and worried about their teams performance. At times like this, she says managers may overcompensate by stepping in to snowplow for their teams by helping in areas the team should be able to do on their own. Ultimately that does not always lead to better team performance, and long-term it kneecaps the ability for the team to deliver without help, says Dulski. How to deal with a snowplow manager If you realize that your manager is acting this way, there are strategies you can try. Rosencrans recommends thanking your boss for their guidance but then suggests pivoting to express an interest in more latitude at work. Consider saying something like: Id love to take more ownership of this project. Would you be open to that? Or, I noticed that some of the tasks Ive been assigned are quite limited in scope. Im keen to develop my skills further. Could we discuss ways I could take on more responsibility or contribute to higher-level work? Another strategy could be to offer to give your boss a well-needed break. Dulski suggests saying something like this to a snowplowing supervisor: I know you have a lot on your plate, and I want to find ways to support you more. Id love to take the lead on [specific task or project] to be helpful. It would also be a great learning opportunity for me. Id be happy to run with it, check in for your input, and keep you updated along the way. Im ready to jump in if that would be helpful. What to do if theres pushback If your manager resists giving you more responsibility, dont give up. Instead, try and reframe the conversation. Ask what specific skills or milestones theyd need to see before entrusting you with more complex tasks, suggests Rosencrans. This shifts the dynamic from rejection to development, giving you clear goals to work toward. In the meantime, keep a record of your contributions and successes to build a case for your growth. You can also seek opportunities outside your direct managers scopejoin cross-functional projects, find a mentor in another department, or take advantage of internal training, she says. If, after multiple attempts, your development is still blocked, consider having a respectful conversation with HR. Focus on your desire to grow and contribute more, rather than criticizing your manager, cautions Rosencrans. The goal is to advocate for your potential in a way that opens doors rather than escalates tension.
Category:
E-Commerce
April 2025 was a busy month for space. Pop icon Katy Perry joined five other civilian women on a quick jaunt to the edge of space, making headlines. Meanwhile, another group of people at the United Nations was contemplating a critical issue for the future of space exploration: the discovery, extraction and utilization of natural resources on the Moon. At the end of April, a dedicated Working Group of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space released a draft set of recommended principles for space resource activities. Essentially, these are rules to govern mining on the Moon, asteroids and elsewhere in space for elements that are rare here on Earth. As a space lawyer and co-founder of For All Moonkind, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting human heritage in outer space, I know that the Moon could be the proving ground for humanitys evolution into a species that lives and thrives on more than one planet. However, this new frontier raises complex legal questions. Space, legally Outer spaceincluding the Moonfrom a legal perspective, is a unique domain without direct terrestrial equivalent. It is not, like the high seas, the common heritage of humankind, nor is it an area, like Antarctica, where commercial mining is prohibited. Instead, the 1967 Outer Space Treatysigned by more than 115 nations, including China, Russia and the United Statesestablishes that the exploration and use of space are the province of all humankind. That means no country may claim territory in outer space, and all have the right to access all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies freely. The fact that, pursuant to Article II of the treaty, a country cannot claim territory in outer space, known as the nonappropriation principle, suggests to some that property ownership in space is forbidden. Can this be true? If your grandchildren move to Mars, will they never own a home? How can a company protect its investment in a lunar mine if it must be freely accessible by all? What happens, as it inevitably will, when two rovers race to a particular area on the lunar surface known to host valuable water ice? Does the winner take all? As it turns out, the Outer Space Treaty does offer some wiggle room. Article IX requires countries to show due regard for the corresponding interests of others. It is a legally vague standard, although the Permanent Court of Arbitration has suggested that due regard means simply paying attention to whats reasonable under the circumstances. First mover advantageits a race The treatys broad language encourages a race to the Moon. The first entity to any spot will have a unilateral opportunity to determine whats legally reasonable. For example, creating an overly large buffer zone around equipment might be justified to mitigate potential damage from lunar dust. On top of that, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty assumes that there will be installations, like bases or mining operations, on the Moon. Contrary to the free access principle, the treaty suggests that access to these may be blocked unless the owner grants permission to enter. Both of these paths within the treaty would allow the first person to make it to their desired spot on the Moon to keep others out. The U.N. principles in their current form dont address these loopholes. The draft U.N. principles released in April mirror, and are confined by, the language of the Outer Space Treaty. This tension between free access and the need to protectmost easily by forbidding accessremains unresolved. And the clock is ticking. The Moons vulnerable legacy The U.S. Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon by 2028, China has plans for human return by 2030, and in the intervening years, more than 100 robotic missions are planned by countries and private industry alike. For the most part, these missions are all headed to the same sweet spot: the lunar south pole. Here, peaks of eternal light and deep craters containing water ice promise the best mining, science and research opportunities. In this excitement, its easy to forget that humans already have a deep history of lunar exploration. Scattered on the lunar surface are artifacts displaying humanitys technological progress. After centuries of gazing at our closest celestial neighbor with fascination, in 1959 the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, became the first human-made object to impact another celestial body. Ten years later, two humans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, became the first ever to set foot upon another celestial body. More recently, in 2019, Chinas Change 4 achieved the first soft landing on the Moons far side. And in 2023, Indias Chandrayaan-3 became the first to land successfully near the lunar south pole. These sites memorialize humanitys baby steps off our home planet and easily meet the United Nations definition of terrestrial heritage, as they are so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future genertions of all humanity. The international community works to protect such sites on Earth, but those protection protocols do not extend to outer space. The more than 115 other sites on the Moon that bear evidence of human activity are frozen in time without degradation from weather, animal or human activity. But this could change. A single errant spacecraft or rover could kick up abrasive lunar dust, erasing bootprints or damaging artifacts. Protection and the Outer Space Treaty In 2011, NASA recommended establishing buffer, or safety zones, of up to 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) to protect certain sites with U.S. artifacts. Because it understood that outright exclusion violates the Outer Space Treaty, NASA issued these recommendations as voluntary guidelines. Nevertheless, the safety zone concept, essentially managing access to and activities around specific areas, could be a practical tool for protecting heritage sites. They could act as a starting point to find a balance between protection and access. One hundred and ninety-six nations have agreed, through the 1972 World Heritage Convention, on the importance of recognizing and protecting cultural heritage of universal value found here on Earth. Building on this agreement, the international community could require specific access protocolssuch as a permitting process, activity restrictions, shared access rules, monitoring and other controlsfor heritage sites on the Moon. If accepted, these protective measures for heritage sites could also work as a template for scientific and operational sites. This would create a consistent framework that avoids the perception of claiming territory. At this time, the draft U.N. principles released in April 2025 do not directly address the opposing concepts of access and protection. Instead, they defer to Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirm that everyone has free access to all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies. As more countries and companies compete to reach the Moon, a clear lunar legal framework can guide them to avoid conflicts and preserve historical sites. The draft U.N. principles show that the international community is ready to explore what this framework could look like. Michelle L.D. Hanlon is a professor of air and space law at the University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||