The biggest problem that inventors faced was how to transmit image data. Schwartz, who went on to write a book about Farnsworth, explains how it happened:. As he plowed a potato field in straight, parallel lines, he saw television in the furrows. He envisioned a system that would break an image into horizontal lines and reassemble those lines into a picture at the other end.
Only electrons could capture, transmit and reproduce a clear moving figure. This eureka experience happened at the age of Two years later, Farnsworth transmitted an image of Elma and her brother, making her the first woman on TV. Schwartz writes that the David and Goliath battle had similar parallels to the modern-day case between Microsoft and Netscape although that story ends with a large settlement from Microsoft. Also like the tech innovators of Silicon Valley, Farnsworth thought his invention had utopian prospects.
Reduced resources at the field level. Increased process demands have resulted in increased staff numbers at the upper levels of the Forest Service. National forest field units are consequently stressed and stretched to meet the demands being placed on them. Lack of integration and turf wars. Agency turf wars are hindering integration. In the past, the roles of traditional functional areas in the Forest Service were relatively well-defined. They corresponded to each of the traditional multiple uses. Thus, the timber staff prepared and administered commercial timber sales, the fire staff prepared for and fought forest fires, the watershed and wildlife staff reviewed and commented on proposed projects, helped prepare environmental documentation and carried out watershed and wildlife restoration projects.
With the agency focus on forest restoration and treatment of forest fuels, traditional lines of responsibility have become blurred. A timber sale, formally the responsibility of the timber staff and funded by a timber sale budget line item , may now be the mechanism to reduce forest fuels — a task which was previously the responsibility of the fire staff funded by the fire budget line item. The same activity may also advance the objectives of restoring watershed conditions or enhancing wildlife habitat under the purview of the watershed and wildlife staffs, respectively.
It has sometimes been difficult for the existing functional disciplines — with their traditional budget line funding from Congress — to rationalize and clarify their roles under the new mission focus. Considerable integration has occurred at the field level, but the turf battles and responsibility issues remain contentious at regional offices, and especially at the Washington Office level. At present, there is no well-organized national constituency for forest restoration and treatment of forest fuels. Some of the current national forest constituencies, such as the timber industry and wilderness interests, are cool to this new mission focus, or even opposed.
For others, such as recreation stakeholders, the issue is considered peripheral to their primary interests. Since , the management of national forest lands has shifted from custodial management — , to production of wood products — , and most recently to a still evolving form of ecosystem management that emphasizes restoration and maintenance of forest health, reduction of hazardous fuels, biodiversity and recreation. The most recent shift was rapid, although it was often resisted both within and outside the Forest Service. The Forest Service has made these significant changes in its mission focus within an overall organizational structure that has remained largely unchanged since the s.
In addition, the substantial changes in mission focus since have occurred without an explicit change in the statutory mandate governing the purposes for which the national forests are to be managed. While numerous formal proposals to re-organize and restructure the Forest Service have been made over the years, few have been implemented. Those restructurings that have occurred have mainly involved consolidation of management units, largely initiated by field offices in response to shifts in funding and budgets.
The Forest Service as an organization has demonstrated both rigidity and flexibility over the years.
Good News -- I Failed A Story Of Inventing In Minnesota
Such changes have not always been easy for the agency, especially when they ran counter to the organizational culture or adversely affected key Forest Service stakeholder groups. Strong leadership of the agency by career employees who worked their way up through the organization has been a major positive factor in formulating workable responses to shifting demands on the agency. The decentralized decision-making culture of the agency has also been a strength, allowing the agency to adapt to changing needs at local levels.
A major barrier that remains to the Forest Service becoming a true learning organization is that the regulatory agencies that oversee it, and the courts that review legal challenges against it, have yet to embrace the concept of adaptive management. This has prevented the Forest Service from adjusting management approaches and strategies as quickly as hoped in response to lessons learned on the ground. The experiences in managing the national forests suggests strongly that key land allocation decisions, especially between protected lands, such as wilderness, and land used to produce a broader range of goods and services e.
In the early twentieth century it was widely assumed that public ownership and management of forest lands was needed to assure that they would be managed effectively for watershed protection and sustained timber production. In fact, it can be argued that the existence of public forests designated for multiple-purpose use is contrary to the objective of timber production because it encourages the kinds of public debates and controversy described in this study.
As demands for non-timber uses and values on these lands increased, timber production shifted to other forests and to other countries. Factors contributing to expanded private investment in forestry in the United States include: 1 stable and well-defined institutional frameworks and land tenure and land rights systems, backed by the rule of law; 2 strong and relatively consistent markets for forest products; 3 strong agricultural and forestry institutions and support and delivery systems at national, state and local levels; and 4 increasing per capita income and other measures of economic strength and diversity that encourage investment in the forest sector and result in citizens who cherish forests for their non-timber and environmental values MacCleery The decision to establish a federal system of forest reserves in the United States was fateful.
It created a perceived right and interest among all citizens on how these lands should be managed. If federal forest lands in the United States had been transferred to the jurisdiction of individual states, the changed political dynamics would have resulted in a substantially different policy evolution. There is no question that the existence of a large federal land estate has led to a sizeable body of federal laws governing their management, as well as the requisite federal land management agencies to administer them.
Together, these elements created a public forest policy-making structure heavily concentrated in Washington. As the demands being placed on these lands increased over time, diverse constituencies emerged with a stake in how these lands were to be managed; they organized themselves to influence Congress and federal agencies in Washington to achieve their particular objectives.
As a significant portion of this constituency is disconnected from the economic impacts of reduced federal commodity production, it should be no surprise that such a shift has occurred in recent years. A key consideration for the future is whether the public concerned with the management of the national forests can come together and forge a working consensus as to how these precious lands are to be managed.
But a strong constituency for such a mission focus has yet to develop.
How Dick Tracy Invented the Smartwatch
Former Chief Jack Ward Thomas wrote that national forest stakeholders currently seem to be too engaged in fighting the battles of the past to look to the future Thomas a :. Fierce in battle, many of the eco-warriors have been unable to come to grips with the consequences of victory and are now reduced to wandering about the old battlefields bayoneting the wounded.
Some emerging signs are promising. He argues that:.
James Fallows on the Reinvention of America - The Atlantic
If we want our forest ecosystems restored, we must now disabuse the Forest Service of the inefficiencies we helped impose. We must rescue the Forest Service by becoming its friend, its ally and its core constituency…. We have at hand an opportunity…to build a new conservation movement and a new Forest Service to advance a new central idea of restoration.
Apple, D. Changing social and legal forces affecting the management of national forest lands. Women in Natural Resources , Vol. Arno, S. Ecological effects and management implications of Indian fires. In Proceedings: Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. Missoula, MT. Flames in our forest: disaster or renewal? Washington, DC, Island Press, pp. Babbitt, B. Environmental Law, 24 2 : — Bowes, M. Multiple-use management: the economics of public forestlands.
Brooks, D. Brown, H. Crossing the divide: Forest Service milestones in the s. Historical statistics of the United States from colonial times to , Bicentennial edition , Part 1. Characteristics of new housing: current construction reports.
Series C Compilation of C25 reports. Washington, DC: U.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States, Washington, DC, U.