RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 127 Changing SocialValues and Images of Public Rangeland Management J.J. Kennedy, B.L. Fox, and T.D. Osen Many political, economiç-and'ocial changes of the last things (biocentric values). These human values are 30 years have affected Ar'ierican views of good public expressed in various ways—such as laws, rangeland use, rangeland and how it should be managed. Underlying all socio-political action, popularity of TV nature programs, this socio-political change s the shift in public land values governmental budgets, coyote jewelry, or environmental of an American industrial na4i hat emerged from WWII to messages on T-shirts. become an urban, postindutr society in the 1970s. Much of the American public hold environmentally-orientedpublic land values today, versus the commodity and community The Origin of Rangeland Social Values economic development orientation of the earlier conserva- We that there are no and tion era (1900—1969). The American public is also mentally propose fixed, unchanging intrinsic or nature values. All nature and visually tied to a wider world through expanded com- rangeland values are human creations—eventhe biocentric belief that nature has munication technology. value independent of our human endorsement or use. Consider golden eagles or vultures as an example. To Managing Rangelands as Evolving Social Value begin with, recognizing a golden eagle or vulture high in flight is learned behavior. It is a socially taught skill (and not Figure 1 presents a simple rangeland value model of four easily mastered)of distinguishingthe cant of wings in soar- interrelated systems: (1) the environmental/natural ing position and pattern of tail or wing feathers. After learn- resource system of biosphere elements, including humans, ing to recognize one bird from the other, there is a norma- rangelands, wildlife or watersheds; (2) the social system of tive or evaluative reaction to these birds—whether it be human attitudes, values, behavior, institutions,and technol- positive, negative, or neutral. No humans are born knowing ogy; (3) the economic system that focuses on institutions how to 1) recognize or 2) react to these animals in the air. and behavior related to the allocation of land, labor, and Both are socially learned behavior, and human reaction to a capital; and (4) the political system of policy, laws, courts, golden eagle often differs if one were raised and socialized and public agencies. on a Wyoming sheep ranch or in a California suburb. In the Rangeland social values originate in only one of these last half of this century, most Americans have had their systems—the social system. Rangeland values, are environmental perceptions and values shaped in the latter expressed to natural resource managers (and the rest of social environment. society) by three systems: the economic, social, and politi- Of course rangeland values are not formed in isolation cal. We propose the belief, disturbing to some people, that within the social system, but as that system interacts with the environmentalsystem itself neither originates nor the environmental and other systems (Figure 1). Rangeland expresses rangeland social value. Only human interaction values also evolve, as do most social values. Rural agricul- with rangelands originates social values, whetherthis is based on consumptive use (utilitarian values) or is derived simply through appreciation of natural systems and living Authorsare respectively with the Forest Resources Department, Utah State University, LoganUtah 84322-5215; Range, Air, Watershed and Ecology staff, USDA-Forest Service RegionalOffice, Missoula, Montana 59807; and Range Staff, Lewis andClark NF, GreatFalls, Montana 59403. Acknowledgments: The managingnatural resources as social value and other theories presented here have been developed with longterm research sup- port of the Department of Forest Resources,Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5215; the USDA-Forest Service (Chief's Olfice), Washington, DC, 20250; the Blue Mountains Natural Resourcenstitute, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; plus the Vice President for Research and the Utah Agriculture ExperimentStation (Project 712),Utah State University, Logan, UT (Paper 4544). This article was developed in a BLM and USFS-sponsoredshortcourse: Socio-Economic Aspects of Raneland Management (BLM Phoenix Training Center, Feb. 1993) with the involvement of 29 mid-career professionals, includ- ing two of the authors ofthis paper. The first version of this article wasthen pre- senled at the Society for Range Management annual meeting, Colorado Fig. 1. Interacting systems in which natural resource values originate Springs, CO(14-16 February 1994). andare communicated to society. 1 128 RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 tural societies, for example, tend to have different interac- in crop production, where biological diversity was often the tions with rangelands than do urban societies, often result- enemy. Some wildlife was good (game), while other wildlife ing in different perceptions, values, and uses. Many mod- was positioned at the negative end of a value continuum ern controversies over rangeland or wildlife issues are con- (e.g., varmints or predators). Then and now, ruraVagricul- flictsof agricultural (utilitarian) and urban (biocentric)values tural value systems generally emphasize the practical, utili- about human relationshipswith and the use of nature (e.g., tarian value of nature. This is reinforced in logging, ranch- 1080 poisoning of predators, managing wild horses, ripari- ing or mining employment,and in common rural recreation- an management).None of these rangeland or nature value al pursuits like hunting, fishing, trapping or rodeos orientations fall from heaven, nor do they have different ori- (Kennedy 1973, Williamson 1992). gins. They are part of a continuum of nature values that America became an industrial society in the last part of originates in the minds of individuals and groups (social the nineteenth century, with increasing socio-politicalcon- system) as their changing perceptions and human needs cern for predictable long-term flows of natural resource interact with the environmental,political, and economic sys- commodities for our factories and cities. The conservation tems. movement (1900—1969), with its promise of sustained-yield Children in the agricultural stage of American socio-eco- timber or forage flows and harvestable game surpluses, nomic development (1600 to post-civil war) mostly formed well accommodatedthis socio-political need. Natural their values in a blood and blister intimacy with nature. As resource agencies, plus forest and game managementpro- Table 1 illustrates, American agricultural youth (especially fessions, were created (Hays 1959). Recreational,aesthet- males) were usually raised with a gun, trap or axe in ic and biocentric values were an important component of hand—and in communities where utilitarian values domi- some early conservation visionaries, centered largely in nated. They learned that plants and animals had value pri- urban areas and championed by people such as John Muir. marily in how well they satisfied immediate human survival Yet these values did not become a dominantforce in natur- and economic needs. The highest valued land was usually al resource management until the 1960s, with the emer- Table 1. Twooften-conflictIng sets ofnatural resource of envIronmentuses and values. Issues Rural, agricultural cultures Urban industrial or (especially) post-industrial cultures 1. Settingswhere nature *cuftingfirewood Watching television or valuesare learned Farming and ranching Walt Disney films *Protecting crops and Reading books animals fromweeds, Recreation experiences insects of predators (e.g., camping) 2. Popular outdoor *Hunting Hiking and nature study recreational activities *Fishing Camping, auto-touring and learning *Trapping Bird-watching environments Rodeo activities *Biology or science courses 3. Dominant values and Practical, utilitarian Romantic, biocentric, attitudes towardthe valuesdominate intrinsicvalues dominate naturalenvironment Economic worth of Nature does not haveto thingsparamount be used or sold to have Focus on material and value instrumental values *These valuesare often Thesevalues oftenseem viewedas impractical and selfish, exploitative and unrealistic in a crass in a biocentric utilitarian value context value context 4. Dependence on nature •Agriculture, ranching or Professional, clerical, for a livelihood logging occupations manufacturing and other *Fur pelts, game meatand types ofjobs that often crop/domestic animal do not use natural production requires resources in raw, wildlife harvestand unprocessed condition control Jobsare distant and *Self identity (especially indirectly dependent on formales) tied tonature using nature or natural dominating and resources exploiting occupation or recreation (e.g., Did you get your buck?) RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 129 gence of an urban, postindustrial society and the advent of 1993). But such expression of social value is the subject of the environmentalmovement. the next section. The range management profession (the SRM began in 1948) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were establishing themselves in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet their The Expression of Rangeland Social Value value systems and cherished symbols (e.g., SRM Trail Public have been conditioned to Boss) were firmly rooted in traditional conservation and rangeland managers rural values of a era. An BLM respond to values