The Meskwaka Tree Project: Ten Years of Community Forestry Volunteer Development

Connecticut is highly urbanized, with dense tree cover, and this produces tree-versus-people conflicts that include public safety issues. Yet communities lack sufficient resources to develop community forestry programs. This article reports on the development, implementation, and outcomes of the Meskwaka Tree Project, an outreach education program for community forestry volunteers developed based on Roger\u27s Diffusion of Innovations communications model. In 1992, the Meskwaka Tree Project began to equip community volunteers with the knowledge, skills, and contacts needed to create or improve community forestry programs and address public tree issues. Data shows that Meskwaka-trained volunteers helped conserve public trees and improved public safety

Access to Courts and Preemption of State Remedies in Collective Action Perspective

Preemption of common law remedies for individual injuries such as harm to health raises fundamental questions about the proper allocation of authority between the federal and state governments and about the role of courts in interpreting statutes and providing remedies for those who suffer injuries. Developing a workable framework for analyzing what we call “remedial preemption” issues can help to ensure an appropriate accommodation of the federal and state interests at stake and promote consistent application of preemption doctrine to state judicial remedies. This article applies a “collective action” framework for preemption analysis to the issue of remedial preemption. Our analysis suggests that while remedial preemption may be justified in some cases, courts should not lightly infer remedial preemption unless: (1) a primary purpose of the federal law is to ensure uniform standards to promote free movement of goods, prevent the export of regulatory burdens by “downstream” states, or solve a not-in-my-backyard problem; and (2) there is strong evidence that state judicial remedies (as opposed to direct state regulation through legislation or the actions of administrative agencies) would interfere with the achievement of those goals. In addition, we conclude that preemption of one common law cause of action does not necessarily warrant preemption of different causes of action for remediation of the same injury. Finally, we argue that courts should be especially reluctant to read the preemptive effect of federal law so as to leave injured persons without any remedy whatsoever. In doing so we pay particular attention to the ways in which state judicial remedies differ from state regulation by means of statutes or administrative rules, including the differences between legislatures and courts, between legislative rules and judicial decisions, and among possible preemptive effects on judicial remedies. We conclude by analyzing how the Supreme Court’s 2009 holding in Wyeth v. Levine that state tort remedies based on failure-to-warn claims were not preempted by federal regulation of the content of warning labels for drugs comports with our analysis

Access to Courts and Preemption of State Remedies in Collective Action Perspective

Preemption of common law remedies for individual injuries such as harm to health raises fundamental questions about the proper allocation of authority between the federal and state governments and about the role of courts in interpreting statutes and providing remedies for those who suffer injuries. Developing a workable framework for analyzing what we call “remedial preemption” issues can help to ensure an appropriate accommodation of the federal and state interests at stake and promote consistent application of preemption doctrine to state judicial remedies. This article applies a “collective action” framework for preemption analysis to the issue of remedial preemption. Our analysis suggests that while remedial preemption may be justified in some cases, courts should not lightly infer remedial preemption unless: (1) a primary purpose of the federal law is to ensure uniform standards to promote free movement of goods, prevent the export of regulatory burdens by “downstream” states, or solve a not-in-my-backyard problem; and (2) there is strong evidence that state judicial remedies (as opposed to direct state regulation through legislation or the actions of administrative agencies) would interfere with the achievement of those goals. In addition, we conclude that preemption of one common law cause of action does not necessarily warrant preemption of different causes of action for remediation of the same injury. Finally, we argue that courts should be especially reluctant to read the preemptive effect of federal law so as to leave injured persons without any remedy whatsoever. In doing so we pay particular attention to the ways in which state judicial remedies differ from state regulation by means of statutes or administrative rules, including the differences between legislatures and courts, between legislative rules and judicial decisions, and among possible preemptive effects on judicial remedies. We conclude by analyzing how the Supreme Court’s 2009 holding in Wyeth v. Levine that state tort remedies based on failure-to-warn claims were not preempted by federal regulation of the content of warning labels for drugs comports with our analysis

Ready or Not? UConn Extension Disaster and Emergency Preparedness

We conducted an attitude and opinion survey of UConn Extension personnel regarding workplace and home emergency preparedness. Our primary focus was on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Respondents were aware of the benefits of knowing CPR, with a majority having taken a CPR course. Respondents were generally aware of the benefits of knowing how to use AEDs, but only a minority had had AED training. They indicated a preference for home over workplace preparedness training, although they recognized workplace preparedness as important. These findings suggest that emergency and disaster education be focused on home preparedness, which will result in workplace preparedness too

Understanding the Barriers to Using Locally Grown Wood in the Forest Products Industry

Given the popularity of buy local agricultural campaigns, there might be opportunities for Extension to promote the local attribute of wood products. Unfortunately, there is little available literature exploring wood-products manufacturers\u27 attitudes and opinions regarding local wood. In fall 2012, 38 in-depth interviews were conducted with individuals representing a range of firm sizes and final products. Participants provided a definition for what they considered to be local wood and identified four major barriers to the inclusion of Connecticut-grown and -processed wood in their manufacturing: high expense, low visibility, limited demand, and limited availability