Subject: NEW FORESTRY: THE DEBATE CONTINUES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
New Forestry, like New Perspectives (maybe as a part of New
Perspectives) is much maligned because it is new and we just haven't
quite figured out what it is. Logan Norris, head of the Forest
Science Dept. at Oregon State University, helped to clear the air on
New Forestry recently. I thought you might want to see it. 3 pages
follow. Dve...
-------========X========-------
ECO-WATCH
3/15/91
NEW FORESTRY AND THE DEBATE
Logan Norris
Department Head, Forest Science
Oregon State University
This essay was prepared in reaction to Bill
Atkinson's presentation to the Oregon Society
of American Foresters in Eugene in May 1990
(excerpts published in the summer 1990 issue
of Western Banner, a publication of the
Western Forestry and Conservation
Association) and the Jerry Franklin/Bill
Atkinson debates during the new forestry
tours sponsored by the Western Forestry and
Conservation Association this summer and
fall. While these events triggered the
essay, Logan emphasizes the message is
directed to the forestry profession.
The debate about new forestry is not only polarizing
our profession, but eroding the public's confidence in
our profession as well. The polarization occurs in part
from failure to understand what new forestry is and how
it fits in with the changing values of our society, and
in part from the manner in which foresters debate. This
debate is reducing the public's confidence, which is
already low, because it appears that a significant
segment of our profession is unwilling to seriously
consider the new approaches wanted by society. Debating
is not the culprit, but rather, how foresters are doing
it! The tendency toward confrontation and either-or
solutions is destructive and must stop.
What is New Forestry?
In contrast to most forestry terms, there is not a
commonly accepted definition of new forestry. In fact,
it isn't any one thing. I see it as the adaptation of
forest management to embody newer concepts from
ecological research which are believed, but not yet
validated, to provide a different mix of values from
forests, and will maintain a broader array of future
options. New forestry manages collections of stands
across landscapes and deals with them in aggregate over
time. It gives more attention to how these stands
relate to one another and how these relationships might
change with time. The purpose of new forestry is to
attain the more complex array of management objectives
that society wants.
Society's Values are Changing
Many foresters have felt that "good" timber management
is good for-everything-else management. The problem is
that good does not tell much about the level of value
assigned to the various good, services and
characteristics which are part of the forest. For
instance, if society's level of value for
non-commodities is not very high, then it doesn't take
much to make the statement true.
Forty years ago most of society did not place the same
level of value on non-commodities as today. There was
a lot of seemingly undisturbed forest, and society was
busy tackling other issues such as worldwide economic
depression, world war, cold war and acquisition of
affluence or creating "a better life for our kids."
Today's society is relatively affluent, well educated
and politically astute. The forest patterns they see
represent a loss of a forest heritage which they value
highly.
Society is becoming increasingly aware that nature
works as a whole rather than in pieces, and it assigns
a higher level of value to the forest, not just the
trees which are part of the forest. More attention is
desired for aesthetics, recreation, wildlife and the
like. So, management objectives, on public lands at
least, must result in a different emphasis in the mix of
values. Of course, society wants wood products as well,
but these new broader societal goals may not be as
compatible with good timber management as the old ones.
Thus, the challenge is to find new ways to manage that
achieve the specific set of objectives adopted for a
particular landscape. New forestry is an attempt to
meet this challenge.
The Debate
Foresters are debating the tools--new forestry versus
old forestry--but these tools are surrogates for the
objectives of management, about which society disagrees.
Let's grow trees, lots of them and real fast. Or, let's
save the ancient forest or the last or largest remaining
stand of...for the sake of biodiversity and our souls.
These very different objectives of management are
legitimate and appropriate, but obviously not for the
same areas.
The reality is that society needs and wants both.
Insisting that foresters maintain current emphasis on
timber values ignores the obvious demands of a society
with changing values. Argue all you want that society
doesn't understand. The fact is, society demands
change. Equally, arguing for the abandonment of active
timber management across much of the forest landscape
ignores the obvious demands of society for forest
products, economic and social stability, and the
comforts of our consumer-oriented lifestyles. Neither
extreme is responsible forestry for today's society.
Society probably doesn't understand that the forest is
a finite resource, and all uses can't be fully
satisfied. The challenge of the forestry profession is
to help society select an optimum mix of values that in
turn can become the objectives of management.
What approach is best? A professionally responsible
approach identifies and discloses to landowners a
diversity of possible objectives, and the various
methods for their attainment, with analysis of
trade-offs. There are multiple owners of every forest.
Public landownership is obvious; however, the public
also has some level of ownership of private lands, as
evidenced by the laws which regulate practices on
private lands.
Debate is important, but it must be thoughtfully done.
How else can foresters exchange perspectives and
evaluate positions which may be different from our own?
The Bottom Line
Let's move this debate to a higher plane. All
foresters have said and believed in the concept of "the
greatest good for the greatest number in the long run,"
somehow thinking what was accepted as good was
reasonably constant over time. But that was naive. The
forest management strategies of 1900 were accepted as
appropriate to the needs of society of the day, but the
needs of the 1990's society are quite different. Today,
the greatest number is saying that what constitutes good
is different. Society expects foresters to adjust their
management techniques to meet the objectives society now
expects for forest lands.
New forestry in its present form is one approach to
this end. I have no patience with those arguing "it
hasn't been tested so it shouldn't be used." Forestry
at this scale cannot be tested by plot-level
experimentation. Use is the test, and the politics of
the day dictate it will be widely tested.
Successful testing requires close alliances between
the research and management communities along with
substantive public involvement. However, key elements
of testing are missing, specifically, (a) clear
articulation of objectives to be attained; (b)
establishment of methods and infrastructure for data
collection, analysis and interpretation; and (c)
evidence of commitment to adjustment of practices based
on the results from the test. The mechanisms for
development of research, management and public alliances
are poorly developed, except in a few areas.
What's the Answer?
Today's new forestry probably isn't the best or the
final answer. I expect science and management will have
to devise and test strategies which will make new
forestry look tame by comparison! So be ready, and
participate responsibly in this important period of
change--perhaps the biggest change in forestry of this
century!
One final point I'd like to make is that forest policy
which will last for the long pull must be biologically
sound, make sense economically, and be socially and
politically acceptable. Failure to achieve any of these
will result in failure of the policy. Many in our
profession seem to be saying what the policy should be.
It is my firm conviction that this is the sole
responsibility of the owners, or the public. Of course,
foresters are also owners, and very knowledgeable ones
at that, so we must be active in the policy arena.
Speak as citizens or speak as professionals and
participate in the debate--just be sure it is obvious
which hat you are wearing.
It is not our job as professionals to select the
objectives of management, only to suggest and accurately
display and explain the alternatives and to carry out
the mandates of the owners. Failure to do so will
result in continued discrediting of the forestry
profession, and the increased practicing of forestry by
other than professional foresters.
From:
Western Banner Vol:3(3), 1990