Subject: ** E-W Readers Forum ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments: It's been a busy fall for me, so this edition covers quite a bit of ground including your feedback on: "Leadership and a Sustainable Future," by Jeff Sirmon (p.1), "Desire and Loyalty," by Zane Cornett (pp.1-2), "Ethical Aspects of Consumption and Stewardship," by Mark Sagoff (pp. 3-5), "Biodiversity Conservation at Center Stage," by Jim Nelson (pp. 5-7), "Biodiversity and Multiple Use," by Doug MacCleery (pp. 8-12). 12 Pages.. Dave. -------========X========------- Eco-Watch 12/21/93 ECO-WATCH READERS FORUM ============================================================================ Your chance to cuss and discuss ongoing topics at the interface between ecology and economics--that is, just about anything to do with public lands management. A caution: Eco-Watch replys you do not want shared should be marked either 'confidential' or 'eyes only.' ....... D.Iverson:R04A ============================================================================ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feedback on: "Leadership and a Sustainable Future"" (E-W 12/3/93) Jeff Sirmon has the lead in the USFS for International Forestry. He recently reiterated his ideas on leadership at the November Forest Service's Women's Network's meeting. Sirmon's philosophy might be summarized as 'building public decisions and public trust.' It certainly seems like the right thing to do. Dave. PS. For those keeping close watch, you'll find that we ran a very similar version of this on Eco-Watch in late November 1991. These are powerful concepts and well-worth a second take. 3 pages. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: PETER TRENCHI:R08F09A Date: Dec 03,93 3:18 PM Interesting that the heirarchical management system is a pyramid or a massive place built strictly for the dead and their stuff combined with some bizarre curse upon all who gain entry. Perhaps, once we get past our deNILE (denial?), we can see that what we have is nothing more than a massive artifact (heirarchical mgmt) of an outdated civilization. Well, gotta go before I come upon some more BULLrushes. PT --------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feedback on: "Desire and Loyalty" (E-W 10/13/93) Date: Oct 13,93 4:42 PM When Zane Cornett isn't working up new things for the Chugach NF in Alaska, he spends time working on the Society of American Foresters' Land Ethics Committee. Recently he sat down and read a bunch of the latest Eco-Watch musings, at one sitting. He felt inclined to comment on what he found and to leave us with his own views on connections--to each other and to the land. 4 pages. Dave. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Dave Ellen:R10A Date: Oct 25,93 2:01 PM Just re-read Desire and Loyalty and the inclusion of The Poetry Within Us. I don't like what is happening. In the president's Proclamation of Forest Products Week, he makes no mention of Forest Products, only the need to "consider" people whose livelihoods are affected -2- by our reexamination of National Forests. What a tragedy! We're getting our morality from "Ferngully" and "Dances With Wolves." There's no nobility of man in the backs of choker setters in the hands of carpenters, or in the hearts of architects. There are no painters of ID teams or GIS managers. Unworthy salmon fishermen, trappers, miners, and bearhunters have no poets. Want a rain forest policy? Check out McDonald's. You'll find one. Exploiters are evil. There is a book on sale at Super Bear in which a youngster joins environmentalists against the loggers. A bulldozer is buried in a landslide along with its wicked operator. Everyone cheers; none for the catskinner. I talked to a group of [preservationists] last week; one says "We have to explain the position of the 'other side.'" You mean the side that drilled for the diesel that runs this ship? Or the one that cut that tree to build your house? Exploitation, thy name is consumer! ------------------------------------------------ From: Brian McGuire:W01C Postmark: Nov 09,93 10:23 AM Delivered: Nov 09,93 8:23 AM Somehow through the miracle of modern technology a copy of your forum on an article by Zane found it's way to the basement of the auditors building and into the inbox of a non forester. However, I have long held that Foresters, if they choose to do it, could be the facilitative leadership to bring both our agency and its own profession out of the current spate of blaming, backbiting, finger pointing, and accompanying feelings of victimization. Most other professions from Wildlife biologist to engineer seem to gather their strength and "moral superiority" from narrow fields, while foresters seem to have had some education in a broad number of disciplines. While it has been a long time since I looked at the curriculum for a degree in Forestry I seem to remember it being broad enough to be able to speak or at least understand the languages of each of the competing "ologies". Who better qualified to find common ground, seek out agreements, keep spirited dialogue alive, than folks with this professional training...why not see youself as professional communicators and brokers of knowledge and opinion instead of buying in to the "tree farmer" label. (I've used that label to hook the emotional side of foresters for years) Enough..I don't care what your view is, I just wish folks would say ....................... "this is my professional OPINION, based on what I know at this point in time, and I cannot but say it based on the ethics of living by my inner truth"....no one can dispute that..we are all entitled to our opinions...only when we couch those opinions and judgements as "fact" do we invite dissention...up to that it is merely spirited debate..Sorry that I took up so much inbox space, but I didn't know where this was going when i started...glad you are keeper of some kind of process! B ------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feedback on: ** Ethical Aspects of Consumption and Stewardship (E-W 10/21) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the path toward sustainability stand three major obstacles: exponential human population growth, technological change (this one may prove to be either an obstacle or an aid depending on how technological change is approached), and increasingly consumptive lifestyles. Population growth and technological change receive much attention, whereas consumption is met with silence. Why? Philosopher Mark Sagoff give us some insight into this puzzle in his "Ethical Aspects of Consumption and Stewardship." He also gives us some insight into economics and how economists have led us into a state where the market economy controls much of our destiny and government economic planners control much of what is left. Sagoff concludes by contrasting ecological economics to libertarian and 'mainstream economic views,' noting that "ecological economics seeks to bring economic activity into sustainable harmony with the natural environment." 8 Pages. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Nat Assn SFS:W01C Postmark: Oct 25,93 5:01 PM Delivered: Oct 25,93 2:58 PM "Society expresses it's will not in answering such surveys but through democratic political institutions -- the public realm where people exchange ideas and persuade each other of visions of the common good." Mark Sagoff This paper disturbed me, not because I disagreed with it in the sense that I agreed strongly with the two schools of thought Sagoff was critiquing. What bothers me is the desire, both on Sagoff's part and libertarian and mainstream economists to exclude values in the deep sense from markets. While Sagoff claims that markets simply reflect "preferences," and he claims that the other two schools of thought simply argue that "preferences" must be allowed to control consumption. The problem with this type of thinking is that it allows us to believe that political arguments are expressions of value, while market interactions are simply preference. We will not go any where towards helping people to see the impact of their consumption unless they understand that their market choices reflect implicit value systems, and actively endorse patterns of resource use which, in the context both of marketing surveys and Sagoff's all to idealistic "political realm," they would disavow. Case in point, ask an environmentalist if they believe less water should be diverted from desert rivers for agricultural purposes. Then ask whether or not they purchase vegetables grown with irrigation water, implicitly endorsing a type of resource use which in the ideal world of marketing surveys and public debate they would not. My point is that with the rise of television and the decline of local politics, combined with urbanization, conservationists must learn to educate people for political action that takes place in the apolitical (or at least notionally value free) realm of the market. Sagoff's defiant remark that "ecological economics refuses to look at society on the model of a market," while appealing to a noble feeling, is appallingly naive and politically impotent. What he proposes is an ecological critique of economics, not an ecological economics. Bill Imbergamo (NASF:W01C) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Owen Griesemer:W03A Date: Oct 22,93 9:27 AM THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE: ONE OF THE MORE THOUGHT PROVOKING ONES TO COME ACROSS YOUR NETWORK. I HOPE WE WILL SEE MORE ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE FUTURE. THE POWER OF TELEVISION COUPLED WITH THE SEDUCTION OF MADISON AVENUE IS A DIFFICULT FORCE TO RECKON WITH IF WE ARE TO REORIENT WESTERN SOCIETY TOWARDS A MORE RESPONSIBLE PATTERN OF CONSUMPTION, AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT LURE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES INTO THE SAME TRAP. I ALSO FEEL THAT THIS SAME FORCE PLAYS A ROLE IN OUR CRIME STATISTICS VIS-A-VIS FUELING FRUSTRATION AMONG THE POOR WHO RESORT TO TAKING BY FORCE WHAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY BUT FEEL THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO. THIS ARTICLE TIES INTO EARLIER ONES THAT DISCUSSED THE FAULTS INHERENT IN THE WAY WE CURRENTLY MEASURE OUR ECONOMY, E.G. OUR LEADING ECONOMIC INDICATORS ARE ONLY "GOOD" IF THEY SHOW GROWTH/INCREASED CONSUMPTION. YET, ARE WE, AS A SOCIETY, HAPPIER AS A RESULT OF OUR CONTINUING MASS CONSUMPTION? ----------------------------------------------- From: Morris L. Reynolds:R04F01A Date: Oct 21,93 10:37 AM Just scanned this; will print (thus destroying a tree somewhere and polluting the environment with a tad more chlorine) and read carefully later, away from this surfeit of leaderless decision-making. A few thoughts pop into my cranial apartment, however. How many people read Plato outside of the universities these days, let alone understand his writings? How many FS employees read Plato? I suspect consumption is one of the foremost driving forces of evolution--hard to separate from survival. Also, I suspect that, to the extent culture (rational choice) fails to direct human evolution "wisely", instinct will serve as back-up for the larger (not human) resolution. Most of my planetary fellows seem comfortable with Rumpole as philosopher, who confronted with the wisdom of giving up cigars opined that he was not about to give up any of any such savorable luxuries in exchange for an additional five years in a geriatrics ward. I tend to practice that myself, whether or not I believe in it more or less than any other ethical article. And, at least in this country, I suspect most people take a reasonably healthful environment and tolerable habitat as given, along with the injunction to "increase and multiply." Interestingly, tuberculosis used to be called consumption... --------------------------------------------- From: Woody Hesselbarth:R01F17A Date: Oct 21,93 10:40 AM Finally! Someone takes on consumption and the siren song of economic growth as the greatest good for America. This follows nicely the article on consumption in a recent issue of WorldWatch. "I consume, therefore I am." and the cultural corollary, "We consume, therefore we are." deserve to be dragged blinking into the light. Thanks ----------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feedback on: "Biodiversity Conservation at Center Stage," (E-W 11/18/93) Conservation of biodiversity is increasingly the topic of conversation. And why not. Humans are a dominating presence on the landscape. We must now make tough decisions as to our presence relative to the presence of other species on this planet. Jim Nelson, Forest Supervisor on the Toiyabe NF in Nevada, recently presented his philosophy on land management and the need to rethink public land management in terms of biodiversity conservation to the Nevada Environmental Conference. Just yesterday we changed the guard in the Forest Service. The shift was more than minor. It was symbolic of the move from Pinchot to Leopold, a shift that has stood near the threshold for many years. Nelson's remarks hit harder with me when I saw them yesterday in part because 10 years ago I might only have dreamed of hearing them from a Forest Supervisor, in part because of renewed hope that we can now institutionalize this fundamentally important shift in philosophy. It is now up to each of us to make Nelson's words and Leopold's philosophy an integral part of the Forest Service. 5 pages. Dave. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Hal Salwasser:R01A Date: Nov 19,93 12:22 PM A very well done paper. We should not lose sight of the fact that Pinchot, Muir and Roosevelt designed conservation 100 years ago to solve the problems that existed and were foreseen at the time. Leopold came along and by 30 years later saw the issues with new insight. He stood on the foundation laid by his predecessors. We face a different set of circumstances than those faced by Leopold. Nearly twice as many people in the same space, for one, and increasingly rapid technological change for another. Plus we have better understanding of ecological things that Leopold sensed qualitatively. Our task is not to put Leopold's ideas into practice any more than straightforward application of Progressive politics, vis a vis Pinchot and Roosevelt would be appropriate. We need to stand on the foundations built by these people; understand why they saw things the way they did; and try to craft a vision and strategy that serves our time and the foreseeable future. We should find threads from native Americans, Muir, Magee, Marsh, Thoreau, Pinchot, Leopold, Grinnell and a good assortment of contemporaries in the new view of how to strike a better harmony between people and land. And the practical dimensions of how to make the view a reality are still in the hands of thousands of citizens, scientists and managers. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: Woody Hesselbarth:R01F17A Date: Nov 18,93 3:58 PM YES!! If we are to adequately answer the criticisms of folks like Ed Marston, this is how we'll get there. Admit that we've failed in the recent past and gut up to take on the hard work of the new reality. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Rogers:S22L02A Date: Nov 18,93 4:07 PM ................................. Jim appears to be someone who is conscientiously looking forward instead of trying to retrofit this agency to past thought processes. This article reminds me of two FS pubs. that I highly recommend: REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC ROUNDTABLE ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, 1993 (write directly to either forest for copies), and CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES TO MULTIPLE-USE MANAGEMENT: AN UPDATE, gen. tech. report RM-196, 1990 (write to Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta.). Both of these publications represent excellent exercises which will hopefully be repeated within the FS in years to come. -Paul ---------------------- From: F. Dee Hines:R02F06A Date: Nov 18,93 4:56 PM No doubt there are many tough decision to be made in the future concerning management of ecosystems and species' habitat. One theme seems to be surfacing more and more; the role of humans in ecosystems. This is where the real "decision space" occurs. As we move into ecosystem management we seem to be talking more about science all the time when what we really should be talking about is calculated speculation by scientists. A few quotes seem appropriate: "The sheer number of reasonable approaches and questions that ecological material can generate means that investigator preference is a major contributor to the results." (from Toward a Unified Ecology, Allen and Hoekstra p.261), also consider the quote by Jack Ward Thomas in the attached document. The state of our knowledge is not as far along as the decisions we must make require. And it may not be proper to once again think technology will solve this problem too. Science (as I understand it) depends on repeatable observations. So unless we want to redefine "science", the real decisions may not be based purely on science. The last paragraph on page 1 is in effect a redefinition of science. We use the term too loosely in saying ecosystem management is based purely on science. most of it is based on speculation and perceived public preference. From: Dave Iverson:R04A Date: Nov 18,93 5:09 PM ....... I certainly agree that EM is politics based on science. That the public must play a large role will become ever-more-apparent as we continue to explore the boundaries of em. When Ludwig, Hilborn, and Walters wrote their soon-to-be-classic in SCIENCE this summer they made it clear that in their opinion we ought to rely on scientists to recognize problems, but that it would be a mistake to entrust the resolution of such problems only to science and scientists. d. -------------- From: Rine, Richard N.:R04F07A ......... Thanks for sharing this excellent paper about a subject near and dear to many of us. I have often found myself wondering about approaches to natural resource conservation that will really work. Frankly I think that it must be a priority of government. We can't leave it to be sorted out by economic forces--in reality, there are more incentives to waste than there are to conserve. From our short-term perspective, the costs are minor--it's future generation who will have to bear the real cost if we fail to conserve. I think monetary economic principles can be used to force the issue--for instance, I wouldn't mind seeing a tax on paper plates aimed specifically at reducing consumption of wood fiber--but I have my doubts that the public would accept much of that approach by government. I've always been somewhat disappointed in environmental organizations for spending so much of their efforts on the supply side of the equation with little on the demand side--I think they could be quite forceful in educating people to conserve resources. Nelson's paper gives us some good things to think about that just may lead to some workable solutions that enable us to do our part. ------------------------------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Gupton:R01F16D07A Postmark: Dec 21,93 12:47 PM Delivered: Dec 21,93 12:44 PM Subject: Engler's quote In one of your recent Ecowatch articles Jim Nelson attributes the quote "Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think; they are more complex than we can think." to JWT. I wrote this quote down some time ago from an article that JWT wrote--when he attributed it to Frank Engler. (just setting the record straight) Merry Christmas! ---------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feedback on: "Biodiversity and Multiple Use," (E-W 12/1/93) In "Biodiversity Conservation at Center Stage: Some Reflections," Doug MacCleery highlights three 'gaps' or 'missing pieces' in the Ecosystem Management puzzle. MacCleery says that these pieces -- "how to deal, or not to deal, with planned resource outputs," "is multiple-use dead?," and "dealing with missing information in resource decision-making," -- were missed by Jim Nelson in his recent talk to the Nevada environmental Conference (E-W, 11/15) and by other writers on the Eco-Watch network. MacCleery concludes by stating that the major problem we face is not so much the complexity of the systems we are dealing with as it is our inability to "forge a social consensus as to how those systems should be managed." 4 pages. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: PETER TRENCHI:R08F09A ...How best to approach the Yin and Yang of outputs and ecosystems? There are several parallels. (1) A TQM principle (as re-iterated by James Lyons in his SAF speech) is to "eliminate numerical quotas..." while our traditional heirarchical management structure is essentially designed to distribute (numerical) targets & dollars and to account for (numerical) accomplishments. (2) The guiding principle of Re-invented Gov't is to focus on "outcomes" vs "old Gov't" focus upon quantified delivery of solutions to problems. (3) And finally, there is the apparent conflict of Ecosystem Management with its focus on desired conditions or states vs the multiple output mutation of Multiple Use. Just as one doesn't hear Yin without Yang, it is safe to presume that we will still have outputs from our ecosystems. What changes is our management model (remember Ecosystem Management is two words). We are taking a highly successful model (known generically as TQM and/or Re-Invented Gov't) and applying it to our business - the management of ecosystems. While Doug's points are essentially valid, they are not necessarily solved by the same-old, same-old. Concerns are that "third world" (a term which, by the way, isn't all that popular with the majority of people on this planet) entrepreneurs will provide outputs (which we now fail to assure) with far greater ecological consequences. This is one plausible postulation. Others include the idea that as we develop the Ecosystem Management model, those entrepreneurs will adopt that model (this is not all that far-fetched since Chile has already received 1900-01 training from a USFS Cadre). For this to happen, the management model must first be developed, tested and taught. With our relative affluence, we are in a better position (than most) to accomplish this. One of the things that is really at stake is economic (or human based endeavor) diversity. Under the output (promise) model this failed to happen since many of the (now suffering) communities had reason to believe that they could (somehow) prosper by staying stuck in the resource processing colony time warp indefinitely. Well, the insect/tornado/fire of social change has stripped them bare / blown them away / cooked their goose and when we successfully demonstrate that this is the effect or result of making output decisions based upon imperfect models / modellers, we provide the incentive for all "Managers" of ecosystems to focus on desired outcomes or states or conditions and accept that the flows will inevitably occur based upon the sustainable capacity of the landscape. Part of the problem associated with addressing only outputs or flows (instead of socio-ecosystems) is that we only deal with a snapshot of that flow. This is an odd (and apparently not always useful) notion that although we call something a flow we only follow it as far as from the stump to the mill. What myriad of other things happen as a result of this snapshot flow? Has the availibility of "cheap" lumber influenced the design of our cities with widespread scattering (suburbia) of wood-frame single family homes? Does this contribute to some of our current social and energy problems? How many reading this ride a bicycle to work? No way!! It's 10 miles! 10 miles?? you only have to drive 10 miles?? Etc. Etc. To truly capture the cost of a specific flow, we must go beyond the typical snapshot and begin to examine what have traditionally been called externalities. Externalities are costs that are not directly associated with a process, but can (fairly) clearly be indirectly associated (NEPAholics does this sound familiar?). As one refines the indirect impact (or flow) web, one quickly bogs down and (Voila!) looking at the ecosystem suddenly becomes more attractive and plausible. So perhaps therin lies the answer, you cannot have Yin without Yang, or states and conditions without flows, outputs and impacts. We are simply approaching the challenge with a different (and hopefully more useful) model. For those of us bought in to the old model, remember that you have no real problem changing automobile models ever few years (ostensibly to take advantage of the latest technology and style). Why should it be any more difficult to change our management model? We are still good drivers (managers). We still go the same places (Caring for the land, serving the people). We're just in a different vehicle. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think it's gonna be a real fun ride. PT PS. After nitpicking some of Doug's points, I must completely agree with his conclusion that our real task is to help forge a social consensus that will support the decisions that we must make on society's behalf. ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Michael J. Skinner:R05A Date: Dec 01,93 4:17 PM ...... An interesting piece, but one area referring to the quest for substitutes and the environmental effects of those substitutes is a little dated. With the runup in lumber prices that has occurred over the last two years and innovations in steel framing components, the use of steel for framing single family residences now costs some 25% less than wood. The cost advantage combined with less waste at the building site, lack of warping, no rot or pest problems, lighter weight for the same strength, and superior earthquake resistance mean that wood is already losing market share to steel. Although steel is used in only 0.5% of new homes nationally, 25% of the new homes in Hawaii are currently framed with steel. Market share is currently limited by the manufacturing capacity of steel component manufacturers. These steel products use recycled steel (scrap is the raw material rather than newly processed ore) almost exclusively -- compared to only in 1/3 of the overall market for new steel products. -10- Projections by the U.S. Dept of Commerce and the building industry indicate a 10 fold increase in use of steel in housing construction in the next few years. (Beware of the math here -- the increase is from 0.5% of the market to 5% of the market.) U.S. producers in this area are competitive so it isn't just more importing. - Mike ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Cindy Swanson:W01A Date: Dec 02,93 11:29 AM One piece of the puzzle is missing in Doug's first premise - the law of supply and demand. If we allow market forces (and public access) to accurately reflect the true social cost of timber use by consumers, we should achieve an equilibrium level of harvest based on this higher price. The problem in the past has been one of keeping the price of timber artificially low thus creating an inappropriately high level of demand. Educate consumers of the price/quantity trade-off and then let the price fall where it may. Doug assumes price will stay the same and therefore demand can not be met without shifting the environmental burden. I suggest a consumer price of timber that reflects social and environmental costs will result in a sustainable level of harvest. And, yes, public lands (FS) will play a role in this supply. Cindy From: Douglas MacCleery:WO Date: Dec 06,93 5:26 PM Cindy, I agree with you entirely that the environmental cost of producing a product, whether timber, steel, or fossil fuel, should somehow be factored into its cost to the consumer. I don't see much progress being made in that direction, however, due both to technical problems (how to put a $ value on those "externalities"), and to lack of political will. We have seen some interest in incorporating disposal costs for products into the purchase price, but even that relatively straight-forward idea, requiring comparatively simple analysis, seems to go begging. The area of "life cycle analysis" appears to be growing. HOWEVER, I am not an economist and have not been keeping up with this field. Maybe more is going on than I am aware of. Do you have any thoughts as to how to practically do what you have suggested? ------------------------------------------------------------- From: Woody Hesselbarth:R01F17A Date: Dec 03,93 10:12 PM A couple of comments. In section 1, Doug assumes that there is no stopping the juggernaut, that current per/capita consumption is a given. He may be right... but if so, he's whistling in the dark to think that a slightly modified status quo will prevent the crash. I think that Doug's analysis of EM "vs" multiple use (or 'objective') is revealing as well. EM posits use (no one seriously is proposing that humanity stand around watching the flowers grow but not picking a few). But use conditioned on allowing a wide range of "outcome activities" (which inherently include "flows") without upsetting the applecart. Multiple use is, more than ever, a code phrase that denotes a narrow range of outputs with little thought to the eventual outcome. His managing some places for multiple "objectives" as against "single use" (whatever that is) seems a way of saying that the status quo is good. In the real world, EM will mean tightly managing unsustainable activities such as mining in a fashion having the least 'impact' on the outcome...preserving a wide range of flows. Not the 1872 status quo! We won't "regain the public trust generally" as long as we cling to the polarizing language and associated cultural mindset of "multiple-use". According to some anthropologists, as language goes, so goes the culture. The old language is killing us. Let's adopt the new words, grow a new culture, and attempt to climb Darwin's ladder a bit further. ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rine, Richard N.:R04F07A Date: Dec 06,93 9:52 AM Doug has clearly articulated some dimensions that have typically been missing in discussions of EM. It is easy to get caught up in the groupthink of hopefulness in praising EM's potential for resolving the intractable ecological and political issues on our National Forests. This is often done from a comfortable conceptual perspective without critical examinination of its broader implications. Doug has done a great service in expanding the debate with this article. In the current passion for reinvention and change, revisiting 'old' principles--such as 'multiple use'--to reassess their relevance may prove that we don't need to wholly replace a "Pinchot paradigm" with the "Leopold paradigm". Maybe we just need a "collaborative partnership" incorporating the best of both icons. -------------------------------------------------- From: James Schmidt:R05F16A Date: Dec 07,93 9:29 PM There are better ways of dealing with deforestation in other countries than keeping our own harvest levels at high levels (eg. import controls, international agreements, reductions in US wood consumption, reductions in log exports from the US). As for volume targets and ecosystem management, I think the two are in fundamental conflict. In the push to achieve those targets (and maintain the budgets tied to those targets) we have too often ignored the impacts of our actions on the ecosystems that we manage . As long as budgets are tied to volume targets, the incentive for giving lip service to ecosystem management will continue. ---------------------------------------------- From: Steven Eubanks:R09F03A Postmark: Dec 16,93 10:48 AM Delivered: Dec 16,93 9:45 AM ..... Just wanted to respond to the paper you sent from Doug MacCleery which was a response to Jim Nelson's paper. I think Doug raised some good points but I would like to offer some additional perspectives. I thought Doug's points regarding "export of envir. effects were quite good. Those same points are being raised here in MN where we're dealing with sustainable forestry. However, my concern is that they are generally raised in the context of advocating greater harvest in the US--which will just keep the ultimate environmental degradation close to home--rather than as a way of suggesting we need to promote ways of stretching our finite resource through use of available and proposed technology. We do need to promote more aware- ness of the real effects of our actions and consumption, but it won't help to shift species extinctions from 3rd world countries to the US! Re: ecosystem complexity, I believe that the real issue is not that "before we do anything, we must know everything" but that we need 1) to manage with more humility; ie, recognize we don't know everything so we maintain options and "save the pieces" and 2) to recognize that traditional management practices for the most part are based on less knowledge of the workings and capabilities of the systems than are ecosystem mgmt practices. Thanks for the articles. Cheers ------------------------------------------------------------------