to Welcome to Welcome
Swan Valley residents, working through the Ad Hoc Committee, earlier
this winter developed a vision statement about how they felt America's forests
should look "in a generation or two." That statement recently
made its way to the American Forest Congress in Washington D.C. (see Vision
Statement).
Tom Parker, local outfitter and guide, carried the vision statement to Washington
last month. At the March 28 meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee in Condon, he
presented a summary of his experiences.
The American Forest Congress brought people from widely different backgrounds
together in one location to try and develop an overall vision statement
regarding the future of America's forest lands.
According to Parker, the development of a general forest vision statement
that could apply to all of America's forests "was pretty hard to do."
"But, if you defined what forests-public, private, industrial-then
you could accomplish that goal," Parker said during a recent interview.
The goals of the Congress were inhibited by the failure of the planners
to recognize that it would be difficult for a single vision statement to
apply across all descriptions of forests, Parker explained. He was very
pleased, however, with the process utilized at the Congress to bring people
together to discuss their various ideas.
"It was one of the most unique experiences of my life," he said.
The Swan Valley Ad Hoc Committee was one of only about 50 groups nationwide
asked to conduct roundtable sessions in their communities to develop a
local vision statement that could be presented and discussed at the Congress.
The process used locally to write the vision statement was very similar
to the process used inWashington.
At the Congress, Parker explained, the problem solving methods cultivated
an atmosphere where people could develop an understanding of other people's
beliefs and values which enabled the participants to find common ground.
Strict rules of order were enforced. The structure of the meetings allowed
participants to build and maintain trust and respect for each other, and
each person was held accountable for enforcement of rules within his or
her group.
Ad Hoc meetings in the Swan Valley employ similar problem solving techniques
that allow residents to develop a positive dialogue.
The 1400 people who attended the Congress inWashington D. C. represented
a wide spectrum of interests. Rural communities, such as Swan Valley, were
represented, along with urban areas. Industry was "heavily represented"
he said, along with people who had extreme, single-purpose objectives -
"protectionist" type attitudes.
Overall, Parker saw that the vision statement developed by Swan Valley residents
was quite similar to other statements presented by representatives of small
rural communities.
The only criticism he had of the process, was that, by nature, the final
products are "diluted" somewhat, in order to reach consensus.
"In trying to develop a comprehensive vision, some key elements are
lost.....in trying to integrate everybody," he said, adding that local
people who worked on the vision statement through the Ad Hoc Committee,
also experienced some frustration because the process tends to dilute some
critical and important contributions. "But other things get improved
in the process," he said, indicating that participants acknowledged
that tradeoffs and compromise were sometimes necessary.
The Principles we believe should guide us in achieving this vision
are:
Ecosystem management, including the idea that humans are a part of the ecosystem,
is understood and applied on all forests. This relatively new management
idea is recognized as a process for learning about forests, as well as a
concept of land stewardship. It is understood that achieving forest health
must include restoring those forests that are less productive due to past
practices.
Healthy forests are sustainable and reflect the cultural, economic and spiritual
values of the people-values that include a respect for the land and its
natural processes along with respect for the people who work on the land.
These values also include an appreciation of the unique elements of forest
ecosystems, and an understanding of the need to balance resource use and
consumption with resource protection and conservation, especially in light
of the world's increasing population. Human activity and industry mesh with
nature's designs and constraints; nature is not made to conform to human
activity.
Landowners-public and private-work together with local communities and continue
to strive for sincere cooperation in order to avoid damage to each other's
objectives.
National Forests, parks and wilderness areas continue to be held by all
Americans, and are managed by the Federal government. Existing laws that
protect the air, the water and endangered species, remain intact.
However, forest managers have some flexibility in establishing sustainable
objectives as they work with community partners, including neighbors and
local citizens, but they also have more responsibility and are more accountable
for their actions as they relate to forest health. People value and respect
scientific knowledge but recognize that science doesn't have all the answers.
The expertise of scientists is supplemented by the practical experience
of those who live in or near the forests.
Wilderness areas and national parks continue to be protected from development
and resource extraction. Historic components of wilderness areas and national
parks, including natural and man-made phenomena, are protected and preserved
because of their educational and cultural importance. Roadless areas where
the value of wilderness transcends potential benefits from commercial resource
extraction are added to the National Wilderness Preservation System and
managed accordingly.
The needs of the people continue to be met with a sustainable supply of
forest products from American lands, rather than with forest products resulting
from overcutting in Third World or other foreign countries.
The people's recreation needs are met by low-impact opportunties provided
on both federal and private land. Campgrounds and interpretive sites are
available and affordable for public use and education.
The concrete Next Steps that we believe individuals and organizations
can take to move us toward this Vision, based on our identified Principles
are:
* Identify ecosystems and define "ecosystem management" on public
lands. Start using the concept and let experience define it. (Don't agonize
over the definition.) Go slow-learn as we go.
* Carry out demonstration research projects on local ecosystems, with input
from knowledgeable local residents and communities.
* Adopt successful research projects on a larger scale.
* Base management theories on successful research.
* Make results of research projects available to the public.
* Allow forest administrators to enter community partnerships.
* Assure a sustainable supply of forest products by addressing both sides
of the supply-equals-demand equation.
* Increase supply by reducing waste and with aggressive silviculture (principally
on private forests but also on particularly suitable public lands.)
* Decrease demand by changing consumption patterns and by substituting other
materials for forest products in many applications.
* Use managed and unmanaged forests as classrooms to develop appreciation
for land and forest processes and to relate concepts of earth ecology.
* Provide incentives for forest workers and private landowners to become
trained in forest stewardship.
* Stop exporting logs.
Public Lands.
* Streamline top levels of the Forest Service, Parks Service, etc., and
put more money, accountability and responsibility on the ground level and
in the forests. Make Forest Service District Rangers more accountable.
* Increase the number of people working on the land and decrease the number
of people in administrative positions (middle management).
* Revamp fire management policies in wilderness, taylored to specifc ecosystems.
* Some areas need fires to be induced to reverse decades of non-management.
* Other areas must have some management to prevent catastrophic fires.
* Other areas should be left completely alone-no human interference.
* Use wildlife needs, not arbitrary boundaries, to determine the necessary
extent of protected corridors.
* Harvest blow-down and burned areas where this is the best use.
* Minimize new roads on public lands.