Editor's Column

Guest Columns

Woods Wisdom

Notes From All Over

By: Gary S. Morishima

Attend any public meeting on forest management and you’ll probably encounter a whole school of red herring. Forums, such as the USFS Centennial Forestry Congress, convened through the use of buzz words, sound bytes and slogans which satisfy media needs and invite involvement, enable perspectives to be shared. Red herrings thrive in such places and contribute to a cacophony of value-laden rhetoric that too often fails to provide the substantive, thoughtful deliberation necessary to ultimately provide clear direction. Red herrings have proliferated to such an extent that federal land managers are rapidly losing the capacity to manage the forests, decision processes are becoming paralyzed, and costs of dealing with administrative and legal challenges are skyrocketing.

What exactly is a red herring? Simply stated, it is an argument that distracts attention from an issue through the introduction of some irrelevancy. Red herring are attracted to debates on forest management because forests affect communities and individuals in ways that touch dearly-held personal values. While they can assume many guises, it’s important to be able to recognize a red herring so that the relevant can be separated from the irrelevant and that the business of decision-making and on-the-ground management can proceed.

The road to forest sustainability is paved with red herrings that can lead decision makers astray because of their superficial believability. Many different species swim in the muck and mire of debates over natural resource management. One is the appeal to authority; it appears when the force of an argument rests on the opinion of a respected individual, sometimes someone who has no expertise on the issue or someone who is knowledgeable but not disinterested (i.e., has a vested interest in the outcome). Another species is an appeal to consequences; it appears when the weight of an argument rests on the belief that something good or bad will happen, but which is not relevant to the truth of the matter under discussion. For example, a belief in Santa Claus may cause a child to be well behaved around Christmas. This species is closely related to wishful thinking, a predisposition or personal bias that leads to a belief that is not founded in reality. For example, suppose someone offers to pay a million dollars to anyone who truly believes that trees can walk. If you can force yourself to do so, you would receive the money; but that would have nothing to do with whether trees can really walk. Loaded words are another species; it appears when acceptance of an argument is based on a secondary, evaluative meaning of a term or phrase in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning (e.g., the word trees is unloaded while ancient forest is loaded). Loaded words are logical booby traps that cause unwarranted, evaluative conclusions to be reached. A favored habitat for this species is media headlines where “spin doctors” ply their craft to influence public perception. Recent examples from Seattle newspapers include “Bush Clear-Cuts a Forest Plan” and “License to Kill.” The most common form of red herring is equivocation and its close relative, vagueness; both these species emerge when an unsound argument appears valid because the terms used have multiple meanings.

The mother of all red herrings for natural resource management seems to lie in a single word, sustainability. Do an internet search on sustainability and millions of hits will pop up. How can a single word command so much attention? The term came to prominence after the Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as that “which fulfills the needs of the present generation without jeopardizing the possibilities of future generations to fulfill their needs.” Since then, ill-defined concepts of sustainability have become ubiquitously entrenched in the dialog of policy concerning management of natural resources. “The word is just a symbol, a key to open the door to a room full of growth and development issues.”

The multiple dimensions of sustainability have become keystone topics for speeches and policies. In May 2000, Oregon Governor Kitzhaber described sustainability as the place where environmental, economic and community goals are simultaneously met. The concept of meeting a trinity of needs has materialized in business as the “triple bottom line” where the profits, ecology, and individual wellbeing overlap. It has also appears in academic descriptions of futuristic economic models. A trinity of needs also surfaces prominently in political decision making where the goal is to find an acceptable balance between science, politics, and law. In all these models, the goal is to seek the greatest overlap possible between component elements. The most important thing to recognize, however, is not the components, but rather the lack of a single solution. The goal is not to try to find THE solution, but rather to find one that is serviceable, one that simply works.

Colville Nation greenhouse supervisor Diana Seymour holds a tray of yearling ponderosa pine. The Colville greenhouse program produces sufficient seedlings to replant 6000 acres per year, split roughly between 60% ponderosa, 39% larch and 1% Douglas-fir.

A reason why so many debates over natural resource management seem interminable and unsolvable is because people search for, and argue over, something that doesn’t exist—that magical solution where every need is satisfied for everybody everywhere, all the time—a nirvana where controversy vanishes and resource managers are left knowing what to do and are allowed to get the job done. But the search is futile. Policy makers need to avoid getting drawn into bright line debates about what is right or wrong, good or bad. Instead, they must have the will to make a serviceable decision (supported by sound science to avoid being capricious) in the gray zone and stick with it. Don’t try to defend it against being arbitrary—any decision will appear arbitrary to someone because it will involve concepts that defy unambiguous definition.

In this day when environmental politics stifle the capacity of our public agencies to act, Indian tribes have been able to continue to manage their natural resources. Why? Although laws and regulations for Indian forests differ from those pertaining to public land or private land, the foremost reason is that tribal cultures and economies are motivated by a strong sense of spiritual and moral duty to protect the interests of the generations to come. Tribes have been managing natural resource systems for thousands of years, but protecting tribal legacies for the future is no simple task.

The resources that are essential to sustain tribal cultures are coming under relentless attack from a variety of economic and political forces, and tribes seemingly lack the power to prevent irreversible damage. To a great extent, these threats stem the introduction of an invasive species several centuries ago; Indian tribes have experienced first hand the devastation brought to their resources, communities, cultures and economies from the first invasive species, Europeans (did you catch the red herring?). Throughout the history of this Nation, as non-Indians coveted tribal resources, rationales were developed to justify their expropriation in the name of what’s in the best interests of the Indian, progress or the common good.

The utilitarian notion that the greatest good for the greatest number equals the best outcome has become so entrenched in the public mind-set that it is simply accepted as a matter of truth and logic. But this notion is a red herring that is used to affirm the idea that the “end justifies the means”—that it is somehow right to force minority interests to give way to the majority in the face of conflict. This echoes the argument made by the priest Caiaphas when he decided that Jesus must be sacrificed. It is also an argument all too painfully familiar to indigenous people the world over throughout history.

The idea that the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” should sound familiar to Star Trek fans. In the Wrath of Khan, Spock recites the phrase as his reason for exposing himself to deadly radiation to fix the warp drive of the Enterprise. Close inspection of this utilitarian notion, however, reveals it to be a red herring. Spock’s reasoning only makes sense if one accepts the premise that every life is of equal value. Instead of sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise, what if Spock had held a phaser to the head of a subordinate and ordered him to fix the warp drive? Spock’s action would have been perfectly logical and justifiable. Since all lives are of equal value, it is irrelevant whose life is sacrificed for the good of the many, and surely, as the Science Officer, it could be logically argued that Spock was more valuable to the survival of the crew than the subordinate. But our perception of Spock’s action and the logic behind it would have been dramatically changed because we would have viewed this as an immoral act. The image of Spock as a being driven by logic, confuses the validity of the “good of the many” argument and his self-sacrifice. This is a red herring. The matter at issue is not the truth of the utilitarian notion, but rather the moral question of who has the right to decide.

The temptation to impose paternalistic or utilitarian values onto the use and management of natural resources can be overwhelming. For Indian resources, both morally and ethically, outside forces must resist this temptation and instead trust in and respect the right of tribal self-determination.

Tribes have a duty that no other government or agency has, an obligation of stewardship to preserve their cultural and spiritual heritages for future generations; a profound covnenant far stronger than administrative fiat or the force of written law could ever hope to approach. Permanence of place imparts an unparalleled continuity to community-based decisionmaking for forestry. In making their decisions, Tribes draw upon the knowledge gained by their ancestors in working with the land, but maintain their focus on protecting the interests of the generations to follow. Tribes must live with the consequences of their decisions everyday in ways that few outside tribal communities can understand or appreciate. The forests provide jobs, commodities for commerce, foods, medicines, fuel, shelter, fish, wildlife, water, and countless other things that affect the everyday lives of the people. If tribes log, they receive income and see the stumps. If they don’t manage and their forests succumb to wildfire, they get to feel the heat and inhale the smoke. Tribes believe that all things are related and alive with spirits; but they have also learned that they must utilize and manage nature’s gifts of trees, plants, fish and wildlife in order to maintain the health of the resources they depend upon to survive. The reality is that non-Indian management of natural resources has hardly been admirable; some of the best models for sustainable forest management in the country can be found in Indian country where tribal governments have made their own decisions for the benefit of their own people.

To be sure, like other communities, tribes have entrepreneurs, lawyers,politicians, religious practitioners, hunters, fishermen, gatherers, artisans, recreationalists, and even a few fanatics. But tribal governments must still make decisions, take actions, and be accountable for them; indecision not an option, nor are endless appeals through legal processes on matters that are fundamentally issues of policy. These are matters that only tribes can decide for themselves. Tribal sovereignty is central and essential; the tribal right and authority to choose their own path to forest management and sustainability must be respected and supported, unequivocally.

A simple equation can illustrate the paramount importance of community for sustainable forest management. The parameters that determine well being, satisfaction and cost, are socially and culturally determined. Researchers are just now beginning to recognize the importance of community participatory involvement in developing the interactional capacity to address pressing forest health needs. Sturtevant et. al. (2004) noted that community con-text matters, that decisions must be made at a scale that “evokes shared values, collective action, and a sense of place.” Tribal communities are prime examples where these characteristics abound—a shared cultural identify, continuity of place, interactional capacity, and a moral ethic founded in resource stewardship.

Colville administrative forester Randy Friedlander stands on a deck of tree tops in the McAllister sale area near Central Peak on the Colville reservation. Thanks to the reservation’s cogeneration facility, foresters used the option of bringing whole trees to the landing for processing rather than use a conventional lop-and-scatter slashing prescription. This wood will be shipped for biomass hog fuel, generating revenue while leaving a clean forest understroy that sets the stage for future prescribed burns.

The future of forest management will depend upon the ability to find a path that leads to greater individual responsibility and collective accountability for decisions that affect the land, air, water, and all things that run, crawl, swim, fly, or grow roots. That path can only be found by staying focused while slipping and sliding on the slime of red herrings and following a process that collaboratively and cooperatively engages people and gives them a stake in the solution.

The politics of forest management has an ecology of its own, defined by the complexity of nature and decision making systems that provide for the expression of social, economic, legal, and scientific perspectives. Thousands of words have been written in vain to try to capture a universal vision for forest management or define sustainability. It’s like trying to staple Jello. It’s futile to try. There’s little to gain and lots to lose by losing sight of the real questions of what is to be sustained, how, and at what cost.

Decisions must be made, priorities set, and strategic actions taken to sustain our forests. The active involvement of Indian tribes in the public debate over forest sustainability could help find a path to a cohesive public forest policy. Tribal forests can serve as valuable models for community-based decision making for management of natural resources. But tribes need to thoughtfully weigh the consequences before they decide. Should they engage the debate and welcome outsiders to learn from tribal knowledge and experience? Doing so may help alleviate some of the landscape scale problems that result from the inability to manage, such as insects, pests, and wildfire, and pose serious threats to tribal forests, but could also invite mischief from those who may wish to impose their will on tribal management prerogatives. Or would tribal interests be better served by taking take care of their own business, staying on their present course, and trusting that they will be able to con-tinue to make their own decisions as to how to manage their forests to meet the needs of their own communities in the future?

Gary S. Morishima
Technical Advisor, Quinault Nation, Quinault Mangement Center