Chapter 1: Forest Resources Chapter 1: Forest Resources and Public Policyand Public Policy

Text: Cubbage et al., 1992Text: Cubbage et al., 1992

• Manage forested ecosystems to meet society’s objectives; technical fields

• Characteristics:

– Complain about political context within which they work

– Famous for their preference for the outdoors

• More successful resource professionals:

– Combine technical skills + understanding of politics and the political process

– Examples: Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Ding Darling

The Natural Resource Professionals

Over the years:Over the years:• 1800s – sustained yield & game protection

– Professionals persuade and enforce• 1920s – forest protection programs

– Professionals were enforcers• 1930s – game mgmt & wilderness preservation

– Professionals were enforcers• 1940s – multiple use; recreational opportunities

– Professionals were enforcers• 1950s – reconstruction & development• 1960s – environmental + civil rights + antiwar movements

fundamental changes– Interest groups expanded in numbers & membership

• 1990s + – interest in natural environment & challenges to authority– Local conflicts to global problems (air, climate, deforest.)– conflict resolution usually in courts

Over the years (federal land ownership):Over the years (federal land ownership):

• Settlement/Acquisition Era (1800s)

• Disposal (1870s- 1930s)

• Reservation Era (1930s)

• Custodial Management (1940s)

• Intensive Management (1950s-60s-70s)– resources support industries; reforestation, TSI, protection

– cooperative public/private protection programs; multiple use

• Consultative & Advocacy Era (1970s – now)

• Ecosystem Mgmt; Conflict issue settlement in court

What is the importance of public policy?What is the importance of public policy?

• affects forest resource management.

• affects people who use/manage these resources.

• provides guidance/directions to resource users/managers.

• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.

Resource professionals & public policyResource professionals & public policy

• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.

• for resource professionals to be effective contributors to policy development need to understand how policies are formed.

• to be effective implementers need to understand how/why policies are formed.

• should consider importance of public opinion in the policy formulation process.

Two case examples: 1990sTwo case examples: 1990s

• Texas – Timber salvage and replanting

• Cumberland Island – Reintroduction of the bobcat

Case 1: Texas Forestry - Four Notch AreaCase 1: Texas Forestry - Four Notch Area

• The Issue: What was the case all about?

• Major policy (policies) involved in the case?

• Participants: Who were primarily involved in the case?

– Group goals? Strategies used?

• Were there any related issues?

• What were the methods used to expand (fan) the issue?

• The role of the media?

• Public reactions?

• What was the general avenue to resolve the case?

• What were the alternative solutions?

• What was the final solution?

• Who rendered the final decision?

• Was the case settled fairly and equitably? Why? Why not?

• Major lessons learned?

Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas • Four Notch Area, East Texas (1988)

• 55% of area in forest cover; 1 of 4 manufacturing jobs in wood processing

• 1988 Survey: only 6% of East Texans knew timber supports major industry

• mid-70s – Citizen groups took greater interest in the East TX forests

• 1976 – lawsuit to stop clear cutting in national forests in TX led to Four Notch as possible addition to National Wilderness Preservation System.

• 1982-84 – pine bark beetles infestation affected 3500 acres of pine forests

• 1982 – Environmental Assessment was required under NEPA of 1969 before any control action can be implemented to stop infestation

• 1983 – Atlanta FS Reg. Dir. approved EA; Sierra Club appealed to FS Chief but was denied

• 1983 - Salvage operations began with chainsaw crews from 6 states, tried to cut 250-foot buffer to stop infestation that was going 50 feet per day

• 1984 – beetle outbreak subsided; ¾ of Four Notch area timber was salvaged by helicopter logging

• FS mgmt. plan: Dead standing timber – push over, chop, burn with jellied gasoline-diesel mix; prescribed burn ignited from air (helicopter). Afterwards – plant pine in area

Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas

• Sierra Club and the Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR) – environmental groups protested FS is going to create a monoculture!

• 1986 – Newsweek reported Smokey the Bear had complete turn-around and was napalming East Texas Forest

– FS objective – reduce fuel load from dead trees left by infestation

• Earth First! – (radical group) members chained themselves to trees (at Sam Houston National Forest) to stop FS from burning them.

• New media covered events – newspapers and Houston Chronicle played it out

– “Stop the Tree Nazis” – banner by protestors, media showed it plus Forest Rangers sawing off trees that support an Earth First protestor’s hammock

Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas• Temporary injunction

– Filed by TX attorney general on behalf of Sierra Club & TCNOR;

– Stopped FS site prep work and allowed review by federal courts

• Findings: no violation of either law or procedure by FS

• 1987 – prescribed broadcast burn was done; pine seedlings planted as planned

• FS – successful in its management program, but generated bad publicity and ill-will

• Could the FS have avoided the controversy? What could have been done with these players?

– Interest groups and their history – Sierra Club; TCONR, Earth First!– Neighboring landowners– Forest industry – Forest Service

Case 2: Reintroduction of the bobcat in Case 2: Reintroduction of the bobcat in Cumberland IslandCumberland Island

• The Issue: What was the case all about? • Major policy (policies) involved in the case?

• Participants: Who were primarily involved in the case?

– Group goals? Strategies used?

• Were there any related issues?

• What were the methods used to expand (fan) the issue?

• The role of the media?

• Public reactions?

• What was the general avenue to resolve the case?

• What were the alternative solutions?

• What was the final solution?

• Who rendered the final decision?

• Was the case settled fairly and equitably? Why? Why not?

• Major lessons learned?

Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • CI – one of barrier islands off Georgia-Florida coast of the Atlantic Ocean;

more than 20,000 acres

• European settlers – colonized islands in 16thcentury; farmed and released feral hogs, cattle and horses

• Late 1960s --National Park Foundation bought lands in CI

• 1972 – Congress designated most of CI as the CI National Seashore (Public Law 92-536)

• 1982 –most of areas in the CINS designated as wilderness

• National Park Service:

– to manage CINS to provide outdoor rec. & preserve related scenic, scientific & historic values.

– Laws allowed hunting, fishing, & trapping to continue (local residents).

– NPS developed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for CI.

Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • RMP: One project was to document species wiped out and prepare EIS for

their reintroduction. Bobcats received highest priority.

• Involved researchers from Univ. of Georgia & US F&WS

• NEPA and Environmental Assessment (EA) – NEPA requires EIS for any proposed federal action that occur with federal $ or on federal lands.

– EA is the first required document.

– If EA indicates action would have no significant impact on quality of human environment, EIS is not required.

– No EIS Formal FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) must follow an EA; to be provided to the public for review.

Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • Bobcat project: EA indicated no significant impact. Bobcats would:

– help control native deer & exotic herbivores– help return island’s ecosystem to that which prevailed in 18th century. – Possibly prey on wild turkeys.– Seven alternatives prepared

• Public Comments:– 14 supporting letters (including Sierra Club, Wilderness Soc., & US Congress)– 1 petition of 51 signatures (mostly hunters) opposed – threat on turkeys!!!– St. Marys City Council – opposed; chair influenced by local hunters

• The Media:– Early media coverage focus: bobcats kill deer & turkey– Council Newspaper, Florida Times-Union, Atlanta TV news broadcasts– “St. Marys claws at Cumberland bobcat plan” – Aug. 24, 1988, Florida

Times-Union (newspaper)

Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Island National Seashore (CINS) • Public Meetings: next in the EA process

– few people attended

– Researchers:

• focus on bobcats preying on deer was a mistake;

• revised focus reintroduction of former native species was to restore natural biological diversity & meet congressional mandate on parkland management

• Outcome:

– 1988 –EA was approved, 14 bobcats were released

– 1989 – media termed effort a failure; 14 bobcats did not reduce deer population

Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Island National Seashore (CINS) • Lessons Learned? Research team knew & followed the policy but…

• Research team: concluded focus on predation rather than biological diversity was oversold.

• Lessons Learned

– Keep objectives modest, clear, straightforward, and obtainable

– Avoid adverse publicity and opposition

– Incorporate surveys of public opinion esp. in early planning stages of project

– Work with media (PR) – (Pinchot)

What is the importance of public policy?What is the importance of public policy?

• affects forest resource management.

• affects people who use/manage these resources.

• provides guidance/directions to resource users/managers.

• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.

Resource professionals & public policyResource professionals & public policy

• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.

• for resource professionals to be effective contributors to policy development need to understand how policies are formed.

• to be effective implementers need to understand how/why policies are formed.

• should consider importance of public opinion in the policy formulation process.

Elements of PolicyElements of Policy

• purposive (provides direction)

• requires decision patterns over time

• followed by an individual/group (policy makers, enforcers, compliers)

• deals with a matter of concern (ex. differences in values, objectives, methods)

• reflects social choices

Instruments of Policy (how gov’t Instruments of Policy (how gov’t enforces policies )enforces policies )

1.Coercion - use legal system to regulate behavior

2. Provision of services – assistance in many forms (technical, money, etc.)

3. Provision of money/financial incentives (CRP)

4. Gov’t mgmt of publicly owned lands

Forest Policy defined:Forest Policy defined:

• “A purposive course of action or inaction followed by an individual or group in dealing with a matter of concern regarding the use of forest resources.”

• Guides how forests will be used to meet objectives (stated or implicit)

• Determines who benefits from use and who pays cost of management & use

Forest Policy:Forest Policy:• Concerns the human aspects of resource mgmt

• A series of negotiated settlements – from various interactions (groups, agencies, public); no simple answers, only wise choices – over time

• A major part is institutional – negotiated in courts, congress, executive agencies, corps.

• Influenced by exogenous factors – wars, economic crises, civil rights/environmental movements

• Influenced by chance – ex. USFS is in USDA and not USDI (funding for first project in 1876 was rider in seed distrib. prog)

• Influenced by personalities – Pinchot, Roosevelt

• Influenced by blunders –sometimes it’s as dumb as it looks!

Why are most policy statements vague or Why are most policy statements vague or ambiguous? ambiguous?

• Pros (ambiguity desirable)– Provides flexibility for application of expertise– Appeals to a variety of groups with different views & values– If not ambiguous (i.e., if too specific), policy becomes

divisive; identifies winners & losers

• Cons– Difficult to evaluate program success– Invites conflict (interpretations), putting managers in the

middle of arguments

Example 1: Transfer Act of 1905Example 1: Transfer Act of 1905 • “In the management of each reserve local questions will be

decided upon local grounds; . . . And where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.”

• Q: What is the biggest problem here?

• Q: what if majority of those involved have no scientific-based knowledge or no knowledge at all about the biological, scientific, and other aspects of the resource in question?

Example 2: FPLMA of 1976 (BLM)Example 2: FPLMA of 1976 (BLM) • “The public lands must be managed in a manner that will

protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmosphere, water resource and archaeological values” (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) – BLM’s Organic Act

• Q: what is the problem here?– lacks administrative direction

Example 3: MU-SY Act of 1960 (FS)Example 3: MU-SY Act of 1960 (FS) • “The policy of the Congress that National Forests are

established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes” (Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960)

• Q: What is the problem here?

– provides general guidance as to uses of NF but very open to interpretation as to priority of uses in specific cases

Sobering facts on world’s use & removalSobering facts on world’s use & removal (OTA, (OTA, 1984; FAO, 1985; World Res. Inst., 1985 & 1986):1984; FAO, 1985; World Res. Inst., 1985 & 1986):

• 80 – 90% of wood removed from tropical forests is used for fuel; 80% of this is for cooking food/heating homes;

• 1.5 billion people depend on wood for more than 90% of their energy needs;

• an additional 1 billion people depend on wood for 50 – 90% of energy needs;

• ½ of world’s population relies on wood as primary energy source;

• 1.5 billion people are cutting more fuelwood annually than the annual growth rates of forests in their country;

• 100 million people now face an acute scarcity of fuelwood

• ~ 11.3 million hectares or 28 million acres (size of Pennsylvania or Austria) now being deforested annually.

• NOTE THAT THESE STATS ARE 20 YEARS OLD – WHAT DO YOU THINK THE TRENDS HAVE BEEN OVER THESE YEARS?

Your StoryYour Story

• What was the problem/conflict? How did it come about?

• Who were involved?• What was the issue/policy of concern associated

with the problem?• How was the problem resolved?• Given the chance, how could you have improved

the resolution process?

Legislative Breakfast: Start searchingLegislative Breakfast: Start searching

• Start looking up on important issues related to invasive species– important examples– biological importance– economic importance – social importance– who should be concerned and why?

• Areas– geographical areas involved– public/community efforts

• Information/Education– needs– avenues/means

• Others• We will start collecting & collating these issues for discussion in

preparation for the Legislative Breakfast