For many participants the most concrete result of the Congress was working together in a process designed to encourage and enable honest opinions and respectful listening. Having nametags with just name, town and state, no affliation or employer, helped that opennessyou had to engage without preconceptions. The masks of "them" or "the enemy" that we paste on "the other" slipped a bit, revealing the person and the labels became "Bob" and "Emerson" and "Karen". That deeper understanding and those personal connections should stand us in good stead for the substantive work of finding common ground and healing divisiveness to assure perpetually healthy forests has just begun.
Our assigned task was "to reach a common vision for the future of America's forests, to agree on principles to guide us toward our vision, and to plan the next steps". The vision statement (see below) went through several reiterations and voting rounds. The list of principles developed and voted on is too long to reproduce here. A copy will be available at the MEC for those interested.
As might be expected, crafting statements that would achieve a high degree of acceptance produced some artful ambiguity, but three general categories of issues were delineatedgeneral agreement, deep disagreement and, in between, those that further dialogue might produce general agreement.
Here are some random thoughts and observations about specific results and general ambiance:
* I was disappointed that the forest industry has not yet matured, as have electrical utilities and urban water suppliers, to the point where demand management is considered an integral element of any sustainable forest policy but was pleased that respect, reverence and humility were accepted by the majority as appropriate management attitudes.
* The mantra of "Private property rights" was expanded to include "responsibilities", a crucial addition if we are to avoid anarchy and care for the social fabric. "Stewardship" was also frequently heard.
* A deep division still exists between industry's view of private lands and public lands. For example, the idea that below-cost sales of public timber should end did not receive majority support. Apparently, public property rights are not as respected as private.
* Professionals from other states were astounded to learn of L-P's practices and inventory level. Westerns had difficulty hearing that community devastation was occurring because of private property management; they are accustomed to blaming the national forests.
* The forest as a timber source still is the major paradigm, with recreational usage, including my bte-noire of destructive OHVs, a close second. The vision of a native, mixed forest ecosystem productive of many values has few adherents; those values are relegated to a few set-asides, i.e., parks and wilderness areas.
* Though a statement specifically condemning the Salvage Rider was rejected as a principle (many believed it inappropriate for a long-term statement), the majority did agree with the principal that land management decisions should comply with existing environmental law.
The Congress closed with an inspirational address by Jamie Pinkham of the Nez Perce tribe. He commented on the significance that this was the seventh such gathering in over a century. There are the four directions and the father creator and the mother earth and seven is the point of balance between them all. Seven also reminds us of our responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions upon seven generations hence.
Vision For The Future Of America's Forest
Product of the Seventh American Forest Congress
In the future our forests...
...will be maintained and enhanced across the landscape expanding through reforestation and restoration where ecologically, economically, and culturally appropriate, in order to meet the needs of an expanding human population. (G 85%, Y 10%, R 5%)*
...will be sustainable; support biological diversity; maintain ecological and evolutionary processes; and be highly productive. (G 75%, Y 18%, R 7%)
...will sustainably provide a range of goods, services, experiences and values that contribute to community well being, economic opportunity, social and personal satisfaction, spiritual and cultural fulfillment, and recreational enjoyment. (G 88%, Y 8%, R 4%)
...will be held in a variety of public, private, tribal, land grant, and trust ownerships by owners whose rights, objectives and expectations are respected and who understand and accept their responsibilities as stewards. (G 90%, Y 7%, R 3 %)
...will be shaped by natural forces and by human actions that reflect the wisdom and values of an informed and engaged public, community and social concerns, sound scientific principles, local and indigenous knowledge and the need to maintain options. (G 84%, Y 11%, R 5%)
...will be managed consistent with strategies and policies that foster forest integrity and maintain a broad range of ecological, economic, and social values and benefits. (G 79%, Y 14%, R 7%)
...will be acknowledged as vital by citizens who are knowledgeable and involved in stewardship and who appreciate the contribution of forests to the economic and environmental quality of life. (G 67%, Y 21%, R 12%)
...will provide a sustainable level of products and benefits that satisfy society's needs because contributions from more efficient utilization, recycling, and other efforts reduce consumption. (G 34%, Y 31%, R 35%)
...will be managed with consideration for the global implications of land stewardship. (G 66%, Y 17%, R 14%)
...will maintain their essential role in protecting watersheds and aquatic systems. (G 68%, Y 14%, R 18%)
...will be enhanced by policies that encourage both public and private investment in long-term sustainable forest management. (G 89%, Y 16%, R 5%)
...will contribute to strong and vital rural and urban communities that benefit from, protect and enhance the forests in their vicinity. (G 74%, Y 16%, R 10%)
...will be managed on the basis of a stewardship ethic with respect, reverence, and humility. (G 54%, Y 19%, R 27%)
*(Green (G) for agreement, Yellow (Y) for mixed feelings and Red (R) as disagreement.)
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited