Hard Lines and Missed Opportunities: How Will We Make Progress in the Debate Over Public Forestland Management?

Nick Hylla

Wisconsin Forest Resources Education Alliance

TPA 9/06

Two years before the Declaration of Independence was signed, Thomas Jefferson wrote in A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “Force cannot give right.” In his writing he expressed a core concept that we have come to understand as justice. It is founded on the idea that the ability and willingness to use force cannot, in itself, define what is just. Justice is the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons. Its aim is social progress based on a system of mutual respect.

In a classroom, learning depends on the justice administered by the teacher. Effective education systems protect a student’s ideas from the teacher’s inherent authority. It is evident that the greater the degree of openness, equality, debate, and reason that a teacher brings to a classroom, the greater the potential for student learning. Students learn to recognize this form of justice as the mutual respect that is often alluded to on their first day of class.

In the public debate over forestland management, two sides have been defined. Each has been willing to sacrifice mutual respect to obtain their goals. In this article, I pose the question, “Can mutual respect bring progress on the issue of public forestland management?”

We can begin to understand the answer by looking at where we are now.

Let’s start with some of the bad news:

• Are you an enviro, tree hugging communist hippy? Or are you a corporate stooge, true believing parking lot developer? If you asked the loudest voices on either side of the public debate, you might believe that you have to be either one or the other.
• The amount of time and money expended on influencing public opinion and winning court cases is staggering. The lack of progress by either side is staggering as well. This in spite of the fact that both sides have a number of compatible goals.
• The solutions proposed by either side are becoming more and more radical. This is an obvious result of a stalemate in which both sides view the solution as outside of the system in which they are working. The “logical” conclusion for each side is then to get rid of the system entirely.

And some good news:

• Across the nation, opposing groups are adopting one another’s goals. Environmental groups are increasingly seeing forestry as a necessary and productive land management tool. Renewable energy is a buzz-word in industry circles. The post-harvest landscapes of SFI certified harvests and FSC certified harvests are indistinguishable in many aspects – reflecting a convergence of practice from two different starting points.
• In Wisconsin, some collaborative efforts are showing progress. Think of the WI K-12 Forestry Education Program (www.leafprogram.org). Stakeholders from across the spectrum have contributed to the development of an education program that is receiving acclaim from industries, agencies, organizations, and educators.

The fact that Wisconsin forest stakeholders from different sectors and with different experiences can agree on the knowledge base required for forestry education from kindergarten to twelfth grade indicates to me that we are not as far apart as we are led to believe. The empathy deficit is not as great as it seems.

Why should we believe that there is no middle ground of truth and understanding that lies between the interpretations of either side? How long can we go on thinking that most people fit into one of the stereotypes developed by the opposition? From my experience, few people have proven to fit either description, yet the stereotypes persist due to social polarization.

Polarization occurs as groups become more isolated from one another. Instead of investigating issues, people tend to identify with the loudest public voices on one side because of their similar beliefs on one or two specific issues. As the debate grows in intensity and complexity their issue of importance becomes lumped into a position that grows farther and farther apart from other viewpoints. What is a person to do when the gap between one viewpoint and the other is so great that their only option is a leap of faith into the vast and confusing middle?

Truth is a casualty of polarization. As we constantly search for the information that refutes the supposed beliefs of our opponents, we spend less time attempting to understand issues and working to find solutions. We find ourselves in an echo chamber of people repeating the same ideas from the same viewpoint. We spend less time engaging people of different beliefs in respectful discussion and more time arguing at a distance. A wise woman once said, “Being on the opposite side of a flawed argument does not make you right.” I tend to agree.

A few core principles of conflict mediation are:

• All solutions start on common ground.
• Meaningful collaborations require a certain degree of trust.
• All sides must benefit.

In short, progress on the public lands issue hinges on defining common ground, developing a foundation of trust, and finding solutions that distribute benefits. If you think this is impossible, I ask you to remember that the lessons that Wisconsin teachers use to teach about forestry were developed by environmental educators from the Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education. If you think that environmental educators could not possibly promote forestry and accurately represent forest issues, I challenge you to review the lesson guides or contact someone who did. You might just find some common ground.

We all remember that in 1858 Abe Lincoln famously said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It is my concern that if public debate continues down the current path of polarization and confrontation, the house in question will likely not be made of wood.

For questions, comments, or suggestions contact Nick Hylla at nick@wfrea.org or 715-295-0458.