"All forms of life modify their contexts." -- Lynn White

I took a course that focused on environmental ethics when I was an undergraduate student, and I maintain that it is one of the best things I could have done for myself as a scientist. Understanding the evolution of social and logical thought involved in the approaches we take to the environment is helpful toward both understanding public reaction to environmental management practices as well as learning how to communicate effectively with non-scientists.

Ethics is tricky business. And saying that we want to incorporate public values in forest ecosystem management is easy. Doing it is entirely different. But the opinions and values of the average person in relation to forests should matter greatly to forests scientists and managers. Without the understanding of the public, both science and management efforts will lack the necessary funding and political support needed to advance their causes.

The utilitarian philosophical base of traditional forestry has largely ignored the emerging aesthetic, spiritual, amenity, and ecosystem function value of forests. In general, we (and I say this as a person, not just as a scientist) are now interested in how forest ecosystems fit into the Earth system as a whole. Our management practices should reflect this change in values. Managers should be required to ask the following*:

--- How and for whom should public lands be maintained?

--- What objectives should we use to guide forest management?

These are questions that simply cannot be answered by science.

To that end, we need to delve a little deeper into the ethical basis of things. My environmental ethics professor explained it to me this way: when trying to reach a conclusion to a moral debate, there are four questions that need to be answered. What do people think the problem is? Whose welfare are we considering in the matter? What values matter in this situation? And how do we count what matters? By answering these questions, we can come up with either a prioritizing solution or a balancing solution. Prioritizing solutions satisfy the strongest moral claim in the matter. Balancing solutions seek to split the moral claim equally among those involved.

When it comes down to making the nitty-gritty decisions in forest ecosystem management plans, whether we use prioritizing or balancing solutions is still hotly debated. I suspect that this is a matter that must be decided specific to the situation every time by the people who are directly involved.




* These questions were specifically mentioned in a paper from Society and Natural Resources by David N. Bengston called "Changing Forest Values and Ecosystem Management." (1994)