Since our last blog we have been preparing for our course at Montcalm Community College. Our initial focus will be on problem definition. One can not question the fact that science has made significant advancements over the past 50 years in the technology of forest land management. Today a forest management team is represented by foresters, soils scientists, hydrologists, range conservationists, wildlife biologists, landscape architects, fishery biologists and so it goes. Specialization has become common place. Although the technical knowledge is present, experience has demonstrated the difficulty of forming an inter-disciplinary effort for the benefit of the forest communities. I found a tendency for specialists to become advocates for their area of interest rather than a melding of knowledge to identify the best management practices to accomplish the predetermined goal for treatment. Much of the problem, I believe is the result of not investing the time to define the goal and objectives for treating a particular forest community. I prefer the word community, although most scientists would define the unit as a Eco-system. I find that community is easier understood by the public and it tends to help people understand the fact that the unit is unique and there are many relationships at work within the unit that must be observed and understood. Most communities are defined by site characteristics, such as soil type and characteristics, slope, aspect, slope position, moisture conditions, as well as vegetative cover. The ability to observe and understand these unique communities and the relationships that are constantly at work within each community is, what I consider, to be the missing link in the science of forestry. This is where "Traditional Knowledge's" of our indigenous people offers wisdom and solutions for better management of our remaining forests.
