We are back reporting from New Mexico again. Have been able to renew some of our contacts and find many concerns are still focused on the risk of major wildfires and their potential impact on local communities and landowners. Many believe the increase in the number and severity of the western wildfires is the result of a reduction or lack of management treatments on our remaining forested lands. I would have to support their suppositions. There also seems to be a growing lack of trust in federal government forest land managers, with some discouraged by significant reductions in forest land treatments, while others continue to focus on the economic costs and environmental impacts resulting from management tools and techniques being proposed by the managers. The situation is further exacerbated by a significant reduction of trust in the legislative arm of the federal government. This variety of opinions continues to emphasis my concern that leadership, in most of these land- managing companies and agencies, are missing the important first step in developing informed consent. Somehow we must establish the importance of identifying, up front, the potentially affected interests and developing a plan to reach out to them, even if they do not see the need. It is our responsibility to make sure no one is allowed to avoid participation so as to later undermine the process. Once a detailed plan is completed and a concentrated effort has been completed to identified the potentially affected interests, it is time to start the dialog to define the desired future condition ( goals and objectives ). This may seem like over-kill, but it will save time in the long run and, will provide the best chance that your future steps will not experience, someone exercising their veto authority. I am suggesting that the emphasis must shift to the people part of the equation rather than the technical aspects of the process. Most scientists are comfortable in the technical process and would prefer to be able to skip over the people process. The other concern I have developed has to do with the preparation of environmental documents, such as environmental impact statements. With many years of experience observing, reviewing and studying the preparation of these documents, I have concluded that the majority of these documents present sound evaluation of scientific information from academia, textbooks and the scientist's experience, but usually lack adequate evaluation of the site-specific data obtained by empirical observation in the field. I truly believe these two issues are the primary reasons for increased law-suits and the significant reduction in maintaining the health and diversity of our remaining forests. Our lives are so connected to and depended upon trees and forests, we have no choice but to change our methods and processes which we have relied on for so long!
