Balancing Economics and Ecology

By Thembi Borras

Ask not what your forest can do for you instead ask what you can do for your forest. The reversal of this relationship is not mutually exclusive. Breaking forestland into ever smaller parcels, called forest fragmentation and converting forestland are widely considered "not good" for the forest. It is likely that the forest will benefit if forestland owners are able to withstand the lure of higher incomes from other uses. Forestland owners receiving income from forest management are better able to carry on, thus not fragmenting or converting forestland further.

If receiving income from forest management is key to keeping forestland intact so is forest management in which less than maximum profit is accepted to better support forest related values, including watershed, wildlife, aesthetics and recreation. Balancing economic return and ecosystem return is the challenge for foresters today. Mendocino County and Humboldt County forestland offer some examples of this balance.

Political Scientist William Obhuls stated, "Nature abhors a maximum." Following is Dr. Garrett Hardin's interpretation of this quote: What Obhuls meant by this: that if a you settle on a single measure of excellence, such as profit in a profit and loss system, and decide you're going to maximize the profit, no matter what, you can be quite sure that before you get through, you will have minimized some other value that you hadn't thought of, but which you really have high regard for. So the idea is, don't be so one-minded as to try to maximize any one thing. But instead, say here's a whole mixture of things I would like to have. Profit is one of them. Also, you would like to have beautiful scenery; you would like to have some wild animals, some wilderness areas, and so on; and you cannot maximize all at once.