I find this discussion vital. Please don't take it off list.

Co-opting of robust words by folks who disagree with our own viewpoints is legitimate and happens on every side of every issue. One needs to be neither a "trickster" nor a "dumbass" (I suppose those words need some definitions by the user before we assume they are meant to disparage or to condescend) to use words "belonging" to the other side, whichever side that is. The challenge is to use words--any word--precisely. That is what science must do. Sometimes accuracy is a function of the observer and his/her own set of targets; "precise" may have subset meanings in a universe of similar meanings, but I think its muddled meaning has something to do with saying what one means to say.

If we use the term biodiversity, are we including invasives as part of the equation? weeds? pesky ruderal natives that are responding to changes in the environmental conditions of the system?pre-contact natives only? what? I don't think Al G. would appreciate the nuance of that, but as scientists, we must at least recognize that there are nuances. We don't own words by using them; we own words by knowing them.

"Sustainable"--purloined now by those rude agriculturists who decided that "organic" was not precise enough--could include single-species stand management or self-reproducing forests or no-input forestry or low-input forestry or no forestry at all . . . or what?

"Forest Health". Now there's an imprecise term! I think anybody should be able to use it, to whatever effect is desired. It is basically meaningless unless a viewpoint and some sort of value judgment are applied, and that means it ain't science . . .

"Young Successional Habitat". A legitimate, useful term, maybe even precise, but . . . habitat for what? successional as a step along the way to maturity (of the system? of the individuals in the system?) or in the anthropocentric, teleological theories of evolutionary ascendance? a description of a disturbance response that begins as a low diversity situation, moves toward maximum diversity, then retros to a lower-diversity stability? what?

Let's not even get into "wildlife" and that term's relationship to game animals, insects, charismatic megafauna, biodiversity, fungi, dicots, monocots, party animals--the implications for a search for precision boggle the mind.

What a challenge! As scientists, we should question every word we write, and look at every side of every issue. We should be skeptics. We should be wordsmiths. We should be precise. (It is easy to be accurate if we are defining our targets--so I think accuracy is really not a part of science, but is rather the stuff of technology.) And, I think we should engage in these discussions coldly, without rancor, with some basic, good-natured humor.

I know that everyone on this list will not consider themselves to be scientists, and I know that many folks will not find it necessary to take their viewpoints and politics (their passions, as it were) out of their postings. But who is going to do that if we don't? I can't decide if "beliefs" are part of science or the scientific method. As scientists, we all have 'em--beliefs, that is--and some of us have passions, and poems, and finely honed viewpoints. That's a good thing. But, beliefs need not be based on truth, and are probably more often based on persuasion (that is, the act of having been persuaded). So, I guess that's not science either.

Here's my point: discussion is a way to some sort of truth. Why wouldn't we want to reach those plateaus? We need to label our beliefs as beliefs and bring that sort of integrity to the discussion. The rules of the game involve using precise terms, dispassionately, to develop the substantial persuasions of our beliefs. We own those precise terms by knowing how precise they are, not by using them, even eloquently, to support our beliefs.

So, please stay on list with these discussions. I get a kick out of them, and I think they all go somewhere good.

Thanks.

David B. Kelley

Bob Leverett, July 27, 2009

David,

I enjoyed your even-toned dissection of the subject of the co-opting the terminology of one group by another and want to respond to your call for keeping the discussion going. I'm fine with doing that. Let's see if that can happen. Exploring the use of controversial terms like forest health from the perspective of different stakeholders could be instructive to members with a minimal background in forest management and forest protection issues.

I'll begin by saying I would agree with you that terminology co-opting happens and is going to continue happening. However, I would hesitate to give the process my stamp of approval under the good-natured, sharing feeling that the co-opting process merely reflects differing points of view coming out from equally valid perspectives - just different. Where government is involved and public misinformation/disinformation results, do we really want to approve of that?

When, partly in jest and partly not, I referred to 'dumb-asses" and "tricksters" as groups and individuals using the package of quasi-forestry terms/phrases that I listed, I was in a bad mood and was reacting to a particular state-level forestry bureau and its timber lobby and academic supporters who are trying to soften up the public and make palatable some very distasteful things. I should have made that clear. Better yet, I shouldn't have expressed my peek on this list. But the behavior of the public organization, which despite the obvious, I will not directly name, has led to many of us here in the Bay State questioning its competence and motivations. Several of us could cite a litany of specifics, but that would open old wounds and misdirect the principal focus of our list. Not a good idea. Better that we strive for a higher tone in ENTS.

Now to the discussion at hand. F orest health, sustainable harvesting, biodiversity, fire prevention, public safety, and wildlife habitat are all valid concepts at some level of intent and application. As you suggest, the proper course of action for any one employing those terms is to define the context in which they are being used and to provide a specific meaning for each appropriate to that context. However, it should come as no surprised to the initiated that this is often not done in presentations by the timber interests garnering public support. Still, the timber industry is doing nothing different from that done by other advocacy groups. However, the public should be especially vigilant of the use of the referenced terminology during presentations by public officials seeking public support for planned logging operations in areas where public opposition is expected. There is likely to be skullduggery afoot.

Now that I have explained myself better, I welcome anyone who would like to choose one of the previously listed terms/phrases and describe how they see it being used by the various parties to the on-going debate across the nation about the role of our forests. Ed Frank is rich in ideas and concepts. Lee Frelich is a quintessential scientific voice. Russ Richardson is a conscientious private forester voice. I could go on, but there are many members with important observations to make.

Bob