Why I resigned from the Society
of American Foresters
Why I resigned from the Society
of American Foresters
This is my way of letting others know why I resigned from the
Society of American Foresters. By using the web, I am saying openly
that I am acting on my understanding of what is right and what
is wrong.
I think it was wrong to adopt a "land ethics canon" just to improve public relations.
I think it was wrong to adopt the "land ethics canon" without being willing to enforce the canon. [In my opinion, this action weakens the other ethics canons].
I think it is wrong to say one thing but do to another.
I think it is wrong to simply ignore the "land ethics canon."
I think it is right to tell the public the truth, even when the truth is "politically incorrect."
In order to be a "strong" canon, I think the wording of the "land ethics canon" should be clear and meaningful.
I think the "land ethics canon" was meant to be applied on a stand level basis.
I think it is wrong to base a land management system wholly on economic motives.
I think it is wrong to base a land management system wholly on ecological motives.
I think it is right to practice intensive plantation management
on 5% of the world's landbase in order to provide a renewable
resource to 10 billion people. 
WHY I RESIGNED
June 5, 1996
Rebecca Stabler, SAF Editor
Letters to the Editor
5400 Grosvenor Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814-2198
Dear Rebecca:
Due to a conflict I have with the land ethics canon, I am resigning from the Society of American Foresters. This conflict arises because I interpret the land ethic literally. In my opinion, the canon makes it "unethical" for me to advocate a nursery management practice that is not consistent with ecologically sound principles. In contrast, I often advocate practices that are consistent with economic principles.
Some say I advocate practices that: reduce biodiversity; increase soil erosion; reduce beneficial mycorrhiza; reduce genetic diversity; and cause a decline in habitat for certain species. Some claim I use chemicals that contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer. After seriously thinking about these concerns, I would have to agree. The main reason I advocate certain nursery and plantation practices is to improve economic returns. I fail to see how these practices are consistent with ecological principles.
If it were not for economic reasons, I would not recommend the use of herbicides (that cause a reduction in biodiversity on a nursery scale). I would also not recommend rotation lengths of 25-years (which reduces habitat for some species). The practice of clearcutting (which may result in a relatively small amount of soil erosion) is mainly used for economic reasons, as is the practice of planting of single clones (which reduces genetic diversity on a stand level). The use of refrigeration (CFCs) for storage of seedlings and the use of soil fumigation (methyl bromide) are both rationalized for economic reasons.
Some suggest I should not take the land ethics canon so seriously. They suggest I ignore the canon and just accept the idea that it was adopted mainly for public relations. Some even argue that it was never meant to be enforced since many foresters do not accept ecologists' definitions of "ecological principles." In fact, the SAF ethics committee recently ruled it is ethical to advocate the use of a chemical which has significant negative environmental effects (when there are apparently no practical alternatives yet available).
If I just pay lip service to our code of ethics, I will be compromising my values. Therefore, by ceasing my SAF membership, I eliminate a personal conflict with canon #1. I no longer need to explain to ecologists why artificial regeneration practices (which I support) are consistent with "sound ecological principles." I will simply say, in my opinion, the economic benefits to society outweigh the environmental risks.
Sincerely,
David South
Note: The letter was sent to the Editor of the Journal of Forestry but it was not published.
A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF CANON #1
December 4, 1994
Dr. William McKee
District X, SAF Council Member
James River Timber Corporation
Pennington, Alabama
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your letter of December 1st. I have such strong concerns about Canon #1 that I believe our society should modify the wording. I recommend eliminating the vague words "ecologically sound principles" and substituting the words "local and national land management laws." I would be grateful if you would bring up this proposal at the council meeting this week.
JUSTIFICATION
Many SAF members may consider Canon #1 to be a "nobrainer." However, I believe it will cause our society problems if we do not take the wording of the canon seriously. In my opinion, a problem occurs when ethics are described with terms we are not willing to define. Cornett, Force, and Radcliffe (JOF; Nov. 1994) " believe" that the phrase "ecologically sound principles" cannot be interpreted literally from either a scientific or ethical viewpoint. From my perspective, this is the crux of the problem! How can this phrase provide real guidance if it cannot be interpreted?
The Code of Ethics is supposed to be an attempt to articulate "good and bad" behavior. However, a colleague of mine pointed out that the phrase "consistent with ecologically sound principles" does not provide any guidance as to right and wrong. His sentiments reflect that of Karl Wagner (JOF; March 1994). For example, if a landowner cut down all the trees on his 10,000 hectares (less than what occurred with Hurricane Hugo), the resulting successional events would indeed be "consistent with ecologically sound principles." Perhaps this is why many consider Canon #1 to be a "nobrainer." No matter what harm we foresters do to the land, the resulting changes will always be consistent with ecological principles.
In contrast, the phrase "consistent with local and national land management laws" can be interpreted literally and does provide guidance as to right and wrong. Laws can be interpreted either individually, by the courts, or by the ethics committee. In fact, an ethics canon stating that we should follow the laws of the land might be more confining to management objectives than a canon that cannot be interpreted literally. Some SAF members (who voted for the current land ethic) might not want to adopt the following ethics cannon: "A member will practice land management consistent with local and national land management laws." Some may not want to follow the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act. Some may not want to follow laws that might become outdated. Although the public relations value may be less, I contend the above is more appropriate in a professional code of ethics.
I can assure you that other organizations are willing to provide literal interpretations of the phrase "ecologically sound principles." For example, in New Zealand, Greenpeace is starting to define ecological principles to guide foresters when managing plantations ("The plantation effect: an Ecoforestry review of the environmental effects of exotic monoculture tree plantations in Aotearoa/New Zealand" by Grant Rosoman; 1994). I am sure that many SAF members will not agree with the ecological principles defined by Greenpeace. Some will say their definition is a "narrow view" of sound ecology. However, a big difference between SAF and Greenpeace is that they are willing to define "ecologically sound principles." In contrast, SAF appears unwilling to develop a list of SAF-approved ecological principles. When the public realizes that Greenpeace has a list of ecological principles, but we do not, won't the public relations value of Canon #1 be wasted? If we are not willing to accept the definition of others, and do not have our own alternative principles, won't the public question who is more concerned over the environment? In my opinion, it will quickly become obvious to others that we really had no intention of changing our ways and that the adoption of the land ethics canon was only a public relations ploy.
Cornett, Force, and Radcliffe (1994) admit that most forestry practices disrupt ecological processes (such as the process of forest succession). Therefore, does the deciding factor regarding whether someone is in violation of Canon #1 depend on the degree of disruption? This seems consistent with the ethics committee statement that "... almost any forest management practices, if misapplied, could constitute a violation of Canon 1"). Apparently, it will be up to the wisdom of the ethics committee to determine when clearcutting a mixed oak-hickory forest is consistent with ecological processes and when it is not. Those of us in the field who advocate clearcutting do not know when we cross the line.
In my opinion, the current Canon #1 will not be taken seriously by most SAF members. Most members do not know which ecological principles are unsound (are all Greenpeace principles unsound?)." I believe a canon which is understandable will be more meaningful and will have a higher chance of being taken seriously.
Bill, I hope the above explains why I propose changing the wording. Thanks again for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
David South
==================
[I realize this is a personal opinion, but I believe my proposed canon is actually "stronger" than the current "land ethic" canon. My proposed canon is actually enforceable!! In some local areas of the world, it would prevent the conversion of a 1,000 ha native forest to pastureland.]
DO INTENSIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE CANON #1?
Canon #1 states that a SAF member WILL "advocate and practice land management consistent with ecologically sound principles." The word "advocate" was added so that the canon would apply to those like myself who do not actually work with the land (JOF:90[8]:40-41). Although I do not practice land management, I do influence some who do. As a university professor, I teach graduate and undergraduate students and sometimes preach about land management to field foresters and landowners. I advocate practices such as planting of fast growing exotic species to both students and colleagues. In general, I try to advocate land management practices that are based on economic principles. In my opinion, many practices that I advocate are not consistent with accepted ecological principles. Some cause ecological damage in that the plantation ecosystem is significantly changed from the natural ecosystem. Some practices reverse the "normal" direction of change in the ecosystem. Practices that I advocate as a professor include: planting of exotic species; use of fertilizers and herbicides; use of short rotations; use of pine monocultures; and in some situations, use of mono-clonal plantations. I assume to advocate these practices is a violation of Canon #1 (unless these practices are consistent with accepted ecological principles). Although I can propose some unsound ecological principles (i.e. we must plant trees now to meet the needs of 10 billion people), I have yet to find ecological principles to support the following practices.
(1) Planting exotic trees is consistent with what ecological principle?
(2) Applying DAP on P-deficient sites is consistent with what
ecological principle?
(3) Advocating short pulpwood rotations for longleaf pine is consistent
with what ecological principle?
(4) Advocating mid-rotation nitrogen fertilization is consistent
with what ecological principle?
(5) Advocating pine monocultures is consistent with what ecological
principle?
(6) Advocating use of herbicides for pinestraw production is consistent
with what ecological principle?
(7) Advocating the use on mono-clonal plantations is consistent
with what ecological principle?
To date, the SAF has not provided me with a list of ecologically principles to support the planting of exotics, the use of inorganic fertilizers, the use of herbicides, the use of short rotations, and the use of monocultures. If the society cannot provide such a list, then saying that we are going to intensively manage plantations in accordance with Canon #1 is basically meaningless (JOF 92:[3]:60).
In order to maintain some form of integrity, I can not
simply ignore canon #1.
In my opinion, I must change my position on intensive plantation
management (to a position that is consistent with ecological principles
listed below),or I must resign from SAF. I choose to resign from
SAF because (1) I believe words are important and (2) I believe
ethics canons should not be ignored.
WHAT ARE SOME ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES?
The Following is from the text "Ecology and Field Biology" by Robert L. Smith (Harper & Row, Publishers)
These principles gradually unfold in the chapters to follow. As yet they have not been boldly elucidated or standardized as the kind of basic laws that one finds in genetics or mathematics. In time they undoubtedly will be: but as a sort of introduction to the material to come, some of the principles might be stated as follows.
1. The ecosystem is the major ecological unit. It has both structure and function.
2. The structure is related to species diversity. The more complex the structure, the greater is the diversity of species.
3. The function of the ecosystem is related to the flow of energy and the cycling of materials through the structural members of the ecosystem.
4. The relative amount of energy needed to maintain an ecosystem depends upon its structure. The more complex and mature it is, the less energy it needs to maintain one unit of that structure, or complexity (Margalef, 1963).
5. Ecosystems tend toward maturity: and in doing so they pass from a less complex to a more complex state. This directional change is called succession. Early stages are characterized by an excess of potential energy and a relatively high energy flow per unit of biomass. In mature ecosystems, there is less waste and less accumulation of energy because the energy flows through more diverse channels.
6. When an ecosystem is exploited and that exploitation is maintained, then the maturity of the ecosystem declines.
7. The major functional unit of the ecosystem is the population. It occupies a certain functional niche, which is related to the population's role in energy flow and cycling of nutrients.
8. Relationships among populations create new functional niches, so that the accumulation of species in an ecosystem, and the increase in maturity, are to some extent self-reinforcing processes.
9. However, a functional niche within a given ecosystem cannot be simultaneously and indefinitely occupied by a self-maintaining population of more than one species.
10. Both the environment and the amount of energy fixation in any given ecosystem are limited. When a population reaches the limits imposed by the ecosystem, its numbers must stabilize or, failing this, decline (often sharply) from disease, strife, starvation, low reproduction, and so on.
11. Changes and fluctuations in the environment (exploitation and competition, among others) represent selective pressures upon the population to which it must adjust. Those organisms that cannot adjust disappear, perhaps decreasing for a time the maturity of the ecosystem.
12. The ecosystem has historical aspects. The present is related to the past, and the future is related to the present.
SOME QUOTES RELATED TO THE LAND ETHIC (and some related to ethics)
"I feel the whole idea of a land ethic was designed as
a quick-fix political statement and no more."
Robert J. Bass (JOF 90(3):10)
"I believe some members have the mistaken idea that an
expressed land ethic, incorporated in our Code of Ethics, will
garner more public acceptance, understanding, and respect for
professional foresters - and SAF. I doubt it will have any impact
on public opinion."
Fred W Haeussler (JOF 90(9):6)
"Clarity is a requirement for good rules. The proposed
SAF land ethic canon is a bad rule because it means different
things to different people. If passed, it will be confusing and
it may be unworkable, damaging, or destructive. "
L. Keville Larson (JOF 90(9):6)
"I'm not entirely convinced the canon is truly enforceable
- can we define "ecologically sound"?
Mark W. Brunson (JOF 90(3):9)
"SAF member who prefer a land ethic that does not recognize
intent to manage resources for human needs have a different view
of nature than do I."
Steven Anderson (JOF 90(3):10)
"In a Forestry 101 pop quiz I asked the students to differentiate
between "ethics" and "integrity." One answered,
"Ethics are the standards that you set for yourself and integrity
is the guts to back them up.""
Robert M. Allen (TFS 1(3):2)
"I don't think that it is enforceable regarding any but the most flagrant violations, but - perhaps like most canons - I'm not sure that is was meant to be 'enforced.'"
Bill Rockwell (TFS 1(5):5)
"I do not, however, believe that there is a definition of "ecologically sound principles" that should be used to subject a member of the Society of American Foresters to disciplinary action."
Eley C. Frazer III (TFS 1(5):5)
"The canon is ambiguous; it papers words over a deep split in how SAF members feel about resources management. If we leave it as is and treat it as a sore spot best avoided, we won't see much enforcement. If we're willing to give meaning to the words, we will have an enforceable standard."
Ken Rosenbaum (TFS 1(5):5)
"It is enforceable, but I doubt it will be enforced. In my opinion, the land ethics canon was adopted for public relations reasons. I expect many SAF members did not mean for this canon to be taken literally. For example, the Ethic Committee recently ruled it is ethical to use a chemical with significant negative environmental effects when economics favor its use. Since I believe our Code of Ethics is no longer taken seriously, I am now resigning from SAF."
David South (TFS 1(5):5)
"It certainly does not point out an unambiguous moral
high ground for foresters to take as land stewards."
James D. Proctor (JOF 94(2):39-43)
"A land ethic canon ought to provide a criterion for distinguishing
acceptable and unacceptable practices."
Karl F. Wenger (JOF 90(3):10)
"Nebulous, flowery words cannot form the basis of a strong
and meaningful Code of Ethics. If right and wrong can't be clearly
defined, they should not appear in a Code of Ethics - a code of
conduct."
Fred W Haeussler (JOF 90(9:)6)
"The word "ethics" is commonly used in connection
with natural resource management but often with little understanding
of its meaning and what its implications are in that context."
Jack Ward Thomas (written when serving as Chief Research Wildlife
Biologist; USDA Forest Service).
"Ethics are not and cannot be prescriptive"
Zane Cornett (TFS 1(5):1)
"A member… will challenge and correct untrue statements about forestry."
Ethics Canon #2 (JOF 93(9):13)
"A member will give credit for the methods, ideas, or assistance obtained from others."
Ethics Canon #13 (JOF 93(9):13)
"The reputation and degree of trust that the public and
elected officials accord to professional groups likewise derives
from experience gained over years of listening to what professionals
say and comparing what they say to what they do (Nases 1991)."
Jack Ward Thomas (written when serving as Chief Research Wildlife
Biologist; USDA Forest Service).
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when
it tends otherwise."
Aldo Leopold (1949)
"Ecosystem management is a concept that has emerged from
the USDA Forest Service's land ethic: it is a concept to which
the agency is deeply committed. As Aldo Leopold aptly stated,
"We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging
to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we
may begin to use it with love and respect." Ecosystem-based
management encourages such wise stewardship of the land."
Jack Ward Thomas (JOF 94(8):14-18)
In Ray Craig's article (Land ethic canon proposal: a report from
the task force), seven concerns were listed regarding the land
ethic. I list a few here along with some of my comments.
"We have to get away from the perception that we only
manage forests for commodity production." I read this
as: we need to use the code of ethics to improve the public's
image of foresters.
"I'm afraid that people will use this canon against us."
If taken literally, the canon could be used against some foresters.
However, the ethics committee believes the phrase "ecologically
sound principles" cannot be interpreted literally. The ethics
Committee and Council will decide which practices cause "ecological
damage," not those who bring frivolous charges regarding
commonly accepted forestry practices. For example, according to
the ethics committee, a commonly accepted practice that contributes
to the a break-down of ozone is not a violation of the SAF land
ethics canon.
"This canon conflicts with the existing canons."
"Priority is implied in the order of the canons...."
Due to listing the "land ethic' first, I assume ecological
principles will now take precedent over economic principles (on
a stand-level basis).
"What do we mean by 'long-term sustainability?"
Due to a" lack of clarity," this phrase was removed
from the land ethic canon.
"What do we mean by 'ecologically sound principles'?"
This phrase does not lack "clarity" and was retained
to mandate no "ecological damage."
"What happens if a landowner doesn't want to manage land
for forest uses, and wants instead to convert the land to some
other use?" In this case, the canon is no longer applicable.
According to the ethics Committee, the SAF land ethic was not
intended to prevent deforestation (i.e. if a landowner wants to
convert the forest to pastureland).
Here are some links regarding Aldo Leopold
The Transformation of Aldo Leopold
Aldo Leopold's Worldview of Land-use
Perceptual Transformation from an Economic to an Ecosystem Paradigm
ANOTHER ACT OF CHANGING A QUOTE
Authors often add emphasis, delete words, and otherwise alter
someone else's words when they choose to use a quote in their
own writings.
Jo Ellen Force (JOF 94(9):51).
For example, the following quote appeared in the June 1996 issue of "The Forestry Source" and is an example of word deletion.
"The Committee concluded that: the use of methyl bromide is a nearly-universal practice in southern nursery operations; alternative treatments do not currently exist, though there is considerable on-going research: and that the use of methyl bromide is scheduled to be phased out over the next decade, reflecting a transition period during which the standards of forestry practices are changing."
As an example , the following is a quote from a letter (dated April 17, 1996) from the Zane J Cornett (Chair SAF Ethics Committee) to Robert W. Bosworth (President, SAF).
However here is the original texts as it appears in a letter (dated April 17, 1996) from the Zane J Cornett (Chair SAF Ethics Committee) to Robert W. Bosworth (President, SAF).
"The Committee concluded that: the use of methyl bromide
is a nearly-universal practice in southern nursery operations;
alternative treatments that effectively and practically replace
it apparently do not currently exist, though there is considerable
on-going research: and that the use of methyl bromide is scheduled
to be phased out over the next decade, reflecting a transition
period during which the standards of forestry practices are changing."
In my opinion, changing words in a quote seems acceptable not
only to SAF editors, but also to SAF Ethics chairs.
"What is happening to our professional ethics?"
Ed Furlow (JOF 94(9):52)
I will tell you what I think is happening to our professional ethics. Ethical conduct is no longer determined by what is right. If enough people are doing it, then it will be considered ethical. For example, if enough people change quotes, it is no longer wrong (see comment above by Jo Ellen Force). If enough people sign their name to what others wrote, it is no longer wrong (an accepted practice in Washington D.C. and in the SAF office). If enough people use CFCs, the resulting "ecological damage" will not be unethical (and will not be a violation of Canon #1).
I joined the SAF back in the 1970's and I believe I was a charter member of the SAF Student Chapter at North Carolina State University. I moved to Auburn in 1975 and got my first job at the University. I was not an active member of SAF and have only attended one national meeting (and only a few local and regional meetings). So I guess you could say, I was not contributing much to the SAF.
I never paid much attention to the SAF code of ethics. During the first half of this century, the SAF did not even have a code of ethics. But for the good of the public, SAF did adopt a code and has been modifying it ever since. Before 1992, the code of ethics dealt with how members should behave towards each other, their employer, and the public. Some members have been found guilty of violating some of the codes. For years, Canon #1 stated that A member's knowledge and skills will be utilized for the benefit of society...... It also states that we should challenge and correct untrue statements about forestry (something I try and make a habit of doing).
But then in 1991, a "Land Ethic Task Force" was created. In the spring 1992 meeting, the SAF Council unanimously endorsed the recommendation the Canon 1 of the code of ethics state:
The task force believed SAF members wanted a strong land ethic canon. The task force believed that land management be implemented without ecological damage. They did not mean that all land use decisions be determined by a narrow view of "sound ecology" (Ray Craig 1992: August JOF).