Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
A6. Issue: It is a challenge to make scientific information relevant to decision-making.
Comment #: 1
GIS is only an analysis and display tool. We need better science education to the decision makers i.e. county zoning and planning officials, in the present context, GIS is not relevant and oversold.
Comment #: 2
Please try to get useful information to PRIVATE ownership people who have chosen to not be encumbered by government (DNR) control programs. These people are often MORE interested in good forest management than many who simply put their land under government management - especially for tax purposes.
Comment #: 3
Yes, you have the fools, but you don't provide the help! It could take a year before you look at a site, the promblem is you need more people to do this.
Comment #: 4
as above
Comment #: 5
Time to stop the prevelant "rule of the ignorant"
Comment #: 6
I agree in all cases, it will save you turning the pages (Strongly agree again - can't strongly disagree)
Comment #: 7
Mapping should not be an issue. GIs may give more accuracy.
Comment #: 8
Scinetific information is important when eviromentalists tell you not to harvest a renewable resource.
Comment #: 9
These fancy gadgets don't really "sell" forestry and waste a lot of resources that could better be spent on on the ground one on one efforts. "Real" forest managers don't need or want this.
Comment #: 10
On my 120 acres of almost wild land it sure would helpt to know what is out there. I got lost three itmes and also two from the DNR. I think we are talking of seeing from the air
Comment #: 11
Not sure what the question is here. Are you asking whether or not GIS should be used by forest planners; used to sway public opinon? Or are you asking whether the debate over using "scientific decision-making" is silly since different sides can quote science to back up their differing points of view?
Comment #: 12
This is true in all fields as the technical issues become ever more complex. We would have to be able to get useful information - updated occasionally - on our 200 acres of forest land in WI.
Comment #: 13
plus others
Comment #: 14
The challenge also is to be able to use scientific info at a time when - psuedo-science gets the big play!
Comment #: 15
has to be done
Comment #: 16
Such tools should be used.
Comment #: 17
Cost is not explained
Comment #: 18
Gets better and better with time.
Comment #: 19
Because the increase is one to "looking harder" and not impacts due to management I do not believe this should be a major issue.
Comment #: 20
Without science, we have not hope to even consider preserving our forests.
Comment #: 21
Science should be foremost in decision making. Not politics, not money, not social ideals, because these change over time! We should adjust to science in management as we learn. Inform people but, if they are not qualified they should not be involved in scientific decision making. IE. Deer baiting issue, one of the largest blunders of DNR. Allowed politics and layman make biological decisions - now loot at problems!
Comment #: 22
Shouldn't be too challenging - don't underestimate the public -
Comment #: 23
Be sure the scale includes the concerous cities and the subsidized metastic travel via suburbs and highways.
Comment #: 24
The use of politcally correct or trendy terms example, biodiversity, ecosystems, etc is confusing for the professionals how to we expect lay people to understand them.
Comment #: 25
This one is ? important in relation to getting answers for A5.
Comment #: 26
4
Comment #: 27
Funding for forest research by the USFS has been cut badly - a tragedy I'd form regular training sessions
Comment #: 28
The public must be educated and must understand the complexities if it is to provide meaningful participation.
Comment #: 29
At the present time there is not enough information exchange between the professionals and the individual landowners.
Comment #: 30
Need to address w/ WI agribar council - WI wooddland owners and WI Assoc of Prof Agr Consultants
Comment #: 31
What's the question?
Comment #: 32
A waste - landowners don't know what you are talking about
Comment #: 33
I think I know what you are trying to say here, but do you realize how very insulting to the public this statement reads. The implication is that we are ignorant and incapable of becoming informed except by use of visual aids, if that. Perhaps you are just venting some frustration with the public. It goes with the territory. You serve the public, and therefore, must speak to the public in a language it understands. We are not dumb, so don't despair, give it your best shot and keep up the good work A6 is not an issue.
Comment #: 34
Complex ideas can be explained so they are accepted if not completely understood.
Comment #: 35
It is not a challenge to make scientific information relevant to decision-making for foresters and other resource professionals - they depend on scientific information in order to make decisions. People who want to participate in planning for future forest management need to become familiar to at least a certain extent with the relevant science. For the public who hold strong beliefs based on non-scientific systems of thought, scientific information will not ever be relevant to decision making.
Comment #: 36
Many people may not understand only 1 part of this challenge. You guys need to improve in this area. GIS
Comment #: 37
More informational articles on this subject in WWOA's Woodland Management publications and Wis. Tree Farm newsletter.
Comment #: 38
Mafia Running this sytem as will getting tax payer money to do so!
Comment #: 39
It certainly is (a challenge). But not all science is relevant or useful; too much "selective use" of science has muddled a lot of forest ecosystem management, and too much attention has been paid to "junk science" - studies commissioned or conducted to confuse rather than clarify a particular situation. In the end, too many scientists merely want their preferences adopted as public policy, a disturbing trend evident at the federal level.
Comment #: 40
Most decisions are made based on economics, not science; poor choice.
Comment #: 41
Don't let politicians make "scientific" decisions. I used to work for DNR. I know how this goes!
Comment #: 42
The landowners do not need G.I.S. to know what is on their land. The "State" needs this to monitor the landowner's property.
Comment #: 43
From my experience most people having forest land in this area see it only as a money making thing. They don't care about biodiversity, they want deer (hunting) and to cut as much and as often as possible.
Comment #: 44
Egg heads stuffing? The pot - never get a decision
Comment #: 45
A plan should spend the majority of its time dealing with what we do know and not playing "chicken-little" about what we don't.
Comment #: 46
Many people come to forest planning and policy with a preconceived notion that silviculture is bad for a forest. It is not likely that many of these people will change their notions or attitudes.
Comment #: 47
Having the ignorant and biased, but emotionally involved, have equal vote as the science based people, is foolish. Education is absolutely needed.
Comment #: 48
Wis. Woodland Owners has done a good job of education on forest management.
Comment #: 49
Disagree somewhat - hopeful
Comment #: 50
Maybe it should read A6. Issue: It is a challenge to manage the forests using any type of sound scientific information and decision-making when the "All Knowing" public dictates policy.
Comment #: 51
Keep it simple. Most people don't even have the basics down. Fragmentation, development and loss of rare habitats are easily comprehensible and the most urgent message!
Comment #: 52
Is there a danger that GIS can be used by people with their own agendas for forest use to sway the decision making process against minority forest users?
Comment #: 53
I'm not so sanguine. Pretty pictures don't mean accurate data pursuing appropriate issues.
Comment #: 54
Science should not be the only criterias for decision making. Science can be misused by the timber industry to justify clear cutting. You can always buy a scientist to justify logging
Comment #: 55
this is up to the landowners to do
Comment #: 56
The basis for forest management should come primarily from scientific information and those who are most closely affected by the management of them. Example - Peolple from California should not be able to object to a clearcut to regenerate aspen in an area (Wisconsin) suitable to this type of harvest.
Comment #: 57
Good idea - pool info.
Comment #: 58
It SHOULD be the job of the DNR to make research available to those in the resource field.
Comment #: 59
Tis is beyond me!
Comment #: 60
To make information it must be understood by major owners of forest land. We use terms such as and is that only professionals understand. This must be changed.
Comment #: 61
The forest as complex as it is will a statewide plan save it all?
Comment #: 62
Private timber companies have been doing a good job of managing timber for 50 yrs without scientific help.
Comment #: 63
Communciation to and education of as many as possible is highly important in Wisconsin where forests are important to our economy and environment.
Comment #: 64
Environmental and economic models for 50, 100, and 150 years into the future need to be established nad periodically updated so as to guide present forest management practices.
Comment #: 65
"Science Based" decision making is the current buzz phrase bug used by the "wise use" crowd so the agency better be ready to make the scientific information relevent and understandable.
Comment #: 66
Ditto above comment
Comment #: 67
People who are not willing to gain scientific knowledge should not make these decisions. All of the pricture must be there to make a decision.
Comment #: 68
This is the MOST important issue. You can gather all the info in the world but it's worthless if its not used or understood by those who can affect/effect change and action.
Comment #: 69
What is this?
Comment #: 70
major prevention tool
Comment #: 71
I'm of mixed mind here. I often wonder if the problem is a lack of vision/lack of consensus. What do we want WI forests to look like in 100 years? Are we just growing "products" or creating habitat?
Comment #: 72
This is extremely important to help get laymen to understand the need to make resource decisions more on basis of scientific information rather then sentiment or prejudices or desires. Perhaps biggest challenge is to make decision making relevant to scientific information.
Comment #: 73
This statement in itself makes the forest data look wishy-washy and open to scrutiny. It makes a statement that the DNR does not have complete knowledge of the forest and opens the door for input from the environmental extremist!
Comment #: 74
The need shoould try to place DNR foresters front and center
Comment #: 75
Not just visual aids. Also to manage large amounts of imformation to more easily find answers to the questions.
Comment #: 76
GIS helps but does not totally solve the "use of science" issue.
Comment #: 77
Not sure more data makes the picture clearer. I would support the gathering of information and making efforts to understand what it means for the resource professional and other interested parties. For the private landowner that's motivated to manage their forest well they soon get lost with the basics of habitat type, basal area, soil maps, LTAs, forest types, and especially the somewhat simple paperwork that comes with having a property in the tax law program. Throwing more information at them may just be counter productive.
Comment #: 78
Disinformation by special interest groups is the problem.
Comment #: 79
GIS is over rated. We need people on the ground and in the woods talking with landowners more than we need computer simulations of forests.
Comment #: 80
It is extremely important to use what ever means are possible in educating the public.
Comment #: 81
keep it simple
Comment #: 82
This sounds like a comment from a preservationist biologist. We can know the forest well, and manage it well. GIS can be a useful tool, but we can do the job without it if need be. Don't make this sound too high-minded and technical.
Comment #: 83
The issue is how will decision making be done. Will it occur by polling the public to determine what the public likes or wishes for public lands or using best available data to make a science based decision?
Comment #: 84
Application of GIS is the best visual tool that managers as well as the general public can use to "see" what various practices can do on the land, as well as use it to "see" what future management would look like on the land if various scenarios are treated as planning options.
Comment #: 85
I think this is very important. The public has got to understand or at least trust us so that our forests can be managed scientifically and not emotionally.
Comment #: 86
This information base should continue to be developed to support science based decision making rather emotion based decision making. Good forestry decisions must be based on good science to be valid over the long haul.
Comment #: 87
The proverbial nail on the head! Knowledge begets knowledge!
Comment #: 88
just do the best you can to explain it to the lay person but don't make an issue of it.
Comment #: 89
Important issue, but more "nuts & bolt" than strategic. Inappropriate for this process.
Comment #: 90
GIS is overrated for decision making
when we can not train professional on the cuuting edge of forestry now. Field applications are where the work is done, not looking at fancy maps.
Comment #: 91
GIS is overrated for decision making
when we can not train professional on the cuuting edge of forestry now. Field applications are where the work is done, not looking at fancy maps.
Comment #: 92
Not sure I understand the issue here. I'm not sure this is really an issue for a forest mgt plan. If we have scientific data to help us make mgt decisions we have to use it and we have to try to explain the info and how we use it to the general public. I would think that advances in technology would make explaining/showing easier, not more challenging.
Comment #: 93
People need to understand that plans may change as more information becomes available, or our knowledge increases.
Comment #: 94
People need to understand that plans may change as more information becomes available, or our knowledge increases.
Comment #: 95
DNR foresters need to have access to the tools such as GPS units and GIS capability to do their jobs. The days of #2 pencil and acetate maps should be over.
Comment #: 96
DNR foresters need to have access to the tools such as GPS units and GIS capability to do their jobs. The days of #2 pencil and acetate maps should be over.
Comment #: 97
Agree. But people still don't want thier forest cut but they want the products from them. NIMBY!
Comment #: 98
Education of the public will play a key role in managing our forests. It is important to put management decisions back into the hands of professionals rather than the public. However, it is very important that the public easily understand why decisions are being made.
Comment #: 99
Lets try to get a little less political and a little more informed.
Comment #: 100
Are you proposing an explanation of GIS and how it can be used? Are you proposing inclusion of sample GIS data/maps? Not sure what you are suggesting here.
Comment #: 101
Don't discuss GIS just use it as an educational tool and then later a management tool. We don't want to learn GIS to understand the forest trend issues
Comment #: 102
Don't discuss GIS just use it as an educational tool and then later a management tool. We don't want to learn GIS to understand the forest trend issues
Comment #: 103
education is a must to reverse harmful trends.
Comment #: 104
While I agree that there is an increasing disparity between the scientific understanding of the public and resource professionals, this implies there is only one basis for truth - the resource management professional's side. That is if only the public could understand, the job of the resource manager would somehow be easier and they would agree with what the resource management professional really wants. Adaptive ecosystem management is really a two way street, with both sides learning at the same time together. GIS is a handy tool for drawing people together to visualize a problem. but it has limitations too. It is not reality, only a representation of data sets assembled into layers. In some respects, this issue is a throwback to the old, all knowing, omnipotent resource management philosopy of "we know what is right", leave us alone so we can get on with the business of telling you what to do.
Comment #: 105
GIS is already a component of the DNR, efforts should be made to avoid duplication.
Comment #: 106
WI needs a full-scale educational effort for its citizens. A well-thought out long-range vision backed up by research and clear explanations would help improve public support. Need to balance recreation, tourism, industry, and long-term viability.
Comment #: 107
supra
Comment #: 108
gis is becoming more useful, i now see how that i am in a course here at uwsp
Comment #: 109
Disney's "Bambi" swayed or educated millions of people. We can use stories and cartoons to get the next generation tuned to the issues.
Comment #: 110
IT IS TOO EASY TO MAKE SCIENCE SUPPORT A PREORDAINED OPINION OR CONCLUSION
ALSO SURVEYS CAN BE WRITTEN IN A MANNER WHERE THE WRITER CONTROLS THE INPUT HE OR SHE WISHES TO RECIEVE.
THIS IS CALLED DATA SKEWING. CHENWORTH /HAAG HEARINGS ANYONE????
Comment #: 111
GIS is a tool, Its not God. Why waste paper in your plan regarding GIS? If you are going to use it-then use it.
Comment #: 112
Presenting clear and accurate information is very important for this planning process. If people do not have the facts, they can not make educated suggestions.
Comment #: 113
Start including concerned citizens in decision making processes and they will surely become more educated about the scientific information that will affect resource management decisions.
Comment #: 114
These programs are good, but sometimes are a pain to use if you are not an expert in the program.
Comment #: 115
People who don't know as much about the forests tend to take small bits of misunderstood information and turn it into negatives.
This is where the sour environmentalists begin their campaigns against forest management.
Comment #: 116
The public needs to be aware of the strides made in understanding the forests and have it explained to them. They would probably like to have their tax money that is spent be explained to them so they know where it goes.
Comment #: 117
Many people are very well informed. Science can be made understandable. Base the plan on science. Any other base turns your scientific plan into fiction(a bad thing). Imperfect science, when noted is good enough if that is all you have. It sure beats guessing; especially in court.
Comment #: 118
It has got to be hard to balance the science of science and the science of public opinion. Stick with the former.
Comment #: 119
Yes, I believe if you want to make " scientific information relevent to decision makeing then a better job needs to be done on educating the public- since ultimately they are the decision makers. AND- this education needs to begin in elemetary and secondary schools. We need to do a better job of infusing forestry education into our k-12 curricula given the ecological and economic value of forests to our state.
Comment #: 120
Involving/educating the public is very important!!
Comment #: 121
I think education is the key. If we show the people why the ought to be concerned with conservation, they will invest in it.
Comment #: 122
Describing science is tough, start early and use lots of approaches. Send info to local papers.
Comment #: 123
People with the scientific knowledge and background should make the decisions, not the public. Doctors don't provide us with information until we diagnose ourselves.
Comment #: 124
Since scientific info is relevant to decision-making when managing timber, the management of forests should be left to professionals who have been trained in scientific methods for this endeavor. If forest management is decided by the public, it becomes an emotional-based process, not scientific.
Comment #: 125
We (you) are, indeed, in the management
"business." Use the best technology
available!
Comment #: 126
I agree that this is a problem. But the problem is not only in translating technical data, but also in having credibility as an objective source of information. The public is increasingly skeptical of the DNR and other resource professionals in terms of their perceived biased toward the forest products industry. In many ways, the public is becoming more enlightened and progressive on modern forest issues than most of the old guard foresters. Until the forestry "profession" can clean out its own "dead wood", these perception problems will persist.
Comment #: 127
I agree that this is a problem. But the problem is not only in translating technical data, but also in having credibility as an objective source of information. The public is increasingly skeptical of the DNR and other resource professionals in terms of their perceived biased toward the forest products industry. In many ways, the public is becoming more enlightened and progressive on modern forest issues than most of the old guard foresters. Until the forestry "profession" can clean out its own "dead wood", these perception problems will persist.
Comment #: 128
Interpretationm of the information is also essential and, of course, is not economically or politically neutral.
Comment #: 129
I am aware of what GIS can provide, but most
people have no idea what GIS is... if you address
this, you will need to supply good examples.
Comment #: 130
Play a coordinating role.
Comment #: 131
And even more a challenge to spread that info broadly to get public buy-in.
Comment #: 132
It is true that the DNR could help educate the public by boiling down complex technical data into understandable concepts for lay people. But this "translation" must be extremely fair, neutral, and objective. Sometimes such education comprises propaganda to fit certain political objectives, and this is wrong. A case in point is the massive "Smokey the Bear" campaign of the Forest Service and DNR that convinced Americans that all fire is bad. This was inaccurate overkill. A correspondingly aggressive campaign is now needed to achieve balance to the public's understanding of the indispensable role of fire in healthy forest ecosystems.
Comment #: 133
don't know what the GIS is.
Comment #: 134
That depends on how much damage you do in the process, sure I'd like to know, but not if the life of a certain percentage of trees is removed in the process.
Comment #: 135
GIS is a tool, not an issue. If available, use it! You don't need to discuss it!
Comment #: 136
I don't think it is a challenge to make scientific information relevant to decision making - IT IS RELEVANT! The challenge is to do a better job of educating and marketing this information to ALL decision makers.
Comment #: 137
Getting the general public informed about forests and their problems will allow us to do some things to help on our own.
Comment #: 138
Getting the general public informed about forests and their problems will allow us to do some things to help on our own.
Comment #: 139
#2
Comment #: 140
This level of work should be primarily the responsibility of local governments to fund and maintain as they would for all their other infrastructure. Trees are one of our most important infrastructure resources. Local GIS systems are best able to handle this work.
Comment #: 141
Send DNR staff to local planning meetings to present maps, scientific information and policy options that protect forest resources.
Comment #: 142
I'm not sure that you need to make scientific experts out of any citizen that has an opinion on forests. In many cases (ATV users, for example) I'm not sure they even care about the scientific information. I've seen many at hearings where they aren't even listening to simple non-scientific facts. In the federal roadless hearings, many opponents asserted over and over that they didn't want anyone to take away their snowmobile trails, for example. There was not a proposal to take away anything but that fact fell on deaf ears. So how much energy should you put in to delivering information to deaf ears?
Comment #: 143
Use of current and future emerging technologies is extremely important to describing forest biosystems.
Comment #: 144
Depends on what 'GIS' IS! (This whole thing is jargon-heavy.)
Comment #: 145
If these lands are private, make suggestions only
Comment #: 146
If these lands are private, make suggestions only
Comment #: 147
Ensure this info gets into hands of land use decision makers as well as forest managers.
Comment #: 148
The plan should make an attempt to inform individuals in general terms, but should not attempt to recreate 4+ years of education in a plan documented for the general public.
Comment #: 149
does Wi have a UW Extension outreach program like the
one in place for lakes? If not, we need one badly.
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS