Yesterday I spent the day doing other things, so didn’t see Bob’s post on the Tinder Box book until last night.
We have posted on the book before (last October, even with a photo on the cover) with some interesting discussion here.
Here is a bit of my take and another side. But as folks can tell, it is kind of silly on the surface. I was in Region 5 before the Consent Decree and people were grumpy about “losing herbicides” and not having as much money as Region 6. They also didn’t understand how women in fire wouldn’t move down from Region 6 to take a downgrade! There was something very strange about the way it was (mis) managed in 5 compared to 6. But since the people running things at the time were not women, then it really couldn’t have been women’s fault. Similarly, the CD was only in Region 5, which is not equivalent to the Forest Service as a whole. Region 6, where I started, seemed to have an attitude “just get on with it, if we don’t do it on our own terms, we’ll do it on someone else’s.” Of course, they had more money.. and so on the conversation could go.
But I think Travis said something very pertinent in his comment here, and after all, as I understand it, Travis is one of the future generation:
I also liked that Travis quoted Faulkner “the past is not dead, it’s not even past”.
This is “a new century” for the Forest Service, as the blog title suggests. Misogynistic, spiteful, morally-wrong and legally-impossible arguments are not helpful in a debate about the direction of the agency in the 21st century.
I read that comment, and then saw the Mandela quote posted above.
What would it take for us to leave our past (timber wars in Oregon, diversity wars in California) behind and imagine a future as good as we could all mutually make it?