This essay in Undark describes a “a citizens’ jury” designed “to ask whether the U.K. government should allow scientists to edit the DNA of human embryos in order to treat serious genetic conditions. Convening a jury was a non-traditional approach to involving the public in decision-making on a complicated scientific topic that could affect public policy.” Such a “science court” might help the public understand forest health/resilience treatments and could perhaps increase the forestry community’s social license to actively manage national forests.
As far as I can tell there is not agreement within the Forest community nor the scientific community as to what is Forest health nor how to measure it or the effectiveness of treatments. How is the public to expected to weigh in. If we could agree on these issues in the forestry community and the scientific community then we might make some progress with the public
The real problem with the public on forestry and agricultural issues is extreme ignorance. 200 years ago everyone grew up on a farm, or had parents or grandparents who did. Or worked in the woods, or delivered food and building supplies to the nearest town. Naturally, there was no reason to teach this stuff in schools — everybody was already an expert, or knew many others who were.
Ralph Hull used to say that the “further people get away from the land, the less common sense they have.” He was talking about second- and third-generation urbanites — today’s voters and forestry “experts.”
When Jerry Franklin invented (or successfully promoted) the anti-logging dictum that “the sign of a healthy forest is the presence of dead and dying trees” and one of his acolytes began claiming an objective of forest management was a “non-declining, even-flow, naturally functioning ecosystem” the rush to begin redefining words such as “conservation,” “protection,” and even “old-growth,” was on. Our rural communities and industries have been going broke ever since, and our forests and wildlife have been burning up.
NEPA allowed these people to take the lead and predictions of catastrophic wildfire have been proving accurate ever since. The forestry community has become dependent on theoretical modelers with an apparent anti-logging bias, and the public doesn’t stand a chance.