Blog -Workin’ It

Photos from “Save the Azaleas.”

The National Arboretum in Washington D.C. is one of my favorite places. Here’s the Azalea Blossom Watch 2012 site. I’ll be back next Sunday. Other contributors: feel free to post more this week.

Nothing could be more spring-like than the azaleas at the National Arboretum.

Pages on this blog are on tabs above on top. I’ve started a new one called “New Topics or Questions from Readers” for ideas that we can post about. A couple of these had turned up in the comments policy section, so this fits better and hopefully encourages more people to submit ideas for posts or questions.

All, I had seen the post after I got home from work, and meditated on it as I drove to choir practice. I couldn’t shake the bad feeling that it gave me, as if our space were somehow polluted by the graphic depiction of violence and the words of a disturbed
person. I hesitated because I respect Matthew and the perspective he represents.

The photo is of a ritual cleansing practice, smudging with sage.

This blog has had its highest number of views (491) ever in the last few days (since its inception in 2009), perhaps due to the Colt Summit project?

I told Matthew that the fact that we have more views about Colt Summit (and collaboration/litigation) than “Naked ice climber scales frozen waterfall” says something optimistic about human nature ;).

As part of our blog reflection process, I am also considering the question “should we change the name of the blog?”. It appears that more of us are interested in topics broader than NFMA planning. Suggestions are encouraged.

Thanks to everyone commenting for the great discussion on collaboration, its perils and pitfalls. It would be nice if someone would send a post on their positive experiences with it.

I’m going on retreat today and to D.C. Sunday to Tuesday, where I hope to learn interesting things to post here, and be on the blog only intermittently through that period. Others are encouraged to post. Also, please consider responding to the Blog Reflection on the sidebar, either on the blog or to [email protected].

Late last fall, I started a category on the blog for “2012 Planning Rule.” As I typed those words, I realized that the original purpose of the blog will have been fulfilled with the publication of the 2012 Rule- expected soon. Martin and I had set sail on this blog into uncharted waters- a blog as a 21st century method of education and extension (in the land grant model) for policy practitioners and academics. We actually started in November 2009. So here we are, two years later, sailing into port. We may have somewhat different crew, but the ship is still in one piece, thanks to the excellence of WordPress. We can celebrate with a few brewskis at the virtual pub, and then, after some reflection, ask ourselves where we’d like to go next.

People have also asked me why I have never updated the Contributors or other parts of the blog. These conversations and thoughts have led me to the need to have a reflection period on “whither this blog?” We can then discuss and consciously, organically, redesign for that next voyage.

Martin’s relections on the journey are posted in the next post. All are encouraged to comment, or to provide a guest post. Reflection has its own natural time and rhythm, so we needn’t be in a hurry..I’ll be administering the blog as usual until we transition. Just sit back and read what Martin and I have written and let your own thoughts take form.

Here are mine:

Originally, my thought was (based on Roger Pielke Jrs.’ blog- I liked what Roger was doing- he is my blogger role model) it would be handy to have all the key information about the Planning Rule and the process in one place. It would save people time if they wanted to follow it. Also, I thought that Martin and I could have informative and entertaining (at least to us) discussions across the practitioner- academic divide. One thing I do have to say is that Martin and the folks at University of Montana were very brave about stepping out into unknown terrain.

As so many things in life, the blog did not work out exactly as planned. For one thing, an official blog on the planning rule was established so that there could have been confusion, and two locations for possible discussions. Second, the carefully thought- out pieces I intended to write were the victims of a lack of time. I was hoping that academics would have more time (based on the Pielkean model), but in this era of doing more with less, all of us would have had to spend what amounts to personal time on this effort. I discovered that the other folks who wanted to spend more time discussing current events were not academics, so it became more often a practitioner/practitioner dialogue. I have also dragged other academics, for example, Todd Morgan, in when I think they have relevant information. Academics have a variety of venues for getting their ideas out- journal articles, classes, so perhaps the need to express and debate their views is already satisfied in the academic world. And one of my original ideas was to expose students to practitioner viewpoints that they might not otherwise hear. But I have no idea how many, or if any, regular readers are students.

My goal was to hear from practitioners- people who wouldn’t be writing news stories nor press releases nor academic papers, but know the issues from what they see on the ground in their work. People whose voices are not generally heard in these discussion. I wanted to lead interested people from the superficiality of news stories into a deeper understanding of complex issues.

What we have now that I didn’t expect, but hoped for, is a core group of people with suitably diverse perspectives and physical locations who are actually fairly civil; and generally restrict themselves from the personal or partisanal (if that’s a word) attacks that make other blogs such depressing windows on the behavior of our species. I learned how to use WordPress, peel photos out of Adobe Acrobat documents, and generally have a heckuva swell time with today’s cool tools.

In addition, as the conversations developed over the years, it also became clearer to me that recent changes in the business of journalism have meant that perhaps journalists can’t always provide the public education on topics that they did when there were more of them, and they had more time. These conditions may require a forum for news stories to be questioned or clarified by groups of knowledgeable people. I still have that passion for truth seeking and listening to different voices.

For those adventuring into the post-50 life stage, I recommend the book “The Third Chapter: Passion, Risk and Adventure in the 25 years after 50”. As I read the book, this quote resonated with me about what I feel about what the blog could move toward, at its (our) best. In this part of the book the author, Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot talks about a man named Luther.

“As a faculty trainer working for an international pacifist organization, he leads workshops and seminars designed to bring people from polarized sides together for dialogue, conflict resolution and peace building. This evolving, difficult process requires patience and courage, empathy and attentiveness. But first it requires that everyone recognize that “conflict is not bad”; it can be “productive and creative.” Luther describes the process when groups come together who have a history of distrust and violence. First they begin by “mapping the conflict”- acknowledging it, naming it, establishing its scope and boundaries, and finding the points of greatest resistance and discord. Identifying the conflict is the first “way out of the growing circle of revenge.” The conflict , Luther says, is like “the tip of the iceberg, but there is lots going on underneath.” To begin to excavate the subterranean layers, the group members must engage in “deep dialogue” Each one must be courageous enough to tell his or her personal truths and “listen without denying.” This is very hard. Emotions flare; people get defensive; they project their pain onto others . There are advances in understanding, moments of reconciliation, even epiphanies followed by retreats and accusations as people slide back into their comfortable and familiar stances. The learning that goes on in the group is both individual and collective, personal and public.”

Yes, I do feel a bit guilty that we just started blogging without considering the Best Available Science on conflict resolution ;).

As we discern a future course for the blog, it would be helpful if I could hear from you, our readers, commenters and contributors.. feel free to write, call, or otherwise communicate your thoughts to me. In this expanding (and yet civil) internet community, there are many courses we could set… ships were not designed to stay in port.

If you need tickler questions, pick any below that suit your fancy. For the more right-brained among us, feel free to share your dreams, art, symbols or images to add to our joint reflection.

Why do you read this blog?
What do you like about it ?
What surprised you?
What do you dislike about it?
What niche do you think it fills?
What do you think about the topics?
If you don’t comment, why not?
What do you think about continuing/discontinuing/changing /repurposing the blog?
Are there particular features you would like to see?

As I said, I’d like to make this more reflective than usual and so don’t be in a hurry- I’ll round up what I’ve heard every couple of weeks and do more reflection, then we can play with different experiments and see how they work.

Some readers might recall that when Sharon and I began this blog, we somehow managed to get the USFS and UM logos on our Masthead—proof of a true and perhaps significant collaboration focused on the new USFS planning rule. I really liked the idea of a blog specifically focused on an important and forthcoming rule—a very neat opportunity. The USFS made sure the logo didn’t last long, and I eventually requested the UM/Bolle Center logos be removed because of the decreasing amount of time that I was contributing to the blog. While that was happening, NCFP started to slowly morph into something different, with a more general focus on all issues pertaining to forest law, policy, and management.
There were highs and lows on the blog for me. There were some posts and comment threads that were so fun and enlightening that I printed and filed them away for future reference. Sharon, John Rupe, Andy Stahl, and other contributors forced me to think about several issues in new ways. So many gems—those always made the time devoted to the blog well worth it. The discussions also generated new ideas and questions for me, ones that I have used in the classroom and plan on pursuing in the future.

I also enjoyed writing some of my own blog posts. Some of them forced me to clarify my thinking about certain matters, such as the role of standards in forest planning. Others eventually led me down more serious paths of research and writing. I was so intrigued by the idea of triggers in planning and adaptive management, for example, that I ended up writing about the topic in pretty serious fashion last year. It was also rewarding to see, on occasion, 300 or so people reading some wonky post about forest policy and planning. And it was always so nice to be stopped at some meeting and be told about how someone always reads or appreciates the blog. And it was really, really nice when that appreciation was demonstrated through free beer.

Of course, not all were smiles and sunshine. I often got frustrated by some of the comments on the blog, from their substance to tone. And so many times I just didn’t feel like reading the same old recycled arguments and positions that I’ve heard a thousand times before. On those days, instead of reading about forest planning at lunch, I would instead watch Hockey Night in Canada or Stephen Colbert highlights.

The boring truth of the matter is that I simply couldn’t find the time to participate enough on the blog. Sharon was always so gracious about the matter and everyone always knew that she was the heart and soul of this thing. My teaching, research, and administrative duties increased significantly since we started the endeavor (enter the violins). Something had to go, so the blog took the initial hit. I still read it all the time, but choose to do so quietly and without any contribution on my part. The classic free rider—that’s me. I’m sorry to Sharon and National Public Radio.

I’m not sure if my work situation will change in the near future so that I can again participate more seriously. I am now Chair of my Department, teach two classes, and try to maintain an active research agenda. So it is time to sign off and become a reader and perhaps occasional contributor. I hope the blog continues to flourish, as I feel strongly that it provides a very valuable service.

Sharon, a very special thank you—for your vision, leadership, patience, and all the hard work you’ve given to this blog. You have done so much to foster an engaging and respectful dialogue about National Forest management. I wish we could find a real way to compensate you for this important but time-consuming service—the investment would be worth it. Interacting with you over the past couple of years has been a lot of fun. I really appreciate all that you’ve done.

Thanks to everyone, especially Foto, David Beebe, Matthew Koehler, Derek Weidensee and Bob Zybach commenters. And Andy Stahl and Jim Fenwood.Looking forward to a fun and rule-filled 2012!

Sharon

>The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 56,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 21 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

All- AKISMET is a utility of WordPress that protects from spam and does a great job. Today there were 50 messages tagged as spam and I did not read them all. If you have sent a comment and it doesn’t show up it may have gotten in that list. so please send again. Thanks to all commenters!

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I take a class with required homework on Tuesday night, so there may be a slowing of response around that time as I do homework and go to class.

I think ratings were a good experiment. I like experiments, I’m a scientist. However, the idea that people who did not feel comfortable speaking would rate the posts, did not really pan out, and it clutters the look of the blog in my view (and I think reinforces the black and whiteness of opinion, which is exactly what this blog is NOT about). So they are out. If you have a strong attachment to them, let me know and I will reconsider. [email protected].

P.S. Elections are coming and I expect a cascade of vituperative and hateful discourse. I just hope it’s not also creepily misogynist (IMHO) as last time. It won’t be contaminating this blog- so alert to commenters. ‘Nuff said.