Communication

Beware of “Fact-Checking” Especially When AI is Involved: The Case of Aspen Clones

by
This photo is from NFF.

 

Many of you are probably aware that there is a new industry in town, that of “fact-checking.”  It turns out, in many instances, that the person doing the checking is not an expert on the topic.  Perhaps, to link to yesterday’s post, it’s too expensive to have experts involved.   And many times AI is involved, which leads to a specific kind of mushiness, usually involving a complex idea that is missed, and includes not being careful about definitions of words (to be fair to the AI, they just collect words as used, and don’t actually have to make sense of them).

Here’s an example I ran across yesterday.

It was in response to this tweet

Aspen groves share their roots,  Deliver water to thirsty shoots In harmony, they feed the forest, Their fate intertwined.

Here’s the fact check from the Colorado Sun.  Here’s what they say about their methodology

The Colorado Sun partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-size fact-checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Here’s how it comes out.

A group of aspen trees, known as an aspen stand, are often connected to a single root system.

The trees spread underground with new trunks growing up from the same root system. Aspen groves are referred to as clones since the trees share many of the same genetics.

The root systems of aspens can be hundreds or even thousands of years old even though their trunks may only last 100 years. According to the U.S. Forest Service, one root system in Utah was found to be 80,000 years old.

Shared roots make aspens resilient. Trunks burned down or felled by disease quickly grow back. The trees are fast growers, and softer than many other hardwoods. They are a favorite of woodpeckers and a staple for elk, moose, deer and beaver.

Quaking aspens, the most common species, are found in the Midwest, Canada, Alaska and many Western states.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

See full source list below.

Here’s what I would say.   Aspen stands can be made up of different clones.  You can sometimes tell because one clone will leaf out or turn color at different times than a neighboring clone.  Groves and clones are not necessarily the same thing.  The word “grove” according to Merriam Webster is “a small wood without underbrush or a planting of fruit or nut trees.”  And clones don’t have “many of the same genetics” by definition (Merriam Webster again)

1a  the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by or from a single progenitor cell or organism.

Now definitely there can be mutations occurring as stems and branches grow.. but “many of the same genetics”?

It is correct to say that a clone “shares” its root system (with itself?).  Of course, it’s poetic… but why “fact-check” poetry anyway?  Let’s imagine.. “do daffodils really dance”? Fact-check.

I went back to the original sources, which were very clear and accurate IMHO.

When I clicked on those, here’s what I got from the USFWS link:

Every tree in an aspen stand is often connected to a single root system. They spread through underground roots with new trunks growing up from the roots. So, every tree in a stand may have the same genetics. Because of this, aspen groves are often referred to as clones.

Here’s what the link to NFF said:

One aspen tree is actually only a small part of a larger organism. A stand or group of aspen trees is considered a singular organism with the main life force underground in the extensive root system. Before a single aspen trunk appears above the surface, the root system may lie dormant for many years until the conditions are just right, including sufficient sunlight. In a single stand, each tree is a genetic replicate of the other, hence the name a “clone” of aspens used to describe a stand.

So the AI actually took accurate sources and somehow fuzzed them up.  Maybe we need to introduce a new verb “to AI” defined as:

“to take coherent information from primary sources and make it less clear and accurate.”

On a cheerier note, perhaps a field trip to the Fishlake National Forest is in order at this time of year…

The National Forest Foundation has an interesting write-up on the Pando aspen clone.

Weighing in at 13 million pounds, the collective root system of these 40,000 aspen trees is believed to have been born from a single seed at the end of the last ice age (about 2.6 million years ago!)

During the summer visitors can bask in the vibrant green leaves of the aspens, catching a break from the Utah heat while wandering through the clone. But just wait until fall rolls around when the trees turn the 106 acres into a golden beacon of light on the Forest. Walk through the clone and witness the largest organism ever discovered!

How Best to Contact Forest Service Units: What Works?

by

Cindy Chojnacky came to the Employee Directory discussion late, and added this comment..

I was off grid backpacking in your backyard (northern Colorado from Rahwahs to Eagles Nest) July-August so missed discussion on FS employee directory. I am not interested in the argument over politicization of line officers or even employee need for privacy. But what I didn’t read from anyone, maybe I missed it, is that the directory was a great resource for the public that has been removed. It makes the FS seems much more insular and self-protective to me as this resource was available for decades. As an example, I wanted to send Black Hills Forest Supe a concerned message about something I saw while visiting the forest but had to send it to the staff mailbox in hopes it would be forwarded. Line officers should be accountable to the public even though it is a hassle. I say this as former line officer, national and regional spokesperson, PAO and an environmental reporter. Dropping the directory tells me the Forest Service does not think so. Sorry to come in late on this issue.

I thought that this was interesting because there are so many reasons people might want to get in touch with different FS folks.  It seems like some work well and some don’t, and as usual in a decentralized organization, responses can be all over the map.  Maybe with the two above Region 5 contact forms, it seems like it makes more sense to call than to email.  Plus you get the experience of talking to nice FS people at the front desk in various places in California sending out positive human vibes.

Call- “I want to talk to the Supe”, Member of Public (MP) leaves voicemail, Supe gets it perhaps via phone.

Email- sent to box, box person routes to Supe, Supe gets it and replies via email.

I wonder which is easier for the FS? Which feels better to the public (given that each member of the public has his/her/their own druthers)? Sigh.

I think Cindy brings up an additional set of  questions.. suggestions for things that need doing, or even observations of illegal activity.    Which I think is important because so many of the “things” could be done by volunteers or partners.  Like logs across roads or sign rehab.

I can think of a few reasons personal contact may have changed.

Perhaps it’s part of today’s culture.  For example, when I tried to give away my place in a (full) field trip at SAF, I emailed but never heard from anyone. I assumed they were too buy.  I was able to both volunteer and unvolunteer through an app without contacting anyone.   Some of us may remember discussions of  “high tech” versus “high touch” culture, well it’s still going on.

Are you having to do more with less these days? Likely you are shifting away from a high touch approach when it comes to engaging customers because treating every customer with special care is expensive and time consuming.

The difficult part for government, though, is that the FS is a bit of a monopoly in a given area, so we can’t go some more responsive elsewhere.  And if taxpayers don’t trust that their money is used wisely, they might not be as willing to fund it.  So accountability and transparency are critical for trust.

There are the other reasons we’ve discussed, for the changes ease of contacting folks like safety of humans and security of information technology.  Others?

Acknowledgements seem to me to be an important step.  For example, when I contact the WO Press Office, they tell me right away they received my email.  They might not ultimately be able to answer the question, or may get to it in a few weeks, or may need to be reminded, but I know they have it.  My latest attempt with USDA media did not receive an acknowledgement.

I’m curious as to what kind of approaches to such concerns or observations as Cindy mentions above (logs across trails, apparent violations of regulations and so on) folks have observed, and how well they have worked, both  for the District or Forest and for members of the public.  FS employees “what could members of the public do to help you serve them better?” and members of the public “what things do some FS units do that smooth the path of getting what you need from them?”  We’re mostly about “catching people doing something right” but if you want to share the opposite, that’s OK too.  No need to include specific individuals or units.

It’s always fun to compare the BLM and the FS given that many of the same external forces affect both of them.  Here’s the California contact page. They also have general mailboxes but have info on state leadership.  I personally prefer emails to feedback forms because I have a record of them. But that’s just me.

Private land conservation easements benefit national forest wildlife

by

In 2009, the owner of a golf course in Georgia donated a conservation easement to a non-profit land trust.  The easement included roughly 57 acres of primarily bottomland forests and wetlands along the Savannah River that would not be developed.  That land is directly across the river from the Sumter National Forest, 700 feet away.

To obtain a tax deduction for the conservation easement, it has to be “exclusively for conservation purposes” based on one or more of the criteria in the Internal Revenue Code.  They include:

(ii) the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem,

(iii) the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land) where such preservation is–

(I) for the scenic enjoyment of the general public, or

(II) pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, State, or local governmental conservation policy,

and will yield a significant public benefit,

These issues were recently litigated by the IRS for this easement in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the donation to be eligible as both habitat (ii) and scenic open space (iii)(I).  IRS Treasury Regulations elaborate on these requirements with regard to habitat by including “natural areas which are included in, or which contribute to, the ecological viability of a local, state, or national park, nature preserve, wildlife refuge, wilderness area, or other similar conservation area.”  However, the court accepted expert testimony from the IRS that the easement did not support the forest’s ecological viability.

There is no mention of testimony from the Forest Service. The 2012 Planning Rule stresses that, planning for ecological integrity must take into account “conditions in the broader landscape that may influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems within the plan area” (36 CFR §219.8(a)(1)(iii)).  In addition, where a national forest plan area can not maintain a viable population of a species of conservation concern, “the responsible official shall coordinate to the extent practicable with other Federal, State, Tribal, and private land managers having management authority over lands relevant to that population” (36 CFR §219.9(b)(2)(ii))).

The also court determined, regarding open space (iii)(II), that, “There is no qualifying federal, state, or local government conservation policy that applies to this land…” In fact, the Forest Service Open Space Conservation Strategy includes this vision: “Private and public open spaces will complement each other across the landscape to provide ecosystem services, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and sustainable products.”

In this case, private land adjacent to a national forest was conserved, but there is no evidence that the Forest Service was even paying attention.  The Forest Service needs to be more alert to these opportunities that would benefit national forest resources as well as contribute to greater national conservation needs.  Maybe if the Forest Service promoted its conservation policies better, they would facilitate more donated easements and protect more habitat for wildlife species that also use national forests.

Along somewhat the same lines, conservationists in Florida are striving to conserve the Ocala to Osceola Wildlife Conservation Corridor, which would connect the two national forests of those names across 50 miles of multiple other ownerships (including a military base).  Here is a presentation by the U. S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, which uses funding from the federal Farm Bill Resource Conservation Partnership Program to purchase conservation easements and create wildlife habitat on private lands within the corridor.  (This is the kind of “governmental conservation policy” that should also support federal tax deductions for donated conservation easements.)

The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is an excellent example of a species that the Forest Service needs to coordinate management with others for, and here’s a bit of the success story about that in the O2O Corridor.

A red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) captured at Camp Blanding in Clay County is evidence that a project led by North Florida Land Trust to preserve land within the Ocala to Osceola (O2O) wildlife corridor is working.  The bird captured at Camp Blanding was the first time this endangered species had moved between one of the national forests and the military installation since they began banding and recording the birds over 25 years ago.

“USDA Forest Service” is listed as a “partner” by NRCS, and the “National Forest Service” by the North Florida Land Trust.  The latter gives me a sense of how deeply the Forest Service has not been involved, and I sure can’t find anything about this effort on either national forest website or using a national search.  It’s too bad the Forest Service isn’t providing more leadership (and getting more of the credit) for conserving its important wildlife resources.

Post-Election Thoughts About Our Forests?

by

With a new Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, how will this affect the Forest Service and the BLM?

crown-fire-panorama-web

Regarding the picture: I did some processing with a High Dynamic Range (HDR) program to get this artsy view. It is interesting that it enhanced the flames better than in the original scan, from a Kodachrome slide. I shot this while filling in on an engine, on the Lassen NF, back in 1988.

“How to Respond to Criticism” by Fred Kofman

by

verbal aikidoNow, I am not a particular fan of Linkedin. It seems like it’s always on the edge of virus-like behavior, and doing unwanted things. At one point I must have clicked the wrong key and it sent messages inviting everyone I knew and also that of my husband. I got so mad at them I quit and closed my accounts. However, because SAF has a group there full of interesting material for this blog, I decided to rejoin it.

I was surprised yesterday to find something timely and useful pop up from Linkedin. It could also be because the other groups I belong to are the National Council for Dialogue and Deliberation and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, or perhaps a direct message from the Universe.

Of course, whether these two pieces are worth the loss of privacy is not exactly clear. I hope that you don’t need to be on Linked In to read these pieces.. they are by a fellow named Fred Kofman entitled “How to Respond to Criticism” parts 1 and 2. Here is the “linked in” link to part one..and below is an excerpt.

The only way to win a fight with a colleague is not to have it. Beating him will get you, at best, a defeated resentful opponent.

Here are four general strategies that reduce conflicts. They don’t guarantee you will avoid them, but minimize their probability.

Should they happen, they increase your odds of resolving them constructively. They create a positive predisposition towards collaborative relationships.

If you face an arrogant attack, they will help expose its irrationality, not only to you, but also to others who might frown upon your critic’s strong-arm tactics. If you face constructive criticism, they will help you and your critic turn the fight into a dance.

These strategies are not “nice” in the sense that they allow anybody to state whatever opinion they want. They are “clarifying” in the sense they eliminate the fog of war that prevents rational discussion. They are rules of engagement similar to the ones of the scientific method, which focus on reason and evidence. They take hostility out of the equation, allowing for a logical consideration of the different points of view.

* Speak with humility. Present your argument in safe language, as I described here. Own your opinions. Present them in first person as the conclusion of your reasoning process. This gives others the chance to present a different opinion without clashing with yours. For example, when you say, “In light of the evidence from the focus groups, I believe that the marketing campaign is ready to launch.” you make room for your counterpart to say, “I disagree. The focus groups may have liked the ads, but our retailers are not convinced.”

* Listen with respect. Pay attention to others’ arguments, as I described here, especially when you disagree with them. Reciprocity is the most powerful influence you can exert. If you genuinely try to understand their perspective, they are more likely to try to understand yours. For example, when you say, “It worries me that the retailers are not convinced, what do you suggest we do about it?” you neither discount his data nor yours. This allows both of you to examine all perspectives.

* Choose your battle. If the disagreement is a matter of personal preferences, there is no need to agree. It is futile to argue whether chocolate “tastes” better than strawberry. It may taste better to you, and it may taste worse to him. Unless a joint decision is necessary, it is best to agree to disagree. The desire to “be right” fuels fights that serve no practical purpose.

* Choose your battlefield. Culture can be defined as “the way we do things around here”. If you live in a culture where might makes right, your humility and respect will weaken you. Bullies will always win out in bully-land. Or at least until the group is eliminated by fitter competitors. Reason always beats force in the long term. If you don´t want to go the way of the dinosaurs, evolve to a more rational niche.

Here is a link to his second piece.

And we are pretty respectful here, generally, but once in a while some folks veer off track a bit..

R: “Do you think there is a place for dangerous language? I think the dangerous language comes across a lot stronger. It’s punchier and has a bigger impact. It’s like swearing, sometimes you want to have a bigger effect and therefore a swear word might be more appropriate.”

M: “When stakes are high, I find dangerous language dangerous. It comes, as you say, a lot stronger, like a punch with a big impact. I don´t know anybody who likes to get punched. If you want to hurt people, this is a great way to do it. If you want to collaborate with them, why would you want to intimidate them with swear words?”

R: “But sometimes (sometimes) it is perfectly normal to use more colorful language. Sometimes things ARE stupid, don’t you think?”

M: “No, I don´t think things ARE stupid. I think stupidity is in the eye of the (arrogant) beholder. I do believe that it is perfectly normal to use colorful language, and that is why it is perfectly normal for people to abuse each other, destroy relationships and waste energy in fruitless arguments. I also find it is perfectly normal for companies to collapse because arrogant bullies cannot work together.”

Here is a link to the author.

More Tempests in err… Teapots

by

This post is about this story in the Washington Times

I think this is worth talking about because there are risks to FS people saying things..even on their own “first-amendment protected” time. Still, I think it would be better for the public if more FS employees said more; both being unleashed by the Dept., and also using their own time. Yes, people will say embarrassing things but the ratio of embarrassing things to helpful perspectives is generally pretty low. And if there were a person who (at work) screwed up regularly, there are ways of dealing with that that we learned in management school. And if someone who is (on their own time) screwed up regularly, people might stop reading.

One thing is for sure, trying to control information in this day and age, is putting the genie back in the bottle.

You know, there is an old expression, to paraphrase “There but for the grace of Gaia go I”. We have all said things we regret. We all try to be more careful in public speaking and writing and on the internet because it can go anywhere and appears to live forever. It just heightens the importance of being “impeccable with your word.” But the very immediacy of the internet enables poor self-editing. Anyway, there is also an expression in my spiritual tradition about casting stones, and I am not without sin in this area, so I’m not going there.

Note: I think that the three questions in the column to the right on this blog are very helpful in self-editing.is it true? Is it helpful? Is it kind?