I had written in an earlier post, I believe we commonly develop our ideology by way of life learning that hopefully will allow us to hear the resonance of truth. We develop our world view, so to speak, even when our world is relatively small. This story speaks to my corner of the world and how my life’s learning has affected my view.
I grew up in what is still considered to be a relatively small city, Boise, Idaho. Living outdoors was the rule for most when I was young; backpacking, fishing, rafting, and skiing were some of the activities most Idahoans commonly enjoyed. Suffice it to say there was a kinship that many of us developed with the forests, rivers, and mountains; a kinship i never lost. Standing at the foot of the Sawtooths, White Clouds or Boulder Mountains, when I was young and on foot, gave me the feeling the wilderness was not only magical, it was limitless as well.
I have worked for the same company for nearly thirty years. Literally learning the business from the ground up, I was ultimately given the opportunity to manage a couple of our businesses within one of our divisions. In my time with the company, we have been both public and private, had four CEO’s, a number of Senior VP’s and officers alike, countless mid level and location level managers, and thousands of employees. I have been fortunate to know many of them professionally and personally.
Boise had a number Corporate Headquarters for a small city and I ended up working for one that managed one of Idaho’s major resources, timber. We manufactured and distributed forest products as well as expanded into a number of non-forestry related businesses. My interest and focus had always been with the forest products side of our company. As you might expect, in thirty years, I witnessed significant changes in the public’s awareness and concern for environmental issues. In the late seventies, my view of the forest was that it was not there solely to provide us with recreational opportunities; it was an economic resource as well; a crop so to speak. We planted, cut, manufactured products, and replanted. This seemed fairly straight forward to me, although I quickly became aware of the challenges we faced given the effects forestry had on biodiversity. I also became aware that a publicly traded company's first responsibility was to garner the greatest return to their shareholders. As a result, there was a great deal of skepticism from the public at large about our industry's concern or desire to responsibly manage our public timber resources. The public was becoming increasingly aware of the potential risks of unchecked industrial practices which paved the way for environmental concerns to move from the fringes to the mainstream. A clear conflict between industry and ideology arose in the Pacific Northwest when an environmental movement used the endangered species act, enacted in 1973, to further an environmental agenda; do away with logging altogether by whatever means necessary and do it quickly. The mantra “save the spotted owl” rang through our industry and in less than a decade, the forestry industry in Idaho was decimated; leaving behind many small communities with no way to survive. We saved the owl, but at a tremendous cost; individuals and families lost everything that, in many cases, took generations to build.
I often wonder what happened to those whose property, and way of life, was lost due to what was largely an urban call to save the rural lands; the unintended, or intended, consequence of heeding the public outcry with policies such as the endangered species act was swift. There was no just recourse for these individuals and families; they were gone with no more noise than the whisper of the wind that blew through the forests where they lived.
I vividly remember this was when I first became acutely aware of the effect changes in public policy had on individuals and families on behalf of the "common good". I never had given the environmental movement much consideration prior to the 1980's. I was an advocate for environmental responsibility to be sure, given I had spent most of my youth exploring the very areas that many said were being destroyed. I applauded science being used to improve ways to approach proper watershed management, clear cutting, and burn management. I assumed anyone connected to our public lands were as well. To suggest otherwise defied reason.
A host of sound environmental practices need to be continuously improved in industry in general. Dam systems on the Columbia River, for example, largely contributed to virtually wiping out much of the migratory fish populations in Idaho, yet effective application of good science, within the last thirty years, has significantly contributed to the return of these migratory populations. Good science at time lags industry, given there is often little profit motive for biodiversity study and, in many cases, it frequently conflicts with industry; yet many industries need access to public resources and they need public support to gain it. Our public resources should only be available to industry when we, as citizens, can clearly benefit by that access and this benefit can only be assured when the best science is used to manage it. To assume the best way for our citizens to enjoy our public lands is to lock them up however, makes no more sense than to let industry gain unbridled access. Clean air, water, and natural open spaces need to be preserved for future generations without question. To simply hope that industry pressure, urban expansion, and even individual desires can co-exist with an unguarded environment is unrealistic and unachievable. Hope, it’s been said, is not a strategy. So we want our federal, state, and municipal governments to represent our interest by providing effective stewardship of our natural resources. But we also need to understand that this can have an enormous impact on our citizens so we need to be careful we don't trade ones self-serving agenda for another. At times, our system serves us well, but of course, this largely depends on if your interests are being served when policies shift. Anytime you hear someone say the choice to take from one to give to another for the common good is a simple matter, they are either naïve or dishonest. In any case, there is nothing simple about finding a balance.
Flash forward twenty years and the views that have been carved into my life have been through my personal and professional relationships and experiences. Many of the associations I have made have led me to believe that people are generally concerned about the effect they have on those around them. They are concerned about the environment, health care, jobs, education and families. I wasn't in the board room thirty years ago, so I don't know if we responsibly managed our public lands. Since then however, it should be mentioned, I have met a number of our foresters and they are, without question, the most knowledgeable and environmentally conscience people I know. In addition, today, there are few I respect more than many of the leaders of our organization and it reflects in the quality of the employees in our organization. On many occasions, our company has put our employee's interest ahead of our short term economic interest with the intent to invest in long term, sustainable results; which, it should be observed, serves both.
Too often we wrongly make assumptions about the motivations of people within organizations and the organizations themselves. In many cases these are self serving assumptions with the intent to support whatever position we need. I’m certain this so seldom reflects what you hear, given I so seldom hear it myself. Perhaps it isn’t the norm that people are honest and care for others, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that it’s simply more convenient to acknowledge what we believe to be wrong than hope for what might be right. Tomorrow, make a decision with the intent to benefit those who are impacted by your decision. Search first for the common good by contributing to the common good. Produce something before asking for something. Help someone before asking for help. Does this answer the larger question of where government should begin and end? No, not at all, but it’s a good place to start. This is what I've learned in thirty years and change.
