California forest policy must bend toward the new social order

The template for California's forest policies emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, a time of increasing federal power, global expansion and hard social distinctions. Of the state's 2 million or so people, few were eligible to vote and fewer still were in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jeff Romm
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources 2000-03-01
Series:California Agriculture
Online Access:http://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/?article=ca.v054n02p35
id doaj-14ecbc2ecdcc4ae4aacc05410d478dd7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-14ecbc2ecdcc4ae4aacc05410d478dd72020-11-24T23:05:58ZengUniversity of California Agriculture and Natural ResourcesCalifornia Agriculture0008-08452160-80912000-03-01542354210.3733/ca.v054n02p3510.3733/cav054n02_7California forest policy must bend toward the new social orderJeff Romm0J. Romm is Professor and Chair, Resource Institutions, Policy and Management, College of Natural Resources, UC BerkeleyThe template for California's forest policies emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, a time of increasing federal power, global expansion and hard social distinctions. Of the state's 2 million or so people, few were eligible to vote and fewer still were interested in forests. Forest policy was the arena of a relatively small group. Today a similar, relatively small group controls California forests, but the political base for their control is eroding. California's diverse and democratic society of 35 million people no longer conforms to the wishes of any forest elite, be it scientific, governmental, industrial or environmental. Yet the state's forest elites continue to arm-wrestle as though the old social structure still held. California citizens, meanwhile, have organized hundreds of watershed groups in neighborhoods and communities statewide, supporting goals such as salmon recovery, urban access and local economic opportunity. These actions represent a massive spontaneous change in political culture. The simple choices of 25 or 50 years ago, of preservation versus use, public versus private, no longer encompass the interests of California's population. By 2025, a highly diversified landscape of forest institutions, management techniques and ecological conditions will soften current jurisdictional distinctions. The people who come to the table to discuss forest policy will no longer be just the elites who shaped forest policy in the 20th century. Whether we are better off or not will depend on how aggressively the state pursues the innovations necessary to sustain cohesive and resilient forest systems serving larger public interests.http://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/?article=ca.v054n02p35
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jeff Romm
spellingShingle Jeff Romm
California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
California Agriculture
author_facet Jeff Romm
author_sort Jeff Romm
title California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
title_short California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
title_full California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
title_fullStr California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
title_full_unstemmed California forest policy must bend toward the new social order
title_sort california forest policy must bend toward the new social order
publisher University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources
series California Agriculture
issn 0008-0845
2160-8091
publishDate 2000-03-01
description The template for California's forest policies emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, a time of increasing federal power, global expansion and hard social distinctions. Of the state's 2 million or so people, few were eligible to vote and fewer still were interested in forests. Forest policy was the arena of a relatively small group. Today a similar, relatively small group controls California forests, but the political base for their control is eroding. California's diverse and democratic society of 35 million people no longer conforms to the wishes of any forest elite, be it scientific, governmental, industrial or environmental. Yet the state's forest elites continue to arm-wrestle as though the old social structure still held. California citizens, meanwhile, have organized hundreds of watershed groups in neighborhoods and communities statewide, supporting goals such as salmon recovery, urban access and local economic opportunity. These actions represent a massive spontaneous change in political culture. The simple choices of 25 or 50 years ago, of preservation versus use, public versus private, no longer encompass the interests of California's population. By 2025, a highly diversified landscape of forest institutions, management techniques and ecological conditions will soften current jurisdictional distinctions. The people who come to the table to discuss forest policy will no longer be just the elites who shaped forest policy in the 20th century. Whether we are better off or not will depend on how aggressively the state pursues the innovations necessary to sustain cohesive and resilient forest systems serving larger public interests.
url http://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/?article=ca.v054n02p35
work_keys_str_mv AT jeffromm californiaforestpolicymustbendtowardthenewsocialorder
_version_ 1725624593626955776