17(4), August 1995 127

Changing SocialValues and Images of Public Management

J.J. Kennedy, B.L. Fox, and T.D. Osen

Many political, economiç-and'ocial changes of the last things (biocentric values). These human values are 30 years have affected Ar'ierican views of good public expressed in various ways—such as laws, rangeland use, rangeland and how it should be managed. Underlying all socio-political action, popularity of TV nature programs, this socio-political change s the shift in public values governmental budgets, coyote jewelry, or environmental of an American industrial na4i hat emerged from WWII to messages on T-shirts. become an urban, postindutr society in the 1970s. Much of the American public hold environmentally-orientedpublic land values today, versus the commodity and community The Origin of Rangeland Social Values economic development orientation of the earlier conserva- We that there are no and tion era (1900—1969). The American public is also mentally propose fixed, unchanging intrinsic or nature values. All nature and visually tied to a wider world through expanded com- rangeland values are human creations—eventhe biocentric belief that nature has munication technology. value independent of our human endorsement or use. Consider golden eagles or vultures as an example. To Managing Rangelands as Evolving Social Value begin with, recognizing a golden eagle or vulture high in flight is learned behavior. It is a socially taught skill (and not Figure 1 presents a simple rangeland value model of four easily mastered)of distinguishingthe cant of wings in soar- interrelated systems: (1) the environmental/natural ing position and pattern of tail or wing feathers. After learn- system of elements, including humans, ing to recognize one bird from the other, there is a norma- rangelands, or watersheds; (2) the social system of tive or evaluative reaction to these birds—whether it be human attitudes, values, behavior, institutions,and technol- positive, negative, or neutral. No humans are born knowing ogy; (3) the economic system that focuses on institutions how to 1) recognize or 2) react to these animals in the air. and behavior related to the allocation of land, labor, and Both are socially learned behavior, and human reaction to a capital; and (4) the political system of policy, laws, courts, golden eagle often differs if one were raised and socialized and public agencies. on a sheep or in a suburb. In the Rangeland social values originate in only one of these last half of this century, most Americans have had their systems—the social system. Rangeland values, are environmental perceptions and values shaped in the latter expressed to managers (and the rest of social environment. society) by three systems: the economic, social, and politi- Of course rangeland values are not formed in isolation cal. We propose the belief, disturbing to some people, that within the social system, but as that system interacts with the environmentalsystem itself neither originates nor the environmental and other systems (Figure 1). Rangeland expresses rangeland social value. Only human interaction values also evolve, as do most social values. Rural agricul- with rangelands originates social values, whetherthis is based on consumptive use (utilitarian values) or is derived simply through appreciation of natural systems and living

Authorsare respectively with the Department, Utah State University, LoganUtah 84322-5215; Range, Air, Watershed and Ecology staff, USDA-Forest Service RegionalOffice, Missoula, Montana 59807; and Range Staff, Lewis andClark NF, GreatFalls, Montana 59403. Acknowledgments: The managingnatural resources as social value and other theories presented here have been developed with longterm research sup- port of the Department of Forest Resources,Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5215; the USDA-Forest Service (Chief's Olfice), Washington, DC, 20250; the Blue Mountains Natural Resourcenstitute, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; plus the Vice President for Research and the Utah ExperimentStation (Project 712),Utah State University, Logan, UT (Paper 4544). This article was developed in a BLM and USFS-sponsoredshortcourse: Socio-Economic Aspects of Raneland Management (BLM Phoenix Training Center, Feb. 1993) with the involvement of 29 mid-career professionals, includ- ing two of the authors ofthis paper. The first version of this article wasthen pre- senled at the Society for Range Management annual meeting, Colorado Fig. 1. Interacting systems in which natural resource values originate Springs, CO(14-16 February 1994). andare communicated to society.

1 128 RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 tural societies, for example, tend to have different interac- in crop production, where biological diversity was often the tions with rangelands than do urban societies, often result- enemy. Some wildlife was good (), while other wildlife ing in different perceptions, values, and uses. Many mod- was positioned at the negative end of a value continuum ern controversies over rangeland or wildlife issues are con- (e.g., varmints or predators). Then and now, ruraVagricul- flictsof agricultural (utilitarian) and urban (biocentric)values tural value systems generally emphasize the practical, utili- about human relationshipswith and the use of nature (e.g., tarian value of nature. This is reinforced in logging, ranch- 1080 poisoning of predators, managing wild horses, ripari- ing or employment,and in common rural recreation- an management).None of these rangeland or nature value al pursuits like hunting, fishing, trapping or rodeos orientations fall from heaven, nor do they have different ori- (Kennedy 1973, Williamson 1992). gins. They are part of a continuum of nature values that America became an industrial society in the last part of originates in the minds of individuals and groups (social the nineteenth century, with increasing socio-politicalcon- system) as their changing perceptions and human needs cern for predictable long-term flows of natural resource interact with the environmental,political, and economic sys- commodities for our factories and cities. The conservation tems. movement (1900—1969), with its promise of sustained-yield Children in the agricultural stage of American socio-eco- timber or forage flows and harvestable game surpluses, nomic development (1600 to post-civil war) mostly formed well accommodatedthis socio-political need. Natural their values in a blood and blister intimacy with nature. As resource agencies, plus forest and game managementpro- Table 1 illustrates, American agricultural youth (especially fessions, were created (Hays 1959). Recreational,aesthet- males) were usually raised with a gun, trap or axe in ic and biocentric values were an important component of hand—and in communities where utilitarian values domi- some early conservation visionaries, centered largely in nated. They learned that and animals had value pri- urban areas and championed by people such as John Muir. marily in how well they satisfied immediate human survival Yet these values did not become a dominantforce in natur- and economic needs. The highest valued land was usually al resource management until the 1960s, with the emer-

Table 1. Twooften-conflictIng sets ofnatural resource of envIronmentuses and values.

Issues Rural, agricultural cultures Urban industrial or (especially) post-industrial cultures 1. Settingswhere nature *cuftingfirewood Watching television or valuesare learned Farming and ranching Walt Disney films *Protecting cropsand Reading books animals fromweeds, Recreation experiences insects of predators (e.g., camping) 2. Popular outdoor *Hunting Hiking and nature study recreational activities *Fishing Camping, auto-touring and learning *Trapping Bird-watching environments Rodeo activities *Biology or science courses 3. Dominant values and Practical, utilitarian Romantic, biocentric, attitudes towardthe valuesdominate intrinsicvalues dominate naturalenvironment Economic worth of Nature does not haveto thingsparamount be used or sold to have Focus on material and value instrumental values *These valuesare often Thesevalues oftenseem viewedas impractical and selfish, exploitative and unrealistic in a crass in a biocentric utilitarian value context value context 4. Dependence on nature •Agriculture, ranching or Professional, clerical, for a livelihood logging occupations manufacturing and other *Fur pelts, game meatand types ofjobs that often crop/domestic animal do not use natural production requires resources in raw, wildlife harvestand unprocessed condition control Jobsare distant and *Self identity (especially indirectly dependent on formales) tied tonature using nature or natural dominating and resources exploiting occupation or recreation (e.g., Did you get your buck?) RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 129

gence of an urban, postindustrial society and the advent of 1993). But such expression of social value is the subject of the environmentalmovement. the next section. The range management profession (the SRM began in 1948) and the Bureau of (BLM) were establishing themselves in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet their The Expression of Rangeland Social Value value systems and cherished symbols (e.g., SRM Trail Public have been conditioned to Boss) were firmly rooted in traditional conservation and rangeland managers rural values of a era. An BLM respond to values expressed by political and social sys- development passing early or visits shield of working men, shoulder-to-shoulder and biceps tems. Laws, budgets, Congressional inquiries by commissioners are of bulging, marching toward a destiny that looks like an oil county political system expressions well illustrates such con- rangeland or natural resource values. Friendly or not-friend- refinery (Figure 2), developmental, recreational servation era values. The emergence of a new BLM agency ly encounters in a local community, increased or rabbit are and a in the 1950s, use, newspaper editorials, a jack round-up pri- range management profession steeped of values. Of in traditional, utilitarian natural resource values, was poised marily social system expressions rangeland for socio-political conflict—for America was then beginning course, these values are rarely expressed solely through one For a state cattlemens' association its urban post-industrial stage of socio-economic develop- system. example, ment of its citizens offered a formidable (in the social system) may provide input to agency man- (Table 1). Many obtain challenge to the view that utilitarian and economic values agers and lobby a state legislature (political system), financial endorsement of local businesses were the most legitimate indicator of public forest or range- (economic sys- land worth. soon to these new tem), and encourage community members to write legisla- Legislation passed express wildlife social values Act of 1964, National tors (social and political systems) to change state (e.g., utilization. Act of 1969, or Wild Horse and policy impacting rangeland In as diverse and intricate as is Burros ProtectionAct of 1971). many ways in our After two decades of incremental agency adaptation to exchanged complex , postindustrial American is increased amounts and these new postindustrial social values, major philosophical society expressing of social values In the shifts in basic publicland management have been types rangeland (Brunson 1992). announced. Industrial era, 1950-60s, public rangeland issues were not that newswor- output-focused, sustained-yield did not have and social has evolved to the sustainable system focus of USDA- thy (i.e., they deep widespread Forest Service (USFS) " management"(Kesseler value). The amount of social value expression was small, isolated in the and reserved for the et al. 1992, Overbay 1992) and Change on the Range West, normally agricul- tural sections of local (USDA-FS 1988), or BLM Rangeland Reform '94 (USD1 newspapers. Estimating rangeland values in the 1950s was usually simple, economic value arithmetic—withsome multiple use "constraint" considera- tions for wildlife or recreation. Now public rangeland issues and are a common feature of the media on both sides of the 6)CtS Qochgrounci and warrant in national or aboo,' Mississippi, front-page coverage state-level newspapers, newscasts, or magazines. They BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT have spilled out of relatively obscure state and national leg- islative committeesto open, intensive floor debate—asevi- denced by Congressional gridlock over the FY 1994 Interior Appropriations bill, that contained Range Reform 94 mea- sures and fee increases. Estimating rangeland val- ues seems to have shifted from simple dollars-and-cents "arithmetic" to "integral calculus" of many complex, interre- lated, and oft-competinguses and values. Economicvalues today are also only one, and often not the primary indicator, that expresses public rangeland social value. More than the number, the different types and sources of public rangeland social values has expanded enormously. In the past, rangeland managers had to access a small, rather homogenousgroup of grazing advisory boards, state 1956 cattlemens' organizations,or local legislators to encounter most of the rangelandsocial values that the public cared to BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT express. The number of important rangeland social value DEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIOR "contacts" (sources of value expression) tended to be and local. Communication was Washington 25 D.C. small, well-known, usually personal,not public. Today a wide variety of public and pri- or individuals are Fig. 2. Initial USD1-Bureau of Land Management shield (circa mid- vate organizations, media, legislators, a diverse of 1950s). communicating spectrum public rangeland 130 RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 social values. Many isolated, local rangeland issues go During America's industrial stage, that occupied first two- public and national over a weekend—at light-speed over thirds of this century, machine-model thinking dominated satellite communicationnetworks. the nation's conception of how to manage its factories, Sometimes it is difficult for us rangeland managers and schools, cities, or rangelands. Americans were fas- users not to react to all these increasedamounts and types cinated, enrapturedand proud of the machines that revolu- of rangeland social values personally—asif they were con- tionized factories, , homes or streets—as well as the trived and orchestrated to make our professional more simple, linear machine-modelsthat hummed in our heads. and the complex confusing (Brunson 1992). Ironically, Such machine-modelthinking was central to more simple, increased amount of attention that are rangelands receiving traditional, conservation era (1900—1969) knowledge and is a compliment—that resources we use and manage are the of timber, or in more management grazing, game (outputs) socio-politically important than is the simple, good- sustained-yield,input/output, models. Since so new environmental and recre- carrying capacity ole-days. many The evolution of our culture, science, and global experi- ational social values cannot be in dollars-and- expressed ence calls for new, complex, integrated organic-model cents by the economic system, the primary way for publics to the and to communicate thinking guide conception management of our their rangeland values is via social, politi- valuable human, and natural resources cal and channels—communication capital, (Kennedy legal channels that often and Table 2 contrasts machine versus are full of static and mixed sometimes are R- Quigley 1993). messages, organic-models that underlie much of the difference in rated, and often contact sports. 1960s versus 1990s thinking of Table 3. Changing Social Values and New Public Rangeland Models Management Evolving Values, Images, and Context of Public With the increasing biocentric and environmental social Rangeland Management values of an urban, postindustrial American the society, At the advent of the 1970s environmental movement, the image of what good public rangeland should look like and machine-model view that how it should be largely dominated public range- managed has changed (Sharpe 1992, land conservationwas the with USDA-FS 1988). New scientific have also chal- sea-of-grass image: healthy insights center-stage, accented by fence-road- lenged old images of good rangeland use and manage- that ment. 'improvements", were primarily used and managed by Simple machine-models of rangeland management male heros and are to more and interrelated solitary mythic (ranchers range-cons). yielding complex organic-mod- Table 3 depicts good stewardship in that era associated els (see Table 2). with intensive rangeland investment and development.The We attempt to capture some of the generalities in these social value context was focused on a specific group of socio-political changes and contrast them in a 1960s ver- in a narrow time and sus 1990s of people, relatively space context—all "snapshot" comparisons good public range- within of course. land in Table 3. The 1990s column that sustained-yielriconstraints, management in in this machine-model USFS or BLM table is not where Caught up drama, necessarily public rangeland manage- managers often forgot the original and critical promise of ment is (or should be), but just our estimate of the direction creating public forest and rangelands in the first place. it is evolving. We will only summarize a few of these trends. Namely, that they would be natural resources "trust fund" for current and future generations.They would emphasize Emergence of Organic-Models of broad, multiple, public social values (vs. more focused pri- Rangeland vate Public Management value). forest and were to be a social trust fund alternativeand an insuranceannuity to bal- ance the potential excesses and of free Table 2. Two contrasting world views: machine-modeland organ- myopia enterprise ic-model forest or rangeland management. They were to be a choice, not an echo to private forest and rangeland man- Yet our of well forests Machine-Model Perspective Organic-Model Perspective agement. images managed public and rangelands in the 1960s often had them looking and Simple, similar systems Complex, diverse systems functioning similar to the intensively developed and man- Isolated and separate systems Integrated and interrelated aged private on the other side of the fence. systems The expanding public forest and rangeland values of Linear, cause-effect relationships Multi-faceted, curvilinear, and today's society, plus the increased knowledge of how com- dominate cyclical relationships are the — plex, integrated, and diverse are these ecosystems, have norm with chaos new of wildcard possibilities generated images good natural resource/ecosystem management. The result has been a more organic-model Deductive logic and simple Inductive, integrative logic view of 1) the social values to be considered, the com- efficient/optimization models and complex inclusive 2) appropriate simulation models plex and interrelatedecosystems impacted, 3) the interdis- appropriate ciplinary groups with which we must interact, and 4) the public and political involvement we must seek in managing RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 131

Table 3. Changing values, Images,and context of goodpublic rangelandmanagement: a 1960s vs. 1990s snapshot.

(.ontrasting Decades Of: Elements: 1960s 1990s Dominant Machine-model ofsimple, Organic-models of complex, diverse, Paradigms compartmentalized range allotments interrelated range ecosystems Meetcurrent and futureneeds of individual Meetcurrent and future needs ofa wide operators and rural communities spectrum of local and national publics Single resource planning and management forshort- Integrated resource planning for many social termgoals—within longterm multiple use constraints values, with increased public involvement Quest for super exotic or native range plants to Increased respect forcomplex, diverse, and dominate a rangeland changing native communities Rangelands, especially systems, perceived as Rangelands valued for diverse usesand having lower values thanagricultural, , noncommodity, as well as commodity, values or forest lands Good "Sea-of-Grass" Model: ordered, efficient, simplified plant A diverse matrix of native plant communities Rangeland communities (often monocultures) to increase livestock and habitats forvaried social values Looks Like... production Intensive fence, waterand access "improvements" to Extensive and subtle development—touchthe increase forage production and to illustrate investment land lightly in the land (good stewardship) Guiding Simple, mechanical models Complex, organic models Management Models Sustained yield outputfocus of longterm Ecosystem management focus on health and AUM flows of system itself Compartmentalized rest rotation More integrated holisticsystems Livestock is the focus and the primary Livestock is atool (process) to manage and a long term product beneficiary of healthy ecosystems Maximize livestock production Balanced livestock integration with multiple use, sustainability, and other resource values Range inventory and analysis Integrated inventory and analysis, utilize remote sensing techniques thatinclude new and traditional range values Good range condition in terms of Ecological status and desired future plant livestock production communities formultiple resource values Intensive technology to fix resource Sustainable management based on productive capability problems and maximize outputs of land, with minimal intensive capital investments Dominant Time Annual reports and short term(e.g., Longterm outlook and desired future 5—10 yr) planning conditions (e.g., 10—50 yr) Management results within a fewyears Decades to achieve desired conditions Increase profitability of current range operations Maintain futureoptions forgenerations of diverse groups Implement type conversions with expectancy Understand presettlement conditions and range of of 10—20 yrs natural variability in orderto determine possible future ecosystem options Dominant Administrative or jurisdictional land units Focus on ecological landscape units(e.g., hierarchical Space Dimension (e.g., allotment or districts) landscape units ranging from global to specific sites) Allotment focus Ecoregion focus Local community oriented Orientation to , nation, planet Era of great men (both ranchers and range managers) Professionalethnic and gender diversity Respected "Range Boss—tough, individualistic, self-sufficient Era of ID-teams, cooperators, partners, and public Rangeland Manager heroes and loners involvement Role-Models and F-Ieroes Action-oriented, results-focused achievers who get Processes (like cultural or ecosystem diversity) as things dones important as output achievement Land, Labor Public rangeland per U.S. and global population Public rangeland per U.S.and global population more Capital Conditions more abundant scarce anddeveloped Abundant public capital for rangeland development Deficit-burdened Congress and society and research Scarcity oftrained range managers More abundant and diverse rangeland ecosystem managers available 132 RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995

These public rangelands. new values, images, models, and machine-model is yielding to organic-model perspectives in the have relationships evolved to become USFS ecosystem man- classroom, on farms and factory floors, on forests and range- agement (Overbay 1992), and agency programs such as lands. Rangeland or forest site productivity models are on Change the Range (USFA-FS, 1988) and BLM's expanding to ecosystem management space dimensions, sus- Range/and Reform '94 (USD1 1993). We must emphasize that tained-yieldis evolving toward sustainable ecosystem man- this ecosystems management thinking requires that the plan- agement. and of ning management public lands consider current and A subtle but revolutionary aspect of the sustainable ecosys- future land It private conditions. does not suggest or require tem management paradigm is a shift from a focus on system that private rangelands be controlled or regulated. Past public outputs to value and integrityof the system itself. We in the forest and rangeland planning and management often did not Western-world have generally felt that public or private land consider land private conditions and trends adequately, and owed us humans abundant and timeless output tithes. Like us to them. adapt Ecosystem managemept requires that public work-ethic people, the land was expected to produce—the land management expand its perspective to estimate current more the better (Passmore 1974, Rolston 1988). The conser- and future uses and conditions of al/lands in an ecoregion. vation movement placed this central cultural view in a Then manage to provide public land management choices (not Iongterm, multiple use, sustained-yield context of continuous to echoes) complement,balance, and diversify the resource flows of goods and servicesfor currentsociety and future gen- values of the ecoregion. erations (Hays 1959). This was no small shift in thinking or a simple political accomplishment; and it was a needed and logi- cal evolution of machine-model thinking to provide a continu- Closing Comment ous flow of multiple goods and services for an industrializing nationand future generations. But this was an Our paper offers two new, broad output-focused, public rangeland manage- not a process or system focus perspective. We forest and ment models or First, forest or man- perspectives. rangeland rangeland ecosystem managers must move quickly to agers do not just manage natural resource stuff , (e.g., embrace and implement sustainable elk, water, cattle, as much as the social values ecosystem management grass), evolving thinking, that incorporatesmore and for associatedwith them. This natural resource social value knowledge respect origi- healthy, sustainable ecosystems themselvesin an inclusive nates with people in a cultural context (social system) that has ecoregion context-aswell as the outputs they can bequeath a changed greatly in the last 100 years—as America evolved society living and reserve for those yet to be born. Otherwise from a ruralagricultural, to an industrial, to our cur- urbanizing rangeland managers will be less and less relevant to the com- rent urban post-industrial society. We can, therefore, redefine plex, interdependent social values and needs of an urban, the basic role of rangeland management as providing longterm postindustrial American society, our continent, and our planet. flows of diverse multiple social values (andfuture management options) from healthy, diverse, sustainable rangeland and associated ecosystems. In addition, since so many natural Literature Cited resource/environmental social values are in conflict, we might consider our rangeland managers' basic professional role as Brunson, M. 1992. Professional bias, public perspectives, and com- socio-political conflict munication pitfalls for natural resource managers. Rangelands management. Obviously, these concepts 1 make more sense and have more for 4(5):292—295. validity public (vs. pri- Brunson, M. and J.J. Kennedy. 1995. In: R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates vate) and management. (eds.) A new century for natural resources management.Island Since our social value managementmodel that Press, Washington, DC (pp. 143—158). suggests S.P. 1959. Conservation and the natural resource or environmental social values arise from an Hays, gospel of efficiency. Harvard University Press, Mass. interaction between Cambridge, 197pp. (or relationship) people and the environ- Kennedy, J.J. 1973. Some effects of urbanization on big and small ment, then natural resource managers might also consider game management. Transactions of 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference themselves relationship managers (Brunson and Kennedy 38:248—255 Kennedy,J.J. and T.M. Quigley. 1993. "Evolution of Forest Service 1995). Relationship managers? Sounds like a of description organizational culture and adaptation issues in embracing ecosys- personnel managers, marriage counselors, or other psycholog- tem management." In: M.E. Jensen and F.S. Bourgeron (eds) ically-based professions. Yes it does, but we share more with Eastside Forest Ecosystem Assessment—Vol II: Ecosystem these disciplines than our natural resource Management: Principlesand Application. Pacific NW Forest and management pro- Range Research Station, Portland, Ore. fessions have been able to and embrace—and that (pp 19—30). recognize Kessler, W.B.,H. Salwasser,C.W. Cartwright Jr., and J.A. Caplan. may have been to our professional detriment and that of the 1992. Newperspectives for sustainable natural resources manage- natural resource/environmental stuff we all cherish. We are ment. Ecological Applications 2:223—225. and have been human and Overbay, J.C. 1992. Ecosystem management. Paper at national work- always rangeland relationship shop on taking an ecological to We had better approach management. (Reprint managers. recognize this and become better at available from USDA-Forest Service, Washington D.C.)8pp. it. Passmore, J. 1974. Mans' responsibility for nature. C. Scribner's The second broad, general offered Sons, New York.213 pp. management perspective Rolston, H., III 1988. Environmental ethics. for consideration is the machine-model versus Temple Univ. Press, organic-model Philadelphia, Penn. 391pp. world view. We that argue application of simple, linear, cause- Sharpe, M. 1992. The conservation perspective. Rangelands effect natural resource machine-models may have been 1 4(2):53—56. USDA-ForestService. 1988. on the acceptable and pardonable in America'smore simple industrial Change range. Washington DC. USD1-Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Rangeland reform 94. stage and conservation era. Not today! In the 1990s, the Washington, DC. Williamson, L. 1992. Identifying shinola. Rangelands 14(2):81—84.