Letters to the Editor

Forest Products Journal, Jan/Feb 2008 by Bradley, Gordon, Pyles, Marvin R, Douglas, Robert A

Editor's Note: In order to encourage dialogue, clarify misunderstandings, or correct misinformation for the benefit of all readers, Forest Products Journal encourages readers to submit letters that address such concerns. We will attempt to publish such letters, along with responses from the appropriate authors.

Disappearance of forestry curricula

I am writing in response to a guest editorial by Marvin Pyles and Robert Douglas "Inappropriate productivity measures: the demise of university forestry programs?" in the November 2007 Forest Products Journal.

The authors argue that academic programs in particular, forest engineering are being eliminated by university administrators using a narrow set of criteria that disregard the needs of the forest industry and the economy. The authors use program examples from the University of Washington, College of Forest Resources (CFR) to support this argument. Specifically the authors suggest that the University of Washington and CFR use a narrow cost-benefit analysis to make curriculum decisions; that, as a result, the forest engineering curriculum was eliminated; and that CFR's remaining undergraduate programs focus exclusively on ecology and conservation at the expense of "classical" forestry and are not accredited by the Society of American Foresters (SAF),

CFR uses a broad set of performance criteria to inform all strategic planning and decision-making activities in order to ensure teaching, research and outreach programs that effectively serve the university, its students and all of the client groups that depend on its "products." Products include not only students, but also research, professional outreach and continuing education and technology transfer. The criteria are developed and approved by the faculty and are thoroughly vetted with outside constituents, including a standing Visiting Committee with membership from large and small timber companies; timber industry associations; local, state and federal land management agencies; and national non-profits.

The authors point out that only three U.S. universities now offer forest engineering programs. CFR's decision to discontinue its forest engineering program was, like the decision reached in other universities, made only after deliberate and lengthy review. After many years of successfully providing the forestry profession with forest engineers, undergraduate enrollment and employment opportunities in forest engineering began to decline with the virtual elimination of harvesting programs on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest, the loss of international markets and the major restructuring of industrial forest products companies. An important criterion for academic program development, continuation or elimination is the opportunity that graduates have for gainful employment. This is particularly important in a professional college like CFR. After trying to sustain a program for several years with about fifteen students served by about six full-time faculty, it became apparent that this was not a viable curriculum. Few organizations would continue such an enterprise faced with similar circumstances.

The authors suggest that CFRs Environmental Science and Resource Management (ESRM) undergraduate curriculum emphasizes ecology and conservation at the expense of forestry. Further, they express concern with our program by using the following quote which they attribute to the University of Toronto, "Increasingly, the focus of forest management has shifted to include biodiversity maintenance, ecological sustainability and the protection of wildlife and their habitats." CFR's ESRM curriculum is a consolidation of six former curricula that was undertaken, after considerable discussion with input from all of CFR s internal and external constituents, to achieve greater integration, efficiency and relevance. ESRM is comprised of five options: sustainable forest management, landscape ecology and conservation, restoration ecology and environmental horticulture, wildlife conservation and a student specific option.

Far from "disregarding classical forestry," ESRM's sustainable forest management option prepares students to practice forestry in organizations that manage lands in a sustainable manner as evidenced by achieving certification status either through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), or other programs. This includes almost all private forest landowners and state land management organizations operating in North America; in future, it may include federal lands as well. Students in this option learn aspects of "classical forestry" as well as managing forests for biodiversity, ecological sustainability, wildlife, and recreation and aesthetics all substantive conditions of contemporary certified forestland management.

With regard to SAF accreditation, CFR decided to shift accreditation status to a professional masters program, creating a 4/1 program, in which a student can complete the four-year forest management program to earn a bachelors degree and then devote an additional year to earn an SAF-accredited professional masters degree. Last year's graduates from this program immediately secured employment with the timber industry in Washington and California, the USDA Forest Service in Oregon and with the Texas Forest Service.