Collaboratives are democracy in action

by Margaret Gorski, Member of Ravalli County Collaborative, Stevensville

I frequently hear that things in Washington are broken and that polls show a majority of people are concerned about the future of our Representative Democracy. There are numerous reasons why some consider Congress dysfunctional, but I believe that fixing Washington begins at home by growing citizens who can work together toward common goals. I also believe that there is a glimmer of hope that it’s possible right here in Ravalli County. 

The Bitterroot Star recently published articles on two different local citizen organizations that were created to specifically assist the Bitterroot National Forest with management decisions. One is the Bitterroot Forest Collaborative (BFC) and the other is the Ravalli County Collaborative (RCC). Each is comprised of people who care about our backyard forest and have a wide variety of back grounds, expertise and opinions. The BFC is self-formed and informal.  The RCC is established and authorized by the county.

One of the articles inferred that, since the members of the RCC are appointed by the County Commissioners and that Jeff Burrows is both a member and Commissioner, members could be unduly influenced by the county government.  I have been a member of the RCC since it was formed four years ago and can assure you that such concerns are unfounded. All members of the collaborative have equal input. 

The RCC has members whose views on the purpose of the National Forests range the entire spectrum from pro-wilderness, pro-wildlife, pro-business, pro-logging, pro-old growth, pro-outfitter, pro-recreation, pro-motorized and pro-nonmotorized uses. Some want the Forest Service to just “do nothing”. Others want the Forest Service to “do anything” that addresses the loss of timber industry jobs and reduces the potential threat posed by catastrophic wildfires. Since the consequences of federal land management agency decisions are most acutely felt locally, it makes sense to have local county official representation on the collaborative.

It is vital that the Forest Service accept that proposed management actions are usually better when developed through a consensus process. It is also important that, provided they follow appropriate laws and regulations, the Forest Service is willing to adapt and try different management approaches. I can personally attest that the Bitterroot National Forest has been very responsive and open to hearing from us. They have been eager for us to provide them with consensus ideas about how to address management challenges on the forest.  

We in the Bitterroot Valley are fortunate to have a National Forest in our backyard. Our National Forests were set aside over 150 years ago to protect our natural resources for the benefit of all citizens and the nation. When they were created there were no recipes for reconciling differences while providing multiple benefits to multiple people over time. Today we are faced with the challenge of figuring out how to meet increasing demands on public resources in a democratic system of government while the world changes around us.  The guidebook is constantly evolving and is being adapted as we go. “Collaborative management” is the latest attempt to guide how to balance local and national interests.

Collaboratives, however, only work if members embrace the idea that there is value in listening to other viewpoints and finding common ground. It is not about winning or proving the other person wrong. It’s about figuring out how to “get to yes”. RCC bylaws require either a “yes” or “I can live with it” vote before we adopt a position. If one member objects, a consensus cannot be reached. However, when a consensus is achieved, each of us commits to supporting the decision and working together to reach the desired results. 

The RCC is trying hard to develop a new approach to chart the future of our National Forest by having folks with divergent views work together. Although we don’t always agree, all of us see value in respecting one another and trying to understand different opinions and viewpoints.  In my opinion, it’s the best way to gain public acceptance and move forward in managing our National Forests.

Sadly, critics of collaborative decision making exist. There are those who would rather hurl accusations of “mismanagement” at local officials than be part of the solution. Several recent opinion pieces in the Bitterroot Star personally criticized a decision made by our local District Ranger, Steve Brown. Such accusations get us nowhere! Personal attacks are uncalled for and only increase divisiveness.  Although I am uninformed of the details, I do know that dragging a public servant through the mud in the newspaper, for doing their job doesn’t do much for building good and workable relationships. Problems are solved by sitting down face to face, analyzing the facts, understanding the context, and then judging what to do about it.  Citizens and elected official and government employees need to respect one another and work together. 

Having two collaboratives in the valley is a healthy sign that there are citizens among us willing to try collaborative decision making as a way forward in the management of our National Forests. Recommendations developed through consensus should provide inspiration and serve as a template for how we could tackle other important issues. It could go a long way toward reframing our contentious political dialogue, reduce current divisiveness and focus our energies on finding common ground instead of focusing on our differences. We should give all our Collaboratives a chance.  They are an example of democracy in action. If we can learn to resolve our differences concerning our local National Forest, then imagine how different our future might look if Congress and our State Legislature took the same approach?