Results of the role playing game:

Traditional management group:

Composition:

1 Forest Service decision maker, 1 Fish and Wildlife researcher, 1 logger, 1 member of the local tourist business community, 1 member of a non-profit organization to protect endangered species.

Process:

For some time information was exchanged first between the FS and the F&W employees, eventually the non-profit representative was asked to join. Much later on, the non-profit representative was dismissed and interviews were held with the logger and the business person in separate sessions. In these sessions the FS employee attempted to devise a plan acceptable to all parties.

Public Hearing:

The FS plan was disclosed in a public hearing and all interest groups were allowed to comment on it. Although they all stated that they would have preferred a slightly different plan (more favorable to their interests or missions) they all supported the plan as outlined. A local business women spoke up and said that it would be useful to monitor the effects of the revised logging plan on the population. This suggestion was greeted with approval by the FS decision maker and was in fact adopted.

The final 5-year plan:

  1. Log 9,66 acres over 5 yrs (1920 every year)
  2. Selected logging will be implemented, cutting trees in the diameter classes 12-30” and 36-42” dbh. All other classes as well as snags (habitat for lactating bats) will be left, unless identified as a hazard by FS personnel.
  3. No clear-cutting will occur, no insecticides will be used.
  4. All logging operations will occur be between September and April, when bats overwinter in caves and abandoned mines.
  5. Tourist activities will not occur during June and July closer than 160 yds to the colonies.
  6. A 200 yd buffer zone will be maintained around riparian areas, which serve as the main foraging ground for bats in summer.
  7. After 2 yrs, colony strength will be reevaluated.

Collaborative management group:

Composition:

1 Forest Service decision maker, 1 Fish and Wildlife researcher, 1 logger, 1 member of the local tourist business community, 1 member of a non-profit organization to protect endangered species.

Process:

The FS decision maker assembled a task force composed of all major interest groups. He explained that a 5-year plan would be developed through consensus finding and that he, although he had the ultimate authority, would abide by that plan. First, participants in the task force explained what their individual interests were. Then, they explained what their preferred management plan would be. From that point on discussions took place until consensus was found.

Public Hearing:

No public hearing was held.

The final 5-year plan:

  1. Implementation of the shelterwood method. 20% of all potential snags will be left.
  2. Logging will take place from late October to late February, but on finding no negative impact on the colony this period could be extended.
  3. Loggers who had already agreed with the FS on contracts will be refunded. To compensate for possible loss of income, they pay less for new or revised contrats.
  4. Buffers will be created along riparian zones and hilltops, based on surveys.
  5. Bat surveys will be conducted every year, which are to be finished before the logging season starts.
  6. The task force continues to meet every year in April to appraise the situation.

Comparisons

Non-controversial solutions were found by both groups. However, one logger in the traditional management group threatened to file a lawsuit against the FS nevertheless.

The 5-year plans turned out surprisingly similar, but were perhaps initially more cautious under collaborative management. Also, the collaborative management plan compensated loggers to some extent for loss of income, which the traditional plan did not.

The class felt that the collaborative approach would probably take a long time to bring to conclusion and would be a lot harder in reality, because even within interest groups opinions and expectations could vary widely. However, they also speculated that if the FS management decision is litigated in court, this could take just as long and probably cost more money.

Although all stakeholders (other than the members of the federal agencies) in the traditional management scenario felt good about the outcome, they did not feel as comfortable with the process. They stated that they did not always trust the FS would make a fair decision and are not sure that another conflict would play out as well. Specifically they stated that they did not like the idea that “one guy” gets to make decisions that affect the entire community. By contrast, stakeholders in the collaborative management scenario trusted the process, and stated that they enjoyed getting to know other members of the community, and learning about their concerns.