The ideas presented in the paper and emerging book by John Fedkiw have some interesting implications for college-level education. Several questions are raised by his paper and the book. This response, or companion, paper discusses these questions and offers some suggestions for incorporating the ideas into coursework. The questions discussed are as follows: 1. How different are the ideas from those presented in contemporary college-level natural resources teachings? 2. Given that there are some important differences, how can these ideas be incorporated into higher education? Several alternatives appear, namely, as specific courses, as topics in ongoing courses, as examples, or as a reorientation of thinking across all courses. 3. Is this the time to argue for a specific forest history course? 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a functional versus a technical definition of forestry and forest management in the context of higher education? 5. What are the implications of the new ideas for courses in forestry for nonforestry majors, such as liberal arts or environmental studies majors? 6. What teaching methodologies might be appropriate here? The entire forestry profession has been struggling to define ecosystem management and to develop ways to teach it. Fedkiw might suggest that we do what we have been doing. He might argue that the USDA Forest Service has been practicing ecosystem management in an incremental fashion all along. Foresters responsible for it were a product of the forestry colleges. The paper and the presentation will attempt to be provocative and stimulate further discussion and thinking rather than offer precise solutions for higher education.
Canham, Hugh and Coufal, James
"New ideas for teaching natural resources management: Implications of, and response to, the fedkiw paper,"
Natural Resources and Environmental Issues: Vol. 7
, Article 5.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol7/iss1/5