Private Pond with Forest Photo by Steve Nix |
Changing Forests Means Changing Foresters - An Interview with Lester DeCoster - Part II
Lester DeCoster is President of the DECOSTER GROUP, INC. In Reston, Virginia. His firm offers expertise in public relations, writing, marketing and explaining forestry and environmental science. He’s a graduate of University of Maine, School of Forestry, an (APR), Accredited Public Relations practitioner, and owner and manager of three forests: a small backyard plot in Virginia and two sizeable tracts in Maine. He’s written more than 500 articles speeches and publications, most recently publishing: Public Programs for Private Forestry, a Reader on Programs and Options, co-authored with Neil Sampson. He’s also presently a Senior Fellow at the Forest Policy Center in Washington, DC. His most recent article in the Journal of Forestry (JOF), "The Boom in Forest Owners - A Bust for Forestry", discusses the changing landowner with important impacts on foresters. DeCoster is a graduate forester, a fellow of the Society of American Foresters and a recipient of PRSA Silver Anvil Award for public relations excellence, 1988 and Chevron Conservation Award for outstanding national efforts in conservation, 1988.SN: Lester, you are a forester but have cultivated communication and public relations skills. It is well know throughout the profession of forestry that most of us are poorly trained to communicate. In fact, we may have gone into the profession just to avoid the public and having to deal with public relations. What's the problem?
Lester DeCoster: Most technically trained people typically find communicating with the non-technical masses difficult. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and computer jocks are equally awful at explaining themselves... and public relations folks have difficulty explaining PR to people outside the profession. It’s obvious to experts that they’re right and the layperson is wrong or uninformed. This attitude and the unthinking use of jargon blocks communications.
SN: Is there training to help foresters and forest owners communicate effectively - to educate the non-forestry public?
Lester DeCoster: Over many years I’ve been involved with various training programs for foresters and others selling skills, dealing with news media, writing, training in explaining, and a lot of other things. I’m convinced that foresters can improve their communications skills by taking courses-- If they then practice and sharpen those skills.
Taking a course or two and then neglecting to apply what has been learned just won’t cut it. For seminars I’ve offered in recent years, I’ve added follow-up segments to create a system of practicing and embedding learned skills, and I’m considering adding preparatory sessions to investigate and deal with misunderstandings and hang-ups about PR. We can’t expect people to apply communication skills well if they think that "spin doctoring" is all there is to it.
| "Just as landowners have tended to avoid hiring
foresters because they don’t see the need or the value, foresters have tended to
avoid hiring PR consultants because they don’t see the need or the value.." Lester DeCoster |
Training is valuable to help foresters deal with many day to day relationships and communications situations. But some public relations advice from an expert and outside view is still needed to really evaluate many situations and design effective strategies. Just as landowners have tended to avoid hiring foresters because they don’t see the need or the value, foresters have tended to avoid hiring PR consultants because they don’t see the need or the value.
SN: Seems I have heard and talked about that a lot lately!
Lester DeCoster: The assumption is that it’s cheaper to do nothing, or guess at what to do. I can tell you that good public relations advice doesn’t have to be very expensive in relation to its benefits and that doing nothing or guessing can be very expensive when it comes to building and maintaining relationships with the key audiences who decide the fate of forestry... but that won’t be widely accepted by foresters until more of them experience successful PR efforts. It’s a catch-22 similar to the landowner situation which I will discuss later.
SN: Prognosticate on the future of forestry and foresters who must deal with - your term - "this new crowd"?
Lester DeCoster: Forest programs have tended to work best with larger ownerships. Programs were a best fit for 8% of owners with 78% of the land in 1978. By 2010, unless approaches change, the best fit will serve 5% of owners and 62% of the land. The world will still need wood and a majority of the American land will still be owned by a few large owners, so there will still be a sizeable market for wood-producing forestry skills. But the new crowd, the smaller owners, will tend to be oblivious to a wood producing approach. Foresters have a lot to sell this group, but they will have to sell it. That means figuring out what motivates these people and then providing it clearly, simply and attractively, at a perceived high value.
SN: Sounds like foresters could like blacksmiths just before the T-model, the old growing and finding wood priority may be on its way out. Will a forester's employer buy a new role for his employee?
Lester DeCoster: Many public employers of foresters are already demanding new roles because the public is demanding different things from forests. Forest Industry has tended to hire foresters to grow and find wood, but if the industry is to continue getting wood, it needs positive relationships with constituents.
Here’s a case where the increasing number of landowners (more than 9 million now) could be an increasing constituency-- if the industry teamed foresters up with communications experts to establish relationships with a broad span of owners (not simply for wood but for the value of an understanding constituency.) For example: About half of all the people in Maine— own forests. That’s a force that, if it chose to, could demand any policy it wanted, elect any government it favored, or directly affect, with muscle and money, most of the forests of Maine. The industry has a positive relationship with a very small percentage of this audience, and it is suffering from massive misunderstanding. Wouldn’t it be smart to hire and equip foresters to reach more of this constituency?---why not pay some foresters for people reached, rather than cords delivered?
Changing Forests, Changing Foresters - Part I > Part III
Articles by Topic | Articles by Date
