September 2009 Archives

I spent a day in Telluride talking about science non-profits in Colorado. The meetings were organized by Nana Naisbitt (Executive Director of the Telluride Science Research Center- TSRC) and Sonchia Jilek (ED of the Pinhead Institute). It’s a good opportunity to catch up what similar non-profits are doing and it also helps to provide perspective; while it’s easy to assume that many of the challenges we face are unique to our situation, the reality is that many of our challenges are just part of running a science non-profit.

TSRC holds conferences. They are organized as a non-profit with a board that consists solely of scientists. TSCR’s rate structure is set by their Board and it is kept very low, about half of what similar organization’s charge. Why would the scientists who set the rates want to pay anything but the bare minimum?

I’ve learned a few things about rates. Lower rates are not critical for participation. For example, RMBL has struggled for decades to keep up enrollment in our education program. In 2008 we charged 50% less than the lowest rate at a competing institution. This year we raised our fees 40% and focused on independent research. Enrollment shot up. Designing a program that fit student’s needs was more critical than keeping rates low.

RMBL has kept rates low by mining its buildings. We use revenue to support operations but haven’t kept up our physical infrastructure. Not only does that mortgage our future, but it is inefficient. Raising rates, but giving some of it back in the form of financial aid, will allow the Lab to provide greater support for individuals and projects that are central to our mission.

Keeping rates low is seductively easy. Keystone has a rate structure that follows from a financial model that is realistic and maximizes their institutional impact. Having a development office means that RMBL can maintain our physical plant while keeping rates reasonable. However, that doesn’t mean that we can be lazy and avoid thinking about rates. Our rate structure must serve the institution.

This week I am thinking about wilderness. The Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign hopes to add new wilderness in the White River, Gunnison National Forest and related BLM lands. The closest proposed area is the east side of Treasury Mountain, just north of North Pole Basin. Personally I’ve always liked the idea of wilderness. The idea of “an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain[Wilderness Act of 1964]” appeals to me. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear whether wilderness is compatible with research.

On its face, it would seem the research and wilderness might go hand in hand. One of the reasons wilderness was created was to facilitate research. The wilderness act states “wilderness may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” One of the earliest proponent’s of wilderness was driven by the importance of wilderness to knowledge. Aldo Leopold’s process of understanding the western US landscape was quickly deepened by a visit to a Mexican ecosystem that was largely unimpacted by humans. He began arguing for untrammeled areas as reference points for understanding a changing world.

The reality, however, is that while our need to understand a changing world has never been more pressing, wilderness is managed primarily for aesthetic value. For example, Treasury is part of the GLORIA network, a program set up to establish long-term monitoring plots around the world to understand whether biodiversity is being lost due to climate change. In many ways it is the perfect example of how wilderness might be used to understand the world. It does not involve a manipulative experiment, but rather collection of biological and climatic data. Half of Treasury is currently in wilderness and half is not (though the Hidden Gems would place it in there). When that experiment was set up, it was made clear to us that we could not collect climatic data nor use markers to establish permanent plots in wilderness. If both sides of Treasury had been in wilderness when it was set up, RMBL scientists could not have set the study up. If this type of study cannot be done in wilderness, does the value of wilderness to understanding the world really exist? Our desire to have pretty places to hike and the focus on managing ecosystems solely for aesthetic experience comes at a cost. The generations that follow us will inherit ecosystems to manage, but no legacy of understanding. My gut feeling is that Aldo Leopold would not be proud of our overly simplistic approach to managing a complex and changing landscape.

For more on research in wilderness, check out “Wilderness for science: pros and cons of using wilderness areas for biological research”, Six, Diana L.; Alaback, Paul; Winfree, Robert A.; Snyder, Delia; Hagele, Anne, from McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. —Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 271-275