There's a saying that "All panaceas become poison." Many of us see GIS as being the answer to many of our long-standing dilemmas. GIS will give us a way - finally - to keep consistent track of our information. It'll give us many new ways to view and process our data. "Gawd! look at those GORGEOUS maps!" We certainly cannot afford to do without this tool much longer, and I for one, am glad to see that it finally will be widely available to natural resource professionals and citizens interested in watersheds. But can this seeming panacea become poison?

Sure it can. I think we need to step aside and ask what we can really expect from GIS, and especially, at what cost. Forget your love affair with GIS for a moment and consider these musings on what else the acronym GIS might stand for:

Gosh, I'm Smitten
When computer nerds like me see a demo of a well-configured GIS running on a fast UNIX system, we go bananas. "Gotta have it" is the sentiment, not unlike the feelings we had about that girl or boy in our freshman class who we couldn't stop thinking about. Ooooooooooooh. I see many young people now who think that the only really hot thing in Natural Resources is GIS and the nifty stuff you can do with it. All I can say to this is: NOT! The fields of soil taxonomy and silvics and land restoration might not be changing as fast as computer technology, but you didn't chose to become a computer scientist, did you? If you mainly see the land in terms of RAM and ROM and the latest full color display technology, maybe you picked the wrong career. The heart of Natural Resources is about the resources, and the nifty electronic ways we can present our data are quite secondary. I keep seeing these supposedly breakthrough products that take satellite images, process them, and display them on spiffy color maps. Supposed to be the best data yet on, say, Old Growth. Gimme a break.

Get In Step
Lots of people felt left behind in the `80s by the computer revolution, and feel somehow inferior that they did not learn DOS, or desktop publishing, or some such computer goodie. They were implicitly told they were (computer) illiterate. They're not about to let that happen again, and want in on the GIS stampede. They don't dare say anything negative about it, lest they be seen as anachronistic or outdated. The unspoken message: GIS is the hot thing in natural resources now, and you better Get In Step, or be left in the past. The implicit message to those who question the cost or utility of GIS is to Give In Soon.

Great "If" System
Yup. You can do fabulous maps and displays with a GIS system. If you have 20 tons of money to: 1) buy the system, 2) maintain the system, and 3) put all your accurate data into it properly (you do have accurate data don't you?). This can easily add up to more money than you have to spare.

Growing Increasingly Soft
Demographically, there's a big cluster of us right around 40-45, and we are wondering how much longer we can hoof it up and down those steeps and hollows. Our knees are creaking and our wind ain't quite what it used to be. The trend is unmistakable. No problem, soon as we get the GIS all up and running, there'll be no more need to go in the field. The data will all be at our fingertips. Tap the keyboard and out comes the landscape. Yea, right. Danger zone for us forty-somethings, eh?

Garbage In System
This is an old one, but true as ever. Garbage in-Garbage out. New computers and software don't solve this problem. We can acquire good data, but will there be any money left after GIS gets fed? The data we have now to put into the system are Generally Inimical Surveys. And my worry is that the funds that might go toward better inventories will by quickly inhaled by a self-perpetuating hardware-software monster that always wants more food (funds). The consequence is that were likely to continue to be... Giving Inventory Short-shrift.

Of course, without good data, even with the fanciest GIS system, will just be Generating Impressive Silliness.

Give It Space
GIS systems want their own offices. Systems need space, and that costs, and there's usually only so much to go around. As with most computerish things, GIS systems will constantly be Growing In Size, taking up ever more space. Yup, the CPU's keep shrinking, but the totla systems grow. Would you give up your office for one? Give It Some thought. Gobbling Intensive Servicing
Once we have a system, it will always want more food. More maintenance, more staffing to make it work, more data entry, more expensive peripheral gizmos.Don't argue with it, just bring it your people, your budget, your office, and your time. Gargantuan Investment Suction
This is the biggie. A well-configured system might cost as much as 10 new Broncos, even before the data goes in. And its not a one-time cost either. The question is not, "Do we need GIS?" Sure we do. The question that I don't hear being asked is, "How much of what kind of GIS can we afford?"

Ya, but... I know, I know. We really need it, and it is with us now anyhow, so why grouse about the cost and drawbacks? Because I believe we need to keep our eyes open on this, and hopefully well manage our GISes, rather than them managing us. Most importantly, we need to remember that the best computers are those wet gray ones we carry around on our necks; that the real database is the soils and trees, the plants and wildlife and such; and that the best map has a scale of 1:1. Need a good user-interface for the real database? Go buy a new pair of Red Wings.