field skills lacking? was Stumpage vales, was :Ignorance Tax

Michael Hagen mhagen at mail.olympus.net
Fri Dec 5 13:00:50 EST 1997


Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> 
> Ron Wenrich wrote:
> >
> > Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> >
> > > BOBNDWOODS wrote:
> > > >
> > snip>>
> I agree that most foresters can't grade standing trees. 
snip good stuff>>
> 
I hope that this hasn't become universal!  I've noticed over the years
(and I've been cruising since 1970, before I got into riparian stuff)
that, ahem, foresters from the four year schools were rather shall we
say, inept when actually out in the woods. They often had interesting
variation on their grade and defect calls, were hopelessly optimistic as
far as sorts, and strained to close a traverse better than 1 in 90. But
they made good "burros." {;)    that's hard hat on, grinning

Now I know that a good education covers much more than field forestry
and I'm happy for all those who worked their rears off for their BS and
better, but, often the best woods skills were had by the lowly Forest
Techs, whose two years in bondage were equivalent to the last two years
of the BSers, plus loads of field work. They also tended to enjoy being
outdoors in all weather, oddly enough. Around here, any one who calls
himself a cruiser had better be within 3% volume on grades and sorts or
he's outta here...

And no, my BS ain't forestry, but I've been a forester on corporate and
federal payrolls for a coon's age.

MH



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list