The debate

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sat Nov 15 15:04:11 EST 1997

Don Staples wrote:
> Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> > What really is impossible to understand is why state governments don't
> > MANDATE licensed foresters on logging jobs. Then if the job goes bad,
> > it's the forester's fault and he/she can lose his/her license.
> What?  Stop and think about this statement.  With your attitude towards
> the burros, you wouldn't last past the first sale.  You are very aware
> of the pettyness of the burros, and you want to give them this power?
> Make it a landowners association for this power, or a state consulting
> group (ACF?), but not the burros, One power they don't need is any
> control over the methods of the consultants, we would truely be back in
> the '60's doing forestry./

Actually believe it or not, I know this will be difficult to believe,
but, yes, I actually get along pretty good with my..... uh.... noble
state .... uh... Service Foresters. Really. We and most of the timber
buyers have known each other for decades. They're used to me and I'm
used to them. We all know where each person shouldn't be pushed too far.
I know what they need to do their job and they know to not get too petty
with me or ELSE. <G> We tease each other, we sometimes hastle each
other, but we all work it out from year to year.

We now have a forester license law, but it is brainless. I really think
the complete mgt. of timber sales should be in the hands of consultants,
and only consultants. The state guys should become the "Forestry
Missionaries", so I don't have to hustle for more work. Their
"overseeing" me is absolutely and completely idiotic. But on the other
hand, this puts a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of consultants
and they should have to live up to it. There still needs to be laws to
protect wetlands, avoid erosion, protect boundaries, implement some
silviculture, etc. But not EVERY job needs to have the state oversee
everything I do. And EVERY logging job should have a licensed forester
who must live up to very high standards- and eventually he'll get the
honored title of Forestmeister. <G>

You see, I'm not a kneejerk Republican who thinks that Neanderthal Rush
Limbaugh is an intellectual and that we should fire all the government
workers. Most of relatives are government workers.  I think Rush is a
total moron along with the Newt. I happen to think government is NEEDED,
because without it, we'd be back to the 12th century. I'm actually proud
to admit to being a LIBERAL. Let's have government but lets have GOOD
government. And GOOD government wouldn't waste taxpayers money
overseeing me, while 90% of the logging goes on without any forester at
all. Doesn't it make more sense for the state to do something about that
90%? If the state people put more effort into getting that 90% to hire
me and other consultants they could give up overseeing me. The net
result would be a vast improvement over the current situation. And if I
screw up, I won't last. The government doesn't oversee nuclear reactors
as intensively as they oversee consultants. It's crazy so my attitude is
FULLY justified and I think my proposed solution is the correct one.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list