The debate

Don Staples dstaples at
Mon Nov 17 10:52:57 EST 1997

Larry Caldwell wrote:
> Oregon also requires notification before any operations on forest land,
> including herbicide application, thinning, road construction, logging,
> etc.
> Joe just seems to think that foresters are the answer to the landowner's
> prayer, and can't seem to understand why lots of landowners don't feel
> that way.  If you're an industrial owner and never see your trees, you
> for sure need a forester.  If you're a small woodland owner, you keep
> foresters on a tight leash.  If you don't, they'll try to treat your
> land like industrial forest land.  Some industrial processes work OK
> for small landowners, but a lot of them are totally unsuitable.

You need a different breed or forester in Oregon. Decisions should be
made with the concent of and after discussions with, the land owner. 
Most of the time, when a small land owner decides he doesn't need a
forester, he is doing so on the basis that we charge for our labor, and
they are to cheap to go that route, with the thought that "If he can do
it, so can I".   Usually we get called in after they screw it up, talk
about this hugh price they sold to a logger for, and want to know how to
repair the damage.

> I realize I'm pissing in the American Pie here, but I've heard a lot
> of small landowners say the same thing with no prompting from me.  You
> can make a nice profit from niche markets that industrial foresters
> ignore completely.  In fact, lots of foresters think they know it all,
> when it needs to be a more specialized trade.  A forester good at
> marketing may not know much about silviculture.

We don't know it all, just more than most private land owners.
> I'm still trying to figure out the basis for all the variation in
> thinning operations I've seen, but "professional foresters" prescribed
> a 50% variation in stocking density on two nearly identical sites only
> 3 miles apart that I walked last weekend.  The landowner needs to
> realize that what a forester tells you is just advice, and how you
> take it is up to you.

Professional foresters, do you mean consultants or buyers?  Could it be
the landowners told the foresers how they wanted it, or just didn't
care?  Could it be their "professional foresers" were not?
> > There have been disciplinary actions against RPF's, and at least one license
> > revocation that I know of.
> That's interesting.  As far as I can tell, there's no mechanism for
> professional review at all in Oregon.  The only way a forester could
> lose his license is by breaking the law, i.e. the Forest Practices Act.

Same review in all states, called civil court.
> One logger lost his license last year for not following slope
> restrictions next to a river.  I suppose if a logger could lose his
> license, a forester could too.
> -- Larry

Don Staples
UIN 4653335

My Ego Stroke:

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list