dstaples at livingston.net
Tue Nov 18 10:39:46 EST 1997
> In article <346FF55C.5D02 at livingston.net>, Don Staples
> <dstaples at livingston.net> writes:
> >State types lack practical back ground and usually have
> >little or no practical field experience, there calls are from the text
> >book and not from work.
> All the more reason to use them. They have no bad habits and can be
> trained to a specific task without the spector of impropriety. The public,
> whether you like it or not, will insist on this as well. And Don, Its
> coming...just as fast as a freight train coming down Lookout Mountain.
> To use a gun analogy, us state types with law enforcement responsibility
> have to go through minimum standards law enforcement academy. The best,
> highest scoring students on the firing range are, in many cases, women that
> have never fired a weapon in their life.
> Remember Don "old habits never die" <wink>
> With much respect...but in total disagreement,
We stand at a cross roads, the state wants to not do parts of their job
(Here in Texas it is law enforcement), but want to take on regulatory
authority that is not theirs to have. And, I grow weary of educating
new District Foresters that are hired on out of college, given a truck,
office and responsibility, with no training. Occaisionally they will
hire one that has experience and training, but states do a pitiful job
of on the job training. (Here, I am talking about one state, Texas). I
would like anyone checking my credentials, or validating them, to at
least know a little about what a consultant does. Many of the foresters
in this state view the other side as hostile, and can be correct in many
cases. This applies to state and consulting foresers. The common
ground of serving the public is not the one driving the state boys, it
is budget, and budget alone. The altruism of the young buck geing
trained is killed off fairly quickly with the beurocracy dead weight.
With your exception, how many state boys and girls have we spoken with
on this and other lines? Are your efforts supported by the state, or
accepted by the State? The single biggest change in communications
since Guttenburg and the private sector is in there, swinging. The
state is not. Sort of like my grand dad approving or disapproving of my
abilities and work ethics based on those of the 1890's.
Reagan had it right, "Trust, but verify". I trust and respect the
individual forester for putting up with the never ending bull shit that
the state agencies provide, but I verify every thing that is a mutual
project, provided by the state, or recommended by the state.
Good intentions are fine, performance something entirely different.
There is a Great Rift Valley between state and private, giving one side
regulatory authority over the over requires a hell of a lot of bridge
My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
More information about the Ag-forst