The debate

Don Staples dstaples at
Thu Nov 20 14:53:41 EST 1997

Jostnix wrote:
> Don, not to beat a dead horse but...
As long as it is our horse,,,,,,,
> ACF members in Alabama submarined a state forestry consultant list that
> included non-ACF foresters who considered themselves consultants.  They
> asked that they be taken from the list which IMHO made the list less
> valuable.  I was asked to pull off the project.  How can this be done when
> consultants cant agree on the list.

I addressed this elsewhere, I am not familiar with the guide lines on
Alabamas inclusion on the referral list, but I do know that in Texas the
ACF fights annually to eliminate the non-consultants from the list.  A
seperate list has appeared from the state stateing that the listed
individuals maynot have your better interest in mind, meaning, thay work
for a company other than as consultants.
> .
> >  The single biggest change in communications
> >since Guttenburg and the private sector is in there, swinging.
> I totally disagree...How many industrial foresters, associations (to
> include yours), societies, etc. do you see in our discussions.  None that I
> am aware of...

Other than you, how many government types do we talk to?  One fed two
weeks ago (after you went off line) on saturday may have written 5
lines.  The rest of us are private sector, not company (well they may
lurk out there).  Look at the web sites, Alabama's is great, Texas'
sucks.  It can only get bigger and better as more folks come on line. 
We are here, we are taking the lead.  Your answer to my questions gives
the states position, "they accept what I do, don't support".  You can
get the word out over the state while the rest are still licking
stamps.  ACF, SAF, hell even Joe's, web pages  have a lot more to offer
than most state agencies.  The Texas Forestry Association tries, but is
not real informative.

But that is why we are here, isn't it? To change the way it is?
Don Staples
UIN 4653335

My Ego Stroke:

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list