Friday ACF update.

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Fri Oct 24 16:29:34 EST 1997


Don Staples wrote:

(much edited)

>        Also within the FS, the Sustainable Development Initiative being
> pushed by the Clinton Administration.  Sustainable Development folks are
> looking for avenues to get private lands into sustainable management.

Easy.
1. Improve the quality of efforts by state Extension foresters
2. Increase funding for FIP, ACP, and SIP which are currently just about
enough to buy one toilet seat for the Pentagon.
3. Reform the entire Service Forestry program by bringing it into the
modern age; by service foresters decreasing oversite of professional
foresters and increasing quality promotional efforts. And Service
Foresters should be available via email which they are not in
Massachusetts.

I have been proposing the above for over 20 years to state forestry
people and politicians in Massachustts who all have had their ears
plugged. <G>

> As
> for a definition of
>        Sustainable Management, this has yet to be defined.

Easy. Any property under management of a professional forester.

> 
>        The Tree Farm Director, Bob Simpson, stated that Tree Farm is the
> oldest and largest certification program in the U.S.
>        For the interim, Tree Farm is observing and fashioning itself to
> work well with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.  However, they are
> trying to keep from becoming a prescriptive program like the SFI and
> place
> burdens on their members.

The Tree Farm program is pretty good. Everyone recognizes the tree farm
signs which I think have a lot to do with making landowners aware of
tree farming.

> 
>        The Forest Landowners Representative, April Hendley, stated that
> FLA
> was not in favor of certification due to the costs involved.  They would
> be
> especially concerned if the program somehow became mandatory for
> landowners.
> 

Cost? It should be trivial. Certification should be no more complicated
than getting under the Tree Farm Program. It would never be mandatory
because it's too good an idea; too progressive for the '90's. Rush
Limbaugh wouldn't like it. But if certification became commonly
understood by wood product purchasers then some pressure would be on
forest owners to show their interest in it.

>        The Society of American Foresters Representative, Mike Goergen,
> stated that the SAF has no opinion on the program at this time.

No opinion? Give me a break. <G> The premier forestry "club" in America
has no opinion? An organization with more PHD's than Harvard doesn't
have an opinion? The SAF should be leading the charge into the 21st
century; instead it's a conservative club of those who have "made it"-
they have their tenure- so why care about the "real world" of forestry?
Like we "mud foresters". <G>


> --
> Don Staples
> 
> My Ego Stroke:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/

So Don Staples, why aren't members of all the groups you mentioned
active on the internet where we all can have some REAL discussion free
of the usual symbolism of who has the fanciest suit, the biggest office,
and grand titles, the feudal hierarchy of who's more important than who?
As a forester who has spent over 20 years out there in the mud I accuse
the leadership of the forestry profession of being a bunch of blow hards
who have done nothing whatsover for the advancement of forestry. REAL
foresters who actually work in the woods everyday do their own forestry
promotion, develop their own skills, develop their own tools and
methods, and advance the profession of forestry while all the countless
meetings of SAF, the bureaucrats and politicians in the second half of
the twentieth century have been a complete waste. And if anyone thinks
I'm wrong, then prove it.

-- 
http://forestmeister.com
"The ONLY forester's web page in the otherwise sophisticated state of
Massachusetts".



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list