redoak at forestmeister.com
Sat Apr 25 18:07:01 EST 1998
> Interesting discussion you foresters are having, but you've missed an important
> part of the picture ...
> Doesn't the forester bear as much or even more responsibility than the
> landowner or the logger? Siting of roads, supervision of the loggers
> including restoration of skid roads and trails by appropriate use of waterbars,
> diversion ditches, culverts, or whatever was just as much part of my
> consultant's job as selecting which trees were to be cut.
Absolutely. But I think legally, the landowner bears primary
responsibility as it's the landowner that retains foresters, loggers,
engineers, etc. as his/her agents.
> Had I, as a landowner, rejected recommendations made by my consultant for soil
> stabilization measures, then I would bear responsiblity. Had the loggers
> skipped out without finishing this part, it still would have been my problem,
> but that's why a bond is posted. If the logger didn't finish up the job, the
> landowner would have those funds to complete the restoration.
> But if I've hired a consultant to plan and oversee my harvest, it's his/her
> responsibility to make certain it's done right.
Yes. Morally for sure. But if YOUR log job damaged your neighbor, your
neighbor would go after you first and at least in Massachusetts, the
state forestry agency would go after you first, the logger second. Then
you would call up your hired gun (I mean lawyer) and you'd go after your
forester for his/her bad work. So you're not off the hook legally if one
of your agents goofs up. And here's another reason, we all know that the
liers (I mean lawyers) go for the deep pockets, and I've never yet met a
forester with deep pockets, except maybe Don Staples. <G>
More information about the Ag-forst