25' buffer around ponds

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Sat Aug 15 05:50:47 EST 1998


--------------to the world forestry community via the
internet-------------

KMorrisD wrote:
> 
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
> 
> >One of my burros, who is the best in the
> >state- when I walk with him to review harvests, if we have some
> >disagreement over something- and I give an intelligent statement
> >factoring forestry, ecology, geology, astronomy, and ancient history,
> >he'll whip out his RULES AND REGULATIONS, open up to page and verse- and
> >quote THE WORD. That shuts me up, because how can I go against
> >SCRIPTURE?
> 
> Joe,
> 
> What happens when we get REAL forester licensing that puts the power and
> control over administration of cutting plans with licensed consulting and
> industrial foresters?  Do we then become quoters of SCRIPTURE and AGENTS OF THE
> STATE?

I don't think it's going to be a problem. What we have is our contract
and we put in that whatever we want- and with a substantial performance
bond- we then enforce it.

> 
> Or would it be possible to have some more reasonable, flexible way to insure
> that good silviculture is practiced, wetlands are protected and so on?  Some
> way that makes professional responsibility a reality.

Back when we had no forestry laws and no wetland laws, even bad logging
wasn't really all that environmentally destructive compared to non
logging industry with it's toxins and compared to the destruction of the
environment by construction of new housing and commercial areas; neither
of which are sufficiently watched over by our so called public servants.

We would still probably have to have the critical wetland laws which
don't allow draining or building in wetlands- because those concerns
really aren't forestry matters any ways- and shouldn't have much concern
to us- and these concerns are usually in the hands of engineers and
wetland scientists.

Bad logging results in such potential damage as-
1. fire hazard
2. silvicultural degradation- (long term financial impact)
3. aesthetic impact
4. possible minor damage to streams

None of these items are so severe to necessitate a platoon of burros
watching everything with licensed foresters already present; no more so
than the need for government to inspect what you do with your house- how
you fix it or how you remodel it. If the licensed forester really fouls
up- such that there is a negative impact on the neighbors, then the guy
who hires the licensed forester and/or the neighbors have to deal with
the problem like they deal with a problem with any contractor. These
matters really aren't so important to the rest of the world that the
public sector needs to get involved; especially since the public sector
people have no more claim on professionalism than a licensed private
forester. The burros just aggravate matters more often than not. No need
to assume that landowners and THEIR licensed forester can't handle the
situation. A logging job is not like the construction of thousands of
acres of new shopping centers- which potentially could cause immense
environmental damage. The real potential for forestry damage isn't all
that much more than farming- and there are no bureaucrats watching
everything farmers so- because farmers wouldn't stand for it.

Of course there are special circumstances- like logging on those steep
slopes in the PNW. Real forester licensing doesn't mean that there
shouldn't be laws on how such forestry work should be carried out- it
just means that - in essence- the licensed forester is the person who is
RESPONSIBLE for the work being carried out correctly- not some "public
servant". If a licensed forester doesn't do his/her job correctly, he
will be subject to losing his license- this will be a greater incentive
to do his job correctly than bureaucrats- who we can see don't have a
grip on the situation either and they never get for anything, especially
incompetence. So, what I'm saying is that the licensed forester will be
responsible or pay the consequences- resulting in better work than some
fat and lazy bureaucrat. <G>


> 
> I'd like to think that such would be possible, but I can imagine the current
> discrepancies between burro interpretations of the rules multiplied a hundred
> fold.  It might drive loggers nuts.

All the logger has to worry about is the contract. Everything will be in
there and the licensed forester will be responsible for the correctness
of the contract in so far as meeting requirements of law. If the logger
lives up to the contract, he won't be held responsible for anything
else, the licensed forester will be. Let's put the burden of good
forestry on the forester who is most intimately involved with the
project; not the logger, not the landowner, not some ^#@)^_* burro.

Doing this will mean that the licensed forester will of necessity HAVE
to be a very highly qualified person- which is what we really mean by
the term PROFESSIONAL.

In other words, to paraphrase Harry Truman- "THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE
LICENSED FORESTER"- and the licensed forester MUST GET PAID AT A
PROFESSIONAL LEVEL, RIGHT UP THERE WITH CPAs, ARCHITECTS, LAWYERS,
ENGINEERS. I won't equate licensed foresters with doctors or dentists,
but I will equate them with those other professionals. Certainly there
are some well paid foresters at the top of the heap in industry and
government- but the AVERAGE income of foresters in America is at the
BOTTOM of the so called professional heap, with the average of income of
consultants at the bottom of the bottom- while we have armies of burros
who contribute almost NOTHING. They live in delusional world in which
they think they are contributing- but their psychosis goes so deep that
they just can't comprehend how useless they really are. It really
wouldn't make any difference if their jobs never existed.

Raising forestry to a REAL PROFESSION will mean better forestry and less
cost to the taxpayer for a bunch of lazy and useless blood suckers- who
busy themselves at meetings and publishing beautiful little brochures
and pamphlets that nobody reads and which contribute NOT A THING to the
REAL WORLD.

But forestry isn't going to become a real profession until foresters
WAKE up make this happen. The rest of the world isn't going to make it
happen for them. Every other trade that became a profession did so
because those folks fought for it by raising their standards and by the
leaders of those professions not being so $)&@!^# selfish as the $)&@!^#
useless "leaders" of forestry- who I claim ought to serve time in a
Siberian salt mine- because they have contributed NOTHING to raising the
profession. They have selfishly enjoyed their cushy positions in
academia, industry and burrodom, mouthing platitudes, giving speeches,
but they haven't carried the flag and led the charge for a better future
for this profession. They are shameless.

And I also accuse consultants of not doing more to make this happen
because so few are involved with the net, the real tool by which this
will all happen- the greatest communication revolution since the
invention of the printing press. Very few consultants in Massachusetts
are online and even fewer burros. Professionalism also means being on
top of the latest developments in the world that can contribute to
professionalism, not just reading the latest S.A.F. journal.

And I really accuse all you 50 State Foresters, the honchos of the USFS,
and particularly the ivory tower for not getting more involved here on
the net; although I know you folks are aware of the discussions here.
Why are you so afraid to speak up? Do you really have so little to
contribute? I accuse you of having NOTHING to contribute. Prove me wrong
or get out of the way of the coming forestry revolution.

And the biggest "bad boys" of all are the politicians who never have
anything to say about this stuff, and who NEVER have balls to reply to
my letters or suggestions. You clowns ought to read what Thomas
Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence about governments that
don't respond to the public. I'm not saying you have to do what I
suggest, but responding to your mail in a responsible manner is what you
get paid for. You aren't earning your paycheck by going to meetings and
thus being the ultimate bureaucrats. <G>

> 
> Maybe you have some dispute resolution committee and procedures to deal with
> problems of this nature.  That might work.
> 

I don't think so. What we need is REAL professional foresters and a good
contract. A REAL professional forester won't have such problems.

Viva la revolution!
-- 

Joseph Zorzin, Yankee Forestmeister
*******************************************
http://forestmeister.com
"Still, after 18 months and counting, the only forestry web page in the
otherwise sophisticated state of Massachusetts, the Athens of the
western hemisphere."
*******************************************
"In wilderness is the preservation of the world."
Henry David Thoreau



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list