>> Don Staples <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:
>> >Licensing should remove the profession from state control. Put it under
> >a State Forestry Board, like the lawyers and their bar. If I am
> >licensed to practice in the state, why should some political forester
> >that possibly has not planted his/her first tree, cut his/her first
> >tree, or actually faced his first challenge on the land, control my
> >business? Why should a political hack control private business?
>> Exactly. Since the purpose of licensing is to control the PRACTICE of
> forestry, licensing board members should have AT LEAST 3 YEARS real, on the
> ground experience in the PRACTICE of forest management. Academic or
> bureaucratic experience shouldn't count.
I agree 100% So, most service foresters won't be able to get licensed
because most have never written a mgt. plan outside of academia, and
most have never managed a timber sale or any other REAL WORLD forestry
activity. Any service foresters from Massachusetts who want to correct
me, here's your chance in an open forum visible around the planet. Come
and exhibit your intellectual brilliance, and debate these issues with
we "mud" foresters. <G>
>> >Loggers should not be in the stew, unless also foresters, why weaken the
> >licensing act by inviting in non-foresters? The SAF did that with their
> >"associates", and now need to "certify" foresters. Used to be, a member
> >of the SAF was "certified".
>> My only problem with that is I know some loggers who know a helluva lot more
> about the PRACTICE of forestry than some foresters, particularly those of the
> bureacratic or academic persuasions. I think there should be provision for
> them to be licensed if they can pass a test about the PRACTICE of forestry.
I'm not sure I agree 100% on this. I think a 4 year degree should be
required, but I'm not too concerned with this point, and could easily
live with it. There would only be a few who could qualify this way, so
it's not important. I think you can take the BAR exam without a law
degree and get licensed, in theory. A few probably do get it this way.
>> Of course the academics and the bureaucrats want no testing, because they know
> little about the PRACTICE of forestry--or they want testing about the academic
> and bureaucratic aspects of forestry. They also want academic background and
> bureaucratic/academic experience to count for licensing.
I think the 2 of us should make up a REAL WORLD FORESTRY TEST, and send
copies to all the burros and acaforesters (new word!). Recent news in
Massachusetts is that a statewide test was given recently for teachers.
The majority failed. I have no doubt the majority of burros and
acaforesters would fail our test. <G>
Also, another new word I'd like to coin is "weenie". A weenie is a
consulting forester who kisses burro ass to get referals, and who never
speaks up about all the things wrong in this business and who are much
too timid to rebel, even a little.
Our lexicon now includes mud foresters, burros, weenies, acaforesters,
land rapists, and a few choice others I'll leave out for now. <G>
Joseph Zorzin, Yankee Forestmeister
"Still, after 18 months and counting, the only forestry web page in the
otherwise sophisticated state of Massachusetts, the Athens of the
"In wilderness is the preservation of the world."
Henry David Thoreau