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.
>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.
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.