The Truth ISN'T Out There
redoak at forestmeister.com
Sat Aug 22 13:52:22 EST 1998
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
> >The disservice foresters were set up in
> >their racket back in the '30's when most landowners were "dirt" poor
> >farmers, not upper crust NY'ers and local professionals. They are the
> >buggy whips of the forestry world.
> It would be interesting to see how the `mandates` of the DEM and other forestry
> burrocracies have changed over the years, how they've managed to continue
> justifying their existences. Are there such written mandates?
I think the mandate was originally just that were "free" foresters. Only
later did they take on other responsibilities, not so much truly
justified, but in order to protect their jobs. Further major adjustments
are in order to make them productive. They no longer are "free"
foresters in most states and it's time to end being "consultant" baby
sitters. Either they start going out drumming up major amounts of new
forestry activities, or they'll have to go the way of the stagecoach.
Their pay should be a function of just how much new forestry they can
produce. Mabye give them a dollar for each new acre comming into
forestry production. That seems fair to me. <G>
> The more I think about it, the more it seems that the justification of forestry
> burrocracies (USFS and all the states) is mostly based on this false notion
> that trees don't grow very fast in value--and that therefore forestry has to be
> subsidized by government. True, it takes time for trees to grow, but with good
> management they do grow at very respectable rates.
You're starting to convince me of this. <G>
No doubt forestry is a very good financial investment. Too bad though,
that so many clowns are out there doing it all wrong. How do we get rid
of all the bums? The burros haven't accomplished this- and they've done
their own bad forestry - actually losing money for the taxpayers. A lot
of professions have argued that they must have high pay to attract
better people. And we all know that forestry is the lowest paid
profession of any in North America, except for the few at the top of the
heap. If the profession had real unselfish leadership, those leaders
would be fighting to raise salaries- at least for those who actually do
real forestry- (see above).
> So will the truth about tree value growth bring an end to all the forestry
> burrocracies? Or will they somehow manage to incorporate this new perspective
> into their programs and just keep on bilking the forestry profession and the
> public treasuries? I guess we'll just have to stay tuned.
I think now that we are exposing them, they'll all feel guilty and
More information about the Ag-forst