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?
>We will report on the
>progress of the Forestry Revolution. Too bad that few if any of you
>readers shall participate. This is getting to be a lot of fun, as well
>as a significant turning point in the forestry profession. It's a dirty
>job but somebody has to do it.
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.
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.