The Truth ISN'T Out There

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sun Aug 23 21:06:16 EST 1998

KMorrisD wrote:

> If the justification for their jobs is that growing trees is not profitable and
> therefore needs government subsidies, it would seem that their `ignorance`
> could well be deliberate.  But of course there could be other factors as well.

You've finally sold me on this idea - to look closer at the real value

The justification of service foresters goes back to when they were the
only foresters who could give advice to landowners other than industrial

Governments in recent years have cut back on many functions when the
private sector can now do the work- such as roadside garbage collection
in may cities, jails in many states, and other services. It's rather
absurd to be providing free "asset mgt. advice". Such free advice should
only be to people who are destitute- such as legal services for the
poor. Society doesn't provide free stock brokers or other financial

Perhaps free advice for forestry should only go to very poor landowners
and no subsidies except for those in need. If provided only to the
needy- the rest of the service foresters could be transferred to other
functions- like working on state land.

In Mass. even legal services for the poor have been drastically reduced;
while maintaining free foresters for millionaires. Here, the government
is encouraging law firms to do more "pro bono" for poor people. I don't
do pro bono forestry, but if a landowner is truly down and out, I charge
very, very little- mostly just gas and beer money. <G>

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list