forester licensing regs in Massachusetts

KMorrisD kmorrisd at aol.com
Tue Dec 29 20:55:01 EST 1998


>Ron Wenrich <woodtick at lebmofo.com> wrote:

>The problem we have with forestry is that the vast amount of
>landowners don't like what we are trying to sell.  The crop takes too long >to
grow, and in this day of instant gratification, most landowners are turned >off
by the idea of saving something for the next generation. 

I find most landowners are happy to hear that they can be earning 10-15% on
their timber investment with good management--and doing good stewardship at the
same time.  But if they've talked to other consultants, and especially if
they've talked to our state disservice foresters, they may be skeptical about
my claims.  

Most consultants, and ALL disservice foresters, are still reciting the old 3-5%
mantra.  Consultants don't like to admit they've been conned, and disservice
foresters don't like to admit they've been conning consultants and the public
for decades.

>The regulation would than be that all commercial harvesting of timber will
>require a harvesting plan registered by a licensed forester. 

That's exactly what we're talking about here in MA.

> The problem is that the enforcement of these regulations are by the local
>engineer, who just rubber stamps whatever the logger wants.  It may be >easier
to implement the regs that you want at a local level.  

What you have with local engineers approving harvesting plans is totally
bonkers.  I mean, that makes MA sound like forestry paradise. <G>  So are you
talking about just shifting that authority to licensed foresters?  If so, that
sounds reasonable.  

But there would still be the problem of hundreds of different sets of regs by
different towns and counties.  Or is this something that you and other
foresters and loggers can live with? 

>Commercial logging on self owned lands would be exempt, as well as state >and
federal lands.

Why would these lands be exempt?

Karl Davies





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list