State Agencies

Susan112 susan112 at
Tue Jan 6 23:07:17 EST 1998

Don Staples wrote:
>Susan, would you care to comment on effectiveness of programs? 

The sales tax and the "non-political" setup here are a real blessing. Other
states have had difficulty getting a tax passed and have to deal with political
shifts every few years and difficult legislatures . I think the Teaming with
Wildlife program is trying to address the need for more money for non-game
resources for states, hopefully this incentive will also positivley affect
forestry budgets.

As flush as we've been in the past, we're currently under a crunch that will
last probably two years, so some program effectiveness will be down in the
short term. (Hopefully just those programs based on hard dollars rather than
labor based outcomes).  We got a bit ambitious with land acquisition and
capital improvements and it caught up with us along with a tax refund due to
the Hancock amendment, which is still in court I think.

State land forestry and wildlife mgt. gets a lot of attention and is very
effective I think.  Private land work is strong in some areas, weak in others
(usually dependent on how much state land work the forester or biologist is
involved in).  A boatload of programs over the years have been very successful:
 restocking of extirpated species, fire control, reforestation, stream teams,
the Conservationist magazine, a TV series, Urban and Community forestry, nature
centers...I could go on and on.. (I feel I can brag to some extent since I'm
not  from here originally).

There's always areas for improvement, but most if not all that I can think of
are some how at least being looked at.  We've just gotten a new director and
have been reorganized.  Our new director has never had a forestry division
before so we've all been holding our breath a bit, but so far so good. 


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list