Proposed Forester Licensing in Massachusetts

LRLake lrlake at aol.com
Tue Jun 2 16:49:42 EST 1998


>Texas does not license, yet.  We are watching ya'll and the rest of the
>world to see how it works.  But, seems like the DEM wants "Do as I say,
>not as I do" for their own people.  If one is licensed, all need to be
>licensed, including those that would run the program.
>
>In your PS you note your respect for a number of professions, all
>licensed but one, let's go for licensing on the last one.
>
>-- 
>Don Staples
>UIN 4653335
>
>

Don is right here.

In Calif. we had a fight because the "tree cops" had police authority yet some
were not licensed (not enough experience to qualify).  These "burros" were
citing licensed foresters for violations of the law but were not authorized,
under the licensing law, to "practice forestry".

Can you imagine the fits?  
These guy's supervisors had to sign the tickets (they were licensed); yet they
had little immediate knowledge; which put them in jepordy of the law!  What a
sass!

After many biligerant legal fights between State licensees and State tree cops,
the dust has largely setteled.  It is my understanding that the situation has
been largely resolved through attrition and State Personnel policies which
require and recognize the Foresters Licensing law.  The Law was passed in 1973.
 I guess twenty years is not much in a rotation!

Lawrence R. Lake, RPF
Redding, CA



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list