Proposed Forester Licensing in Massachusetts
redoak at forestmeister.com
Wed Jun 10 18:37:38 EST 1998
Ron Wenrich wrote:
> mcour at telxon.com wrote:
> > Another downside of the proposed forester liscensing is that it restricts
> > competition by making it difficult for a forester to move to another state or
> > practice both in his home state and neighboring states. A forester might not
> > be willing to jump through all the liscensing hoops if it means that he will
> > only get one or two jobs a year in a nearby state, whereas if liscensing were
> > optional, he may well accept those one or two jobs in a neighboring state.
> The other option is just to chance it and practice without a license and hope you
> won't get caught.
As I mention in another reply in this thread, ya can still practice
forestry without a license but ya can't call yourself a forester... call
yourself a lion trainer, a rocket scientist, a pagan tree worshiper, and
your all set!
> > As a landowner, shouldn't I be able to hire a forester from Rhode Island to
> > consult on a job in Massachusetts? Shouldn't I have the last word in the
> > decision of whether or not he is competent? If the state liscenses are
> > optional, I can look at his education, whatever state liscenses he has, the
> > professional societies to which he belongs, and his references. If liscensing
> > is mandatory, the whole pool of candidates is much smaller. If liscensing is
> > optional, a landowner in Massachusetts, I can hire a forester from any
> > neighboring state. If liscensing is mandatory, I am restricted to hiring
> > Massachusetts foresters, because most foresters in neighboring states are not
> > going to bother getting the MA liscense. This is protectionism, pure and
> > simple.
> > Michael Courtney
> My state does not have licensing. I have run into "foresters" with degrees in
> business, 2 yr technicians, and one chap with an 8th grade education. Some
> graduate foresters have little experience or what experience they do have is not
> worth a dime. Talk stocking levels to these guys and they look at you like you're
> nuts. You as a landowner may or may not investigate their credentials. Most
> consultants, in these parts, drive around looking for timber to sell. They then
> sell themselves and their services to the landowner. It is often assumed that the
> forester is legit. Timber is marked and cut, and the forester gets his
> commission. Many times the management is severely lacking, but the landowner has
> little recourse - buyer beware. Licensing will wean out those that do not
> qualify, whether they are from other states or not. Many PA foresters are
> licensed in MD just to call themselves licensed. Few practice there. Look at a
> licensing roster sometime for most states. A good deal will be from out-of-state.
Eventually, we hope, the creme will rise to the surface. Those who do a
great job will become well known in their area. The idiots will leave.
That's happened in my county. Twenty years ago there were far more
consultants. Some couldn't handle the poverty (ya gotta be tough to be a
forestry consultant), many were almost thieves, some tried risky
practices, and others left for more lucrative carears like flipping
burgers at MacDonalds.
Now there are few around; most are pretty good at what they do; but only
one in MA has a web page. <G>
More information about the Ag-forst