epistle to the MA DEM forestry "burros"

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Fri Jun 12 10:55:55 EST 1998

I have just faxed the following "epistle" to all the forestry honchos in
Taxachusetts. I expect the state storm troopers will be breaking down my
doors around 4:00 AM. <G>

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT. Even though I've been giving it to them for over
20 years. You know the image of the 3 monkeys, deaf, dumb, and blind?
Well, that's what happens when your paycheck has nothing to do with the
real world, and when your getting hired had at everything to do with
nepotism, cronyism and patronism. I might be a liberal in theory but
when it comes to Mass. state government I'm much farther to the right
than Jessie Helms.
Dear S.I.P. Office:

I have just received a copy of the Mass. Forest Cutting Practices Act
bulletin, revised Feb. 1998; which I believe was produced by your
office, in cooperation with blah, blah, blah.....

Anyways, I just wanted to mention that I have found that SIP
publications are very well designed and very clearly written. This is
true of all the SIP publications I have seen so far.

However, I take some offense at the fact that this latest publication
mentions service foresters several times in each paragraph, while
"forestry consultant" is mentioned once or twice in the entire
publication.  This "problem" of course is endemic to most DEM
publications; leaving anyone reading it to believe that "forester" means
state forester.  In my opinion, this represents an attitude that needs
changing.  Then again, nobody ever agrees with me, so I must be wrong. 
I particularly take offense at the statement on pg. 4 of your
publication which says, "By contacting a DEM Service Forester at the
beginning of the harvest planning process, landowners can learn right
from the start what their harvesting options and responsibilities are." 
Landowners can also get this information from a forestry consultant- and
you should have said this. You know, we don't live in the Soviet Union.
It doesn't exist anymore; but Soviet Massachusetts does, despite the
preponderance of Republicans in power- who are too blinded by their
efforts to further enrich the millionaires, than to take a serious look
at reforming Massachusetts state government.

I strongly suggest that all DEM publications, especially those from the
SIP office should begin to show an awareness of reality.  It is reality
that almost all forestry activity in Massachusetts, carried out by
foresters (other than state land), is carried out because forestry
consultants, and only forestry consultants, have enlightened landowners
about forestry issues. Never once in 25 years as a forestry consultant
has a landowner contacted me as a result of their enlightenment coming
from a forester on a government payroll. So, having done the missionary
work of forestry and the actual field work, I do indeed resent this
exaggeration of the importance government foresters.

I am famous as a critic of the DEM.  I wouldn't be if I saw a  greater
sense of awareness of the realities of how and why forestry exists in
this state.

The DEM needs to begin pumping up the image of consultants; not this
ancient and incorrect exaggerating of the significance of government
foresters; if you really want to see more forestry in Massachusetts.  In
my opinion, all public relations by government foresters in this state
for the past 25 years have been a total failure; along with the upcoming
forester licensing; which is a very bad law, which will have zero impact
on forestry, which in this state only occurs on about 15% of the land.

Since the SIP office does have such fine design skills with these
publications, I can't comprehend why you (the DEM) don't have an
internet web page.  And if the argument is you can't afford it; that's
bogus because the cost is minimal.  An organization that can pay for a
few dozen foresters and their overhead can afford a web page; which in
my opinion would have far more value to the public than these
publications; which few landowners ever see.  And it also amazes me that
our state politicians are so reluctant to take a serious look at
reforming the DEM and forestry laws of our state. The level of inertia
is staggering.  There has been NO progress in private land forestry in
our state in the past quarter century, despite the self-serving
propaganda of fully tax payer funded foresters.  And I'm also offended
by the fact that nobody EVER replies to my comments.  You can't deal
with the truth of what I say.  It disturbs your comfortable illusions of
reality.  But you really need to grow up someday and face reality.

Joe Zorzin
cc: Chief Forester Warren Archey, Service Foresters Bob Lear and Ed
Fuller, Rep. Chris Hodgkins, Senator Nuciforo, etc., etc., etc.
cc: to foresters across planet Earth: via internet newsgroups,
bionet.agroforestry, alt.forestry

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list