Landowner Assistance for Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sun Mar 1 11:21:07 EST 1998

Susan112 wrote:

> In defence of state organizations, these are federal programs so much
> difficulty comes from having to follow all the fed regulations about how the
> money is spent.  I'm interested to see how WHIP works seems like
> another step is the more wildlife-friendly direction for NRCS.
> Susan

Let's try looking at the bigger picture of the REAL PROBLEM of bad land

The feds and the states, year after year, change these programs, set up
new agencies, close them down.... on and on and on.... and far more
money gets spent by the agencies than ever gets spent actually doing
anything productive in the forest. Lots of meetings are put on, lots of
reports are generated, lots of pretty brochures are printed.

In my state of Massachusetts, if all the agencies had been permanently
shut down 25 years ago, it wouldn't have made any difference to the
REALITY of what actually has occured in the forests. NONE.

Most land in Mass. has been high graded by mills and loggers several
times and this continues. A small percent of forest land acutally is
under some kind of decent mgt. by consultants. The consultants
THEMSELVES did the "missionary" work to convince landowners to put their
land under mgt. All the vast number of service foresters, extension
foresters, SIP foresters, etc., etc., etc. contributed extremely little
to this missionary work. And the puny amounts money available in
subsidies had very little to do with this ACTUAL mgt. work. It's the
hard work of consultants, most of whom live on absurdly low salaries,
out of dedication and stubborness.

Since the agencies have NO contact with REALITY, they think the biggest
problem of forestry is that foresters aren't professional enough, so
they spend a lot of time dreaming up "training sessions" for us. This is
a Kafkaesque joke, it's so absurd.

And now we're getting close to having "forester licensing" which will
accomplish nothing whatsoever as far as improving forestry in THIS
state. This is a bad law that does NOTHING to stop high grading; does
NOTHING to encourage landowners to retain forestry consultants. The law
should have been written with a provision that ALL cutting plans must be
prepared by a licensed forester. And the law doesn't even stipulate that
a licensed forester must be needed to prepare a state forestry tax law
mgt. plan. Our state politicians should be ashamed of themselves over
this BAD law.

The vast majority of land will remain UNMANAGED because we as a society
would rather allocate resources to building more B2 bombers, more
shopping centers, 10 billion dollars per year on cosmetics, billions
spent on atheletes and movie stars. We're a sick society with a sick
environment with a corrupt political system that only serves to make the
rich richer and the poor poorer.

My state forestry agency, the D.E.M. and the state's only forestry
professional association, the MAPF, have in the past quarter century
done nothing for forestry and nothing for the foresters that actually
work in the real world, the consultants. And this failure will continue
until consultants have the balls to speak up and demand changes; for the
betterment of the forest and their own professional standing in a
decadent society. The politicians will continue to do NOTHING. They are

Joe Zorzin

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list