Landowner assistance for habitat improvement announced

JimiFromMI jimifrommi at
Mon Mar 2 18:22:00 EST 1998

In article <34FB15EB.41604E17 at>, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at> writes:

>Do you really think ANY landowners understand silviculture, wildlife
>mgt., forest engineering, forest economics, how to protect wetlands,
>endangered species, etc.?
>Why don't you do your own brain surgery while you're at.
>------------------- Headers --------------------

Yes, of course.

I'm not against using foresters at all.  I have in the past and will in the
future.  I've also played the role of consultant (without degree) for some
tracts and I (and the property owner) can see fruits of that success.  As
mentioned before, I'm primarily interested in wildlife habitat improvement
first, but timber income next.  I also do not have a wildlife management
degree.  It is possible to be somewhat knowlegeable in an assortment of fields
without necessarily having a degree posted on the wall.

Uncle SAM already insists that I utilize a "registered" forester for the
purpose of Current Use Assessments every 10 years or so and this is fine --
they (actually State Governments) are returning landowner investments in the
form of property tax releif.  They also allow the landowner, however to remove
properties from Current Use if the landowner decides to clear the land or

Foresters are great, but shouldn't shoved down the landowner's throat; that's
the only point I've been trying to make.  One man's ignorance is another man's
profit.  In Los Vegas, we need not hire a registered Sex Consultant in order to
pick up a prostetute.  Some people could use one, in order to pick up the best
looking babe that gives the best Presidential treatment for the smallest
investment, but.... if someone wants to throw away their life savings for a
cheap ----- , then I think that freedom dictates that they should be allowed
to.  C'mon, this is America!

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list