Forester Licensing

JimiFromMI jimifrommi at
Tue Mar 3 14:10:28 EST 1998

In article <6dhcq8$dso$1 at>, mcour at writes:

>Subject:	Re: Forester Licensing
>From:	mcour at
>Date:	Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:58:18 -0600
>The question of liscensing professionals is a broad one.  Personally,
>I am in favor of minimal government interference and letting the buyer
>beware.  I would only support liscensing of professionals in cases where
>the consequences of not liscensing is very high.  Doctors are an example.
>However, in today's world, even liscensing of doctors need not ne mandated by
>the government.  Even if the government did not require doctors to be
>liscensed, insurance comanies probably would by only paying claims to
>liscensed doctors.
>Liscensing is usually a means of government control.  For example, when one
>gets a liscense to butcher meat, one has to give up the right that protects
>against unauthorized search and seizure.  To protect the public health, we've
>decided that in the meat packing business, it's best to presume guilt.  In
>other words, we presume that the meat packing plant is unsanitary until
>inspected and proven sanitary.  Selling meat from an unlicensed and
>uninspected meat packer is a felony in most states, even if the plant is
>perfectly sanitary.  However, rather than have the government mandate
>liscensing, I would rather see the customers (wholesalers and retailers
>the meat) insist on facilities meeting some minimum sanitation requirement.
>Consider another area: liscensing of gun dealers.  This is completely an
>of government control and has nothing to do with public safety or protecting
>the consumer.
>Liscensing of other professionals is in between, but I still think that the
>main motivation is government control rather than protecting the public.  I
>earn my living as an engineer.  Some places require a liscense for a person
>to say he's an engineer.  This is rediculous.  Now if the government wants to
>require liscensing of engineers who are doing work for them, fine.   In that
>case, they are acting as a customer.  But if the government wants to require
>liscensing of anyone who says he's an engineer, that's rediculous.  Anyone
>looking over my resume should be able to make decisions whether or not my
>engineering skills are sufficient for the task at hand.
>As far as foresters go, I prefer the government to keep their hands off.  A
>free market should do a better job of weeding out the bad foresters.  Like
>most professions, forestry seems to be more about how hard you work than how
>much you know, and I bet that there are a lot of foresters who could pass the
>tests, take the classes, and still do a lousy job.  From what I can tell the
>Association of Consulting Foresters is doing a better job advancing the
>forestry profession than government interference ever could.
>Michael Courtney
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>------------------- Headers --------------------
>From: mcour at
>Newsgroups: bionet.agroforestry
>Subject: Re: Forester Licensing
>Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:58:18 -0600
>Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>Lines: 47
>Message-ID: <6dhcq8$dso$1 at>
>References: <34fb6f81.0 at>
><19980303120501.HAA23269 at>
><34FBFF52.1BAAFC6A at>
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 03 16:58:18 1998 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (WinNT; I)


Maybe it's an Engineering thing, but for the most part I agree.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list