Forester Licensing

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Tue Mar 3 08:02:10 EST 1998

Jostnix wrote:

> If you become involved in the process you will quickly believe in its
> usefulness.  We have "foresters" graduating from major universities who can't
> read or spell...many have never practiced forestry...those that have never see
> beyond the scalehouse door.  The test in Alabama fails people but gives an
> opportunity to return.  Most pass the second time because they took it
> seriously the second time.  And that, in my mind,  means you have just taken
> the professional responsibility seriously and are ready to be a "registered
> forester in Alabama"

Same here. Graduate from the U.Mass forestry school and you'll get lost
on your first acre. But the infamous Mass. DEM just hired several recent
graduates in a secret process- few of the 100 or so consultants knew
about this- on a contract basis for $20/hr. This is scandalous since the
state could have hired people with 25 years experience at the peak of
their careers who really would have been VERY productive, but of course
such high productivity would have shamed the those with permanent status
in the DEM "protection racket". <G>

> << However, I don't support licensing as a way to limit the number of
> practitioners or create anexclusive club. If youmeet the minimum standards then
> you should get a
> license.      I believe I get a lot more credibility and respect for my
> experience, reputation and ability than the fact that I am licensed.>>
> Neither do I.  Most state registration allows ANYONE with a forestry degree to
> take either an oral or written exam.  It then makes manditory a continuing
> education program to keep you current. The guiding principle here is that we
> must police our profession or by damn someone else will!  And there are rogue
> foresters with the talent to rape and pillage.
> An old baptist minister said to a sprinkled methodist who was questioning the
> "wet"baptism - "boy, you ain't getting dunked for you, you are getting dunked
> for them" pointing to the congregation.  Foresters are "getting dunked" as a
> public perception of confidence.  We may not like this perception but
> "perception is reality"

Why are doctors and lawyers licensed? To protect society. But then those
professiones use this licensing to their own advantage. Why should
foesters be any different? Why should forester be the only
"professionals" without professional income and status- except of course
those who automatically get to grab wealth from the taxpayer? Why don't
the forestry bureaucrats and academics fight like crazy to raise ALL
foresters to a professional status? They're taking the easy road.
They're failing in their leadership role.

And so far, anything negative I say about "burros" does not apply to
Steve Nix. I've already said in this forum many times that Steve is one
of the few who really is reaching out both with his great web page and
his having the courage to show up here in these newsgroups, even if he
doesn't agree with EVERYTHING I say. Steve is a leader. But where are
the rest? For those with leadership pretensions- THIS IS THE PLACE TO
BE. This is the Marshall McCluhan's "global village".

I've been trying very hard to get ALL the forestry community in Mass. to
also get  with it. When people actually lived in villages they usually
had some forum for communication. In Europe people still meet in the
public square most days or in their churches. Communication is
essential. Communication via annual meetings put on by "higher ups" is
bogus. That isn't communication at all- that's just a means of power
tripping- with those at the top talking down to the "untermenschen" on
their terms as if they knew more than those with the mud on their boots.
The net is a far more democratic means of communication. We're all in
this together. And those that don't carry their weight are going to be
droped by the wayside; sooner or later.


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list