bobndwoods at aol.com
Tue Mar 10 10:16:19 EST 1998
In article <3503D2D2.6E9F240 at forestmeister.com>, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at forestmeister.com> writes:
>> Ron hit the nail on the head here. If you're going to try to start
>> and have an immediate impact, I'd choose the loggers. They are the ones
>> the silvical decisions around here. It'd be plum wonderful to have a
>> on every sale, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
>Sheesh! And why not? Because the state and feds could push for foresters
>on logging jobs, but it's in your interest to NOT do so, because YOU
>gov. foresters have the limelight- as the advising foresters and you
>have YOUR piece of the economic pie, and your pensions, and insurance
>and a selfish attitude. It's perfectly common sense that the gov.
>agencies should push for foresters on all logging jobs. "I don't see
>that happening". No kidding, and do you think it will happen if you gov.
>foresters don't help out and make it happen?
>And if by law, foresters were required on ALL logging jobs, the final
>outcome might be that there would be no more "free" foresters in gov.
>service, and YOU and the other gov. foresters might have to go out and
>work in the real world, and God forbid that THAT would happen.
>Nothing personal, Susan, but working in the gov. for many years can
>cause you to lose touch with reality. And I wouldn't be the least bit
>surprised if you vote Republican, the party that worship private
>This is the reason why forestry is such a low profession. Massive
>And it will continue to be this way until consultants smarten up and
>play politics, they'll get no help from you gov. foresters, except a
>And, loggers ARE INCAPABLE of making silvical decisions. They don't
>comprehend forest ecology, silvics, forest economics, wetland ecology,
>etc. And you gov. foresters should be ashamed of yourselves even wasting
>a second attempting to teach loggers such matters when your fellow
>foresters (consultants) should be managing those timber sales. The time
>you waste teaching loggers this stuff, you should be spending in the
>offices of politicians of your state, stongly encouraging them to write
>new laws mandating foresters on every logging job. I'M SICK OF THE
>EXCUSES OF GOV. FORESTERS, WHICH I'VE HEARD FOR 25 YEARS.
>Essentially, what is a state service forester, but a FREE consulting
>forester. Do we have free barbers? Do we have free auto mechanics? Why
>the hell should we have free foresters? You're no different than us but
>you have a guaranteed lockgrip on the taxpayers pocket book.
>In many ways, gov. agencies are really just protection rackets, like the
>Mafia; but of course you'll never admit it.
I didn't read Susan saying any of that Joe. What I heard was that she agrees
with you that a "forester" should be on every harvest job. Not a government
forester, not a consultant forester, not an industrial forester, just a
qualified professional forester. And, she is just being realistic when she says
that is not likely to happen soon. Speeking from experience, landowners don't
look upon their service foresters as "free". They consider them already "paid
for" buy their tax dollars. That's the catch 22 to your argument. Regardless
of what happens in MA, there is no guaranteed lockgrip on taxpayers pocket
books buy all state forestry agencies or guaranteed employment for all service
foresters. They are subject to the whims of statehouse and internal politics
Your points are well taken Joe, but Susan doesn't work for the State of
Massachusetts. Your reply gets just a little too personal.
Alabama Registered Forester
~~~> The forest may be quiet, but that doesn't mean all the snakes have left.
More information about the Ag-forst