A NEW Debate on the Forestry Profession

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Fri May 8 04:25:09 EST 1998

Larry Harrell wrote:
> Don Staples <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote in article
> <3551D40B.24F9 at livingston.net>...
> > There are also a group of "forestry consultants" (loggers)
> > that rip and snort their way through a sale without a clue.  Perhaps we
> > should call it a contingency fee, nah, we got a bad enough reputation.
> We shouldn't be bashing the "loggers" who aren't here to defend themselves
> from the blanket statements made about them. We've all seen what bad
> loggers can do but, there are loggers who know as much about forestry as
> any of us and do practice it well. Even to the point of costing them money
> and profit just so the finished sale "looks good". Jacking trees, careful
> skidding, stage felling and extra lopping cost more but do wonders for
> visual effects. Leaving larger, thriftier trees also reduces profit but, is
> good forestry.

I don't agree that ANY logges know as much about forestry. They may do a
neet looking job but aren't doing silviculture, they aren't going to
remove those culls or girdle them for silvicultural reasons, they are
going to remove the most valuable species, and they are going to leave
the hemlock, beech, red maple, etc. I've seen it 1,000 times, even
though it looks neet, it ain't silviculture; it ain't forestry.

And there's nobody stopping them from showing up and defending

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list