Forestry Sinecures

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sat Nov 14 02:27:59 EST 1998

KMorrisD wrote:
> Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the word SINECURE as "1 (archaic) an
> ecclesiastical benefice without cure of souls, 2 an office or position that
> requires little or no work and that usually provides an income."  So a priest
> who holds a SINECURE is not really a priest because he does not perform the
> function of a priest, which is curing souls.  He does little or no work, but he
> gets paid for it.

So while the middle and upper levels of the bureaucracies have these
sinecures; the lower levels; those who actually go into the woods and
get mud on their boots are turned into the equivalent of migrant
laborers; part time jobs for low wages and no benefits; with the added
insult of absurdly determined and often fraudulently applied
"affirmative action"; instead of a REAL civil service system which would
serve the interests of the public.

> Is this not the same as a forester who holds a bureaucratic job that does not
> require the practice of forestry, but who gets paid very well for not
> practicing forestry?  Are such foresters really foresters or are they something
> else?  Wouldn't the term SINECURE rightly apply to such government forestry
> jobs?

And also to tens of millions of other people who do little or nothing
for their excessive pay while those who do the real work are demoted to
near slavery conditions- but then again I better not get into my
"socialist mode". Such thinking is almost outlawed in our new
brainwashed small minded America.

> According to the Thoreau Institute, USFS costs are currently in excess of 150%
> of returns from sales of timber.  See  In
> Massachusetts, Bureau of Forestry costs are currently in excess of 300% of
> returns from sales of timber from state forests.  Of course some national
> forests are managed somewhat efficiently, as are some state forests
> (particulary state forest trusts).  But why is that so many are not?

Because those states are run by moron politicians? <G>

> Well, it turns out that a big chunk of the expenses of these government
> forestry agencies is OVERHEAD.  According to Thoreau Institute, about 40% of
> total USFS costs are OVERHEAD, that is, people who don't actually practice
> forestry, but who have big "administrative" forestry jobs.  Other big chunks
> get siphoned off into various accounts and trust funds, most of which
> ultimately go to the benefit of other forestry bureaucrats on both the federal
> and state levels.
> Are we really about to enter the 21st century?  Or are we still back in the
> Dark Ages with regards to the practice of forestry?  Maybe it's time to kick
> some bureaucratic butt, and, like Martin Luther, nail our theses to the doors
> of the cathedrals of the forestry bureaucracies.  Maybe it's time to get rid of
> bureaucratic sinecures and sales of TIMBER INDULGENCES which benefit forestry
> bureaucrats, politicians and timber companies, but not the people who pay for
> "administering" them with their taxes).

Yes, it's a big scam, one of many in our "new world order"; most of
which are never discussed by air head politicians and journalists too
concerned with oral sex in the white house; rather than what's really
happening in the country.

> And maybe it's time to get these FORESTRY SINECURES out of the business of
> telling private landowners how they should manage their lands.  If they can't
> do it right on federal and state lands, what right do they have to tell private
> landowners how to do it?  In Massachusetts it truly is a case of the blind
> leading the blind, where 40% of the total Bureau of Forestry budget comes from
> the USFS, and 100% of it is ineffective.

One would think that the truth would rise to the surface and something
would be done about it. Too bad the real world doesn't work that way.
Politicians are responsible for fixing this broken system and they are
NOT doing their jobs.

State and federal politicians responsible for forest policies should be
reading these newsgroups for the truth; instead they have their meetings
with the agency honchos who of course tell the lame politicians exactly
what they want to hear.

> Karl Davies, Consulting Forester
> Northampton, MA

Joe Zorzin, Professional Mud Forester
z-mail, list server, for the Massachusetts forestry revolution of '98
read about it at

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list