forester licensing regs in Massachusetts, they SUCK <G>

KMorrisD kmorrisd at
Thu Nov 26 00:10:54 EST 1998

Joseph Zorzin <redoak at>

>So, is it even a profession at all? Without the money and social status
>of a profession, how is it a profession? 

If those are the criteria that you want to go by, you'd have to say that the
burrocrats and academics are professionals.  But what kind of `professionals`
are they really?

In MA for example, 40% of the state forestry burrocracy's budget comes from the
USFS, which takes all of the returns from its timber sales, plus about 50% more
from the Treasury, and spends it on its own burrocrats and `state and private
forestry` (state burrocrats, that is). 

I don't know how much of the academics' budgets comes from USFS,
McIntire-Stennis and other government funding.  Probably a good chunk, just
like the burrocrats.

So if anything, these `professionals` are not professional foresters, but
professional con artists. <G>  They manage to con the Congress and the state
legislatures into giving them all this money.

They also manage to con most consultants into thinking they need their
leadership and assistance!  Not to mention landowners, who get conned into
thinking they need the burrocrats to help them with their `marginally
profitable` forests.

Given the vastness and huge success of all these cons, maybe the do deserve
their fat salaries, benefits and pensions.  I mean, you really have to hand it
to them. <G>



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list