forester licensing regs in Massachusetts, they SUCK <G>
woodtick at lebmofo.com
Fri Nov 27 06:59:56 EST 1998
Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> Most timber sales should have the timber marked by a LICENSED FORESTER.
> All the countless excuses notwithstanding. That's the only right way to
> do it. And that should be the long term goal of licensing. It's not so
> much to get better foresters, but TO GET BETTER FORESTRY ON ALL THE LAND
> WITH NO FORESTRY.
Then the problem isn't with licensing foresters, but requiring forest mgmt plans to be
developed before harvesting begins. This wouldn't be a function of state government, and
may be a reason you are meeting so much resistance. Any law which a state government
doesn't enact is kicked down to the next level. So, maybe its time to start putting
pressure on your county or local govt. to enact legislation to require a mgmt plan to be
written before harvest. Then, someone like you could go an review these before allowing
harvesting. A good way to act as a consultant to local govt - kind of a burro, but not
Several local govt. in PA are currently doing this, but the review of the mgmt plans
suck, which means there is no review. Some of these local regs are driving the loggers
nuts. It is becoming more and more prevalent by the locals, and this may force the state
to do something to satisfy both sides.
More information about the Ag-forst