The Awful Truth
redoak at forestmeister.com
Thu Mar 9 18:22:50 EST 2000
Karl Davies wrote:
> THE AWFUL TRUTH
> Some of us have been arguing for a long time in this forum and elsewhere
> that we need REAL forester licensing. We've been getting lots of
> opposition. The opposition comes from three factions in the forestry
> "community." Below are brief descriptions of the factions and why they
> oppose REAL forester licensing.
> These people include some mill owners, some loggers, and even a few
> foresters. They make their livings by "cutting the best and leaving the
> rest." Some of them do quite well at it. They obviously oppose REAL
> forester licensing because it will entail real forestry and real
> silviculture--the opposite of high-grading.
> We've already covered this ground extensively, so there's no need to get
> into it again in detail. For those who may have missed past
> discussions, much of it is covered in different essays at
Wow, that guy has a really cool web page. <G>
> Scam Artists
criminals! Gaia rapers!
> Again, these people include some mill owners and loggers, and possibly a
> few foresters. They make their livings by cutting more timber than they
> pay for. This is another very profitable endeavor.
They get bad karma though- they'll have to come back as a woodchuck. <G>
> They obviously
> oppose REAL forester licensing because it will require that volumes be
> professionally measured in advance of cutting--in most cases.
Well, counting to large numbers probably is difficult in some
> This aspect of the opposition to REAL forester licensing has not been
> extensively discussed because it's a very sensitive subject, even more
> sensitive than high-grading.
Trying to get them to discuss it is like asking them about their sex life.
> For those who want more detail on all the
> various ways that timber scams can occur--under the noses of
> landowners--see my draft article at
> A sidebar at the end of this article includes estimates on the extent of
> the problem: as much as only half the timber cut in some states may be
> actually paid for. We don't know the true extent of the problem because
> no one is keeping track of it, and there's no way of keeping track under
> the current system.
Well, someday, if forestry becomes a REAL profession- oh, that's right,
that's why it isn't allowed to become a REAL profession.
> State Forestry Bureaucrats
> These people are the ones who "regulate forestry" (the extent to which
> this is done varies by state)
Kinda like the fox "regulating" the chickens. <G>
> and who "assist" landowners with free
Well, if you consider $75,000-$100,000- the full and total cost of any mid
level burro to be "free"- but heck, much of that money comes from USFS
clearcuts- so no need for the state legislatures to look to hard at what
goes on in the burro-ocracy.
> information on forestry. They basically run the "forestry" show in all
> states in the country, and they receive good pay, benefits and pensions
> for their efforts in this regard.
Right, REAL jobs- so no reason to do anything silly and lose them, like if
crooked loggers mad at them.
> They oppose REAL forester licensing
> because it challenges their authority and ultimately could eliminate the
> need for their jobs.
Hmmm... there doesn't seem to be "service doctors", "service lawyers",
"service barbers", "service plumbers"- I wonder why there are "service
> Most of this aspect of the opposition to REAL licensing has also been
> extensively discussed. See
Yuh, that sure is a cool web site. <G>
> Recently, however, it has come to light that some forestry bureaucrats
> are actively colluding with the worst aspects of forest industry in
> opposing REAL forester licensing. See
Yup, our Massachusetts Dept. of Enviro Mgt. big honcho, alias The Director,
alias by law, The Forester, though not a forester, thinks that forestry is
revolutionary! But that couldn't possibly have anything to do with
millionaire sawmill owners being buddies with state politicians. Nah, our
politicians are working in the interest of the public, so they wouldn't do
> In fact, it could be reasonably argued that these bureaucrats' salaries,
> benefits and pensions should be seen as bribes from this aspect of the
> industry to look the other way when it comes to high-grading and
> scamming, and to provide cover for industry from landowners,
> environmentalists and legislators who would seek to curtail high-grading
> and scamming.
Too bad so few enviros even understand this issue. Legislators certainly
don't. And neither does the SAF. So it must not happen, we must be imagining
"high grading" and it's vast negative consequences to the health and
vitality of the forests- and those effects on the planetary ecosystem-
global warming- the energy economy, etc.
> The Awful Truth
It sure is ugly. <G>
> This convergence of interests really should come as no surprise. The
> only reason that it might is that we've all been so effectively
> programmed by industry and bureaucracy to believe their version of
You mean the woodchucks might all be brainwashed, like Soviet appartchiks?
> And of course this phenomenon is not just confined to
> forestry. The same thing happens in all industries and all
> bureaucracies. See http://www.poclad.org/articles/morris03.html.
You mean that our very democracy might be an illusion, that corporations
have more power that "the people"? Shocking.
> When you sort it all out, and boil it all down, it really is the old
> story of the fox guarding the henhouse. They may have big titles, nice
> offices, and state vehicles, but they're really just sly old foxes (or
> their hirelings) underneath all the layers of propaganda.
Sly old foxes that like middle class pay checks, insurance, and pensions.
> Karl Davies, Practicing Forester
> Northeastern Forestry Reformation List Server
Massachusetts Licensed Forester #261
Member of Forest Steward's Guild
Duh Woodchuck Party line
Massachusetts Forestry Politics
"Landowner rights" is just another way to say "logger's right to high grade"
More information about the Ag-forst