"Commentary" in SAF Journal with my counter commentary

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Thu Oct 12 06:09:38 EST 2000


POSTED IN alt.forestry AND CC'D TO SELECT FORESTRY "INTELLECTUALS"
AND "LEADERS"



> Commentary in the Oct. 2000 Soc. of American Forestry Journal
> "Leading Change"

> John F. Heissenbuttel, current vice president of the SAF

And my rebuttal to the Hessian Butt in red of course. <G>

>
>
> During the past century foresters in the United States have
> demonstrated that, through a commitment to professional forest
> management,

Is there such a thing as unprofessional forest mgt.??? Yes, there is
a lot of that, but you wouldn't know the difference.

> we can improve, maintain, restore, and sustain
> forests. As a profession,

translation, "as an unprofession" wanting desperately to become
professionals and making the effort by repeating that word over and
over again hoping enough people will believe it, rather than making
genuine reforms in this unprofession

> we have a record to be proud of. Our
> nation is second to none in our commitment and our actions to
> sustainably manage our forestlands.

And second to none in paving them over, clearcutting and high
grading them, thanks to the Society of Unprofessional Foresters and
their dimwit propaganda that thinks all logging is scientific
forestry

> Yet as professionals

the favorite word of SAF foresters <G>

> we can
> and must do better in serving landowners and society.

OK, we'll all become angels. Thanks for the inspiration to do
better.

> To do
> anything less would be to reject what has been the hallmark of
> SAF: a commitment to continuous improvement.

translation, "a commitment to attend ever more meetings with better
donuts" <G>

>
>
> Looking at the past 20 years, we can be certain that the
> practice of forestry and the public climate in which forestry is
> practiced will change dramatically over the next 20 years as
> well.

Wow, that statement makes no sense at all- pure Wonder Bread fluff.
It's illiterate. <G> duh.... well, whadayuh expect, folks? <G>

> The only question is whether the collective membership

duh collective membership? like, they need to be good soldiers in
the SAF army?? obey orders and get their required lobotomy and above
all be polite like good little children??

> of
> SAF wants to follow or lead. To be leaders, I believe we must
> accomplish the following three (of several) interdependent
> strategic objectives established by SAF Council:
>
> * SAF is recognized and supported by a growing number of
> professionals as the organization that best serves the forestry
> profession.

the professional association for the professional foresters
practicing professional forestry, professionally with science ad
infinitum ad absurdum ad nauseum! ....

>
>
> * SAF is recognized by a growing percentage of the public and
> policymakers as the leader in providing credible and reliable
> forestry information.

nonsense, recognized as such mostly by right wing western Senators
who want their states clearcut

>
>
> * SAF increases public recognition that scientifically sound
> stewardship of our nation's forests through management is the
> most effective means to achieve society's environmental goals.

all of the forests? 100% must be "managed"??? Does logging without
foresters involved qualify as forest mgt.??? The fundamental
questions are scientific and not social/economic/political???

>
>
> The good news is that, in recent years, SAF has made tremendous
> strides toward the last two objectives.

wow, and you've been keeping it a secret all this time?

> However, complete
> success will prove elusive unless we can solve our greatest
> challenge: membership.

I think your greatest challenge is ranters pointing out how
unsophisticated you and the other SAF honchos are. <G>

> A strong membership provides the
> financial resources and expertise to identify scientifically
> sound solutions.

Such as influencing politicians????

> Perhaps more important to meeting our strategic
> objectives is a diverse membership that can speak with one
> voice.

Achtung! Heil the Hessian Butt! SAF Uber Alles! On to Moscow for
Lebensraum!

> I believe that changing membership requirements is not
> the solution; rather, it is imperative that we create a culture
> within SAF where the full diversity of thought and perspectives
> of forestry professionals are welcomed.

Unless they strongly disagree with the party line.

> Unless we embrace and
> solicit diversity of thought within our profession we risk
> becoming stagnant, or worse, irrelevant.

Too late, you've already become that way and you'll never change
now. You're all locked in cement.

>
>
> Is the collective membership up to the challenge of increasing
> our numbers and diversity? You bet.

Don't bet on it. <G> It's getting smaller every day, but you think
it's growing in numbers and influence. Time for a reality check.

> To do less would be to
> relinquish our quest to both lead change in the practice of
> forestry and build the public trust.

You aren't going to do either, not with the current attitudes of the
SAF "leadership".



--
Joe  Zorzin
http://forestmeister.com

new SAF web site
http://www.forestmeister.com/duh/SAF/Society-of-American-Anti-Foresters.html

"the truth shall make you free"
Jesus, John 8:31,32

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/ag-forst/attachments/20001012/cc57b1d9/attachment.html


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list