Joe Zorzin wrote:
Last night I was reading a book on astronomy, as part of my "forester
education enhancement". G

The book said that Albert Einstein had renounced his German citizenship
several years before he left Germany. That took incredible courage.

I think those of us who think major changes are need in forestry ought to
renounce our citizenship in a phony profession and create a new one
entirely. That solves the problem of trying to reform forestry- we abandon
it as unreformable- and start over again.

It would be a new profession focused on "economically sophisticated
ecoforestry". From the beginning it should have very high educational and
training standards. The education should begin with an undergrad degree in
biology and ecology, then "forestry professional school" comparable to law
or medicine or architecture- which will focus on the balance between real
forestry economics, long term, based on intelligent analysis of the rate of
growth of value- in the context of great silviculture along with due
consideration of ecological and economic values not now counted and with
full consideration of externalities also not counted.

The professional school would include a very serious and deep discussion of
ethics and morality.

Training would consist of several years work for one or more forestry firms
licensed under this new program. Of course we'll have to change the name of
the profession to something other than "forester" to show that his is a new
profession. Once a person finally gets a license under this new system,
they'll be so highly educated and trained that hardly anyone will question
their professionalism- they will be seen as the supreme experts. There will
be no review of their work by bureaucrats or environmentalists- because they
will the ultimate forest environmentalists! And, of course, they're will be
no further need for the likes of FSC Certification, which is just another
fancy and expensive bureaucracy.

Well, I have a right to fantasize, don't I? G


Sounds good Joe. I'm all for it.

One good thing about being a consultant in changing times is the need to
diversify to keep bread on the table. If there are any foresters out
there who are still doing basically the same thing they did fifteen
years ago, they don't know how lucky they are.

When industrial strength forestry became uncommon around here,
management and cutting plans for small owners picked up. That passed too
and a lot of new funding appeared for salmon restoration, and then new
forest practice rules made riparian zone forestry incorporate a lot of
what used to be fisheries stuff. Then "critical areas" became strongly
regulated - areas like buffer zones, wetlands and unstable slopes. I had
to go back and pick up another degree just to compete with the fresh new
grads bidding against me. Plus short courses.

Several old buddies picked up degrees in wildlife, planning and
fisheries during the same time. That gives most everyone doing this kind
of work in this area two or more professional certifications. Throw in
working skills with GPS, GIS, surveying, statistics and even (ugh)land
use policy, the modern forester/environmental consultant can't help but
become a ecologic generalist operating at a fairly high level. There's
no job title for that yet other than consultant.