5/14/02

Dear James E. Coufal,

You asked for a response to your questions why SAF
membership was in a decline, and so here is your response.
Justfor the record, unless SAF completely changes it's
entire membership platform to serve practicing foresters
instead of pursuing other ventures as it has during past
years, you can add me to the former SAF member's list as of
next year. As it stands now, the check is not in the mail.
I think it is ironic that you mentioned the Forest Steward's
Guild, becauserelatively recently, I became a member of what
I consider to be the more practical organization for
practicing forestersthan SAF. Membership is increasing in
FSG, and for good reason: It stands for everything a
forester's organization should stand for: Forestry.

I could write an article addressing this topic as I see it,
but writing such a piece would easily take up the entire
forestry
source without losing the reader's attention, so I will try
to keep this short and sweet. Remember: PPS. My brief and
relatively unspecific answers to your questions in order of
subsequent question marks in your article's text:

1. SAF's decline in membership has a negative impact for the
SAF, but not necessarily on forestry. Without SAF, FSG will
become the largest (by member) national forester's
association. If SAF doesn't limit membership to only
active, practicing foresters, it no longer becomes a
forester's organization. It is that simple. FSG isn't all
foresters, but most members are currently working directly
in the course of managing forests. FSG may prove to make a
more professional organization than SAF does soon, as I do
not believe SAF will change to serve foresters. Let me
explain to you who I am writing about when I use the term
"forester". The foresters I am writing of are those who are
actively and directly involved with the management of
forests for the conservation of our natural resources. This
is a plain and simple definition, and we know who we are.

2. No one cares about having extra money for SAF activities
because they are probably tired of giving each other
awards and not seriously communicating business, as any
"professional" association activity should.

3. The problem starts by using the term "professional
forestry" or "professional forester". Do you ever hear
Physicians, electricians, or attorneys refer to themsleves
as "professional"? There is no reason for the termonolgy
"professional forestry", as the term "forester" should
commend that level in and of itself. Unfortunately, it does
not. Professionals send professional invoices. This means
$75 or more for services instead of $50 or less. There is
no reason that this profession should commend poverty-level
salaries, as the services are severely in demand and the
servers are few and far between. The reason this industry's
salaries are so low is because log buyers with forestry
degrees often do not participate toward the conservation of
our natural resources because the conservation of their
employed position is more important to them. Since SAF and
academia have catagorized these people as "foresters", real
foresters suffer the financial and economic outcome of
reaping a smaller amount for their services. Real foresters
will step away from those who insist on not practicing
forestry and join an organization represented for and by
foresters, not log buyers, industrialists, strictly
academics or others who are not foresters.

4. See above regarding academic roles. An organization that
represents foresters should not have professors as
members unless they are active practicing foresters, too.
Maybe the others can join the Society of American
specialists of a forestry related field.

5. An article about politics by Banzhaf has very little to
do forestry. It was about politics. We should be
discussing ways to conserve our resources, not who is on
what side of some imaginary line. I imagine most, like
myself, are both conservative and liberal, depending on the
issue at hand, but again this has nothing to do with
forestry.

6. There are no such forestry political "sides", just
foresters as a whole in the population I'm writing of.

7. Since their are no "sides", I will just say that many of
us foresters feel that SAF represents our interests, those
of the future high-value forests, very little for a
relatively high priced membership.

8. Forest Stewards Guild has arisen because their are those
that see the future of forestry during the present time.

The problem of thinking big and bold is one of the very
reasons why SAF is in a negative membership trend. SAF will
allow such a broad definition of "forester" into the
membership that people have almost forgotten all about what
a
forester really is. One thing SAF hasn't done on the big
and bold scale is launch a major nation-wide advertising
campaign that explains to all landowners their private
management resource options. Here's something else that
needs done: Quit publishing the Journal of Forestry, so
obviously a magazine by and for academics, it should be
called Journal of specialists of a forestry related field.
Make the Source more efficient and practical for foresters
to use. This means the elimination of Media moments and
People in the News, and other totally worthless
information. If you want to see a realistic version of a
true forestry periodical, look at Distant Thunder. All
worthwile or at least, interesting forestry articles,
coupled with no commercial advertisements! In comparison,
9/20 pages in the Forestry Source contain commercial
advertisements and only a few of the articles are worthwhile
(my thanks to the author of the good ones, SW)!

It is doubtful that these suggestions will be followed by
those who I have written this to, and until they do, the
membership of SAF will continuely decline, while the FSG
membership will grow. That's ok though, because the US is
ready for a strong forester's organization, any way we get
one. My apologies to the late "real" forester Gifford
Pinchot, as I bid farewell to his associative legacy.

Geoff Kegerreis

Consulting Forester
Timberline Forestry Consulting LLC
13814 19 Mile Rd.
LeRoy, MI
49655