The continuing challeges of SAF membership (cont'd)
Dear James,
Please see my comments in bold. Note here that because they are in bold does not constitute me trying to emphasize anything particular, it is simply the most practical way for us to differentiate who wrote what. GK. James Coufal wrote: Dear Geoff: Thanks for your reply to my piece in The Forestry Source. I detect a good bit of general y and even some personal antagonism that I don't believe I deserve, and that certainly doesn't do any good in human relationships. Putting that aside, my comments are as follow: -I cannot understand what "general y" means, but I assure you that this is in absolutely no way any personal antagonization whatsoever. The only way I reason that you may have taken it that way is if you are not a forester yourself, which could be true. The proof is in what it is you do in your profession exactly. I'm not sure if we have ever met, but forgive me if we did - I do not remember meeting you, therefore, I have no idea if you are a forester or not. My entire response is precisely and clearly defined regarding what I am suggesting. It would not suprise me to find out that your indeed not a forester, if that is the case, and if it is, I am sorry for including you among those persons who are not foresters, but I am clearly stating the truth of the matter, and doing what you asked of me in stating what needs to happen to SAF to become proper. As far as human relationships go, you should realize that I love other humans just as dearly as anything, and even if they are not foresters, (if they are invited), they are welcome to a hickory rocking chair on my porch during comfortable seasons, and a glass or bottle of beer or wine, or crystal clear well water if they choose not to partake. 1. To date, there have only been 6 responses, but they already illustrate one of the problems that SAF faces; the wide diversity of opinions that members hold and that each one wants represented. For example, another consulting forester said, "The Forest Stewards Guild would fade away quickly if it were not supported by the Forest Trust.Allof the most vocal Guild members in ...... hold SAF in contempt, but then they hold pretty much everyone but themselves in contempt, too. Much of their energy goes into attacking other foresters. their strength comes from their almost fanatical conviction that they alone know what is proper for forest management both on public and private lands." Yet, you see the Guild in a very favorable light. By the way, in an e-mail conversation with Henry Carey that didn't get printed in Distant Thunder, he as much as admitted that the Guild exudes a "we know best" attitude. Take a good hard look at what you have written here. Is this type of response your plan to solve SAF's problems? From where I stand, this is poor leadership right from the start. Look - FSG's strength comes from the growing number of foresters that keep joining this up and coming organization, not some sort of arrogance, as you suggest. So what if Henry Carey is confident about his association being more premier than SAF? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and if those opinions come from those who are practicing what they preach - all the better. I'm not holding anyone in contempt except for those who pretend to be foresters. I thought this was crystal clear in my response to your invitation! 2. The majority of the 6 responses agree with you that forestry, and the SAF, needs to return to its roots -- to traditional forestry. But what is "traditional forestry?" Is it timber or is it multiple use? Here is what another respondent thinks about this. He said, "Traditional forestry believes in biodiversity-stumps of different heights." I suspect that this is not the traditional forestry you are for, or is it? The roots of forestry as you should very well know essentially started in Europe, and it has always been multiple use. I am not aware of any king in history to say "I want stumps of my forests". If a person thinks that biodiversity is stumps of different heights s/he is not a forester - end of story. Anyone who doesn't realize that does not understand the correct definition of forester. Roots of forestry in this country started on the Biltmore grounds, more or less - and not every tree was cut there, either. Standards change as information becomes available. There is enough information to know what are proper and acceptable techniques towards managing a forest, and those techniques which are not. SAF has done a poor job of representing foresters lately, period. If SAF doesn't cater to our needs, then we will no longer have anything to do with SAF. I am simply predicting what will happen if it maintains it's current status. 3. I know of no way the SAF or academia have categorized log buyers per se as foresters. They may note that foresters work as log buyers, and if a log buyer happens to be a forestry degree holder, what should he/she be categorized as? A log buyer... ...If an attorney holds a forestry degree, s/he is an attorney. If a professor holds a forestry degree, s/he is a professor. Is this such a hard concept to understand? I assure you it is extremely simple. 4. You use physicians, attorneys, etc. as an example in that they don't apply the term "professional." Fine, but do they allow professors in their associations? I think, yes. Your definition of "practice" is so narrow as to not allow those who teach field foresters into the organization representing the profession. How utterly illogical. Then simply change the similarly utterly illogical name of "Society of American foresters" to Society of American foresters, log buyers, wildlife biologists, professors and others". 5. You say that there are no such forestry political sides, but the totality of your letter itself belies this notion. You have a political opinion (a side) and you are espousing it. There is nothing wrong with this, it is a reality (as an academic I presume I'm not supposed to be able to see reality, but so it goes), what we haven't learned very well is how to put aside the sides we take, and how to learn from others in civil dialogue. My letter has no political opinion whatsoever. My letter is written by a forester (myself) expressing facts. This is a very simple concept to understand. If you hold a forestry degree and are direcly involved in the management of forests for the conservation of our natural resources, you're a forester. Any activity that undermines conservation is not a forestry activity by definition. Do you see how simple this is? There are many foresters who belong to SAF, and many non-foresters who belong also, therefore, SAF is not a association of (or for) foresters. Having served in an elected leadership position in SAF, I can only tell you that a great majority of my time was spent in trying to listen to what SAF members and forester non-members had to say and in how to reconcile the differences in a way that moved forestry ahead. Apparently we have failed you and some others, but it was not for lack of trying. The point of writing the piece for The Forestry Source was to continue such a dialogue, and the responses are being shared with the SAF Exec-VP, the President and the Council. It may not be too late for SAF, but without major changes, I believe it is all but over. As I stated before, Foresters in this country will have a professional organization that supports them, regardless if it is SAF or not. It is too bad that SAF has become an organization that no longer represents foresters, but as I have previously inferred, changes are not always a bad thing! Geoff, I used to engage in a dialogue with Joe Zorzin and Bob Leverett, but a computer crash wiped out my whole address book. Since you copied them on your response, I'd appreciate it very much if you would forward the above to them. You are also welcome to forward it to the "guild's list server." Wow, thanks for giving me the authority to forward an e-mail to certain entities (yes, I am being sarcastic here)! For your information, I will forward any e-mail that comes into my e-mail box at anytime I want, to anyone I want, for any reason I want. These are conveniently "blind carbon copied" in some cases, so the addressees remain anonymous for certain reasons. Instead of supporting dialogue, perhaps you should consider publishing my response in the next available Forestry Source and see how it is responded to. Then again, I doubt it would matter if it gets in or not. More than likely, SAF is headed toward the same old "status quo" anyway. Just like anything that stays stagnant, it will turn sour and essentially, no longer be useful to anyone. Forestry has been moving ahead... but can SAF catch up? I have my doubts! Sincerely, Geoff Kegerreis Nicest country boy in the country. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter