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.