Phil,

We should not spend any tax money having forest bureaucrats "educate"
the public about the benefit of using a consulting forester. It should
be REQUIRED for a landowner to use a Licensed Forester who will practice
good silviculture for ALL commercial timber harvests.
This will be better for landowners, the forests, foresters, and yes
loggers and mills too. 

Mike



Joe,

   I certainly wasn't blaming the owner, but was showing that there is a
need to educate the public with regards to the needs of using a
consulting
forester.  This happened about 5-7 years ago.  They could have thought
hiring a forester was an un-needed expense, but quickly changed their
minds.
I agree with you about the need for a forester.  If you take the word of
the
logger you're assisting him in clearing only what he deems worth his
time
and money.  However, if you go with a consulting forester you're
assisting
the very woodlands on your property.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of JZ
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:14 AM
To: ENTSTrees
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants


I have trouble understanding how any forest owner under Chapter 61
could not understand how to hire a consulting forester to handle their
timbe sale. For beginners, that forest owner had to retain a
consulting forester to prepare his chapter 61 mgt. plan. Perhaps the
situation you described happened many years ago- but in the past
several years, it's been a requirement for land under Chapter 61 to
have a licensed forester manage timber sales on chapter land. Or, did
that all happen before the owner put the land in Chapter 61?

I don't blame the owner for their failure to hire a consultant- I
blame the state because the state has strongly supported the timber
industry's resistence to requiring a license forester to prepare all
cut plans. About a decade ago, when forester licensing began in Mass.-
the Director of Forests and Parks, Todd Frederick, wrote in a letter
to a consultant that the state won't require a forester to prepare the
cut plans because "it would be a revolutionary act against industry"-
so, in my opinion, every forest owner who has had his property wrecked
and who probably didn't get paid a fair price- should blame the state!

Joe


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to