Mike,
I'm not advocating using tax dollars for that purpose. We can,
and should, require land owners to use a consulting forester. However,
there should be some sort of education on why they have to. It reminds me
of the same sort of issue when I was on the Conservation Commission. There
were numerous property owners that resented the Con Com because we were
dictating what could and couldn't be done on their private lands, but there
was no education WHY protecting the various wetlands was necessary. There
was a Con Com around the Worcester area, I believe, that put a workshop
together-and made it so property owners and interested parties were
educated. There is so much resentment for Con Coms that there is a lot of
intended "opps, I wasn't aware of that". This workshop turned that around
for this other community and they now have a really good working
relationship with industry (construction and such) and property owners.
This program was put together with some grant money and presented by
volunteers (Con Com)-no tax dollars. This is the sort of education I'm
thinking of, so that land owners not only use foresters because they have
to-but because they WANT to.
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Leonard
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
