RE: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plantsPhil, education programs for forest owners have been around for several decades- they have worked to some degree, but no where nearly good enough- many owners don't go to events or read the brochures and web sites- and, there is a constant turnover of ownership. So, the solution is both basic requirements and education.
The problem with the "landowner education" thing is that it has been a ruse by those who don't want any real requirements for real forestry- because they like their current right to ruthlessly exploit owners. So, the solution is to require a forester AND require that THAT forester educate his client- which is more or less what happens in the medical arena- if you see a doctor, that doctor should then start educating you about your issues- along with you educating yourself- but we don't say, "you don't have to retain a surgeon if you want surgery, you can hire anyone with a sharp knife to do it, but we'll try to educate you." Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Timbewolves To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:30 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
