service foresters speaking way out of line!

[Joseph Zorzin]

The DCR Service Forestry staff filed a comment on the FFVP. The following is part of it. It mentions that 80% of cut plans were prepared by a licensed forester. It fails to mention how many of those were "short term cutting" rather than "long term cutting". I have seen several cut plans prepared in recent years by licensed foresters which were "short term" meaning HIGH GRADING. Those of us who believe only a licensed forester should prepare cut plans also intend that ONLY long term cut plans should be approved- perhaps this needs to be clarified in the vision statement. In the other highlighted section below, I think it's way out of line for the service foresters to be proclaiming that such a requirement would impinge on private landowner rights. That's totally absurd and way out of place for public servants to be making such claims. It's obviously self serving as the service foresters are terrified that they'll lose their special place in the world. And, the comment implies that all the service foresters agree- which I know to be false because over the years I've heard several service foresters agree that it would be best for licensed foresters to prepare all cut plans without adding the party line rant that it would be against landowner rights- so I wonder, did the author of this report have the full agreement with the other service foresters or not? If not, why was such a comment filed as if it had the full support of 100% of the service foresters? Isn't it inappropriate for civil servants to be pontificating on legal matters and the civil rights of the people they serve, especially when "the law" is way out of their expertise?

 

This state doesn't have service plumbers, service architects, service professors or any other service professions- it's time for a review of this archaic and obsolete function for the state to be performing in this day when the state is nearly broke. We hear about the hundreds of DCR people who lost their jobs- mostly park people who directly serve the public, but the DCR keeps on these obsolete and archaic service foresters? And again, I doubt that all the service forester agree with the following commentary but you wouldn't know by reading it. Who gave the author the right to speak for the other dozen service foresters?

Joe

 

 

---

􀀀 Require Licensed Forester Approval and Signature for All Harvesting Plans:

Fact – in 2009, 80% of cutting plans were prepared by a licensed forester. All cutting plans were acted

upon (approved/ disapproved) by a licensed forester.

Lines 1173-1174, page 31: Our interpretation is that the TSC may have meant the preparation of

cutting plans should only be allowed by licensed foresters. The current wording to “eliminate

the current exclusion in Chapter 132 that allows a landowner signature to replace that of a

licensed forester” is confusing. The landowner signature on the cutting plan does not replace a

licensed forester it simply acknowledges that as the landowner they have the right to a carry out

the harvesting plan and are aware of their responsibilities and options.

We request that the references to foresters in this section specify either DCR Service Foresters or

private licensed foresters (and potentially other public foresters) to clarify the roles/

responsibilities of each group.

We agree with the principle that Cutting Plans are generally best executed when they are drawn

up and overseen by licensed foresters. However, this requirement would impinge upon private

landowner’s rights without adding any further protection against poor harvesting practices, since

our current system already requires Service Foresters to assure the law is followed. Furthermore,

as we are on the front lines of enforcement, we must warn that an unintended consequence may

be that some landowners and harvesters stop filing cutting plans rather than hiring foresters. The

role of the Service Foresters would then shift to enforcement for unauthorized harvests and to

remediating rather than preventing damage to streams, wetlands, vernal pools and threatened and

endangered species.

We are concerned that shifting oversight responsibility to private licensed foresters will result in

an enforcement burden to: Service Foresters under the auspices of MGL Ch132 which is does

not have strong enforcement language; the forester licensing board which is all volunteer and

according to the chair, Matt Kelty, does not have the capacity for a substantial increase in

complaints and Conservation Commissions, that according to a 2008 UMass Survey,

a. 45.5% of Commissions report difficulty in finding people to serve

b. 30.4% of Commissions report that they have little or no access to staff and

rely on Commission members for technical review and ensuring that proposed

projects meet the regulatory requirements of the WPA

c. 23.1% of Commissions report being engaged in a dispute with political

leaders over the past two years; 15.8% report being subjected to inappropriate

political pressure/interference in Commission decision-making

The taxpayers of Massachusetts are benefiting from the active participation of DCR Service

Foresters on private woodlots throughout the landscape of Massachusetts. DCR Service

Foresters ensure that “shortcuts” are not taken in harvest plans and harvest planning, an effort

routinely made by individuals engaged in business. As a result, the taxpayers of Massachusetts

gain clean water, intact Natural Heritage habitats, and a continuance of forests statewide.

 

 

 

dssd