Current forester licensing programs may be falling seriously short of their potential to yield significant improvements in forest management. Fifteen states currently maintain programs for voluntary or mandatory forester licensing or registration, with wide variation in requirements. Where such programs exist, one typically must be licensed or registered in order to solicit business as a forester or provider of forestry services. Such programs for the most part restrict themselves to this “titling” focus. Current licensing programs mask a number of serious problems, integrally bound up in what constitutes “forestry” and “forestry services.” Practically speaking, however, even where licensing has been instituted, many activities that are for all intents and purposes forest management do not require a license.

For instance, New Hampshire licensing statutes require a license of anyone engaging in the “practice of forestry.” Among the activities considered “incidental” to the “practice of forestry” and hence exempt from licensing requirements are timber harvesting, land use planning, and “procurement of forest resources to supply concerns dependent on those forest resources.” This gives rise to a perverse situation wherein it is fine to conduct a timber harvest, but don’t get caught practicing silviculture unless you’re licensed.

The forum is designed to offer a productive discussion between foresters and forest policy specialists, and will explore the following questions: 1) How can licensing become a more powerful tool to improve forest management practices? and 2) What are the important obstacles and opportunities for achieving this objective?

Abstract:

Forester licensing may not be meeting its potential for improving forest management. How can licensing become a more powerful tool to instigate the wider application of good forestry? The forum offers a productive interchange between foresters and forest policy specialists.