HOUSE
BILL ANALYSIS
HCR
4410
Brief
Description: Establishing a joint
select committee on consulting foresters.
Sponsors: Representative McMorris
Hearing:
March 5, 1997
BACKGROUND:
Washington
law does not regulate the practice of consulting foresters. The state=s Forest Practices Act governs the management of the state=s forest land resources. The Act refers to a >professional forester;= however, that term is not defined. The argument
for consulting forester legislation is to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public. The opponents of forester regulation argue licensing
will constitute more regulation among a professional group and its clientele,
some of whom feel there are already too many regulations.
This
memorandum addresses previous proposals to regulate consulting foresters in the
state, the arguments of the proponents and opponents of consulting forester regulation,
and consulting forester laws in the states.
I.
BACKGROUND TO REGULATING CONSULTING FORESTERS IN WASHINGTON
The
Committee has previously considered provisions regulating consulting foresters
in Washington.
Those provisions include the following:
.That a person
must obtain a license from the Department of Licensing to practice forestry.
.That applicants
meet the following requirements:
.A minimum of five
years experience or training in forestry management under the supervision of a
consulting forester.
.Completion
of a 4-year degree in forestry or a related field from a board approved
college.
.Passage of a
board examination.
.That every
person complete continuing education courses.
The
bill creates a 5-member state board of licensing to regulate consulting
foresters.
II.
THE ARGUMENTS FOR LICENSING
The
argument for consulting forester legislation is to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the public. The proponents divide the public into two
categories: a) the individual landowner; and b) the general public.
a. Individual landowners
Obtaining
fair prices. Of concern to the
proponents of consulting forester licensing are the owners of small tracts of
forest land who cannot afford to hire their own full time forester. The
proponents argue that without licensing, landowners have little assurance when
searching for technical help, and little legal recourse if consulting
foresters mislead them into losing a fair market return on their timber.
Technical
assistance. Proponents of
consulting forester regulation further argue that getting competent help with
existing regulations and technical matters are a major need of the individual
owners of small forests. They argue competent forest advisors must be well
trained and competent. They submit competency can be only achieved through
legislation.
b. The public
Environmental
protection. Proponents of
consulting forester regulation argue the other part of public protection;
beside that for individual forest owners, is the need of the public. They
argue demands for broad scale forest stewardship suggest the public want
foresters with good training and a high degree of professional competence,
beyond the narrow attention to timber merchandising. As such they argue,
consulting forester legislation will help the public.
c. relief from over
regulation
According
to the proponents of consulting forester legislation, federal, state, and local
laws relating to the environment and natural resources have become increasingly
detailed. This is so because many legislators are concerned with adapting
regulations to local conditions, and to the many natural variations of
terrain, plant and animal life. The result is attorneys, police, and judges
who have no knowledge of forestry matters are forced to manage natural
resources, including forests.
The
proponents suggest one remedy is to assure natural resources professionals are
well trained and ethically trustworthy. They argue licensing and certification
of those professionals, including foresters, attempt to improve this assurance.
Relatedly,
the proponents argue high level litigation and proposals for more federal,
state and local laws are occurring because over regulation is infringing on
private property rights. As a remedy, the proponents suggest licensing is a
means to reduce such special legislation.
d. ethics.
The
questionable practices of individuals regarding advertisement, business
transactions, public contracts, and the treatment of forest resources are universally
condemned. The proponents of forester legislation argue licensing is one way
to bring guidelines adopted by the professional foresters= organizations before all foresters and to establish a legal mechanism
to encourage compliance.
III.
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST LICENSING
a. More regulation
The
opponents of forester regulation argue licensing will constitute more
regulation among a professional group and its clientele; some of whom feel
there are already too many regulations. Opponents also voice concerns about >red tape= and delays, both in restrictions on activities
and in approvals of new applicants for licenses. A related concern of those
opposing regulation is that it will exclude some people who are now working as
foresters from earning a livelihood.
b. Other means of
protecting forest
values and
sustainability
Current
laws and programs. Another
argument against licensing is that there are sufficient laws and other programs
now in place concerning forestry management, and that they merely need more
enforcement and opportunity to operate as initially planned. For example, the
federal Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the state=s Forest Practices Act are cited by the opponents as bringing new
attention to forest practices.
Further,
the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) announced in 1994 by the American
Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) is a nationwide effort to exert influence
on all forest industries to broaden the practice of sustainable forestry.
Opponents of forester legislation argue the AFPA=s initiative
is a step in the direction of self regulation, thereby making government
intervention unnecessary.
Society
of American Foresters Certification.
The opponents of forester regulations argue another means of protecting the
public, and thereby making licensing unnecessary could be the Certified
Forester (CF) program inaugurated by the Society of American Foresters in 1994.
The AFC seeks to make certification the standard of professional competence for
members of the SAF and for nonmembers.
Product
certification. Another approach
presented by the opponents of forester legislation is forest product marking
to certify the product came from forest land managed to high standards of
sustainability and ecosystem protection.
C. Code of Ethics.
Opponents
of forester regulation argue the codes of ethics of the professional forestry
organizations are sufficient and that the government cannot legislate ethical
behavior. Both the Society of American Foresters (SAF) and the Association of
Consulting Foresters (ACF) have codes of ethics that prescribe stewardship of
the land. These codes also prescribe decent, honorable relationships for
foresters in dealing with the public, clients, employers and other
professionals. Opponents of forester legislation argue strict adherence to these
codes will go a long way toward remedying the difficulties of unscrupulous
foresters.
D. Cost.
Opponents of forester licensing also cite cost as a concern. How much is the
burden and on whom will it fall? Appendix A shows the current fee structure of
the states with licensing or certification of foresters. The cost for the
initial year varies from $20 in Arkansas to $100 in New Hampshire. Annual
renewal fees vary from $5 in Arkansas to $50 in several states. In discussing
cost, the following three items may be considered:
.Cost to
the government. Consulting forester legislation generally authorizes a
board of Licensing for Foresters which is empowered to adopt rules and
procedures for its operation and for the implementation of the law.
Presumably, the board may impose fees for the program to be self-financing.
.Cost to
the forester. For the individual consulting forester, the fee for licensing
would be an added cost of doing business, and would probably shift to the
client in a higher fee.
3. Cost to the forest owner.
The forest owner would probably pay a higher fee for consulting services.
.Cost to
the wood-using industry. The industry buying logs and pulpwood may find an
increased average wood cost as the better informed landowner realizes the full
value of timber sales.
IV.
LICENSING IN OTHER STATES
Sixteen
states regulate foresters by requiring either mandatory or voluntary
registration, certification or licensing. Those states are: Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia.
Generally, forester legislation in these states provides for the establishment
of a regulatory body to administer the provisions of the law and require the
following for registration or licensing:
wgraduation with a BA or a B.S. degree in an approved forestry
curriculum
wbreadth-of-experience
wan examination showing knowledge of forestry
wcontinuing education
wethical and professional conduct
wreciprocity
wdisciplinary procedures - revocation of license;
appeals
winjunctive relief and civil fines.
Scanning
Appendix B brings out several general conclusions:
w 5 states have mandatory registration. Those states are: Alabama,
California,
Georgia,
North Carolina and South Carolina.
w5 states have voluntary registration. Those states
are Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina,
Oklahoma and West Virginia.
w5 states require licensing. Those states are:
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and New Hampshire.
wOnly Connecticut has certification.
w 34 states have no form of licensing,
registration or certification.
The
states with forester licensing, registration, or certification are listed in
Appendix A. Appendix A outlines some features of each states= respective regulations. The appendix does not list California,
Connecticut, Massachusetts and Oklahoma. Their programs may be summarized as
follows: