Food for thought: knowledge of history gives perspective

The following article was in the form of a letter to the editor of the SAF Journal of Forestry published in the April 1967 issue on page 275.  As I’ve mentioned in the past, I have been working on compiling the history of the Minnesota Society, wrapping up my 36 plus years as Minnesota Society Historian in some usable format for all members, and am currently working on the 1960s.  Occasionally I come across a real gem for Food for Thought and am enclosing one of these in this installment.  While the letter writer does not address any specific Minnesota controversy he does hit the nail on the head on one thing, and that is the direction of the profession of forestry, at the time (1960s) its relevant to today as much as it was then.  Years ago, I’d had a conversation with a once active member of the Minnesota Society, who had dropped his membership, and I had asked him why he’d dropped out of the organization.  He told me that after he’d retired the Society had “lost its relevancy to him, even though he was still practicing forestry as a consultant on a part-time basis.
 
A Nonmember’s View
   Would you allow a non-member tree farmer who reads the Journal to keep abreast of technical developments to say a word or two on SAF affairs?
   If so, I have watched with alarm the confused self-examination you chaps are undergoing as you grope for the identity, image and function of the profession and the Society.  I have seen this same process destroy some organizations, and splinter others.  Where the operation has been successful, it has been a process of identifying the common bonds cementing the membership and shaping the organization from that base, with latitude for the self-expression of special interest groups within the organization, and of the individual member, as opposed to forcing the membership into one common unified voice.  And Lord knows you foresters are a bunch of individualists, and the Society extremely segmented.
   Next, it seems to me the cornerstone of the proposed Policy Statement presented on page 151 of the February issue is the second paragraph of the preamble, asserting forest lands are the prime responsibility of professional foresters.  I suggest that to the contrary prime responsibility rests in ownership, and only to the degree ownership delegates that responsibility to professional foresters do you fellows assume it.  If the document is to be used outside the SAF, I suggest your assumption of prime responsibility may rub ownership the wrong way, as it did me when I read it, and I suggest revision to the paragraph at least to the point of acknowledging the existence of ownership responsibility.
 
  And last, would you be kind enough to send me a copy of the SAF Code of Ethics?  I deal with foresters on a continuing basis, I suspect most are SAF members, and it would be helpful if I understood thoroughly the rules of professional behavior guiding them.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                               GALE RICHMOND
                                                                                                                                      Deerfield, Va.
 
   Two things struck me about Mr. Richmond’s observations made almost sixty years ago now, one would be that he might be surprised to see the Society still in existence, and two that most of the observations he’d made might still be considered “relevant” today.  The SAF in general, and the Minnesota Society in particular is composed of individuals which value their profession to the point of continuing membership, when some consider the cost as becoming outrageously expensive while others are willing to contribute at any cost.  These are the “individual values” we all must learn to respect and accept, which at times can be very challenging indeed.  We all have our own personal life-built values, and I, like Mr. Richmond, hope to be able to continue to search for those values we do have in common rather than those that separate us.
 
   To this end I invite interested members reading this article to consider joining in the conversation by sharing the historic perspective of the Minnesota SAF, as I’ve been able to put a number of “Chapters” into electronic form, as mentioned I’m currently working on the 1960s.  I’m more than willing to share this work with anyone interested so I’m proposing to reactivate the old “Forest History Committee” membership which in the 1980s I’d started to get more members interested in becoming active in sharing and collecting information on the historical files for the Minnesota SAF.  It was successful, I was able to build the like-minded membership which got the word out and the collection of documents which led to the eventual archival storage of the Minnesota SAF records at the Iron Range Research Center in Chisholm.  Now, as I continue to consolidate this information into a readable version, I propose to get this out to the membership as .pdf files which most everyone can access through the free Adobe reader they already have on their home computers.  This new version on the internet is going to be a lot easier and cheaper than the old cut and paste, photocopier, and US Postal Service newsletters I’d tried years ago.  So, if you’re interested, send me an e-mail at [email protected], and we’ll begin a new chapter in the Minnesota SAF.  

Keith